Gettin’ Carried Away

Yesterday, i enjoyed a quiet, rainy/snowy Christmas Day with my family. I wrote a post about Airplane Sugar Cookies, and I spent the evening with the love of my life and his family. Yet…while I was enjoying happy times with my loved ones, someone else was trying to take all those joyous moments away from 200+ people in Detroit, Michigan.

A 23-year-old Nigerian man named Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to destroy Northwest Flight 253 by ways of an explosive device he had attached to his body. The flight originated from Nigeria, where he originally boarded, connected in Amsterdam and made its final journey to Detroit. Abdul wasn’t on the “No Fly” list, but he is on a list of people suspected to have a connection to terrorism.

As the plane soared over Detroit, the man complained of a stomachache, hunched over in his seat, covered himself with a blanket and triggered the device. Luckily, it failed to fully detonate and, instead, started a fire (on the man) rather than creating an explosion (on the plane). The man, who was badly burned and taken into custody upon the plane’s safe landing, claimed to be associated with al-Qaida and that he was instructed to blow up the plane as it descended into Detroit’s airport. But with such stringent rules about carry-on liquids, you may be wondering how the man was able to smuggle explosive materials on board the flight. Yahoo! reported that the “explosive device consisted of a six-inch packet of powder and a syringe with a liquid, which were sewn into the man’s underwear so they would be near his testicles and unlikely to be detected.”

Of course, there is more to be said about this incident, but you can find plenty of information on a myriad of channels like BBC or the New York Times. What I really want to write about is the new, rather absurd regulation being implemented by the Transportation Security Administration…

TSA will now limit on-board activities (during the last hour) on all planes flying within U.S. airspace. This means no bathroom, no iPod, no purse, no blanket, no pillow, no…anything. And yes, I think this is absurd. At this rate, we won’t be allowed to carry anything onto a plane…at all.

I personally think it all goes back to the screening process. This man was not on the “No Fly” list, but his name did appear on a list with 500,000 other terrorist-related people. Even though thia liat boasts a lot of names, shouldn’t this be a red flag to any airline ticketing agent/airport security officer? If you’re even associated with terrorism, shouldn’t you be searched? Metal detector, body search, the whole nine yards? I would think it’s better to be safe than sorry, no matter how many people require additional screening. Keep the random searches going, but implement mandatory searches of people who appear on any sort of list.

And here’s a thought: our bags go through X-ray machines, but do we? No. We pass through metal detectors. And even though the screening process in Nigeria and Amsterdam didn’t pick up the metal syringe sewn into Abul’s underwear, an X-ray machine might have. Yes, I know it might be a little unrealistic for passengers to pass through metal detectors and giant X-ray machines, but I think this comes down to a more strict screening process rather than controlling on-board activities. Spend the money on creating and installing life-size X-ray machines and potentially save millions of lives in the long run. Terrorism isn’t going away…

People are still getting on board with liquids that are not regulation sized or packed in the proper, quart-sized plastic bag. I know a woman who made it from Florida to Illinois with a full 8-ounce bottle of perfume. Another friend of mine, who rarely travels, finally decided to take a winter vacation from New York to Hawaii and made it all the way there and back with a full 10-ounce bottle of sun tan lotion. So whether they are in a suitcase, strapped to a leg or sewn into underwear, TSA workers still miss a few liquids here and there.

What about the passengers who are careful to read the rules? Or the savvy travelers who know the rules like they do the ABCs? It’s almost like that saying I heard when I was a little kid, “One bad apple ruins the bunch.” I know the “bad apple” in this case is a terrorist, and I am not insensitive to the incident in Detroit, 9/11 or any terrorist attack for that matter. What I mean here is that TSA implements a lot of ridiculous rules, while some of their employees don’t even perform their jobs correctly. And I do stress the word some. I happen to know a few TSA workers who boast impeccable records.

I applaud the brave crew members and passengers on board Flight 253, and my heart aches for all the people affected by 9/11. But the average traveler should not be punished for the actions of terrible, harmful people. I’m sure many of us would rather endure a longer screening process than be stripped of our civil liberties on board an aircraft.

A design created by Howie Guy, director of the UK company Design Q, has been causing a stir (and somewhat of an uproar) in the travel industry this week. Why? Just take a look at this photo from the Daily Mail.

It’s all about cost efficiency these days, and Guy has come up with a plan to produce 50% more seats on planes, while reducing the cost of a flight at the same time. The catch? Passengers will have to face each other. Oh no! The horror!

Seriously, folks? What’s so bad about facing each other? We do it on buses and trains (occasionally, depending on where you sit). Heck, we even do it at the airport when we’re waiting for our departures. So, what is the problem with facing each other during a flight?

Of course, this seating arrangement would not be convenient for someone on an overseas flight… or even for someone flying across the country from New York to California. However, Guy has considered this and stated that this design is intended for aircrafts making 30 to 80-minute journeys. Even so, I think I could deal with this for up to two hours, at least, especially if it means paying half the price for a flight. $100 round-trip to NYC? I’d take that!

If you really want a true Rocky Mountain experience, then you probably shouldn’t spend all your time in Denver, Colorado. You deserve a better taste of the Rockies than a simple swig of an ice cold Coors Light. And that is why my good friend Lindsey took me up to the charming mountain town of Evergreen, which is only 40 minutes to an hour away from Denver’s city center.

The drive from Denver to Evergreen itself is well worth the trip. In other words, keep your camera handy. The somewhat tree-lined highway (I-70 West) passes by open fields where mass loads of buffalo graze like no one is watching. Don’t be surprised if you find yourself pulled over along with other carloads of people, taking post card-like pictures. And even as you continue into the mountains, you’ll be winding your way around gigantic mounds dotted with Evergreen trees.

Because I was only visiting for two days, we headed straight for the most popular spot, the “downtown” area along Main Street (aka Highway 74). Imagine walking into a log cabin. Now picture 20+ log cabins, all connected by covered porches. Essentially, that is what you will find along Highway 47 in the form of jewelers, art galleries, clothing stores, restaurants and cafes, all connected by a rustic, wooden boardwalk. Some of my favorite shops like Unique Boutique–providing quality goods made by local artisans–and The Green Merchant–offering eco-friendly gifts–have yet to develop an online presence. You are sure to find something special that people will only be able to obtain if they make the trip up to the mountains.

Of course, there’s more to Evergreen than shopping and dining. If you want to learn more about the town’s beginnings, take a free tour at the historical Hiwan Homestead Museum. Evergreen Lake offers boating in the summer and ice skating in the winter, in addition to fishing all. year. long. Numerous trails are spread all over the town for leisurely walks (around the lake) or rigorous hiking (in the mountains).