Althouse: Variations in airport opinion.

May 15, 2008

Variations in airport opinion.

Woman: "Why do we have to take off our shoes?"

Man: "They can waterboard me as far as I'm concerned."

16 comments:

former law student said...: This complaint makes no sense, because women are always slipping off their shoes, in my experience.; 5/15/08, 10:03 AM
Original Mike said...: Woman: "Why do we have to take off our shoes?"

Two words: Richard Reid.

Deal with it, lady.; 5/15/08, 10:38 AM
George M. Spencer said...: There should be posters at airport checkpoints reminding people of 9/11 similar to this one referencing Pearl Harbor.

But that would be mocked and deemed somehow politically incorrect.

It would be surprising if our opponents did not try to sway the election as they did in Spain some years back.; 5/15/08, 10:55 AM
Bob said...: george: It would be surprising if our opponents did not try to sway the election as they did in Spain some years back.

They did, as I recall. Al Qaeda released a videotape from Osama not long before the 2004 election. Best they could do at the time.; 5/15/08, 11:10 AM
George M. Spencer said...: 191 dead in Spain on March 11, 2004, with 1,755 injured.; 5/15/08, 11:14 AM
Balfegor said...: This complaint makes no sense, because women are always slipping off their shoes, in my experience.

Yes -- and women wear slip-ons much more than men do. Just look at female and male business wear. If a man is wearing traditional lace-up captoes or whatever, he may practically need a shoehorn to get his gear back on after security. A woman in pumps, on the other hand, has only to slip them back on.; 5/15/08, 11:16 AM
Original Mike said...: It would be surprising if our opponents did not try to sway the election as they did in Spain some years back.

My guess is it would have the opposite effect in this country.; 5/15/08, 11:18 AM
George M. Spencer said...: Supposedly, the hardline Spanish candidate/the incumbent lost because of the way he handled the event, not because of the event itself.

Of course, the identity of the perpetrators/planners was never conclusively determined, which was undoubtedly their intent.; 5/15/08, 11:52 AM
vbspurs said...: Ann, is that something which you overheard or experienced?

Not every post has to have a link! I like your original posts best, I confess.

Just curious though.

(As to the topic, no worries as a lady here. One time, a black lady was being screened in front of me, and the guard started out with, "I'm sorry but...". Passenger interrupted her and said, "No, in fact, thank you." I agreed inside myself, and I'm sure 99% of people do)

Cheers,
Victoria; 5/15/08, 11:57 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: I travel a lot these days, and do most often carry a shoe horn. I typically don't wear lace up business shoes, but rather mostly sneakers. A nice plastic shoe horn just speeds things up a bit.

The whole idea is stupid though. If terrorists were to blow up a plane, and it were to crash, then, fine, that is the cost of not taking off our shoes. Most of us would probably be willing to take the chance, esp. given what happened to Richard Reid. I have no doubt that if someone were to try that again, they would be noticed, and likely prevented from completing the act. The question is whether they would survive the incident.

The 3.5 oz bottles of liquids in a quart sized bag is just as silly. I used to carry 2 liter bottles of diet caffeine with me when traveling. No more. And for what? Because someone might have possibly had a chance at taking down a plane using liquids mixed on the plane.

Remember, it was the fact that the 9/11 hijackers flew the three planes into big buildings that was the issue, not really that they hijacked or destroyed the planes. And with the level of scrutiny and security, that ain't going to happen, short of a heavily armed hijacking - heavily armed because if the hijackers just have box cutters, the passengers are going to take them down fairly quickly.

I think that the better approach would be to fill the first couple of rows of every flight with young males, possibly through the registered traveler program so that they can be somewhat screened. And then let these guys lead the assault against any hijackers.; 5/15/08, 12:25 PM
vbspurs said...: Got it, Ann. Just saw your Cali Supreme Court blogging, and realised you're at the airport!; 5/15/08, 12:41 PM
Jennifer said...: Ha, that's great.

I know it's important. But, on our last flight when they stuck me in a clear plastic box/room because my belt buckle set off their detector and made me leave my 5 and 2 year old essentially unattended in the middle of a busy airport security area, I began to lean a little toward ok this is getting ridiculous. Thank god my kids don't have separation anxiety issues or wanderlust.; 5/15/08, 12:49 PM
Original Mike said...: Personally, Bruce, I'm OK with your giving your 2-L bottle of pop, even if it makes us only a little safer.; 5/15/08, 4:49 PM
vbspurs said...: 2-L bottle of pop

Ooh, are you Canadian? Or one of those Americans who call it pop instead of soda.

Since I'm now a Southern American going on ten years, we call every kind of pop/soda, "Coke".

Me: "And I'll have a large Coke"
Wendy's Drive-Thru: "What kind?"
Me: "Sprite, please"

Cheers,
Victoria; 5/15/08, 6:20 PM
Original Mike said...: Victoria - I grew up, in Madison, calling it "pop". I took a dialect test once and at the end the program told me, "Chicago, or maybe southern Wisconsin". It's "pop". What can I say?; 5/15/08, 10:02 PM
vbspurs said...: I took a dialect test once

Me, too, Mike!

Y'all can take the test in the link, but my result was:

The Northeast

"Judging by how you talk you are probably from north Jersey, New York City, Connecticut or Rhode Island. Chances are, if you are from New York City (and not those other places) people would probably be able to tell if they actually heard you speak."

Well, Boston certainly. Beacon Hill could be Harrow-on-the-Hill sometimes.

Cheers,
Victoria; 5/15/08, 10:18 PM