A new quotidian stop

Not that I miss journalism for a minute, but I sure do miss the full access to realtime news feeds that I once had in my former life. The sheer volume of what moved on any given day over the national and international wires was ungodly. Given that plus a twice- or thrice-weekly cruise through the op-ed and food (yes, I'm serious) wires, and who needed a subscription to anything else? (Except for Reason Magazine, natch.) I will say, however comma, that if I had to read just...one...more sports roundup with the phrase "bench-clearing brawl," I was going to spontaneously combust.

Nearly everyone at my former gazette had their wire-search and alert preferences set just so, and in a way that made Google News' customization options seem utterly kindergarten. AFAIK, there's still no equivalent on the web today that comes nigh close to what one can access with full membership in The Associated Press. (Someone recently asked me what that costs. "Um, beats me.")

Not that I have time to read much non-academic material these days.

I'm lucky to skim the entire front section of the Financial Times (print version) on my way to campus. But every few weeks I'll let my news junkie out for a romp. A tour through My Way News and WaPo's (buried) wire feed comes reasonably close to what my personal user keys (R.I.P., CSI) used to parse for me at The Big O - the "lede-writethru" flotsam and "strictly embargoed" jetsam from the must-do reading.

Even better, here's a site I was turned on to a couple of weeks ago that seems to scratch the itch for my dream homepage: Arts & Letters Daily. (Of course, with Firefox's tabbed browsing scheme, a mere homepage isn't just a singular homepage anymore ... it's a pluralist's wet dream!)

Two gems from the feed that caught my attention last week: The Claremont Institute's Encountering Islam, and The New Criterion's Hayek & the Intellectuals.

-30-

Flying Toilet Terror Labs

We've had a rash of inquiries lately in the forum I moderate at flyertalk.com about the veracity of last summer's so-called liquid bomb plot in London.

News wires were ablaze with analysis for weeks following the August 10th arrests of the 24 alleged conspirators. Once the dust settled, certain explications emerged to capture the imagination of commentators and the general public justifying the draconian carry-on rules pertaining to commercial air travel. Regulars of FT's Travel Safety/Security forum, however, generally rush to post this gem, courtesy of The Register (UK), as sufficient refutation to What Might Have Been.

Here's a teaser:

Mass murder in the skies: was the plot feasible?

By Thomas C Greene in Washington

Published Thursday 17th August 2006 09:42 GMT

Analysis The seventh angel poured out his bowl into the air;
And a loud voice came forth out of the temple of Heaven,
From the throne, saying, "It is done!"
--Revelation 16:17

Binary liquid explosives are a sexy staple of Hollywood thrillers. It would be tedious to enumerate the movie terrorists who've employed relatively harmless liquids that, when mixed, immediately rain destruction upon an innocent populace, like the seven angels of God's wrath pouring out their bowls full of pestilence and pain.

The funny thing about these movies is, we never learn just which two chemicals can be handled safely when separate, yet instantly blow us all to kingdom come when combined. Nevertheless, we maintain a great eagerness to believe in these substances, chiefly because action movies wouldn't be as much fun if we didn't.

Now we have news of the recent, supposedly real-world, terrorist plot to destroy commercial airplanes by smuggling onboard the benign precursors to a deadly explosive, and mixing up a batch of liquid death in the lavatories. So, The Register has got to ask, were these guys for real, or have they, and the counterterrorist officials supposedly protecting us, been watching too many action movies?

We're told that the suspects were planning to use TATP, or triacetone triperoxide, a high explosive that supposedly can be made from common household chemicals unlikely to be caught by airport screeners. A little hair dye, drain cleaner, and paint thinner - all easily concealed in drinks bottles - and the forces of evil have effectively smuggled a deadly bomb onboard your plane.

Here's what I'd like to know, especially from any chemist types who'd care to weigh in (that would be you, KZach of PChem):

• Is The Register's explanation of TATP accurate?
• *Was* the plot feasible? (And if not, why not?)
• And, for extra credit, where will the madness end?

-30-