I agree - what's the point of having a democracy if you don't use it?
But to successfully argue for a change, I think you need to have the facts to back up your argument. If you just write to your congressperson or Member of Parliament and say "I think airport security sucks because I can't take my Swiss Army knife in my carry-on baggage" how far will you get? On the other hand, if you say "I think airport security could be greatly improved at far less cost by doing this-n-that" you've at least given him something he can embarass the government with (if he's in opposition) or make the government look good ("You mean we can improve security AND make it more convenient for the public?")
This is the main reason I was disappointed with Chris's decision to shut down the "Security or Pseudo-security" thread after only four postings. I think a healthy debate on the pros and cons of our existing airport security, not to mention coming up with alternatives that might work better, is not a bad idea. Not that I'm faulting Chris, he does a great job and obviously he doesn't want to allow a flame war to start any more than we do. I'm just disappointed, is all.
Anyway, that's my two cents worth. <img src="images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
_________________________
"The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled."
-Plutarch