Dear Mr. Smith:

I agree with your thoughts on airline and airport security. I also agree with your thoughts on Ms. Jacobsen. I have paused so many times throughout this whole 9/11 fantasy-land to wonder just what is going on in Americans' minds. Around a year ago, on a flight from Orange County to SFO, I watched a proud, elderly gentleman who looked to be in his 80s take off his hat, his watch chain, his shoes, and the vest of his three-piece suit. Each item required painstaking effort on his part because of his age. Not only were all of the people in line behind him (including me) significantly delayed by this "security" measure, but we were all humiliated by the fact that we had to take part in the spectacle. Numerous people behind me were grumbling and commenting, but they weren't complaining about wasting time, they were imploring the security worker to just let the poor man go through to his flight. I felt ashamed; as the man sat on the opposite side of the metal detector to put all his clothes on, he took off his glasses to wipe his eyes - we all knew that he was close to crying. His hands shook as he tried to button up his vest again. You could not have watched this without feeling debased.

This seems to me to be emblamatic of your point. Everyone knew this man was no terrorist and no one could have watched this without asking themselves, does this actually help me feel safer? And to those who answer yes, I wonder, do you only become paranoid when there is a middle-easterner on the plane? You shouldn't, because that elderly couple next to you from Ohio seems nice, but they could be terrorists too. Trust no one. That's the message: not we're all in this together but every man for himself.

It is quite likely that these salary payments are illegal if they came from a nonprofit 501(c)(3). The post describes the entity as a subsidiary of a nonprofit. Payments from a nonprofit to a private individual that do not benefit the charitable purpose of the organization can lead to penalties or revocation of status. Paying someone 13K a month clearly benefits a private individual, not the charitable purpose. This should be a no-brainer for the IRS.

First off, congratulations on getting accepted into law school. As for you question - it does seem like an unfair question, but you might as well take it for what it is, an unfair assignment that prepares you for what the practice of law is actually like. All practicing lawyers are regularly put to the task by their clients. Many many clients are extremely sophisticated and know more than you do when you start practicing law. As a consequence, you rarely are asked questions that are easily within your grasp. In fact, if a partner gives you a research assignment, the chances are that he or she has no answer despite 20 or 30 years in the business. So, your boss doesn't know, your client doesn't know, and you don't know. Seems like you are actually in the worst position to figure out the answer, and yet that is your job when you start practicing. You need to learn in law school that the resources to answer the question at hand exist. Your job is to find out how to get your hands on these resources and then test your mettle by interpreting facts under the law that you have located. The job of your law professor is to teach you why your interpretations are right or wrong. So, my advice, look at this paper and all of law school as preparation for the day someone asks you to give them an answer to an impossible question and pays you $300 an hour to find out. If you can do it now, you will be able to do it then. So give it your best shot. GOOD LUCK!!

boo -

I love Salon and appreciate many of Mr. Kamiya's article. This article is silly.

What justice it would be for the spineless Democrats if the Republicans in the Senate voted down retroactive immunity and then grandstanded as the party of the Constitution, America, and apple-pie. Can you imagine the press they would get from the NYTimes, Post, LATimes, Fox News, CNN, etc. We wouldn't even be able to hear the words of sycophantic praise from the bobbleheads what with all the American flags flapping. Funny thing is, as totally impossible as such a scenario is, it strikes me as much more plausible then the Democrats voting down retro immunity tomorrow. What a sad state of affairs.

Patrick:

No amount of writing about this topic would tire me out. I frequently think of the scene in Fargo where the guy operating the parking lot gate won't open it despite the fact that Buscemi has been shot in the face. Naturally, Buscemi does what we all wish we could do which is blast a hole in the ridiculous person who feels all powerful because they have some idiotic function that they take waaaay too seriously. The worst part about it all is that - just by writing this in an email - I seriously paused to consider whether I should relay a scene from a movie and place it in the context of shooting a TSA "officer" since this will probably make its way through some NSA spy network to some functionary in "Homeland" Security (I guess Fatherland and Motherland were taken by the Nazis and Soviets respectively) who will ban me from flying for life. All I can say is thank goodness Virgin flies out of the international terminal at SFO - security is much less virulent in international. And yes, I fly Virgin whenever I can for this reason alone.