TSA Backlash Week: Napolitano's Take

Janet Napolitano tries to get ahead of TSA Backlash Week. It might be more convincing if she didn't conclude with a blitz of bureaucratic-speak: "We face a determined enemy. Our security depends on us being more determined and more creative to adapt to evolving threats. It relies upon a multi-layered approach that leverages the strengths of our international partners, the latest intelligence, and the patience and vigilance of the American traveling public." And that's the most engaging part!

Hey, I get it: If a plane goes down, Napolitano loses her job and probably retires to the ranks of HeckuvaJobBrowniedom. It might not be entirely fair: As I've said, it's possible to do everything right and the terrorists still score a point. But read her whole piece and there's a sense that Napolitano -- who should have a bit of a political ear; she was a governor, after all -- isn't really engaging the real concerns of real people who actually have to hurdle TSA's procedures to go on business trips or visit family or do whatever else they have to do. Napolitano's message: It's not that bad. But the people who are coming forward with stories of being felt up or losing their tickets because they refuse invasive screening are adding up, and they have a message, too: It's bad enough. Stop it.

We're approaching a point where TSA is going to have to be responsive to the concerns of fliers -- the people it's trying to keep secure, after all -- or the agency will strangle the airline industry. The worst thing that can happen is that people accept these measures as "the new normal."

Afghanistan Quagmire Watch

Gen. Petraeus' feelings are apparently quite hurt over Hamid Karzai's publicly stated wish to reduce the number of American troops and scale back their activities in Afghanistan. The Washington Post quotes a NATO official: "'It's pretty clear that you no longer have a reliable partner in Kabul,' the official added. 'I think we tried to paper it over with [Karzai's] Washington visit' in May. 'But the wheels have becoming looser and looser . . . since that.'"

But Karzai hasn't been a reliable partner for a very, very long time. If you go back and look at Gen. Stanley McChrystal's memo that preceded the current surge of troops, it's clear that corruption in Karzai's government was a major factor in the recent successes of the Taliban. It's why I didn't support the surge, because there was no pathway to making Karzai an honest and good leader of his people. There still isn't. Why NATO officials would act surprised by that is perplexing.

The Perpetual E-Reader Revolution

New York Times: "This could be the holiday season that American shoppers and e-readers are properly introduced." Wait. Wasn't everybody writing that last Christmas? (Yes.) How many Christmases in a row are we going to hear that e-readers are really arriving in the American marketplace this year? Haven't they gotten their foothold by now? I think so. Maybe it's time for a new narrative.*

*Incidentally, really enjoying my iPad as an e-reader. I can do Kindle and Nook and Stanza and iBooks on it. Don't know why anybody would bother with a single-bookstore machine like Kindle at this point.

Oklahoma's Anti-Shariah Law

It's possible that the term "McCarthyism" is bandied about too much. But this is stupid, ugly, McCarthyist fear-mongering, and the people who engage in it -- as well as the people who buy it -- are going to be (rightfully) judged harshly by history. New York Times:

"Mr. Williams was one of 10 Democrats who voted against putting a state constitutional amendment on the ballot that would forbid state judges from considering international or Islamic law in deciding cases. He considered the idea unnecessary, since the First Amendment already bans state-imposed religion.

His Republican challenger sent out mailers showing him next to a shadowy figure in an Arab headdress. On the other side, the flier said Mr. Williams wanted to allow “Islamic ‘Shariah’ law to be used by Oklahoma courts” and suggested that he was part of “an international movement, supported by militant Muslims and liberals,” to establish Islamic law throughout the world.

Like I said recently, though, history never pays a price. So rather than wait, it's important now to call these stupid, ugly McCarthyist fearmongers out for the stupid, ugly McCarthyist fearmongers they are.

OK, Maybe It's Time For Medical Malpractice Reform

Like a lot of people, I played the New York Times' "Fix The Deficit" game yesterday. And one of the ways I chose to fix the deficit was to agree to a law limiting medical malpractice suits. Why? Not because it would save a ton of money from the deficit -- it wouldn't -- but because I was trying to build my own particular deficit-reduction program to be somewhat politically feasible. I figured that meant throwing a few bones to the right.

Today, however, I'm starting to think there are more important reasons to enact reform. Take this New York Times story:

"Large banks, hedge funds and private investors hungry for new and lucrative opportunities are bankrolling other people’s lawsuits, pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into medical malpractice claims, divorce battles and class actions against corporations — all in the hope of sharing in the potential winnings."

Yikes! The Times' deficit game yesterday warned that enacting malpractice reform would take away an incentive for doctors to avoid critical mistakes. And I can see the benefits of getting investors in on the side of small-time plaintiffs who might otherwise be overwhelmed by the vaster legal resources of the medical establishment.

But this story makes it seem that malpractice suits are really distorting the incentives; if the money people would rather invest in a lawsuit instead of (say) a new business that makes things or serve people, then things are out of wack. Time for a reconsideration.

Karzai: Yankees Go Home

Washington Post: "KABUL- President Hamid Karzai said on Saturday that the United States must reduce the visibility and intensity of its military operations in Afghanistan and end the increased U.S. Special Operations forces night raids that aggravate Afghans and could exacerbate the Taliban insurgency."

Essentially, Karzai wants Americans to pursue a counterterrorism strategy -- focused more on the Pakistani borderlands -- than the current nation-building counterinsurgency. And if that's what he wants, that's probably what he should get: Afghanistan is a sovereign country, after all. Unless we're willing to suggest that he's implicitly sheltering terrorists by ordering a reduced American troop presence in his country -- thus making him the enemy -- we should probably start ratcheting down the war after a long and mostly failed decade.

Of course, Karzai might just be making sounds in public that his countrymen want to hear while begging Americans, behind the scenes to stay. I'm dubious his government could survive long without its American patron. But I'm not sure how long America can survive its patronage. Karzai wants us to draw down and go home. Maybe it's time to do just that.

The Government Doesn't Want You To Know What You Already Know About Nazis in America

Lots of interesting stuff in thisNew York Times report about a Justice Department report detailing the history of Nazi war criminals in the United States. The Times obtained an unedited copy after a heavily redacted copy was released to the public. So of course this is what happened in the redacting:

"Even documents that have long been available to the public are omitted, including court decisions, Congressional testimony and front-page newspaper articles from the 1970s."

I'm going to become a libertarian weirdo yet.