The war on flying

Flying is about to get even more annoying.

In the wake of the terrorism attempt Friday on a Northwest Airlines flight, federal officials on Saturday imposed a new layer of restrictions on travelers that could lengthen lines at airports and limit the ability of international passengers to move about an airplane.

Among other steps being imposed, passengers on international flights coming to the United States will apparently have to remain in their seats for the last hour of a flight without any personal items on their laps…

In effect, the restrictions mean that passengers on flights of 90 minutes or less would most likely not be able to leave their seats at all…

Does this mean I will not be able to hold a book or magazine for the last hour of any international flight coming to the US? That’s just great. I tend not to like to talk to people sitting next to me on a plane. I guess I’ll have to change this or get used to staring into space for an hour every time I fly. Also, I guess I’ll really have to watch my liquid intake before and on short flights, since I won’t be able use the bathroom.

As one might anticipate, getting on the plane is about to get more annoying as well.

…American Airlines said the T.S.A. had ordered new measures for flights departing from foreign locations to the United States, including mandatory screening of all passengers at airport gates during the boarding process. All carry-on items would be screened at security checkpoints and again at boarding, the airline said. It urged passengers to leave extra time for screening and boarding.

…Air Canada said…to be prepared for delays, cancellations and missed connections because of the new limits.

That’s just great. Another round of screening, and more missed and cancelled flights. I can’t wait for my next international trip. But, you might ask, don’t I worry about terrorism? Yes, I do. Nonetheless, I think we need to be reasonable about it, not bring international travel to a standstill every time some idiot tries to light a firecracker on a plane. Perhaps that seems reckless to you. Well, think how easy it is to blow up something. If Abdulmutalla wanted to really make a big splash, he could have easily bought some dynamite after he arrived in the US and blown himself up in Times Square; that would have been a big deal. The basic point is that it very easy to commit enormous acts of terrorism in the US, but we see almost none. What this tells me is that terrorism is not such a big threat. Al Qaeda spent $200,000 planning 9/11 and we have spent at least $1 trillion fighting “the war on terrorism.” Somewhere in a cave in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan, Osama bin Laden is laughing hysterically – and he’s right.

Kevin Drum nails it:

Apparently al-Qaeda doesn’t need to bother with real terrorism anymore: just light off a firecracker on a plane and the U.S. government will react as if a major city had been leveled. Why not just ban air flight entirely and be done with it?

Italy’s “White Christmas”

As if on cue, more bizarre news out of Italy. Yesterday someone tackled the Pope during Christmas Mass at the Vatican. This is not the most disturbing Christmas craziness in the country, however. I think this award goes to the mayor of Coccaglio, Italy, Franco Claretti, who wants to make sure his town has a unique type of white Christmas. It’s gives the lyrics “may all your Christmases be white” kind of a new meaning.

What is up with Italy?

A few weeks ago, Belusconi gets a punch in the face. Now this? On Christmas eve? What is up with Italy?

US suspends aid to Niger

Yesterday, the US suspended all non-humanitarian aid to Niger and placed travel bans on the country’s top officials, as a result of the President Mamadou Tandja’s refusal to stand down at the end of his second term, which ended yesterday. In June 2008, the President dissolved the national assembly and began to rule by decree after the assembly refused to go along with his proposal to hold a referendum on changing the constitution to allow him to extend his term in office and enhance the president’s powers. The president won the referendum in August, although the opposition boycotted it and, according to Nigerien legal experts, the referendum was not constitutional. US actions seemed to have some effect as AFP reports that the president and his allies have resumed stalled negotiations. This is the right move. I bet President Tandja is wishing Niger had oil…

China in Copenhagen

In a recent post, I wrote that China’s lack of involvement in global governance is because the government’s main concern domestic economic growth. China’s foreign policy is simply its execution of this policy outside its borders, I argued. I think I get partial-credit for a correct prediction, although it was not on my mind when I wrote the post. The consensus is that the failure of the Copenhagen climate summit to come up with any serious policy to deal with climate change was in large measure due to Obama’s poor negotiating skills. Mark Lynas writing in the (UK) Guardian says that this is not true:

Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful “deal” so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.

And why was the Chinese government so intent on wrecking the negotiations?  According to Lynas:

China’s growth, and growing global political and economic dominance, is based largely on cheap coal…Its coal-based economy doubles every decade, and its power increases commensurately. Its leadership will not alter this magic formula unless they absolutely have to.

So I get partial credit, but in a way that bolsters my argument. True, China did play a major role in these negotiations, contrary to what I wrote in the post. But the role it played was to make global cooperation more difficult because the Chinese government understands that combating climate change is bad domestic politics. This is not good news.