Is that a sarcastic OBVIOUSLY?

Why don't you check into Blackburn's background Jeff? Maybe you can get the media to join you in another unsubstantiated witch hunt on his education credentials, like you did with Guergis.

You are being a little disingenuous when you equate successful efforts to get glassware, paintings and a clock through to the destination with Blackburn's efforts to get a bottle of alcohol on board.

I see…..

You are, of course, free to set a higher standard for yourself. Then, if nothing else, you can't be accused of hypocritical behaviour when you call out the MSM for their shoddiness.

Not ignoring you….we all have lives to live away from ID, AND your question required some pondering.

I will reiterate my suggestion that we can at least try to demonstrate the types of behaviours that we expect. This may not have a direct, immediate effect, since it seems very doubtful to me that the macleans contributors read each and every comment that gets posted, and those that they do read probably get a quick read. Influencing our fellow commenters is a bit less direct, but could have some results.

As well, if you come across examples that you believe are particularly troubling, I believe that there are other methods of providing feedback to macleans available. Those other methods are going to require more effort on your part, but I think that you stand a better chance of receiving a reply.

Glad that you will join me in trying to not lower our own standards.

Good luck!!

I'm not sure it makes sense to allow someone to bring their own bottle and then pass it to them when they board. It's still their own bottle that they brought with them from God knows where after doing God knows what to it.

The point about the duty free bottle is that they know it's going straight from the duty free shop in the airport on to the plane and no one who doesn't work for the airport is touching it in between (at least, that's always been my understanding). It's not some random bottle brought in from outside the airport by a private citizen. Filling a bottle of Tequila with liquid explosives and then re-sealing the top is one thing, filling a bottle of Tequila with liquid explosives and then re-sealing the top, smuggling the bottle in to a liquor shipment to the duty free shop, then going to the duty free shop and making sure you buy the exact bottle you slipped into their supply chain is, (at least slightly) more complicated.

Never been on an airplane when someone acts unruly after consuming too much liquor and refuses to sit down for landing, or gets aggressive when he/she is cut off?

Do you ever smuggle your own soft drinks and popcorn into the discount movie theatre? The ticket prices are low because they make their money on the concession booth sales.

Not all rules/restrictions are 9/11 based.

Good points all 'round, LKO. A few pessimistic notes:

I'd say that if the terrorists were simply concerned with killing people, there are better ways to do that than by hijacking an airplane. A Timothy McVeigh fertiliser bomb, for instance, appealed to the Toronto cell. What terrorists want is drama, either a devastating explosion (like you get from using a hijacked plane's fuel tanks as a cruise missile) or a hostage crisis, or what have you. Something Geraldo can cover.

Also, the volume restriction makes no sense. If you bring a few 100ml bottles, you could try combining them into one 500ml bottle, of a size that could take the plane down.

Finally, there is the threat of plastic explosive, as with the shoe bomber and the undie bomber. The only defense against that is getting all the passengers to strip naked before boarding the plane. As it is, perhaps we are safe against mentally slow terrorists like the shoe bomber and the undie bomber, i.e. guys who are too stupid to figure out how to carry through with their attacks, or who panic. But there is no safety against well-planned, semi-professional attacks like 9/11. We are very fortunate that a terrorist of the calibre of Mohammed Atta has not come forward. It seems that Al-Qaeda's chief weakness is a lack of talent, especially given that in suicide attacks it's all one-off talent.

The bottom line seems to me to be that we could eliminate security checks completely and flying would still be safer than driving.

Very good points, LKO. Consider me convinced.

Jack, I'm not disagreeing with you that our current system is flawed, but you are wrong in stating that prorogation has only been "abused" by Harper. That is a matter of opinon,nothing more, nothing less. Prime Ministers of the past have used it and have used it more than once.

But if you, and so many others, are concerned of too much power in the hands of the PM or PMO then why, when Harper suggests Senate change, particularly change in Senate appointments, Parliament votes his proposals down. But really, much more PM powers are exercised within Senate appointments then within the act of prorogation itself. Yet, no mass demonstration, no national outcry over that one. Simply picking and choosing at one's convenience doesn't cut it for me.