Letters to the Editor
-
Security vs. Freedom
It's too bad that the majority of people who live in the US haven't questioned why terrorism is such a pet theme of the current adminstration? Rather than truly fighting terrorists and terrorism our government, aided by our tacit and unquestioning acceptance of the Bush administration's tactics to largely limit our freedoms rather than protect us, is truly confounding! It's too bad, really, that Franklin Roosevelt can't return, even briefly, to gently whisper or maybe bellow at the complete sheep like compliance of Americans with his famous words: "The only fear that we have to fear is fear itself!" But of course, those on the right would find a way to impugn and discredit the man and we'd remain exactly as we are: a nation caught up in fear and cowed to the point that we can only hunker down and pray that the end doesn't sear our once democratic skins too greatly.
-
Strange logic
The Raed Jarrar case is especially troubling because it makes so little sense. Not only did the security people assume that Jarrar was dangerous because of his shirt, they also assumed that making him remove the shirt would do away with the danger. When he finally agreed to change the shirt, they let him board the aircraft. In other words, the shirt was not considered a sign of some hidden threat; it was considered dangerous in and of itself.
The only possible logic here is that the security Einsteins wanted to reassure other passengers on the flight. In that case, those other passengers were effectively given veto power over what kind of shirt a co-traveler might wear, regardless of whether that person is actually dangerous. There needs to be a simple rule that once a passenger has cleared security, and is not being disorderly by reasonable standards, then that person gets to fly. If other passengers have a problem with his shirt, or language, or skin color, then THEY can wait for the next flight or take a bus. If airlines or the TSA made that clear, then much of this nonsense would cease.
-
hmm capitalism and airline boycotts
so since everyone has so much money to make there is really no way one could sustain a year long boycott of the us airline industry? ultimately that's the question; is flight a necessity? if yes than how so, other than for economic gains. the preciousness of the capitalist society and the nostalgia for wealth allows the terrorists to win. im not preaching isolationism (or anarchic socialism), but let us call it an intervention of sorts, a non violent reaction to those who would intend to terrorize us and to those who would willfully exploit such terrorism for political gains.
-
Ask the Pilot
Dear Patrick
What you don't understand is that many (maybe most) people are afraid to fly. I only fly reluctanctly and will drive hours to avoid it. If flight over the Atlantic Ocean could be avoided, I would be in heaven.
When it comes to my safety, therefore, I will willing abridge your so-called logic in favor of anything that gets me safely to landing. I am an ACLU member and a civil liberatarian in general, but on an airplane, I am a fascist. Sorry, but I want to land safely.
-
Airline May Like New Regulations Prohibiting Liquids
As someone who travels 4 or 5 days every week, I too am confounded by the stupidity of our approach to airline security. But I think the reduction in roll-aboards and passenger-handled beverages occasioned by the most recent regulations probably has some airlines cheering.
It takes less time to load/unload the aircraft now, leading to fewer late departures. For flight attendants, the new regs mean fewer messy clean ups and less struggling with amateur travelers who can’t read the little diagram showing which way to align the wheels so the bag fits in the overhead compartment. And since all the airlines are subject to the same inconvenience, there’s no hit to competitiveness. Probably the baggage handlers object.
Perhaps, eventually, some airline will try to compete by compensating for the inconvenience, e.g., promoting that they give out the full can of soda to thirsty passengers. Anyway, Patrick, your columns are great. Thanks for all you do.
-
Why are matches and cell phones still allowed on planes?
Here are two proven triggers for bombs. They are not banned. I think the regulations are hogwash. It's a lot harder to make a bomb from liquids than it is to burn someone, set something on fire, use a cutting wheel (also not banned) to hurt someone, etc.
When I read the TSA banned and allowed pages, I also noticed that KY Jelly is specifically ALLOWED on flights. It's a gel. I guess TSA wants you to be able to join the mile high club, just not feed your baby.
By the way, some airports are allowing water in baby bottles on. It's a few, and it's a start.
-
TSA vs Sharp Objects
I have been following and agreeing with (Patrick Smith's) articles on the ineptness and wrong-headedness of the TSA security measures at our airports. Why is the screening so bad? Why can’t David Nelson or Sen. Ted Kennedy get on a plane without a big hassle, let alone a granny with a hip replacement? Maybe because the TSA can’t (or won’t) trust it’s work force to show any initiative or common sense. So it has to fall back on simple rules slavishly followed by rote.
As a case in point, the (now relaxed) rules on sharp objects:
After 9/11 it was announced that checked luggage was subject to search and locked bags would have the locks forced open or otherwise cut away. I didn’t fancy having my bag wending it’s way through the entire terminal open to random crimes of opportunity, so I started securing the zipper with a plastic wire tie. Easily opened with any sort of cutter, but it gave me some peace of mind. I would put a nail clipper in an outside pocket so I could open the dang thing myself when I reached my destination. Yes, you guessed it – about 50% of the time the clipper was confiscated, regardless of whether the bag was actually searched. (Remember that this was checked luggage, not carry-on.) After several such occurrences, the selective criteria seemed to be whether or not the clipper had one of those swiveling nail fails included. Evidently the threat was that I could dig my way through the floor into the baggage compartment, retrieve my sharply pointed nail clipper, return to the flight deck, and wreak havoc on the passengers and crew. (Sigh.)
Oh well, I guess I shouldn’t complain. When it gets to the point where they shove a camera up our asses to check for plastique, at least we’ll be spared the expense and inconvenience of having a colonoscopy. And we’ll be ever so much safer, to boot.