Careful, you're probably on a watch list now though. :)

You might be right, for all I know. That would be damned inconvenient. Knock on wood!

I totally agree. Also, I think maybe you misunderstood. I'm not Pro-TSA, and I do think they go quite overboard and agree this stuff isn't protecting us, plus like we saw the other day, it's only creating lines at security which themselves become a new target.

I didn't think you were pro-TSA, just trying to shore up my point. I'm not aligned with the intent or thrust of this article either, but I can see where the line of thought comes from. Again, to me it seems overly simplistic and as you say naive and idealistic. When I was younger, the idea of taking down the establishment to create something shiny, new and ideal was very appealing, as it is to many young people.

One complaint I do have about our current political system is that real, effective change often takes a long time to accomplish and the length of political terms, while necessary, do sometimes create roadblocks as some politicians jockey for the public's favor by making promises constructed out of half-truths and outright fabrications all while re-framing and twisting issues to divert funds to their own interests.

I don't have any answers, but my observation is that a lot of the time, it's us getting in our own way to the benefit of someone who has their hands on the strings with a much better map of the political landscape. As you say, hijackings have been stopped by the public in the post 9/11 world and it seems to me that real security for the public will come with active public participation rather than making demands of politicians, who are likely to (by necessity or choice) choose the cheapest option, which is bound to under-deliver.