January 07, 2004

• A BBC article on this, which has a little more information than the guardian article.
• Next they will make us sit every other seat and NO TALKING. Let's face it the current administration doesn't want people to travel. It leads to people to thinking about and, maybe, understanding other people, and in their eyes that can only be bad.
• God Almighty, I never thought I'd see the day that people would bitch about something so freakin' innane. It used to be people got up in arms over slavery or women not being able to vote. We've gone from suffrage to bitching about government security regulation against congregating at the lav on a farking airplane. No offense, but what the hell happened to people? Okay. This ruling doesn't prohibit people from moving about the cabin. This doesn't prohibit from people actually going to the lav. This doesn't violate any human or Constitutional rights. This doesn't prohibit anyone from doing anything but gathering in a group at the lav. The security concerns with congregating are obvious. The complaints about this are the same we heard about increased security at X-Rays and with bag checking. Personally, this should be a non-issue. Then again, I've never flown Quantas.
• (f8x) : God Almighty, I never thought I'd see the day that people (f8x) : would bitch about something so freakin' innane. It used to be people (f8x) : got up in arms over slavery or women not being able to vote. We've (f8x) : gone from suffrage to bitching about government security regulation (f8x) : against congregating at the lav on a farking airplane. No offense, but (f8x) : what the hell happened to people? Now it's freedom of assembly *snark*. This is -- and I'm conciously aware of how this phrase sounds, and how debate hounds will jump on it -- a slippery slope in an administration of slippery slopes. Don't bring nail clippers onto the plane. Don't trust people with almanacs. Don't gather at the bathroom. Be aware and alert, we're in 'orange', but shop as usual. We'll fill you with a subtle, schitzophrenic paranoia until it colors everything you do and you become willing to trade in larger freedoms for increased security. That's what drives me up the wall. My freedom to remain free feels like it's being threatened. (f8x) : Okay. This ruling doesn't prohibit people from moving about the cabin. (f8x) : This doesn't prohibit from people actually going to the lav. This (f8x) : doesn't violate any human or Constitutional rights. This doesn't (f8x) : prohibit anyone from doing anything but gathering in a group at the (f8x) : lav. Yeah. They're not doing anything but gathering at the lav. Why forbid it? I would be much less annoyed at many mandates passed down if Tom Ridge not only said "We're going to do something crazy", but followed it up with "and here's why". The big brother speak of "non-specific reports of threats" for justification is fear-mongering. (f8x) : The security concerns with congregating are obvious. Do tell.
• When I fly (which is reasonably often and usually for long trips), I do that whole "get up and walk around the cabin" every hour or so. Because there's always someone else standing in your way in the aisle, I usually go and stretch/walk on the spot/chat to other passengers outside the toilets because that's usually one of the few open spaces. As it is, I'm not travelling through LAX any more unless I'm actually going to the US because they have introduced mandatory fingerprinting and photographing of passengers in transit. Can you imagine the time this would take and the non-existent point? I have to keep pointing out that the 9/11 terrorists were visa holders, not illegal (except in that some visas had expired). As someone in the mefi thread said, we can at the least express our annoyance by not buying tickets - and it looks like I won't be going back to the US for a while.
• But tracicle, we said we didn't mean it!
• The worst thing about many of the security measures introduced everywhere recently is that they seem inneffective and fairly pointless, while at the same time being highly irritating to a large amount of people. Air rage is enough of a problem anyway, seemingly - I can't imagine that telling people off for getting up and queueing while they're dying for a piss is going to be particularly pleasant for the stewards on the plane. Drunk adults desperate for a cigarette and the toilet probably aren't the calmest and politest people about.
• Is it National Knee Jerk Reaction Day today? I flew yesterday and they ask that you don't congregate in groups in front of the cockpit door. Most planes have a lav right next to the cockpit door and I can see why forbiding groups from standing around up there makes sense. If you wanted to use that lav they asked that you stand behing row six while waiting for it to become free. Sucks for the poor bastard in the isle of row seven that spends the whole flight staring at asses, but sacrifices must be made in the war on terror.
• this is really no big deal. i think the airline may be overreacting to the u.s. request. i fly to/from europe about every six weeks. on each flight they make a series of routine announcements, one of which is to not congregate around the lavatories, to just wait until it's free. it's also a safety issue: if you hit turbulence and you're not buckled into your seat, you might be injured. now they also announce that when you're seated you should keep your seatbelt buckled. fear of terrorists? nah, just safety. months back you couldn't bring fingernail clippers through security. they've backed down on that one. no biggie.
• howl, I'd be happy to sit every other seat and enforce no talking. I can't tell you how little I care about Grandma's trip to see her grandbaby and how it's the first time for her because her daughter's been in jail.
• I'll grant you I don't fly that often--once or twice a year, maybe four times if I strike it rich. So to me, "these little restrictions" are exactly that. They certainly don't bother me, since I don't even want to talk to the person next to me in my row, much less chat with them while waiting in line to take a piss. The way I see it, you could complain about any restrictions the government places on things that are non-specific but designed to limit threats to safety, etc. Take the speed limit, for instance. Any proof that 55 or under is safer than, say, 70? None. It's an arbitrary safety limitation placed upon citizens, designed to curtail unsafe or dangerous behaviour on the road. Sure, 99% of people, like tracicle, converge at the lav to chitchat, wait in line, whatever. But are you really willing to let the 1 percenters gather round ANY part of the plane to synchronize their takeover of the plane? I'm not saying it would ever happen, but then again, 9/11 wouldn't ever happen again either, would it? Or could it?
• Crap, on preview didn't reveal Sooooz's comment, with which I heartily agree.
• I fly about a dozen times a year. The rub, I think behind all these restrictions, is that some people believe that even the smallest restrictions are some sort of infringement on consititutional rights ("freedom of assembly" indeed) whereas some people are willing to forgo - often temporarily, as SideDish observed - a bit of personal convenience to improve the probability of safety for all. I mean, seriously, I have to take off my friggin SHOES every time I go through security, EVERY TIME. That's in addition to briefcase and laptop is separate buckets for the Xrayer, my coat, any metal (watch, pens, palm, glasses, BELT!). It takes me three of those buckets MINIMUM. THEN I have to put it all back on, etc when I get through. I don't like it, it's ridiculous, and I feel like a total numbass, with my gear shoved haphazardly in my arms as I try to find a chair to sit and put my belt and shoes back on. AND before last Christmas, I was a single, bearded male with multiple electronics and an internet-bought ticket who usually arrived late and was in a rush - want to guess how many times I got pulled aside and searched? Off come the shoes AGAIN, only this time with about a hundred people walking around, wondering (often aloud!)if I'm the next Richard Reid. But I do it, without any wisecracks or sulking, because I believe that doing so helps to make sure that no more people with box cutters in their hands and murder on their minds board a plane. I'm willing to temporarily give up certain freedoms if I believe that it will help to ensure the safety of all. Because after all, is congregating near the lav all that big a whoop? Or are we so jumpy that we truly, in our hearts, believe that this is some first step down a slippery slope toward, well, what? Monitored bathroom breaks? Fascism? the Matrix?? They just don't want people crowding the can, folks. Orwell can rest easy tonight, I think.
• I've already made so many concessions to security (and to get myself through the checkpoints quickly) that I feel like I'm not willing to do any more. I wear clothes that won't set off the scanners so I can get through quickly, and easy-to-remove shoes. If I can't do something as simple as get up to exercise in the only open space in crummy economy class, I'd be annoyed. Sure, I understand that people might be standing there egging each other on to hijack the plane, but I'm happy to risk the one-in-a-million chance that someone actually got something bigger than nail scissors onto the plane and is capable of bringing down a longhaul 747 in the middle of the Pacific for the sake of my swollen ankles. Call me selfish.
• tracicle, you're selfish. /All in good fun.
• Darrin Kayser, a spokesman for the TSA - part of the US Department of Homeland Security - told BBC News Online that passengers could still queue for the toilet, but that congregating in groups would be discouraged. He said it was up to flight crews to distinguish between "politely waiting for the toilet" and huddling. That honestly doesn't sound as unreasonable as some people are making out to be. Which is not to say that it is an effective policy (about as effective as putting men with machine guns at the check-in counter, I'd say) or that this isn't one more step towards sucking away our autonomy. I'm just saying that maybe collectively we tone down the, "For god's sake we can't even pee anymore!!" and turn to the bigger picture--like the government's ability to tap my phones without a warrant or hold me captive indefinitely without a trial or gerrymander districts to maintain power or fine me $500 for holding up a poster saying they suck in their proximity, for example.
• I can imagine terrorists across the world in their underground bunkers reading the paper... "Brother toilet-congregators! Our plans are ruined! No longer can we stand outside lavatories and plan our devious plots!" "But can't we... You know... Stand somewhere else? Sit next to each other or something?" "SILENCE, INFIDEL!"
• And while we're bitching about airplanes, For the love of god take pity and give me some freakin' leg rooooommm!!! (See: United Airlines. Motto: Look how easy it is for you to rest your chin on your knees now!)
• Or are we so jumpy that we truly, in our hearts, believe that this is some first step down a slippery slope toward... the Matrix?? Do you mean the movie or the Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange program?
• kimberly! command the knee space that is rightfully yours! get a Knee Defender!
• I've formed my own airplane company, Basically Crash Free Airlines. Leg room is entirely dependent on how much you pay for your ticket. If you end up in the poor section, you get a catheter and instructions on how to use it. The starving orphan section has a communal bucket. The ballast section passengers don't even get seats, though they will get to fly secure in the knowledge that the people in the better than you section all have levers capable of detaching the ballast section. Tickets range from a dollar to a few thousand. Pilots are guaranteed to be sober at least half the flight.
• I'm willing to temporarily give up certain freedoms if I believe that it will help to ensure the safety of all Ah, "temporarily." There's the rub. Show of hands as to how many think the Bushies will voluntarily give up any of these "temporary" deprivations of freedom anytime soon? Oh, right, they're only in place until terror has been defeated all over the world. Whew, I had me worried! Yes, this is trivial by comparison to locking somebody up, throwing away the key, and not letting families or lawyers even know you've been detained, let alone where or what the charges are. But that doesn't mean we should passively accept it, any of it. These bastards are looking out for their interests, not ours.
• 'Hat, my friend, I am as suspicious of the motive of politicians as anyone, more so than most. But what does it benefit them to do so? How does Bush, or *anyone*, benefit from continuing to ban people from clustering at the can door? How does it benefit them to continue to force me to remove my shoes at every airport checkpoint? It simply doesn't. They have no reason to do so. Even if we ascribe the most Machiavellian of motives to these guys (which is almost ludicrous, knowing what we know of politicians - crass, petty, gluttonous, in general, not very smart), could we even conceivably make the argument that the removal of these small freedoms paves the way for the removal of larger ones? I can't see it. They are looking out for their interests rather than ours, sure - but taking away these sorts of freedoms isn't in their interest. There is no benefit to them to do so, or to maintain it. In fact, the opposite is true. Which do you think would benefit the current administration more - the continuation and expansion of exasperating small infringements on the public's freedoms, irritating and goading us into increasing disatisfaction - OR saying "People, sorry about that 'no clustering in front of the can' rule, but we now believe that airborne terrorism is effectiely curtailed, so go ahead and line up to pee. And Fes, go ahead and keep those shoes on." Which would get Bush more votes, more money, more power, do you think?
• While most of us find the anti-queuing directive amusing, it does reveal something about its authors: they've obviously only ever flown first-class.
• One other thing, I'm not sure I understand the precise rationale for the directive. Neither the Guardian not the BBC articles give a clue. If the bathrooms in first-class are near the cockpit, shouldn't the directive only apply there?
• Especially since, when flying Qantas (and most other major airlines), the peanut gallery isn't even allowed to look into Business Class (that darn curtain), let alone enter it.
• A lot of flights don't even have first class anymore. Far more than that, there old school idea of having first class physically (or even imaginatively) separated from the rest of the plane is gone - no curtain, no bulkhead, sometimes even you have to pay for your drinks. It *really* sucks! First class used to kick ASS! Free drinks, all you could hold! Legroom galore. Tons of those blankets for napping. Free headphones. Lunch on a plate. With silverware. And choice of wine. But now? Same as the rabble. It's almost enough to make you take the damnable train.
• But what does it benefit them to do so? You're missing the forest for the trees. Of course this particular bit of idiocy doesn't directly benefit them; what does is the climate of fear they've been assiduously propagating since Sept. 11. "Threat levels" go up and down, people have to show ID everywhere (even in my goddam office building, and I think ad agencies are pretty far down on the list of al-Qa'eda targets), they're taking fingerprints from everybody who comes within reach, all in the name of "national security." What it all means is that they have more and more of a free hand, which means more power, which is what all politicians crave. I'm glad to hear you're suspicious of politicians, but you need to crank it up a notch.
• See, I don't see that. OK, I'll cencede that creating a climate of fear like you describe might be thought of as precursor to consolidating federal power. But there are several problems with the idea. First, I've met dozens of politicians, at all levels of government from Senators to local city councilmen (used to be a newspaper reporter) and they just simply are not that effectively Machiavellian. Occasionally you'll get one that has some potential for real Dobleresque instigation, but they are a rarity. Organized Machiavellianism on the scale we're talking here seems like it would be near impossible. With a king and court? Sure, 2-3 people. But we're talking scores here. No way. Second: The temporary nature of political power in this country precludes long-term consolidation of power amongst a select few. The only way that this makes sense long-term is if the other side is in on the scam too! Lastly, a more philosophical point, but one I think is true: Americans have never lived under true tyranny, never have lived in constant fear. We simply don't know HOW to do it - our attention spans are too short, our experience with it nonexistent, out population to politically diverse and our governmental systems too designed to keep fresh people moving in and out. Americans will, over time, ALWAYS trade safety for freedom, because for lack of a better term we simply don't know any better. Which results in that, these little abrogations, do they tend to add up? Sure - until someone comes along and tips the scales back the other way. Our country is FAR too politically diverse, and the reins of power are (relatively speaking) far too easy for outsiders toi take and/or influence, for a tyrant to really get a foothold. In the meantime, things like wildly fluctuating threat levels and potty-chair queue bans result in (a) boy-who-cried-wolf syndrome - does anyone really apy attention to whether the threat level is puce, magenta or mint anymore? and (b) another brick of irritation onto a barrowload that will, without a doubt, eventually topple onto the loader. As for your office building taking fingerprints, that news to me. Mine issued ID cards, and hasn't checked them since. I use mine for a bookmark. And I'm in bazooka range of a federal building. YMMV, I suppose.
• Wow! Nice anti-paranoia-over-government rant, Fes.
• I sure hope you're right, Fes! As for the fingerprints, in my haste to rant I seem to have expressed myself badly. The fingerprints were a separate complaint (I'm thinking of the incoming-foreigners thing); in my building they just make us swipe our ID cards so they can see our pictures come up on the screen. Of course, most of the time they don't bother to check, and when I'm feeling rebellious I enter the building through Teresa's Deli (where you also swipe but nobody can check you, plus you can go in with somebody else if you really want to Stick It to the Man), but still, what a crock. And I don't think they're going to recall the cards and fire the security staff if and when the "crisis" subsides. But I agree it's a minor nuisance, all things considered.
• "A mother's enquiry about buying Microsoft Flight Simulator for her ten-year-old son prompted a night-time visit to her home from a state trooper."
• That link speaks more about the culture of fear that reigns in the US from several decades back than the intentions of this particular administration. Thanks homunculus!
• Well, it sounds like the state troopers got a tip, checked it out, and found it to be unfounded. Nary a truncheon in sight. Taken as evidence that America is on the greased rail to totalitarianism, it lacks, I don't know, something :)
• I submit it as evidence that fear often leads to silliness, and I agree that it is not proof of encroaching totalitarianism, and neither is the ban on congregating near airplane bathrooms. I am a bit spooked by the new FBI surveillance powers though, mainly because of how they bypass the courts.
• This is what real totalitarianism looks like: Police Raid China Newspaper That Reported New SARS Case
• homunculus,you seem to have been deleted from warfilter, and the whole thing seems to be dead again. Do you know if warfilter is finally defunct dead? It'd be a shame if it is.
• Yeah, it broke again and I gave up on it. I had hoped the warfilter posts from MeFi would migrate there, but it never happened.
• Nude Man Shows Up At Airport Security Checkpoint
• Don't make fun of this homunculus. One day a terrorist will pull a wooden knife out of his ass during a flight and, after that, all security checkpoints will require nude, full cavity searches on everyone.
• Is it National Knee Jerk Reaction Day today? Not to depart from the important discussion of full cavity searches, but can anyone tell me when NKJR Day is? Because I want to take that day off. I'd also like to take National Full Cavity Search for Everyone Day too, please.