Is a bar of soap okay to carry-on?
in [Airline Travel]
|
Prev: Effect of very long flights
Next: What are Airline Responsibilities for Mentally Disabled, Adult Accompaniment, International Escort and help Clearing Customs?
From: Tchiowa on 10 Apr 2007 20:56 On Apr 10, 7:32 am, BubbaGump <BubbaGump(a)localhost> wrote: > On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 00:12:46 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsma...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > >BubbaGump writes: > > >> It's not human nature unless you're a right-wing conservative. > > >It is consistent irrespective of political leanings. Liberals like to control > >others just as much, they just do it in a different way. Conservatives > >acknowledge that they wish to control, liberals deny it ... but both groups > >want to control. > > Well, of course, if you break down a word to its root meaning then it > can apply to anything and mean nothing. Heightened airport security > restricts our ability to carry things on board and frees out ability > to remain alive. Lowered airport security frees our ability to carry > things on board and restricts our ability to remain alive. > > There is one important difference: choice. I'm not sure if > "conservative" or "liberal" are the right words, but there are two > types of people. One type leans towards restricting the freedom of > the individual because this type thinks they know better, Which is the stance that the Left (or Liberal) in the US takes. (Look at Social Security, government controlled health care, welfare states, "cradle to grave" government support of people, etc.) > while the other leans towards freeing the individual to choose his or own > destiny. Which is the stance of the Right in the US. (individual retirement accounts, minimal welfare, low taxes, etc.) > I would like it if we had the choice of an airline or two > with really low security restrictions. Not me. You're missing one point. You can argue as to whether or not you need a "Nanny" government telling you how to invest for your retirement or controlling what schools you send your children to or telling the schools what curriculum they must have or trying to control your health care. Or you can argue as to whether or not the wealthy should be allowed to "do their own thing" and did the poor cause their own problems and is the government the problem rather than the solution. But those arguments miss one fundamental point. There are people on this planet that simply don't care about any of that. They have a fanatic agenda and they feel that they have the right to murder people of either persuasion (or no persuasion) in order to "prove their point". We *ALL* need to be protected from them. The security we have is a hassle and of limited benefit. But I'd venture to guess that had their been no security at least a dozen planes would have been hijacked or knocked out of the sky in the past couple of years. And I might have been on one of them. Or my children.
From: BubbaGump on 11 Apr 2007 19:38 On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 22:13:15 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote: >DevilsPGD writes: > >> Chances are not, but if you approach them up front and say "is this >> allowed" rather then look like you're sneaking it, the worst that will >> happen is that you'll be asked to discard it. > >If you give someone a chance to impose a restriction, he usually will. It's >human nature. Now I realize why this comment bothered me so much when I read it. It's one of the most short-sighted, unrealistic comments I've ever read. If it were true then the world would not be a mix of democracies and dictatorships nor varying cultural customs towards right and wrong behavior in different circumstances. Even though I generally hate people, in my experience people when given the opportunity to impose a restriction sometimes will and sometimes won't, but predicting when is like predicting the weather. There are trends visible in small spaces for a limited period of time, but it is ultimately chaotic.
From: Mxsmanic on 12 Apr 2007 00:14 BubbaGump writes: > Now I realize why this comment bothered me so much when I read it. > It's one of the most short-sighted, unrealistic comments I've ever > read. I wish that were true. Unfortunately, most people like having control over others to some extent, and will profit from opportunities to impose it. > If it were true then the world would not be a mix of > democracies and dictatorships nor varying cultural customs towards > right and wrong behavior in different circumstances. Dictatorships are the natural tendency of societies. Democracies only exist as long as there is a strong and large-enough group of people within a society who are determined to win and maintain civil liberties. Constant vigilance is necessary, as democracies tend to evolve towards dictatorships, like all other forms of government. People who are truly altruistic enough to not exercise control over others even when they are free to do so are quite rare. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
From: William Black on 12 Apr 2007 05:51 "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:7ccr13pghloi3h26j9qt6ev0afqc89rppe(a)4ax.com... > Dictatorships are the natural tendency of societies. Democracies only > exist > as long as there is a strong and large-enough group of people within a > society > who are determined to win and maintain civil liberties. Constant > vigilance is > necessary, as democracies tend to evolve towards dictatorships, like all > other > forms of government. And yet, in the UK, a representative democracy evolved over a very long period. What representative democracies have 'evolved' into dictatorship? I can only think of a few in the 'thirties and I'd hate to base my world view on post depression Europe... -- William Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea.
From: RPS on 12 Apr 2007 13:11
BubbaGump <BubbaGump(a)localhost> wrote: : Is a normal size bar of soap okay to carry-on in April 2007? I've : been to the TSA web site, and I see the silly 3-oz. restrictions on : toothpaste, shampoo, and even "liquid soaps", but I see no mention of : a plane old bar of soap. : ... : Hotel bars of soap are small, and if they're the wrong brand then they : might irritate my skin. I like my soap. Will I be suspected as a : terrorist if I try to carry-on soap? Rules are enforced unevenly but there's a good chance that a normal bar of soap may not be allowed while the hotel size might be. If you are particular about your soap brands, see if it comes in smaller travel size (stores like Target and Walmart have travel sections). Otherwise just cut your own soap into smaller slices. |