Posted on 12/12/2004 11:27:19 PM PST by kattracks
It's unfortunate but true that most airline passengers can easily spot federal air marshals: They're the overdressed ones, and they're the ones flashing their badges to the flight staff. Asked at a June Senate hearing whether overt signals like these harm air marshals' effectiveness, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge sensibly said yes. "It defeats the purpose," he said. He vowed that Federal Air Marshal Service director Thomas Quinn would make covering marshal identities "his number one priority."If that's true, Mr. Quinn has a strange way of doing it. As the Washington Times reported last week, Mr. Quinn is forcing air marshals to overdress. He reportedly grew angry when, in a surprise visit to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport over Thanksgiving, he discovered that 29 of 30 deplaning air marshals were dressed in varying states of compliance with the conspicuous marshal dress code. They looked, in short, like average travelers. That wasn't to Mr. Quinn's liking, so he began ordering supervisors in airports across the country to make sure on-duty marshals are wearing business suits or sport coats. Air marshals must wear "conservative male or female attire, such as that worn by business persons in first-class seating," an internal memo explained. "You wear a sports coat, or you wear a suit coat, or you look for another job," agents were reportedly told.
[snip]
The good news is that the intelligence bill passed Wednesday may force Mr. Quinn and his associates to loosen up a bit. Buried in the text of the bill is a clause on securing federal air marshal identities which stipulates that "no procedure, guideline, rule, regulation, or other policy shall expose the identity of an air marshal to anyone other than those designated by the Secretary."
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Queer Eye for the Straight Air Marshall?
This Quinn guy seems like such a middle management jerk.
Thomas Quinn ain't nothing but a middle-manager micro-managing bean counter who has long since risen to his level of incompetence. If I were his boss, I'd have had him busted down to luggage inspection months ago. The guy's a frickin' idiot.
This has been in the news for months. Quinn seems to be in defiance of a direct order from his chain of command. Why hasn't he been fired?
Quinn is a beaurocratic dipstick.
So, I guess I would be pegged as a Fed. IMOHO, most travellers look like they just came in from a raft from Cuba. Except for the McDonalds cartons and spilling their drinks on the floor. Disgusting.
<< kattracks
Thomas Quinn ain't nothing but a middle-manager micro-managing bean counter who has long since risen to his level of incompetence. If I were his boss, I'd have had him busted down to luggage inspection months ago. >>
Oh no!
Please!
Not that!
Not yet another bloody luggage looker 'who has long since risen [Beyond] his level of incompetence.'
C,
I don't wear a suit when I fly, but will wear a button-down shirt and have a shine on my Doc Martens. I mean, that's just common decency when going anywhere: wear clothes.
It's all I can do not to flip my freakin' lid at the slackd*cks and slobs I see on every flight. Sweatpants. Tattered old T shirts. Cheap flip-flops, no socks.
Why that's all OK I'll never know.
Okay...I was being nice on account of it being Christmas season and all, but I'll make an exception and bust him down to airplane janitor.
Better? :o)
He's a government official, what do you expect? If you think that's bad, you should check out this month's Wired articles on resumé padding using degree mills among the leadership of federal agencies. The print version has a stomach-churning account of Laura Callahan's pompous arrogance in dealing with her subordinates that makes this guy look like a model of enlightened management.
She pranced around the information technology bureau of the Homeland Security Department demanding everyone call her "Doctor Callahan" after she bought a degree from "Hamilton University" which is run out of an old motel in South Dakota.
What, are they going to a meeting at General Motors or arguing a case before the Supreme Court? No--they're just getting on an airplane. They're comfortable. Who cares?
And by the way, I never wear socks. Can't stand 'em. So far, no adverse effects, and I walk around comfortable all day. It's great.
P,
It doesn't have anything to do with where they're going- Supreme Court, GM, or grandma's house.
It has to do with what they're wearing, and why they don't care whether they look indistinguishable from the homeless junkies rooting through garbage cans searching for food or unclaimed lottery winners.
Why does comfortable = slovenly, and why is that OK in this day and age?
Why do you need to be "dressed up" to get on an airplane? Who are you trying to impress?
Some people complain to me about how I don't wear socks, and I usually give them the same answer: if you don't like it, go to hell. I do own a couple pair of socks; I might wear them to a funeral, and I wear them to play tennis, but that's pretty much the end of the list.
Why should I wear them? I don't like them; thus, I do not wear them.
This notion of people being "dressed up" all the time is why we got nuts running around in wool suits in August. Meanwhile, while you're sweating your ass off, I'll step out of the office in a seersucker suit with loafers and no socks loving a hot, sunny August day. And you know what? not wearing socks or a wool suit doesn't effect my performance; in fact, I'm probably more efficient than my counterpart, since he's probably too hot to concentrate on his work.
Anyway, you won't change my mind--if you see me at the airport, you can say hi. I'll be the one in topsiders and no socks.
Better! :o)
P,
We're talking about 2 different things now I think. Probably because we have to type and are not speaking.
When I mentioned a slob not wearing socks or some such, I meant it in the context of someone getting on an airplane, ready for a long flight, and wearing nothing more than his shower shoes. My fear is having to endure his foot odor for an extended period, which socks and shoes can help mitigate.
And I didn't say anything about being "dressed up" getting on an airplane. My clothes will fit me and be clean, and my shoes will be shined. We both know that's not "dressed up". That's just dressed. It's not about impressing anyone, believe me- I own precisely 2 suits and I'm no clothes whore by any stretch of the imagination. But it is about not wanting to embarass my wife or myself because I look like a slob who's too lazy or incapable to change out of the cotton shorts I slept in.
See, that's the people that just bother me, and confuse me. And made me think about when it became OK for someone to do all his business- travel, restaurant, shopping- in a pair of cut-off sweatpants and an oversized tank-top.
Which has nothing to do with whether or not you wear socks with your topsiders, which is why I think we're talking about 2 different things. For the record I'm not proselytizing- wear what you want, and I'm no fashion type "queer-eye" guy anyway.
Her parting comment was classic E D "That was a spokesman for the Federal Air Marshal Service".
The tone and delivery were the keys.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.