really? having watched three TSA officers debate for five minutes over whether or not peanut butter was a liquid and concluding that "well, peanut butter goes on peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, and we don't allow petroleum jelly through, so we don't allow peanut butter through either", I really am skeptical of this claim...
Although, if you read his claim with the right squint, maybe it's true: No security agency on earth is as bad as the TSA.
And if they really are good, and unfairly painted, then they've got some serious "evidence of outstanding work" type of reputation building to do. They have their reputation for a reason.
He got to regularly see the best. We get to see the average, and the blogosphere highlights the worst.
Our perspectives are simply different.
As someone who does not have a college degree and full acknowledges you can be super smart without one...I was kind of bummed that the TSA so openly acknowledges that their market for job recruitment responds well to "College Degree Not Required!"
This seems somewhat irrelevant? I know we're always supposed to be "supporting the troops", but I think you're suggesting we should be supporting professions that they may later go into?
If they're so unstable that being told they're not good at their job sends them in to a killing rage, they shouldn't have that job.
Or are you doing them a bit of a disservice there?
Off topic, I heard (from a former US military person), that they have a distinction between the terms "ex-military" (kicked out) and "former military" (left voluntarily), and saying "former military" is a nicer thing to them, and that they'll pick up that you're aware of the difference. Any military people able to confirm/deny?