Fri, August 11, 2006
Airborne and Parched
It bothers me that the term "conspiracy theory" has become a sort of pejorative description, along the lines of "crackpot," "paranoid," or "psychotic." Because, in reality there is such a thing as a conspiracy. We even have laws – you hear people on Law & Order being charged with "conspiracy to commit murder," or something similar. So, it seems like conspiracy theorists have kind of gotten a bad rap; just because they suspect a conspiracy doesn't mean they're crazy.
But can I seriously insinuate that the banning of fluids on commercial planes is the result of a conspiracy between Procter & Gamble and the soda makers, to force people to buy new products at the terminating point of their travels, only to discard them at the end of the trip? Well, no. I can't.
Still, I'm furiously apoplectic that such a restriction has been enacted. It honestly feels like I'm living in a dream sometimes. How can we be living in a world where they take away our drinks and tell us we have to travel without toiletries? It defies all reason.
Primarily, it makes me crazy the way every new TSA regulation is a knee-jerk reaction to the latest terror plot, or supposed terror plot. Someone hides a bomb in his shoe, and shoes are the new front line of terror. Some guys conspire (!) to smuggle liquid explosives onto a plane, and suddenly toothpaste is banned. Forgive me, but this seems exactly like the situation in which "the terrorists have won." We're not designing our own security regulations; those regulations are determined by the creativity of the terrorists. If they weave some sort of incendiary fiber into cloth or paper, then we're all flying nude and without reading material. It doesn't seem wise to hand over that sort of control. Besides, none of these restrictions were in place before this week. Did we honestly not know liquid explosives existed? Could Bryan Brown and the cast of F/X 2 really know more about this than the CIA? Maybe we just figured the terrorists hadn't found out? You have to imagine if anyone's read the Anarchist's Cookbook, it's those guys.
In a free society, you strike a balance between safety and convenience. Those in charge today seem to be tipping the scales unwisely in the "safety" direction. Wiretap our innocent citizens? Throw out a hundred gallons of hand lotion at the airport? Better safe than sorry. We all know that you can break off any of dozens of flimsy metal pieces inside an airplane cabin and create a cutting device just like the 9/11 box cutters. But we still let planes fly with all their insides. You just have to draw a line at a reasonable point. It bothers me that the TSA acknowledges there is a line, but they just prefer to put it in a preposterous place. You're allowed to bring baby formula and insulin on board. So, either we're counting on terrorists to be too stupid to put their C-4 in baby formula containers, or this whole thing is a farce. Occam's razor leads us to choose option B.
I have to fly again in October, and I already wasn't looking forward to it. Now I'm torn between packing my Kiehl's into Enfamil bottles, shipping my toiletries to LA ahead of time, or hoping that a couple of months will be enough time for reason to prevail. After all, the metal detector can't see fluids, so people could just tape Ziploc bags to the small of their backs. A ban on all fluids seems as impossible to enforce as it is ridiculous.
Rather than continuing to heap restrictions on passengers, maybe the focus should be on intelligence. Find and stop the bad guys before they plot to bring innocent-looking bombs onto our planes. (Just like these guys were found and stopped.) And it probably wouldn't hurt to start thinking about ways to eradicate terrorism at its root cause, rather than at the departure gate. Maybe work on ways to cut off its funding, its recruitment, or just the rabid anti-Americanism that stems from our every blunderous move in that region.
© onebee · all rights reserved
AC — Fri, 8/11/06 11:53am
Amen. People seem to have forgotten that the system succeeded this time. Just wanted to point that out. From all the mania and suggestive lower-thirds on the news yesterday, you could almost be forgiven for forgetting that the plot didn't actually succeed.
And the shoes! It's just too easy to set me off on this one. Did you know that technically, you are not required to take them off anymore? But if you refuse, you may face "additional screening." Which is completely stupid.
Between 9/11 and Richard Reid, I was happy to have decent and polite TSA agents manning the security checkpoints. Paid well and trained, they were a joy and the process was so much more efficient. But now, this shoes thing. Ugh.
Anyway, good post. People are too willing to be sheep for my liking. It's all part of that Bush fear model.
Bee Boy — Fri, 8/11/06 12:05pm
Absolutely. I know I always say this, but the Kung Fu Monkey post really hits it on the head. Especially about the system having worked and the headlines having ignored that fact. ("Success doesn't sell. Chaos sells!")
I remember your previous shoe rant. (I almost posted this whole thing as a response to that, but it got longer and longer...) Personally, I was happy to go along with the shoe thing. It seemed like just enough random power to make them happy, and then they wouldn't feel the need to arbitrarily hassle you any further, leaving the rest of the process as painless as you could reasonably expect it to be.
But this is just insane. I have to believe that this crackdown will be temporary. Because people won't stand for it, will they? 80% of travelers are business people who never check luggage and always need toothpaste. There will be riots! They'll have to reverse this decision. I can only hope.
Brandon — Fri, 8/11/06 2:12pm
The decision to ban liquids from all commercial air travel strenghtens my ambition to buy my own jet. I think that would be cheaper than buying all new lotions and tinctures after every flight.
Flying in a private jet may soon be a more legitimate option than you think. Thanks to the recent development of a new lighter, six-passenger jet, there are several air taxi companies who will start offering flights to and from small local airports. Right now, they're talking about a price comparable to purchasing a last-minute roundtrip ticket on the major airlines, but as this option grows in popularity, competition may drive that price down.
Christi and I have been following this story with interest because anytime we fly to visit my parents in Minnesota, we've got three airport options, all of which result in extra drive time: Omaha (flying Southwest, then renting a car and driving 4.5 hours), Minneapolis (fly Northwest, then 3-hour drive) or Sioux Falls (1.5-hour drive, but it's hard to find reasonable fares to fly there... unless Southwest decides to add it as a destination please please please). Eliminating that extra travel time is worth extra money to us; exactly how much is the question we'll have to answer.
Joe Mulder — Fri, 8/11/06 8:43pm
My thoughts here.
Bee Boy — Sun, 8/13/06 2:35am
Yes! Well done, sir! And, "swarthy" – beautiful Huff shout-out. The rest of my response, there as well.
"Christi" — Mon, 8/14/06 11:57pm
As Brandon has mentioned several times, I travel for business ALOT. Many times these are quick overnight trips and I NEVER check my bags...until now, or maybe not.
My colleagues and I have decided that we will just buy an identical set of toiletries and leave them in our Oakland office. It may cost of a bit more to buy everything twice but that is more than made up for in the time savings at the airport. So this Wednesday I will be stopping at some Longs in San Francisco and buying toothpaste, deoderant, shampoo, etc and sending the bill somewhere. I just haven't decided if I should send it to the terrorists or the TSA.
BTW, the new screening process isn't all that rigorous, I acidentally had a tube of liquid lipstick in my purse on Saturday and the plane didn't explode or anything.
One other thing...as a terrorist, if your main intention is to make American's suffer, isn't a series of "foiled plots" that impact most American's lives as good as a successful plot that only impacts a few?
Bee Boy — Tue, 8/15/06 7:17am
Your solution sounds great for those who are lucky enough to travel to the same place most of the time (which is probably plenty of business folk). For the rest of us, I was thinking of setting up some sort of toiletry exchange, so we could coordinate overlapping stays at the same destination, but someone would probably sneak an explosive bath gel into that system and then we'd be forced to screen everybody, too.
Bee Boy — Sat, 9/2/06 10:35pm
I added a new link to the Related Links on this page: Bruce Schneier's What the Terrorists Want. I should've read it and linked to it long ago.
It says a lot of the same things that have been said here and elsewhere, but it's worth reading, particularly for the links to articles that quite convincingly debunk the very plausibility of the supposed liquid-bomb threat. It's preposterous enough to ban liquids based on a probable/possible terrorist plan, but based on an improbable (or, according to some, impossible) one? This is fucking insane.