What is prudence and what is fearmongering?
I just watched a 12 minute clip of a story originally reported on Countdown by Keith Olbermann in October, 2005, which is playing over at the bottom of this entry over at the Word of Mouth Blog by Scott Bakalar. If you prefer to skim text rather than watching the video, here's the transcript of Olbermann's piece, which ran again in reprise on August 14, 2006.
I flew twice within the week after the Homeland Security Threat Level was most recently raised to orange, and I am skeptical about the way in which the most recent injunctions on carrying liquids and gels in the passenger areas of aircraft was implemented. Why? Click through to read more.
If this was really being done to protect us, rather than to heighten our levels of fear and remind us of how grateful we should feel toward the current administration for their success in protecting us from all the foiled terrorist attempts of the last five years, wouldn't the TSA have:
- implemented additional safety checks on catering carts, which continue to be loaded into passenger areas with large amounts of liquids on board?
-avoided making silly distinctions between bottles of contact lens solution and bottles of nailpolish?
- required flight crews to begin checking their carryon luggage?
I don't know for a fact that the Evian that gets loaded on catering carts isn't somehow screened beforehand, but I'd be really surprised (given how quickly flights went back to taking off on time, after the orange alert was announced a week ago on Thursday).
As a contact lens wearer, I don't know what the logic was in claiming that saline solution is as essential as infant feeding liquids while riding in an aircraft. It seems pretty silly to me to permit people to take contact lens cleaning solution on board the aircraft, when anyone who wears contact lenses on an airplane also carries eyeglasses with them, in case they need to remove said lenses to clean them with said solution. I argue that said contact lens wearers should remove their contacts, check them with the cleaning solutions, and wear their glasses while on the airplane. Why would the argument be any different for such passengers than for silly me, who had hoped to put new polish on my nails sometime between takeoff and reaching 10,000 feet and turning on my laptop? Probably only that significantly more men would be inconvenienced if people were not allowed to bring contact lens cleaning stuff on the airplane.
Finally, I do know for a fact, even though it amazes me, that flight attendants are still not checking their shampoo, conditioner, etc., into the cargo hold, even though passengers are now required to do so. If the TSA is really trying to protect us, why would they assume that flight crew members could not possibly be sleeper terrorist agents, or at least vulnerable to having someone distract them long enough to place an explosive gel into their carryon bag somewhere in the "sterile zone" of the airport, to be retrieved by another agent from the flight crew's bag after the plane takes off?
I heard from several different travelers to my professional conference who had flown in from London, who were required to check everything into the cargo hold -- including their laptops, paperbacks, and decks of cards -- and who insisted that the world of business would change dramatically if such rules were maintained over a long time period. Why did the TSA not implement similar restrictions in the US, not even for a day or two? Could it be that the screening requirements put in place by the TSA are designed solely to prevent attacks on airports or planes, but also to provide the appearance of increased security without creating too much of an inconvenience for business travelers?
Thanks to Jill Miller Zimon at Writes Like She Talks for pointing to Scott's blog entry about the Olbermann piece. I agree with the fundamental premise of her comment, that we have never done an especially good job of protecting the country's citizens against hate crimes.
Comments