Cut us some slack, but you can keep the ice picks

How do you defend yourself against terrorists when you don't knowwho or where they are, when they're going to strike and what methodsthey're going to use? Do you base your defenses on past actions --assuming if they attacked with hijacked planes before, they're goingto do so again -- or try to anticipate future atrocities? That is, doyou revise your security strategies, perhaps taking a page from theIsraelis by paying more attention to faces and personalities thanbelongings?

These are big questions. But in enacting security measures atairports that have done little more than inconvenience people andwaste their time, aviation authorities have thought egregiouslysmall. Is there anyone by now who thinks there is any value tofrisking senior citizens or patting down toddlers in chilly siderooms -- or stopping infants from boarding because they have the samenames as suspected terrorists on the "no-fly list"? (Sen. Edward M.Kennedy and onetime "Ozzie and Harriet" star David Nelson are amongthe grown-ups who have been stopped at airports for having the wrongname at the wrong place.) And has anyone felt more secure knowingnone of their fellow passengers was carrying a nail clipper ordisposable razor?

Finally, nearly four years after the wrenching horror of 9/11, theTransportation Security Administration is showing signs of commonsense. Saying it wants to make airline screening more "passenger-friendly" -- and, one would think, more airline-business friendly --the federal agency has proposed changes, including limiting patdownsand exempting Cabinet officials, members of Congress and the likefrom screenings, requiring only passengers who look "reasonablysuspicious" or set off metal detectors to have their shoes examined,and lifting the ban on personal items, including pocket knives andclippers.

So far so good. As nervous as some of us may be in the post-9/11era about sharp objects on planes, the risk of these small itemsbeing used to commit harm is very small. But these sane steps forwardstand to be mitigated by the TSA's rather irrational decision toallow ice picks to be included in carry-on items, too. According to aspokesman for the agency, it is out "to challenge conventionalbeliefs" in proposing these changes. Does that mean it doesn'tbelieve an ice pick can be a dangerous weapon? Would anyone, amongthe few people who actually still possess one, be seriouslyinconvenienced by not having an ice pick on a plane trip?

Gov. Blagojevich opposes the full package of alterations -- whichalso would allow the carrying on of bows and arrows. The arrowsbother us too. But in a broader sense, we see an urgent need to makeTSA policies rational, and the agency finally seems to be recognizingthat. If airport security is ever going to be what it should be,solid reason must prevail. Conventional thinking is sometimes worthits weight in safety.