No wonder we hate you

Did you know that the Transportation Security Administration has a blog. Well, they do.

It's called Evolution of Security: Terrorists evolve. Threats evolve. Security must stay ahead. You play a part.

And that sounds all very serious and worthy, but hardly what exercises and excites most of the blog's readers.

Like myself, most people are het up about the long lines and the confiscated Swiss Army knives. Our little family alone has lost at least three knives - though in the win column we've managed to get a knife onto one domestic (UK) flight and one international flight (London to Amsterdam). And I have also lost several lighters, including a lovely orange one in Nashville to a snickering TSO who was probably a Vandy fan (and that was following the season of shame).

Yes, the lighters are what really got me mad. For years I carried lighters on planes and through checkpoints without concern. I needed my little incendiary device at the ready so I could smoke again at the very.first.available.opportunity. It was really was vital to public order and security that I be allowed to do so. But suddenly - halfway through my last trip to the US, the lighters started getting taken up. It was a-OK to have the lighter coming in to Vegas - but suddenly they were Al Qaeda's weapon of choice as I was leaving. Trying to hold on to my lighter (I would let them find one and try to stash another - usually a pretty successful strategy) just meant I was clearly in league with the devil.

So, when I discovered the TSA blog - I clicked immediately on the HOT TOPIC nail clippers, lighters and lithium battteries. (What's the deal with lithium batteries??)

Lighters were allowed starting in July 2007, (not including torch lighters) and nail clippers, as well as smaller scissors and tools, have been allowed through the checkpoint since December 2005. Unlike improvised explosives devices (IEDs), these items do not present a significant threat to an airplane.

Yes, that's right. Lighters - AS I HAVE SAID ALL ALONG - "do not present a significant threat to an airplane".

And the comments section on this post is full of people (160 comments and counting) who point out the inconsistencies of the TSA rules. Including this one, which cracked me up:

You still haven't explained why a sharp scissor with 4" long blades is allowed but a 1.5" tiny Swiss Army knife isn't. All I have to do is pop apart the 2 scissor blades and I now have TWO very sharp 6 inch or longer knives with convenient handles. Usually these blades are stronger and sharper than that found on the small S/A knife.

ALL blades of ANY size should be prohibited, including those found on scissors. If the TSA isn't worried about terrorists taking over planes with blades, why aren't Swiss Army knives allowed?

Why are baseball bats or other bludgeons not allowed? Gonna take over a plane by swinging a bat? Not likely (especially since I'll have scissors). Yet, I can bring my heavy camera tripod, pop off the 3 legs and have 3 nice sized bats for me and 2 other friends!

I'm a TSO by the way and even we are sick of all the inconsistencies and looking like fools when we try to explain them to the passengers. No wonder they hate us!

Unhypothetical

"It won’t be hypothetical if and when it occurs. We are not legislating now on
the basis that we are bringing it in now for something that might happen in the
future; we are bringing it in now for something that might happen in the future;
we are bringing in a position for if it becomes unhypothetical. If,
unfortunately I and many other experts are right and we do need it in the future
it is in place."

Jacqui Smith, Home Secretary, securing her place in history. Sadly, only in the book of ridiculous political quotes.

I heard this on the radio while still lying in bed unfreakin'-believable. Iain Dale posted the words.

About the quote:

Jacqui Smith wants new legislation which would allow the police to hold "terror" suspects without charge for 42 days. (I use "terror" in quotes not because I don't believe that there are real and legitimate threats, but because I worry that the Government will use terror charges without real and legitimate threat.)

Fahrenheit 9/11

Last night Fahrenheit 9/11 was aired on British TV's Channel 4. I saw it in the cinema when it first aired over 3 years ago. It was a special airing for the anniversary of 9/11.

Going to see the film had been a special event. A North London theater was filled almost entirely with Americans and a glass of wine was included with the price of admission. There were a few special guests from the host population - like my husband ( at least I thought he was pretty special) and Richard Dawkins - who I think is an asshole. Dawkins was asked to say a few words to the audience - and basically he lambasted the American population for our collective stupidity with a special mention to the unenlightened Red-Staters. I was fuming.

About the film itself - I remembered relatively little. Except for the powerful twin towers montage that never actually showed the towers. That was still brilliant, stunning and emotional. But a lot of the other elements of the film seemed a bit strange, from a time gone by, even though it came out nearly three years ago.

Clearly the piece was designed to damage Bush's reelection chances. That didn't seem to work. There were lots of references to the cosy relationships between the Bush family and Saudi families - including the Bin Ladens with an almost catch phrase like "that's something the Bushes didn't want the American people to know." Well, now we do know and it seems like most people just didn't care.

I had forgotten, too just how many different angles Michael Moore uses...ok, the Bush clan is in hock to the Saudis - so they didn't pursue them after 9/11 like they should have - but wait - the Saudis didn't actually want a US invasion of Iraq this time - so, huh? No wonder people didn't manage to take a clear message away from this film.

There's another montage in the film of happy smiling Iraqis during the Saddam Hussein years. I remember thinking "Yeah, right - like life was so rosy under Saddam." But now, and in comparison to the sectarian slaughter...well, I certainly don't want to defend that torturous madman, but gosh Iraq ain't the country it used to be (except maybe in the Kurdish areas - though even that's starting to get nasty, too).

I kept thinking how much things had moved on since that time. Indeed, how much worse things have become.

----

9/11 - 3/11 -7/7 - Never forget.

Conspiracy theories

If you want to criticize the handling of the War on Terror, I'm happy to listen. My theories as to why things have gone wrong include: poor governance, lack of evidence based policy, no respect for evidence based policy, a poor understanding of human nature, greed, venality and valuing personal loyalty over integrity and good outcomes.

Conspiracies? Maybe. If by conspiracy you mean mercenaries and consultants and crony suppliers working together and ripping off the US taxpayer with no-bid contracts and failing to deliver any sort of effective nation building, then yes, I'd be willing to listen to your conspiracy theories.

Conspiracy around 9/11. Not so much. No really - just shut up. The Jews didn't turn up to work that day (lies). Mossad did it (of course). Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to snap steel girders. Errmmm.... In what way is it surprising that a building collapses after a jet smashes into it? I only took half a class in civil engineering, but I know the difference between compressive and tensile strength and steel isn't as strong as you think - that's why it has to be used in conjunction with concrete - and to build to any height concrete has to be used with steel. (A nice long list of conspiracy theories and their de-bunkification is here at Popular Mechanics).

Do I think that we know everything about what happened that day? No, of course not. But if there were any conspiracies it was people after the fact trying to cover each others' asses for not waking up to the fact that Al Qaeda was planning something big earlier on.

Do I worry about 9/11 conspiracies? Well, a little. If we ever want to come to some peaceful accord with the "Arab Street" we need to understand that even the quackiest theory has some resonance there. And even the brightest and most rational folks you meet from the Middle East often at least entertain the what seems to me like ridiculous notions. And this matters because if two groups of people can't even agree on a relatively small set of facts, we certainly aren't likely to agree on a peaceful way forward

I was told by a person I thought quite reasonable that Jews normally employed at the Twin Towers didn't turn up to work on the morning of September 11. When I completely rubbished this, I was asked "Have you looked at some of the 9/11 websites, it proves it."

No. It doesn't. There are loads of kooky websites out there. Take a look around this one, for example.

But when you see 9/11 conspiracy theories mooted in a reputable paper, I find it a little harder to blame the gullible and the susceptible. And I find it a lot easier to suggest that a national newspaper is irresponsible and stirring up trouble.

Light posting:

Well, posting has been light. Babies, it turns out, are a lot of work. But also, our internet service, as it turns out, is a bit crap. So when I do get a spare moment I'm not able to draft much.

Things I might have written about:

• The anniversary of 7/7. Lest we forget.
• Baby Cletus attends his first party. He started off well (asleep), but left in a torrent of tears. It was the Texan's farewell party - happily just around the corner from our house.
• Wimbledon ends.
• My tomato plants seem to be coming along nicely despite the cool weather. But we shall see...

But perhaps most importantly:

The new Security Minister Admiral Sir Alan West (quick - what's the proper salutation for that?) suggests that the UK will face 15 years of the war on terror - which we're not to call the war on terror. He also refuses - it seems - to use the word Muslim. He worries about the attraction of youth to radical ideas and violent actions. Just what kind of youth does he mean?

But he also suggests, chap - that we might need to be a little less than sporting in fight against the radicalisation of our youth. That we might need to the tattle.

"Britishness does not normally involve snitching or talking about someone. I'm afraid, in this situation, anyone who's got any information should say something because the people we are talking about are trying to destroy our entire way of life."

Right so.

I guess I have two problems with this.

1. Why can't we just be honest about the source and ideological underpinning of the terrorism? I can't see how we can fight it if we can't even name it.
2. Snitching. First off - I'm not sure snitching isn't British - folks are forever turning in the benefit cheating ex-partners. And secondly, snitching and the target community... That's exactly the way to win over the hearts and minds of Muslims. They're already worried about "betraying" their brothers and sisters by engaging in the broader society. Some might be all for it, but I doubt it. Many of the Muslim communities have countries of origin with very nasty security services indeed. These are places that folks have tried to get away from. Think Syria or lately Iraq or even, to some extent, Pakistan. Where there are networks of informants and fake dissidents who'll inform on you if you don't inform on them. These are cultures where snitching is both a deadly threat and a vital necessity.

I know the Sir Admiral Minister has only been in his job a week or so, but he seems to be fundamentally missing the point.

Quinoa for peace and security

I was once in a swanky Westminster bar advising a senior civil servant - the one who was responsible for the UK drugs strategy - what to do regarding opium growing in Afghanistan.

The problem was: he said - the farmers in Afghanistan depend on the income of the opium poppy. The solution was: a replacement crop or source of income. But the problem is: what? He elaborated that Afghanistan is actually a pretty tough growing climate, and poppies do really well there.

I said. "Friend, I've got two words for you. Specialty grains."

He looked at me as if I were mad or drunk. (To be fair, I was at least one of these.) I elaborated - quinoa, grown in the Andes (a landscape like Mars) has all kinds of health benefits, but it's hard to find and people will pay a premium for the stuff. Same could be said for amaranth. I explained how they could introduce the crop, set up co-operatives and promote these grains in the UK and US markets - which could really take off as people start to become more health concious. And sure, it's not quite as glamourous or lucrative as opium poppies, but it would be a pretty good source of income with a little forethought and support.

And what happened? Nada. Bupkiss. Zip.

And Taliban heroin has flooded the global (and especially European) markets.

I really should be in charge.

-0-

I flashed back to this incident because of Kathy's quinoa recipe post.