If you have "no place to go," come here!

Wake me when we get crotch-bombers on the Greyhound


NYCWebboy nails it:

[B]ut there was something, well, synthetic about all the coverage today, that caught me in an unexpected way. And suddenly I realized... "Terrorism" - especially plane-based terrorism - is largely an upper class, luxury problem.

What clued me into the realization was Sunday morning comments from both Candy Crowley (subbing for John King) on CNN and David Brooks (apparently doing his worst George Will replacing) on ABC; both talked of the event in terms of the heightened airport security which was bound to come... and then sounded cynically dismissive of the lines and inconvenience involved for, well... people like them.

You know... upper middle class, college educated professionals whose jobs cause them to travel fairly regularly, both domestic and foreign.

Maybe I really am onto something, after all.

Throughout the post 9/11 age, we've had these odd dualities in the discussion: the need for increased security on planes seems obvious... yet most regular travelers look at it in terms of inconvenience. We talk of being a nation extremely vulnerable... yet at the same time, We Are America and We Can Win, and there's a tension between what we think we need to do, and what we can't really do to feel entirely safe.

Those dualities, though, have everything to do with class; when much of the threat we currently deal with has to do with people traveling, by plane, to the US from international destinations, the real vulnerability, on the plane, is largely confined to the upper middle class people who travel that way. Outside of the upper middle class (and remember, a vast majority of Americans do not travel outside the country to begin with, and lack passports), the threat of blowing up on a plane for many is highly remote. ...

In the meantime, I suspect, listening to well off white professionals moan about shoe removal, and shampoo in plastic bags [Cavity searches. That's what I say. Kidding. Kinda. --lambert] may well have short shelf life. You want to know why terrorism is such a problem... the problem is on your plane, not in the slums. As usual.

I'm mean, what are the odds? I'm a hell of a lot more likely to [buy the farm|take the last call|sun my moccasins|cease to be] because the Dems decided to service the insurance companies rather than reform health care, than because, next time, the crotch-bomber decides to take the bus.

One more reason to turn off the teebee, so far as I'm concerned.

No votes yet


Submitted by ralphb on

This may be the most cogent post I've seen on the whole crotch-bomber affair.

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

Now I'm imaging David Brooks and Candy Crowley's underwear. I haven't had breakfast yet, but no longer have an appetite.

And can someone tell me the point of CNN constantly showing pics of the exploding crotch-boy's scorched and rotten grunders? The ick factor was set on 11,000.

Bryan's picture
Submitted by Bryan on

We have too many other problems in this country to spend the money necessary to make airline travel "safe" for the upper class.

It is too easy to set-up a teleconference, or communicate in other ways, to bother with moving people all over the place.

I flew around the world once a month in the Air Force, and made regular trips between the US and Europe on Pan Am. This was during the height of terrorist attacks in the 1970s. It was enjoyable. You could stretch out; eat real food with real utensils, get a limitless supply of non-alcoholic drinks, and the crew was happy to see you.

I don't ever plan on boarding another aircraft. I don't see the justification for putting up with the theater of paranoia that the experience has become. My Mother stopped flying because she is no longer strong and healthy enough to handle the stress involved.

This is a problem for airlines and their customers, not the people of the United States. Let airlines and their customers solve it, without involving my money.