Yeah, actually, I agree, too.

But if the only two options are for taxpayers to "foot" (hah hah) the bill or for proper protection or for those people who are concerned to provide their own protection, I'd rather everyone provide their own protection.

I think the whole mess is bologna, and I'll complain to my representatives, avoid flying when possible, etc. However, I will have to fly commercially every now and then while this circus is still in town. So in addition to voicing my utter disapproval for these policies, in the instances when I have no choice but to abide by them, I may want something between my feet and the nasty floor.

I see your point.

Besides, if the government has to pick up the tab, we all know that the booties would cost 5-10x the price that we would normally pay for them anyway.

OK, interesting experience at IND today: I used the line with the puffer machine, because a) it was short, and b) I saw a lady go through the WTMD with her flip flops on! :eek:

So I get puffed, then when I reach the WTMD, I'm directed to take off my shoes (after a funny look from me, I did it.) I then watched as others who had non-shoes (like sandals) walk through.

Comments? Is it the TSA using a little common sense again, or is this checkpoint not following its own policies?

Probably both. Common sense is not policy.

When we went to S. Africa in April, I bought a pair of crocheted slippers to wear during the long flight. I had on shoes with a metal button on each one, so I slipped them off and put the crocheted slippers on to go through the metal detector. The TSA guy nodded, and said "that's a GREAT idea". Should I assume he wouldn't think it was such a great idea this week, when we leave for Copenhagen?

TSA has told me that shoes on a baby have to come off now, so it sounds like like an aberation than anything.

That makes about as much sense as when I saw several screeners telling a mother that only one person at a time could go through the WTMD, and that she couldn't carry her baby through the WTMD with her. The folks actually had her hand the Baby through the WTMD to a screener, and then had her walk through seperately. That is idiocy, and from what Bart has said in the past is not policy. What is next, we have to remove the diaper from the baby as we all know what kind of dangerous liquid/gel like material can be hiding in those. And if you check the published rules for monkey screening you have to remove the monkey's diaper, so why not the baby now?

That makes sense, the terrorists who blowing up civilians in Israel routinely use children as suicide bombers.

Personally, I continue to believe that the shoe carnival could be eliminated without any adverse effect on air safety. But if there is going to be a rule, it should be enforced for everyone (unless of course you support profiling ;) )

I would however be curious to know if sufficient explosive gel could be stored in baby shoes. :D

While babies are children, not all children are babies. Haven't yet heard of baby suicide bombers, although I have heard of bombing babies, often by state-actors. :eek:

More gel can be stored in a baby's diaper than in their shoes. And which TSAer is going to volunteer to be a diaper monitor & diaper changer? :eek: Does that require danger pay? :D

You have certainly lived up to your screen name.

I'm trying not to overthink this, but how do I put liquids in my checked baggage if I do not normally check a bag?

And talking about wearing socks under shoes during the shoe carnival.... I'd rather be barefoot, at least I can go into the bathroom and wash my feet (I'd probably get a few wierd looks) but I can't wash the socks and wear them right away. If I wore socks or booties going through security I'd surely throw them right away.

And no one answered my KY question. :(

Nice not so thinly veiled political commentary. The so-called "state actors" are not sending suicide bombers to board airplanes, so that is a non-sequiter to this thread and this forum.

I agree that it is a waste of time to search babies, but it is not wholly irrational to do so given the low value that the terrorist types place on human life - any life - including that of children and other civilians.

Routinely? There were a handful of instances and the youngest was 16. For this our children, let alone babies, should be tormented by the TSA?

Babies can't be screened by the TSA in the same way as children who are older. But similar screening objectives can be accomplished. Hopefully no one is going to suggest that we racist profile babies too. However, even that wouldn't surprise me either. :eek:

I'd hate to think that we are going to profile babies. I would say that I hope terrorists never sink this low, but I know that they would do it if it meant furthering their agendas.

It is sad to think that babies could (or would) be martyred against their will by some sick SOB who loads their diaper with explosives and then detonates it onboard.

The only possible way I see TSA or any airport security being able to fight this is if TSA required parents to change their babies into sterile TSA supplied diapers there at the screening area and supplying them with some for the flight. It is amazing that we are sinking this low as a society.