Archive for April 2012
Brilliant movie. And the “making of” feature isn’t bad. But the movie’s really something.
Just back from the doctor, who said that I may read. Apparently the scleral buckle makes a big difference—that’s also why I don’t have to lie in bed on my side for 5 days straight.
But today I’m going to be taking it easy. A nap now, for example.
Movie note: Rango is surprisingly excellent. (Watching movies is okay with my eye.)
Eye note: Terribly swollen this morning, but ice pack took it right down. No pain, just sort of not able to do fun things except movies. Have excellent list of questions for surgeon tomorrow.
Photoboth, via screen shot. Not so painful, in fact, but vision in my left eye (Photobooth apparently does mirror image rather than actual orientation: the bad is on my left in fact) is compromised. In fact, right now, no vision. It comes back slowly. I did learn the gas used in the bubble C3F8: fluoridated propane, which is inert. (Fluorine atoms replace the hydrogen atoms in propane.)
The scleral buckle is not at all uncomfortable, though it’s a YMMV thing: for some people it’s agonizing at first. I’m one of the lucky ones, and I’m also full of Vicodin, which might have something to do with it.
The Wife is going to on me about using the computer, but I thought you’d want to see the results. So far, so good.
The TSA is not worth it because they don’t understand the requirements of working in a free, democratic society in which citizens are to be treated with respect, not as criminal terrorist suspects. Their operating procedures are better suited to a more authoritarian country, but perhaps they’re simply the advance agents to soften us up and get us ready for more obtrusive government control.
Read this post about a TSA agent’s loud questions to a 79-year-old woman (a 4′ 11″ librarian) about what he terms “an anomaly in the crotch area.”
And take a look at this extract from a James Fallows post:
Meanwhile, in depressing airport-security news:
– A four-year old girl in Missoula arouses suspicions that she might be a terrorist courier.
Brademeyer’s mother [grandmother of the little girl] had triggered an alarm and was awaiting a pat-down when Isabella ran to her. That’s when Transportation Security Administration officers told Brademeyer her mother could have passed something to her daughter during that brief encounter.
“They said (to Isabella), ‘You need to sit down right now!’ and they told me, ‘She made contact!’ ” Brademeyer said Tuesday afternoon.
In her Facebook note, she wrote, “When they spoke to her, it was devoid of any sort of compassion, kindness or respect. They told her she had to come to them, alone, and spread her arms and legs. She screamed, ‘No! I don’t want to!’ then did what any frightened young child might, she ran in the opposite direction.
“That is when a TSO told me they would shut down the entire airport, cancel all flights, if my daughter was not restrained. It was then they declared my daughter ‘a high-security threat,’ ” she wrote.
With her crutches and orthotics, Dina cannot walk through metal detectors and instead is patted down by security agents. The girl, who is also developmentally disabled, is often frightened by the procedure, her father said.
Marcy Frank [her mother] usually asks the agents to introduce themselves to her daughter, but those on duty on Monday were exceptionally aggressive, Joshua Frank said, and he began to videotape them with his iPhone.
“And the woman started screaming at me and cursing me and threatening me,” he said
More on the episodes here. I don’t have time now for the full argument about the balance between “perfect” security and civic liberty. There’s more about it here and passim. Yes, any toddler could be an explosive-carrier working with her grandmother. Yes, a disabled girl could conceivably have weapons concealed in her crutches. And by the same logic, every van going down the street could be carrying bombs, and every passer-by on the sidewalk could be carrying a gun. (In some jurisdictions, most passers-by probably are!) A system that “defends” itself by applying worst-case logic/paranoia to every possible contingency will soon have little worth defending.More anon.UPDATE: I wrote the material above at home, but didn’t post it, before heading out to Dulles airport for a flight to LAX at noon.
I love airplanes. I love airports. I detest Washington Dulles airport, for reasons not solely related to its TSA procedures but significantly affected by them. Including one just now that I am too angry to write about in ways I won’t regret. (Enforced several-hour cooling off period begins as soon as the plane door closes in a minute or two.)
But it prompts me to quote this note from a reader that came in recently:
In your own post on the Khan story, you once again write as if Homeland Security was some sort of independent federal entity like the Federal Reserve or (my personal favorite as a chemist) the Chemical Safety Board — answerable to no one but themselves. That’s not true, is it? DHS and their behavior are somehow connected to the executive branch, right? Why can’t President Obama do something about this?
I will not hide my political preferences — I am a conservative, and I have voted for the Republican in the past. But (as I said in my very first e-mail to you on this issue), it was my hope that the Obama Administration would change the TSA’s procedures.
Perhaps I’m too blinded by my political preferences to understand this issue. But I see it with (wonderful, intelligent, very liberal pop culture critic) Alyssa Rosenberg’s complaints about Khan’s detention as well. Once again, DHS is apparently some sort of unmoored federal bureaucracy, unanswerable to the White House, randomly stopping innocent people and embarrassing the United States.
If you guys act like our President can’t control these people (DHS/TSA), who will?
I cannot state how much this small issue is coloring my perspectives on our federal government and our ability as a nation to have control over it. If I have voted (and I did, indirectly, much to my chagrin) for the creation of a unchangeable, unmanageable federal bureaucracy that can never be corralled or corrected, I should learn my lesson and never support the creation of a federal office again.
I don’t reach quite that conclusion, as I’ll go into more another time. But I will be reflecting yet again these next few hours on the varied excesses of the security state.