Here are some suitcase packing tips, courtesy of Sue Pelletier.

The Chicago Tribune, one of many media trying to persuade airline passengers that full-body scanners are not a privacy invasion, printed only a rear view of a scanned passenger in today's edition (the article and picture were not posted online).

It also included a picture of weaponry, to try to scare folks into accepting this invasive machine.

If it was being truthful, the newspaper would have printed a frontal view of passengers - male and female. That would clearly demonstrate how scanners bare the details of human anatomy.

Here's a small picture censored by its publisher and a front and back image of another scan. Actual size pictures would be more revealing.

So, how long before these machines display people's nude images at convention centers, rapid transit stations, and office buildings?

It's too bad common sense has been trumped by hysteria.

How would you like to pay a hotel an air-conditioning fee, or a housekeeping fee, or a bellhop fee - when you didn't even use a bellhop?

Sue Pelletier pointed to a list of outrageous hotel fees that people have encountered.

Bottom line? Always make a fuss about unreasonable fees. Don't worry about being tagged a complainer or holding up a long line of customers. Don't avoid complaining because you think you'll lose or because you don't like confrontation (you should never be afraid of confrontation).

You may win your spat. Even if you don't, you should force hotels to deal with angry consumers who can very easily stay somewhere else. If we all did that, some of these fees might be eliminated.

"In the wake of the failed attack, some say we have to choose between security and civil liberties. We don't have to sacrifice one for the other."

"...no one should be forced to expose their body to total strangers to secure an airplane."

So says U.S. Representative Jason Chaffetz, a Utah Republican, who refuses to pass through a full-body scanner at airports. He introduced an amendment in Congress to limit its use.

Here's his explanation.

Most people never have to board an airplane. They don't travel for business and their social contacts are usually within driving distance. They can travel by car, if need be, to visit out-of-town relatives or go on vacation.

Some association employees - and many association members - however, may have a difficult time performing their jobs without utilizing air travel. So, inane security rules have a big impact on their lives.

Hysteria, rather than sound security planning, seems to be the driving force behind some new airline security rules, as this article suggests.

At what point will air travelers protest these unreasonble regulations?

So, Sen. Joe Lieberman thinks security personnel viewing nude images of airplane passengers is only a "mild" invasion of privacy.

What would be a major privacy violation?

Check out the debate.

Here's a reaction to new airline security rules.

Driving sure sounds a lot more appealing than flying.

Suppose a movie theater announced it had sold too many tickets and asked for volunteers to view another show at a later date.

Or a baseball stadium sold more tickets than seats and told some people to come back another day for another game.

Or, the hotel hosting your annual conference double-booked and wanted you to move your meeting date - after you had signed a contract, paid a deposit, and sent an announcement to your members.

Or this.

Most people would consider those situations unacceptable, yet they tolerate it when airlines routinely overbook. (American Airlines and American Eagle, like most airlines, overbook flights). Airline representatives frequently ask (or force) PAID ticket holders to give up their seats for a ride on another flight, at another time, often on another carrier.

It seems to me that if every seat was sold, the flight would be full and the airline would have been paid for every seat.

Overbooking is careless. Intentional overbooking is unethical. Why should it be legal?

By the way, I used the hanger method again in Charleston SC. Thanks again to Cindy Butts for sharing Scott Brunner's great, great idea.

I don't travel much, but I've been to three meetings in the last four weeks. I've produced one in Livonia MI, spoke in Kansas City MO, and staffed a conference in Charleston SC.

When you are the consumer, it's fine to opine about the highs and lows of sites, properties, and amenities. When your members are the consumers, however, you do what they like.

So, if your members prefer vintage to modern, they'll love the charming Francis Marion Hotel, in the historic district of Charleston SC.

They'll enjoy the very responsive staff, great food, abundance of nearby restaurants and cultural sites, free computer and internet use in the business center, comfy beds, and the hotel's general ambiance.

They're likely to overlook the 85-year old, renovated building's slow elevators, small bathrooms with tiny toilets and no countertops, and a men's room that offers less privacy than is customary.

I can't wait to get back home.