Airway Insanity

It has been said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results.

We should have learned at least two lessons on September 11th. First, our conventional security measures donʼt work. Second, informed passengers are more effective at fighting airway terrorism than even the mighty U.S. Air Force. Instead, President G. W. Bush created the asinine Transportation Security Administration to execute the same failed procedures under federal control.

Ironically, it took the likes of anti-gun Senator Barbara Boxer to push for something different. Eventually, the Congress enacted the Federal Flight Deck Officer program, with the Bush administration resisting all the way. This program allowed a handful of pilots to be armed with handguns for the defense of their aircraft. It was inadequate, but at least it was something new … and a step in the right direction.

On Christmas Day, A.D. 2009, a would-be Nigerian terrorist attempted to detonate an explosive device hidden in his underwear while on a flight to Detroit. He was “subdued” by other passengers. Again, conventional procedures had failed, while travelers who acted in their own defense had prevented something terrible. The lessons of September 11th had been taught once more.

Of course, as before, we learned nothing.

The TSA under President B. H. Obama has responded by doing more of the same. Invasive and useless screenings have increased, while those who actually foiled the December 25th attack—the passengers—have been ordered to stay in their seats. They could be stripped and caged, but that won’t stop our enemies from finding ways to kill us.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results.

A Question of Failure

Last night, during a political discussion fueled by a combination of alcohol and vitriol, we came to the subject of hoping that a certain President should fail. Irrational partisanship aside, the question was whether or not hoping for the failure of an administration is wrong. My position was and is that the answer depends on what one means by failure.

Is it purely a matter of partisan politics? I want the other party to fail, just because I don’t like the other party. Or is it a matter of policy? I want the other party’s policy to fail, because I think it dangerous and want a better policy to prevail. In fact, I fall into the latter category.

During the G. W. Bush administration, I wanted some policies (costly and unnecessary war in Iraq) to fail and other policies (Social Security reform) to succeed. President Bush got his war and suffered only a little disengenuous opposition for it, but he gave up on fixing the great American pyramid scheme as soon as the Democrats raised the slightest complaint.

Now, during the B. H. Obama administration, I will continue to hope for the success of the good and the failure of the bad. If he can disentangle us with honor from Iraq, then I hope that he succeeds. If he can prevent the current recession from turning into a depression, then I wish him success for the most part. If he can bring the efficiency, compassion, and quality of the typical Department of Motor Vehicles to the American health-care system, then I hope he fails.

Beyond that, though, I have to wonder why failure has become such an anathema in American society. We used to learn from our mistakes and failures. Now, we protect and bail out failing industries. We continue to pursue failing social policies. We pour more and more money into failing institutions. We reward failure and demand that American taxpayers foot the bill.

We must have the moral courage to let some fail … or risk ruin for all.

Immigration Amnesty

So I find myself warming up to President G. W. Bush’s guest-worker amnesty proposal. Once every couple years, he seems to stumble upon a good idea, if for the wrong reasons. Of course, the anti-immigration xenophobes are quick to accuse the two major parties of tripping over themselves to see who can offer the best deal to the “illegal aliens.”

I have to admit that they’re not altogether wrong. The Republicans need poor workers to exploit, and the Democrats need poor voters to exploit.

Six Questions about War with Iraq

With war perhaps only hours away now, we are still left with questions regarding the need to invade and conquer Iraq. The administration of President George W. Bush has proffered numerous rationalizations for war, but none seem adequate to explain why we must attack an insignificant foreign state that would otherwise appear to lack the intent, means, or opportunity to harm us in any meaningful way. So the questions remain.

If the war is really about U.S. “national security,” why don’t we just attack those states that pose more of a clear and present danger to us—like North Korea, with its unstable leadership, long-range missiles, and advanced nuclear-weapons program?

If the war is really about limiting the spread of “weapons of mass destruction,” why don’t we just destroy the storage and production facilities for these weapons?

If the war is really about fighting terrorism, why don’t we just use special-operations units in conjunction with air strikes to destroy or capture the terrorists, while defeating any Iraqi forces that happen to get in our way?

If the war is really about a “regime change” in Iraq, why don’t we just kill Saddam Hussein al Majid al Tikriti?

If the war is really about “liberating” the people of Iraq, why don’t we first demand that Saddam hold free elections monitored by an international commission of observers?

If the war is really about the control of oil, why don’t we just invade Iraq with combined arms, defeat Saddam’s forces in detail, set up a long-term occupation force, and install a friendly, “democratic” government?