Terror Plot Triggers Increased Aviation Security.

If you haven't heard by now, (You really need to pay more attention to the news.) there was a foiled terror plot on British flights to the United States. 24 suspects were arrested in England. The plot involved smuggling in explosives in liquids and gels, such as beverages, toothpaste, etc., onto flights and using some electronic device to detonate them.

Consequently, all liquids and gels have been banned on flights in the United States by the TSA, in Britain, and other countries around the globe. That includes beverages including water, deodorant, toothpaste, hair spray, hair gel, suntan lotion, cosmetics, lip balm, contact solution; as well as all blood, water, and other bodily fluids still in your body. All shoes have to be x-rayed now. Furthermore, in Britain flights to the US had all carry-on baggage banned. The only thing allowed was travel documents in a clear plastic bag and medications. Baby formula is allowed, but it has to be tasted in front of inspectors. In Britain, laptops, mobile phones, and mp3 players were banned on flights. The banned items can be put in checked baggage. I don't know about you, but I don't trust the airlines handling my laptop and other electronic devices. If your baggage is lost, you would be out all that data. And what would someone do without there cell phone, they'd be helpless. "Alright, I need to call home. The number is. I don't know." No one knows any phone numbers anymore.

I say why make baby formula an exception? Sure, it will prevent babies from flying, but what's wrong with that? Have you ever enjoyed listening to a baby scream on a flight? Let's at least let a little good come from these tighter security measures and keep babies off planes. More importantly, why would a terrorist care about harming a baby, if they have no problem blowing up a plane full of civilians, men, woman, and children? The exception could prove catastrophic, so get rid of it.

I've come up with a series of draconian security measures in addition to those already in place that will create the most secure flights ever. First of all, let's follow the British's example and have no carry-on, period. No liquids, no gels, no electronics, no books (you could give someone a paper cut), nothing. Why take chances? So what is one to do on the plane? Try watching the in flight movie. Seriously, you'll have to. No headphones will be allowed, because you might be able to stab someone with the jack, so the movies will play out loud. You could sleep, you just won't have any pillows or blankets. Talk to your fellow passengers. Just be sure not to complain or joke about the new security measures, because only terrorists will have a problem with them. You can't say bomb on the airplane, neither can you say suntan lotion, shampoo, any other liquid's name, nor unhappy, "this sucks," or any other words of discontent. You're not a terrorist, are you? You could try reading the in-flight magazine. Actually, that won't be allowed either, just like a book you could give someone a paper cut. Same thing for the safety instructions, which no one actually reads anyways. You'll have to pay attention during the safety demonstration instead of waiting to find out what to do when the emergency actually happens. Actually, those flotation devices will be removed because they're too big a risk, so forget that part.

Furthermore, what you can wear will be restricted. When you get to the airport, open up you bags to be checked, take your shoes off, socks off, jacket off, hat off, etc. And put it all in the bag. You're allowed to wear a swimsuit, and that's it. More skin means less places to hide explosives or other weapons. Now before anyone gets excited, everyone is going to be dressed like that. Young, old, skinny, fat. By the way, you'll also be given a cavity search, just to be one the safe side. Restaurants will still be open past security checkpoints, but remember, "no shoes, no shirt, no service." I feel sorry for people with layovers.

Another option instead of having to wear a swimsuit on your flight is this. When you get to security, you'll enter a changing room, remove all your clothes and throw them away, and be given some underwear, shorts, and a short sleeve T-shirt. All that will of course be built in to the ticket price, so don't worry. After all, you won't be allowed to have your credit card on you. Actually, one credit card will be allowed so you can buy clothing past the checkpoint. And also in case your checked bags are lost, and you're totally screwed.

Now we won't have to worry about any attacks in the passenger cabin. But we still have all the checked baggage. So, we'll just ban checked baggage as well, very simple. Then you won't have to worry about the airlines losing the luggage. How will you travel with anything, you might ask. Well, you won't. When you get to your destination you can buy everything. We will build malls at airports for arriving passengers. Before you throw away your digital camera, mobile phone, laptop computer, and iPod, you'll be given an opportunity to back all your data up on the internet before entering security. This will ensure your safety and stimulate the economy. So that you can afford buying everything from overpriced airport stores, we'll have another tax cut. Now, because the higher your income the more you are likely to fly, the tax cut will of course inversely proportional to your income. So the poor, who can't afford to fly, won't receive anything. It's only fair. Additionally, the lost of checked bags and carry on will make up for the increasing weight of Americans causing increased fuel consumption. A new class will be created, steerage, down in the former baggage compartment of the airplane.

So the good thing is security lines will move fast since people won't have anything to carry on or check? So that means the time between one's flight and check-in time is reduced? You would think so, wouldn't you. And it would, except you'll have to get to the airport 6 hours early? Why's that? Every possible attack from the passenger cabin has not been eliminated yet. This next security measure may seem inconvenient, to say the least, but rest assured it is absolutely necessary to ensure almost but not quite total security. You'll check in and go through security. While going through security you'll be sequestered and given a laxative to make sure you don't try to sneak anything on by swallowing it. You'll also have to throw up, so be sure you eat something before you leave for the airport. (The plus side is you can eat fattening food without worrying about your waistline, since it will be thrown up anyways. )While we're at it, let's just ban the use of the lavatories on board aircraft since there is too much privacy. For that matter, to make sure you don't retrieve any items while in the terminal restrooms, we'll close those to. Don't worry about going to the restroom, you'll be given some Immodium after the security checkpoint.

So that is how we obtain total aviation security. It may seem a bit overboard and inconveniencing, but its the only way. It's only a matter of time before such measures are in place. So, Secretary Chertoff, if you read this blog and take up these measures, all I ask in payment is this, a private jet to avoid the hassle of increased security.

Communism ready to fall in Cuba?

Could we be nearing the end of a Communist Cuba? Could we finally import legally Cuban Cigars again, which hasn't happened since President Kennedy got 1,000 before signing the embargo. Fidel Castro is in the hospital right now, getting the best medical care a communist health care system can provide, no doubt. Wouldn't it be ironic if the only hospital that could save him were Americans? We don't know when Castro will die, but it has too happen eventually, he's not immortal.

But what will happen after he finally does go? Will communism fall. Right now Castro's brother has been put in charge without too much disturbance. The lights are still on in Havana. This does not lend itself as a good sign for the American government. It should be pointed out just because a dictator dies doesn't mean his whole regime will fall. Chairman Mao in China died and China is still communist.

Will and should the US take measures when Castro finally goes to stop a transition of power to Castro's successor? Are we going to launch another Bay of Pigs Invasion, for we will no longer have to keep our promise to Castro no to invade if he's dead. (Made during the resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis.) The US hasn't had the best luck so far at nation building, do we take another stab at liberation or cut our losses. Don't get me wrong, I would like to see communism come to an end in Cuba and democracy prosper. I don't think that establishing democracy there would be as hard as doing it in Iraq or similar nations. Or rather, democracy could take root there, the people wouldn't be hostile to democracy itself, but I don't know if the US can force it on Cuba without resistance. But should we continue our attempts at American Imperialism or liberation? (Maybe we could turn Cuba back into a playground for the rich.) Just what we need in the eyes of the rest of the world is another invasion. And we would be reinforcing that view that nations without nuclear arms get invaded, those with them don't. Although we don't want to have another half a century with Cuba under communist control.

If Castro's brother does take over successfully, and we don't take the military option, do we persist with the embargo for who knows how many more years? One has to wonder how much of Cuba's problems are from communism and how much are from the US embargo. Or do we try what we are doing with China and open up in trade in hope that capitalizing will lead to democratizing? I personally don't think after Castro goes we should hold the same course. The whole point was that the embargo would lead to communism falling, and if it doesn't happen when Castro dies it probably means it's not going to work.

Relatively, Castro seems to be insignificant in light of the other Axis of Evil powers, Iran and North Korea. He doesn't have any weapons of mass destructions under construction. I'd take this benign communist leader over a Islamic extremist government or stark totalitarian communist regime.(Although I am no fan of Castro nor communism, Castro had tried to run for election legally but the US backed former President Batista who took over before the elections. He was left with seemingly no other choice but to take over more aggressively. However, once he did defeat Batista he could have returned Cuba to democracy, but he did not. So it is partially the US's fault for the situation there.) The people in Cuba have food, those in North Korea don't.

Don't you wish we could go back to the good old days of the Cold War, when we were under a constant threat of utter world annihilation less than an hour away but where it was tacitly understood that those weapons wouldn't be used because of that same threat? (known as Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)) When we easily knew who our enemy was? (a stereotypical Russian versus a stereotypical Arab) You never know how good you had it until you lost it. Cuba was getting missiles, we quarantine them, cut a deal with the Soviets who pull them out and reign Castro in. If only we could do that now with North Korea and Iran and settle the whole matter in thirteen days. Hey, there's an idea. Let's quarantine Iran. We could say they have bird flu.