As IF Times

link BBC News – US plane attack suspect quizzed after ‘terror attempt’

Don’t you love that word used in the story, that the suspect was ‘quizzed’, as in a snap math exam? Here we go again. This time, the would be martyr had explosive powder attached to his upper thigh because the shoe thing was so 2001. Somehow this most recent iteration of the human fuse was able to elude suspicion and scrutiny at airport security even though the suspect’s name was ‘on a database indicating a significant terrorist connection’ according to the report.

In fact, the perp had a valid U.S. visa and ‘all security procedures were followed correctly’. Hmm. So, apparently, he was made to take off shoes, expose his laptop computer and passed the electronic wand test, but the name on a database ‘with a significant terrorist connection’ didn’t set off any alarms.

Maybe it’s just me, but 2 things are evident from this story. Firstly, whatever means the homeland security people are using to compile their list of dangerous fliers must have some validity. Secondly, the standard screening methods presently imposed on travellers are unable to pick up the most recent schemes of sabotage by the mullahs of mayhem. We should all cringe at the likelihood that from now on, ALL air passengers will be groped in their upper legs for similar devices. At least the President is on the case. He has ordered tighter security, whatever that means. Maybe everyone has to board in gym shorts.

Or, how about this? How about profiling those who are likely to be dangerous to the flying public and concentrating the security efforts on those candidates and less time on Aunt Eunice and her walker? It would certainly speed up the ‘strip and feel’ process at airports today if they spent less time on the 80 year olds, the kids under 12, goofy teenagers, business people or anyone NOT ON A DATABASE WITH A SIGNIFICANT TERRORIST CONNECTION.

The whole PC mentality about airport security is expensive, is cumbersome, is invasive and most importantly is not keeping the public safe. Apparently, the intelligence tools are available to effectively identify possible idiots, so why don’t we employ them? Why do we inconvenience and endanger entire populations because of the nefarious actions of an identifiable few? Maybe we worry less about a few hurt feelings and worry more about a planeload of innocents.

link Polluting pets: the devastating impact of man’s best friend – Yahoo! News

Headline– “PARIS (AFP) – Man’s best friend could be one of the environment’s worst enemies, according to a new study which says the carbon pawprint of a pet dog is more than double that of a gas-guzzling sports utility vehicle…”

The Asians were way ahead of the curve on global warming. Turns out that having Rover or Spike on the daily specials list at McHubei’s is not only environmentally commendable but also way ahead of the curve. If you think about it, noshing on all sorts of household domestic fru frus can be a great two-fer. One, it solves global warming and two, it can alleviate world hunger.

The proliferation of cooking shows on TV these days needs some new sizzle to their tired menu items. How many times can you make beef, chicken or pork? We can now expect variations of chien-au-vin and Schnauzer schnitzel with Bobby Flay. Naturally, we’d prefer the wild pets, not farm raised. The expression, “I feel like a dog today” will have a whole new meaning.

Of course, like everything else, there are unintended consequences of a world where canines and felines are treated as options on the prix fixe menu. Firstly, having no dogs to walk in the morning will make people measurably more sedentary and therefore plumper. This will lead to increases in plus sized clothing, which in turn leads to increase in demand for more fabric, meaning cotton prices will skyrocket.

On the other hand, this may be offset by the plunge in plastic bag demand as pooper bags lose their utility. Except of course in Paris where these kinds of things are left to bio-degrade on the streets or organically distributed by the shoes of pedestrians.

We can expect to see propaganda campaigns exhorting us to be green by eating Big Red or Old Yeller as the case may be. Al Gore would have another branch to his entrepreneurial empire, possibly a chain of Cooling Dog stands as opposed to the politically incorrect hot dog stands. If we can do this with dogs and cats, imagine when we bring horses into the discussion.

Alas, this elegantly simple solution may be too radical for many. After all, most people develop geniune bonds with their pets. It would not be the same going for long walks carrying goldfish in a bowl. It’s hard to imagine girls oohing and ahhing over a guy’s cute fish while walking in the park. Our justice system would be overwhelmed by instances of people snubbing their noses at no pet laws since in such a world, it would be illegal to keep food as pets.

Let’s just stick to taxing people.