Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab may have failed at bombing Northwest Flight 253 on Christmas Day, but he succeeded in creating big headaches for holiday travelers. In response to the attempted bombing, the TSA has implemented new security measures for domestic and especially international flights. MSNBC has more:

While domestic passengers “should not expect to see the same thing at every airport,” TSA said heightened security procedures would include increased vigilance and visibility that may — or may not — take the form of gate screening, added presence of law enforcement officers and canine teams, and other activities.

Changes in carry-on luggage rules are also causing confusion. Until Saturday, most airlines allowed passengers to board with a standard-sized carry-on bag, plus one additional bag usually described as a laptop-bag, purse or briefcase. Those rules still stand for domestic flights and flights leaving the United States. On incoming flights, however, passengers can board with just one small carry-on item.

In other words, the new rules are forcing travelers to be even more patient than usual. Schedule in some extra time if you’re flying anywhere in coming weeks.

After reading about protesters bringing guns to anti-Obama rallies, I grew curious about which states are open-carry; that is, they allow people to carry guns in public, as long as the guns are visible. I made this list from the map graphic at OpenCarry.org:

Open carry states:

Alaska
Montana
Idaho
Wyoming
Nevada
Arizona
New Mexico
South Dakota
Vermont
Kentucky
Virginia

Open carry–with restrictions (eg. permit requirements):

Utah
North Dakota
Minnesota
Iowa
Tennessee
Mississippi
Georgia
Indiana
Maryland
New Jersey
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Massachusetts

Many other states have their own versions of open carry–eg. it is allowed in some rural areas of California. See the map for details.

Using a loaded gun to demonstrate your right to bear arms at a presidential event is a dumb idea. Maybe you’re a responsible gun owner, but what about the 50 people next to you? Who’s to say someone won’t get excited and start firing? And if that happens, the government will be even more interested in restricting gun rights. Demonstrators either need to keep their guns unloaded, or not bring them at all.

FOUR FACTS ABOUT FOOD AND WARS

1. The human population is gobbling up food and mineral resources like they’re Thanksgiving dinner.
2. As these resources decrease, civil wars increase.
3. Said resources are often located in countries festering with civil conflicts. Just look at Darfur, Tibet and Iraq.
4. This situation is looking to be one of the 21st century’s major headaches.

What’s a developed country to do?

The Solution in a PDF Chart

According to the people at the Copenhagen Consensus, once a civil war looks like it’s finished, the cheapest thing to do is send in peacekeepers. They claim that the costs of sending in the blue helmets are far more reasonable then letting a civil war fester.

An extended civil war not only costs the stricken country 2% of its yearly economic growth, but limits foreign direct investment and resource access for the rest of the world. Add to that the regional crime and terrorism civil wars espouse, and suddenly peacekeepers start to make a lot more sense.

Here are the options Copenhagen presents:

DO NOTHING: NO VALUE FOR YOUR MONEY
Worldwide, wars in developing countries cost about $120-$500 billion/year. A country in a civil war losts roughly 2% of its growth per year. It takes 14 years, on average, to recover from a civil war. The interdependent world loses out on potential benefits provided by the country, such as resources and land for facilities. Many civil wars also become regional, which often aggravates crime and terrorism.

SEND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE: DECENT ROI
Countries worldwide hand out $120 billion in foreign aid/year, covering the bare minimum of the costs produced by wars. If rich countries send a region enough money to cover the 2%/year growth costs, the odds of a (costly) future war decrease. An Economist article on the subject says each “percentage-point reduction in the rise of renewed violence is ‘worth’ (up to) $2.5 billion.” Financial aid, then, will pay off in the form of a secure future.

SEND IN PEACEKEEPING MISSIONS: BEST BANG FOR YOUR BUCK
Peacekeeping missions are the most powerful tool we have in preventing future conflicts. According to the Times Online, “spending $850m on a peacekeeping initiative reduces the ten-year risk of conflict re-emerging from around 38% to 7%.” The article says that each percentage point of risk reduction is worth around $2.5bn to the world.

In sum, if the world spends $1 billion per year on conflict reduction, the benefits (in terms of the country’s growth, stability, global security, etc.) add up to $12.6 billion. Every dollar invested returns $12.60 of positive benefit to the country and, as a result, the world.

With this reasoning in place, why does it take the UN so darn long to intervene in places like Darfur?

The New York Times wrote a poignant article on how improving healthcare will probably diminish the US military.

Until the Nixon era, the US military had a mandatory enlistment program. When Nixon abolished the draft, enlistment decreased by roughly 50%. Recruiters had to find new ways of luring in potential soldiers. They added cash bonuses, increased the number of recruiters, and, offered a sweet healthcare package.

NYT research shows that healthcare has been a significant factor in deciding to enlist.

Michael Massing, (The New York Review of Books, April 3) tells the story of one part-time college student from Brooklyn, who was holding down two jobs but still going into debt. “Meanwhile, he got married, his wife got pregnant, and he had no health care. From a brother in the military, he had learned of the Army’s many benefits, and, visiting a recruiter, he heard about Tricare, the military’s generous health plan.” He enlisted.

It seems a bit perverse that the incentives for a young person with children to join are greater than the incentives for his childless friend. But that is the way it is.

So what happens when a national healthcare policy is put into place? Enlistment drops. Iraq is understaffed (presumably, this even applies to an exit policy). And the Army is out of an incentive to bring more people in.

The challenge, then, is finding new people to fight the war. The recession may help: chronically unemployed people with a grim economic outlook are more likely to enlist than those expecting a job down the line.

In the longer term, the military may rely on education benefits. Congress passed a bill approving full public-university tuition and $1,000/month living expenses for veterans who served at least three years in the military after 9/11. Candidate McCain says this bill will only help if people stay in the army longer–most people these days choose not to re-enlist.

In sum, it’s a grim trade-off: Iraq and Afghanistan for national health. I definitely stand on the side of healthcare, which is so desperately needed in our country…but the government can’t ditch an entire national security campaign without some kind of repercussion. What do you think?

(Image by John Montgomery Flagg)

Moore's thesis – near as I can follow it- is that America commits vastly more handgun murders than the rest of the world. Well, there's no disputing that. You would think Moore would make the point that it's because we have such easy access to handguns. He does not. He claims that there are plenty of guns in Canada, but they don't have our murder rate. The movie's premise is that we kill people with guns because we Americans are terrified all the time, and the one thing we are most terrified of is Black people.

Hope I didn't wreck the movie for you.

The title comes from Moore's assertion that Dylan and Klebold, the Columbine murderers, were so immune to violence that they went bowling in the morning before they shot up the school. It is a chilling thought. Didn't happen. But that shouldn't get in the way of a chilling thought, especially when it's your opening thesis.

The opening scene features Michael Moore in the North Country Bank & Trust in Traverse City, Michigan, which was running a promotion saying that for every account opened, they would give away not a toaster or a walkman, but a gun. We see Moore filling out the paperwork to open a new account. This done, the teller hands him a rifle. Moore exits the bank, thrusts the rifle into the air like some well-fed Sandinista, and over the freeze-frame says "maybe it's not such a good idea to give people a gun…in a bank!" Oh, how the NPR film club tittered at that line!

This isn't just misdirection. This is, pure and simple, a goddam lie. The bank did offer this promotion, and when Moore heard about it, he found out that when you open the new account, they give you a certificate. You then have to go to a gun shop to pick up the gun.

This wasn't damning enough. So Moore convinced the poor, decent, gullible people who ran that bank that it would be much better publicity for them if they could hand him the gun right there in the bank. Uh, well, um…okay. If it will help you with your movie. But the bank did not hand out guns on the premises. Moore created this scene to advance his premise. It's a funny scene. It is most emphatically not a documentary scene.

There is plenty more, just follow the link. It is well worth your time to read the whole thing.

Well, today in the mail I got a card to let me vote for the NRA president. My choices are Charleton Heston, or Michael Moore. I knew it was tongue-in-cheek, but I was still surprised. Apparently Moore thinks he represents America's views on guns better than Charleton Heston. He is actually quoted as saying "After Columbine, I decided that I would run agains Charlton Heston for the presidency of the NRA."

Now, I don't despise Michael Moore as much as Rachel Lucas, but I am beginning to think that is only because I know so little about him. Statements like this show he is a true idiot. Blaming guns for Columbine is like blaming airplanes for 9-11. These same liberals who will let Saddam have WMD because we need to instead deal with the "root causes" of anti-Americanism think that law abiding citizens shouldn't have guns because there are no "root causes" for gun violence other than the existence of guns.