I read a couple of things into this...

I wrote back to Yahoo! and explained that there are secure ways to deal with attachments, and maybe they ought to use one of them. I also added that I wasn't requesting their help, I was providing them with information important to their business, and as far as I'm concerned I already did far more than I needed to help them out, and if they felt this was important to them, they would find a way to read my attachment.

What did I get back? A second copy of the email informing me that they don't accept attachments.

I probably shouldn't be that surprised.

I listened with dismay as the radio reported that, because of the actions of some Pakistani women flying out of London, US air travelers are no longer being permitted to bring liquids, such as toiletries and cosmetics, aboard aircraft.

There is clearly a national hysteria about air travel that, combined with people's inability to accept unavoidable but reasonable risk in their lives' activities, has reached a point of being overly burdensome. The prospect of waiting one or two hours to pass through a security checkpoint on a flight I'm taking this Sunday represents, to me, a significant loss of liberty. I can't spend that time with family or friends, I can't engage in any useful or enjoyable activities, and I won't be able to go to church.

The current administration is determined to capitalize on peoples' fears exacerbated by unfortunate events such as that in London on Thursday morning. However, critical thought must reach the conclusion that the arguably false security gained by stripping travelers of toiletries, even lip balm, that may be needed in flight or carried on to avoid baggage claim, cannot possibly justify the human cost of tens of thousands of hours of people's lives each day--time that can neither be reclaimed nor used to anybody's benefit.

We need an approach to air travel security that does not incur the human cost of our current policies, and that is fueled by rational thought instead of raw fear. This is a complicated problem without an easy solution, but I hope you will seize any opportunities that arise to begin making a difference here.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Patrick Madden

A typical lipstick contains many chemical ingredients, principally pigments, oils, waxes, and emollients.

About lip balm, Wikipedia says:

The balm is usually manufactured from beeswax, petroleum jelly, menthol, camphor, scented oils, and various other ingredients.

Clearly TSA policy is misguided. If they deem lip balm to be a threat due to its oils, then they must also treat lipstick as a threat due to its oils. We won't see this happen because it wouldn't be politically expedient to deprive women of their lipstick. However, the commonality of ingredients seems to suggest clearly that if a tube of Blistex will help an airplane turn into a ball of flame, then so will a tube of lipstick.

Either way, it seems like the TSA is reaching pretty far out on a limb on this one.

Imagine my "surprise" when, yet again, a screener at Boston's Logan International Airport, made this same claim.

Once I explained my concern about disease to the screener's supervisor, she informed me, "we just got notice that the rules changed an hour ago." Yeah, right, I've been outright lied to by TSA screeners enough times to recognize this load by its smell a mile away. However, given the capricious nature of the TSA's rules and the unease about the Pakistanis in London, I gave this claim the benefit of the doubt as the screener supervisor allowed me to pass through the metal detector then sit to remove my shoes (and I kept my feet off the floor).

Once I had a chance to revisit the TSA's web site, I saw that the policy had indeed changed. Travelers are now required to remove their shoes.

This leaves me wondering: since there haven't been any successful shoe-based hijackings at least since Richard Reid (pathetic slob) got caught trying, and the TSA has had plenty of time to ponder this particular threat, what could be the motivation here? I note that the TSA has banned gel insoles (don't get mad at me, I might stomp my foot and teach you a lesson!), and I'm wondering if forced shoe removal is the only way they can check the insoles? But then, the screeners still aren't looking at the actual shoes. If I store lipstick inside my shoe sole, will I be arrested? Gotta wonder.

Despite my issues this morning, I still held up the line for less time than the couple who didn't know what boarding passes were when the screener asked for them.

Am I happy? No, I'm still required to take off my shoes. I am happier though. However, I'm not holding my breath for a technology solution to liquid scanning.

Stay tuned.

The question is not of school safety per se, but a broader issue of youth conduct. You can pour money into metal detectors, K-9 sniffers, security guards, and generally make the kids feel like they are in jail for six hours a day. This doesn't seem to be a constructive solution to problems with youth conduct.

A better way to provide school safety is to research the factors leading to misbehavior in and out of school, and begin to address those as a society. There could be serious problems that we'd otherwise never know enough about to be able to fix them. It could be that kids need to be reached out to more than is happening. Contemporary media, including the internet, may play roles by establishing the unusual as the norm, and by promoting development of cliques that isolate kids on the outside. Pervasive images of war, and feelings of helplessness to do anything about it, must certainly contribute to teen angst. Lack of after-school activities at low or no cost, and lack of part-time jobs, may fuel a search to end boredom, with unproductive results.

The point is, there may possibly be so many motivations for misconduct that solving the school safety problem by making schools more secure is to miss the target entirely.

I returned a car to Avis at the Philadelphia airport (PHL) last night. Ten minutes later, I realized that I had left my cell phone in a cup holder, so I went back there to see if they found it. The checkin folks could very easily have told me to go inside and fill out a form because they were busy, but instead a couple of them looked around, and one of them spent ten minutes finding the car. I left the lot with my phone and a smile. Thank you Avis at PHL for this bit of good customer service.

As fate would have it, not only did I forget to remove my plastic zip-top bag of liquid, gel, paste, and wax toiletries from my carry-on bag, but the x-ray screener decided that my portable printer looked threatening enough to have it manually examined. So, both of my carry-on items were brought over for Linda 08484 to paw through. She enlisted the help of Eddie, whose badge number I didn't have a chance to memorize.

Horrors. I attempted bringing a 4.5 ounce tube of Biotene toothpaste onto an airplane, along with an ostensibly oversized container of Gillette gel antiperspirant.

The last time I checked the TSA web site, it told me I didn't need to remove my shoes to pass through the metal detector, yet when I passed through a metal detector ten hours later, I was forced to remove my shoes if I wanted to pass through the checkpoint. Eddie was unsympathetic to the frustration I experienced with the TSA's web site not accurately reflecting its policies.

Eddie explained to me that Logan needs to hold to higher standards because that's where the 9/11 hijackers flew from. I told Eddie the only standards he has to hold to are the ones required by the TSA. In telling me what he did, Eddie unwittingly implied that a lesser degree of screening zealotry is in place at other airports. Because the TSA would have Americans believe that the more thorough the screening, the more secure we are, Eddie also unwittingly implied that travelers at other airports aren't as safe. This is not the message the TSA should be sending to anybody.

The net result is that my toothpaste and deodorant were confiscated and I got on my plane, throughly disgruntled.

I later went to the TSA web site and reviewed their policies in detail. Of course, Linda 08484 and Eddie were correct enforcing them by confiscating my necessary toiletries.

One other interesting thing I learned is that the TSA does not restrict the quantity of medically necessary substances carried aboard, and they list some specific items...saline solution, saline spray, KY jelly, medic.... wait, KY Jelly? In whose world is this substance medically necessary? In whose world is there a greater medical imperative to have sex than there is to keep one's teeth clean and free of disease?

I have another flight next week. I am going to pack several 1 oz tubes of toothpaste to see what reaction this provokes, and I am going to bring the monster size of KY Jelly, also to see the screeners' reactions. This ought to be interesting.

A: Because I don't want it subject to judicial review.

Just so it's clear. The president is going to kill a program that he has argued benefits the USA, for the sole reason that it's now subject to FISA.

Given FISA's longstanding reputation as a rubber stamp, I find it very telling of Mr. Bush's bad intent that he feels he can no longer operate his Terrorist Surveillance Program.

The degree of secrecy and unchecked surveillance this administration seeks is downright frightening. This is not the way a healthy democracy runs, and Mr. Bush has damaged this nation's health by demanding to undertake actions and operate programs such as this absent any checks and balances whatsoever.

Media reference: AP Story posted at CNN
(link updated 2/24/07)

Not Quite.

Nonetheless, I drank the kool-aid. I put important files--my photos--on CD-R. I did make multiple copies just in case, and I gave one set to a buddy for safekeeping in case the house burned down. I put one-of-a-kind recordings onto CD-R. All because PC hard drives back in 2000 were miniscule in comparison to the half terabyte drives I can pick up off the computer store shelves today. Basically, archival stuff.

A few months ago, I decided that my PC had plenty of space and I could restore all my photos to hard drive so I could enjoy them. Enjoy was the antithesis of what happened next.

Windows XP couldn't find a disk. Hmm, there goes volume 1. How about volume 2? 3? 4? What about the duplicate copies I made? No go? What about the copies I gave my friend? I'm sure he's still got them, but he's moved and I don't think he could get his hands on them easily as much as I know he'd like to, so I haven't asked. I'm not optimistic anyway, and that's the real reason I haven't asked.

I tried reading the old CD-R discs in a couple of CD-ROM drives. No go. It was disheartening to read the CD-R vendor's name, "Nashua" in discolored emulsion when looking at the recording surface. I called Nashua, and they had no suggestions.

Finally I tried my laptop running Linux. Success? Maybe. I think I was able to get about 25% of the photos back undamaged, and portions of another 10%. The balance of the photos remains unreadable. Unfortunately I don't have any friends in the NSA who could scrape the remaining bits off, but even if they did, they probably wouldn't be able to give them back to me!

I'm slowly getting my CD-R collection onto hard drives. Those half terabyte drives are great, and they can hold more than all the CD-Rs I'd want to keep. If you're archiving on optical media, I'd suggest you think about doing the same.

It seems that the FBI has misused its privilege of issuing National Security Letters to obtain information kept by banks, ISPs, libraries, etc. about individuals. Congress is unhappy.

• The FBI can issue warrantless National Security Letters to obtain records about people.
  
• The FBI is supposed to do so only in emergency situations.
  
• The letters are issued without court supervision.
  
• The FBI has failed to document these "exigencies" in sufficient detail, and not at all in some cases.
  
• Because the FBI failed to document its National Security Letters, it is unable to fulfill its mandate to report to Congress on the quantities of letters issued.
  
• Due to lack of documentation, the FBI cannot even provide a list of whom these letters were delivered to.
  
• Due to lack of documentation, the FBI cannot provide a list of Americans whose civil liberties were violated for lack of due process.
  

Who would have thought for a moment that the FBI, offered unaccountability, would fail to take advantage of that to collect as much information as it possibly could? Thank the authors of the Patriot Act, who set this abomination into motion.

This is a clear affront to Americans and the values we stand for. This is the type of unaccountable activity we expected from the Soviet Union two or three decades ago, and never did we think back then that this would happen in our own country.

Had they not already started to do so, I would now be calling on Congress to examine the use of these letters and put some reins on the process. Fortunately, they've already seen the light. This problem reeks so badly that both sides of the congressional aisle can't help but notice it. I'm hoping for real reform here, in the shape of accountability for these letters, and in the application of due process for production of these letters.

Diethylene Glycol has now been found in toothpaste made in China and shipped to the US. Unlike the melamine found in gluten for animal feed, toothpaste is intended for human consumption. And like the melamine, diethylene glycol is poisonous.

What gives? Why are the Chinese putting poisons into food products?

What also defies reason is the dogged insistence of Chinese officials that foodstuff made in China is safe. Clearly it isn't, and the officials' denials of systemic issues suggests that they're not open to investigating their manufacturers' production practices, nor are they open to regulating their industries to detect and punish companies when their products are found to be adulterated.

Given these facts, the only sane course of action is one that must take place as part of national policy. Simply stated, no foods, whether intended for human or animal consumption, should be mass-imported into the United States. China relies on food exports for income, and hitting them where it hurts may be what it takes to make them pay attention.

These events underscore that it could be foolish to elect Hillary as president. If she can't secure her own campaign headquarters, how can she protect the WHOLE COUNTRY from terrorism?

I'm kidding, of course, but I wanted you to hear it here first.