As you commercial fliers know, the latest battleground in the war on terror is the omnipresent threat posed by liquids on our nation’s aircraft. Now it’s true that the airlines have always been concerned with the proper handling of certain liquids. It’s just that, until recently, this has mostly involved flight attendants insisting that passengers purchasing cocktails have exact change handy.
At first, regulators prohibited all carry-on liquids, rightly fearing that a bottle of, say, Prell shampoo, in the wrong hands is every bit as dangerous as a pair of tweezers. But thanks to recent updates, air travelers may now carry on some liquids, provided they are kept in containers no larger than a Monopoly game piece (specifically, the hat).
Still, many travelers remain confused. Take the example of Emily Gillette, who recently ran afoul of Delta Airlines for improper handling of a liquid substance. According to news reports, Gillette was escorted off the plane after flight attendants witnessed her attempting to feed her baby daughter an approved liquid (breast milk), but from an unapproved receptacle (her breast).
I think the problem here is that like most nursing mothers, Gillette probably views her breasts as little more than portable milk dispensers, whereas the rest of us view breasts as, well, as frequently as possible (in my case, anyway). To a breast-feeding mother, the whole world is the French Riviera.
That’s certainly my wife’s attitude. Before having children, she was extremely modest; even a bikini was deemed too revealing, and forget about ever wearing that French maid outfit I bought her. But breastfeeding has changed all that. Nowadays, it doesn’t matter where — in a restaurant, at a PTA meeting or in the middle of a private audience with the pope — she has no qualms about whipping that boob out. It’s even worse when the baby is with her.
But if you thought exposed nipples were the only threat facing modern commercial aviation, well, you clearly weren’t aboard a recent Southwest Airlines flight from Phoenix to Raleigh, N.C., on which horrified passengers were compelled to watch a couple engaging in what a flight attendant described as “kissing, embracing and other overt sexual activity.”
Despite this threat, the fearless flight crew managed to land the plane safely in Raleigh, where the lovebirds were promptly arrested and charged with violating the Patriot Act. And to think those namby pamby Democrats said this law wouldn’t keep us safe from terrorists!
Still, should excessively amorous passengers be prosecuted? Sure, I admit it can be disconcerting to have a tongue-wrestling couple in the aisle seat when you need to get by to go to the bathroom. On the other hand, as I often like to say, “Two passengers engaging in overt sex acts are two passengers who are not interrupting me while I’m immersed in a book to ask, “So, whatcha reading?”
In fact, even if it gets me in trouble with the authorities, I’m willing to go on record saying that this case of airborne snuggling was likely not a terrorist act. What probably happened is that at some point the aircraft hit severe turbulence and the two of them assumed that the plane was going down. Let’s face it, if you’re at 30,000 feet and think the end is near, how would you want to spend those last few moments — perusing home air ionizing products in the Skymall catalog?
Nevertheless, this is no time to let our guard down against potential terrorist threats in the air. And that’s why, with these recent incidents in mind, I’ve committed to doing my part to combat terrorism by always flying with my video camera.
Examiner columnist Malcolm Fleschner wonders if the mile-high club will soon be added to the FBI’s terrorism watch list.
