Tom Friedman wrote just such a column right after 9/11/01.

It was one of his better ideas. Google it; it's better than RT's "man in the street" space-filler.

What amazes me, though it shouldn't, is how much this situation is simply a replay of the aftermath of 9/11. Even the media stories are written from the same template. The same grateful-to-be-given-the-opportunity-to-be-obedient passengers are quoted telling everyone that they should be happy to do whatever ridiculous thing their government tells them to do, and the same timorous neo-fascists are quoted as they puff out their chests and say things like "we have nothing to hide," while the same well-rehearsed airport/airline/government (is there a distinction anymore?) officials are quoted about the need to be serious in our security measures.

It is all nonsense--deadly, authoritarian nonsense to be sure, but nonsense nonetheless. None of these measures will stop anything. Taking your shoes off does not keep you safe. Throwing away your shampoo and that bottle of wine your uncle gave you for your birthday will not keep you safe. None of these measures will do anything other than further the process of transforming US citizens into gratefully compliant subjects of a police state. We may think we will be "safe," but we will be obedient above all.

I no longer recognize the country I grew up in. I no longer recognize the country my father fought for. I no longer recognize it because it no longer exists as anything other than a shadow. The land of the free and home of the brave has been transformed into the land of the acquiescent and the home of the perpetually fearful.

But hey, at least we'll be "safe," right?

Right?

As has been pointed out elsewhere, if a terrorist can bring down a plane with a waxy substance the size of a tube of lipstick, it will take a body cavity search to keep that terrorist from doing it.

The government has known about the possibility of liquid explosives for years. It isn't that far-fetched. If it wasn't worth doing this before, then why is it worth it now? Sure, right after capturing those folks in the U.K., who knows, they may have missed a couple of terrorists and it is worth it keeping the beverage bottles off the planes. But long-term? No way.

Benjamin Franklin was a smart, smart man.

iPods, phones, laptops. Yeah got em real cheap from the 'lost and found' at the airport.

But seriously this puts the airlines in a bind on the one hand they want to charge $14 for that bottle of water but on the other with all the luggage taking up space under the plane, there's no room for all the incredibly profitable cargo traffic they haul. I guess they'll have to stop allowing luggage of any kind whatsoever. Which is fine by me.

Wouldn't it just be eaiser to do the following?

a) anyone ever convicted of any felony is barred from airtravel for life

b) any foreigner including any american citizens who look foreign are barred from airtravel for life

c) no babies no children no old people

d) no luggage of any kind larger than one purse or one wallet

e) no talking, complaining whining snivelling

f) airlines will no longer use schedules. planes will come and go and come and go to wherever they like, when they like

g) once your shoes are removed they stay removed and will be checked

h) no electronics of any kind at any time

i) no meals or beverages will be served on any flight

j) all planes will be held on the ground at least 3 hrs both before takeoff and after landing to ensure safety compliance

k) restrooms on planes are permanently shuttered

l) seatbelts can only be released by airplane crews

I am curious. If these liquids and gels were potential explosives, why were they collected in trash bins by the gate?

Brought to you by Bush & Co., who, coincidentally, just lost that election in Connecticut.

I'll second that on flying naked, and raise you one:

why not sedate all passengers from the time that they sit down to the time the plane arrives at the gate?

maybe we should all drop the righteous indignation (aka whining) for a minute and put this into perspective: if your job made you accountable for the safety of airline passengers and a terrorist threat surfaced that was explicitly related to the use of plastic or liquid explosives, wouldn't you do EVERYTHING, however silly and unreasonable, to make sure that, should something horrible happen, you couldn't be accused of underestimating the danger?

bear in mind--the airline industry has been reeling since before 9/11, and the spike in fuel costs over the past two years has made the situation even more dire. another 'fear of flying' period of hysteria such as the one that followed 9/11 would be more than enough to knock at least a few of the airlines out of business. similarly, homeland security and the TSA are run by bureacrats who, just last summer, got to see what happens to a figurehead like FEMA's michael brown when his agency is accused of mismanaging a crisis. chertoff is where he is right now because he knows how to cover his own ass, which is what the water'n'lipstick policing is really all about: personal liability insurance.

i hate flying. whenever my wife and i travel together, we always get pulled out of line for the bag-search and pat-down (i think my wife may have gotten herself on some sort of list for forgetting to take her miniature pepper-spray off her keychain once), on-board airline service has been deplorable over the past few years, clearing customs and making an international connection is all but impossible (especially in houston, my pick for 'worst airport of all time'--how funny that it happens to be named George Bush International), and i'm really sick of paying $25 for two draft beers and a plate of greasy nachos at the airport bar. but i'm not going to bitch like a little kid who doesn't want to wear a seatbelt because someone's being overcautious trying to save my life.