Whatever enables us to go to war, secures our peace.
Thomas Jefferson
Ann Coulter, "Napolitano: The Ball's In My Court Now":
Thumbs UP!
I haven't flown for a while, so before I wrote Monday's commentary on John Tyner's dilemma (allow the TSA to see him nude or probe around his groin), so I was at first puzzled by Tyner's implied reference to a government employee molesting him, when it finally dawned on me that TSA was once again bureaucratically overreacting to single incidents of security failure, i.e., Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the "underwear bomber" from last Christmas' near-tragedy in the Detroit area (or, using Ann's more colorful phrase, "the diaper bomber"). Ann Coulter's column does a good job summarizing the "prescient" TSA's "johnny-come-lately" response to failed novel attempts by foreign terrorists, which are not reflective of our domestic airline safety history. And you thought older Americans were embarrassed enough to head to the checkout counter with Depends in plain view... guess if you actually wear them...
Ann Coulter discusses what is sometimes called profiling, but which I simply refer to a more efficient, risk-based approach to screening passengers. The fact of the matter is that Islamic radicals, mostly foreign-born, account for most instances of human-based risks to airline safety. Al Qaeda specifically understands that and wants to workaround in various ways: (1) try to combat risk-based strategies by expanding the base of the risk (e.g., recruit Americans from different ethnicities); (2) exploited soft target vulnerabilities/perceived gaps in airline screening procedures. One could ask, for instance, why the TSA wasn't more proactive in terms of anticipating and adjusting for the kind of materials used in the failed Christmas attack.
Ironically, as I'm writing this, I saw an opening "debate" on Hannity between Fox News media conservative contributor/lawyers Peter Johnson and Ann Coulter. I was really surprised by rather obnoxious, unprofessional, uncivil behavior by Johnson, whom not only begged the question by asserting the dubious effectiveness and competence of TSA, but refused to let Ann Coulter even complete a sentence, talking over her, machine-gun interrupting her every few seconds with "I'm not hearing a solution...", denying what she was saying, etc. (The above-cited progressive account of the debate was delighted to see Coulter "owned" by Johnson.) Hannity has a more nuanced view; he seems to prefer a reliance on risk-based analysis, but he hasn't had unpleasant experiences with TSA (unlike me). Johnson is one of those "blank check" conservatives whom, in other contexts, would question the performance and empire building of Big Government; on this issue, he has a self-admitted bias of having attended something like 8 funerals of 9/11 victims and so--whatever it takes.
In fact, Ann Coulter is pressing a couple of very important points that Peter Johnson failed to acknowledge (other than a blanket rejection of any and all things Coulter had to say). First, she points out that there are concerns about whether the new machines have been properly calibrated and maintained to ensure low-risk radiation levels. Second, she argues that the machines would not have likely caught the diaper bomber.
I would add a couple of other points. First, even proven technology or procedures (including pat-downs) are only as good as the people using them. From my review of the human performance literature, I can tell you that even experts occasionally make errors. Second, there is a cost-benefit analysis for any aspect of airline safety. There is probably a far higher risk that an airplane is more in danger from adverse weather conditions than by a homegrown suicide bomber.
 |
| Interim Snapshot Internet Poll, Courtesy CBSNEWS.com |
Finally, I want to reprise one of the more recent times I've had to go through extended security checks (I have not flown since a year ago last spring, so it was under the "old" pat-down procedures. Three of the 4 legs on my first 2 post-9/11 round-trips I had to go through it.) The extended security (after waiting through a very long security line to begin with) left me with roughly about 20 minutes to make departure. Almost all the other passengers had already boarded and I was out of breath as I handed over my boarding pass--when the airline agent refused to accept my boarding pass, noting that my boarding pass had the extra-security lottery printed on it, but TSA had "forgotten" to stamp my boarding pass, which they were supposed to do.
You know, it's not as if they tell you, oh, by the way, remind me to stamp your boarding pass at the end of the check. It's far more reasonable that I had made a break for it through the heavily guarded security area or maybe the TSA people at front mistakingly put me through the regular security line (I wish--I had to wait for extra security). The airline agent seemed particularly proud of himself for having noticed TSA's negligence in processing my boarding pass (Who knows? Maybe TSA decides to test airline compliance with checking for airline security check policy compliance on travelers going through security with maybe 20 minutes to make their flight.) The pilot is checking with the gate, wanting to taxi out; vultures on standby are eagerly trying to exploit the situation to grab my seat. It takes 5-10 minutes for someone from TSA to get to my gate. The TSA agent once again starts to go through the full security process, in full view of hundreds of other travelers; when I object at going through the process a second time (I felt that they had to be tracking whom was going through security, and all she had to do was check with them), I'm told, in no uncertain terms, if I don't shut up, we'll do this the hard way, she would walk me back to security, and I would miss my flight for sure.
Now this isn't as as serious as breach of privacy, but it was an abuse of authority and incontrovertible TSA error. I mean, if they can't remember do something as simple as stamping a boarding pass...
We Must Not Allow the Tea Party Express Failures
To Repeat In 2012
On Tuesday, Gallup released a poll showing no clear leader, although Mitt Romney retains the same percentage (19%), and Huckabee gaining a second-place 16% tie with Sarah Palin. Gingrich finishes a close fourth. Romney leads in both the conservative (by 1 point) and moderate (by 7 points) groups; Gingrich drops off the map with independents.
I think Gingrich is a remarkably articulate and intelligent person, but there's too much baggage for him to win in 2012. He's hinting that he will, but let's face it: Obama is going to have a reliable base of blue states (particularly the West Coast and much of the Northeast). It's very difficult to beat an incumbent President, particular a progressive President whom tries to co-opt centrist positions using his popular personality skills and nonthreatening political spin. Yeah, he'll allow some offshore oil exploration--but only releases 5% of available areas. He'll imply that the GOP opposed $12B in small business tax cuts--but not mention the $30B small business community bank TARP that came along with it. So you have to have someone whom is exceptionally sharp and can shred Obama's pretentious policies (versus, say, engage in Sarah Palin's bumper sticker slogans with paper-thin intellectual depth), Presidential looking, and has a solid background in business and economics. With all due respect to the other prospective candidates, Mitt Romney is easily the leading candidate in those terms.
What does the Republican Party need to do? Task 1 is to take out Sarah Palin. I've made my feelings on Sarah Palin known in several posts, but I want to point out several related points: we cannot have Sarah Palin on the 2012 ticket, because it would be a repeat of just what happened in the Senate races in Colorado, Delaware, and Nevada. I guarantee if there's one thing that moderates, independents, and Republicans (conservative or moderate) all agree on is that Obama has to go. But whereas Palin is easily the best known Presidential candidate, why would you want to go back to a candidate that lost in 2008? The last thing you want to do is nominate a candidate the voters already rejected soundly. No doubt that the Palin supporters will try to argue that Palin "energized the base" and try to pin the loss on McCain, but they are in a state of denial. She had the lowest favorable ratings of any VP candidate (including Quayle) over the past 3 decades. She may have motivated more conservatives in deep red states to turn out, but she didn't help at all in any of the battleground states. Any GOP candidate is likely to retain McCain's states, but independents, even with Obama with below-50% approval, do not like Sarah Palin, she has over an 80% disapproval rating among Democrats (i.e., few Reagan Democrats), and even with as high as a 76% favorable rating among the GOP, only one in 6 of favorable Republicans support a potential bid for Presidency. Just look at what happened in Alaska; she went from an 80% approval rating before being selected as McCain's running mate to 54% and dropping just around the time of her self-serving resignation. Is there anything more telling that the fact that Lisa Murkowski, a Palin arch-nemesis, just won an unprecedented write-in election that wasn't even that close, over Palin's explicit backing?
I think any knowledgeable conservative can shred Sarah Palin's tax-and-spend "conservative" image: how can someone presiding over a 30% increase in state spending and enacting big tax hikes on American energy companies. Sarah Palin's well-documented hypocrisy on earmarks, her attempts to mislead the American people, pretending she didn't support using American taxpayer money to build the Bridge to Nowhere, the many ethics scandals, including independent assessments she violated ethics on Troopergate, her PAC defense fund, using state transportation for other members of her family (later repaid after she was caught)--any decent political operative (say, Karl Rove or even an amateur like myself) could expose the hypocrisy of Tea Party activists for backing her. Never mind how a quitter could be trusted in the White House: did John McCain quit or break as a POW in North Vietnam?
So this is going to be like a pro wrestling battle royal: she'll probably act like she did during the 2006 gubernatorial debates and let her two principal opponents in the general election go after each other and then throw cheap shots at her opponents saying they were better off for running a restaurant or being a statistician. Usually in a battle royal, the wrestlers gang up on the 7-foot giant competitors. Sarah Palin has lived a charmed life in politics. It may be necessary for Republicans to make it clear to Sarah Palin they will go after her, and they will be playing hardball. All it will take is Sarah Palin overreacting to a single negative ad, and she's done. Here's the point: I don't know what the Castle campaign knew about Christine O'Donnell, but after the witch comment came out in the first week of the general campaign, she was done. Don't underestimate the Chicago politician in Barack Obama. If the GOP opponents are reluctant to go after Palin, Obama won't have any problem doing so. The GOP cannot afford another Castle-like sniping situation where Palin wins the nomination by default. You might as well not even hold the 2012 election if Palin wins the nomination. Let's hope the Tea Party and the GOP have learned from NY-23 and the wasted Senate races. We need to stay away from a divisive civil war in the GOP, which Obama will divide-and-conquer on the way to a landslide reelection.
As for Mitt Romney, he needs to work on his style and charisma; he needs to sound passionate and show his side as a loving father and/or grandfather, concerned about the Democrats spending away our seed corn. He needs to pick up on Ronald Reagan's optimistic note. He also needs to analyze where Meg Whitman, a key supporter, went wrong in California. He needs to learn from Rudy Giuliani's mistakes, including skipping the first few primaries and putting all his eggs in the Florida basket. He might also want to think of throwing some out-of-the-box moves, e.g., preannouncing a telegenic, intelligent young conservative running mate like Paul Ryan, Bobby Jindal, or Marco Rubio. I think in particular it's important for Romney to demonstrate his identification with Tea Party principles; in dealing with Massachusetts health care, Romney should look at how Scott Brown successfully handled the same issue, what he won in compromise and wanted to get, what has gone wrong, and how he can apply lessons learned to Obamacare.
Political Humor
"Early on in the first episode Sarah Palin talked about trying to protect her family's privacy while speaking directly into a television camera." –Jimmy Kimmel
[On an upcoming episode of Sarah Palin's Alaska she invites Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, Mitch Daniels, and other prospective GOP Presidential contenders on a hike along an old path in the Alaskan wilderness which she has nicknamed the 'Campaign Trail'. Early in the hike, Sarah suddenly remembers she forgot to ask Todd something, so she encourages them to go on ahead, and she'll catch up in a few minutes. On her way back, Sarah is asked on camera where the trail leads, and she shrugs her shoulders. Sarah then asks Todd, "Honey, where did we put those papers to file?" The show then cuts to a September interview Sarah had with FNC's Greta Van Susteren where Sarah mentioned that she could run for President 'if nobody else were to step up'.]
"President Obama is back home after his ten-day trip to Asia. On the way back, yesterday, air force one made a stop in Anchorage, Alaska, which is hopefully the only time we'll hear air force one and Anchorage, Alaska in the same sentence." –Jay Leno
[While Air Force One was on the ground in Alaska, a listing for the plane briefly appeared on eBay. When a skeptical bidder asked if this was real, the anonymous seller responded, "You betcha!"]
Musical Interlude: Instrumentals/One-Hit Wonders
Ashford & Simpson, "Solid"
