But are there any cases of movement the other way? Illustrations of liberals or Democrats who denounced "security theater" and TSA/DHS excesses in the Republican era, but defend them now? If such people exist, I'm not aware of them -- and having beaten the "security theater" drum for many long years now, I've been on the lookout.

See, I see it differently (and I'm not talking about whether conservatives or liberals are more consistent in the way that Fallows is describing). In my view, the issue is simple. Liberals care most of all about "justice as fairness," so the idea of targeting people or treating one class of people differently than others - whether because they are worse (more dangerous in this context) or better (less dangerous) - makes them uncomfortable. Conservatives feel uncomfortable with that notion of justice, and instead see justice as the (deserved) heaping of badness on wrongdoers. See liberal bete-noir Toby Keith:

Well a man come on 6 o'clock news
Said, "Somebody been shot, somebody's been abused
Somebody blew up a building, somebody stole a car
Somebody got away, somebody didn't get too far"
Yeah, they didn't get too far

Grand pappy told my pappy back in my day son
A man had to answer for the wicked that he'd done
Take all the rope in Texas find a tall oak tree
Round up all of them bad boys, hang them high in the street
For all the people to see

That justice is the one thing you should always find
You got to saddle up your boys, you got to draw a hard line
When the gun smoke settles we'll sing a victory tune
And we'll all meet back at the local saloon
We'll raise up our glasses against Evil forces singing
Whiskey for my men, beer for my horses

If you're nodding your head in approval, you're probably a conservative. If you're shaking it in disgust...probably not.

That distinction is the consistent one that runs through the security commentary I read (and I read a lot of it). Mapping whether they approve/disapprove of the latest farce from the TSA, and whether their approval changes with the political winds, is certainly interesting - but in the end kind of useless if what's being shown is the distinction between being a good AYSO coach and a good Texas Ranger.
-

« ok, I'm done now

We have great neighbors.

I'm somehow, amazingly, luckily married to a someone wonderful.


Both TG and I are blessed with work. Interesting work, and more than we can really handle. So is Middle Guy, now that I think of it.

And the boys.


Biggest Guy is home from Afghanistan, hale, whole, and amazingly hearty. That's many parents' dream, and one that I know not all parents got this year.

Middle Guy is a year and a half out of college, and he's more than self-sufficent - he's found work and a life he seems to love. Every parent's dream - and again, I know one that not every parent gets.

Littlest Guy is meeting the challenges of teenagerhood, and if we don't brick him into a wall, is going to turn out just great.

We live in a world full of challenges right now. And for me, I think that's a blessing too. We are all going to be challenged to see what we can do in the coming year, and I'm grateful for that...and worried, and hopeful, and scared.

C.J. Grisham posed something that hit me. As I said on Facebook, I'm not religious, but really felt the power of this paragraph:

Thanksgiving therefore is an affirmation of one's relationship to God and not to things or to however well things are going, nor even to His blessings. Thanksgiving is a duty but not one that is negative or coerced. It is a voluntary expression of love and loyalty to God and His great project called Life. People do it, and Nations do it. Moreover, it is always the right thing to do, even when there's not a lot that's obvious to be thankful for.

Yes it is. Happy Thanksgiving to everyone, and thank you to the folks who write, comment, and visit here.
-

« ok, I'm done now

Then in my comments, a comment from someone who knows something about security:

ummm, I think there is a misunderstanding here. If they are protectees, the agents flying armed don't go through security because they are cleared by other means. They cannot leave their protectee so all will take the flying armed route. It's not because they are above the law, it's because of the complications of traveling with a protective detail.

Crap. I hate it when a beautiful theory (or rant) is slain by an ugly fact.

But it is when it is, and I've gotta acknowledge it.
-

« ok, I'm done now

Milo was not convinced and absolutely refused to deprive Major Major of food, even if Major Major was a Communist, which Milo secretly doubted. Milo was by nature opposed to any innovation that threatened to disrupt the normal course of affairs. Milo took a firm moral stand and absolutely refused to participate in the Glorious Loyalty Oath Crusade until Captain Black called upon him with his delegation and requested him to.

'National defense is everybody's job,' Captain Black replied to Milo's objection. 'And this whole program is voluntary, Milo - don't forget that. The men don't have to sign Piltchard and Wren's loyalty oath if they don't want to. But we need you to starve them to death if they don't. It's just like Catch-22. Don't you get it? You're not against Catch-22, are you?'

Doc Daneeka was adamant.

'What makes you so sure Major Major is a Communist?'

'You never heard him denying it until we began accusing him, did you?

And you don't see him signing any of our loyalty oaths.'

'You aren't letting him sign any.'

'Of course not,' Captain Black explained. 'That would defeat the whole purpose of our crusade. Look, you don't have to play ball with us if you don't want to. But what's the point of the rest of us working so hard if you're going to give Major Major medical attention the minute Milo begins starving him to death? I just wonder what they're going to think up at Group about the man who's undermining our whole security program. They'll probably transfer you to the Pacific.'

Doc Daneeka surrendered swiftly.

'I'll go tell Gus and Wes to do whatever you want them to.'

Up at Group, Colonel Cathcart had already begun wondering what was going on. 'It's that idiot Black off on a patriotism binge,' Colonel Korn reported with a smile. 'I think you'd better play ball with him for a while, since you're the one who promoted Major Major to squadron commander.'

'That was your idea,' Colonel Cathcart accused him petulantly.

'I never should have let you talk me into it.'

'And a very good idea it was, too,' retorted Colonel Korn, 'since it eliminated that superfluous major that's been giving you such an awful black eye as an administrator. Don't worry, this will probably run its course soon. The best thing to do now is send Captain Black a letter of total support and hope he drops dead before he does too much damage.' Colonel Korn was struck with a whimsical thought. 'I wonder! You don't suppose that imbecile will try to turn Major Major out of his trailer, do you?' 'The next thing we've got to do is turn that bastard Major Major out of his trailer,' Captain Black decided. 'I'd like to turn his wife and kids out into the woods, too. But we can't. He has no wife and kids. So we'll just have to make do with what we have and turn him out. Who's in charge of the tents?'

'He is.'

'You see?' cried Captain Black. 'They're taking over everything! Well, I'm not going to stand for it. I'll take this matter right to Major - de Coverley himself if I have to. I'll have Milo speak to him about it the minute he gets back from Rome.' Captain Black had boundless faith in the wisdom, power and justice of Major - de Coverley, even though he had never spoken to him before and still found himself without the courage to do so. He deputized Milo to speak to Major - de Coverley for him and stormed about impatiently as he waited for the tall executive officer to return. Along with everyone else in the squadron, he lived in profound awe and reverence of the majestic, white-haired major with craggy face and Jehovean bearing, who came back from Rome finally with an injured eye inside a new celluloid eye patch and smashed his whole Glorious Crusade to bits with a single stroke. Milo carefully said nothing when Major - de Coverley stepped into the mess hall with his fierce and austere dignity the day he returned and found his way blocked by a wall of officers waiting in line to sign loyalty oaths. At the far end of the food counter, a group of men who had arrived earlier were pledging allegiance to the flag, with trays of food balanced in one hand, in order to be allowed to take seats at the table. Already at the tables, a group that had arrived still earlier was singing 'The Star-Spangled Banner' in order that they might use the salt and pepper and ketchup there. The hubbub began to subside slowly as Major - de Coverley paused in the doorway with a frown of puzzled disapproval, as though viewing something bizarre. He started forward in a straight line, and the wall of officers before him parted like the Red Sea. Glancing neither left nor right, he strode indomitably up to the steam counter and, in a clear, full-bodied voice that was gruff with age and resonant with ancient eminence and authority, said:

'Gimme eat.'

Instead of eat, Corporal Snark gave Major - de Coverley a loyalty oath to sign. Major - de Coverley swept it away with mighty displeasure the moment he recognized what it was, his good eye flaring up blindingly with fiery disdain and his enormous old corrugated face darkening in mountainous wrath.

'Gimme eat, I said,' he ordered loudly in harsh tones that rumbled ominously through the silent tent like claps of distant thunder.

Corporal Snark turned pale and began to tremble. He glanced toward Milo pleadingly for guidance. For several terrible seconds there was not a sound. Then Milo nodded. 'Give him eat,' he said.

Corporal Snark began giving Major - de Coverley eat. Major - de Coverley turned from the counter with his tray full and came to a stop. His eyes fell on the groups of other officers gazing at him in mute appeal, and, with righteous belligerence, he roared:

'Give everybody eat!'

'Give everybody eat!' Milo echoed with joyful relief, and the Glorious Loyalty Oath Crusade came to an end.

-

« ok, I'm done now

John "Don't Touch My Junk" Tyner may well be the grain that sets off the sand avalanche, via his viral YouTube audio recording. That backlash is quickly gathering steam, and a foresighted clause in the bill that created the TSA is giving it serious teeth.

So 4 cheers for Rep. John Mica [R-FL], who helped write the original TSA bill in 2001, and will soon chair the House Transportation Committee. He's now sent letters to over 150 airports, reminding about that intelligent clause that lets them opt out of having the TSA there.

Yeah, you read that right. And about f-ing time.

Orlando's Sanford International has opted out, which will be good news for Disneyworld fans, and for Lockheed Martin Missiles & Fire Control employees. A number of other airports in Florida and Georgia are seriously considering it, and it seems likely that more will join them.

Personally, I do not see the TSA as capable of fixing itself. As the Washington Examiner points out:

"In a May 2010 letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Mica noted that the GAO "discovered that since the program's inception, at least 17 known terrorists ... have flown on 24 different occasions, passing through security at eight SPOT airports." One of those known terrorists was Faisal Shahzad, who made it past SPOT monitors onto a Dubai-bound plane at New York's JFK International Airport not long after trying to set off a car bomb in Times Square. Federal agents nabbed him just before departure."

That's why, if I'm Rep. Mica, my next step after airports have switched and passengers can see the difference, is to submit a house bill abolishing the TSA. It was a stupid idea then. It's still stupid. Undo the mistake, and show that government agencies can - and sometimes should - simply go away.

Politically, it also has much to recommend it. Let Senate Democrats risk putting themselves crosswise with a lot of constituents on a personal issue that really makes many angry. They thought ObamaCare was something? That was nothing. Let President Obama move to veto it, in order to keep his union funding coming. He'll lose the respect of many Americans in a way he won't recover, as the GOP reminds Americans again and again, through public and private channels, that if they hate the airport experience, they know whom to thank.

I'd support the same move if it was President McCain. Who would probably have started out clueless, then backtracked at 100 miles an hour. Obama won't backtrack.

Which makes this another good teaching moment and conversation about rights and the proper bounds of government. We'll need it, because replacing TSA employees with private ones doesn't necessarily solve our problem, unless methods also change.

We are still left with a system that does not see and advocate passengers as part of the solution - which, as Tyner points out so well, has been the common denominator of actual airborne terrorist attempts since Flight 93. We are still left with stupid security theater procedures that choose to make everyone victims, instead of targeting those with ill intent. The rise of narco-terrorism, and the potential for further escalation of Mexico's insurgency, means that profiling Muslims as the solution would create a blind spot that would make us less secure. Profile Muslims and Mexicans? Think for a second about the networks narco-terrorists can draw from, and already do. You're just asking to be blown up that way.

But states like Israel have managed to do this - partly because they're serious about security, and partly because, as anyone who knows Israelis will attest, those folks would not have stood for the TSA's brainless security theater for even one day without near-riots.

America can do this too. If it decides that it wants to. Or that it really, really doesn't want the current system. Which is a start. All it takes, sometimes, is that one last grain of sand.

Let the avalanche roll. And bury the TSA.

« ok, I'm done now

There were national and global networks with their own power laws, but they represented a relatively small component of the economy as a whole.

Got the picture?

Now dissolve the cells. And in the residual soup, build a new power curve, and make almost everyone part of that distribution.

Looks a lot like what we're living with now, doesn't it?

Now as an interesting question, in the past gilded ages, could we see similar transitions?
-

« ok, I'm done now

Confusionist Judith Curry goes 'wicked' and mangles the work of Martin Weitzman
November 17, 2010

Climate change can be categorized as a "wicked problem."[Note] Wicked problems are difficult or impossible to solve, there is no opportunity to devise an overall solution by trial and error, and there is no real test of the efficacy of a solution to the wicked problem. Efforts to solve the wicked problem may reveal or create other problems....

Xu, Crittenden et al. [Note] argue that "gigaton problems require gigaton solutions." The wickedness of the climate problem precludes a gigaton solution (either technological or political).

Judith Curry abandoned science this year. She asserted I was "directly involved in Climategate"; James Annan explained "(S)He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense"; William Connolley eviscerated a recent paper on Antarctic sea ice (here), which notes, "The main problem with the paper is the uncritical use of invalid data"; and Bart Verheggen explained, "Her unfounded allegations are insulting for the whole profession.

One way humans make decisions, when there's insufficient data, is by looking at the behavior of those who hold different positions. When I look at this kind of behavior - which isn't designed to engage, advance human knowledge, or do anything except drive a heretic out into the darkness, it really doesn't do a lot to improve my confidence in the people who are engaging in that kind of behavior.

In otherwards, warmists need to start acting more like Galileo and less like Urban VIII.

Finally, there's my discomfort conceptually with the ways that they are attempting to drive "certainty" into climate arguments. Complex modeling tools are very useful in Mediocrestan, but - as the folks who brought us the recent financial Troubles have shown - not all that useful outside of it.

Things that happen inside "bounded reality" can be readily modeled and duplicated in a lab setting. Things outside simply can't.

That's the essence of Rittel and Webber's claim, and that's the perfect definition of a "wicked problem". We've been saying AGW is a 'wicked problem' here for a long time.

Now because the models are weak, the problem is wicked, and the warmists are jerks, does that mean we just shrug? No, I think certainly not.

I can think of a bunch of sound reasons to minimize your emissions and to make that an area of emphasis - reduced dependence on ME oil, more secure infrastructure, local air pollution, etc. etc. Even just plain saving money.

Here's Taleb on the issue:

1) Climate Change. I am hyper-conservative ecologically (meaning super-Green). My position on the climate is to avoid releasing pollutants in the atmosphere, on the basis of ignorance, regardless of current expert opinion (climate experts, like banking risk managers, have failed us in the past in foreseeing long term damages and I cannot accept certainty in a certain class of nonlinear models). This is an extension of my general idea that one does not need rationalization with the use of complicated models (by fallible experts) to the edict: "do not disturb a complex system" since we do not know the consequences of our actions owing to complicated causal webs. (Incidentally, this ideas also makes me anti-war). I explicitly explained the need to "leave the planet the way we got it"

. Instead, I was presented as a "climate-change denier" (Lucy Mangan), and my environmental views summarized by "Climate change is not man-made" (Nicholas Watts). A minimum of homework on the part of your staff would have revealed that I am one of the authors of the recent King of Sweden's Bonham declaration on attitude to climate change.

I agree both when he says "climate experts, like banking risk managers, have failed us in the past in foreseeing long term damages and I cannot accept certainty in a certain class of nonlinear models" and that it's a good idea to "leave the planet the way we got it."

I'm going to resolve to stop kicking at the anthill that makes up the Warmist controversy and start focusing on interesting policy and technology options.

Meanwhile, I'll suggest that others do what we've managed to do with some success - buy a NGV car if your commute permits it, and get PV solar for your house; with light subsidies it a break-even today, and as I think energy costs are headed up, it'll be very valuable later on.
-

« ok, I'm done now