Print“Copacetic.” “Fine and dandy,” says the Webster's New International. Textured origins can be found in the Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang, American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language and the various Oxfords. Mixed origins, actually, from the black South, Creole French, Harlem jazz, Italian and Hebrew/Yiddish. The last pairing points to a Hebrew phrase, “kol b'tsedek,” “all with justice.” I've never heard this phrase, and I don't believe it's the secret behind "copacetic" for a moment. But there is an expression "kol b'seder," in both common Yiddish and Israeli Hebrew usage that means, well, "fine and dandy." That's certainly much more plausible. Which is clearly what she meant.
Anyway, nothing on the Northwest flight about to land in Detroit noontime Christmas was at all copacetic, a I pointed out unoriginally twice already, despite Secretary Napolitano's breathlessly assuring words: "the system has worked very, very smoothly over the last few days." Of course, she has now come to her senses or, maybe, David Axelrod or, worse yet, my old friend Rahm shouted at her. In any case, Eric Lipton and Scott Shane have done a fine job in the Times detailing Madame Secretary's self-humiliation. In a later addition on the Times web-site, the reporting pair tells us that a Saudi-based group, linked to Al Qaeda, claimed credit for organizing the enterprise. It also turns out that the Nigerian heir to a forfeited fortune arrived at Schiphol Airport without a ticket, paid cash and also had no baggage. Did he have a reservation?
There's another important article by John Burns (Burns almost never writes unimportantly) about how "Britain Rejected Visa Renewal for Terrorism Suspect." "The British government said Monday that it had acted earlier this year to reject a bid for a renewed student visa" for Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab."
So there are at least two pregnant questions about the Brits. "What does earlier this year" actually mean? And what information were they given? Then there are many questions about us. Including why we are so casual and really so unserious about such matters. The ever mordant columnist for The Daily Beast, Tunku Varadarajan, puts it to us not so very nicely.
Burns reports on a B.B.C. radio interview with Alan Johnson, the Labor Home Secretary, who was rather more perturbed than the American Homeland Security Secretary. He seems to have believed that Abbdul Mutallab did not act alone.
He also introduced two other themes. One is whether full body scanners should be employed at airports. These have long been available, apparently even in the U.S. But the privacy-mongers (who are not at all troubled by what your computer can tell you about your neighbor and your wife and, in fact, yourself) are hysterical that some security guard might have seen Umar Farouk's Calvins.
The second pressing matter put before us by Burns is about educational visas for foreign students. Johnson reports on an epidemic of 2,000 phony colleges in the U.K. set up in the last year. How many Muslim students "studied" in these institutions? And not just Muslim students, but others who want to leave their home countries and live in England? Do they want to become Brits?
Which reminds me that some of the 9/11 eighteen (plus others involved in a variety of terrorism cases) also attended schools in the United States: air flight schools, hair dressing schools, hit-and-miss colleges. Isn't this a racket that needs to be addressed, especially since this weird cohort conceals a huge visa racket to America.
And one more thing, perhaps germane to the case of Abdul Mutallab. Here, via MEMRI, a command put on jihadist websites on October 18 commanding the faithful, the really faithful, to attack American airplanes.
For more TNR, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
COMMENTS (7)
O posted this elsewehere but it belongs here since it's about the Mosque used by the Christmas would be bomber"
"East London Mosque Linked To Nigerian Aeroplane Bomber"
Lucy Lips, December 28th 2009, 1:05 pm
"It has received visits from Prince Charles. Boris Johnson visited it to encourage non-Muslims to fast during Ramadan. The then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, delivered a speech in which he envisaged a ‘role’ for Sharia within the English legal system. It has received huge wads of “Prevent” cash from the Government.
It has also hosted fundraisers for Interpal, which is associated with Hamas. It has been used by Awlaki and his supporters, to urge Muslims not to assist the police. ... view full comment
O posted this elsewehere but it belongs here since it's about the Mosque used by the Christmas would be bomber"
"East London Mosque Linked To Nigerian Aeroplane Bomber"
Lucy Lips, December 28th 2009, 1:05 pm
"It has received visits from Prince Charles. Boris Johnson visited it to encourage non-Muslims to fast during Ramadan. The then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, delivered a speech in which he envisaged a ‘role’ for Sharia within the English legal system. It has received huge wads of “Prevent” cash from the Government.
It has also hosted fundraisers for Interpal, which is associated with Hamas. It has been used by Awlaki and his supporters, to urge Muslims not to assist the police. The antisemite, Al Sudais was a guest of honour, earlier this year. The name of its Imam, Qayuum, appears on the pro-terrorism “Istanbul Declaration”, having apparently attended the conference at which it was produced: although he now denies having signed it. Its management has included those who are the subject of serious allegations of Jamaat-e-Islami war crimes during the Bangladesh War of Liberation. Other senior figures involved with the Mosque are closely connected to Islamic Forum Europe, a Jamaat-e-Islami front organisation...."
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/12/28/east-london-mosque-linked-to-nige...
Ratner (in case you have moved on to this thread)
Getting back to your earlier question from the thread (here) on what about our bomber wannabe would have raised a red flag in an Israeli or an El Al pre-check-in security interview: News reports indicate that our Abdulmutallab paid cash for his ticket and checked in without luggage. **EITHER** one of these would have constituted enough of a red flag to divert Abdulmutallab to the "check carefully" screeners; the lack of luggage would have sent him for an immediate strip search, probably we ... view full comment
Ratner (in case you have moved on to this thread)
Getting back to your earlier question from the thread (here) on what about our bomber wannabe would have raised a red flag in an Israeli or an El Al pre-check-in security interview: News reports indicate that our Abdulmutallab paid cash for his ticket and checked in without luggage. **EITHER** one of these would have constituted enough of a red flag to divert Abdulmutallab to the "check carefully" screeners; the lack of luggage would have sent him for an immediate strip search, probably well past his underwear.
hg
I'd like to issue the following purely editorial challenge to Mr. Peretz: Can he go a week without inserting J.K. Rowling-esque descriptions of every writer he quotes? "Another important article by John Burns (Burns almost never writes unimportantly)" Rather than adding authority to the quoted material, it draws emphasis away from what is quoted by putting Mr. Peretz -- his judgments and affinities -- front-and-center in the sentence. It's an example of telling, not showing, and as such it reflects a deeply contemptuous attitude toward the reader. Adjectives and adverbs are like salad dressing, but when it comes to introducing quoted material, Mr. Peretz ladles them like soup.
(On a nitty gr ... view full comment
I'd like to issue the following purely editorial challenge to Mr. Peretz: Can he go a week without inserting J.K. Rowling-esque descriptions of every writer he quotes? "Another important article by John Burns (Burns almost never writes unimportantly)" Rather than adding authority to the quoted material, it draws emphasis away from what is quoted by putting Mr. Peretz -- his judgments and affinities -- front-and-center in the sentence. It's an example of telling, not showing, and as such it reflects a deeply contemptuous attitude toward the reader. Adjectives and adverbs are like salad dressing, but when it comes to introducing quoted material, Mr. Peretz ladles them like soup.
(On a nitty gritty level, the Burns intro is also redundant; "Another important article by John Burns" tells the reader that Burns is the frequent author of important articles; adding a second clause to say that Burns is the frequent author of important articles adds nothing. It's sloppy and lazy, and expresses a doubly contemptuous attitude toward the reader: Not only does Mr. Peretz believe that we're too stupid to understand the importance of the Burns article without first being told that it is important, Mr. Peretz believes we're so stupid that he has to tell us of the article's importance twice. Bad form, and it hugely detracts from the impact of Mr. Peretz's writing.)
On the substance, Marty (via Burns) raises important questions about education visas. Accredited colleges and universities are one thing; we have the best in the world and it does America great good to draw the world to study in our academies. Same with flight schools, actually, and it should be noted that the best warnings about the 9/11 operatives came from suspicious flight school instructors. But there is no good reason to let foreigners into any country for most purely vocational training; if Morocco lacks hair-styling schools, then the answer is not to give Moroccans student visas to attend barber school in Kansas or Liverpool; the solution is for the Peace Corps to build barber school ... view full comment
On the substance, Marty (via Burns) raises important questions about education visas. Accredited colleges and universities are one thing; we have the best in the world and it does America great good to draw the world to study in our academies. Same with flight schools, actually, and it should be noted that the best warnings about the 9/11 operatives came from suspicious flight school instructors. But there is no good reason to let foreigners into any country for most purely vocational training; if Morocco lacks hair-styling schools, then the answer is not to give Moroccans student visas to attend barber school in Kansas or Liverpool; the solution is for the Peace Corps to build barber schools in Marrakesh.
(Also on substance, Marty demonstrates great ignorance in stating that those who have privacy concerns about full-body scanners are not also concerned about the privacy of computer data. Why must he make up falsehoods to call anyone his disagrees with a hypocrite? Isn't it enough to argue simply that in this instance they're wrong? Further, no one cares about the privacy of any particular criminal or terrorist. But we all care about our own privacy, and about the privacy of our wives and children and elderly mothers when we travel. It would make as much sense, and actually cost significantly less, simply to require air travel to be done in the nude. By Marty's standards, if he is not willing to ban clothing on commercial flights, then it must be because Marty is hysterical that Umar Farouk might be embarrassed to have his Calvins removed. Why does Marty love the terrorists so much that he opposes a simple measure that would permanently defeat this terrorist threat?)
As regards the latest terrorist incident, I am reminded of Adlai Stevenson's comment on losing, for the second time, in 1956: I'm too old to cry, but it hurts too much to laugh.
Several thoughts:
First, government is disfunctional. If any faintly suspicious person in the world farts, the NSA, or somebody, in our or allied governments hears it. But does person, or government agency A, trust person or government agency B, enough to pass on the other guy enough to pass the info on? Can the hearer understand what he or she is hearing? If he or she does, is their computer system compatible with the other guy's or gal's computer system? If we handed the assignment off to Google, Microsoft, IBM, ... view full comment
As regards the latest terrorist incident, I am reminded of Adlai Stevenson's comment on losing, for the second time, in 1956: I'm too old to cry, but it hurts too much to laugh.
Several thoughts:
First, government is disfunctional. If any faintly suspicious person in the world farts, the NSA, or somebody, in our or allied governments hears it. But does person, or government agency A, trust person or government agency B, enough to pass on the other guy enough to pass the info on? Can the hearer understand what he or she is hearing? If he or she does, is their computer system compatible with the other guy's or gal's computer system? If we handed the assignment off to Google, Microsoft, IBM, whomever, could they do a worse job of assimilating, absorbing, or coordinating information?
Second, if all else fails, can government(s) not coordinate the simplest thing? If anybody in the world 1) boards an expensive international flight, 2) one-way, 3) pays in cash, 4) checks no luggage, does this set off no alarm bells? This aside from the fact that a very prominent citizen of the country of origin begs everyone to pay attention to his kid? What will we do when the extremists cough up a round trip ticket, paid on a credit card, and the passenger loads some piece of luggage? Hope that they still are too stupid to arm a bomb? How many grandmas or kinder are we willing to frisk or strip-search before we do the obvious?
If you didn't like the results from Bush, what makes you think you will be happier with Obama? Bon voyage!
Yeah, what does a fella have to do these days to get on a no-fly list? Send his Mom to call him a terrorist? His Dad isn't good enough?
Yeah, what does a fella have to do these days to get on a no-fly list? Send his Mom to call him a terrorist? His Dad isn't good enough?
I don't think either George W. Bush or Barack Obama are personally responsible for the structure and efficacy of airline passenger screening, especially as there are hundreds of airports throughout the world that have different levels of security. Access to aircraft by cleaners, mechanics, and the like also raises the possibility that a device could be smuggled on board that could be hidden, and then activated by a passenger who has boarded without carrying anything anywhere on his person.
Although I largely agree with rhubarbs about the value of the nudity solution, I believe one might at the pinch get Germans or Australians to go for that, but never Americans (who have imo become a heck of ... view full comment
I don't think either George W. Bush or Barack Obama are personally responsible for the structure and efficacy of airline passenger screening, especially as there are hundreds of airports throughout the world that have different levels of security. Access to aircraft by cleaners, mechanics, and the like also raises the possibility that a device could be smuggled on board that could be hidden, and then activated by a passenger who has boarded without carrying anything anywhere on his person.
Although I largely agree with rhubarbs about the value of the nudity solution, I believe one might at the pinch get Germans or Australians to go for that, but never Americans (who have imo become a heck of a lot more prim and prudish and embarrassed by the body than they were back in the 1970s).