There I was,
minding my own business at my computer, when this irresistible invitation
invaded my in-box:
Mon, Dec 6, 2010 9:33 am
Former TSA Officer available for interview and analysis of current
First, I laughed.
Heartily. Then I wondered why ol' Ron included me on his list of
prospects. Or perhaps I was a very late and desperate addition:
as it happens, I had wasted Sunday evening reading an
interview with him — not in the New York Times or the
Washington Post but at an obscure travelers' website. Maybe
when Ron's first tier of choices didn't jump to chat with a deviant
who pawed passengers for a living, he fell back to his 20th
and 21st rungs.
Ron bills himself
as a whistle-blower, but he's actually a typical critic of the agency.
These folks all sing the same tune (or did: few of them dare slither
out from under their rocks now, given the national fury): "There's
nothing wrong with the TSA that more power, money and [take your
pick – better training, better leaders, more Congressional oversight,
unionization] wouldn't cure."
I started laughing again. An interview with a guy eager to provide
an "analysis of current TSA controversy" oughta be interesting
— especially when "analysis" for Ron means defending the
indefensible: "Pat-downs are not comfortable for the TSO but
there is a very specific right way to do the job," he had opined
in the interview that set me fuming Sunday.
when I proceeded to the body of Ron's email, I found the "current
controversy" didn't apply to pedophilia and molestation at
all. The TSA's eviscerated the Fourth Amendment, it's terrifying
toddlers and nauseating pilots, it's sexually assaulting nuns and
clergy, expectant mothers, honeymooners, teens, grandparents, survivors
of rape and cancer – but Ron's big concern is screeners' fate should
the bogus schemes to "privatize" the TSA succeed.
The TSA screams
for abolition, not "privatization" — especially as the
latter's proponents envision it. Ron succinctly and accurately described
that vision in his interview: “If screening is privatized it will
only [be] the staffing, the uniforms will remain the same, and the
policies will be managed by TSA managers. Private companies will
have no say in policy, period.” He's absolutely right on this, and
no one who loves freedom should support this scam.
Ron wanted me to know he has "5 years service in the Agency"
and is a "national TSA union leader." He could "provide
the perspective of someone who has served on the checkpoint."
(Love that "served"! As if these rapists are dispensing
ice cream or burgers and fries.)
Did I want
to interview him? You bet! I thought Ron and I could enjoy quite
an entertaining time of it.
I emailed him this cheery little note:
your offer; I’d like to ask a few questions and either publish
your answers as a straight interview or incorporate them in an
article. I have written for Barron’s, the Christian Science Monitor,
the Washington, New York, and Denver Posts, the Ottawa Citizen,
and many other publications and websites.
1) How did
you begin working for the TSA? Did you wake up one morning and
say, “Ah, I’d like to make little kids cry by stealing their teddy
bears and grope pilots until they puke”? Or was Wal-Mart not hiring
2) Have you
ever read the US Constitution? Does the Fourth Amendment
mean anything to you? Or do you figure it no longer applies to
pervs in your exalted line of “work”?
3) Do you
ever feel badly when you see your neighbors losing their homes
to foreclosure while you sponge off their taxes?
you share with us exactly what it feels like to squeeze another
guy’s junk? Readers want to know. Did it take you a while to adapt
to these new “duties,” or did you take to them naturally? If the
latter, does that worry you?
those same lines, if screeners are such great folks, why haven’t
we read of mass resignations over management’s orders to sexually
6) How many
of your co-“workers” have kicked the magnetometers when attractive
women walk through them? How many times have you done that? What
opportunities do you foresee with the new carcinogenic scanners?
7) The TSA
has so far slaughtered one man (Rigoberto Alpizar, Dec 2005) and
is morally culpable for the death of a woman (Carol Anne Gotbaum,
Oct 2007). How would you suggest passengers best protect themselves
from you and your accomplices, especially now that you are sexually
8) Do you
agree with your co-“worker” in LA who proclaimed after work one
day, “I am god”? On the other hand, the TSA tied with the IRS
in a poll a few years ago as America’s most hated bureaucracy.
How do you and other screeners reconcile these disparate positions?
the public’s mood at the moment, do you fear Congress will abolish
the TSA? What are your plans for employment in that case? Does
the thought of honest work scare you?
10) Do you
feel at all guilty for helping push America towards a police state?
If not, why not?
a response ASAP as I’m on deadline. I may also have additional
questions and follow-ups.
Ron must have
been really desperate: I had a reply 8 hours later. Unfortunately,
he doubted that my questions were "serious." Which is
natural enough: the corporate media has spoiled Our Rulers and their
lackeys by parroting their premises, to wit, that their murder and
mayhem, theft, and lying – and now their sexual assaults – benefit
us. Our interests lie close to their hearts; they work tirelessly
for our good, even if unintended consequences keep popping up to
bite us in the butt. Obviously, anyone who doesn't share this delusion
is a wacko and can't possibly be "serious."
Ron also accused
me of ignoring the link in his email. It took me to an article he'd
written explaining at great length who he was and why unions can
save the TSA. Truth to tell, I had only skimmed the piece because
I've read that same nonsense innumerable times before.
And so I countered:
I do indeed know who you are. I happen to have read your interview
) the night before your email arrived in my in-box. I’ve also
come across your name here and there in other reports on your
employer, usu when the article concerns the TSA and unionizing.
my questions are serious. So are the readers who have written
me for yrs w/ their tales of horror after a screener has savaged
them. So far as I can determine after covering and studying the
TSA for five yrs, screeners are a bunch of sociopaths while the
agency itself is dedicated to destroying the last vestiges of
freedom here and installing a police state.
So any light
you can shed on the mentality of those who agree to subjugate
their fellow citizens for the princely sum of ca. $25,000/yr is
appreciated. And who are risking cancer the while, acc. to yesterday’s
report in USA TODAY. Seems the TSA shows the same concern for
you, its stooges, as it does for us, its victims.
Alas, Ron went
silent on me. Even this final email a few days later didn't raise
I am sending in my article tomorrow morning. Do you wish to respond
to any of my questions?
final one: You recognize in your interview at http://www.elliott.org/first-person/ex-tsa-officer-every-new-controversy-breaks-down-morale-further/
that “Aviation screening policy was dictated by the FAA before
9/11. If screening is privatized it will only [be] the staffing,
the uniforms will remain the same, and the policies will be managed
by TSA managers. Private companies will have no say in policy,
Feds were dictating policies that clearly failed on 9/11, policies that
killed almost 3000 people, why in Heaven’s name do you advocate
government’s continued stranglehold on aviation’s security? Why
not return responsibility for this area to the airlines, who have
far more of a vested interest in protecting multi-billion dollar
inventory, highly-trained personnel, and repeat customers than
you or any screener or bureaucrat could possibly enjoy?
I don’t hear from you soon, I’ll note that you did not respond
in my article.
Sadly, I hereby
Think it was
something I said?
Akers [send her mail] writes
primarily about the American Revolution.