This is Jed's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Jed's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Jed
Recent Activity
!!! Wow! Go, you! Congratulations! That's AWESOME!
1 reply
This entry is an interesting and compelling take on security theatre, and I think there's some merit in what you're saying. But I think that there's more going on with airport security theatre than just trying to make (infrequent) travelers feel safe. It keeps reminding me of the "tough on crime" stance that was so prevalent among politicians in the '90s. In both cases, it seems to me that the goal is twofold: first, to exaggerate the actual danger levels, and thereby make people more scared than they need to be; and second, to then claim that you're the one who can keep them safe. The result may be people who feel relatively safe--but I suspect their idea of how much danger there really is becomes even more exaggerated each time the security measures are expanded. The counterargument, of course, is that it's the terrorists who are making them feel unsafe in the first place, not the TSA. But I'm dubious about that. Did the kind of infrequent flyers you're talking about think that a tube of toothpaste or a bottle of water would be dangerous before the TSA told them it would? Given the number of people who still try to take liquids through security because they don't know about the rule, I suspect not. And similarly, I suspect that most people who don't think a lot about security issues aren't worried that metal detectors will fail to detect an underwear bomb; I suspect most such people don't think enough about it (and don't know enough about what makes up a bomb) to have an opinion. So I think the TSA could have engaged in a much lighter level of security theatre and still made most passengers feel safe. Instead, they keep escalating the exaggerated danger levels, and then they have to institute more-draconian measures to make passengers feel safe again.
Toggle Commented Nov 19, 2010 on In Defense of Security Theater (Sorta) at dashes.com
1 reply
Great entry; thanks for posting it. Just this morning I was noting to my brother, who used to sell suits, that I'm pretty much illiterate in the language of fashion, so it makes me uncomfortable to try to speak that language by wearing stylish clothes unless I get approval from people who are more fluent. Which brings me to one aspect of your discussion that I'd like to see elaborated on: language, including the language of clothing, has a lot to do with not only what the speaker is trying to say, but also how the listener interprets things. So when we talk about how we want to be seen, it seems to me that we're creating mental models of how our audience will interpret our clothing choices. And those models may or may not be accurate--or they may be accurate for most people who see us, or only for some. Same with words, of course; always hard to know how what we say will be interpreted, and writing and editing often involve a process of trying to imagine how the audience will interpret what we say. But I'm a lot more comfortable with words than with clothes, and I trust my ability to model people's interpretations of my words more than I do with clothes. And so I'm less likely to even try to say something with clothing that comes from a different idiom than my usual. Anyway, just musing here, no real conclusions. Thanks again for the entry; lots of good food for thought.
Toggle Commented May 10, 2010 on On Being Age-Appropriate at Greta Christina's Blog
1 reply
Thanks, as always, for posting your ToCs. I've now updated the listing at yearsbestsf.info.
Toggle Commented Feb 26, 2007 on Year's Best Fantasy 7 selections at Kathryn Cramer
1 reply
Belated comment: Fwiw, nearly all of my friends who've used various online dating services (including match.com and several other sites) have had positive experiences. (A few have had some mildly negative experiences, but I don't think I've heard about any really awful experiences.) And several of my friends have ended up marrying someone they met online -- happy marriages so far. And those who haven't found spouses have often found people who've become longtime friends and/or SOs. I'm still plenty dubious about the online dating for various reasons, but in my unscientific survey of friends, it has a much higher success rate than, say, personals ads in newspapers.
1 reply
A quick Google for [blog manifesto] and [blogging manifesto] brought up some links, including: Andrew Sullivan's Blogger Manifesto: http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20020224 Scoble's Corporate Weblog Manifesto: http://scoble.weblogs.com/2003/02/26.html Norwegian blog manifesto (in English), plus followups: http://blog.bearstrong.net/001511.html http://blog.bearstrong.net/001704.html http://blog.bearstrong.net/001706.html Libertarian Blog Manifesto: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/stein5.html Chris Pirillo's Blogger's Manifesto, plus commentary: http://chris.pirillo.com/blog/_archives/2002/2/9/66979.html http://fishbowl.pastiche.org/2002/02/15/the_blogger_manifesto http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/mtarchive/000652.html Blogging manifesto: http://homepage.univie.ac.at/horst.prillinger/blog/archives/2003/10/000232.html Blog Dogme 2003: http://www.thepoorman.net/archives/002196.html Audioblogging manifesto: http://www.idlewords.com/2004/08/an_audioblogging_manifesto.htm Weblog Ethics: http://www.rebeccablood.net/handbook/excerpts/weblog_ethics.html
Toggle Commented Feb 15, 2006 on What is a blog for? 25 Answers at Kathryn Cramer
1 reply