Radioactive Communist Zombies

More Salt and Dust on Airplanes

When I flew recently I was amazed for the "snack" to be offered a choice of pretzels (or as I call them, "salt and dust"), peanuts or cookies.  I hadn't seen peanuts on an airplane in years.  I figured there were banned or the airlines didn't want to take the liability of someone going into anaphylactic shock over a bag of peanuts.  Thus the trend toward pretzles (salt and dust).  And I hate pretzles.

Well, apparently peanuts haven't been banned . . . yet.  But the government is looking to officially ban peanuts on commercial flights to protect those with peanut allergies.

Which just means . . . more salt and dust.  Oh, you eat them because they are the only thing you'll get for hours.  But it's under protest.  Guess I'll just have to have more cookies. 

Border Agents Can Not Seize Laptops Anymore

(Hat tip Instapundit)

There has been for at least two years now a policy that border agents can seize the laptop or other electronic device that travelers bring into the country.  And they could hold those devices almost indefinitely while they perused them for something bad.

Well, no more.  A federal judge has ruled against the government:

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White in the Northern District of California rejected the Obama administration's argument that no warrant was necessary to look through the electronic files of an American citizen who was returning home from a trip to South Korea.

"The court concludes that [the] search required a warrant," White ruled on June 2, referring to a search of Andrew Hanson's computer that took place a year ago. Hanson arrived San Francisco International Airport in January 2009.

This is a good thing.  Border Agents were randomly selecting people for more extensive searches and then seizing electronics to see if there's anything incriminating on them.  The government argued that 4th Amendment protections don't apply to electronics coming across the border.  The judge found that argument "unpersuasive."

I'm all for catching terrorists and child pornographers.  But this was an abuse of power, nothing more.

Mass Transit Costs

Using mass transit for intracity movement is supposed to be better for the environment (not according to some).  And it's supposed to relieve congestion.

But the problem with mass transit is it's slow.  Very slow.  And that lack of speed has costs bourne by the traveler.  Steven Polzin has estimatedthe lack of alacrity common with mass transit costs $44 billion annually:

Transit’s slower average travel speeds result in approximately 3 billion hours annually of additional travel time.  If valued at the TTI time value of $15.47 per hour, this equates to approximately $44 billion annually in lost productivity due to travelers having or choosing to use transit.  Thus, the few percent of persons who use transit (approximately 2% of total person trips are on transit {5% of work trips} and approximately 1% of person miles of travel) incur 70% as much lost time relative to driving as is incurred by the total of auto travelers due to congestion, $44 billion for transit users versus $64 billion for driving in congestion. 

Because the time wasted sitting on a bus that stops every other block adds up to lost productivity.

No wonder people prefer to drive.  And why do policy makers want you to take the bus (or the light rail)?  Because a car gives you freedom.  And freedom for you is not something they can abide.

Why is Traveling Such Misery?

Haven't blogged since Monday Memorial Day because I've been traveling on business (again).  Flying half-way across the country takes about two and a half hours on a plane.

But it got me thinking.  Why is traveling for the most part a miserable experience? 

Flying has got to be the most miserable modern way to travel (except maybe being smuggled into the US by coyotes). The seats are too small for anyone even slightly larger than the average American.  The seat bottoms are hard, the whole experience is claustrophobic.  They come by, fill a small glass with ice, put in a splash of soda, and hand you a bag of pretzels for a "complimentary" snack.  Yes, I paid $500 for this ticket and you just gave me ten cents worth of cola and thirty cents worth of salt and dust (i.e., the pretzels).  And the misery starts when you get to the airport because the first thing you do is get into a line: to check your bags, to go through security, to get some food before the flight ('cause that salt and dust aren't going to hold you very long).

And don't get me started on the TSA.

As for other modes of travel, they all have their miseries.  Intercity buses: the seats are comfortable (last I was on one) and I suppose now people can't smoke on them so you don't have that misery.  But they are slow, stopping at every little podunk town.  While they can travel at night while you sleep, they stop so often I doubt they are faster than taking your car and sleeping in a motel.

Train?  Haven't been on one since I was a kid.  But they have the same problem as buses: slow, and stop too often.  And don't get me started on Amtrak.

Personal car?  Probably the least miserable way to travel.  Comfortable (assuming your car is comfortable) and private and it goes on your schedule.  But its slow and tiring.  My record is 1,800 miles in 30 hours (when the maximum national speed limit was 65 mph).  But I had a co-driver (wife) to do some driving while I slept.  But I was young, dumb, and full of vigor at the time.  Now doing 1,000 miles a day would probably wipe me out.

So, the choices are slow and miserable or fast and miserable.  Or take your car.

I enjoy travel in so far as seeing new places, meeting new people.  It's the getting that that sucks. 

UPDATE: You know, I hadn't considered cruise ships in my tally of ways to travel.  And they are about as far from being miserable as you can possibly get.  They are comfortable, well appointed, and the food is great.  Only problem is they are slow (compared to airline travel), expensive, and it would be hard to take one to, say, Denver.  But they are definitely not miserable. 

Unintended Consequences

When Congress passes a law or a bureaucrat makes a regulation, there are almost always unintended consequences.  Often the law or regulation will make things worse than the problem it was supposed to solve.

Case in point: the Department of Transportation made a regulation penalizing airlines if they leave passengers sitting in a plane on the tarmac for more than three hours.  Sounds reasonable (although the fine of  $27,500 per passenger seems excessive since that would be millions per plane).

And what's the unintended consequence?  Canceled flights and not being able to reach your destination.

Continental Airlines plans to cancel flights rather than risk stiff fines under new federal rules designed to punish carriers for delaying passengers.

CEO Jeff Smisek said Tuesday the result will be that passengers will have more trouble getting to their destinations . . .

Smisek said many passengers on delayed flights "really want to go to LA or Mumbai, but the government by God says, 'We're going to fine you $27,500.' Here's what we're going to do: We're going to cancel the flight."

Because airlines have cut flights, leaving the remaining ones more crowded, passengers will have fewer chances to rebook on another flight. Passengers, he said, won't get to their destinations "for maybe days."

Oh, and the cause of those delays: often the antiquated air-traffic control system the government has refused to update.

So, which would you rather deal with: a delay of 3 hours sitting in an airplane, or spending days in an airport trying to get home?  Well, a bureaucrat has made that decision for you.

Napolitano Wants to Unionize the TSA

(Hat Tip: Instapundit)

Secretary of Homeland Security Janet "The System Worked" Napolitano wants to unionize the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).  That according to the Washington Examiner.  According to Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC):

The administration is intent in on unionizing and submitting our airport security to union bosses [and] collective bargaining, and this is at a time, as Senator Lieberman says, we've got to use our imagination we've got to be constantly flexible. We have to out think the terrorists. When we formed the airport security system we realize we could not use collective bargaining and unionization because of that need to be flexible. Yet that appears to be the top priority of the administration.

Why does unionization matter?  As Mark Hemingway says:

After a British airliner bombing plot was uncovered in 2006, the TSA overhauled security procedures in a matter of 12 hours to deal with the threat of liquid explosives. It's difficult to imagine that kind of flexibility under ossified union rules.

Also, unionization will cause more headaches and delays for travelers, as I said the last time unionization for the TSA came up:

Imagine this situation: you're in a long line at an (probably Atlanta) airport, looking at time creeping away while the security line oozes toward the X-ray machines and metal detector.

The clock ticks over to 4:00 P.M. and suddenly two stations are abandoned.  Why?  Those workers are going off shift and due to unexpected volume of travelers, the TSA didn't plan for so many people to show up and didn't schedule more (and knowing the government, they made the schedule two months ahead).  And since they have no "mandatory unscheduled overtime" they can't make them stay.

So now the line slows.  And 4:15 rolls around and two more screening stations are abandoned because it's time for the workers' break.  Don't worry, they'll be back in half an hour.  After you miss your flight.

Why in the world would Napolitano want to unionize the TSA?  Simply: it would then become another Democrat-leaning public employee union that would fill the coffers of Democrats with mandatory union dues. 

More Airline Security

My internet died Christmas Eve.  I spent the morning today getting it back up and running and the afternoon catching up on blogs, news, etc.  But in the mean time, I missed a lot of what's going on.

So apparently there was a Christmas Day attempt to blow up an airliner by a passenger.  And apparently it was thwarted by other passengers.  As Mark Steyn says:

On September 11th 2001, the government's (1970s) security procedures all failed, and the only good news of the day came from self-reliant citizens (on Flight 93) using their own wits and a willingness to act.

On December 25th 2009, the government's (post-9/11) security procedures all failed, and the only good news came once again from alert individuals . . .

A man is on the no-fly list but is allowed to board the plane. Everyone flying on an inbound long-haul flight to the United States is forced to hand over excessively large amounts of liquids and gels and put the small amounts permitted into separate plastic bags, yet the no-fly guy's material for bomb-making sails through undetected.

But now the TSA is reacting with . . . more new security regulations for airline travelers to deal with:

Some airlines were telling passengers on Saturday that new government security regulations prohibit them from leaving their seats beginning an hour before landing.

The regulations are a response to a suspected terrorism incident on Christmas Day.

And some airlines are only letting you take one bag aboard and other absurd rules:

Passengers on a flight from New York to Tampa Saturday morning were also told they must remain in their seats and couldn't have items in their laps, including laptops and pillows.

This is so typical.  Instead of trying to figure out what security measures didn't work, the TSA is imposing new inconveniences on airline passengers.

Why don't they just ban . . . everything.  Issue you a paper gown to fly in and not let you have anything on the plane.  Then maybe we'd all be "safe" (until a terrorist figures out a way around that).

And that's just the issue: the terrorists will always find ways around whatever security you have in place.  There is and never will be any security system that is 100% fool-proof.  Yet there has to be a point of diminishing returns.  How much security do you buy by not letting passengers up during the last hour of a flight?  Not a lot.

New Pictures

There's new pictures in "Photo Intelligence" from my recent travels (travails?).  See here, here, here, here and here.

Blogging will resume tomorrow.  Or Monday at the latest.

Mt. Rushmore

Yesterday I visited Mt. Rushmore.  I was more impressed than I planned to be.  The visitor's center is very nice and modern and large.  The only charge is a $10 per car parking fee (RVs and buses are more).    The entrance is nice:

There is a bit of commercialization with a huge gift shop and expensive cafeteria.  But the basic view is very nice:

  However there is a nice trail around to the base of the mountain which allows various views of the sculptures:

 

After Mt. Rushmore we visited the "work in progress" Crazy Horse Monument.  It's huge.  The face alone is 9 stories tall.  But they are trying to make money to complete the project so its very commercial.  This picture was taken from one mile away:

  

And they aren't taking any government money, it's all money donated or raised through the visitor's center.  So who knows when they'll finish it.  It's been going for more than 50 years.

Where the Buffalo Roam

Blogging has been light (okay, nonexistent) because I'm traveling.  Spent two days at Yellowstone Park.  When I was a kid there were bears everywhere in the park (because we lived close we visited often).  Now the bears are gone and there a buffalo/bison everywhere.  They are often on the road blocking traffic:

  

They sometimes come up close to your car:

 

And cause backups as they block traffic:

 

We saw a Park Ranger use his car to scare some off the road (something they'd probably throw you in jail for).

But most of the time, you just see them by the side of the road, often in groups:

 

After two days in the park we were thinking "Buffalo/Schmuffalo" as we saw more bison.

We also saw some deer and a female moose or elk (I can't tell the difference).

Today we're going Mt. Rushmore.