James Fallows

James Fallows is a national correspondent for The Atlantic and has written for the magazine since the late 1970s. He has reported extensively from outside the United States, and once worked as President Carter's chief speechwriter. His latest book is China Airborne. More

James Fallows is based in Washington as a national correspondent for The Atlantic. He has worked for the magazine for nearly 30 years and in that time has also lived in Seattle, Berkeley, Austin, Tokyo, Kuala Lumpur, Shanghai, and Beijing. He was raised in Redlands, California, received his undergraduate degree in American history and literature from Harvard, and received a graduate degree in economics from Oxford as a Rhodes scholar. In addition to working for The Atlantic, he has spent two years as chief White House speechwriter for Jimmy Carter, two years as the editor of US News & World Report, and six months as a program designer at Microsoft. He is an instrument-rated private pilot. He is also now the chair in U.S. media at the U.S. Studies Centre at the University of Sydney, in Australia.

Fallows has been a finalist for the National Magazine Award five times and has won once; he has also won the American Book Award for nonfiction and a N.Y. Emmy award for the documentary series Doing Business in China. He was the founding chairman of the New America Foundation. His recent books Blind Into Baghdad (2006) and Postcards From Tomorrow Square (2009) are based on his writings for The Atlantic. His latest book is China Airborne. He is married to Deborah Fallows, author of the recent book Dreaming in Chinese. They have two married sons.

Fallows welcomes and frequently quotes from reader mail sent via the "Email" button below. Unless you specify otherwise, we consider any incoming mail available for possible quotation -- but not with the sender's real name unless you explicitly state that it may be used. If you are wondering why Fallows does not use a "Comments" field below his posts, please see previous explanations here and here.

Clash of the Titans: Chinese State Media vs. United Airlines

China May 31 2013, 5:55 PM ET

This is now more than a week old, but in case anyone has missed it I wanted to take note.

I bow to no one in my devotion to the works of the Chinese state media. And I bow to very few in my accumulation of miles on United Airlines over the decades, with resulting expertise in its corporate culture and the pre-flight-video stylings of its CEO, Jeff Smisek.

I had intended to give both themes a well-deserved rest. But they have come together in an irresistibly delicious combination.

Over the past few months, the (state-run) People's Daily in China has launched a lovely series called "Dishonest Americans." Supposedly this is meant to give Chinese readers a more balanced and "objective" picture of American life, when juxtaposed with their own overly rosy impressions. Or so the PD editor has claimed: "Most Chinese people think that Americans are honest, reliable, and righteous. However, once you live in that country for a while, you may discover the descriptions above are a bit misleading."

For me the irresistibly delicious part was the recent Those Dishonest Yanks item about a bad experience a Chinese family had had with United Airlines. And the People's Daily conclusion was that the family had endured huffy and put-upon-seeming treatment from a United rep ... because they were Chinese!

Yes, I am sure all members of the U.S. traveling public will agree that this is the only possible explanation for passengers having a less-than blissful experience on America's largest airline.

You can read the whole account here. If you need to crank out a "China and the world" seminar paper this weekend, I recommend these extra-credit points:

The "disrespect and humiliation" angle. As I've argued many times, in a country as huge, shambling, and diverse as China, flat-out nationalistic tension is rarely the first thing on people's minds. Before someone responds as "a Chinese," he or she is likely to react as "a person from Sichuan," or as "a member of the Wang family," or as "a school classmate of Mr. Chen," or as "your friend," or as "someone who sees a chance of profit," or any other natural sub-unit of a billion people. But the ever-present apprehension about "disrespect" from the outside world, especially the mighty and mainly white North American/European world, always has the potential to evoke a purely nationalistic/tribal response. Bonus reading on this point: Never Forget National Humiliation, which always seemed as if it should have an exclamation point at the end of the title.

Thus I am fascinated that this is exactly the context in which the United problem is presented: as a matter of "insulting" and "bullying" the Chinese travelers. The next time I have an airline-hell experience, I will have to protest about being "bullied" and "humiliated."
The "hey, wait a minute" angle. The growth of the Chinese economy is of course now supporting a surge of outbound Chinese tourism, which I view as beneficial for just about everyone involved. (Good for foreign economies; good for the Chinese to see more of the world first-hand.) But it also means that China is encountering its version of the "Ugly American" backlash that U.S. tourists and expats started experiencing long ago. Early this month, a prominent politician, Wang Yang, warned his fellow citizens that their boorish behavior overseas was hurting the whole country's image. A few days later, a huge uproar began in Egypt about a Chinese teenager who etched his name and "I was here!" in Chinese characters on an ancient temple at Luxor. It is coincidence that the Chinese media are portraying Chinese travelers as pushed-around innocents at the moment when the contrary impression is growing. (And, for the billionth time, among such a big and varied populace, there are plenty examples for any impression you'd like to find.) But the coincidence is interesting.
Truth squads and the netizens: The most significant part of the whole episode may be the backlash from much of the online Chinese populace, examining why the state media are making this case just now and whether national stereotypes about dishonesty make sense at all. Here are English-language summaries in Global Post, the NYT and China Digital Times.

That is all. Now if only the family had tried to sneak a boiled frog, or a leafblower, or an open bottle of beer, or an Atlantic subscription card (etc) onto the flight, it would be the ideal item I have been hoping for lo these many years. Thanks to Adam Minter, Damien Ma, Ben Carlson, and many other friends in and around China for the leads.

Finale on the NYT Mag Airplane-in-Peril Story

National May 31 2013, 11:51 AM ET

I am grateful to Hugo Lindgren for his response, as editor of the New York Times Magazine, to questions and doubts about Noah Gallagher Shannon's story, "The Plane Was About to Crash. Now What?" The response included time, date, and routing information for the author's flight, which had not appeared in the original story.

Before I heard from Lindgren, I was about to put up a large number ( > 20) of messages from pilots, flight attendants, engineers, etc on why they viewed details in the story as mistakes at best, technically implausible fabrications at worst.

In light of Lindgren's response, I don't think it's worth doing so -- though, thanks to those who wrote in. Here's how it settles out for me:

- I do believe that the author was aboard a flight two years ago that had an unexpected diversion to Philadelphia, and that this frightened him.

- I do not believe most of the detail, color, and sequence-of-events in the story. And it strikes me that Hugo Lindgren is not trying to convince me that I should. Look again at this central and extremely artful passage from his statement:

Naturally, not every detail matches everybody else's experience. Surely even people on that plane would remember it differently. The story was about the personal experience of a fearful moment....He only reported what he heard and felt, which is consistent with the magazine's Lives page, where the account was published.

So if you went to the trouble (as I have not done) of finding other passengers on that plane and asking them whether, in fact, a rattled-sounding pilot had left the cockpit during the emergency to yell instructions down the aisle, meanwhile dangling a cap in his hand; or if you found the radar tracks to see whether an airliner had actually circled for two hours over Philadelphia; or if you heard from an Airbus electrical engineer (as I have) that it would have been impossible for the cabin lighting or public-address system to have behaved in the way the story claims; or if you went to the FAA or NTSB and found that their records for that date didn't match this story; or if you did anything else of the sort -- it wouldn't matter. The writer was telling us "what he heard and felt," not necessarily what "happened."

OK. To me this is closed. I appreciate the quick response from Hugo Lindgren. Noah Gallagher Shannon is clearly a very talented young writer -- no one would have wondered about the story if it hadn't been so grippingly told. I assume he will think carefully about his choice of genre for future work.

NYT Mag Editor Responds on the 'Terror in the Skies' Article

Technology May 30 2013, 5:15 PM ET

A few minutes ago Hugo Lindgren, editor of the New York Times Magazine, sent me this official response to questions about the veracity of the back-page article it published two weeks ago, "The Plane Was About to Crash. Now What?" Earlier today I explained why points both large and small in the account sounded phony to me; since then, I've received a flood of mail from aviation authorities with similar concerns.

Lindgren answers the very important basic question of whether there ever was such a flight, whether the author (Noah Gallagher Shannon) was aboard it, and whether it actually got diverted to Philadelphia. That is very useful to know. As for other questions about Shannon's account -- I'll leave them for later. For now, and for the record, here is Lindgren's response on its own and in full:

Some commenters have seized on certain details of "The Plane Was About to Crash. Now What?" by Noah Gallagher Shannon in order to question whether this emergency landing happened (and perhaps even whether the author was on the flight). But there is simply no question. The author was on Frontier Airlines flight #727 on June 30, 2011, from Washington to Denver. It was an Airbus 320. The author sat in seat 12A. This flight was diverted to Philadelphia. The FAA reports that the pilot declared an emergency due to a low hydraulics indicator light and that upon landing the plane needed to be towed to the gate. Frontier airlines confirms that an Airbus A320 experienced "a maintenance issue on departure from Washington DCA. The flight diverted to Philadelphia due to easier access. The aircraft and all passengers landed safely."

Did the author's personal recollection represent an accurate picture of what he experienced on that flight? Well, only he can attest to his own experience. But the author did provide receipts and took notes after the flight to back up his account. And his recollection, when run by an aviation specialist, did seem entirely plausible to him. While some of the author's language may have been imprecise, his recollection of his experience was consistent with recollections of passengers in similar air incidents. Naturally, not every detail matches everybody else's experience. Surely even people on that plane would remember it differently. The story was about the personal experience of a fearful moment. The author did not present himself as an authority in airline technology or emergency procedures. The airline, in fact, refused his request for more information about what happened after the fact. He only reported what he heard and felt, which is consistent with the magazine's Lives page, where the account was published.

The basic fact that no one can dispute is that the author of the column was on a flight to Denver that was diverted after the pilot reported a problem. Details like whether the crew followed standard procedure -- or varied from it -- or whether the lights were dimmed or how that looked to him, cannot be credibly contested by people who were not on the plane, even if their own experience of an emergency situation might have been different.

The piece was fact-checked before publication, and after questions were raised, editors reviewed it again, with the full cooperation of the writer. All the key points appear to be corroborated, and we have not found any evidence to undercut any significant elements of the narrative.

Hugo Lindgren
Editor, New York Times Magazine

Why YouTube Was Invented

National May 30 2013, 4:34 PM ET

Ah, the Internet. Yesterday morning I made a throw-away comment about wondering whether hammers or explosives would work better for a preventive strike on leafblowers. A few hour later, a reader had put together a thoroughgoing strategic analysis about the ethics and practicality of such a move.

Now, via Tim Heffernan, evidence that, as always, YouTube is ahead of us. I love the go-to-the-source panache, plus the commitment to experimental science, displayed by this guy. If you see nothing else, skip to time 0:50 and start there.

If you prefer a less kinetic approach to the problem, I offer this not-all-that-useful guidance from Consumer Reports:

And here is a debunking of a "quiet" gas-powered blower:

The guy linked but not embedded here is in an (understandably) surly but NSFW mood. Thus no embedding. (I love the detail that he is cussing out the leafblower menace in front of his little toddler.) And if you would like a Zen-tranquility-style soft-sell approach to what I consider (and will argue some other time*) is the most pointless externalized nuisance American society now routinely tolerates, check out this little tone-poem:

*Again, the full thesis is for another time, but consider: Dogs have more social utility than leafblowers, but dog owners aren't allowed to leave their pets' droppings everywhere. Even cigars have a finer human history than leafblowers, but you can't smoke them where their odor might reach anyone else. Because of the nuisance to neighbors, I can't open up a liquor store, build a bonfire, run a chicken coop, burn tires, etc in my backyard. Airplanes and airports are noisy, but in almost all cases the airport was there before the neighbors moved in -- and each generation of planes and engines is quieter than its predecessor. Then there is the notable exception of the leafblower: a tool meant for agricultural/industrial use that made its noxious way into neighborhoods. I'll leave it on that sunny note for right now.

Could the NYT Mag 'My Plane Almost Crashed' Story Actually Be True?

Technology May 30 2013, 8:45 AM ET

Two weeks ago I read the NYT Mag's back-page story on a harrowing brush-with-death encounter when pilots had to land an airliner while thinking that its wheels had not come down. I was about to head off on a trip so I didn't take the time to write what I was thinking, which was: this doesn't sound right.

Now I see that questions about the veracity of the story have cropped up -- in Romenesko and Metafilter, in a Gene Weingarten's item for the Washington Post, and elsewhere. For the record, here are some things that seemed fishy to me.

1) The whole scenario. The plot line of the essay is that the pilots discovered, on a trip from some unnamed city to Denver, that the plane's landing gear didn't work. Thus they "circled for two hours over Philadelphia" to burn off gas before attempting a wheels-up landing.

Here's the problem: why would the pilots have discovered mid-flight that the landing gear had failed? Normally pilots would be paying attention to their landing gear exactly twice during the flight. One would be a few seconds after takeoff, when the flight crew would retract the gear into the plane's body so as to reduce drag as they climbed. If the wheels didn't retract then, the crew would know that right away -- and they could circle back (perhaps after burning off some fuel) for a normal wheels-and-all landing.

The other time is not long before landing, when the crew would put the wheels back down. If the wheels didn't go down, that would be a problem -- with various possible counter-measures. (Manual gear-lowering systems; flying by the tower so controllers can look at the plane's belly with binoculars and see whether the gear are actually down; and so on.)

The rest of the time, the wheels just sit there. They don't fail mid-flight. They're just in their bay inside the plane's fuselage. The pilots pay zero attention to the landing gear until they're going through the descent-and-landing checklists. So, maybe this happened. But it doesn't resemble any "failure mode" I have ever heard of. Unless the gear didn't retract after takeoff to begin with, and the pilots circled but didn't say anything to the passengers (who also didn't notice anything) for the next two hours.

2) The pilots' Airplane! style behavior. According to this story, the pilots are opening the cockpit door and yelling encouragement and safety instructions to the terrified passengers, because they've turned off the cabin electric system (to avoid sparks on landing) and therefore can't use the public-address system.

Really? Try to envision the scenario of the pilot yelling down the aisle, as "his cap dangled in one hand." I can't. Including the part about the cap, which pilots don't wear while sitting at the controls.

3) The mood of impending doom. The whole emotional tone of the essay turns on the pilots' preparing everyone for a brush with death. It's easy for me to believe that some passengers might be terrified. Not the pilots. Gear-up landings are bad for the airplane -- the belly of the plane obviously gets chewed up. But they are more common than other airline mishaps -- one happened just last week at Newark -- and they rarely kill people. The pilots would know that.

4) The engines "spooling down." This passage caught my eye when I first saw the piece: "You can actually feel the air holding you up when a plane's engines power down. Like when you're riding a bike downhill and you stop pedaling, there's noiselessness in its speed."

Well, yes. The air holds you up the entire time the plane is flying. But let's concentrate on the engine. The author never explicitly says that the engines were turned off, but several times he talks about the "noiselessness" as they "power down." To which I say again, Really?

Any plane reduces power as it descends for a landing. An airliner would need to slow down from its 400+ knot cruising speed to the low-100-kt range for final approach -- and do so even as it is descending, which speeds the plane up. Pilots manage that transition through reduced power. But for a wheels-up landing the pilots might maintain more power than usual just before touchdown, not less, so as to make the final contact with the ground as gentle and gradual as possible.

5) The Philadelphia disaster team. According to the story, the plane circled over Philadelphia because its airport had the best disaster-response team. Reportedly the author heard this judgment from another passenger who worked for FEMA rather than directly from the pilot. Still, it sounds odd.

All big airports have on-scene fire squads and equipment to spread fire-retardant foam over the runway to protect an inbound wheels-up plane. It is 100% believable that pilots of a such a plane would be looking for a nearby airport that had the longest runways, or the ones best aligned with the wind. Choosing this airport on the basis of EMT teams sounds strange. No offense to Philly, but what would be wrong with Boston -- site of the miracle trauma-treatment scenes after the Marathon bombing? If the plane needed to burn fuel for two hours, it could easily have gotten there.

6) When did this happen, anyway? Practically the only specific reference in the story was to Philadelphia. Otherwise there is no mention of: which airline this was, or when it occurred, or on what kind of plane, or where the trip began. Any of these, of course, would make the story easier to verify.

So, maybe this all happened. I know, from experience, that the NYT Magazine has good fact checkers. But a lot of details sound very unlikely to me.

Preventive Destruction of Leafblowers: The Moral Imperative, the Practical Implications

National May 29 2013, 11:23 PM ET

Recently I likened an "analysis" of the bomb-Iran options -- one that mainly dealt with whether the US or the Israeli air force was a better choice for the job -- to my asking whether plastic explosives, or a ball-peen hammer, would be a better option for destroying my neighbors' leafblowers.

An astute reader writes:

With respect, I believe your reference to a dilemma regarding the destruction of neighorhood leafblowers is more nuanced than perhaps you concluded in your most recent post. Skipping over all of the ethical issues inherent in the necessity for leafblower destruction (Can the leafblowers be brought to a negotiating table? Can they be silenced through sanctions? Are they clearly identifiable as leafblowers, or might they be disguised as other lawn maintenance implements, perhaps weed whackers? Should we target hard-to-capture leafblowers with signature strikes, and if we do how do we address the accidental targeting of say, small industrial-strength fans?) and assume that yes, the leafblower presence does indeed pose a threat to neighborhood peace and security (that Godawful whine! The indiscriminate diaspora of debris!) and must be, as they say in the business, neutralized.

What is ill-defined in your initial query, of course, is the scope of the term 'effective.' Surely one would presume that plastic explosives are more effective at destruction in any case, rather than ball-peen hammers - They're high-yield, highly controllable, generally very precise for explosives. But there is a significant investment in time and expertise in the use of high explosives of any kind, not to mention a technically advanced form like detonator-fired C-4. The explosives must be set properly, and they must be handled by an EOD or some such explosives professional. Perhaps garages around the neighborhood need to be targeted, which has a high probability of leading to collatoral damage to other more civil (one might say civilian) lawn implements, which would in turn certainly damage local public tolerance of our incursion.

Consider instead the use of a ball-peen hammer. A single infiltrant can seek out the offending leafblowers, and with enough knowledge of their anatomy can render them permanently incapacitated, perhaps leaving them in the open for a covert airlift of the bodies out of the affected space. Gas leafblowers, for example, many times have exposed engines and spark plugs that can be efficiently destroyed, quickly and at minimal cost (hammers are a dollar at the hardware store, after all). I believe any safety concerns with placing a pair of hammer-wielding boots on the ground (metonymy? synecdoche?) are minimal, as it is quite impossible for the inanimate leafblowers to defend themselves or organize a resistance or insurgency. Plastic explosives, on the other hand, of course have an inherent danger to life and limb regardless of the level of resistance - another inefficiency.

It cannot be ruled out, however, that complete destruction of the leafblower insurgency is required on-site. In this case, of course, a simple ball-peen hammer would present a significant time investment, as it's pretty hard to pulverize even a hard plastic leafblower casing with just a hammer. Not that I've tried. So, while generally I would choose the hammer route, I grant that there are circumstances that would render it ineffective.

Come to the Atlantic for your high-end strategic analysis. If the writers don't provide it, the readers will. (Photo info from here.)

Annals of the Security State: 'Is Puerto Rico in America?'

National May 29 2013, 4:38 PM ET

Here are two more, from people willing to go on the record under their real names. Previous entries here, here, here.

My name is Ricky Gonzalez. I am a Captain on a Citation Jet for Dorado Aviation based out of San Juan, Puerto Rico. On Wednesday May 22nd, 2013 we were approach by three vehicles right after parking at the National Jets FBO at the Fort Lauderdale International Airport (FLL). The person in charge wore a safety vest " Sheriff" and said that they were working in conjunction with the DHS.

I could go forever with the description about this. Among a few interesting points, the Law Enforcement Officer asked me if we had clear Customs to which I answered that we were coming from Puerto Rico, which is a US Territory and Commonwealth of the US. He could not understand at first. Also, one of the ladies at the FBO's front desk said that in her many years working for the same FBO she had never seen an operation like ours.

To make this more interesting my boss the aircraft owner was onboard with his family. The officer asked if he could ask him a few questions. I went inside the FBO and when I walked back they were talking to him in the back of one of the SUVs.

We stopped in FLL to pick up fuel on the way to TEB [Teterboro, NJ]. .. They asked the same questions to my Boss, my Co- Captain and myself, almost as I they were looking for one of us to change the version....

Is it becoming a new tactic from Law Enforcement?

Now, from David Rivera, who runs a small business in San Diego:

I too have had this happen twice to me. Both times leaving KSEE [Gillespie Field, on the east side of San Diego] and flying to KMKN [Comanche County airport in Texas, southwest of Fort Worth] in route to KFLL [Fort Lauderdale] Florida. KMKN at the time was the cheapest 100LL in the country and an easy choice in a southern route coast to coast low altitude flying. [100LL, also known as "Avgas," is the main fuel for piston-engine airplanes. It's a higher-octane, and higher-lead-content, version of normal gasoline. The aviation business is in the middle of a much-delayed shift to unleaded aviation fuel, but that hasn't happened yet. Flight planning software lets you know fuel costs at various airports, and there can be a huge difference. It's very common to pick a refueling site because it has cheaper fuel.]

Both times I departed KSEE IFR and cancelled once in route VFR with flight plan filed. [IFR is Instrument Flight Rules, in which a pilot must follow Air Traffic Control's clearances for route, altitude, speed, etc. Even when the weather is good, pilots often choose to fly IFR to leave or enter a congested urban area with complicated airspace. That simplifies the process of knowing where they are and are not supposed to fly. Once away from the city, the pilot may "cancel IFR" and proceed on his own, under Visual Flight Rules, being careful to stay out of certain kinds of airspace.]

When I landed [at Comanche County] to refuel, I was greeted by black Ford Expeditions and local and federal law enforcement officers. My story was similar to the others you have posted, except for one crazy difference. Before I agreed to the search I needed to use the bathroom and was allowed to leave the plane and the officers and walk to a bathroom located a significant distance from the officers. I thought wow they actually would let a drug suspect leave their sight?

I came back a few minutes later and they asked to me for my license and medical along with airplane documents. I got the BS line about the dog getting a "trigger". I allowed them to search the plane since I have nothing to hide and I was happy to be out of the plane after five hours. The officers were "very" knowledgeable about the FAR [FAA regulations] regarding pilots and planes. An hour later I was allowed to fuel the plane and depart.

When I returned home I told my friends at the SDPD [San Diego police] and a good friend of mine that is an FBI agent about the "ramp check". They said that there is no way officers will let you out of their sight if they suspect you of committing a crime. They knew I was on a flight plan intending to land at KMKN and they could track me on Flight Aware. This allowed them to be ready to document a search. Homeland Security has a huge budget to fund government agencies and the agencies have to justify the money. Both of my friends had Homeland Security give them funding for similar projects. I believe this will just continue until the money runs out!

No more "analysis" at the moment. For now I am just rolling the stories out, and have asked federal authorities for comment. More on the way. (And, to put things in a larger Security-State perspective, consider this, via Michael Ham.)

For the Record, I Completely Disagree With Our Latest 'Bomb Iran' Post

Global May 29 2013, 10:27 AM ET

I've just seen a post on our Global channel by two retired generals, one American and one Israeli, that purports to ask and answer important questions about a preemptive strike by either the U.S. or Israel on Iranian nuclear facilities. Here's how it looks on our site:

No offense to the authors, but this strikes me as the least useful sort of "analysis" to present about a military decision.

Most of the questions it raises boil down to whether the U.S. or Israel would do a more effective job of attacking the Iranian facilities. Even non-generals know the answer to this one: obviously the most powerful military in the world, that of the U.S. Here is a sample of the post's revelations on that point:

"Q: Which option [Israeli or US attack] would avoid violating the sovereign airspace of third countries?
"A: Any Israeli operation would have to cross the airspace of at least one other country (Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, or Syria). Yet a U.S. attack could be launched directly toward Iran from bases or aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf and elsewhere." Thank you! Next up in this analytic series: whether it would be easier for Canada's army or America's to invade Mexico "if it must be done."
Most of the questions it brushes past are the ones that matter: whether such an option makes any long-term strategic sense. That judgment is is assumed away in the "if it must be done" part of the subtitle. My at-home version of similar analysis: "would plastic explosives, or a ball peen hammer, be more effective in destroying the neighborhood leafblowers, if it must be done?" Here is a representative sample of their strategic analysis, which I will refrain from annotating:

"Q: If post-strike escalation leads to war, which country has more efficient mechanisms in place to end the conflict?
"A: Assessments of the day after an Israeli or U.S. strike range from limited Iranian retaliation that could be checked within days to full-scale regional war. If the United States attacked, however, it would have less moral authority than if Israel attacked -- Israel could legitimately claim that it was acting in self-defense. Moreover, Washington's ability to serve as an honest broker in negotiating a ceasefire would be diminished if it ordered the strike. For their part, China and Russia would be less incensed by an Israeli strike than a U.S. attack, and perhaps more willing to play a role in post-strike de-escalation."

For the record, we tried to deal with similar what-if? scenarios in an Atlantic-sponsored "war game" about bombing Iran, back in 2004.

So, if what you really want to know is how U.S. and Israeli bombing abilities compare, I recommend this post to you. If you're interested in the larger strategic choices America (and Israel) have to make, I would direct you elsewhere, for instance starting with this analysis by Anthony Cordesman or this from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists or, from a very different perspective, this from the Times of Israel.

UPDATE: Just now I got a message about a new analysis from Cordesman and Bryan Gold. You can see the whole voluminous thing here, but I offer this sample:

It is far from clear that negotiations and sanctions can succeed in limiting Iran's ability to acquire nuclear weapons and deploy nuclear-armed missiles.... [But] a preventive war might trigger a direct military confrontation or conflict in the Gulf with little warning. It might also lead to at least symbolic Iranian missile strikes on US basing facilities, GCC targets, or Israel. At the same time, it could lead to much more serious covert and proxy operations in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, the rest of the Gulf, and other areas.

Furthermore, unless preventive strikes were reinforced by a lasting regime of follow-on strikes, they could trigger a much stronger Iranian effort to actually acquire and deploy nuclear weapons and/or Iranian rejection of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and negotiations. The US, in contrast, might see it had no choice other than to maintain a military overwatch and restrike capability to ensure Iran could not carry out such a program and rebuild its nuclear capabilities or any other capabilities that were attacked.

Could There Be Another Jerry Brown?

Politics May 29 2013, 9:05 AM ET

In case you missed it on my previous 20 mentions, my story about Jerry Brown, the past-present-and-future governor of our largest state, is now on line. But of course it looks better in the magazine (subscribe!).

I am mentioning it so often because, first, Brown is a genuinely interesting public figure, and, second, because I really threw myself into this story as a way of reckoning with the changes in California from the time of my childhood, in the small-town Southern California of the Pat Brown era, and my sons' experience now as they begin their families in San Francisco and LA. I don't always feel, on finishing a story, that I've made all the points I hoped to, but in this case I think I've had my say about California-and-America, and on what a lifelong pol can teach us about the importance and limits of professional politicians.

Several reader points. First, about whether there is any prospect of replicating the life-long store of political/policy knowledge that Jerry Brown brings to his second stint in the governorship. A reader writes:

I moved to CA in 1983 and saw the transition from a highly functional state under the previous Brown administration, to the social Darwinism and utter sleaze of the Deukmejian/ Wilson era ("welcome aboard the Decline & Fall Express!"). I met Jerry and we hung out briefly in his nest of geniuses in Oakland when he was out of politics: what struck me immediately was his intellectual and ethical rigor, and his uncompromising objectivity and critical outlook toward himself, similar to the attitude of a working scientist toward his subject matter.

He was also the most capable Mayor of Oakland in the 30 years I've been here: he turned the city around, though since that time it's slid backward in a number of ways (FBI's "Robbery Capital of America"). And he's the most capable Governor we've had since the last time he was Governor.

Key questions: Is there anyone you see as having a similar combination of intellect, ethics, principles, and practicality, who could continue on the path forward after Jerry retires from public service (presumably in his mid 90s;-)? Did you see any indication that Jerry was training a younger generation of possible successors? What do you think are the most critical steps to maintain forward momentum in the next generation?

Short answer: No. But this is an interesting question that I hadn't thought about, and will.

Next, from a non-American who has been living in LA:

Regardless what one thinks of him, Jerry Brown truly is an extraordinary figure. Part of what makes him so is, as you say, "that he has spent his life studying its machinery". California politics and the rules which govern them are in his DNA. He has spent an entire lifetime building upon a genetic predilection.

I wonder, though, if there isn't another factor that is just as critical to his great leadership. (I realize that you stop short of calling him a great leader but it seems that you believe it.) This other dimension, to borrow a Biblical phrase, is that Brown "is in the world but not of it".

The article refers repeatedly to Brown's deep passion for reading, especially for understanding the lessons of history. At the end of the article, though, summarizing why "California's broken government is still functioning", you refer to the unique quality of Brown's leadership, but only one aspect of it: that he "is in the (political) world" more than any other politician of his generation.

I wonder whether Brown doesn't draw his ability to lead from being the embodiment of the Biblical paradox - he is well and truly immersed in the grittiest details of the political world AND well and truly detached from them. This detachment may have its origins in an intellectual pursuit. But it has been thoroughly integrated into Brown's emotional and psychic state.

Snapshot above by me, when visiting Brown at his Oakland office just before his 75th birthday in early April.

Summarizing the Latest Security-State Post

National May 28 2013, 10:17 PM ET

The immediately preceding post, another Annals of the Security State installment, is very long.

Here is the TL;DR version, just for the record, for anyone who can't wade through the original.

A pilot who was doing absolutely nothing wrong -- had broken no rule, had received no warning, was behaving exactly the way a motorist would on a regular highway or a boater might do on a lake -- landed at night in fully legal fashion at a small airport in Texas. And at that point his plane was surrounded by armed security forces who directed spotlights and strobe lights into his eyes and pointed their guns at his head. The situation was so threatening he thought he was being robbed by a drug gang. But these were the Feds.

A sample:

During my engine/turbo cool down period I was blinded from the front right and left with white lights. I just covered my eyes and sat there.... I figured at this point that I was being hijacked by drug dealers who were going to steal my plane....

When they lowered their flashlights I could see they had long guns (one had a carbine and the other looked like a shotgun)....

Once I got the plane shut down I was ordered out of the plane with a shotgun pointed at my head and patted down. It was pretty stressful.

This account is worth reading. And in the end, they determined, again, that he had done nothing wrong.

To be clear, I am not saying that the pilot population is being singled out for stop-and-frisk treatment. I am saying that this is another window into what the open-ended War on Terror and War on Drugs have wrought.

Annals of the Security State: The Airplane Stories Continue

Politics May 28 2013, 8:06 PM ET

For previous installments in this series, please see the stories of Gabriel Silverstein (right), Larry Gaines and Clay Phillips, and a Cirrus pilot who doesn't want to be identified.

Our next installment comes from another pilot who has asked me to protect his name and particulars because he is concerned about retribution. The first episode he describes, from Wyoming, was humiliating and annoying; the second, from Texas, sounds potentially dangerous and certainly quite frightening.

One point of context, which I'll pick up at the end. Many of today's security-state episodes arise from the open-ended "war on terror." Many others arise from the even more open-ended "war on drugs." Some appear to be caused by both at once, or a morphing of one into the other. Follow along with the cases, then a summary-for-now at the end:

'When they lowered their flashlights, I could see they had long guns.' A reader/pilot reports:

I've just finished reading your recent article "Annals of the Security State: More Airplane Stories" and it sounded oh so familiar. I experienced almost an identical situation in flying from CA to TX. It is hard to relate the stress, anxiety, adrenaline, concern and anger that is experienced during one of these encounters with our new federal government.

If you find it useful to share this story please delete my name and [other details] as my family has decided (after consultation with legal advisers) that we want no more attention from our wonderful federal protectors. From what we have learned, they have lists, there is no one you can contact to get off the list and because they assaulted my plane and searched it for drugs, it and I are now tagged with a "drug ID number" and I must expect to be taken out of my airplane at gunpoint every time I land....

1. Wyoming, summer 2012. [From a letter to an aviation-world authority.] I recently had a very disturbing experience that I wanted to share with you. I'm a new pilot, I've owned a [single-engine, turbocharged Cessna] for a little over a year and am loving flying. It's been 14 months and I've racked up over 400 hours [JF note: that's quite a lot]...did I mention I love to fly?

The people I've met in the flying community have been uniformly helpful and friendly. That includes the folks at all the various FBOs [Fixed Base Operators -- essentially the service stations at small airports], so I was a bit surprised when I arrived at an FBO at a small Wyoming town last month and instead of the usual pleasant greeting the reception was a bit hostile. I found out why about a half hour later, after I'd put in my order for fuel, car rental, and wipe down and hangar storage for my plane. The manager said he'd gotten a call from Homeland Security (DHS) informing them that I was flying in shortly and to check out the plane and keep watch on me because I was "suspected of smuggling drugs."

At first I thought he was kidding me, or that one of my buddies had put him up to it - I'm an Army vet with lots of active duty military and law enforcement friends - and I wouldn't put it past one of them to play an evil joke like that on me, but it turned out he was serious. He said he decided to tell me because it was so obviously not true, once he got a look at me and at my plane.

I guess it may be true that my flying habits aren't "typical", whatever that is, but I didn't know that my decision to travel about the country in my own plane would result in Homeland Security monitoring my movements using the FAA ATC [air traffic control] system in real time and tracking me down. But it appears that DHS is calling up FBOs and making allegations that I'm a criminal based solely on my new found love of flying about the country. Because that's all it could be based on, anyone who had taken the slightest effort to look into my life would have known I have nothing to do with drugs or any other criminal activity.

I'm told by friends who should know that all this came about simply because I fly VFR (I'm not instrument-rated yet), and I often take advantage of ATC's flight following services when crossing the Sierras or Rockies. [Flying VFR, or by Visual Flight Rules, means that pilots find their own routes from place to place in clear weather and don't have to talk to air traffic controllers as long as they stay out of certain kinds of airspace.]

I'm not sure how much Homeland Security uses ATC's databases to track the activities of general aviation pilots and planes, or asks FBOs to engage in what is basically domestic spying on its behalf, but I thought you and other GA [general aviation] pilots might be interested to hear about what happened to me.

2. Utah, fall 2012 [From the same reader's letter to an aviation authority:] I departed [a city in California] on the night of November XX in order beat an incoming Pacific storm. I stopped for the night in Cedar City, UT and then continued on to Texas the following day. I flew mostly direct to Lubbock, TX where I stopped for fuel and then on to my destination in Corsicana, TX (just south of Dallas) a municipal airport south of town. I landed an hour or so after dark. I had called and made arrangements with the airport manager that morning before departing UT.

While on final approach to the airport another aircraft came on the frequency and basically blocked the frequency with banter and babble. Approximately 1 minute after I landed a twin engine aircraft landed and taxied near where I was in the process of shutting down my aircraft.

During my engine/turbo cool down period I was blinded from the front right and left with white lights. I just covered my eyes and sat there. There was no one else at the airport so I figured these people had come from the airplane that landed behind me. I figured at this point that I was being hijacked by drug dealers who were going to steal my plane. My sidearm was in my luggage in the back seat and I figured I wouldn't be able to get to it.

I tried to signal using hand gestures that I needed two minutes to cool down the engine/turbo, but I was then hit with strobe lights. At this point I couldn't even make out the instruments on my panel so I returned the light with my own flashlight in an attempt to get them to stop blinding me. Once they lowered their lights I was able to shutdown the plane. When they lowered their flashlights I could see they had long guns (one had a carbine and the other looked like a shotgun). I did notice that one one of them had what looked like a shield on their jacket so I was hopeful that they were some form of law enforcement and not hijackers. The team looked to be composed of 5 or six men.

Once I got the plane shut down I was ordered out of the plane with a shotgun pointed at my head and patted down. It was pretty stressful. I was told they were conducting "a standard FAA ramp check." My ID, pilot's license, aircraft registration, medical, and airworthiness documents were demanded. I provided all the documentation.

They continuously requested to search my aircraft and demanded to know where I was coming from and why I was in Corsicana. After what seemed like 20 or 30 minutes I asked what I had done wrong and when I could leave. Finally I was given my documents back and told "I was free to go."

Once I secured my plane and loaded my luggage into a car I had arranged for from the airport, a local law enforcement officer arrived with what they referred to as a "drug dog." I was told that they were going to walk the dog around my plane. There dog was clearly trained to indicate for drugs when the handler wanted the dog to do so. And, so, the dog indicated on the pilot's door and the baggage compartment door.

The plane was searched without my authorization and against my will. Obviously nothing was found. I was then told that all my bags would be taken out of the car and the dog was going to inspect them. I told them I didn't consent to that and they said they didn't care and continued to go in the car and remove all the bags and place them in the parking lot. The dog walked around them and did nothing. I was told I was free to go again.

After a couple of hours I was released and I headed for my hotel -- never to hear from them again, not that I really want to. Obviously everything was in order and I was very thankful of that as these guys were very scary. I've been spending some time trying to figure out how to make sure this doesn't happen again, but I'm not coming up with any real solutions.

A few thoughts:
1. The initial contact was dangerous and unprofessional. These idiots are going to get themselves or someone else injured or killed.
2. No identification was given nor was an announcement made over the common frequency, I had no way of knowing these were government agents, thank god my gun was packed away.
3. The only identification that was offered was CBP letters on one or more of the agents jackets. No badges or identifications were presented...only firearms.

A European view. A reader combines the war-on-drugs and war-on-terror themes:

I write to you from Holland. Recently our national police started a similar harassment on pilots. If you ask me why I can suggest the following reason.

Security services all over the world have been very successful in repressing terrorism done by larger groups. They could do this by attacking the infrastructure necessary for the organization of these large scale attacks. Tapping into phone and e-mail, tracking financial trails and so on.The result is that terrorism has gone back to small operations done by small groups of people (Boston, London).

The result is also that the huge organizations like DHS suddenly hear and see nothing anymore. So they start to look for patterns done by profilers. Also they want their people to be in the alert status all the time because they have no clues anymore.

All of a sudden private pilots become a lovely soft target. They use the privileges of their license in the most rigorously controlled environment ever created by man. Do they focus their attention into motor gangs, a category much more likely to yield criminal results? No of course not. That would end in heavy gun battles all around the country.Imagine that you would like to make a trip on your motor bike and are allowed to ride only on certain times in the day due to noise restrictions, that you are obliged to have a tracking device on your bike the allow authorities to constantly monitor where you go and how fast, where you stop and how long. That you would have to file your itinerary one hour before departure and report upon arrival.You would find that absurd and society would not allow it.

But that is exactly what private pilots are subjected to. These people are obsessed by rules and regulations and are the most hyper obedient citizens you will find. So no resistance expected, soft targets and easy practice targets to keep your swollen bureaucracy going. In one of your stories there are a business jet ($3000/hr) a King air ($1200/hour) and a small army busy for three hours. That is an easy way to spend your budget. And the budget has to be spent at the end of the year. So the good news is that DHS was successful in fighting terrorism, the bad news is that you now live in a police state.

Similarly, from a reader in the US:

I might suggest that it's not the "Security" state, but the Drug War state. Which are slightly different things. The latter is the bigger problem than the former, in my opinion.

And I think as the security state comes under increasing "why did you exist?" pressures, it falls back on drug enforcement. Because that's an endless hole of discretion, for which astonishing infrastructure costs can be justified. Just look at the unbelievable hardware put in use in this episode.

And I really appreciate the extrapolation part you discussed at the end. It's important for all of us to "internalize" what this means on the ground for all of us, as I noted yesterday. This could have been a Jay Z song.

And, from north of the border, a Canadian view:

Having read your stories about random checks on aircraft pilots, including a glider pilot, I thought that the time may have come to propose a general stand down. Your society seems to have entered a spiral in which more intrusive policing leads to a desire for greater private possession of firearms, and greater resistance to common-sense measures to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals or mentally unstable persons, while police react to the number of firearms in the population with more body armour, more "Terry stops", and a more intrusive and dominance-focused approach to policing.

A stand down would mean that both individual members of the public, and the public bodies dedicated to law enforcement, should give up some power. On the individual level, that means gun safety: accepting that not all people have the maturity or the mental stability to handle firearms, and accepting necessary restrictions to keep those weapons out of their hands. On the level of law enforcement agencies, it means reducing intrusions on the lives of innocent people. On the level of government, it means reducing penalties and enforcement efforts for consensual crimes and dialing back programs designed to provide police with body and vehicle armour and high powered weapons.

A few common-sense confidence building measures could level out a process that seems set, to use an aviation metaphor, to turn into a graveyard spiral.

The apotheosis of the Border Patrol. An American reader refers to a previous message about the Border Patrol's authority to stop and search without a warrant:

I am not a lawyer, but when I see this:

"As a former US Border Patrol Agent, and a pilot and aircraft owner I feel for the man who was searched but a border patrol agent is fully authorized by the Government to "board and search any Vehicle, Boat, Aircraft, dog sled, ect.. without a warrant or probable cause.
The DEA and other law enforcement agencies do not have the authority to "board and search" and that is why the Border Patrol was there."

I have to wonder by what nebulous authority the Border Patrol can, with legal justification, search a flight originating within the United States (Calaveras County Airport) and flying to an airport in Oklahoma. Neither airport is international. Neither airport is particularly close to an international border. The pilot did not exit US airspace during his flight.

What part of either airport, what part of the flight, what action by the pilot could allow the BP to consider Cordell Municipal Airport in Oklahoma to be functionally equivalent to the border?
These actions strike me, on their face, as an abuse of power.

And, to wrap things up right now, I have received many messages from fellow pilots who (unlike me) are politically very conservative, and who are convinced that what we're seeing is an Obama-era "war on the right wing." I don't believe that -- remember, the two main open-ended "wars" are fully bipartisan -- but offer this exchange as an illustration. It starts with a message from a reader in South Dakota:

Every time I travel abroad I am taken aside and asked a whole lot of questions that most of these highly irate pilots would ever be asked because I am dark-haired, dark-eyed woman who was born in Greece and is a naturalized citizen. (NOTE: I was naturalized when I was three years old; I was an orphan, adopted to this country.) Considering what I go through in order to travel, and have for years, I have no sympathy at all for them and their encounters with "jack-booted thugs". In fact, I find it ironic that they have discovered that the war on drugs and the war on terrorism applies even to them - nice, white, middle to upper-class, middle-aged folks - and that the Patriot Act and its ilk might have serious repercussions for all of us.

Thank you for pointing out that "as a group they're not used to being on the wrong side of routine hassles by the police. Therefore, I concluded, if they (we) are now being viewed with routine suspicion, you can imagine circumstances for people in the "driving while black" category." And for traveling while looking foreign.

I wrote back saying that I understood her "welcome to my world" point, but that I very much disagreed with her saying that she had "no sympathy at all" for other people affected by the same treatment. She responded thus:

I will amend my statement: I do have sympathy for anyone subject to harassment. Until they launch into conspiracy theories and "jack-booted thug" statements, at which point I try (if they're sitting next to me) to explain the way things work in the real world.

Sadly, what I often hear is "well of course they're being careful about THOSE people [blacks, Muslims, Native Americans, etc.], but I was doing nothing wrong!" And they stick to it like glue...

What I would really like is for those who do experience such harassment - rather than raise up conspiracy theories or complain endlessly about how badly they have been treated - to recognize that they have just been inducted into the world that thousands, hundreds of thousands, of American citizens undergo every day, and which they have acquiesced, approved, participated in it. And feel just a little bit ashamed of themselves... And decide that if it isn't fair for them, it isn't fair for anybody, including the scary black guy or Muslim woman or the 60-year old Greek born woman trying to get to Ireland... :)

On these closing points I agree. This is a little sample of the incoming flow. More as soon as I can manage.

Avoiding False Equivalence: The NYT Shows Us How

Politics May 28 2013, 1:30 PM ET

Credit where it's due: one day after a NYT headline that used "Gridlock" to describe what was actually a deliberate obstructionist strategy, a front-page NYT story shows how to describe plainly what is going on, while observing the conventions of mainstream journalism.

As reminder/background for appreciating this story:

The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is generally referred to as the second-most powerful court in the land, and is a standard training/recruiting ground for future Supreme Court nominees (including Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, and Ginsburg on the current Supreme Court).
The D.C. Circuit court has 11 seats, but until last week four of the seats were vacant. The remaining judges had a 4-3 Republican-Democratic tilt in terms of the presidents who chose them (one from the first George Bush, three from the second, three from Bill Clinton).
Until last week, Barack Obama had not placed anyone on the D.C. Circuit, despite those four empty seats. For a long time he didn't nominate anyone (!); then this year a nominee withdrew after Republicans filibustered her; and last week Sri Srinavasan was approved 97-0. Full background from Jeffrey Toobin.
Mitch McConnell's Republicans are now proposing, boldly, to keep Obama from having any further influence on the D.C. Circuit by removing the three now-empty seats and transferring them to some other less-influential circuit.

That's the background from which the NYT story works. And it lays it all out in language of exemplary clarity and directness:

If that strategy [abolishing the three vacant seats], which Democrats have compared to President Franklin D. Roosevelt's failed attempt to change the size of the Supreme Court, does not work, Republicans could filibuster Mr. Obama's nominees to prevent them from joining the court. Republicans currently hold 45 of the Senate's 100 seats, and 41 are needed for a filibuster.

See, that's not so hard! And it wouldn't seem so remarkable, except for the flood of other stories saying that it takes 60 votes to "pass" a bill or "approve" a nominee, rather than to break a filibuster on those matters -- which require only a majority vote for approval. Well done, Michael Shear and NYT.

That leaves us with the deeper problem, which a new post by Andrew Cohen describes with similar but more depressing clarity: the ability of a disciplined minority in the Senate to impede and eventually destroy the normal workings of governance, including staffing the judiciary. As Gov. Jerry Brown of California put it, in an interview I quoted recently: "We can't have a country based on the 60-vote standard ... I think 60 votes could end America's ability to govern itself." Update: Also see this column by Jonathan Chait.

False Equivalence, Memorial Day Edition

Politics May 27 2013, 6:04 PM ET

From the front page of today's NYT, a strong and important lead story about how the Republican majority in the House and minority in the Senate are committed to nothing less than the full repeal of Obama care. But the story is presented under this headline:

So, one side "insists" on the "total repeal" of existing legislation; the other side "fears reopening debate." Hmmm, how could we possibly judge which of them was being more obstructionist? More from the story:

Republicans simply want to see the entire law go away and will not take part in adjusting it. Democrats are petrified of reopening a politically charged law that threatens to derail careers as the Republicans once again seize on it before an election year.

As a result, a landmark law that almost everyone agrees has flaws is likely to take effect unchanged.

"I don't think it can be fixed," Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said in an interview. "Everything is interconnected, 2,700 pages of statute, 20,000 pages of regulations so far. The only solution is to repeal it, root and branch."

Yes, it sounds like partisans on both sides are equally responsible for this standoff. Rather than partisans on one side betting everything on an outright obstructionist approach. (Cf: Debt ceiling fight, "the sequester," etc.) And more on the consequences from Jamelle Bouie:

It's hard to overstate the extent to which this is a break with the past. The Social Security Act was followed by two decades of major changes... Likewise, as the Times notes, the Medicare Act came in for changes in 1967 and 1972, as lawmakers made corrections and adjusted for unforeseen circumstances.

Without the political leeway necessary to make adjustments to the Affordable Care Act, the ride to implementation may be bumpier than expected. This, in all likelihood, is the point behind GOP opposition to changing the law.

Or, as the Marxists used to put it, a strategy of intensifying the contradictions -- the worse, the better. These days we just call that "gridlock."

A Different Kind of Memorial Day Photo

National May 27 2013, 12:03 PM ET

Today Online

I happened upon this and found it tremendously, unexpectedly moving.

It came to me from a reader in Singapore; I predict that this will "go viral" within China, where it may also have a very significant emotional effect.

   - Negative emotion: even our hardest-working Chinese students can be exposed to the violence of America. (A young woman from Shenyang in China's hard-bitten northeastern industrial zone, who was doing graduate work at Boston University, was of course one of the three people killed in the Boston Marathon bombing.)

   - Much more powerful positive emotion: just look at that photo.

California's New 'Problem': Jerry Brown on the Sudden Surplus, and the Filibuster

Politics May 26 2013, 1:40 PM ET

Lots of attention on a holiday weekend to the NYT's lead front-page story, by Adam Nagourney, about California's odd "problem" of having a rapidly-burgeoning state budget surplus. Less than three years after Arnold Schwarzenegger departed with a budget deficit in the tens of billions, a combination of tax increases and spending cuts is giving the state a big surplus. As the story puts it:

At first glance, the situation should be welcome news in a state overwhelmingly controlled by Democrats, who have spent much of their time slashing programs they support... Instead, the surplus has set off a debate about the durability of new revenues, and whether the money should be used to reverse some of the spending cuts or set aside to guard against the inevitable next economic downturn.

The new surplus figures are bigger than were known when I last spoke with Jerry Brown, in California in early April, for my story in the new issue. But he was all on top of this issue and the upcoming "what do we do with this money?" debate. Here are relevant parts from the story:

The third and most publicized part of the California budget [after economic recovery, and spending cuts] turnaround was Brown's success last fall in winning passage of Proposition 30, which (among other things) raised high-end tax rates for several years, with a commitment to use the money to avoid cuts in school funding and to pay down the state debt. ... The higher rates will last for seven years, and Brown in his speeches told the biblical story of Joseph, Pharaoh, and the seven fat years and seven lean years. "The people have given us seven years of extra taxes," he said in his State of the State speech. "Let us follow the wisdom of Joseph, pay down our debts, and store up reserves against the leaner times that will surely come."

And, about the shift in power between himself and the legislature about what to do in these new circumstances:

"For me to get the budget cuts these past two years, I had to go to the legislature and say 'Please, please, please!' " he told me. "The Democrats"--who control the legislature--"didn't like it, but they agreed as part of getting the tax increase." In California, the governor has line-item-veto authority--one more indication of the legislature's feebleness--and Brown says he will use his veto power to resist spending increases. "The budget is more or less balanced," he told me. "To unbalance things now, they have to come through me. That is a real shift in power." Meanwhile, Brown's reduced and balanced budget includes more spending for what he considers the big challenges of the future: clean-energy initiatives, an expensive (and controversial) north-to-south high-speed-rail project, new canals and aqueducts, even California-based medical-research projects beyond those sponsored by the National Institutes of Health....

Brown has tried to cut spending so much that the main complaints about him are from the left, and budget-related--especially about his resistance to federal court orders to spend more on California's enormous and overcrowded prison system. "Fiscal discipline is not the enemy of our good intentions but the basis for realizing them," he said in this year's State of the State speech, justifying a hard line against letting spending increases sop up new revenues. "It is cruel to lead people on by expanding good programs, only to cut them back when the funding disappears."

Now, here is a little more from that early-April on-the-record interview, beyond what we could fit in the magazine. My article was brim-full of quotes from Jerry Brown, but they amounted to about 5 percent of what he said in our talks. Here's the fuller-context version of how he set up the coming budget fights:

We are governable. We balanced our budget. Arnold just borrowed money, but we're paying down our debts. Our job creation -- we're 50% faster than the national average. We lost 1.3 million jobs. But we are coming back. Our tax revenues are very volatile, but this increase will be over in seven years. We've got to learn to pay down our debts. We are paying them off at $1.5 billion every year. Then that will be $1.5 billion we don't have to spend.

The [proposed new spending] bills are stacking up! It's like water on a causeway, it's going to come rolling down. But I'm here, and I'm going to make sure we're going to live within our means. They [meaning other politicians] haven't heard that yet. But they will hear it, as I continue to repeat it.

I think the real test is whether we get through this year in a balanced way. For me to get the budget cuts these past two years, I had to go to the legislature and say 'Please, please, please!' The Democrats didn't like it, but they agreed as part of getting the tax increase. The budget is more or less balanced. To unbalance things now, they have to come through me. That is a real shift in power.

All I have to do is hold that line. All I have got to do is play defense.

I don't know enough about the details of the coming budget battles to judge the full merits of Brown's hold-the-line pledge versus the state's unaddressed needs. My point is that he was anticipating stories like today's.

While I'm at it, here was another Jerry Brown riff that couldn't fit in the article. We were talking about the oddities of California's governing structure, especially the unique (among U.S. states) weakness of its legislature and unique power of the public through direct-democracy initiatives. I asked him what he thought about a related structural problem at the national level: the modern abuse of the filibuster in the U.S. Senate. For those joining us late, I am talking about the radical increase in filibuster threats in the past 6 years, which in effect means that it takes 60 votes (rather than the normal simple majority of 51) to get anything done. Brown was not a fan:

We can't have a country based on the 60-vote standard. This is serious.

We've never had to have 60 votes for appointments or day-to day-decisions. Really, you can't govern that way. That's a radical change.

How can you govern? Does England have 60? [JF note: Obviously a rhetorical question. His point is that the U.S. has the drawbacks of parliamentary democracy, including political polarization -- without the benefits, namely the ability to get things done.] I think that 60 votes could end America's ability to govern itself. We have to get rid of it.

That 60 votes is bad.

Image of Joseph and Pharoah from here.

For Memorial Day, Another 'End the War on Terror' Speech

Politics May 25 2013, 5:10 PM ET

There's a connection between two themes I've been hitting hard recently: the surprising extension of "stop and frisk" inspections into the general-aviation world, and Barack Obama's announcement that the time had come formally to end the "war on terror."

The connection is that events in the first category -- overreach of the security state, at home and abroad -- are reflections of the second development: the 11-plus years of "permanent emergency" in America's rhetoric and laws about terrorist threats. In this war like many previous ones, "normal" Constitutional constraints and checks-and-balances were suspended. But all previous wars ended. Until this week, no president or serious presidential contender had argued that, for the health of America's democracy, it was time to end this one too.

In his speech this week, Obama quoted James Madison to the same effect: "No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." Seven years ago, in the issue shown below, I tried to imagine what a future speech like Obama's would sound like. This was its [imagined] peroration:

"My fellow Americans, we have achieved something almost no one thought possible five years ago. The nation did not suffer the quick follow-up attacks so many people feared and expected. Our troops found the people who were responsible for the worst attack ever on our soil. We killed many, we captured more, and we placed their leaders in a position where they could not direct the next despicable attack on our people--and where the conscience of the world's people, of whatever faith, has turned against them for their barbarism. They have been a shame to their own great faith, and to all other historic standards of decency.

"Achieving this victory does not mean the end of threats. Life is never free of dangers. I wish I could tell you that no American will ever again be killed or wounded by a terrorist--and that no other person on this earth will be either. But I cannot say that, and you could not believe me if I did. Life brings risk--especially life in an open society, like the one that people of this land have sacrificed for centuries to create.

"We have achieved a great victory, and for that we can give thanks--above all to our troops. We will be at our best if we do not let fear paralyze or obsess us. We will be at our best if we instead optimistically and enthusiastically begin the next chapter in our nation's growth. We will deal with the struggles of our time. These include coping with terrorism, but also recognizing the huge shifts in power and resulting possibilities in Asia, in Latin America, in many other parts of the world. We will recognize the challenges of including the people left behind in the process of global development--people in the Middle East, in Africa, even in developed countries like our own. The world's scientists have never before had so much to offer, so fast--and humanity has never needed their discoveries more than we do now, to preserve the world's environment, to develop new sources of energy, to improve the quality of people's lives in every corner of the globe, to contain the threats that modern weaponry can put into the hands of individuals or small groups.

"The great organizing challenge of our time includes coping with the threat of bombings and with the political extremism that lies behind it. That is one part of this era's duty. But it is not the entirety. History will judge us on our ability to deal with the full range of this era's challenges--and opportunities. With quiet pride, we recognize the victory we have won. And with the determination that has marked us through our nation's history, we continue the pursuit of our American mission, undeterred by the perils that we will face." [End of imagined speech. Note: no 'God Bless America' ending.]

Different leaders will choose different words. But the message--of realism, of courage, and of optimism despite life's difficulties--is one we need to hear.

The different leader of 2013 did indeed choose different words. But the essence of his message was one I have been waiting for a long time to hear.
__
In-house note: That September 2006 issue, with its cover story rashly announcing "We Win," was the first one fully under James Bennet's control after he arrived as editor. By the time he got here I had already begun work on this "declare victory" article.

It was a very gutsy choice for him to stick with that story, and that claim, as the cover of one of his early issues. What if some big bomb went off somewhere just before or after the issue appeared? By the strict logic of the story, that "shouldn't" matter. In the story I took great pains to explain, quoting many historians and experts in the long arc of terrorism, that attacks probably would continue, as other disasters and misfortunes do. Nonetheless (I said) we shouldn't let that blind us to the damage done by an open-ended state of war. That's fine as far as logic goes -- but in the real, trans-logical world of emotion and buzz, we unavoidably would have looked bad, "Dewey Beats Truman"-style. The risk was all the greater with a new editor's first issue, and even more so when the writer (me) had moved to China as soon as the article was done but before it had appeared. I have always been grateful for the guts of James Bennet's choice to go ahead.

It may seem the exact opposite of gutsy to compliment one's own editor for promoting one's own article; I recognize that. But because so many people assume the worst about the choices journalists make, I thought it was worth letting people outside our office know about this one.

Annals of the Security State: Even More Airplane Stories

National May 24 2013, 11:47 PM ET

Over the past few days I've relayed several stories that amount to the familiar police force stop-and-frisk policy being extended from the sidewalk to the skies. The case of Gabriel Silverstein (originally told by AOPA) is here. Those of Larry Gaines and Clay Phillips are here. This photo, apparently of a real interdiction, is via AOPA.

Now pilots and others respond, plus another first-hand story, from another pilot who for no reason found his plane surrounded by police.

1) Politics. I pointed out earlier that as a group general-aviation pilots are older, whiter, more politically conservative, and more likely to have a military background than the population at large. While they're not all rich, they're all committed to an expensive pastime/ passion/avocation. So as a group they're not used to being on the wrong side of routine hassles by the police. Therefore, I concluded, if they (we) are now being viewed with routine suspicion, you can imagine circumstances for people in the "driving while black" category.

A reader notes one comment from one pilot who was hassled -- "I'm a retired US Navy officer, have held security clearances during my entire time in the Navy... and yet something I did, or didn't do attracted this jack-boot fascist attention from our out-of-control government." The reader adds:

The stories you have published lately about the harassment of private pilots are truly disturbing. There is one point you made that I suspect is stirring up some dust -- "So if the security state is leaning heavily on them, you can extrapolate to other groups." I think your take on this is correct -- if older white guys are being harassed, just imagine what is happening to other folks.

However, the "jack booted fascists" comment made me think that a lot of these folks feel that they are being targeted specifically because they are older white conservatives. This perception has been reinforced by the recent IRS hullaballoo of course. But the general sentiment has been going on for a long time -- fueled by all the right-wing media and repeated in their echo chambers.

I'm reasonably confident that one or two of your correspondents on the airplane stories have said something in the past in favor of "stop and frisk" type laws, property seizure in suspected drug crimes, etc. It is a reminder for all of us that freedom is for everybody, not just us and those who look like us...

I agree with this reader's interpretation, and don't agree with some of my fellow pilots who feel that they're being persecuted as an extension of the IRS/Tea Party imbroglio. I will bet anybody any amount that this is the security-state/ stop-and-frisk reflex extended in a new direction, rather than the (comparatively tamer) workings of partisan politics.

2) Search and seizure. From a lawyer in Los Angeles:

I'd love seem these guys at Homeland Security held accountable for what seems to be violation of Terry v. Ohio and other Supreme Court case law that requires more than what they have to detain the pilots and their aircraft.

3) We didn't go to Russia, but... From a friend I've known for decades in the defense-policy world:

Unf_ _ _ ing believable. I hope you pursue this.

Here is a quote from a friend I receive recently:

"I know I didn't move to Russia but did Putin move here?"

So I have suggestion: why don't you come up with a DHS Rapid Response Check List for Citizen's Rights so future pilots (and others) know the limits of what they can and cannot do.

Many people I know in the piloting world are actually thinking about this latter step.

4) The Soft Paws Angle. Another reader writes:

I read with growing fury your recent update recounting the experience of Larry Gaines.

I don't have much to add, but I may be able to shed one tiny sliver of light on an insignificant aspect of the article. There's a product called "Soft Paws" -- these are blunt plastic covers for animal claws (dogs & cats), which are used to keep them from scratching up surfaces (and owners, in the case of cats!). That's probably what the canine agent meant when he said that his dog had "soft paws." I still wouldn't be comfortable letting the dog onto the wing of my airplane, though.

I have a handy wallet card that the ACLU produced concerning my rights as a citizen when stopped by law enforcement. It seems to me that ACLU and AOPA may need to combine their efforts to create a similar one for pilots. I will write to AOPA to suggest that they create one.

The idea of the ACLU collaborating with the AOPA, the generally conservative Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, epitomizes a changing political era. Or maybe a trans-partisan queasiness about the security state.

5) What the Border Patrol can do. A person with experience writes:

As a former US Border Patrol Agent, and a pilot and aircraft owner I feel for the man who was searched but a border patrol agent is fully authorized by the Government to "board and search any Vehicle, Boat, Aircraft, dog sled, ect.. without a warrant or probable cause.

The DEA and other law enforcement agencies do not have the authority to "board and search" and that is why the Border Patrol was there.

6) And one more story. From a person who, like me, flies a Cirrus SR-22 airplane:

I had an experience that was just like a few of those you mentioned in your article. Flying a Cirrus SR22 from Santa Monica to KJWN in Nashville [a small airport, on the west side of town] in April, 2009. Had a quick refuel in Amarillo. Met by about ten officers of various agencies in Nashville. The dog handler lied and said he "triggered" on my baggage door. I told him to save it as I already gave permission to search the plane. I won't do that again. The officers were courteous and they said their orders came from the "big boys".

[Now, the more detailed tick-tock account:]

Date - April, 2009
Plane - SR22
Pilot - 40-sometime white-male pilot, flying alone
Route - Two leg flight from SMO-AMA [Santa Monica to Amarillo], AMA-JWN [and on to Nashville]. First leg was IFR, second leg VFR (even though I had an IFR on file for that leg - it was good weather and I enjoy VFR flight across our wonderful country.) [VFR is Visual Flight Rules, for good-weather / good-visibility conditions in which pilots can choose their own route and don't need to check with controllers as long as they stay out of certain kinds of airspace. IFR is Instrument Flight Rules, for bad weather/bad visibility or other circumstances in which pilots want controllers to be responsible for their routing, separation from other airplanes, etc. On IFR flights pilots are expected to follow controllers' instructions about heading, altitude, speed, etc.]

I did "get" flight following on the second leg. ["Flight following" is a courtesy service on VFR flights, in which controllers alert pilots to potential traffic conflicts or other problems. In return the pilot has to stay in touch with the controllers, rather than just cruising along on his own.] At the time I thought this was weird because when I left AMA [Amarillo], they told me to contact departure. Departure gave me a squawk and "forced" flight following on me. [At larger airports with control towers, after the plane leaves the immediate area control will pass to "departure" controllers. A squawk is a specific code for a transponder, which lets air traffic control identify your plane on radar.] I say that in quotes because I know I was PIC [Pilot in Command, with ultimate authority to accept or reject requests] but I never requested it and they gave it to me. (Later they told me they were tracking me across the country so I guess this is why it was "forced" on me).

This is a route I have flown many times in the Cirrus, a Cessna 182, and other aircraft. I departed early morning SMO [Santa Monica] and landed in the evening JWN [near Nashville. As a side editorial note: Imagine just being able to do this, flying yourself from LA to Tennessee, at your own schedule, in a day.]

Upon landing and taxiing to the FBO [Fixed Base Operator, essentially the small-airport office] at JWN:

After exiting and securing the aircraft, I quickly walked to the bathroom which was across the lobby inside the FBO (long flight leg combined with small bladder). Going to the bathroom, I saw two average looking guys hanging out in the lobby. I didn't think anything of it and proceeded to the restroom. After exiting the restroom (and in front of FBO personnel) the two males flashed badges and asked if they could talk to me. I do seem to recall that one of the badges was local sheriff dept but can't remember what the other guy's affiliation was.
I consented to the questioning (another mistake I won't repeat).

They asked me about my route of flight first. They asked why I went out of my way and landed in Amarillo. I told them that if they looked at the great-circle route line between Santa Monica and Nashville, they would discover that it was only about 20 nautical miles or so out of the way on a 1500 nautical mile trip. So I considered it a convenient place to stop since Amarillo airport is also one of the bigger ones around for my refueling stop.

Next question was "Can I look through your flight bag?". I said sure and he went and looked at my charts, radios, and satellite phone. He asked why I had a satellite phone. I told him it was to make phone calls in-flight, pickup clearances when necessary, and in a forced landing if required.

After this "chat-up", they asked me to walk to my plane on the ramp with them. When we exited the FBO to walk to the ramp, I looked at my plane that was 200 feet away and was surprised to see it surrounded by many law enforcement vehicles in a circle around the plane with their lights shining on the it. At this time, there were now about ten law enforcement officers there. Various agencies I believe. They told me that this "command" to check me out came from the "Big Boys". I didn't know who they meant at the time but later figured it was possibly the AMOC (Air Marine Operation Center) out of Riverside, CA and maybe some DHS/CBP involvement.)

Then they asked to search my plane and I consented. The reason I consented to the search is I had worked with federal law enforcement agencies previously in a professional manner and was comfortable and trusting of them. Looking back I was probably more cooperative than I should have been (per my lawyers) but I had no reason to doubt their integrity at that time.

So about a minute after I consented to the search with one officer, another officer/dog-handler with his dog approached me and gave me a paragraph about how his dog "triggered" on my baggage door for drugs. By the monotone delivery, I could tell that this was a memorized speech he had given many times. I politely told him that he didn't have to go on with the speech since I had already consented to the search.

At this moment, I switched from comfortable to scared as I was 99.9% sure this dog triggered on command and I felt this part of the detainment was definitely manufactured. I also sensed multiple agencies working at the same time because they were not completely coordinated in their search. This was evidenced by the fact that the dog handler did not know I already gave consent to the search and was trying to get my consent.

While searching the plane, they removed all loose items from the plane (cooler, oxygen bottles, bags, etc), piled them on the ramp, and looked through them. When they were done, I was allowed to put the items back in the plane. The whole event lasted from one to two hours. I have a picture somewhere that I secretly took with all the cars and officers around the plane. I am trying to find it.

In closing I must add that the officers were courteous and I feel they were being directed to do what they did by Feds. I think the problem with these shakedowns needs to be solved at their superiors. It was harassing and embarrassing event for me. I fly into that FBO frequently and now feel that some of them look at me like a drug runner. I also think that local law enforcement resources are wasted on shaking down innocent citizens.

On a side note, I have since done research on drug-dogs/triggering and found out that when done on a highway stop, the dog will frequently trigger outside of the view of the dash-cam. Because of this, the interpretation of the triggering is solely up to the handler and his recollection.

For the record, as with the previous accounts this is one more story of a pilot who was:

doing absolutely nothing wrong;
breaking no law, guidance, or suggestion formal or informal; and yet
was detained for an extended period, subjected to an intrusive search, and otherwise treated as a suspect in a process that yielded no incriminating material nor anything even vaguely suspicious.

Our open-ended "wars" -- on "terrorism," on drugs -- have brought us to this point. More soon.

Why 'Turd Blossom' Is Metaphor but Not Metonym

Politics May 24 2013, 3:40 PM ET

Let's have fun with metonymy! I got into this thicket with an early scene in my new profile of Jerry Brown. Here I was trying to convey the interesting/odd experience of talking with the man:

"Do you know what 'metonym' means?" [Brown] asked out of the blue one time. Unfortunately, I didn't. (To spare you my embarrassment: it's a name used as a reference for something else, like "K Street" for Washington's lobbying culture, or "Silicon Valley" for the tech industry.) The surprise, coming from a politician, was that he was actually asking for information rather than testing me or pretending he already knew. "Me neither," he said after my admission, "but I know it's very big with the deconstructionists." I did better when he asked whether I knew where the phrase "no country for old men" had come from. Yes! It's the first line of Yeats's "Sailing to Byzantium," which became the title of a novel by Cormac McCarthy, which was in turn the basis for a 2007 movie by the Coen brothers. Brown said that he was wondering because he'd just talked with a Washington media grandee* who used the phrase without knowing that it had any history. "Jerry didn't know there was a movie," his wife [Anne Gust Brown] said.

Now the readers weigh in. First, from Graham Culbertson of the department of English and Comparative Literature at UNC - Chapel Hill. He said he liked the piece, but:

I thought I'd take a moment to explain metonym a little more, in case you were interested. Your definition is right but might be a little misleading, while your examples are perfect.

It really only makes sense to talk about metonymy in reference to metaphor. You say a metonym is "a name used as a reference for something else." That's true, but only part of the story. A metaphor is also a name used as a reference for something else. The difference is that a metonym has a real connection to the thing being referenced, whereas a metaphor has only an imagined connection.

If I call the lobbying industry "K Street," that's metonym, because K Street has a literal connection to lobbying. But if I call the lobbying industry "the blood-sucking leeches of American democracy," that's metaphor. They are symbolically connected to blood-sucking leeches, but there is no literal connection. A Karl Rove example: Calling Rove "Turd Blossom" is metaphor - he's not actually a flower. Calling him "the Brain" or "Bush's Brain" is metonymy - he is famous for his use of his brain. That last example is the most common type of metonym, synecdoche, when something is referred to by one of its parts. When you say "we need ten head of cattle," or "they need more arms in the bullpen," or "that movie got asses into seats," you are taking a full thing (a cow, a pitcher, an audience member) and using a part of it as its name (head, arm, ass). (Hopefully "ass" is ok to use if you quote this in your blog, as long as no children are forced to read it in-flight).

Finally, the reason why deconstructionists were obsessed with metonymy is that they were obsessed with how language tried to but failed to capture reality. Metonym, which seems to come closer to capturing the "real" thing that metaphor, was thus particularly interesting.

Noted! And now, from Dean Rowan of UC Berkeley Law School (Dean is his name, not his title):

I suspect mine will not be the only comment you receive about the metonym passage in your Brown profile. There are at least a couple problems with your account.

First, your definition is essentially correct, yet meaninglessly so. A metonym does indeed involve substitution of one word or phrase for another, but its significance is in how the two terms are related. From OED's entry for "metonymy": " the action of substituting for a word or phrase denoting an object, action, institution, etc., a word or phrase denoting a property or something associated with it; an instance of this" (my emphasis). K Street is a metonym for DC lobbyists, because many of lobbying firms reside there and, consequently, the street is commonly associated with the practice. Similarly, Silicon Valley and the tech industry. Neither of these involves mere substitution of one phrase for another.

Second, Gov. Brown's reference to "deconstructionists" is misleading. Indeed, some scholars associated, for better or worse, with deconstruction as an approach to literary theory did enjoy parsing tropes in texts, and metonymy is a widely deployed trope. Paul de Man was perhaps the most famous example of such a scholar. But having more than a passing interest in rhetorical analysis does not make one a "deconstructionist," and, conversely, many "deconstructionists" don't especially care about it at all.

I wrote back saying thanks for the clarification -- and offering a clarification in my own defense. I hadn't said that metonym was a "substitute" for a real name. Rather, I'd said it was a "reference." In reply Rowan writes:

Well, yes, "reference" affords a degree of wiggle room. But my point is that "metonymy" specifies a particular referential relationship of association or adjacency not precisely indicated by other tropes, such as synecdoche, which specifies part-for-whole or vice-versa. We refer to judges as "the bench" (an adjacent object) and sometimes to the President as "the White House" (also related by adjacency), but (because I'm at a loss just now for an example, I choose one from Wikipedia) a "wood" as a particular golf club (referring by synecdoche to the wooden part of the club). Each is indeed a reference, but if you're going to ask, "What is a 'metonym'?," you're not looking merely for the aspect of reference. You want to know how that reference is effected. (A shoelace is a thing, but being told as much doesn't really help one define the object. Similarly, metonymy involves reference, but being told as much doesn't tell one how metonymy refers.)

This is longstanding technical jargon, not by any means exclusively deployed by those literary theory folks from the '60s through the '80s or '90s who went a little nuts pitting metonymy against metaphor against synecdoche, and so on. (Don't even get me started on chiasmus.) Systematic rhetorical analysis harkens back at least to medieval thinkers,who were determined to classify these modes of reference, and far more ambitiously than "deconstructionists."

At least I know about chiasmus! I've even written about it right here.

* I am feeling particularly big-spirited in not naming the "Washington media grandee" in the No Country episode, whose identity I learned in off-the-record circumstances. Or maybe I am just feeling canny. (Top picture from here; other one from here.)

Sidney Rittenberg on China

China May 24 2013, 11:39 AM ET

I mentioned last week that I was going to do a Q-and-A in Seattle with Sidney Rittenberg, whose first-hand exposure to US-Chinese relations probably exceeds that of any other living person. In the 1940s he was a U.S. Army translator in China; then he was an associate of Mao's and Zhou Enlai's; then he spent two different terms, totaling 16 years, in solitary confinement in Chinese prisons. Now he still travels between the countries.

A video of the discussion has gone online from TVW at the University of Washington. (C-SPAN also filmed the event.) I thought it was truly interesting. For an example of what's unique in Sidney Rittenberg's perspective: starting at around time 15:10, he talks about his close friendship not with the new president of China, Xi Jinping, but with Xi's father. "A fine man.."

FYI the person in the static screen shot above is not Rittenberg but Dennis Bracy of Seattle, a mutual friend and an organizer of this event.

What Mattered in Obama's Speech Today: Ending the Open-Ended 'War on Terror'

Politics May 23 2013, 11:23 PM ET

This speech was very long -- nearly 7000 words, even longer than my profile of Jerry Brown! And I didn't expect anyone to listen to me read my article aloud. Also, I am not going to deal with the part of the speech that has been most thoroughly discussed: changes, or not, in the administration's drone policy.

Instead I'll focus on a part of the speech that I think matters even more: his argument that the time has come to end the "war on terror." And, even more important, to bring an end to the "Authorization for Use of Military Force," which the Congress passed while the rubble of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon was still smoking and which has been the basis for the wars, detention, killings, and torture carried out in the 11+ years since then.

I am long on record in arguing that, even though America will continue to face threats and endure attacks including from Islamic-motivated extremists, it needs to move off the open-ended, permanent-war footing that was used to justify invasions and constraints on civil liberties. Yes, there will still be attacks, perhaps (I hope not) even as horrific as the recent one in London. But we do not let the tens of thousands of annual highways deaths justify banning cars; nor the toll of alcohol justify a new Prohibition; nor take an absolutist approach to a range of other risks, starting with guns. So too with "terror" risks. We cannot end them, but we don't have to be driven mad by them.

I thought that was a case Obama was building toward today. Parts of the speech I noted, with occasional commentary in brackets [like this]:

1) How we got here, and at what cost:

And so [after 9/11] our nation went to war. We have now been at war for well over a decade....

Meanwhile, we strengthened our defenses - hardening targets, tightening transportation security, and giving law enforcement new tools to prevent terror. Most of these changes were sound. Some caused inconvenience. [TSA} But some, like expanded surveillance, raised difficult questions about the balance we strike between our interests in security and our values of privacy [good to have a president noting this tension]. And in some cases, I believe we compromised our basic values - by using torture to interrogate our enemies, and detaining individuals in a way that ran counter to the rule of law. [Even better to have this noted.]

2) It's not just about "keeping America safe":

From our use of drones to the detention of terrorist suspects, the decisions we are making will define the type of nation - and world - that we leave to our children.

So America is at a crossroads. We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us [the post-9/11 era crystallized] mindful of James Madison's warning that "No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." [Wish I had remembered this quote in some of my previous articles.]

3) Thank you: talking to us as if we were grown-ups.

Neither I, nor any president, can promise the total defeat of terror.

4) Putting today's threats in perspective:

While we are vigilant for signs that these groups may pose a transnational threat, most are focused on operating in the countries and regions where they are based. That means we will face more localized threats like those we saw in Benghazi.

5) A very important sentence, helpfully highlighted by me:

Lethal yet less capable al Qaeda affiliates. Threats to diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad. Homegrown extremists. This is the future of terrorism. We must take these threats seriously, and do all that we can to confront them. But as we shape our response, we have to recognize that the scale of this threat closely resembles the types of attacks we faced before 9/11.

This is part of the long sweep of American history.

6) Again, let's match the problems of the moment to the tradition of the centuries:

Beyond Afghanistan, we must define our effort not as a boundless 'global war on terror' - but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America

7) There is more to what is going on than the effectiveness of drone strikes:

To say a military tactic is legal, or even effective, is not to say it is wise or moral in every instance.

8) I cannot overemphasize how important this passage is:

All these issues remind us that the choices we make about war can impact - in sometimes unintended ways - the openness and freedom on which our way of life depends. And that is why I intend to engage Congress about the existing Authorization to Use Military Force, or AUMF, to determine how we can continue to fight terrorists without keeping America on a perpetual war-time footing...

So I look forward to engaging Congress and the American people in efforts to refine, and ultimately repeal, the AUMF's mandate. And I will not sign laws designed to expand this mandate further. Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue. But this war, like all wars, must end. [See also this.]

I won't go into Gitmo, nor Obama's (correct) argument that this facility must be closed down. But I will mention (9) his peroration:

America, we have faced down dangers far greater than al Qaeda. By staying true to the values of our founding, and by using our constitutional compass, we have overcome slavery and Civil War; fascism and communism.... But because of the resilience of the American people, these events could not come close to breaking us.

What I hate, hated, about the "post-9/11" era was the idea that this threat eclipsed all others America had faced, and justified the abrogation of liberties and principles we had defended through the centuries. These are complex trade-offs. Think of having a president who recognizes their complexity -- and comes down on the side of liberties.

I am remiss in not noting the ending, (10):

Thank you. God Bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.

Sigh. But again, this was a speech for grown-ups.

« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 … 209 Next »

More at the Atlantic

Writers

James Fallows
World o' Flight Updates: NYT Mag, Gliders,…
7:25 PM ET
Ta-Nehisi Coates
Revisiting The Moynihan Report Cont.
4:12 PM ET
Alexis C. Madrigal
The Strange World of Dolphin-Assisted Therapy
2:50 PM ET
Derek Thompson
The Tragic Demise of Jack Lew's Once Awesome…
2:17 PM ET
Garance Franke-Ruta
The NSA Leaks and the Pentagon Papers: What's the…
Jun 15, 2013
Steve Clemons
Menendez Blows Smoke on Syria
May 27, 2013

The Biggest Story in Photos

Protests Spread Across Brazil

Jun 18, 2013

Afghanistan	Air taxi
Airline	Airlines
al-Dura	Appreciations
Archives	Art
Articles	Atlantic Monthly
Atlas Shrugged	Audio
Aviation	Beer
Blind into Baghdad	Boiled-frog
Book List	Books
Brave little USB	Budget
Burma	Campaign 2012
Censorship	China
China Airborne	China Daily
China Menace	China Today
Copenhagen	Crisis of the press
Debates	Design
Disasters	Dispatches
Doing Business in China	Dreaming in Chinese
Drinking	Dylan
Economics	Education
Election 2012	Environment
Ethnicity	Europe
Events	False Equivalence
Featured	Filibuster
Flu	Foxconn
France	Free Flight
Gehry	Glamorous Life
Going to hell	Google
Green	Guest Bloggers
Guns	Health care
Healthcare	Huntsman
Ideas 2009	Ideas 2011
Immigration	Inauguration
India	Indonesia
Interviews	Iran
Iraq	Islamophobia
Japan	Kindle
Language	Law
Leafblower Menace	Libya
Life	Mac
Maps	Mexico
Military	Mormons
Murdoch	Music
NPR	Obama
Obama in Asia	Obesity
Occupy Movement	Occupy Wall Street
Olympics	Pandas
Philippines	Politics
Postcards	Public health
Reader comment	Reviews
Rhetorical devices	RMB
Romney	ROTC
Running	Security Sanity
Security Theater	Self-pity and its discontents
Small Business	Speeches
Sports	Technology
Terrorism/Security	The Press
Tibet	Tiger Jim
TSA	United Airlines
Universities	Values
Video	Vietnam
Violence	Volcano
Walk like an American	Wine
Year end pensee

James Fallows

More at the Atlantic

James Fallows's Archive

Writers

The Biggest Story in Photos

Subscribe Now

SAVE 65%! 10 issues JUST $2.45 PER COPY

Newsletters

From this Author

Categories

James Fallowsfrom the Magazine

ATLANTIC MEDIA

James Fallows
from the Magazine