The NYT just doesn't get it...

[acroyear]

A Retreat on Carry-On Liquids - New York Times:

A safer course of action would retain the near total ban on liquids and let the airlines supply passengers with ample beverages.

The ban on liquids has nothing to do with beverages, you twits.  It has to do with mouthwash, make-up, moisturizers, deoderant, shampoos and conditioners, and all of the other basic toiletry needs that people need on the other side to make themselves feel that little bit better after a 7 hour cramped flight from hell, things they would rather not be required to check into their guarenteed to be lost at least once luggage, especially business travelers who like to travel solely via carry-on.

Comments

[neadods.livejournal.com]

I am actually a bit staggered that, in our business-oriented economy, that there aren't MailBoxes Etc., in airports for mailing "contraband" to oneself and/or companies in or out of the airport offering mini toiletry kits that would pass security. You'd think that they'd be making money hand over fist.

Oh, wait. That would be proactive, though, instead on focusing on inconvenience and being frightened into passiveness.

[tchwrtr.livejournal.com]

However, we seem to ship a large number of toiletry bags from our store. For those who plan ahead, or had to leave the bag with someone on this side of their flight.

[katrinb.livejournal.com]

I have yet to see how the ban on liquids in fact does any good. I would like to see one official, somewhere, actually consider how much danger we really are in from liquid explosives. I would like, on a more general level, for the TSA to be required to do at least ten minutes' thinking about "will this restriction actually make the passengers and crew any safer?" before implementing any further restrictions on air travel.
Otherwise, we're eventually all going to be flying naked, with no baggage, and required to subject ourselves to X-rays and cavity searches every time.