How Much Is Too Much?

Society always exists in a tug-of-war between security and liberty. The line shifts from nation to nation, society to society, and time to time.

In the United States, we have always drawn that line much closer to liberty than to security. We have always considered it more important to be free than to be safe.

Since September 11, 2001, however, that line seems to have been moving closer and closer to security and farther and farther away from liberty. I could multiply examples, but allow me to use just one: the airport.

Since the terrorist crimes of September 11, 2001, Americans have been willing to submit to ever greater intrustions into their liberty in order to increase their security. We have submitted, sheep-like, to standing in lines, to walking through machines, to emptying our pockets, to taking off our shoes (and, in my case, sometimes even my shirt), to the sullen stares of government agents eyeing us suspiciously and ordering us around.

I understand the fear. I understand the yearning to be able to simply fly from one place to the other, to visit family, or take a vacation, or conduct business, without the worry that you will die in a fiery explosion at 30,000 feet.

But, I wonder two things. First, does it really make us safer, or does it just make us feel safer?

We struggle to make sure no one gets a bomb on a plane. After all, the Locherbie terrorists used a bomb on the Pan Am flight they blew up. But, the September 11th hijackers didn't use a bomb. They overpowered the crews of their planes with box cutters. So, we try to keep bombs and box cutters off the planes, but they sneak them on in their sneakers. So, we make everyone take off their shoes and walk bare-foot through the metal detectors while some government agent examines our shoes on an x-ray machine. And so someone puts the bomb, not in his shoes, but in his underpants. They make bombs out of liquids, so they won't let us take liquids on the plane. So, they make the bomb out of powder. Now we can't take powder on the plane. But, there are people trained to kill with their bare hands? What if one of them kills a stewardess and overpowers the flight crew? Will we consent to being shackled to our seats during the flight?

And, why just planes? There are lots of trains or theaters or malls where a bomb that was made out of metal that never had to go through any security at all could kill at least as many people as are on your average jet liner. What will we do when a terrorist blows himself up with a bomb in his underwear in a movie theater? Submit to a strip search so we can watch a movie?

Do we really think we can keep ahead of large groups of people who are willing to die in order to kill us?

I don't know if it really makes us safer. I'll leave that question to be debated by the experts. But, I wonder.

The second thing I wonder about is, when is enough enough? When is it too much?

I hear that air lines either have decided to impose or have actually imposed a rule that you can't have anything on your lap or go to the air plane's rest room during the last hour of a flight.

Really? Really! I can't read my book during the last hour of my flight? If I have to go to the bathroom during the last hour of my flight, I just have to sit in my seat and wet my pants? Really?!

I know this: I already avoid flying whenever I possibly can, because I detest submitting to the humiliating treatment one must undergo to get on an air plane. I'm toying with the fantasy of defying authority by holding my paper back copy of 1984 right up next to my crotch during the last hour of the next flight I can't avoid and daring the stewardess to take it away from me.

I know how to make air flight perfectly safe. You do, too. Every passenger must submit to a strip search, complete with body cavity examinations, and then fly naked chained hand and foot to their seats. Our physical safety, at least, would be secured. I don't think I'm going to agree to that, though. How about you?

So, taking a deep breath and trying to think reasonably, what ever happened to the idea of allowing American citizens to submit to thorough background checks which, if passed, would entitle the citizen to a security card that would allow them to pass through airport security with a minimum of screening? I'm pretty sure, if the FBI were to check me out as carefully as they possibly could, they'd decide that I'm really not going to blow up a plane.

So, what ever happened to that idea?

It Would Cost Money to Save Lives, So, We Shouldn't Do It

Things that make you go, "Huh?"

The Environmental Protection Agency has made a finding that there is "compelling scientific evidence that global warming from manmade greenhouse gases endangers Americans' health." Austin American-Statesman, December 8, 2009, Kindle Version.

The finding opens the way for the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases.

Now, I think this is a no-brainer. It seems to me obvious that there is "compelling scientific evidence." However, clearly, reasonable, good-hearted, intelligent people could disagree on the point, and many do.

That disagreement, however, is different from the response of U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Did they disagree with the conclusion that there was "compelling scientific evidence" that Americans' health was being hurt by manmade greenhouse gases? No. That was not their response. Their response was - it's going to cost money to reduce greenhouse gases, therefore we shouldn't do it, the health of Americans be damned.

Actually, the precise words were, "'It will choke off growth by addding new mandates to virtually every major construction and renovation project,' said Thomas Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ... ."

Um. Okay. So do fire codes. If we didn't have to build buildings with two exits so people could escape in case of fire, they'd be cheaper. Explain that to the people who were burned to death in the Lame Horse nightclub fire in Russia. "Hey! It's okay you were roasted! The building was cheaper! Get it?"

So do other kinds of health rules for buildings. If we could use asbestos insulation in buildings, they'd be cheaper. Everyone would get asbestosis, but the buildings would be cheaper, don't you know?

Or electrical codes. Or plumbing codes. Or lighting codes. Or elevator safety codes. Gee, buildings would be so much cheaper if we just didn't have all these pesky codes protecting people, of all things. I mean, what do people matter when you're talking construction costs? First things first, you know?

Fine, argue with me about whether the world needs saving from global warming. I don't think there's much to argue about there, but at least we can have a principled argument. But, when you start in that it will cost too much to save the world, I'm getting off your train. I'm not going there.

And, the fact that, for some reason, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce thinks there are Americans who will agree - it just costs too much to save humanity - is deeply troubling.