11
Apr
2006
A close friend of mine is a police officer in one of those Minneapolis suburbs that remind one so much of Bettendorf or Pleasant Valley. Not much crime, mostly helping neighbors with accident reports of fender benders, directing traffic at high-school football games, chasing kids home on Saturday nights. A great Midwestern town in which to be a cop.
Recently he has become seriously concerned about the way things are going here in the land of the free and the home of the brave. While flying out of Minneapolis recently he had a remarkable experience: When he got to the security checkpoint he walked right through the metal detector with his shoes on!
The screeners were shocked. Hundreds of passengers had been herded into waiting lines and automatically removed their footwear before submitting to examination by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officials. Those that didn't were met with stern orders to do so. An elderly couple who seemed unfamiliar with air travel in post-9/11 America was barked at by these "federal officers." No assistance was offered by the TSA screeners, only repeated droning to "Hurry up!" This was their routine procedure, and now someone had dared to defy them.
A screener said to him, "Sir, you have to remove your shoes!"
But by then my friend had already seen enough of the abuse they inflicted on those who preceded him. "Excuse me," he asked. "Did I set off the metal detector?"
The screener replied, "No, but you must take off your shoes."
"If I didn't set off the detector, why do you want me to remove my shoes?" he asked politely.
"Just take them off, sir; you're holding up the line," the screener insisted.
"I'm sorry; I'll step out of line," he answered, "but I would like to know why you need me to remove my shoes." My friend the policeman explained that he had bought thin-soled shoes that had no metal to expedite the screening process. He said he had even scanned them at his agency station himself to ensure that there was no metal in them.
That didn't satisfy the TSA man. My friend asked the screener to tell him that a local, state, or federal law requires passengers to remove their shoes. The screener didn't answer.
In fact, the TSA's Web site specifically states that no such law or policy exists. You can see it for yourself at (http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?theme=183&content=09000519800b68b8).
Eventually, the screeners identified my friend as a police officer, and he calmly explained to them that he was indeed deliberately trying to make a point - a Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution point - about unreasonable searches. After all, he didn't set off the metal detector, and there wasn't any reasonable reason to suspect him. He got away with it, and kept his shoes on, but only after a screener wiped them with a chemical swab and tested his laptop computer for explosive chemical residues.
The story raises a question: Do we feel safer because we take our shoes off before we get on an airplane? Surrendering the inalienable rights that hundreds of thousands of American soldiers have died in wars to defend in order to protect us from feeling frightened leaves me feeling, well, a bit frightened.
Our feelings of safety and security, whether national or personal, are at their most basic simply that: our feelings. One either feels safe or not. It's not an abstract concept you could write an equation or put on a graph to explain. We just know it in our gut when we are safe.
So one has to ask: Do we feel safer when the threat level rises from yellow to orange because we hope that somebody somewhere is supposed to be doing something about it? Does that help?
Do we feel safer knowing that the feds can search our homes, bug our phones, and read our e-mail, and we might never even know they have done that? Is this how they protect us? Who is keeping track of them?
Are we unsafe unless everyone thinks and acts just like us? Or can we be just as safe - safer, perhaps - when we preserve the right to express opinions that are different from one another? Aren't we really safer when we have the self-respect to expect respect and give respect to those we don't understand, agree with, or even like? That attitude toward others compels a similar attitude in return.
The critics of differing opinion have turned the once-patriotic model of variety of thought upon its head. Our American tradition is one of expanding the rights and opportunities for more of us to join the conversation and contribute to our collective wisdom. Those who shout down or stifle critical opinions are the real unpatriotic villains of the piece. They should be embarrassed to have caused such a fuss in the first place.
Recently he has become seriously concerned about the way things are going here in the land of the free and the home of the brave. While flying out of Minneapolis recently he had a remarkable experience: When he got to the security checkpoint he walked right through the metal detector with his shoes on!
The screeners were shocked. Hundreds of passengers had been herded into waiting lines and automatically removed their footwear before submitting to examination by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officials. Those that didn't were met with stern orders to do so. An elderly couple who seemed unfamiliar with air travel in post-9/11 America was barked at by these "federal officers." No assistance was offered by the TSA screeners, only repeated droning to "Hurry up!" This was their routine procedure, and now someone had dared to defy them.
A screener said to him, "Sir, you have to remove your shoes!"
But by then my friend had already seen enough of the abuse they inflicted on those who preceded him. "Excuse me," he asked. "Did I set off the metal detector?"
The screener replied, "No, but you must take off your shoes."
"If I didn't set off the detector, why do you want me to remove my shoes?" he asked politely.
"Just take them off, sir; you're holding up the line," the screener insisted.
"I'm sorry; I'll step out of line," he answered, "but I would like to know why you need me to remove my shoes." My friend the policeman explained that he had bought thin-soled shoes that had no metal to expedite the screening process. He said he had even scanned them at his agency station himself to ensure that there was no metal in them.
That didn't satisfy the TSA man. My friend asked the screener to tell him that a local, state, or federal law requires passengers to remove their shoes. The screener didn't answer.
In fact, the TSA's Web site specifically states that no such law or policy exists. You can see it for yourself at (http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?theme=183&content=09000519800b68b8).
Eventually, the screeners identified my friend as a police officer, and he calmly explained to them that he was indeed deliberately trying to make a point - a Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution point - about unreasonable searches. After all, he didn't set off the metal detector, and there wasn't any reasonable reason to suspect him. He got away with it, and kept his shoes on, but only after a screener wiped them with a chemical swab and tested his laptop computer for explosive chemical residues.
The story raises a question: Do we feel safer because we take our shoes off before we get on an airplane? Surrendering the inalienable rights that hundreds of thousands of American soldiers have died in wars to defend in order to protect us from feeling frightened leaves me feeling, well, a bit frightened.
Our feelings of safety and security, whether national or personal, are at their most basic simply that: our feelings. One either feels safe or not. It's not an abstract concept you could write an equation or put on a graph to explain. We just know it in our gut when we are safe.
So one has to ask: Do we feel safer when the threat level rises from yellow to orange because we hope that somebody somewhere is supposed to be doing something about it? Does that help?
Do we feel safer knowing that the feds can search our homes, bug our phones, and read our e-mail, and we might never even know they have done that? Is this how they protect us? Who is keeping track of them?
Are we unsafe unless everyone thinks and acts just like us? Or can we be just as safe - safer, perhaps - when we preserve the right to express opinions that are different from one another? Aren't we really safer when we have the self-respect to expect respect and give respect to those we don't understand, agree with, or even like? That attitude toward others compels a similar attitude in return.
The critics of differing opinion have turned the once-patriotic model of variety of thought upon its head. Our American tradition is one of expanding the rights and opportunities for more of us to join the conversation and contribute to our collective wisdom. Those who shout down or stifle critical opinions are the real unpatriotic villains of the piece. They should be embarrassed to have caused such a fuss in the first place.
