I've found the smaller airports to be less a hassle - flying out of Westchester airport this weekend was a breeze, and the TSA at security were friendly and chatted with everyone - and compared to the bleak, robotic TSa at SFO, or JFK, a breath of fresh air.
I've compared notes with lots of friends and family, and the number of verboten items gotten through outnumber the items seized or found. Clearly, this method of banning items like liquids and lighters and tweezers is closing the barn door after the horses have escaped, and that the fight against terrorism lies elsewhere - if they are determined, they WILL blow up a plane, and there's not much we can do - if we the public are aware of the items being banned, then it's too late, and undoubtedly the terrorists have moved on to more exciting and un-thought of ways of doing it.
The more I think about it, the more I think the TSA and their edicts and bans are simply public red flags to distract from the other glaring issues, like the borders.
My sense of the thing is that they're doing the best they can with the resources available. I can't fault them for that.
Except for a few long lines, I've never had a problem. And the vast majority of TSA employees I've encountered seem dedicated and competent.
And yeah, I agree, smaller airports are better, but often require a longer cab ride to the destination.
The gels and liquid ban is absolutely ridiculous. However, I personally liked it because since passengers could not bring drinks on the plane, the usually did not bring their food to eat also..one of my pet peeves.