Well, you probably haven't read my other postings on this topic, because by and large, we seem to be agreeing furiously. I won't repeat my arguments, because for some strange reason, pointing out how security could be improved seems to irritate people. <img src="images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" /> But you can always do a search if you're desperately curious.

The only two places we may disagree are:

1. I disagree that the airlines are at fault (at least, not entirely). They're trying to run a business; most of them are losing millions and the last thing they want to do is drive away customers. If they're to blame at all, it's because (like most businesses, even today) they refused to consider security an important issue until it was too late. I've posted several times how security could be improved, but the reality is, no airline could adopt those alternative measures without government support, nor could they simply choose to abolish the onerous screening measures currently in place.

2. I won't put myself at added risk out of personal spite or misplaced fear. (I can't say for sure whether you agree or disagree with this position, though.) Besides, the last time I drove to England, it took 17 days, it was a [censored] trying to find a hotel once I got past Newfoundland, I ran out of gas south of Iceland, and when I got out to hitchhike I stepped in the Atlantic and almost drowned. ;-)

(yes, that's sarcasm, in case anyone was wondering) <img src="images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

And my apologies for aiding and abetting the thread drift <img src="images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />