First comment! Whee!

*coughs* Ahem, anyway, excellent comic. I only heard of this blog a couple days ago but I'm now digging through the archives like a badger on steroids- quite honestly, this is some of the best literature I've ever had the fortune to read. You should start a satirical magazine or something- I'd buy a copy.

I've read your air travel comics (as well as all the rest) and I think they are hilarious- perfect examples of how our government is doing the right thing in the wrong way. I mean, I know that there are wackos out there who would like nothing better than to a-splode us all to kingdom come and we should be doing something about that, but seriously- this is just a perfect example of the wonderfulness that is our country.

I can see the rationale behind the anti-fluid/gel rules- there's always the possibility that someone could bring nitroglycerin or napalm onto a plane, but the way the airport security's going, they're treating bottled water like cultures of genetically-modified chlamydia. It's just sickening to the point where it makes you want to toss something down the plane toilet even though they specifically told you not to in the event that obstructing the lavatories could cause the plane to spontaneously combust (which I've done some times on occasion- however, I wouldn't advise anyone else to.)

Another thing that bugs me- why exactly do they tell you to "keep your seats in the upright position and stow away your tray tables"? If our aircraft designers are so intelligent as to design a vehicle that cannot operate efficiently when even a single seat/table appendage is out of position, then I guess we have slightly bigger problems than wondering whether international terrorists might be bringing anti-dandruff shampoo and conditioner with which to smite us with their holy wrath.

Kudos on the comics.

Excellent comic, I've never seen a lather portrayed so fearsomely. And he managed both a Splort! and a Sploot! - He was well trained.

I have to chime in on the whole stupid liquids thing with one of the most important points about the whole anti-sky-terror thing. With all the billions of dollars being used up in extra detector equipment/trained chimpanzees/labour time/flight delays/rectal clamp detainment* , and the billions of litres of respect-juice being evaporated by our security services, aren't we doing the terrorists' job for them? Are they not truly having an immensely greater impact with their planted seeds of fear (speculation about what's causing those seeds to grow is a whole 'nother story!) than with their bombs?

When it comes down to it, there are cheap, easy nasty ways to hurt people on a flight that don't involve conveniently sized bottles of fluid. I have aerosol deodorants in my hand luggage all the time by sheer forgetfulness - who's to say it's delicious ManSmell in there, and not, oh.. Super Shigella virus?

Ech. What we need are some mercenary pigeons to emit their molecular destabilisation powers unto the evildoers.

The comic is just what I needed today Rory, thank you! LOL.

You can speak the language of freedom, but until you wield the can of hairspray on running nylons (that is, nylons with a run) you have not fought the forces of evil with evil*. Hairspray is a terrorist weapon.
Then again, so were girdles in the 1950s.

B

*It also can make your nylons weld to your legs so be careful!

oh yes, my errant "*" never got its post-scriptual addendum.

* - just what is a rectal clamp anyway? I'm envisioning a device, but its function eludes me. Is it for work or pleasure?

Re: "It only got in the way of about seven different relationships"

I thought frequent flying was an absolute requirement to even attempt to maintain seven different relationships. Nice try, but to blame the planes when the pangs of polygyny kick in is a bit bold.

(Note the internal rhyming and alliteration in the last sentence. I'm quite proud. It's a gift.)

I thought that any fool would know that bringing even a small drop of water onto a plane would result in horrendous carnage? Don't you know that planes are made from magnesium alloys? They burn underwater! You spray water all over the inside of a plane and you've got a flaming death-tube with wings!!

That's why real water isn't used on planes, and also why all the food and drink tastes funny.

Or at least so I've been told.

Plus, a mobile phone can destroy a plane in 30 seconds, which is why no-one living near an airport is allowed one, and why no mobile phone coverage is allowed around airports (again, I've not tested this, but I believe it to be true).

And having your seats leaning even slightly back during takeoff and landing can cause the person behind you to become decapitated by the proximity; what happens if your tray is down is too horrific to speak!

Listen to the warnings people! No-one is safe unless they do exactly what the government want them to do today.

During your intro regarding Seattle drivers you forgot to mention the "Campers" as I like to refer to them. You know, those vehicles in the fast lane (usually occupied by an overweight thirty something driver in a Dodge Caravan sporting a “Visualize World Peace” Bumper Sticker) that refuse to move over no matter how slow they are going (as long as they are keeping the exact same pace as the car immediately to their right). That is of course ONLY until there is enough room to get around on the right whereas they accelerate to 120 MPH and then slam on the brakes to keep pace with the next vehicle on their immediate right.

The only thing I can't figure out is why the National Park Service hasn't as yet figured out what a prime revenue source they are missing here to sell more camping permits???

I love flying because it means I have to spend a good hour thinking about what articles of clothing I can wear that will be comfortable both on the plane and where ever I will be going and will let me through the metal detector without having to strip buttass nekid.  Between the electronic gagets and metal enhanced clothing I tend to wear I get a lot of strange looks if I even go near a metal detector, like the operators are afraid I'll make it explode just by being near it.

Roffle-MAO!

I tried to circumvent the inane airport security stuff by getting a pilot's license of my own, with an eye to a plane of my own etc etc.

Then I discovered that flyin' planes costs 'way too much money.

As far as Seattle traffic goes, I still remember the time I was trying to get out of Redmond, and couldn't get into the right lane to exit onto the appropriate freeway, because of all the madcap California transplants keeping the gaps between the cars to a distance of four inches. No amount of gesturing and signalling got any of them to EFFING MAKE ROOM!!!

I ended up on that floaty bridge, and then stuck at a standstill right on the 5 for a forty-bazillion hour trip back to Portland, stop-and-go all the way to Lacey.

Take two bottles onto the plane? No need! I take new head and shoulders *with* conditioner. Modern terrorists can save so much time that way!

:)

You can´t blame terrorists for being smelly anymore, it´s not their fault. I always wanted to die looking good and smelling great. Guess that´s out of the airlock now.

And if it was only the US government but the war on terror has become the war on common sense (of which only Thomas Paine had any idea of - why isn´t he on Mount Rushmore? kind of devalues that bit of sculpturing) by almost all governements. You don´t wage war on terror, you battle it.

*bad pun alert* The measures against terrorism are really blown out of proportions.

"Fladoopy-doop?" "Wanketty-danketty-beanie-greenie?"

So true. So very, very true.

I always wonder why they force me to leave my nail clipper behind and give me a metal (sharp) knife and fork to eat with... which is actually pretty dangerous as my front neighbor is practically sitting in my lap these days...

It's no coincidence the liquid ban was imposed as when Lieberman lost his primary.  The *only* reason for the aviation liquid ban is that the Republican party saw the writing on the wall for 2006 and tried to refocus public fears over terrorism prior to the election.  That's the only reason.  There's no security justification for the liquid ban.  None.  Zero.  Nada.  Zilch.  It's an invented panic created in a cynical effort to bolster Republican election prospects.

Personally I like my terrorists smelly, makes them easier to identify.  Of course there are those would would have you beleve I am a terrorist, but I use soap.

Kal -

"I only heard of this blog a couple days ago but I'm now digging through the archives like a badger on steroids- quite honestly, this is some of the best literature I've ever had the fortune to read. You should start a satirical magazine or something- I'd buy a copy."

Thanks, yo :)

I've thought a lot - probably too much - about taking my stuff from the web to print. The only reason I can think of is that I'd like to see something written by me on the shelf at the bookstore.

That's all.

As far as money goes, there isn't much to be made. I've done some writing for dough, and it's never satisfying.

The last thing I did - or was supposed to do - was write a tech book. The advance was actually *really* good. In fact, the entire contract was amazing. Much better than it should have been. I had no idea how good I had it.

Still, I like to write because I love to write. If it's money I want, there are many other ways to make it. If I'm going to sell my creativity, then I damn well better be happy with the process.

In the case of the tech book, I wasn't. Granted, I was going through a bad patch of depression at the time, but I still don't think I would have made it through even under the best circumstances. I love the publisher (O'Reilly), and my editor (Brian Jepson) was a great guy. The beef I had was with style. I knew there'd be a lot to do in the way of editing, but after a few episodes of back-and-forth, I lost my taste for it. Not because I don't want to edit (that's true, but it's not a deal-breaker), but because most of the editing seemed geared to lifting my style out of the writing, leaving nothing but the facts behind.

I'd have been all right with that if that was what I had signed up for. I had been told that they wanted me *because* I was a good writer and *because* they dug my style. It was a shock, then, to watch as they, bit by bit, pulled it all off the page.

In retrospect, I imagine they did it because they need to have the option to easily swap one author out for another. Totally legitimate. Just not something I would have done had it been sold to me in that context.

So, the web has been kind. If I focused on getting published in a traditional way, then who knows how much of this stuff I would have been able to write. Sure, a lot of the writing on Neopoleon sucks dog balls, but there's also a lot of genuinely good stuff here, too (in the comments as well - as was the case with you, a lot of intelligent, witty people come along and leave comments that are a far greater return than any royalties would be).

On the web, you can take chances because the cost of screwing up is low. The cost is even non-existant if you write because you love to, and not because everybody else in your industry is doing it, or because someone or some organization is pressuring you into writing.

I like being my own boss, and I'd rather keep writing for myself without making dough than write for someone else, ditch the odd writing experiments, and make a few thousand.

Honestly, I think I could make a pretty good living as a writer, but until I'm *certain* I'll be able to get published without having to stop being Me, I'm going to refrain from submitting anything.

"I've read your air travel comics (as well as all the rest) and I think they are hilarious- perfect examples of how our government is doing the right thing in the wrong way. I mean, I know that there are wackos out there who would like nothing better than to a-splode us all to kingdom come and we should be doing something about that, but seriously- this is just a perfect example of the wonderfulness that is our country."

It's *so* strange. For several years, I flew on a weekly basis, and got to watch as details of the TSA experience changed, as well as how different airports screwed it up in different ways.

Take Vegas for example.

A couple years ago, I was leaving Vegas, and my ticket had "SSSS" in the corner. If you've ever gotten the Mark of the Terrorist on your ticket before, then you know that "SSSS" means you're going to get routed through the checkpoint where they pretty much just shove a wet/dry vac hose up your ass and see what they can pull out.

It must have been the day after the airport holiday party or something, 'cause everybody looked hungover and half-dead. I walked right past the first TSA checkpoint without anybody noticing the mark. Got through the metal detector just fine, too, where they checked my ticket again. Finally, boarded the plane with no problem. When you have the Mark of the Terrorist on your ticket, there are additional inky squiggles and initials you're supposed to get on the ticket before they'll take it at the gate. The system is meant to provide a series of checks to ensure that the process doesn't fail because one person screws up.

When *everybody* screws up, though, no law is going to fix anything. I could have been smuggling Gary Coleman in my bowels, and nobody would've noticed.

Yet, this time I got busted for having a bottle of *water*.

W.

T.

F.

"I can see the rationale behind the anti-fluid/gel rules- there's always the possibility that someone could bring nitroglycerin or napalm onto a plane, but the way the airport security's going, they're treating bottled water like cultures of genetically-modified chlamydia."

You're making the smart person's mistake - rationalization.

I do it, too (hey - I'm smart, dagnabbit).

Part of the reason we have silliness like this in place is that we (the people who're having to deal with this crap) don't *do* anything about it - we just let it happen. It's easy to do when you look at how these behaviors can be rationalized. I totally agree with you - it makes sense provided the security screening is put in a particular context.

However, you could rationalize just about anything. If TSA guards were supposed to shoot every nine year old girl with blonde hair and socks that don't match, I'm sure we could find a reason (the fashion police certainly could).

Yeah... that's a ridiculous example, but you know what I mean? It's good to be understanding, but only to the point that it's sensible. If people are missing flights (they are) because of this stuff, and if we aren't catching terrorists left and right now that we're checking for fluids, then the cost might outweigh the benefit.

It could be argued that, while the actual threat isn't all that heavy, it puts travelers at ease to know we're being so thorough. I don't know anybody who's actually *made* that argument, but if I were to encounter it, I'd suggest that the only reason it makes us feel better is that it's Action. It doesn't matter that there are no results to show - it just matters that Somebody is Doing Something. Sometimes putting on a show is all it takes to calm people down.

Again... is it worth it?

"It's just sickening to the point where it makes you want to toss something down the plane toilet even though they specifically told you not to in the event that obstructing the lavatories could cause the plane to spontaneously combust (which I've done some times on occasion- however, I wouldn't advise anyone else to.)"

Totally.

Another sickening thing is that they seem to hire only the most unimaginative, uninteresting, power-hungry people to wear the TSA uniform.

That, too, makes sense. I just think it sucks.

It reminds me of an exchange in Lawrence of America in which Lawrence is talking to General Allenby. He quotes something about how soldiers should use their initiative at all times. Allenby disagrees, stating something to the effect that solidiers with initiative are dangerous.

Putting the brain-dead in those crews ensures that policy will be blindly followed to the letter.

And, eventually, nine year old girls with blonde hair and mismatched socks will be getting shot.

"Another thing that bugs me- why exactly do they tell you to "keep your seats in the upright position and stow away your tray tables"?"

Because it's dangerous to be comfortable while dying.

"Kudos on the comics."

Thanks :)

And thanks for the comment. Always fun to have new people here...

Tom -

"* - just what is a rectal clamp anyway? I'm envisioning a device, but its function eludes me. Is it for work or pleasure?"

Tom.

Tom, Tom, Tom...

Tom, Tom, Tom, Tom, Tom, Tom, Tom...

Tom?

Tom.

A rectal clamp is for clamping things rectally.

Betsy -

"The comic is just what I needed today Rory, thank you! LOL."

:)

Please never stop commenting.

While I do have an ego, and while it does get out of control from time to time, it's not to be confused with self-esteem.

I usually think of ego as being the thing that helps make up for a lack of self-esteem.

The more I get compliments, the less I'll need the ego.

My goal is to someday feel comfortable about - and maybe even *like* - myself.

Also, to be rich.

Massif -

"Plus, a mobile phone can destroy a plane in 30 seconds"

I totally lawled at this :)

You'd think that were the case with the way they freak out. What I don't get is why we can't use other electronic stuff. I won't pretend to understand why mobiles aren't allowed (something to do with mucking up the navigation system), but they mention mobiles so specifically that it makes me think it has something to do with something mobile-ish (frequency, power, whatever...).

But my DS Lite? What did it ever do to anybody?

And my iPod? Huh?

When I was younger, my favorite thing was to listen to music during take-off and landing. Those are the two most entertaining parts of a flight, and I found the experience to be much more pleasant with musical backing. Now I'm not allowed to listen to anything until we hit the part of the flight that's so boring that I just pass out.

Lame.

Mark -

"During your intro regarding Seattle drivers you forgot to mention the "Campers" as I like to refer to them."

I did refer to them, actually, but not nearly as well as you.

Your description of how they gun it when they think you might be about to pass them (and even use the fast lane to *GASP* go fast) was perfect.

Well done, yo.

I've found it to be a problem in most of the Pacific Northwest. I don't know what it is - why so many people here can't drive for shit - but they can't.

I'm afraid I'll never understand why people can't just keep to the two rightmost lanes. As far as I can tell from my observations, they simply don't like having other cars ahead of them.

Why? No effing clue.

It's also illegal, but nobody ever gets pulled over for it.

One thing I love about the east coast (and parts of California) is that people take advantage of the modern day car's ability to travel at speeds well over 35mph. It surprises me that the point isn't stressed during driving exams. 'Course, I'm also surprised that out driving exams are as lax as they are to begin with.

What a world...

Rob -

"As far as Seattle traffic goes, I still remember the time I was trying to get out of Redmond, and couldn't get into the right lane to exit onto the appropriate freeway, because of all the madcap California transplants keeping the gaps between the cars to a distance of four inches. No amount of gesturing and signalling got any of them to EFFING MAKE ROOM!!"

I've been living in the Pacific Northwest most of my life, and I've noticed that the "natives" of the region tend to pin the driving problems on Californians, whereas I think the Californians are probably some of the *best* drivers we have up here.

The thing about leaving room - that can be frustrating, but I have that problem all the time, and it's almost always a Washingtonian.

When I encounter a driver who's being that much of a dick, I just force my way in. They might not like it, and they might honk, but they can also blow me (really - they can!).

Give it a try. It's not for everybody, but the threat of having to deal with getting car parts replaced following an accident (I think money and inconvenience - not loss of life - are the things that keep people from behaving like *total* fucktards on the road) is usually enough to get someone to back off.

I feel for you with the floaty bridge. If you make a wrong turn in this city, or if you miss an exit, or if anything else goes wrong, you're all but guaranteed to run into a traffic jam.

It could be 2:00 AM on Christmas morning, and you'd still find a traffic jam here.

If we took the money we spend on highway patrol and put it back into improving the transportation infrastructure, I think we'd do away with a lot of the reasons people do stupid things in the first place. I don't think people would be so desperate to hang on to an extra ten feet of road rather than let someone merge if they weren't frustrated by the horrible experience of trying to get somewhere around here.

But, if we reallocated funds like that, then we wouldn't be able to fund the police force so that the police can continue to pull over and fine people so they can continue to make money so that they can continue to pull over and fine people so they can continue to make money so that they can...

Yeah.

Frustrating.

Re: "I won't pretend to understand why mobiles aren't allowed (something to do with mucking up the navigation system)"

I used to accept that line of reasoning for the longest time too - I'm a very docile person. Yet lately I've grown more than a little leery about that argument. It seems somehow designed to prompt people into saying "oh, I don't want to muck up the navigation system, by golly, I don't want to do that, guess I better put that phone away, dear God, THE NAVIGATION SYSTEM, hm, hm" (to get the proper oompy tone of voice you should attempt to have your chest and jaw make contact (without gaping too wide), and lower the corners of your mouth slightly).

Really? A mobile phone can actually mess with the navigation system of a modern plane?

Better hope there's not a single schmuck out there out of the quadrillion of people flying each day who - Godforbid - FORGETS TO TURN OF HIS PHONE! That plane's a-going DOWN! But obviously we have ample evidence that no person on this planet has ever been so reckless - since we've yet to hear of a plane crashing because of a mobile phone mucking up the navigation system.

OK let *me* be clear about the phone/plane thing.

It was true. On 45-year old 737 avionics combined with analog cell phones at analog cell phone frequencies, it was abso-frakkin-lutely true.

Today, not so much. Boeing makes its avionics *seven-way* redundant, which is like saying that they'll have eight nines reliability. Yes, that's right! For the .00216 seconds per hour that the navigation system fails, you're gonna have to depend on the tenacity and skill of those two human pilots. And they each only have about ten thousand flight hours of experience between them to save you, most of it consumed in training what to do when the GPS goes out!

So, yeah, I wouldn't fly in airplanes. ;-)

I know I blame Californians, but that's because I immigrated from New York and have experience driving in European cities and on their highways, where you have to *be* That Rude Guy or you're just gonna get mooshed. Also, we moved to the NW when it was a sin to be a Californian and move here. So I got the 'tude by growing up when the 'tude was the in-thing to have.

Anecdote: I was test-driving a Corrola with a Californian sales-person who complemented my on my moxie and ability to HIT THE GAS and save Dick Hannah's little car from certain doom up in Longview yesterday. She said the same thing you're saying, so I guess I'll have to take down my "don't move here" sign with the big picture of Uncle Sam on it, and lay my McCall-era h8-in' aside.

But the thing I hate most of all. Most over all other rude stuff happening on the road, is when people pack the lane which is going to end instead of merging at the first opportunity to merge. Instead they pile forward and then do what you do, Rory, in order to get a lane in Seattle. Only now they're taking cuts, and I distinctly remember my Kindergarten teacher disapproving of that!

Absolute best interstate rush hour - durham, NC.  I've gone through there at 5, on a Friday, in construction, and never dropped under 60.  Of course everyone thinks they're in a nascar race, but that's no different than Atlanta or Chicago driving.

You ever see this?  I dunno you left coast people can tell me if he's full of shit:

http://www.amasci.com/amateur/traffic/traffic1.html