Nevertheless, some consistancy would be good. I would rather have proactive security than reactive security. The fact is that the gel might not have been gel, nor the toothpaste, toothpaste. The man was not even looking at the X-Ray screen, nor was my bag actually checked. The one agent took my word for it, which seems a bit absurd. My plane DID make it, yes, but do I want to actually rely on that type of insane logic to be on an aircraft with a liquid explosive that was not detected due to neglect? Do I want these planes flying over my home and blowing up in flight? What caused the Air France flight to go down in the Atlantic from Rio to Paris? We may never know, but I would like to think that it had nothing to do with security... or the lack thereof. Flippant replies to a genuine concern are just a reflection of imagined safety because you may fly a lot. All it takes is one bomb to get through on your plane... just one. The fact that a drunk driver may get home safely does not take away the fact that the driver was a real threat to himself or others on the road and was not caught by police. The threat still existed and does not diminish because the threat was not "caught." So, do we just give up on looking for drunks driving because nobody got injured that time or forgo airport security and say that USA security measures are way overboard while the lack of security I saw in Mexico is fine because obviously nothing "happened?" I think not.... Security has to be premptive... and I don't mind a bit of inconvienence to know that at least one threat to my safety is being monitored and my chance of a safe arrival is increased because of that fact.