Someone walked the wrong way through a gate at Newark Airport and the Transportation Security Administration shut terminal C down for six hours. Someone put honey in their checked luggage at Bakersfield Airport and TSA shut the airport down for several hours. A dog barked when he sniffed an airline-owned suitcase and TSA evacuated the Minneapolis airport. Meanwhile, a kid in St. Louis loses his Christmas present because it looks a little like plastic explosive.
All of these are overreactions to the "Christmas bomber." As many have pointed out, no one has any idea whether these increased security measures make sense — and many others doubt that they do.
Curiously, the Obama administration has made no secret of the fact that it thinks air travel is environmentally unsound (at least, air travel for everyone else — Obama still flies in his jumbo jets). If the administration wanted to reduce air travel, making it more uncertain through unexpected airport closures would be a powerful way to do it. And one of the biggest arguments made for high-speed rail is that, while slower and far more expensive than flying, at least travelers can avoid having to pass through security (until the first train is bombed).
But there is no real reason why people should have to put up with these lengthy security measures. As an article in the Toronto Star points out, security worries are far greater in Israel than in the U.S., yet screening is much faster and lines much shorter. That's because Israeli security doesn't focus on shoes and toothpaste and laptops, but on evaluating individuals by their behaviors and reactions to simple questions. And if they do find a problem, they don't shut the airport down, but confine it to a secure (and bomb-proof) area.
Read More
