Last night I attended a party. Really, rather than a party, it more closely resembled a spontaneous high school reunion. Approximately 30-50 of the people at this party I knew from high school. It felt kind of weird to see all of these people again, most of whom I hadn’t seen in 7+ years. Strangely, it felt like no time had passed at all: everyone looked virtually the same, and they even seemed like they hadn’t changed, after talking to them. But I don’t really intend to talk about the goings-on of that party tonight. Instead, I want to talk about something amusing some of the conversations I had made me think about.

Let’s say you’re at some kind of party or networking event. It’s the kind of event with many people, and you want/need to talk to quite a few, all of whom are scattered about a room. As a result, you must circulate throughout the room, talking to a few for a while, and then leaving to talk to more. The difficulty that one sometimes runs into in this situation is the last part of that process: leaving.

In theory, you can leave easily enough. You can just tell them you’d rather talk to other people instead of continuing to talk to them the whole time. Of course, this could seem a bit rude. After all, no one wants to hear that you’d be more interested talking to someone other than him/her. As a result, one naturally tries to figure out a way to make an exit without seeming like you would rather talk to someone else.

If you know how to do this, it still isn’t very hard. The best method is to be somewhat honest, while being somewhat subtle. You can just say something like, “I want to keep talking to you, but I have to talk to a few of these other people too. When I’m done with them, I’ll be back.” Of course, you never get done with the other people, and by the time you do, all you have left to say is “goodbye”. Obviously there other similar methods exist, but you get the point.

Most people, however, do not have such subtly within their grasp. It’s rather amusing to see the multitude of different ways in which people attempt to accomplish the exit.
The general awkward way to exit such conversations consists of utilizing some external excuse. Needing more food or another drink are classic examples. A sudden need for the bathroom works as well. I recall hearing this very example last night. Someone with whom I was talking (for longer than either of us probably wanted or expected) decided to exit. As a result, she used something approximating to the bathroom excuse. Of course, upon her return, she quietly walked by where I sat with others, and continued to another part of the party.

But in this example, like so many others, this exit turned out to be agreeable to both parties, even though neither wanted to admit that we wanted out. In fact, the general situation is probably one where neither one of you expects to talk to the other for an extended period of time, but only wanted to chat for a short time, probably because the two of you are acquaintances. So doesn’t it just seem better to be honest about things? Why not just state that you want to circulate or that you need to chat with some other people?

At any rate, I guess last night’s party made me think about the “exit strategy”. You never want to hurt someone’s feelings, but most of the time, I’d be willing to be that both of you desire an exit. So I say go for it, and be honest about it. I know I’d appreciate the honesty, and even if my feelings were hurt, I’d rather know how you really feel, rather than hearing some lame half-truth excuse of why you’re leaving.

If the “express line” takes 20 minutes to get through, how long do the regular lines take?

A day or two ago I read a headline that I believed to be great news: Airport Security was considering allowing people to carry on small scissors again. Now I understand that something like this is probably a very small issue to most people, but being that I’ve probably flown somewhere between 125,000 and 150,000 in the past two years, I take travel-related news very seriously. And I particularly enjoyed this news, because I have long been frustrated that if I only carry on my luggage, I can never bring a small pair of scissors with which to prune my sideburns. Indeed, about two years ago I was one of those unlucky travelers who got a pair of scissors taken away when going through security. And I really liked those scissors.

So this news pleased me. Unfortunately, the next day I read another headline proclaiming that staunch security advocates opposed the change of allowing small scissors to be carried on. As a result, TSA could reconsider this proposed change. Please give me a moment to step onto my soapbox.

What good reason could there possibly be for not allowing us to have small scissors in our carry-on luggage? I understand the initial motivation. On 9/11, the terrorists were using box cutters to hijack the planes. And box cutters aren’t so different in terms of effectiveness as a weapon from small scissors. As a result, people fear that if we continue to allow such small sharp objects onto flights, we can have 9/11 all over again.

But they’re wrong. Other important changes have occurred that will disallow 9/11-like attack to occur again, even if there are small-scissor-toting terrorists on-board a flight. For starters, the pilots now lock the cockpit. The box cutters worked in the past because the terrorists charged the cockpits with these box cutters. Once in the cockpit, they threatened the pilots and forced them out of their seats. With these cockpits now locked, the worst possible thing that could happen, even in theory, is that these terrorists could stab a few flight attendants or passengers. Of course, as soon as this happened, any number of other passengers would probably attack and disarm these terrorists, because they would likely be outnumbered 50 to 1, and a small pair of scissors isn’t exactly an effective weapon when outnumbered 50 to 1.

And that brings me to the next reason that this would never happen – history has taught us a lesson. On 9/11 the only reason all of the passengers on the first three flights failed to attack these terrorists and attempt to disarm them was because they did not realize that these terrorists planned to fly the plane into a building. History has now shown us, and as the flight that crashed in Pennsylvania proves, if terrorists attempt to take over a plane with small, sharp objects again, the passengers will not let that happen, because they know that the small risk that these sharp objects might pose to them means nothing compared to their potential fate if these terrorists get into the cockpit.

Honestly, what could the airline industry possibly be worried about to disallow people to carry a small pair of scissors onto a plane? You can carry a brick onto a plane, and I can hurt people a lot worse with a brick than I can with a small pair of scissors. These small scissors pose no tangible threat anymore. I understand the initial fear that people might have had after 9/11. At that time, they were trying to strengthen security as much as possible with the fear that something like that could happen again. But it can’t happen again with small scissors – not even in theory. So if TSA does decide to change this rule, I applaud their practicality, and so do my sideburns.

If you learned that the means by which you and your significant other met was based on a lie, but your significant other had never lied to you since, would you be able to remain with him/her even though your relationship began with a lie?