Mr.President, Fire Somebody. Anybody

In response to the Christmas "underpants bomber," an outraged President Obama called his security and intelligence people together. The headline on the front page of the Los Angeles Times the next day read, "Obama gives his team earful over foiled plot." Our intelligence and security measures failed and almost led to a disaster, and his response was to give the security people "an earful?" I guess he rejected the more severe punishment of giving them a timeout and making them sit in the corner. Mr. President, make it seem like you're taking some kind of strong action. Fire somebody.

It doesn't even matter to me which official he fires. I realize that might just be a symbolic act, but maybe we need that kind of symbolism now. Besides, we all know people who've gotten fired for doing far less than almost letting somebody blow up an airplane. Maybe we had a new boss who wanted to "clean house." Maybe there was some kind of misunderstanding. Maybe the job just wasn't right for us. But I doubt that we know anyone other than a government official who let someone on an airplane who had a bomb in his underwear.

When I was flying home from Chicago with my wife and son after Thanksgiving, we were stopped at the security conveyor belt and the screener confiscated something of ours. What was this dangerous item? It was a container of cream cheese. We had bought bagels and cream cheese to eat on the plane. So why did they take it from us? Was it a case of "possession of cream cheese with intent to schmeer?" Apparently it was in a container that they considered a couple of ounces too large. My point is, we couldn't take cream cheese on a plane, but this guy could get through wearing a bomb? And the president's response is just to give his people "an earful?" Fire somebody.

It just feels like a bad case of déjà vu. After 9/11, we were told that security was going to be beefed up, that the safety of the American people was the number one priority of the President, etc. Then we learned that our government had information prior to the 9/11 attacks that could have been used to possibly prevent the attacks. And now, after the almost-tragedy on Christmas, we've learned that governmental departments had enough information that could have -- and should have -- prevented the guy from getting on that plane.

The difference is that this time our president actually admitted that there was a failure in our "intelligence community." I guess that kind of honesty, that "transparency," is progress, but that doesn't make us safer. Maybe firing and replacing some people wouldn't really make us safer, either. But maybe it would.

Based on the past, what we'll probably see are changes at the airport security stations. There may be longer lines. Screeners will probably go through our luggage more thoroughly. They might install those machines that reveal vague images of our bodies to a screener. Maybe there will be something dramatic. It happened after the "shoe bomber." Because of that one guy, everyone had to take off their shoes at the airport, and then the government could point to our shoelessness as proof that they were taking terrorism seriously. I'm sure you can imagine what they might make us take off because of the "underpants bomber."

Obviously, I'm not against better screening at the airport. However, we need to stop terrorists before they get to the airport, before they fill up their shoes or their underwear with explosives. And it's possible for us to do that. The president agrees. He said, "The U.S. government had sufficient information to have uncovered the plot and potentially disrupt the Christmas Day attack, but our intelligence community failed to connect those dots."

They didn't "connect those dots?" So, fire somebody and get someone who's better at connecting dots. I know that might not improve things, but it has a better chance of being effective than taking away our cream cheese.

Free Can Be Costly

My old cell phone died recently. We had been so happy together. It was a very simple phone, not like today's "smart phones." All I used it for was to make and receive calls and an occasional text message. It was perfect for me, so I took it with me to the phone store so I could show the salesperson what I wanted. Boy, was I living in a dream world.

I'm not going to say the name of the company. Let's just say, it starts with an "A," and ends with a "T & T." Once inside the store, I had to put my name in a book of people waiting. It was like when you arrive at a crowded restaurant – except in the phone store, the dessert is a two-year contract. Finally, they called my name, and a salesperson greeted me. I showed him my old phone, and he held back a laugh. As he stared at it, I knew he was wondering if it ran on steam power. When I told him that I wanted a phone exactly like that one, he just shook his head. He said the model was no longer made. However, he added that I could get a pretty simple phone for free.

He showed me a phone that was selling for $50.00 with a $50.00 rebate. In other words, it was a free phone. It sounded great to me, except the phone didn't look anything like my old phone. For one thing, there were no buttons to push. How was I supposed to call anyone? He explained that it had a "touch screen." When he turned it on, it looked like a small computer screen.

I told him I wasn't used to a touch screen, and he said that it was time for me to join the 21st Century. I don't know why, it seems like most of my best times were spent in the 20th. But the more I thought about it, the more I thought it might be fun to have one of these new devices. Besides, there was always that free price tag.

He walked me back to the cash register. I was confused. I thought the thing was free. He reiterated that it was, but I would probably want some kind of case "to protect my investment." (What investment? It's supposed to be free). He showed me a case that he said was almost indestructible. He also thought it would be a good idea for me to have a cable to connect the phone to my computer so I could back up all my contacts in case I broke the phone. "I thought you said that case was indestructible," I reminded him. "I said it was 'almost indestructible.' But you also could lose the phone, or someone could steal it. If you have everything backed up on your computer, you'll have less to worry about."

"Less to worry about?" I never worried about any of this stuff before I had a cell phone. And I didn't have a case or cable for my old cell. But since I was joining this century, I said, "Okay." Then there was another surprise: the sales tax on the phone. I couldn't understand why I would have to pay tax on something that costs nothing, and he explained that it was the law. In fact, I didn't just have to pay tax on the phone as if it cost me $50.00, I had to pay tax on the phone as if I had paid the regular retail price. So, including accessories and tax, the total for my new phone was $75. That's how much a free phone costs.

When I got home, I struggled with the phone and eventually figured out how to dial and receive calls. I didn't learn how to check the stock market, how to watch an episode of "Yesterday's Stars Who Have Lost A Lot Of Weight," or how to make my ring tone sound like a chicken squawking. Not only was I uninterested in all the fancy features, but I figured that by the time I learned them, I'd need another new phone. With any luck, by then, I'll be able to get a free phone for only a couple of hundred dollars.