I guess the issue depends on what you define is "reasonable" for security measures.    It was "unreasonable" to check shoes before Richard Reed- (remember the shoe bomber who tried to blow up an airplane AFTER 9/11)    Clearly, it is not "unreasonable" now to check shoes.    I agree that it is rediculous to check the shoes of my 80 year old dad who it takes 15 minutes to put them back on.   I don't think it would be rediculous to check the shoes of a middle east person who has lived in Sudan and Afganastan.    That would be race profiling- far more effective but not allowed in our current politically correct world.    Of course, if we stopped checking older people, the terrorists would just have older peole serve as "mules" and carry the explosives or weapons on the plane and than give them to the terrorists.

It is important to note that 9/11 was not the first plane explosion.   They practiced this technique in Japan where the explosives worked are miraculously, only one Japan passenger was killed as the pilots were somehow able to land the plane.    We clearly didn't learn anything for Locabee Scotland, or the Japanes plane as we failed to improve our airport security.    As Richard Reed prooved, planes are still a form of terrorism.   The question is how they will try their next attck.   It won't be same.    Reducing the security is a very foolish response.   If you feel safer in other airports it is because America is the prime target.    Terrorists cannot win without defeating the United States.

Bobert:   Now there you go again.   If you are going to criticize Bush for losing 2 million jobs, you have to give him credit for gaining 850,000 jobs (and still counting)   As far as the quality of jobs- the trend has been away from large companies and toward smaller companies and entepreneurialism.    I would take that anytime.   Pleae note that we only count job loss from large companies.   When someone starts their own business, it is still considered a loss of jobs- even if the person is working.   Current employment rate at 5.6%.   I would take that anytime.   (same exact unemployment rate as when Clinton ran for reelection during a "booming" economy"