[Trvlr]

Oh my: I'll address everything you have written by paragraph, beginning with the first (so "quoting" isn't necessary).

1. I don't believe, given your admissions which follow, that your question was, or was intended to be, "legitimate"; IMHO, it was intended to be rhetorical, so I addressed it as such. However, I do accept and appreciate your apology in the matter, I apologize for my sarcasm as well, and, as you have refrained from indulging in juvenile, pugnacious remarks in your last response, I shall gladly pay you the same respect in mine (as requested). I apologize if some of my comments below seem "sarcastic"; this is not my intention, just my style of discourse. I have already stated that my accounts of being held up by security in two locations are not in and of themselves a legitimate basis for characterizing such incidents as "frequent" (as this is a relative term) occurrences in my life, and therefore "habit" would be an inappropriate term to use on this basis alone, without even addressing the causal relationship it inappropriately implies. Therefore, even given the fact that my statements regarding the incidents in question are accurate, you still should stand corrected. Let us proceed to your questions in the second paragraph of your post.

2. Part of my frustration with this incident, is that I never had your first question answered properly. The TSA told me that the AIRLINE had selected me for extra screening, so as I entered the TSA line, I did so thinking that there was no way I could be legitimately denied boarding due to tardiness, for obvious reasons. When the gate agent wouldn't allow me to board, the first objection I voiced referenced this information, and at that point I was told that it was the TSA who selected me for additional screening, not the airline. The nice lady from the help desk at the airport confirmed this to be the case. "Random search" was mentioned as the possible reason, as well as the fact that a week prior, I had booked the same flight on AirTran but decided to stay in Vegas a little longer (I called AirTran and informed them I wouldn't be making the flight, and I lost the money I spent on that ticket, as I'm sure you well know), but I never got a straight answer from anyone, and I never was given the courtesy of an "answer" of any kind from the TSA agents (I guess as a natural-born, caucasian, U.S. citizen I didn't deserve even the slightest courtesy from them?!?! - I only mention these facts about myself to eliminate the possibility of racial/ethnic profiling). My questions, which at this point were jovial, calm, and matter-of-fact in nature, were ignored by TSA security agents as if I WASN'T EVEN THERE. i.e. They didn't even validate my existence until they were ready to subject my body and baggage to one of their utterly useless exercises - more on this later. As to your questions about a suspicious item I may have been traveling with, the answer is no to all; in this instance I was traveling with one leather duffel bag (which fit the size requirement) as a carry-on, and a laptop as a personal item.
As to your comments about my feelings on the TSA, their activities, and the government in general: It is a matter of fact, that the level of "attainable airport security/safety" (through the inception and deployment of such an offensively expensive, inefficient, and incompetent agency as the TSA) being presented to the public is nothing more than reactionary propaganda. Airport support staff (i.e. employees - INCLUDING the TSA) have far greater access and opportunity to wreak havoc on, or do damage to, any given flight at any time than any "passenger". It has been statistically demonstrated that airports require so many support personnel, that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to implement security procedures which would result in any significant increased margin of "security". A good example which supports this conclusion are the problems with securing American seaports (i.e. only 5% of shipping containers can be, and are being checked, but this speaks to the larger issue of the futility and ineptitude of the "Department of Homeland Security", and is a topic for another forum). The validity of the aforementioned conclusion becomes obvious, when you consider that the SECURITY PERSONNEL THEMSELVES (read here, TSA) are a SECURITY RISK - i.e. As the number of TSA agents increases, so does the security risk - hence the Orwellian nature of this organization. As to the supposed ultimate goal of the TSA, your "safety"; making people and environments more "secure" and hence, "safe", is a function of effective "risk management". In order to determine which "risks" need to be "managed", we in the modern, civilized, educated world use "statistics", not "emotion". Statistically, you are, by an incredibly large margin, more likely to be killed by a falling coconut, or a toppling vending machine, or by lightning, or by a shark attack, or a bee, than any "terrorist act". These statistics may be a little hyperbolic for people to accept, so let us examine an issue which hits closer to home if you will; far more people have been killed or injured by air travel due to human error, systems inadequacies, and flat out negligence, than have been killed by willful acts of violence ("terrorism"). Therefore, the expenditure of limited resources (read here, the TSA) to manage these risks (willful acts of violence), while antiquated air traffic control systems, crash response, and personnel training remain deficient, is illogical, unreasonable, statistically unjustifiable, and hence, NEGLIGENT. In point of fact, an airline passenger is more likely to be killed or injured by an over-zealous TSA agent, than any "terrorist" (I continue to place the word terrorist in quotes for reasons which will be explained further on in this post).
With reference to my earlier promise to explain why I characterize the exercises of the TSA to be "utterly useless": I personally witnessed events involving "security agents" (some in the U.S., some not), several times, that even my extremely limited exposure to "security training and method" was enough to alert me to the potentially tragic errors in judgement being made. In Las Vegas, at McCarran, when my carry-on bag was being searched in front of me, the TSA agent didn't remove the contents of the bag, she just "felt around" inside it with her gloved hands. When she felt "something hard and cylindrical", she ASKED ME WHAT IT WAS! I told her it was a souvenir glass from the Hard Rock Cafe in Fiji, which was the truth, but, the TSA agent NEVER VERIFIED WHAT IT WAS! Do you know how many potentially deadly items exhibit the physical characteristics of "hard and cylindrical"? Furthermore, the "glass" could have very easily been turned into a "knife" in the blink of an eye! Therefore, the very ludicrous existence of an agency such as the TSA should be taken as an insult, as well as an inexcusable, ILLEGAL violation of civil liberties to any reasonable American citizen.
The wait in the TSA line should have never EXISTED, let alone been long enough to delay my arrival at the gate.

3. With regard to the actions of the gate agent, I understand that there are "decisions to be made", however, HOW those decisions are made is another matter entirely, as well as the level of courtesy/consideration possible and appropriate in a given situation (thank you for admitting that more was possible and appropriate in my situation). If airlines and hence, airline employees, are not held accountable for their actions in the manner ALL businesses and business employees should be held accountable, why would the airlines or their appendages indulge even a dialogue on these topics? i.e. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
With regard to your comments about a "double standard", see above, and: There is an enormous difference between discriminatory ATTITUDES or STATEMENTS and discriminatory ACTIONS. If I hold an attitude which appears to be discriminatory, I assure you, I am well capable of justifying it, and therefore, it is not "discriminatory", but PRUDENT. Being conscious of these attitudes allows me to compensate for them when and if I choose to act, it does not guarantee that I will ACT ON THEM, or that I will ever be in a position to. Part of my complaint is, the airlines and the TSA, make certain that I WILL NEVER BE IN A POSITION TO EFFECTIVELY ACT ON THEM. Exactly where is justice and/or accountability in this paradigm? Perhaps you should look beyond my comments for the "double standard" to which you refer . . .

4. Thank you for your understanding in these matters, however, if your job constitutes serving a corrupt industry, you are aware of the level of corruption, and yet you continue to work in it, and you take pride in this work, please don't expect to get Christmas cards from people who have been victimized by it, and to make matters worse compulsorily, and in some cases unknowingly, support it. Again, I DO appreciate your understanding in the matter however, as well as I appreciate the horrendous moral dilemmas the greedy power brokers of this "brave new world" demand we all confront.

5. I'm with you on all points - sometimes I think trying to change the current system is just as futile as trying to change what has been accepted by the programmed masses as "human nature", when the truth of the matter is, what most people refer to as "human nature", is in fact "animal nature", a state of existence we are supposed to have evolved from, instead of blindly regressing to. However, without exposing the hypocrisy, inefficiency, and gross injustice of the current situation, there will be absolutely no conversation on the state of affairs, and hence, no hope they will ever change.

6 & 7. The core of my complaint is in fact what you have already validated: what is "okay and what is not" is left far too much to the arbitrary whims of the gate agent, and greedy policies of the airline, and there is no accountability on their part for these decisions. Yes, you are assuming too much, and you are giving the airline/gate agent way too much credit in the benevolence/innocence column. I could relate to you a few things I witnessed transpire on both flights that day that I'm sure would alter your opinion, but this post is already a little too long, and given your experience, I'm sure they would be anecdotes of unjust treatment which you have heard or witnessed directly already.
Flights are late all the time - it is a common fact of air travel that anyone who travels by air accepts in my opinion, (which is why many airports are nicer than shopping malls these days) for as you have stated "stuff happens". To screw over a passenger because of an over-booked flight, or because of another passenger's calamity earlier in the day, or because an airline employee wants to globe-trot for free, while using "flight delays" as an excuse, is to "**** on someone and tell them it is raining" IMHO. It bears an unsettling resemblance to the "disorderly conduct" tactic used by "law enforcement".
With regard to your comments about the cut-off time, the exact time printed on my boarding pass does not, I don't think anyway, correspond to the exact time I appeared with my documentation at the counter; probably the check-in agent engaged in 2-5 minutes worth of work before I received the boarding pass and hence, the discrepancy between the cut-off times you detail and time stamped on it. If the check-in agent would have told me I arrived too late to make my flight, I would have been able to book another flight out at my convenience, and leave the airport and come back if so chose. As it happened, I had already gone through security, and even though I didn't want to spend 5 hours at the airport, I was told by the nice lady from the help desk that leaving the gate area after being cleared through security was a huge no-no.
As to your comments about tracking people, and the awkward "decisions" which would still have to be made; many of these "decisions" would fade into oblivion if the airlines would simply STOP OVERBOOKING FLIGHTS, and stop allowing their employees to fly for free, in seats meant for PAYING customers - just about every business has an area for employees, and an area for customers, and employees (generally) might be extended a discount on the goods and services their employer offers, but they certainly don't usually get them for FREE - why should the airlines be any different? Furthermore, in most industries, it is illegal to knowingly sell more of an item than you can provide, why should the airline industry be any different? Exactly what about airline employees' performance in this industry justifies the extension of such lavish perks? And to have these perks extended to their immediate families as well (if this is still true)? (the term "prima donnas" comes to mind again). Also, no passenger can reasonably complain, if it is clearly stated in their contract of carriage and widely publicized, that if you are late to the gate because you have an overactive bladder, wallet, stomach, drinking habit, or an "act of God" occurs, that you forfeit your seat. (Acts of "gate agents" or "TSA agents" due not constitute "acts of God"). Provisions can still be made for the "physically challenged" and infirm. If passengers are tracked between the check-in counter and gate, there can be no argument as to where they were, and therefore, no arbitrary judgements. There can especially be no reasonable complaint, if they get a friendly reminder over the P.A. system, and their cell phone (this could even be an automated text message, reminding them what will happen if they don't get their a$$ in gear), and/or one of the "security agents" littering the airport. With regard to being delayed by security, if security (TSA) can't perform efficiently then they should have to pay - how else will they ever be motivated to do so? If a passenger arrives at check-in before the cut-off time, and doesn't make the gate because TSA sucks, then TSA should be held responsible and a portion of their massive over-funding should be used to compensate the passengers they've let down who pay their salaries. Again, please consider the previous comments to be suggestions of what I think MIGHT work - for all I know many of them could be tragically flawed, and you are welcome to fire as many "shots" at them as your heart desires - how else can legitimate solutions to the problems under discussion be revealed?

8 & 9. With reference to the civil liberties issues: Thank you very much for the links to the articles! And, I am ecstatic to learn that you are not as ignorant of these issues as your original response suggested - lo siento. The flagrant violations of civil rights which have occurred in this country over the last eight years are easier to sustain when I see evidence that the population of the entire country hasn't retreated to the Pavlovian consumer wasteland. And I understand why, and agree with you, when you state that the ACLU would not be happy with my "tracking" suggestions (neither am I). To briefly explain and answer your concerns about the consistency of my opinions on this issue in paragraph 9, I am stating that IF these "security measures" are going to be deployed REGARDLESS, the least the government can do is use them (or allow airline/airport staff to use them) to HELP passengers as well as harass them.
I have nothing but the utmost respect and admiration for the ACLU and all of its members, however, I have come to the sad conclusion that, due to the past and current government, the perennial corruption and ineptitude of same, and the apathetic, Pavlovian state of the nation as a whole, the ACLU "not being happy" about government policy, is just about as effective as a lone citizen "not being happy" about government policy (the actions of the honorable Rosa Parks notwithstanding). This statement is not in any way intended to belittle the efforts of the ACLU, rather, it is intended to illustrate just how far down the "slippery slope" to which you refer this nation has already traveled, and I believe nothing less than armed revolution on the part of the citizenry, will stop, or even slow, this nation's inevitable descent down same. (Hence, my trip to Europe.) On what do I base this opinion, which may seem extreme to all but Thomas Jefferson, street/bike gangs, and state militias you might ask; if the brave men and women of our armed forces, all of whom are literate I hope, and are therefore (or bloody well should be) well aware of the rights of the citizenry they have sworn to protect, are instead protecting the impetuous whims of a corrupt government, and the private interests of multi-national companies (which are the puppet-masters of government), with the very arms, authority, and training the full faith and efforts of the citizenry has provided, exactly how effective can the unarmed lawyers ever hope to be? Evidence of the fact that the latter question is not merely rhetorical, is that the best "army of lawyers" this country has to offer, the ACLU, has not been able to block the permanent ratification of the most blatantly Orwellian violation of U.S. Constitutional law to date: THE PATRIOT ACT. By Orwellian, I mean that to call a law "patriotic", which TRUNCATES the civil, CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED (i.e. INALIENABLE) rights of U.S. citizens, is nothing less than a page torn directly from the NAZI party propaganda play book, and is (at least should be perceived as) an unforgivable slap in the face to every veteran, and every member of our (and our allies) armed services to date. Exactly what "war on terror", or "battle for our freedom" do they still think they are fighting when the US government has already surrendered the front lines via this horrendous, barbaric law? Isn't the goal of every "terrorist", according to the so called "patriot act", to remove our freedoms by using fear, and, the application of inappropriate levels of force (violence) at inappropriate times, the conduit through which this fear is manifest? (At this point you might want to go to UTube and watch the voluminous examples of the excessive, inappropriate use of force by "law enforcement" . . . or better yet, just read a few of the accounts on this website!) Isn't a "terrorist entity or organization" in fact defined as such by its ultimate aims (goals), and the methods used to further them, by the "patriot act"? Therefore, I submit to you that the "patriot act" BY THE PARAMETERS DETAILED WITHIN IT, is a "terrorist act" in and of itself, and the proponents and enforcers of it, BY THEIR OWN DEFINITION(S) ARE TERRORISTS. I would love nothing more, as the son of a deceased WWII veteran who was conscious, before he died, of how his sacrifices were being perverted, to be LEGITIMATELY proven wrong in this opinion, however, I have "done the math", and I would not offer such an opinion if I thought a legitimate rebuttal were possible or forthcoming. In summation, the most effective way to keep a slave (consumer) in line is to program them, through compulsory Pavlovian conditioning (i.e. the "education" system), to believe that they are free, and that arbitrary abuse is a necessary condition of that "freedom" . . .

Again, I thank you for your thoughtful response, and I hope none of my rhetorical statements are taken as sarcasm, it's just the way I write.