I agree that those currently in power want to increase the power to search, and to reduce the amount of civil liberties ("for the bad guys", natch)-- but they've wanted these things for decades, perhaps longer. The WoT is an excuse, though a mighty good one.
    Does the administration want an isolationist policy? Hardly, especially when it comes to business. Bush and crew picked a fight on immigration, for instance, that they didn't have to, and have backed down to businesses- shipping in particular- whenever security concerns threatened to increase regulation or oversight. Remember, this is the same group that told us to buy more to show the terrorists a lesson. They're trying to have it both ways, and surprisingly enough, it isn't working.
    What Bush, Cheney and the rest do want, though, is a belligerent foreign policy, and that's why they need to up the fear, and maintain a constant reminder of a very minor threat every time you fly. Iraq has been enough to chew on, yet these dopes are still breaching the notion of a war with Iran. This kind of talk would be even less popular than it is (if you can imagine that) without the atmosphere of fear that you mention. Of course, this has mostly backfired, because it was badly executed (Bush is a really bad politician, y'know?), but I wouldn't confuse ability with intent.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

Actually, I tend to accept that people do have a right to body piercing, on the principle that you are the owner of your own body, and can do pretty much what you like with it (although the War on Drugs would suggest otherwise).  But if your piercings are going to set off metal-detectors, and if you want to travel by air, then you have to expect that some inconvenience and even embarrassment are going to result.  So in many cases it is simply more practical to refrain from such piercings.  If the piercing is more important to you than the inconvenience, then go ahead.  No one is stopping you.  I would never support anti-piercing legislation, although I also would never wish to be pierced.  I prefer to keep my skin intact.

 But if your piercings are going to set off metal-detectors, and if you want to travel by air, then you have to expect that some inconvenience and even embarrassment are going to result

Depending on the type of detector -- it alerts on my belt, the eylets in my shoes, coins in my pants pocket, the chewing gum wrapper in my shirt pocket.

Meanwhile -- the plastic, glass or ceramic honed knife I have (theoretically) placed along my spine not only passes through all detectors, but will be missed by nearly all pat down searches as well.

Clearly the world is going to hell in a handbasket when Jimmy Havok and I not only agree, but strongly agree. Having metal on your person isn't indicative that you are a terrorist. Moreover - the ability to sneak weapons of all kinds through the magic machine aka the x-ray scanner is a known fact. Its not theory that the overwhelming majority of scans fail to pick up test weapons.

How would you feel if passengers were subjected to breathalyzer tests before boarding on the grounds that alcohol inebration has some loose correlation with inflight distrubances?

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

Not only that, even if you do not smuggle your non-metallic, glass and ceramic knife onto the plane, your expertise in kung fu is still enough to enable you to overpower the other passengers and to take over the plane for your nefarious purposes.  So there is no safety.

However, there is still SOME reason to use metal detectors.  Metal weapons such as guns and knives are much more abundant and easily obtained than those sneaky glass and ceramic knives that you theoretically can smuggle past the metal detectors.  We are at least creating some complications in the plans of potential terrorists.  This will weed out the lazy ones, and make air travel at least somewhat safer.

The time may come when more serious measures will be taken.  Possibly all civilian aircraft will be grounded permanently.  There are good environmental reasons to do that, even if the security motive is not enough.  Dirigibles are safer (if you avoid the dangerous aluminum paint on the outside and hydrogen gas on the inside, which doomed the Hindenburg).  They do not adapt well for kamikaze strikes.

However, there is still SOME reason to use metal detectors.  Metal weapons such as guns and knives are much more abundant and easily obtained than those sneaky glass and ceramic knives that you theoretically can smuggle past the metal detectors.  We are at least creating some complications in the plans of potential terrorists.  This will weed out the lazy ones, and make air travel at least somewhat safer.

When we use terms like abundant/scarce it is always in reference to a certain set or subset. The subset you seem to be using in support of the TSA threat mitigation strategy is "subset of weapons containing metal" and saying that this subset is sufficiently representative of airline weapon threats (the superset) that (and here comes the disconnect) scanning for items containing metal is a worthwhile endeavour.

Its important to note however (damn critical to note) that "items containing metal" is a giant superset -- of which metal weapons is an extremely small sub-set. Metal weapons are scarce relative to metal belt buckles, metal nipple rings, metal implants, metal gum wrappers and so on. In the context of an airport, this scarcity is even more aggravated --i.e the proportion of weapons to everyday items goes from scarce to rare. In fact --weapons are so rare at airports that when our "red team" pretend bad guys try to smuggle them through, they nearly always get away with it because the TSA has become desensitized to 'metal alerts'.

 Think of it this way -- lets say for the sake of argument most weapons were made out of cotton (perhaps terrorists have a thing for strangulation with rope), do you think an effective filter would be to create a scanner which detected cotton?

The point is not that your average weapon is made of metal, the point is that your average consumer personal item in the 21st century is also made of metal. Searching people for metal items has limited utility value because there isn't a strong enough correlation between the detection of metal and the detection of a weapon.

Meanwhile (going back to my original point) you have created this mental model where weapon == metal weapon. Thereby creating this security window for other weapons (those deadly cotton ropes) to be brought through without any scrutiny.

Consider further this concept: the military flies planes all the time with weapons on board airplanes; if access to weapons was the criteria for airline terrorism, logically the place we should concentrate the most attention on is military flights and their passengers.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

I routinely carry metal objects with me all the time.  These include such things as my keys, my wristwatch, coins, and a pen.  However, all of these objects are easily removable, they are not attached to my body.  I can pass through a metal detector without setting it off and without any great inconvenience, by placing these metal objects in a tray.  My belt buckle is only slightly more inconvenient, if I need to remove it, and my pants do not immediately fall down if they are not held up by a belt.  Those who wear such decorations as nipple rings that are attached in such a way that they cannot easily be removed,  suffer inconvenience in terms of getting through metal detectors, but it seems justifiable (although rudeness by security guards is not).

As you say, there are lots of metallic objects that aren't weapons, and lots of weapons that aren't metallic, so the usefulness of a metal detector is very limited.  But even so, it is not an unreasonable precaution to use them.  We know that it doesn't provide anything resembling complete security, but it does help to some extent.  And it causes some inconvenience.  Realistically, air travelers are going to face some inconvenience, as a result of the world's political situation, in which there are substantial numbers of people who would like to board airplanes for the purpose of committing crimes such as hijacking, sabotage, or kamikaze attacks on buildings.  In a world populated by peaceful and honest people who have no wish to do harm to their fellow human beings, we could dispense with all security screening.  It seems unlikely that we will ever live in such an idyllic world.

I believe that it is feasible to design a nipple ring which is easily removable - after all, they've done it for earrings.  It is also feasible to make nipple rings which do not set off metal detectors, because they are made of some non-metallic material, perhaps a nice carbon fiber epoxy composite.  Technically the problem is solvable.  That seems to be more useful than giving up metal detectors.

There is a serious disconnect here between what you perceive as threat and valid threat mitigation.

You say:

As you say, there are lots of metallic objects that aren't weapons, and lots of weapons that aren't metallic, so the usefulness of a metal detector is very limited.  But even so, it is not an unreasonable precaution to use them.

then you go on to say:

I believe that it is feasible to design a nipple ring which is easily removable - after all, they've done it for earrings.  It is also feasible to make nipple rings which do not set off metal detectors, because they are made of some non-metallic material, perhaps a nice carbon fiber epoxy composite

The conclusion being: nipple rings will change to pass through airport security metal detectors, but weapons won't.

This whole debate of course ignores the massive point that plans to blow up airlines tend not to involve metal weapons, but rather liquid ones - detonated with modified AA bateries. So basically we are scanning for metal (in an attempt to look for weapons) where metal weapons are not the primary threat to airlines.

Let me try again with another scenario: say you had an arson alarm system which sounded an alert each time its indicators detected signs of fire. The alarm goes off thousands of times per day and the overwhelming majority of the time not only is there no fire but more importantly no arsonist. Would you still hold to the idea that using such a system is useful? If so-- what is it useful for?

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

It's very interesting that you give the example of an arson alarm system that goes off thousands of times a day, and in the majority of cases there is no arsonist and no fire, asking if such a system is useful.  But we have such devices, they are called smoke detectors.  People do put them in their homes, even though in my experience there are a lot more false alarms coming from smoke detectors (usually because someone has burned their toast or has had comparable cooking mishaps short of an actual fire) than useful alarms.  Yet fire departments still insist that smoke detectors are a good idea, and there are enough cases of people being alerted to actual fires, to confirm the usefulness of the smoke detector.

It would be very nice if we could have alarm systems that are 100% accurate, that only go off when there is a real problem, never giving a false alarm.  Or for that matter, even a 50% accurate system would be nice.  But for some situations, even a system that is inaccurate more often than it is accurate is still of some use.  It is better to have to deal with the smoke detector that is set off when you burn your toast, than to have no protection in the event of an actual fire that might start at a time when you are asleep and might not wake up until it is too late and you are overcome by toxic smoke.  It would be very nice to have a metal detector that ONLY reacts to metal weapons, never to nipple rings, and if we ever figure out how to build such things, presumably we will; until then, we do the best we can.

There are at this time literally billions of metal weapons (mostly guns and knives)in the world, they are extremely abundant, so it is very easy for criminals to obtain them.  There are relatively few non-metallic weapons, or at least, few of comparable lethality.  In a sense, anything can be a weapon.  You can still hit someone over the head with a rock.  But if someone armed with a rock is faced with someone else who is armed with a gun, we can expect that the gun will prove more effective.  So yes, people can make non-metallic weapons if they want to, just as they could make non-metallic nipple rings if they want to.  The point of the metal detector is not that it perfectly prevents crime or terrorism,  merely that it makes it a bit more difficult.  I really do not think that the inconvenience potentially caused for travelers who want to wear a stainless steel nipple ring that is installed in such a way that it cannot easily be removed, is more important than the contribution to security, limited though that contribution is, made by the metal detector.

Your smoke alarm goes off a thousand times a day? Maybe I need to check the batteries on mine, the last time it went off the house was full of smoke.

No, not a thousand times a day.  But it is nonetheless true that I have seen tremendously more false alarms than correct alarms coming from smoke detectors.  

We have a bunch of smoke detectors at the place where I work...we had a brand that was going off at random, and so people would pull the battery out, and we'd notice during inspections.

In the end we threw them away and bought a different brand.

Exactly.

For an alarm system to give mostly false alarms is perfectly acceptable, because the costs of a missed real alarm are much greater than the costs of a false alarm.  But there is still a level of false alarms over which the best response is to take the batteries out of the smoke detector.

In the past 12 mothns, there were 841,889,099,000 passenger air miles traveled in the US.  At 1.41 traffic fatalities per 100 million miles traveled, that saves 11,800 deaths per year.  If 10% of people drive instead of flying, this causes an additional 1,800 traffic deaths per year.

There were 775,755,000 air trips last year.  If each one took an hour longer due to security, that is 1,106 80-year-lifetimes spent waiting for security last year.

It's time to take the batteries out of the TSA.

It's an interesting argument.  But I don't think that we can quantify the harm done by terrorist attacks against (or using) airplanes, such as the very famous 9/11 attack, solely on the basis of the number of deaths per mile traveled.  I could, for example, count the number of office building destroyed per mile traveled, by air as compared to miles traveled by car.  That yields a different analysis.  But even that is a superficial analysis.  The real consequences go far beyond the number of people killed or the number of office buildings destroyed.  It is not acceptable for us to be in a position of helplessness, in which any lunatic who wants to can kill large numbers of people and/or destroy valuable property in order to make whatever kind of political point he or she wishes to make - despite the fact that such incidents remain relatively rare and most air travel remains safe.

I also believe that people are doing too much traveling and we didn't really need to travel the ridiculous amount of 841,889,099,000 miles in the past 12 month period by air or by any other means.  Clearly, there is always some risk associated with travel, and it seems to me that we are taking on those risks too lightly.  There is also a very substantial environmental cost, both with planes and with cars.  I do think that we should have the opportunity to travel long distances (and I am not arguing for Soviet-style internal passports!) but I also think that it would be more responsible for us to travel less, and to travel when it is truly important to do so, rather than for the trivial reasons which seem to motivate a large proportion of travel.

As for you conclusion that it is time to take the batteries out of the TSA, that sounds extreme - do you prefer no security precautions at all?  But if you want to reform, rather than disband the TSA, I would certainly agree with that.  It does need to be improved.

Yes, I meant that no security precautions would be preferable to the current system.  No, I didn't mean that that would be ideal.  Ideally you would have a smoke alarm which didn't cause pain to your ears every day.

Metal detectors can be set for how much metal to detect.  I can remember walking though them in steel-toed steel shank boots.  Someone decided that it was necessary for our safety to detect the amount of metal in 2 nipple rings.

Clearly the world is going to hell in a handbasket when Jimmy Havok and I not only agree, but strongly agree.

We've been doing so more and more lately.  The Apocalypse is at hand.

But if your piercings are going to set off metal-detectors, and if you want to travel by air, then you have to expect that some inconvenience and even embarrassment are going to result.  So in many cases it is simply more practical to refrain from such piercings.

But if your choice of music is going to set off the security apparatus, and if you want to travel by air, then you have to expect that some inconvenience and even embarrassment are going to result.  So in many cases it is simply more practical to refrain from such music.

But if your political opinions are going to set off the security apparatus, and if you want to travel by air, then you have to expect that some inconvenience and even embarrassment are going to result.  So in many cases it is simply more practical to refrain from such opinions.

That is a somewhat strange comment.  Even though it is true that some people would like to be able to control other people's musical and political opinions, there is no way to exclude people from airplanes on the basis of those opinions, neither of which would even be known unless the passengers filled out a survey, and even then, they could easily lie of they wanted to.

Opinions don't set off metal detectors, but body decorations can, and so, there is some merit in using only those decorations which can be removed fairly easily if it is necessary to do so.

Metal detectors fail to detect all sorts of dangerous things.  But they do detect SOME things that are dangerous to take on planes.  They do serve some function.

there is no way to exclude people from airplanes on the basis of those opinions

Perhaps you remember this.  Granted, it happened in England, the it's the same sort of security regime.

Or perhaps you'd like to say something in the airport about how stupid the security regulations are.

Or perhaps you'd like to talk to some of the people on the No Fly List.

they could easily lie of they wanted to.

The point of freedom of speech (it's in the Constitution) is that you don't need to lie about your opinions.

Of course, you could choose to announce your opinions, and if you do, someone might object to them, and of course, legally you have the right to your opinions and the right to express your opinions, none of which is actually relevant to the issue which we are supposedly discussing, which is whether it is reasonable to require people to be able to pass through a metal detector without setting it off.  

You seem to be concerned that the government, rather than trying to improve security on airplanes, is actually plotting t prevent people from getting body piercings, which is a bit far-fetched.  While I would agree that George W. Bush probably disapproves of body piercing and wouldn't want his daughters to get any, I don't think that the whole war on terror is being manipulated for that end.

So according to you, first the government takes away your right to pierce your body, and then they will interfere with your choice of music and your political opinions, all in the name of airport security.  I don't think that we can draw any meaningful connection between a person's taste in music and their propensity toward terrorism, even though there undoubtedly is some music which deals with the topic of terrorism.  But people can listen to such music for a variety of reasons.  Music is not a cause of terrorism (although the Taliban did ban music from Afghanistan, when they were in power).

Political opinions are another matter.  There actually are some political opinions which are likely to be held by terrorists.  If you believe that the decadent Western world is an offense in the sight of Allah and must be destroyed, that is the kind of opinion which would make you an undesirable person to have on board an airplane.  Chances are, if that was indeed your opinion, you would be sneaky enough that you would not announce it on your T-shirt.

But what if there was a way to find out what people's opinions really are?  Let us say, a telepathy machine is invented that can actually read people's thoughts in detail, not just their superficial train of thought, but their true beliefs as well.  If such a device existed it could certainly be subjected to abuse.  We could imagine some horrible Orwellian dystopia, in which only loyal Republicans are allowed to board airplanes (which might be the least of the abuses that would flow from such technology in the wrong hands).  However, this could also quite legitimately be a tremendously good security device.  If we set it ONLY to register whether any passenger seeking to board a plane has the intention of committing an act of violence on the plane, then we could screen out all terrorists with perfect accuracy.  No other tests would be needed; metal detectors would be superfluous.  This would seem to be a good thing.  But it is purely theoretical, since no such machine exists or is likely to exist in the near future at least.  

There could, of course, be other, less sophisticated means of discovering people's opinions, beside asking them to fill out a survey.  I can easily imagine that George W. Bush will declare martial law, cancel the 2008 elections and dismiss the Congress and the Supreme Court so that he can do whatever he likes in the name of national security.  Then he could nationalize all airlines and airplanes and create his own requirements for air travel.  Perhaps he would require that only registered Republicans could travel by air, and even then, only if they had donated at least a thousand dollars to the Republican Party (although the Republican Party wouldn't actually need campaign contributions after elections themselves are eliminated, but presumably Bush can find other uses for the money).  If this is not sufficiently draconian, he might require a full investigation by the FBI of all people wishing to travel by air for any reason.  He might send all such applicants to a special interrogation center in Guantanamo Bay to be interrogated for a month, although of course, if he does go to such extremes, no one will even attempt to buy plane tickets anymore, it wouldn't be worth the trouble.

And yes, air travel security has often been handled in a clumsy, inefficient, and even stupid manner.  Does this mean therefore that we should no longer ask people to pass through metal detectors?  I don't think so.  The idea that people could be carrying any kind of weapon they like, without even the most cursory effort being made to detect such weapons, seems ridiculous in the age of terrorism.  I would much rather bring an end to all air travel than allow it to continue in a manner that is conducive to more attacks of the 9/11 variety.  We need to have a more intelligently and consistently run security system, not to abandon the whole idea of security on planes.

Similarly, the no-fly list has obviously been mishandled as well, and I would even say that the idea of a no-fly list seems to be fundamental wrong.  If people are known criminals, they should be arrested, and if they are not, then there is no reason to keep them off airplanes.  (This also does not mean that anyone who is not a known criminal should be allowed to enter the US; there are other immigration or visa requirements which are relevant, but even so, such decisions should not be handled in the form of a no-fly list.)  Again, you present this as if it has some relevance to the issue of whether people should be required to pass through metal detectors or should be allowed to attach metal objects to their skin in such a way that they cannot easily be removed.   These issues are not actually related.  We can get rid of the no-fly list and still pass people through metal detectors.

It is unfortunately true that in the age of terrorism, there is a tendency toward paranoia.  Terrorists have demonstrated an ability to disguise themselves as ordinary travelers and to do tremendous harm to the public, in pursuit of their political or religious obsessions.  It is a dangerous world.  As a result, honest people are now subjected to high levels of suspicion, which is unfortunate, although it is far from the most unfortunate consequence of global terrorism.  This is the world that we live in.  It would do us no good to pretend that terrorism doesn't exist and that the world is actually a perfectly safe place.  Metal detectors are not an extreme measure.  As I mentioned in one of my other comments, there is no reason why you can't design nipple rings to be removable, or design them to be non-metallic.  Either of those strategies would work without requiring anyone to give up nipple rings, and without requiring airplanes to give up their metal detectors.

You seem to be concerned that the government, rather than trying to improve security on airplanes, is actually plotting t prevent people from getting body piercings, which is a bit far-fetched.  

Please. That in no way resembles my position, and you have lost my respect if you think that it is.

On the other hand, you seem to be saying that any abuse is justifiable in the performance of security theater.  It's been pointed out to you over and over how ineffective the security theater of the TSA is, and you continue to defend the abuses of human rights that it involves.

The sort of opinions that result in abuse from the TSA are not the ones you have cited, but rather, ones like "Standing in line like this is stupid."  But you seem to think that is fine.

Having people pass through metal detectors is a reasonable precaution.  Abusing them because they have nipple piercings is not a reasonable precaution.  Subjecting them to the whims of a completely uncontrolled security force is not a reasonable precaution.

The purpose of security theater is 1) to give people the illusion that something is being done (it seems to have worked on you) and 2) to inure them to abuses against their rights in the name of security.  The TSA is security theater, and this case is a prime example of it.

You have adopted a somewhat extreme position, by claiming that all security precautions taken at airports are not intended in any way to improve actual security (perhaps security is not even possible) but are all merely a sinister plot to deceive the public and to condition people to give up their civil rights (civil rights which include, presumably, the right to wear nipple rings - the very inference that you found to be so objectionable that it harms your respect for me).  Personally I would say that we do not need to go to such extremes.  While it would be (obviously) naive to imagine that the government always has the best interests of the public at heart and acts honestly and appropriately to safeguard them, it would be equally wrong to imagine that the government, like some kind of Stalinist dystopia, cares nothing about the interests of the public but acts only to enforce its own tyranny and megalomania.  The reality would lie somewhere between those extremes.  The government is sometimes but not always corrupt and abusive, and it also is sometimes but not always responsible and helpful.  The government undoubtedly DOES care about the security of air travel and is trying to make it more safe; they also are not above using security-related issues to advance  partisan concerns about holding on to power.

Despite all the elaborate arguments that this issue is generating, I don't think that you & I have very much in the way of substantial disagreement.  You say in your above comment that it is a reasonable precaution to have people pass through metal detectors, but it is not reasonable to abuse people because they wear nipple rings, or to subject people to the whims of a completely uncontrolled security force.  Not only do I agree with those statements, but I haven't actually been arguing for anything else.  I am certainly not in favor and have never been in favor of abusing travelers because they wear nipple rings, nor would I be in favor  of the uncontrolled exercise of power by security forces.  What, then, am I arguing about?  IF we do agree that it is reasonable to pass people through metal detectors (which in itself is a remarkable concession from you, given that you also claim that this is a kind of "security theater" which actually does nothing for anyone's security, and merely creates an illusion that something is being done about security) then if follows that there is a legitimate concern about nipple rings which set off the metal detectors through which people are reasonably asked to pass, and so, it would be prudent for travelers to either refrain from wearing nipple rings, or to be prepared to remove them, or perhaps to wear a different kind of non-metallic nipple rings to facilitate this process.  You cannot on the one hand tell me that it is reasonable to ask people to pass through metal detectors before boarding planes, but also argue that nipple rings which set off the detectors are not legitimately a concern of the security personnel.

At the same time, of course, this is not a license for security personnel to embarrass, sexually harass, physically harm, or otherwise abuse people who are wearing nipple rings or any other unusual form of personal decoration which might set off an alarm.  They should deal with passengers in the most considerate manner that they possibly can.  And passengers in return should be as cooperative as they possibly can.  And thus, with everyone working together for the same objective, of making air travel more safe, it should be possible to deal reasonably with this problem.  

(civil rights which include, presumably, the right to wear nipple rings - the very inference that you found to be so objectionable that it harms your respect for me).

What I found offensive was your gross mischaracterization of my points.  For instance, in that sentence above.

I'm sorry to have offended you.  My characterization of your position was deliberately simplified for metaphorical purposes, I don't expect everything I say to be taken literally.  Nonetheless, I don't think that I have been unfair.  When I originally stated that people wearing nipple rings designed to be difficult to remove should expect to encounter some inconvenience when going through metal detectors at an airport, your response was to state sarcastically that people who like types of music or who have political opinions that are not officially approved should expect to face inconvenience at the airport.  If that is how you see things, then it is logical to infer that you see airport security as a means to control people's opinions and behavior, which could certainly include the behavior of wearing nipple rings, particularly since nipple rings are the specific issue upon which this discussion is based.

You later confirmed my interpretation, in the same comment in which you warned me that I was in danger of losing your respect, when you said that the purpose of airport security was first to create an illusion of security, and secondly, to inure people to the loss of their civil liberties.  Once again, you say that there is an agenda behind security measures which has nothing to do with security, but which is instead designed to control people's lives.  Even though you haven't specifically mentioned a government concern about preventing people from wearing nipple rings, it is nonetheless true that this whole discussion emerges from an incident involving nipple rings.  That is what we are talking about.  You are not literally saying that the government is trying to suppress the wearing of nipple rings, but that is exactly the kind of conclusion which flows from your general statements about government intentions to use security measures to erode civil liberties.  I don't think that I made an unreasonable comment.  Nonetheless it is not my intention to be insulting, and even if I disagree with you at times, I still respect your intelligence and evident sincerity as a participant in these discussions.

If, however, you do not accept this explanation, then I shall resign myself to losing your respect.  Such is life.

Others have covered the issue of security theater quite well in this discussion.  Your replies to them and to me indicate that you are perfectly happy with security theater, believing that humiliating people with body jewelry somehow makes you safer, while ignoring the fact that TSA's so-called security precautions have been tested and failed constantly.  You are the target audience for security theater.

This is a somewhat strange accusation for you to make, since I have already clarified that point very carefully in a previous comment.  I have stated that I am not in any way in favor of any kind of humiliation or abuse of people with body decorations such as nipple rings, and that I would prefer for security personnel to treat such people (and everyone else for that matter) as considerately as possible.  The only extent to which I have expressed my support for the existing security regimen is that I do believe that it is reasonable to pass people through metal detectors - which you have also stated that you believe, somewhat to my surprise - and that people therefore should be prepared to deal with the consequences of having to go through metal detectors.  Those who choose to have pieces of metal permanently (or semi-permanently) affixed to their bodies should realize that those pieces of metal will indeed set of metal detectors, and they should be prepared to deal with that if they want to travel by air.  It's not as if the metal detector comes as a complete surprise to air travelers.  Security concerns are very well publicized.  Guards should be considerate, and passengers should be cooperative, so that working together they can both bring about air travel that is both safe and convenient for everyone.  If you want to carry metal objects on your person, which you are fully entitled to do, you should also be prepared to remove them when you pass through a metal detector.  It can be done (except in some cases of medical implants, in which case you should travel with your medical records).  I would also add that abusive security personnel would be very bad for the airlines who hire them.  Obviously, if you mistreat your customers, you will get less repeat business.  That's in addition to the fact that people do have legal rights that must be respected, even by security guards, who are not above the law.

You have stated mor than once that I am among those who have been deceived by the security theater and the pretence of security, but I have at no time said that I consider air travel to be safe or that the existing security measures are the right ones that we should be taking.  I even explained at some length why I do not agree with the practice of the "no-fly" list.  My defense of (some) existing arrangements has actually never gone beyond the remarks which I have repeated above, in this comment.  

I am going to give you two replies to your comment, because my previous reply would have been longer, but I was interrupted in composing it.

My original comment on this topic was in no way intended to be a comprehensive assessment of the state and quality of air travel security.  I merely wanted to observe that it is foolish for people to think that they can have metal objects permanently attached to their skin and still travel by air without experiencing any complications when they inevitably set off metal detectors.  That is not an unreasonable statement.  I would feel perfectly justified, if I were talking to a person adorned with nipple rings who was also planning to travel by air, in pointing out that some difficulty can be expected as a result.  I would advise such a person to remove the rings before going to the airport.  My advice is not necessarily to leave the rings at home (they might serve some purpose at the intended flight destination) but at least to carry them in a piece of luggage that can either be checked in advance or at least, can be easily inspected if it has to be passed through a metal detector.  That is simply practical advice.  It does not  constitute an endorsement of the entire plan for airport security, or an endorsement of any specific actions that have been taken by security personnel.

It is interesting that you insist (even after I corrected you) in reading such deep political significance into my comments.  I think that to some extent, you need to have people who disagree with you, and if necessary you will invent them.  The very minor (or possibly non-existent) disagreement that we actually have on this issue would not be worth arguing about, except that you seem to be looking for an opportunity to express your vast and comprehensive disapproval and disgust with everything that is currently being done in the name of national security.  Since I have chosen, rather than denouncing the security guards who treated the ring-wearing passengers so badly, to suggest that people wearing rings can also assume some responsibility for this problem, you have elected me to be the target of your disapproval.  For me even to suggest that there are two sides to this issue is unacceptable.  But there are two sides.  However badly the security guards acted, and they did act badly, it remains true that with just a teensy bit of foresight, passengers can avoid these kinds of problems.

There remains another anomaly in your argument which is worth discussing.  If you are going to dismiss everything that is being done in the name of airport security as mere "security theater" or a security sitcom, and you regard it all as being useless, dishonest, and wrong, serving no actual security-related purpose, and being designed for the nefarious purpose of inuring the public to the loss of their civil liberties, why, then, do you also say that it is reasonable to ask people to pass through metal detectors?  Does this serve some purpose?  Surely not!  It's all part of the security sitcom, it's all ridiculous and pointless.  

If you were to actually argue, in line with your other assertions, that people should NOT be asked to pass through metal detectors, we would then actually have something of substance to debate.  As it is, we are having a huge debate about nothing, since I never expressed the opinions which you accuse me of having.

In case you would like to know my actual opinions on the matter, I do not approve of the way airport security is being handled and I also do not approve of how the entire war on terror is being handled, and if it were up to me, I would handle all these things quite differently.  And furthermore, I stopped traveling by air some time ago.  It has been about 16 years since the last time I traveled by air, and I do not expect to do so ever again.  I travel by land, not by air.

I do not wear nipple rings (they wouldn't look good on me, even aside from the fact that I do not enjoy the prospect of puncturing my skin) but I have no objection to people who wear them.  I regard that as a personal choice that people are entitled to make.  And I would even say that yes, depending upon who is wearing them, nipple rings can sometimes create an erotic effect.  I understand their appeal.

I hope that this clears up our current debate.  But I guess we shall see what kind of objections you may still wish to raise.

I travel regularly with my favorite fountain pen.  A number of people who have felt the heft of the thing have mentioned that it could easily be used as a weapon.  Really, all I would need to do is sharpen the tip.  There's never been a single security guard at an airport that has even looked twice at the pen.

Complete security against terrorist acts is an impossibility.  

There's a good book by Ron Suskind, The One Percent Doctrine, that details various terrorist plots that were caught barely in the nick of time.  None of it entailed airline security efforts but the efforts (without torture) of CIA agents working with the intelligence communities throughout various nations.  There's one device Suskind talks about, the size of a spray paint can, which would mix two different gases to create hydrogen cyanide.  Given the size of the device, even with the NYPD doing random checks on people's bags in the subways, it would have been easy to hide inside a coat in winter.

Rather than domestic security, the money would be better spent on embedding more and better CIA agents throughout the Middle East and on hiring people who specialize on Middle Eastern studies to help the CIA.  And, of course, it would help to build up diplomacy with the nations in the Middle East rather than antagonizing them with our actions.

The domestic security thing is nothing but a show.  

Domestic security arrangement may well be less useful than the gathering of foreign intelligence, but there is no reason why we can't have both.  No one ever promised that metal detectors would give us perfect safety, they are merely one precaution that can be taken fairly easily, at the cost of inconveniencing air travelers with steel nipple rings.  That is not unreasonable.