Goldy

If I wanted to blow up an airplane, and was willing to lose my life in the process, I’d pack plastic explosives into a working laptop, and use the battery to power a detonator.

The thought first occurred to me years ago, during the heightened security measures following the first Iraq War, while traveling with my not so aptly named Mac Portable. This thing was huge and cavernous (its brick of a battery alone weighed over two pounds), with plenty of room for hiding contraband.

Security screeners at the time generally required that you turn on your computer to prove it worked, but since the Mac Portable could boot from a RAM disk, one could accomplish this simple task with both the hard drive and the floppy drive removed. I probably could’ve hid a pistol inside a functioning Mac Portable, and still had room for more than enough C-4 to bring down an airplane.

The same would be true of any full size modern laptop, especially now that TSA no longer checks that they’re functional. Just remove much of the guts, fill the space with C-4, connect a detonator to the battery, and with a little tinkering you’ve got yourself a pretty damn powerful bomb. And if it doesn’t detonate, at least you don’t set your crotch on fire in the process.

I suppose one might get caught at security by one of those chemical sensing machines or a bomb sniffing dog, but what are the chances of that? I’ve flown dozens of times since 9/11 and I think I’ve had my carry-on items swabbed exactly once. Besides, if Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab could carry common explosives through security by stuffing them down his pants, I like my odds.

Of course, I don’t want to blow up an airplane, but if a nonviolent guy like me can imagine creative ways to do so, I’m guessing a motivated terrorist could be just as innovative. Which brings me to my point.

One could build a powerful explosive device into even a functioning laptop… so, are we going to ban travelers from carrying on computers? Likewise, I bet I could fit a couple of pounds of C-4 into a hollowed out copy of Twilight, or stuffed within a foot-long hoagie. Are we going to ban books and sandwiches as well? All carry-on items? Puffy sweaters? Cargo pants?

Of course not. That would be silly. As are most of the new TSA rules issued in the wake of the undie bomber’s unsuccessful terrorist attack. I mean, do you feel any safer having you and your fellow passengers confined to your seats for the final hour of a flight, especially knowing that it was your fellow passengers who subdued and disarmed Abdulmutallab?

We’ve already spent hundreds of billions of dollars attempting to make us safer from terrorism, some of the money well spent, but much of it not. At some point, we need to make a rational cost benefit analysis that assesses the true risk to the American people, and addresses it accordingly. For example, over the past decade, the odds of an airline passenger being killed in a terrorist attack have been about one in 10,408,947. The odds of being struck by lightning are one in 500,000.

Once again, I like those odds.

It’s no secret that House Speaker Frank Chopp wasn’t too thrilled about the prospect of fighting to retain an open seat in the 41st Legislative District, and now he won’t have to after persuading freshman Rep. Marcie Maxwell to pass up an appointment to Sen. Fred Jarrett’s soon to be vacated seat. From a press release:

Representative Marcie Maxwell, (D) 41st District, has announced that she will continue her legislative work as State Representative and not seek the appointment for the Senate seat vacated last week by Fred Jarrett.

[…] Representative Maxwell will immediately replace House Speaker Frank Chopp as the voting member of the Quality Education Council (QEC), the panel charged with developing strategic recommendations for implementing a new definition of Basic Education and the funding necessary to support it.

This leaves Jarrett’s senate seat the object of contention. In an email to 41st District Dems members, chair Jeff Smith says that the County Council plans to move quickly on the matter, making an appointment by January 11th.

Huh. It’s hard to believe the council will have appointed Dow Constantine’s replacement by then, but if so, that means the 41st Dems PCO’s would likely nominate their top three choices sometime within the next week.

It’s hard to handicap such an insider process, but from what I hear, the top three candidates remain attorney/activist Randy Gordon (a Camp Wellstone classmate of mine), Vicki Orrico, who just lost a close race for Bellevue City Council, and Washington Toxics Coalition Executive Director Maureen Judge, who my daughter likes to refer to as “mom.”

No doubt my daughter and I will be watching this appointment closely.

Ever been sick on an airplane? I have, once while flying back from Mexico, and it was awful. But at least the flight crew didn’t have me hauled away in handcuffs at the end of the flight:

A Nigerian man who became ill on Northwest Airlines Flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit — the same flight involved in Friday’s terrorism attempt — triggered a security alert at Detroit Metropolitan Airport after the pilots requested emergency assistance upon landing, the Department of Homeland Security announced on Sunday. The department said that the response to Sunday’s incident, which included informing President Obama, was “an abundance of caution.”

Earlier in the afternoon, Delta Airlines, which acquired Northwest last year, said in a statement that the crew had requested police assistance on the ground because a passenger was “verbally disruptive.” The Transportation Safety Administration said in a statement that it had been alerted to a “disruptive passenger on board” Flight 253. The T.S.A. said that the flight landed safely at Detroit International Airport at approximately 12:35 p.m. Eastern “without incident.”

Homeland Security press secretary, Sara Kuban, released a statement, sorting out what had happened on the flight.

“A passenger on today’s Northwest flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit spent an unusually long time in the aircraft lavatory,” she said in the statement.

And then, according to other reports, the passenger became “verbally abusive” (whatever that means) after the flight crew kicked open the bathroom door. For that he was handcuffed and arrested.

In related news, airline stocks are down sharply in the wake of this weekend’s events, and I can understand why. I myself was preparing to make reservations for our annual February trip to take my daughter to visit Grandma in Florida, but have been given serious pause… not due to fears of increased terrorism, but due to fears of the TSA and airline industry response.

There was a time when airline personnel would attempt to deal with sick and/or legitimately disgruntled passengers by offering them an upgrade or a free drink or perhaps just a pillow, a blanket or a smile. Now they increasingly pull the security card at the slightest provocation, as happened to me last year near the end of a particularly torturous travel day.

Yes, there was a time when the airlines treated us like customers, but no more. And that has made an already uncomfortable and stressful experience downright dreadful. Thinking back to that godawful, intestinally challenged flight from Mexico, at least the flight attendants were sympathetic and accommodating. Had I been forced to remain in my seat for the last hour of the flight, as new regulations now require on international flights landing in the U.S., I can assure you I would have literally shit my pants. Explosively.

The fact is, as scary as the Christmas Day incident was, it was unsuccessful, as has been every other attempted airline attack since 9/11. By all means, we should remain vigilant, as the the passengers and crew of Flight 253 clearly were in subduing the alleged terrorist and extinguishing his incendiary device. But let’s not lose perspective.

The goal of the terrorists is, after all, to instill terror. Let’s not do their job for them in the guise of TSA theater.

In summarizing The Year’s Most Underreported Stories over at Publicola, Erica writes:

4) The political demise of Tim Eyman and those that brung him.

Obviously, Tim Eyman isn’t going away–the former watch salesman’s entire livelihood depends on bringing in new contributions, and new contributions require new campaigns. But this year’s stunning defeat of his latest tax-slashing measure, Initiative 1033 (his first tax measure, importantly, to be defeated) spells doom for future Eyman initiatives. Voters don’t have to be told that taxes pay for things they need anymore–they can see it all around them, in the state’s crumbling infrastructure, the closure of county parks, and the ongoing budget crisis at the city, state, and county levels.

Moreover–to paraphrase Josh–Eyman’s defeat this year is good news for Democrats in general, suggesting that last summer’s anti-government, anti-Obama backlash was overblown.

Yeah, well—to paraphrase Mark Twain—the reports of Tim Eyman’s death have been greatly exaggerated.

It’s not that I-1033 didn’t go down to a crushing defeat, even in much of traditionally pro-Eyman/anti-tax Eastern Washington. But it’s not like Eyman initiatives haven’t been defeated before… and besides, it kinda misses the point of what Eyman does.

Eyman doesn’t run initiative campaigns; he gets initiatives on the ballot. In recent years, those of his initiatives that have generated a sufficiently well-financed No campaign have been defeated, while those that have gone unopposed have not.

From a business perspective, it really doesn’t matter all that much to Eyman whether he wins or loses. Sure, he needs an occasional win or near-win to maintain the shred of relevance necessary to garner media attention, but Eyman has long been a kept man of a single sugar daddy, and as long as Woodinville investment banker Michael Dunmire continues to finance his signature drives, Eyman will continue to qualify initiatives for the ballot, and continue to make a nice living in the process.

And from a political perspective, as long as Eyman continues to qualify initiatives for the ballot, he’ll continue to put Democrats on the defensive.

Just take a look at I-1033. Sure, it lost by a whopping 18-point margin, and in 24 of 39 counties… but only after the No campaign spent over $3.5 million to defeat it. $3.5 million. That’s money, largely from progressive donors, that could have been spent on a more proactive agenda, such as enacting tax restructuring or education finance reform or something productive like that. That’s $3.5 million that won’t be available, for example, to help elect progressive Democrats in 2010.

If you believe Eyman’s primary objective is to pass stuff, well then, yeah, I guess I-1033’s defeat must look pretty bad for him. But if you understand Eyman for what he really is—our state’s biggest political monkey, wielding our state’s biggest political monkey wrench (the initiative process)—well then, 2009 wasn’t such a bad year for him after all.

And a pretty damn profitable one at that.

2 Kings 2:23-24

²³ Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up the road, some youths came from the city and mocked him, and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!”
²⁴ So he turned around and looked at them, and pronounced a curse on them in the name of the LORD. And two female bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.

Discuss.

The most disturbing tidbit from yesterday’s airplane terror attempt:

Although transportation officials had not announced new security measures yet, Air Canada said the Transportation Security Agency would make significant changes to the way passengers are able to move about on aircraft. During the final hour of flight, customers will have to remain seated, will not be allowed access to carry-on baggage and cannot have personal belongings or other items on their laps, according to a notice on Air Canada’s Web site.

In effect, that means passengers on flights of about 90 minutes or less will not be able to get out of their seats, since they are not allowed to move about while an airplane is climbing to its cruising altitude.

Air Canada also told its United States bound customers that they would be limited to a single carry-on item and that they would be subjected to personal and baggage searches at security check points and in the gate area. It said this would result in significant delays, canceled flights and missed connections.

As if passengers aren’t already terrorized enough by the airlines as it is.

Of course, the most effective air travel security measure is to discourage people from traveling by air, so I guess at least in that sense, such an over-reaction would be effective.

Disappointing as the details might be to most progressives, it’s still historic.

Okay, so here’s how it works.

The Senate version of health care reform absolutely sucks, and progressives need to oppose it as loudly and effectively as they can, even threatening to torpedo health care reform entirely if there aren’t some pretty big changes. And then we all have to bite our tongues and support the final bill that comes out of conference, even if it largely resembles that sucky Senate bill.

Why? Because as sucky as it is compared to what we all wanted, it’s a helluva lot better than what the American people have now. And, if you think the Democrats are going to have a larger majority in either House after 2010, especially after failing to pass health reform, then you’re smoking crack.

The Democrats are going to lose seats in 2010, because that’s the natural order of things for the party in control of the White House during off year elections, and because many of the seats we picked up in 2006 and 2008 are seats the Republicans never should have lost. (ID-01 a Democratic stronghold? Enjoy your crack.) And as President Clinton learned in 1994, promising to deliver on health care only to fall flat on your face, doesn’t much help at the polls.

You want Obama to fail? Reject health care reform. You want the Democrats to lose a ton of seats in 2010? Reject health care reform.  You want to stop insurance companies from denying you coverage due to pre-existing conditions, or dropping your coverage once you get sick? Well, even the sucky Senate bill does that.

Yeah, I know that conservative Dems and insurance industry shills like Lieberman have us over a barrel, and that totally sucks, but that’s the way it is. We lost this debate when Ned Lamont lost in the general, and there’s just not much we can do about it at the moment.

So I’ve got no problem with progressive Dems yelling and screaming and complaining, and doing everything they can to blow the damn thing up. Call your congressman and your senators and tell them they can kiss your vote goodbye if this is what comes out of conference. That’s what I’m planning to do.

But once the deal is done, I’m not embarrassed to admit that I’ll be flip-flopping faster than a flapjack on a hot griddle.

Cynical? Yeah, sorta. But that’s politics.

Yesterday I wrote about how headline writers can influence the perception of news.

At first, the front page of the Seattle Times website reported on new crime statistics with the alarmist headline, “Seattle sees sharp increase in crime.” Later, they walked the headline back to the less provocative and more accurate, “Seattle sees increase in crime after two record-low years.”

Meanwhile, both headlines linked to the same article with the same confusingly written headline: “Sharp increase in Seattle robberies, assaults; murders, rapes down.” (I’m betting I’m not the only one who initially missed the semicolon.)

But after stumbling across a print edition of the Times (it was being used as a coaster in a bar), I’m not sure what all the online indecision and confusion was about:

I dunno… looks to me that the headline in the print edition got it just about right. Why couldn’t the online edition just go with that?

It never occurred to me before, but are different editors writing the headlines for the online edition than the print edition, and if so, what could possibly account for translating “up slightly” into “sharp increase” other than a desire to use hyperbole to trick readers into clicking through?

If online really is the future of news, it doesn’t bode well that the Times apparently holds its online edition to a lower standard than its print.

The Seattle Times once again argues that President Obama should abandon health care reform, because, you know, failing to deliver on the issue worked out so well for President Clinton and the Democrats in 1994.

But what really struck me from this morning’s editorial was the odd construction of the following sentence:

Whether senators fully understand it we doubt.

Who wrote this editorial? Yoda?

Here’s hoping he can persuade the rest of the editorial board from continuing down the path to the dark side.

(From Crooks and Liars, via BlatherWatch)

Jesus… could Chris Matthews let Darcy Burner finish a single sentence? Um, no, but I think Darcy stood up to it pretty well. She never lost her patience, and kept a smile on her face, making Matthews come off as a bit of an asshole.

All that aside, isn’t it interesting that when the cable news folks are looking for someone credible to talk to about health care reform, they come to Darcy Burner, and not Do Nuthin’ Dave Reichert?  Hmm.

In the midst of a controversy over her appointment to the Nike board of directors, UW Provost Phyllis Wise has finally submitted the terms the agreement to the UW School of Medicine, where she also sits as a professor. The dean of the Medical School declined to review Wise’s Nike agreement, and instead passed it on to UW President Mark Emmert, who gave his approval.

Whether that strictly meets the letter of the Medical School’s policies, I don’t know, but presumably this now makes Wise’s compensation package with Nike a public record, available for full disclosure.

Personally, I have a hard time understanding why an educator earning a more than comfy $535,000 a year would do anything that might call into question her professional ethics, but then, I guess I’ve never been as enamored with money as some people.

Last night I climbed into bed knowing exactly what I would write about in the morning, but alas, I awoke to find that the Seattle Times had snatched my precious snark right out from under my pillow. Sorta.

The headline on the front page of the Times last night was stark and scary: “Seattle sees sharp increase in crime.” Oh no! Good thing we’ve kicked out that incompetent Mayor Nickels and his soft-on-crime staff.

But the lede of the article the headline linked to seemed to hail from a different story:

Even though Seattle saw increases in both violent crimes and property crimes during the first half of 2009 compared to the same period in 2008, the slight rise came after back-to-back years that saw crime dip to lows not seen since the 1960s.

Wait… the headline said “sharp increase,” but the lede says “slight rise”… and from record lows.  And while the lede says that “violent crimes” rose during the first half of 2009, the article goes on to point out that the worst of these crimes—murders and rapes—both decreased from the same period a year ago.

Ahh… this is the sort of irresponsible hyperbole for which I live to abuse the Times. Unfortunately, as I slept, the editors repented and changed the headline to the less provocative and much more accurate: “Seattle sees increase in crime after two record-low years.”

Oh. I guess Mayor Nickels didn’t do such a bad job after all.

The point is, as I’ve argued before, headlines matter, and can do more to influence public perception than the articles themselves. Because quite honestly, more people will read the headline than the actual article.

And now, with only one major Seattle newspaper left in publication, the Times’ headline writers have more influence than ever before… and thus more responsibility than ever before to get it right.