Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Maybe this time next year, we'll have to get on airplanes stark naked, with our naked, hungry babies and the airlines can charge for a set of clothes to wear on the planes!
The most startling thing about the new security measures is that they're so easy to circumvent. For example, I take prescription medication, and I'm allowed to carry all the hypodermic needles I want onto the plane. Doesn't that render their nitpicking a bit useless?
I think the people who are scared are probably scared because fear is item number one on TV these days. And I think that's a profoundly sad statement in the "Home of the Brave."
How can we possibly be the greatest country on Earth, which many people here believe to be true, if our citizenry is scared of every two-bit hooligan with a death wish? In truth, fearful people can not hope to be strong, and a nation's strength is derived from the strength of its citizenry. America is, in fact, not strong right now. We don't act from strength, or confidence, or any measure of moral clarity. We act from fear, and the results of our actions reflect that pathetic fact. The means don't justify the ends, they dictate them.
Here's what I'd like to see: How about a politician that runs on a platform of restoring courage to this forlorn and cringing nation of ours? How about a real leader for our country, instead of a fear-monger? We should demand more of our leadership than that they cow us into submission. We should expect them to show us how to be strong in the face of adversity.
I don't want to sound like the cynic that this world is turning me into, but why is everyone always so scared of new threats that aren't even remotely as bad as the old ones we've become accostomed to? Take West Nile Virus, for example: unknown until a few years ago, the fight against this not-very-deadly disease has cost over $20 billion in the US alone. The flu, on the other hand, kills hundreds of thousands of people every year in the world, but until very recently did not engender anything like the mass hysteria of a new disease. It's the same with airline security: everyone, deep down, knows that the chances of another terrorist attack in the United States are incredibly high, and, that with Al-Qaeda's love of airplanes, there is a higher probablility of airplanes being targeted than, say, bowling alleys. There. I've said it. If you fly, there is a small chance that your plane will blow up. Does this make me happy? Of course not. But what does it say about our society that the all-encompassing fear of a manner of death that will, even under the most horrible of circumstances, only affect a tiny proportion of people -- that is, death through any sort of airplane disaster, terrorist or otherwise -- now causes constant news bulletins on whether solid lipstick is safe to take on planes, while liquid lipstick isn't? Doesn't this seem totally crazy to anyone else? Aren't our priorities completely out of whack? Isn't a life slightly threatened by terrorism but free from constant fear for one's personal safety worth more than a world only a tiny bit safer and far more fearful? Please, someone explain to me how we got to a point where parents have to try baby formula before taking their kid to see grandma in Des Moines.
Case in point: mascara. The tube of mascara I happen to have in my cosmetics bag holds 1/4 ounce. That's about 1-1/2 teaspoons of liquid for those who can visualize it more easily that way.
Apparently the government knows or strongly suspects (or they wouldn't have made the rule) that there is some liquid that a terrorist could use to cause havoc, even in such a small amount. I promise you that there are places a person could hide a 1/4 oz. vial of something where it would not be found short of a body cavity search similar to that used for prison inmates.
Conclusion: the government has NO WAY of keeping whatever it is that it is worried about off of planes. As I see it, there are only two valid choices: (1) cancel all commercial flights because they are too dangerous or (2) spend a lot more money on investigation, and in the meantime warn people that if the terrorist makes it to the airport, chances are they are going to make it onto the plane, and that people should be aware of the activities of those around them.
Neither of these logical choices includes spending a lot of money on an activity that is nothing more than theater. They might as well have the director of the TSA come out and draw a protective magical circle around the plane with chalk and then have everyone chant "abracadabra" as the plane takes off. It would be just as effective, not to mention cheaper and less annoying for the passengers.
Personally, I'm willing to take my chances on flying in a plane with liquids even without a "magic circle."
Imagine, if you will, a dedicated extremist from the distaff side, willing to undergo breast implant surgery, then to die rather gruesomely.
In mid-flight she visits the restroom, and goes to work. Each of her implants is filled with a liquid explosive component, and getting at them would be incredibly gory, but wouldn't faze someone intent on being dead shortly anyway.
Sure, there are technical details to smooth out, but the basic premise could work ... so consider it your patriotic duty to keep a close eye on large chested women next time you fly.
I too have been thinking the time isn't far off when passengers will be forced to fly naked -- but now it occurs to me, that could pose yet another menace: terrorist orgies. SO maybe the future we're looking at is naked passengers put to sleep for the duration of the flight. But wait, that would mean having to load sleeping gas on board, what if one of the attendants was a terrorist and got hold of the gas tanks? Better put them to sleep as well. And the pilots too. You never can tell
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
