Curious Goods

U.S. Marshals will sell the personal effects of Ted Kaczynski, aka the Unabomber, via online auction beginning May 18, 2011.

How fitting that the guy who hated the "industrial-technological system" has his stuff auctioned off using that system.

Although the proceeds will go to the Unabomber's victims, I have no idea who would really want to buy this stuff or how much they'd be willing to spend. However, some of you guys might want to save your money in case one day they decide to auction off Osama's porn collection.

Dead Not Alive

"So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... to be honest with you." — George W. Bush, March 13, 2002.

"Tonight I can report to the American people and to the world that the United States has conducted an operation that has killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda and a terrorist who's responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men, women and children." — Barack Obama, May 1, 2011.

So it's been nearly a decade. When the news started rolling in tonight that Osama bin Laden was dead, I half expected that he died of old age. But no, the CIA got him. It's a victory for certain, but not the kind that will put to end any of our wars.

Fireworks are going off in my neighborhood.

How long until Trump demands to see a death certificate?

A Slap in the Face

Last night, Jon Stewart reported on... oh hell, you have to see it to believe it:

The Daily Show - Friends Without Benefits
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Part 2:

The Daily Show - Friends Without Benefits - 9/11 Responders
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Yes, so the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, intended to help the heroes of 9-11 with their medical bills, "requires the WTC Program Administrator to determine whether a WTC responder or survivor is on the terrorist watch list prior to his or her enrollment or certification."

Jon Stewart handled the whole WTF, what a slap-in-the-face angle quite well, so I want to bring up one other issue. The U.S. Terrorist Watch List was intended to stop suspected terrorists from boarding commercial aircraft for travel in or out of the United States. I always felt the list was a bad idea to begin with, but now it has turned into a monster. Since September 11, 2001, the list has bloated to over 1 million names. People can be added to this list without due process -- no trial before a judge or jury will take place before a citizen's right to travel is diminished. Furthermore, there is no system to get your name removed from the list. And if you happen to share a name with somebody on the list? Tough luck.

But now it's not just a "no fly list." The stupid thing is being used in new, novel and purely political ways. I don't know how, in a democracy, we can tolerate a secret list of citizens who must constantly be scrutinized as suspects, yet never be given a day in court. If a "no fly list" can turn into a "no health care compensation list," then how long until Congress turns this into a "no vote list" or worse?

His Legacy Continues

Former President George W. Bush planned to speak at a big charity event in Switzerland later this week, but apparently his plans have been scrapped due to the threat of "massive protests."

The organizers of the protests are calling for Bush and his administration to be held accountable for war crimes. Good. Somebody has to do it if the U.S. won't.

Bush's recent book is basically a signed confession. And more importantly, two victims of torture in U.S. detention have recently prepared a criminal complaint against Bush.

So it's not just the protests and rioting Bush and his buddies fear -- it's falling into the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Whether anybody in charge would be brave enough to prosecute a former U.S. president, I don't know. But many free people in democratic and civil nations view Bush as a third-world tyrant -- like Pinochet. And just like a cowardly despot, Bush is safest traveling to authoritarian countries like China and Saudi Arabia.

And that grim reality reflects on our nation. I'm not sure how the world can ever take us seriously on the issues of democracy, human rights, or basic decency with Bush still jaunting about.

And finally, a friendly note to European countries: if Bush gets a little forgetful again and plans a visit to your country, don't announce your plans to arrest him ahead of time!

Color Coded Conditioning

One day you'll tell your grandchildren about this, but they won't believe you. They'll say in disbelief, "you mean they had a color coded chart to tell you how scared to be?"

"Yes," you'll tell them. "And for nine long years it only varied from yellow to orange and back again."

"Why did they change it to orange?"

"Usually to make us forget about a Democratic National Convention or a Republican scandal."

But then a wizened smile will grow across your face and you'll say, "but the comedians and snarky bloggers ridiculed the dumbstupid thing and eventually the government gave up their dang rainbow charts."

Then your precocious little grandkid will pipe up with, "now when they want us to forget they use the neuralyzer!"

"sigh."

"Grams, tell me more about the good-old days!"

Mission Impossible

I always thought the whole "master of disguise" plot device was unrealistic, cheap, and best suited for Scooby Doo mysteries.

But now Canadian authorities are detaining a young Asian man who boarded an Air Canada flight wearing a high-quality head and neck mask which disguised him as an elderly white man. For whatever reason, he decided to take off the disguise mid-flight.

(CNN video.)

Well, there goes one argument for racial profiling. A high-grade silicone mask is all it takes to change your race or age and avert TSA scrutiny. But I'm sure our Homeland Security is already dreaming up countermeasures. Maybe in addition to the new freaky groin and breast pat-downs, TSA can also try to peal off your face!

As many others have said before, all this airport hassle and humiliation is not making us safer. We already took the most important measure which was reinforcing cockpit doors. Passengers are also very alert now and will not let some idiot with a knife commandeer a flight. All this other expensive security theater can be bypassed by anybody who is marginally smart and highly determined.

Speaking of airport humiliation, EPIC, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, has filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security to suspend the deployment of body scanners at US airports, pending an independent review. They allege that the naked scans these machines produce violate the Fourth Amendment, the Privacy Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act.

Yep, our government is no better than a pervert with a web cam.

Make a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom

Who said print media is dead?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I'm as skeptical as Maddow about this al-Qaeda magazine. 4chan couldn't have done it better -- "in the kitchen of your mom" could be the internet meme of the year. But think about what that little phrase undoubtedly implies: real al-Qaeda members still live with their moms. Yes, I think there are some psy-ops going on here.

But just in case this is all real, here is my free advice for Inspire. Be really careful who you get your polling data from.

Fictional Heroes

To Kill a Mockingbird turns 50 this summer. I did not read the Pulitzer Prize-winning novel until I was an adult, but I saw the film adaptation at around age seven or eight. Of course, it was probably the likable characters of Scout and Jem, close to my own age so I could imagine them as my own cohorts, which drew me into the television presentation. But I also look back and realize that Atticus taught me a lot about justice, respect, and human dignity.

Or at least that movie was an early inspiration to even thinking about those concepts. Sometimes I find it really hard to trace where my ideas and values come from, but I know where they stand now.

And that brings me to another subject. I feel, like many people including, I thought, the president, that our country has lost some of its moral high-standing during this ill-conceived "war on terror." But apparently President Obama has changed his opinions while mine have stayed the same.

I know I'm outsourcing to Jon Stewart twice in one week, but who can resist the comparison of Obama to Frodo?

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Respect My Authoritah
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Hunting Trip

There are probably more relaxing ways to spend your vacation.

A 52-year-old Californian construction worker named Gary Brooks Faulkner packed a gun, a 40-inch sword, night goggles, and Christian literature on his solo mission to Pakistan to hunt Osama bin Laden.

These kind of news stories (which we don't hear often enough considering there is a still a $25 million reward for OBL's capture) hold a special place in my heart. Some of my first blog posts in 2001 were about bin Laden...

It still baffles me that our CIA and special forces with all their high-tech equipment haven't found the 9/11 mastermind in the nine years since the terrorist attacks.

And yet this lone construction worker with a criminal record was probably on the right track:

Faulkner might not have been that far from his prey. He was trying to enter Nuristan, a region the U.S. military decided to abandon last year as being too remote and indefensible, and widely considered a Taliban stronghold. Rumors of bin Laden’s presence in this area abound: As recently as last year, U.S. officials were speculating Osama might be hiding in the mountains of Chitral or just across the border in Nuristan.

So I have this feeling that, despite not succeeding on this terrorist assassin mission, Faulkner will still enjoy a bit of hero status at home. And maybe more crazies with 40-inch swords will give the OBL hunt a try.

For nine years I've had this strange feeling that our government isn't even trying.

How to Wuss Out

Angry celebrities, violent ginger kids, and Mecha Streisand are about to destroy South Park and all anyone wants to know is, "Who is Eric Cartman's father?" That's how Comedy Central hyped South Park's two-part 200th show celebration.

But when I tuned in last night to watch the conclusion of this monumental event, all I saw was a repeat of "The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs."

Well, let's backup to last week's part one, which aired uncensored. The plot was truly aimed at the die-hard fans. Every celebrity who the people of South Park ever ridiculed over the last 14 seasons were coming together for a class action lawsuit (led by fudge-packer Tom Cruise).

Of course, any South Park retrospective has to incorporate The Super Best Friends, an episode which featured major religious figures including Jesus, Buddha, Moses, Joseph Smith, Krishna, Lao Tzu, Muhammad and Sea Man defending the world against evil. This cartoon alliance didn't cause a stir back when it originally aired in July 2001.

But sometime after the attacks on September 11, 2001, an era of media self-censorship began, and the myth of the prohibition on the pictorial representation of the Prophet Mohammad became an extremist rallying point:

Even a tradition as seemingly deeply set and unyielding as the one at the heart of the controversy over the Danish cartoons – the prohibition on the pictorial representation of the Prophet Mohammed – is in truth neither deeply set nor unyielding. Far from Islam having always forbidden representations of the Prophet, it was common to portray him until comparatively recently. The prohibition against such depictions only emerged in the 17th century. Even over the past 400 years, a number of Islamic, especially Shiite, traditions have accepted the pictorial representation of Muhammed. The Edinburgh University Library in Scotland, the Bibliotheque National in Paris, New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Topkapi Palace Museum, Istanbul, all contain dozens of Persian, Ottoman and Afghan manuscripts depicting the Prophet. His face can be seen in many mosques too – even in Iran. A seventeenth-century mural on the Iman Zahdah Chah Zaid Mosque in the Iranian town of Isfahan, for instance, shows a Mohammed whose facial features are clearly visible.

Even today, few Muslims have a problem in seeing the Prophet's face. Shortly after Jyllands Posten published the cartoons, the Egyptian newspaper Al Fagr reprinted them. They were accompanied by a critical commentary, but Al Fagr did not think it necessary to blank out Mohammad's face, and faced no opprobrium for not doing so. Egypt's religious and political authorities, even as they were demanding an apology from the Danish Prime Minister, raised no objections to Al Fagr's full frontal photos.

The Danish cartoons they're referring to are the 12 editorial cartoons, most depicting Mohammad, which resulted in widespread demonstrations, arson, and death threats in 2005.

So, rather predictably, a radical Islamic site issued threats (and denied they were threats) before last night's episode of South Park could air:

We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them.

Theo Van Gogh was the Dutch film director who was murdered by an Islamic extremist for making a documentary critical of the treatment of women in Islam.

Now, Matt and Trey, the producers of South Park, are smart people, and clearly they planned for a bit more controversy than usual. They knew they could get away with showing Buddha snorting coke and Jesus viewing porn, but simply showing Mohammad would be the touchy issue. So part of episode 200 dealt with the South Park kids figuring out how to disguise Mohammad. One hilarious ruse involved Mohammad wearing a bear suit.

Keep in mind, they never even utilized the original cartoon version of Mohammad from 2001. Comedy Central and Viacom were probably too wussy for that, but Matt and Trey were making a larger point -- a point about fear and intimidation.

So what did Comedy Central and Viacom do? They succumbed to fear and intimidation. They bleeped out every mention of the prophet -- and then refused to repeat the episode anyway. That's the way to totally wuss out.

It's easy to think it was all some kind of meta-joke, but Matt and Trey issued a statement regarding this ridiculous censorship:

In the 14 years we've been doing South Park we have never done a show that we couldn't stand behind. We delivered our version of the show to Comedy Central and they made a determination to alter the episode. It wasn't some meta-joke on our part. Comedy Central added the bleeps. In fact, Kyle's customary final speech was about intimidation and fear. It didn't mention Muhammad at all but it got bleeped too. We'll be back next week with a whole new show about something completely different and we'll see what happens to it.

Comedy Central airs some of my favorite shows, but I don't respect this bowing to Islamic extremists. Nobody wants a repeat of the 2005 violence, but this paranoia puts our art, our entertainment, and our culture in the hands of a few religious nuts. There's nothing funny about that.

If the media keeps wussing out like this, then (I hate to drag out this old line) "the terrorists have already won."

On the Anniversary of OKC

(The Survivor Tree at the Oklahoma City National Memorial, photographed by Dustin M. Ramsey.)

Fifteen years have passed since the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City which claimed the lives of 168 men, women and children. Nine years have passed since Timothy McVeigh was executed for the crime.

Tonight I watched The McVeigh Tapes: Confessions of an American Terrorist on MSNBC. I wasn't sure what to expect. The "state-of-the-art computer re-creations" were annoying and creepy, but the documentary as a whole was a rather dry textbook time line of the events plus stories of the survivors.

As the special was advertised in the previous week, I was a little worried that MSNBC might inadvertently glorify the anti-government fanatic McVeigh -- that's the last thing this country needs right now -- but I should have realized that Rachel Maddow, as the narrator, would never allow such "hatriot" propaganda. Instead, the tapes revealed McVeigh as a killer without much insight, compassion, or charisma. Years ago I used to wonder if McVeigh's dreams were haunted by the children he killed, but all he had to say to their surviving families was "get over it."

Besides that shocking callousness, I didn't learn anything new about McVeigh or his motivation. He said some stuff about Waco and Ruby Ridge. These catalysts have been discussed many times over the years, and they're probably the closest thing to an explanation that we're ever going to get. Yet I could never understand how McVeigh could be so damn vengeful over those tragic deaths and yet not give a shit about the children he murdered.

And here we are again all these years later. This time we're faced with new fringe hate groups and their incoherent threats of violence over all the things they're misinformed about. Of course, one of those things is health care. They're angry because people less fortunate than themselves might get health care. Yep, the callousness is still there along with the violent rhetoric.

Today former President Bill Clinton wrote about the lessons learned from Oklahoma City:

Americans have more freedom and broader rights than citizens of almost any other nation in the world, including the capacity to criticize their government and their elected officials. But we do not have the right to resort to violence — or the threat of violence — when we don’t get our way. Our founders constructed a system of government so that reason could prevail over fear. Oklahoma City proved once again that without the law there is no freedom.

Well, only some of us learned those lessons, and we're the same ones who remember just how dangerous an angry few can be.

The inscription that accompanies the Survivor Tree reads, "The spirit of this city and this nation will not be defeated; our deeply rooted faith sustains us."

Loose Nukes

"We have to recognize that terrorists networks have relationships with terrorist states that have weapons of mass destruction, and that they inevitably are going to get their hands on them and they would not hesitate one minute to use them." — Donald Rumsfeld, 2002.

So I've been kind of hoping for the last eight years that somebody would do something about the loose nuke problem. I'm glad it's finally reached the top of the todo list.

At the unprecedented 47-nation nuclear security summit held earlier this week in Washington D.C., world leaders pledged to secure all vulnerable nuclear material within four years. Russia and the US also signed an agreement to dispose of 68 tons of surplus weapons-grade plutonium. Incidentally, Russian President Medvedev made some sly comments about how nice it was to work with a US president who "thinks when he speaks."

Sam Nunn, a former senator and former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, was quick to defend President Obama’s weapons reduction strategy:

"What is the mission that you can’t accomplish with 1,500 warheads?" Nunn asked with a derisive laugh in an exclusive interview with The Daily Beast. "There was a recent report in Scientific American that 100 warheads used by India and Pakistan against each other would kill 20 million people immediately, and would cause so much blockage of the sun with the debris in the atmosphere that over a period of several years, there would be as many as a billion people starving to death."

Of course. But wait. Why would anybody have to defend this policy? I mean, who would be against a revived commitment to nonproliferation? Well, round-up the usual bunch of hyperventilating idiots: Fox News, Rudy Giuliani, Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, and Sarah Palin.

Daily Kos has already tackled the list of nuke policy myths you're going to hear, and The Federation of American Scientists has written a careful report on the Nuclear Posture Review. Unsurprisingly, it's a bit more complicated than Sarah Palin's dimwitted playground metaphor, yet not impossible for the average American to understand.

Some facts: the new treaty does not limit US missile defense systems, the US will still consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstance, and President Obama does indeed have support of top military brass.

Finally, reducing our arsenal does not make us more vulnerable.

However, if you're one of the frivolous few who LOVE nuclear warfare, then relax. Nuclear warheads will be around for a long, long time, and who knows? One day McCain's dream may come true and we'll bomb Iran.

(atomicarchive.com)

The Doomsday Clock is still ticking.

Abandoning the Debate

In the last four days there have been five separate attacks on Democratic party offices apparently by right wing extremists.

Since the 2008 election, when GOP rally audiences started yelling "kill him" at every mention of Barack Obama, I knew this was coming. These extremists are now abandoning the debate for violence. No doubt, this is terrorism. I'm not surprised, but I'm worried.

Click here for a detailed listing of major terrorist plots and racist rampages that have emerged from the American radical right since the Oklahoma City bombing, and now I'm going to outsource the rest of this blog post to Rachel Maddow:

Exhuming McCarthy

"Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" Those are the famous words of Joseph N. Welch in response to Joseph McCarthy at the infamous Army-McCarthy Hearings of 1954.

I'd like to repeat those questions to Liz Cheney and William Kristol. Apparently they think it's good politics to vilify Department of Justice lawyers who have defended alleged terrorists. But it's not good politics. Cheney and Kristol look like a pair of McCarthy-era commie-hunting idiots.

Our entire system of justice is based on both sides having good, strong legal representation. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C) has joined a list of distinguished lawyers and policy experts denouncing the recent attack ads:

"I've been a military lawyer for almost 30 years, I represented people as a defense attorney in the military that were charged with some pretty horrific acts, and I gave them my all," said Graham. "This system of justice that we're so proud of in America requires the unpopular to have an advocate and every time a defense lawyer fights to make the government do their job, that defense lawyer has made us all safer."

Ken Starr has also loudly rebuked Cheney and Kristol on this important issue. But the "department of Jihad" slur will still catch on with some people. Those people don't understand justice, but they also lack a conscious, empathy, and imagination. Do you ever imagine yourself on the unpopular side of a court case?

Hey Liz, let me help you picture what could happen in your fantasy world where no lawyer will defend a man who everybody assumes is guilty:

(Image via Crooks and Liars)

The Anti-Tax Plane

As tax day approaches, many of us are on edge.

Tragically, a Texas man this morning set his house on fire and then intentionally flew a small airplane into the Austin Echelon Building which was home to IRS offices. The man is believed to be Andrew Joseph Stack. He is presumed dead. Thirteen others were hurt - two critically, and one person is missing.

A spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security said there is no reason to believe that terrorism is involved.

You can read Joe Stack's manifesto yourself. As far as manifestos go, I thought it was quite readable though full of contradictions. He's clearly against taxes, but ends with the communist creed.

As these events unfolded, I wasn't sure how the media would pigeonhole Stack, or who would own him or disown him. The man had quite a hodgepodge of political views, and he thought violence was the answer to bad government.

Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) is already implying that the attack was an example of voter frustration. Put that together with the fact that Stack is white and has an American sounding name, and well... I knew somebody would find a terrorist they could really relate to.

Don't try to tell me Joe Stack isn't a terrorist. He intentionally crashed his plane into a building! He attacked civilians, and his purpose was to make a political statement. That's terrorism.

It's also a weird story about a disturbed man. It won't do our country any good to bicker over which ideology he thought he was fighting for.

Triumph of Our Values

Turns out we don't have to torture and beat terror suspects to get them to cooperate. Umar Farouq Abdulmuttalab, aka the failed Underpants Bomber, has been cooperating with authorities and sharing intelligence since last Thursday. The information he is providing has been described as "fresh and actionable."

This news is further evidence that standard law enforcement techniques (even with Miranda Rights!) are much more reliable and productive than torture which can actually impair a person's ability to tell the truth.

Furthermore, when our justice system is respected, we're more likely to get cooperation, like in Abdulmuttalab's case where his family has been answering questions from the FBI:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Of course, Republicans think this is a sign of weakness -- a dangerous new direction even -- despite the glaring fact that the Bush Administration handled the Shoe Bomber the exact same way. In fact, since September 11, 2001, there have been 593 indictments on terrorism resolved in civilian courts. Of those cases, 88% resulted in convictions.

But when the Obama Adminstration recognizes that the justice system is a security tool, they're a bunch of pussies... according to Republicans who want to put a halt to everything... especially all that "lawyering up." By the way, I'm so sick of the dismissive phrase "lawyering up." It's dumbing us down.

I'm hoping that we're smart enough to realize that victory means defeating terrorists without damaging our fundamental principles. Republicans just want to play politics.

Victory

(Image via GoComics)

"The purpose of terrorism is to provoke an overreaction. Its real aim is not to kill the hundreds of people directly targeted but to sow fear in the rest of the population. Terrorism is an unusual military tactic in that it depends on the response of the onlookers. If we are not terrorized, then the attack didn't work. Alas, this one worked very well. " -- Fareed Zakaria

On Their Terms

I was glad I caught the Rachel Maddow show tonight:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

It's even clearer now how Osama bin Laden provoked and baited us. Well, I thought it was easy to see in 2004, but apparently most of the country thought it was a good idea to reelect Bush. But I digress. We're fighting these wars on al Qaeda's terms running off to whatever impoverished and unstable country they're hiding out in.

The interview with Evan Kohlmann (about 7:40 into the above video) was the really insightful part. Anybody (me included) can point out what's wrong with our homeland security tactics, but Kohlmann points out what we could be doing differently in the Muslim world. For example, we could do proper intelligence work and continuously draw attention to the fact that more Muslim civilians die at the hands of al Qaeda than Americans do.

By the way, if you're keeping score on how many Muslim countries we're entangled in, don't count out Iraq just yet. The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has plans to double in size. What was it that bin Laden said about "bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy"?

Life is Dangerous

(YouTube video)

Retired Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney wants to be very serious and harsh about profiling. He wants to strip search all 18-28 year old Muslim men at the airport. This isn't "racial profiling" according to him. It's just "profiling."

Here are my random thoughts:

• We'll see more 29-year-old terrorists.
• We'll see more female terrorists.
• We'll see more exploding diapers on children.
• We'll see more terrorists wearing crosses around their necks.
• We won't see any of this because terrorists will pick new targets.
• Osama Bin Laden will do the next attack himself because he can fly without being strip searched.
• I'm not sure any new rules will stop a terrorist who is willing to die.
  
• Is it just me, or did McInerney seem a little bit aroused over his own plans?
• Somebody at FOX News didn't like this idea? Wow.

Also, relying on stereotypes is ineffective and dangerous. Being against this type of profiling is not "political correctness."

And I said this a few days ago, but it's worth repeating: this isn't security. It's a useless, knee-jerk reaction.

On a related note, another bloviating radio host wants to "scrutinize anybody with the name Abdul." What? She's not even on American Idol anymore. Leave her alone.

The Underpants Bomber

I debated whether the Christmas Day Underpants Bomber was worthy of a blog post. I wasn't at all surprised. We're still threatened by terrorists? No shit. I wasn't intrigued. Somebody tried to bring down an airliner? You're kidding me? And I wasn't frightened. Dangers exist in the world? Even on Christmas?

The modus operandi of this near disaster was funny though... like something from every wannabe comedian's act. Will TSA ask us to take off our underpants now? Well, not if airports get these naked scanners:


The real story here is our reaction. That's all we do when it comes to security -- react. It starts with the 24-hour news channel coverage loop which is clearly designed to scare the shit out of us. Then, TSA implements new flight restrictions like asking passengers to stay in their seats for the last hour of the flight. So now any potential terrorist has to launch his plot 65 minutes before landing. Golly, that ought to stop them.

The fact is that every "security hole" we plug has existed since the beginning of commercial flights. That's right. We've always been at the mercy of liquid bombers, shoe-bombers, and underpants-bombers. When somebody actually attempts it, we react. And then somebody will attempt something else, and the fear feeds the endless loop, and maybe one day the airports will give us all paper hospital gowns, anesthetize us, and still.. somebody will find a way to cause harm.

At least one security expert has it right. Bruce Schneier has been saying this for years:

Only two things have made flying safer [since 9/11]: the reinforcement of cockpit doors, and the fact that passengers know now to resist hijackers.

Everything else is a useless, knee-jerk reaction. As a nation, we still act ridiculously naive on these issues.

Anyway, I'm going back to playing with my Christmas toys. Stay safe.