Thanks for this article that hits home for me. I traveled internationally with my husband and two kids, ages 3 and six months, last Thursday--the first day of the new restrictions. We arrived at the airport at 6:00am, and so hadn't yet heard about the new regulations. Our mid-sized airport allowed us to bring on board our baby food (Gerber, sealed), but at the hub airport where we stopped over they dug through our diaper bag and threw out tub after tub. I was enraged, as clearly I was traveling with a baby, and the regulations definitely had wiggle room. So my son didn't get any "real" food all day long. The thing that really outraged me was all the people saying "Well, at least we're safer now." The logic of that is so idiotic that it's difficult to even argue with those people. On the way home, they did allow our baby food, but were saying no to the diaper cream we needed for my son's bad rash.

If someone wants to blow a plane up badly enough, he's going to do it, no matter what they tell us we can't carry on board.

And if a mother wants to smuggle diaper cream on board for her baby, she's going to find a way to do it, too.

A respondant wrote: It comes as no surprise that TSA staff don't know the difference between SIDAs, sterile areas and secure areas because it is not their job to maintain the integrity of such.

On the contrary, it comes as a huge, and hugely unwelcome, surprise.

What you've said is the equivalent of saying: "It comes as no surpise that Treasury officials didn't know the difference between margin loans and mortgages, because it's not their job to sell them."

Or better yet: "It comes as no surprise that Defence officials didn't know the difference between a smart bomb and a freefall bomb, becuse it's not their job to drop them."

That the people ultimately in charge of security don't know even the most basic security terms that anyone of medium intelligence could take a pretty good stab at defining from first principles is absolutely terrifying.

And, furthermore, it goes a long way towards explaining the wasteful craziness we're now all party to at every airport in the US.

First off, in response to Pete a few pages back, the subject of the Israeli method of air security was brought up by Mr. Smith in an "Ask the Pilot" column not too long ago. Bottom line is, Israel essentially has only one airline servicing one airport, so it is not infeasible to have such in depth security. But how could such a system work in the US, with hundreds of airports and dozens of airlines with thousands of flights of millions of passengers a day?

On to the main topic at hand, if the threat is really as severe as the authorities are making it out to be, then perhaps we need to consider ending commercial air travel all together. Surely that is ultimate goal of the paranoid security cult that has been brewing since September 11th, as that is the only way to be truly safe. Just as they have preached that total abstinence is the only way to keep from getting pregnant or contracting an STD, not having commercial aviation is the only way to ensure there will be no more terrorist attacks involving planes.

The real goal of this perpetual State of Fear is to keep the populace in thrall to the Great White Father who is the only one who can keep them safe. The conservative power structure that has been in charge since 2000 has discovered that while Bread and Circuses are okay, the threat of imminent flaming death is a better way to keep people occupied.

There is an alternative, though. It's called common sense. Common sense tells us that the best way to catch terrorists is through intelligence and good old fashioned police work. The airline security line should be the last step in keeping the skies safe, not the first and only step.

The US department of defense's own definition of terrorism is: The calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear.

I think its working. Terrorists or would-be terrorists have succeeded in making americans afraid of them, each other, and practically everyone else; to the point that they will willingly give up food for their babies over several hours even though doing so has absolutly no rational basis. Now terrorists don't even need to act to terrorize. Just by imagining an act, planning and discussing it, then leaking it (even if it wasn't feasible) they can paralyze hundreds of flights, cost airlines millions of dollars, and render millions of travellers miserable and afraid.... all without actually DOING anything! Amazing. If the point was to use the "threat of violence to inculcate fear" they are succeeding wildly... but why are we helping them to do it? And who is it really, who wants us all to be afraid all the time?

Thank you Patrick Smith

Terrorism breeds fear. Fear, on some level, is irrational. And you can't react calmly and with purpose when you're scared. Here in New York, the city just released tapes of over a thousand 911 calls made on Sept. 11. Hearing the victims' panicked calls brought back waves of feelings again --fear, fear, fear. It doesn't help that the public just doesn't have much faith in those who are making the rules (airlines, TSA, law enforcment). There are rational voices out there. It's clear in lots of these letters. Let's not let fear overwhelm us.

Its just like snakes on the plane another hollywood fantasy

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/

I am SO glad somebody finally said this in an article. I've been saying it since last week, and when I say it I always get this look that says, "weak, terror-loving liberal." Human beings are incredibly innovative when it comes to thinking up ways to kill other human beings--there's no way we can predict every single deadly weapon that terrorists can improvise. NO serious threats have been caught by security screeners. They've all been caught by good investigation and police work--thank goodness.