xtcian

You will probably be able to take food and drink for Lucy if you are willing to eat it in front of the security people.

Are you suggesting that a Democrat Administration would have never used such a thing as political capital?

The New Yorker just ran a Talk of the Town piece on that pejorative "Democrat" as adjective.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/060807ta_talk_hertzberg

beth, we were just talking about that last night.. fuctup!! thanks for posting it.

Yes, I jut read it in hardcopy this weekend---I had no idea it was so DELIBERATE. . .YUCK!

And I heard on NPR that baby formula was ok--sounds like a fabulous trip!!

We'll be flying back to NYC from SF on September 11, which hadn't caused me to bat an eye until this morning's news (I can be very slow). I gave it a couple moments' sweaty-handed thought and then realized that I cross tons of streets every day, and my brother's an airline pilot and in the sky a heck of a lot (I also use this argument to rationalize the safety of flight in general, because he is a sharp and dedicated guy). And, well, you gotta live your life.

Ian, here are the new rules from the vaunted Dept. of Homeland Security, complete with typos:

No liquids or gels of any kind will be permitted in carry on baggage. such items must be in checked baggage. This includes all beverages, shampoo, sun tan lotion, creams, tooth paste, hair gel, and other items of similar consistency.

Exceptions: Baby formula and medicines, which must be presented for inspection at the checkpoint.

Beverages purchased in the boarding area, beyond the checkpoint, must be consumed before boarding because they will not be permitted onboard the aircraft.

Passengers traveling from the United Kingdom to the United States will be subject to a more extensive screening process.

(from http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/press_release/press_release_0976.xml)

Sen. Harry Reid, Democrate Senate Minority Leader, plays politics with our national security:

Terrorism remains the greatest threat to our security,” Reid said. "As the five year anniversary of the September 11th attacks approaches, we should take this opportunity not just to remember, but to take stock of what progress has been made to protect Americans and what steps remain unfulfilled.”

Despite the Bush administration’s success in preventing attacks in the United States since 9/11, Reid said "mismanagement” by Bush's policies make Americans feel that their security is at great risk.

"The Iraq war has diverted our focus and more than $300 billion in resources from the war on terrorism and has created a rallying cry for international terrorists,” Reid said. "This latest plot demonstrates the need for the Bush administration and the Congress to change course in Iraq and ensure that we are taking all the steps necessary to protect Americans at home and across the world."

Baby hair with a woman's eyes
I can feel you're watching in the night
All alone with me and we're waiting for the sunlight
When I feel cold, you warm me
And when I feel I can't go on, you come and hold me
It's you... And me forever

Sara Smile
Won't you smile a while for me
Sara

[comment edited by moderator]

I think the traveling inconvenience will mean that those guys whose wives pack an entire suitcase worth of toiletries will save precious years off of their backs, as the ladies will be forced to pack less. And some smart enterprising soul will open toiletry kiosks near all baggage claims. And maybe some forward thinking ministry will set up a collection kiosk for boarding passengers so they can take the "contraband" toiletries to shelters for the homeless or battered women.

Ian, sounds like your trip will be like Andee McDowell's Scotish wedding from the movie Four Weddings and a Funeral. Hopefully, without the funeral.

In an attempt to lighten the mood, but not "hijack" today's discourse, here is a little music quiz a friend sent to me on '80's music. My score was 133.7. Try it out and respond with your own scores:

http://www.yetanotherdot.com/asp/80s.html

Chris leaves off the intro to the quote that does frame it in a little different light..

From Reids statement ...
""I commend British authorities for defusing this terror plot and apprehending the suspects. Their actions protected the lives of innocent civilians, including many American citizens. Today's events are an important reminder that we need to renew our focus on the war on terror and to continue to work with our allies to protect Americans from terrorism."

I can only wonder if we would be more safe now here had we spent that $300 Billion here.

Politicians do anything to increase their political capital on both sides of the aisle. k

So glad to hear that you're not going to be held captive by a handful of extremists...You'll undoubtedly have a great adventure and Lucy will get her first taste of "sudo-royalty". Those Lords and Ladies just ADORE their titles...

Thanks for the link to the NYer article. Interesting...and depressing. Glad to see him "flagged" for it, and even funnier to see his loyal fans get so irritated! (i.e. comment from the knucklehead above).

Hey - I graduated from UNC-CH in 1987. communications degree. Do you know Rodney Taylor? He's a DP who graduated in 85 and lives in Manhattan beach? Great guy. Say "hi" from Harriet if you know him.

You're being put up in a castle?? You have the funniest life. Thanks for letting us read about it.

Only, I can't believe you're complaining about those security restrictions. There WAS a serious attack being planned. It was stopped, and thank God. I'm sure you'll be allowed to bring baby formula on - you have no choice, and neither do people with medical conditions who need certain drinks. But there is good reason to be worried.

clearly the most practical solution is for all the plane passengers to fly naked. but you know as soon as the tampon bomber or the dentures bomber is uncovered, that may not work either. maybe we should be naked and passing through x-rays.

i have to fly to l.a. today and i'm wondering if gummy bears count. what about the gum that squirts, is that technically a liquid? and what about ice, are they screening for ice?

IanLovesAirplanes, i hate to beat a dead horse, but the "attack the messenger, ignore the message" strategy of you and your ilk is deeply flawed and tiresome.

Unless you're off the grid, hoofing it to work and/or living in an unheated house, you (and me, and everyone else) is partly responsible for global warming. The problem is systemic, and therefore needs to be collectively addressed at the systemic level. period. How much energy we use individually will not change that fact. Gore is part of the system and has not argued otherwise... he pointed this out to great effect in "An Inconvenient Truth" when discussing spending summers working on his family's tobacco farm and ultimately losing his mother to lung cancer.

The USA Today piece is an attack on the messenger while ignoring the message. Your focus on ian's travel habits is the same. Nobody is suggesting that we should never leave the house... we just need to gather the political will to actually address the issue on a grand scale, ala manhattan project, civil rights, trip to the moon etc. That is the message!

Re: Bush's comments on the War on Terror: five years and $300 billion later, Osama Bin Laden is still free, alive, and planning terrorist attacks like the one yesterday. Unbelievable.

xuxE - i read today that they actually prevented someone from taking the gum that squirts on the plane. the person interviewed said she chewed it all before getting on the plane.

i have no idea how you are going to keep a baby happy on a flight to london (hopefully from nyc, not la) with no carry ons. i dont know how an adult could do it much less a little one. no books! no ipods! no laptops! at least adults can self medicate for the trip and pass out but you cant do that to little lucy! if things dont ease up i would say fly to paris and take the train. i'm serious.

I'm thinking...cargo pants? Technically, if you put stuff in your pockets, it's not a "carry-on".

"I think the traveling inconvenience will mean that those guys whose wives pack an entire suitcase worth of toiletries will save precious years off of their backs, as the ladies will be forced to pack less."

Um, excuse me, GWFD?

Claudia,

Not meant as a jab at all women, but a very real inside joke pointed at my wife, who has--on several occasions--packed an entire little suitcase of toiletries for long trips, such as our destination wedding.

She giggled at my post.

You should too.

If you take any other interpretation from it, then you missed the point of the joke. The good news is, now that you know the back story. You WILL get the joke the next time. And maybe you'll giggle.

I agree with CL. Why are you being so snide about this plot? Isn't it a good thing that the plot was foiled?

And, if you don't think Lucy can handle a 9 hour flight without constant stimulation, then leave her at home with a babysitter. The safety precautions are there for a reason, and I don't think anyone on your plane will appreciate hearing her scream the whole way.

Sorry to be a bitch, but I don't understand your attitude about this whole thing. President Bush pointing out the obvious that we are still fighting a war on terror is not politics. It is reality. Despite what the Democrats would have us believe. Sorry this won't help your party in the upcoming elections. . . .

Dear fellow XTCIANers:

"Let's emphasize that again: The plot was foiled because a large number of people were under surveillance concerning their spending, travel and communications. Which leads us to wonder if Scotland Yard would have succeeded if the ACLU or the New York Times had first learned the details of such surveillance programs. . . .

"In short, Democrats who claim to want 'focus' on the war on terror have wanted it fought without the intelligence, interrogation and detention tools necessary to win it. And if they cite 'cooperation' with our allies as some kind of magical answer, they should be reminded that the British and other European legal systems generally permit far more intrusive surveillance and detention policies than the Bush Administration has ever contemplated."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008785

Lieberman's defeat is indeed a harbinger for the coming election. It portends bad news not for the GOP, but Democrats, who are bowing to the far-left wing of their party, which isn't willing to prosecute the war on terror.

Why does it not surprise me that Ian would put a negative spin on this. C'mon man you're smarter than that, stop making it about "your side." Just because it's bad news for the democrats doesn't mean it's bad news.

You don't get it. Of course it's good news. What makes me sick to my stomach is that our Administration - the one who is supposed to protect us - is overwhelmingly full of glee that there is a new threat on my family's life as they cross the Atlantic. If you don't see that as disgusting, then come get on the flight with us.

GWFD--thanks for the explanation. Very giggle-worthy as an inside joke.

"A new threat"? Pardon me for saying, but, um, you're not getting it, Ian.

But I can relate in the sense that I'm disgusted by the way liberals count Iraq war casualties with such "glee" (they just don't count the hundreds of thousands who died before the invasion).

Claudia,

Glad to hear you are giggling in Brooklyn.

Matt-

'I'm disgusted by the way liberals count Iraq war casualties with such "glee"'

You really stand behind that statement?!! You really think people (liberals) sit around and hope that our fellow Americans, charged with defending us, die over there so we can tally them with 'glee'. If you're referring to the fact that certain news outlets print or air the names of those killed in action, you are so wrong. That's not glee, that's giving due credit to people who made the ultimate sacrifice.

If you served our country in the military and died, wouldn't you want others to put a face on the people who served by publishing your obit in the paper or showing a picture of you on television?

I think that Matt's point was that complaining that the Bushies are reporting this terror plot with "glee" (quotes emphasized by Matt) is similar to assuming that Democrats are reporting military casualties with "glee."

And in this case, it IS a gleeful occasion to have stopped a plot that could have killed 3,000 people, although of course it's no time to rest on our laurels.

I'm no Bush fan but it's important to see the bigger picture.

Sorry I was late to the party.

First off, Ian, it sounds like your trip overseas will be cooler than hell. I look forward to your blogging of it.

As for the rest of your post (and the subsequent comments), that buzzing noise you hear in the background is my bullshit detector going off.

Ian:
"The Bush Administration...was quick to play politics with the potential harm of their fellow countrymen."

If by playing politics, you mean sneaking in a little pat on the back as our primary ally in the global war on terror busts up yet another potentially disastrous attack on innocent civilians, then I guess they did.

What you guys on the left don't seem to get is that the war on terror is multilateral. There are many aspects to it, both on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as at home in the USA and in this case the UK. From the right's perspective (correctly or incorrectly), they see it this way, whereas the left seeks to, for example, excise the conflict in Iraq from the greater war on terror (just like the adding the rights of privacy and abortion to the Constitution while excising that pesky little thing called the Second Amemndment, but I digress...)

So, if you are part of the Bushworld, this is a victory in the greater scheme of the war on terror. Thus the back-slapping. If, however, you take Ian's view that the Bushies are "overwhelmingly full of glee that there is a new threat on my family's life as they cross the Atlantic", then no wonder your party is in the crapper and can't win a national election to save your life. To use Ken's words, do you really stand by that statement, or are you just so full of disgust towards Bush that you just instinctively spit bile at the mention of his name?

As an aside, I have to ask two pertinent questions of the Bush-haters:

1. So which is he? An evil-conniving, manipulating force of badness who has single-handedly engineered the rollback of civil rights, opporessed the poor minorities, killed thousands of brave Americans in a worthelss war, and stole of at least one presidential election, or a mindless, dim puppet whose strings are controlled by Rove and Cheney? It's so funny to hear the left's conflicting visions of him.

2. Which of the following things is Bush allowed to take credit for:
A. appointing the first African-American secretary of state and national security advisor, as well as appointing more minorities to cabinet positions than any other president?
B. unemployment rates under 5% for three years and countless new jobs?
C. lowered interest rates which have increased home ownership levels to new highs?
D. record tax revenues and robust economic growth as measured by the GDP?

I mean, if you're going to give him the shit, you have to give him the credit somewhere, if you believe in being fair.

Matt:
"And if they cite 'cooperation' with our allies as some kind of magical answer, they should be reminded that the British and other European legal systems generally permit far more intrusive surveillance and detention policies than the Bush Administration has ever contemplated."

Absoultely right. In Britain, the concept of "probable cause" is replaced by "reasonable suspiciion". Much ado has been made of the Bushies' "illegal" wiretapping and bank surveillance, but much of that is standard fare in Europe, even beyond the UK. I mean, aren't we supposed to emulate the Europeans? That's what the "progressives" keep telling us.

Ken:
"If you're referring to the fact that certain news outlets print or air the names of those killed in action, you are so wrong. That's not glee, that's giving due credit to people who made the ultimate sacrifice.

If you served our country in the military and died, wouldn't you want others to put a face on the people who served by publishing your obit in the paper or showing a picture of you on television?"

A picture of you, yes. A picture of your coffin or body bag, no. I think Matt refers more to those (and admit it, they are out there) who would use war casualties to advance an agenda.

Finally, Ianlovesairplanes is an idiot. Thanks for removing his post.

As for the real Ian, I reiterate with all due respect that if that is how you truly feel about the revelation of the foiling of this plot, then it is you who truly doesn't get it - and yet another example of why, no matter how bad the Republican is screwing it up, you can't hand over the keys to the likes of Ned Lamont.

And before anyone goes calling me out, let me put in my two cents worth: while I lean farily libertarian, I am a registered Dem who made my first presidential vote in a 1988 primary for Al Gore. I don't think Bush is an idiot, but he is a carrier. Still, I haven't seen anyone from the other side of the aisle who makes me thing they can handle it any better, and with that having been said, I'm sticking with the devil I know.

Ian: "Gee, you'd almost think Bush had something to do with the bust."

Time: "U.S. intelligence provided London authorities with intercepts of the group's communications."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1225453,00.html

I still don't think ANYONE would applaud or be gleeful about the death of Americans abroad. The worst you might be able to say is that some might consider the deaths an "I told you so".

As for the body bags and coffins, I certainly wouldn't want to see body bags (or corpses, enemy or ally) but coffins are a different matter. You may recall the Reagan death tour of 2004 (or hell, the Kennedy coffin tour of 1963). The president died and we saw every inch of the coffin's journey live on every news network (even the supposedly liberal CNN). If a former Head of State's coffin is paraded for all of us on live TV, is it wrong to show the occasional coffin of a brave soul who gave their life for our freedom? I don't think so. Flag-draped coffins, gravestones, Arlington Cemetery and war memorials are all ways we honor the war dead and to deny networks from showing them is UnAmerican.

I love beer...on airplanes.

Just checking in...

I see B.D.S. still afflicting the core and the readership. Well I reckon if ya feel helpless and powerless ya gotta lash out at something..geez.

Cute pics as usual.

B2

I go on family vacation for a week and come to find someone steals my "handle" and posts, i feel so....violated

'Twas I, Caveman; I'm sorry to have stolen your "handle" -- I must confess that until now I didn't realize you exist as a single commenter. I thought various people randomly assumed the "handle" in order to add some levity. I won't do it again, dude.

Although...I really do love beer. Especially with pizza or chili.

I had to look it up, and for those of you also not in the know, "BDS" is "Bush Derangement Syndrome."

I love beer too.

no worries....beer is very good