Patrick is right, the fixation on finding small objects in our carry-ons in and of itself adds nothing to aviation security. I would suggest that it actually increases insecurity.

When we fly these days, we are worked into a lather about the supposed threats around us. We are reminded of the dangers from the time we are dropped curbside, through check-in, through the security checkpoint, interminable in-terminal announcements, and extra random screenings prior to boarding. Not only is removing our shoes at the x-ray annoying, it also makes us anxious about all the possible threats around us. By the time we get on a plane we are ready to jump out of our skins, fearing any brownish passenger and praying that the sky marshalls shoot anyone who displays erratic behavior.

In this environment where we are all hyper-sensitive to any perceived threat, it is more likely that we will over-react and actually cause the very tragedies that we are hoping to prevent - sky marshalls shooting passengers, or full-fledged race riots in mid-flight, for example. (Sure, the latter hasn't happened yet, but imagine a flight on which a Middle Eastern rugby team was on the same plane as a well-lubricated group headed to an NRA convention, for instance.)

Thinking back to some flights I've been on this year: did it make us feel more secure in Denver when my wife had to run from the security check back to the post office to mail herself back her nail scissors? did it make us feel more secure in New Haven when the female screener inspected the metal underwire of my wife's bra? did it make us feel more secure when a screener in Geneva detained me for 10 minutes to repeatedly put my bathroom bag through the xray in search of an elusive pair of tweezers I didn't even know I had because "tweezers aren't allowed on aircraft flying to the US" - even though tweezers were specifically on the list of items approved for carry-on? In all cases, no - we would have felt most secure with a good screening that was coupled with some common sense.

Remember when flying was fun? Now the entire experience is designed to be completely terrifying. In that, Osama wins every time you have to break the one inch nail file off of your nail clippers, and the Republicons win every time you are reminded of 9/11 and for some bizarre psychological reason determine that you need to vote for them to make you more secure. This is what is known as a win-win-lose - with the loser here being us.

I have absolutely no objection to people sending this in personal cards, singing songs about it as they walk down the street, proclaiming it from the altar at church:

"More than 2,000 years ago, a virgin gave birth to a Son, and the God of heaven came to Earth. Mankind had received its Savior, and to those who had dwelled in darkness, the light of hope had come. Each Christmas, we celebrate that first coming anew, and we rejoice in the knowledge that the God who came to Earth that night in Bethlehem is with us still and will remain with us forever."

However, when this goes on an official government website, paid for with my tax dollars, it crosses a line I think even Justice Scalia would recognize. If the President wants to write a message like this, he should get himself a blog and post it from the privacy of the White House residential quarters. But if he is going to use taxpayer dollars to proclaim the coming of the Lord, then he is subverting the constitution.

Doesn't the White House have lawyers who understand these things?

So my wife flew home from Europe on Sunday, on a KLM/Northwest flight to Newark. She walked out of customs without her suitcases, which the airline temporarily lost in Amsterdam.

The next day the suitcases turned up in Newark, and Northwest promptly FedExed them to us. One bag arrived the following morning, Tuesday. The other suitcase? Hmm... It's now Wednesday morning, and FedEx is searching for a large grey suitcase in their lost-and-found.

Amazing, one suitcase, lost twice in two days on the same transatlantic trip, by two airline companies with hubs in Memphis. Ain't globalization wonderful?

You heard it here first - Bush didn't lie about wiretaps because, it will turn out, the illegal surveillance he ordered did not involve physical wires leading to or from any phone lines. Conversations were intercepted, but not via actual "wiretaps." This president doesn't lie, see?

From yourdictionary.com, the definition for wiretap:

n.

1. A concealed listening or recording device connected to a communications circuit.

2. The act of installing such a device.

v. wire·tapped, wire·tap·ping, wire·taps

v. tr.

1. To connect a concealed listening or recording device to.

2. To monitor (a telephone line) by means of such a device.

v. intr.

To install a concealed listening or recording device or use it to monitor communications.

This just in: Alan Keyes was seen yesterday shopping for real estate in New York...

The revolution has been televised, but nobody was watching the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings for Roberts and Alito. The radical right now owns the court. There can be no doubt that Alito was chosen precisely because he pledged allegiance to the people who want to subvert the constitution in the name of the flag.

May God save the republic.

The pooch is all white, kind of like the Concerned Alumni of Princeton. Puppy looks harmless enough, but when it gets big it could end up biting your daughter and destroying your furniture. Only one name does it:

Alito