This article is a breath of fresh air. For years I've been mystified by the security check in process -- separate your laptop from your luggage, DO NOT for heaven's sake put a coat on top of it in the little tray, make sure you wear shoes with socks because you're giong to be walking on that unfortunately airport carpeting. What's next -- someone fashions a bomb out of earrings? a belt buckle, a (please no!) a zipper?

And let's talk about profiling a bit. When I traveled for my employer MIT in the days after 9/11, every single one of us in our party had to endure the special checks when they pull you aside. What a coincidence. But I'm a white BLONDE female, and let me tell you, we can apparently do no harm as I'm frequently waved through at the last minute. Crying because you are about to miss your flight will speed up check in considerably. (I'm a weepy sort).

These regulations are shooting the recovering airline industry right where it hurts. The idea of taking a vacation and being subjected to the shredder of airport security is so unappealing, I'll stick to the car or bus or train, thanks.

Thanks the K-Street Project, business leaders understand that they must back all Republican initiatives, so outfits like NFIB back repeal of the estate tax, even though well under 500 of the millions of small businesses they claim to represent are even affected by the tax.

Still, the idea that business like the airlines will prove their loyalty to the GOP by agreeing to policies that are putting them out of business takes this to a whole new level. Why isn't United screaming bloody murder about yesterday's nonsense, where an agitated passenger not only causes a flight to land in Boston insteads of Washington (bad passenger behavior disrupts several hundreds flights a year -- it's not exactly routine, but it's not a true emergency either, especially after the passenger has been removed from the plane). Don't they care about the rest of their passenger-customers who had to wait around in Boston while all the luggage was removed from the plane and searched for no apparent reason. And how many items in that luggae disappeared during the "inspection"?

The willingness of the airlines to allow flying to become a squalid and unpleasant experience -- with every prospect of only getting worse -- suggests a business sense so completely deficient that perhaps the collapse of commercial aviation is inevitable no matter what happens. You have to wonder if the top airline executives even fly airlines anymore. Perhaps they are like the rest of the toffs, and fly around on their own corporate jets, so they go through Teterboro and remain blissfully innocent of the situation at La Guardia and O'Hare. Otherwise, it's hard to explain why they are being led like sheep into ruin.

It's not as if they are powerless. As President Kennedy once said: Sometimes party loyalty demands too much. They'd scream like hell if it was a Democrat who was putting them out of business. Their passengers are getting fed up and would like to have someone standing up for them. If not the people who run commercial aviation, then who? And if not now, then when?

The terrorists have won--no doubt about it. I'm all for security, but the draconian security we now face as passengers is insane. Also, it's obvious that the so-called sophisticated machines that cost millions of dollars are useless. Apparently, they don't detect anything. The new solution to airline security are not to trust the machines or even inspections, but not to allow anything at all to be carried onto a plane. The next logical step is not allowing passengers to board in order to have complete security.

Most of my flying is international and I like to carry toiletry items in my carryon luggage in case my flight is disrupted along the way, which has happened on more than a couple of occasions. I also like to shave and refresh myself on the plane itself. These new ridiculous rules don't allow for it. Airlines will most likely have to offer toiletry kits to economy passengers in addition to its business and first class passengers. Of course, if that were to happen, airline tickets would once again go up.

I used to take impulsive trips, but no longer. I dread going through all the inspections before I fly so I limit that experience as much as possible. There has to be a way to have effective security without making the passenger suffer.

Non-hysterical, clear analysis. Great job.

If only Mr. Smith were to go to Washington to run the TSA. If only.

What ever happened to having the guts to risk your life for what you believe, as in: defending the freedoms that we Americans are so lucky to be born into?

I think the answer is pretty obvious -- ignorance of these freedoms has allowed the party-in-power to pluck away these freedoms all while we whip ourselves into a cowardly panic about terrorists with water bottles, mascara and hand cream.

What about standing firm, demanding to keep your water, mascara, hand cream and CONSTITUTION, and pitching the fear of personally being blown to bits so future generations can continue to enjoy the freedoms that we take for granted and are so willing to let go?

I'm thinking for my next international trip of driving a couple hours to Toronto and flying out of there instead of a US airport. Any of you Seattleites thinking about doing the same except through Vancouver?

We need to change the last line of the Star Spangled Banner from "Home of the brave" to "Home of the easily frightened".

Instead of incrementally restricting what we can take on airplanes, lets save the suprises and just jump to the obvious endpoint. We should ban all carry-ons, force all travelers to strip naked, get the rubber glove treatment from "trained" security personnel, and force everyone to wear government issue paper suits. After all, what's a little dignity when there are lives at stake.