« July 2006 | Main | October 2006 »
August 10, 2006
Air Travel Security Hysteria
Dear Senator Kennedy:
I listened with dismay as the radio reported that, because of the actions of some Pakistani women flying out of London, US air travelers are no longer being permitted to bring liquids, such as toiletries and cosmetics, aboard aircraft.
The detailed searches of travelers has caused significant and substantial delays getting past security checkpoints. The added burden of needing to pick up checked luggage also adds significantly to travel time (in fact, it took 45 minutes for my bag to reach the Delta baggage claim at Logan just a few weeks ago).
There is clearly a national hysteria about air travel that, combined with people's inability to accept unavoidable but reasonable risk in their lives' activities, has reached a point of being overly burdensome. The prospect of waiting one or two hours to pass through a security checkpoint on a flight I'm taking this Sunday represents, to me, a significant loss of liberty. I can't spend that time with family or friends, I can't engage in any useful or enjoyable activities, and I won't be able to go to church.
The current administration is determined to capitalize on peoples' fears exacerbated by unfortunate events such as that in London on Thursday morning. However, critical thought must reach the conclusion that the arguably false security gained by stripping travelers of toiletries, even lip balm, that may be needed in flight or carried on to avoid baggage claim, cannot possibly justify the human cost of tens of thousands of hours of people's lives each day--time that can neither be reclaimed nor used to anybody's benefit.
We need an approach to air travel security that does not incur the human cost of our current policies, and that is fueled by rational thought instead of raw fear. This is a complicated problem without an easy solution, but I hope you will seize any opportunities that arise to begin making a difference here.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Patrick Madden
Posted by Pat at 11:00 PM
August 13, 2006
Yes Lipstick, No Lip Balm
The TSA has made it clear they will permit airline passengers to carry lipstick; however, they are not allowing passengers to carry lip balm. This is nothing short of perverse, because lipstick substantially shares ingredients with lip balm.
About lipstick, Wikipedia says:
A typical lipstick contains many chemical ingredients, principally pigments, oils, waxes, and emollients.
About lip balm, Wikipedia says:
The balm is usually manufactured from beeswax, petroleum jelly, menthol, camphor, scented oils, and various other ingredients.
Clearly TSA policy is misguided. If they deem lip balm to be a threat due to its oils, then they must also treat lipstick as a threat due to its oils. We won't see this happen because it wouldn't be politically expedient to deprive women of their lipstick. However, the commonality of ingredients seems to suggest clearly that if a tube of Blistex will help an airplane turn into a ball of flame, then so will a tube of lipstick.
Either way, it seems like the TSA is reaching pretty far out on a limb on this one.
Posted by Pat at 12:20 AM
They actually *didn't* lie to me about shoes today
For quite some time, the TSA screeners, assisted by the media, perpetuated the myth that travelers needed to remove their shoes as part of the security screening process. The screeners internalized this misperception to the point that I've had debates with them over it, despite very clear messages from the TSA's web site that travelers are not required to remove footwear.
Imagine my "surprise" when, yet again, a screener at Boston's Logan International Airport, made this same claim.
As I have done for some time, I informed the screener today that "I'm not required to remove my shoes." I do this for a variety of reasons: I've smelled other peoples' feet (not by my choice) at security, and I hope not to subject others to whatever scent my own feet may give off; who knows what diseases cover others' feet, waiting to latch onto me; and, I resent being compelled by the government to remove clothing as a condition of travel. Yesterday, I printed the pages from the TSA's web site that clearly state "Travelers are NOT REQUIRED to remove their shoes".
Once I explained my concern about disease to the screener's supervisor, she informed me, "we just got notice that the rules changed an hour ago." Yeah, right, I've been outright lied to by TSA screeners enough times to recognize this load by its smell a mile away. However, given the capricious nature of the TSA's rules and the unease about the Pakistanis in London, I gave this claim the benefit of the doubt as the screener supervisor allowed me to pass through the metal detector then sit to remove my shoes (and I kept my feet off the floor).
Once I had a chance to revisit the TSA's web site, I saw that the policy had indeed changed. Travelers are now required to remove their shoes.
This leaves me wondering: since there haven't been any successful shoe-based hijackings at least since Richard Reid (pathetic slob) got caught trying, and the TSA has had plenty of time to ponder this particular threat, what could be the motivation here? I note that the TSA has banned gel insoles (don't get mad at me, I might stomp my foot and teach you a lesson!), and I'm wondering if forced shoe removal is the only way they can check the insoles? But then, the screeners still aren't looking at the actual shoes. If I store lipstick inside my shoe sole, will I be arrested? Gotta wonder.
Despite my issues this morning, I still held up the line for less time than the couple who didn't know what boarding passes were when the screener asked for them.
Posted by Pat at 10:18 PM
August 15, 2006
Easing Up
Okay, so I'm reading the news reports about the TSA's ban on liquids, and things have gotten better slightly. They apparently read my comment about lip balm versus lipstick, and now they're allowing lip balm onto planes.
I didn't comment about the inability for me to carry saline solution to keep from getting nosebleeds from dry air, but they must have heard about this as well and are now explicitly allowing saline solutions, up to 4 oz.
Am I happy? No, I'm still required to take off my shoes. I am happier though. However, I'm not holding my breath for a technology solution to liquid scanning.
Stay tuned.
Posted by Pat at 06:57 PM
August 26, 2006
Bread Pudding
When I was in Norfolk, Virginia, I went to a Cuban restaurant named Havana, on Granby Street. The food there was great across the board, but it was there that I had the absolute best bread pudding ever. I award it "Best of Bread Puddings", and it's a finalist for my best dessert ever eaten.
Posted by Pat at 09:46 PM