TSA backs off

By Capt. Fogg

So you think the TSA has finally come to its senses and smartened up its ban on deadly weapons like nail clippers and pool cues? Most people, if they bother to think about it, aren't all that terrified that some 12 year old carrying his Little League bat or hockey stick is going to commandeer a 747, nor is the woman with that tiny Swiss Army knife on her keychain. The TSA has at least recognized that the hijackings of 9/11/01 were facilitated by cabin doors without locks, thanks to the refusal of our regulatory agencies to force that level of security on private business. Box cutters were secondary.

Your tiny knife with tweezers and nail file isn't really going to allow a terrorist incident or some adolescent to take over an airplane with a plastic hockey stick and so the TSA is going to acknowledge the laughter and relent -- in some cases. In customary ban-it writing style however, the descriptions of the newly permitted items seem to have been written by people being forced to relent at gunpoint or people from Mars who have never seen and are terrified of sharp objects.

So what can you take on the plane that you couldn't last week? Cigarette lighters, although you can't smoke, up to two golf clubs, ( three would somehow be too dangerous) toy bats or other sports sticks and small pocket knives with blades up to (wait for this) 2.36 inches. 2.37 is too scary to allow and a fixed blade is out for some reason known only to Martians and most mysteriously, if the handle has any curve to it, it's still a terrorist assault weapon and prohibited. My tiny mustache scissors? Sorry Osama, you and your beard don't get on the plane.

Box cutters? Even though the evidence from 9/11 really doesn't support the newspaper story, a 1" box cutter blade, half the length of Uncle Fogg's Victorinox is just too al Qaeda for the TSA.

You'll suspect that I'm going somewhere with this, but I don't need to, you already guessed that I think people who write and most passionately defend regulatory descriptions tend to be fond of tin foil haberdashery, or at least that's my opinion -- and I'm sticking with it.

(Cross-posted from Human Voices)

Saved by the cops

By Capt. Fogg

Who knows what Lloyd Woodson planned to do with his room full of weapons; some legal, some very illegal? It's not hard to guess from the little evidence the media gives us, hidden in the boiler-plate harem-scarum hoplophobic verbiage. Newspaper reports seem too involved with making the description of his collection as lurid as possible and not involved enough with evidence about his plans. Indeed, much of what the 43 year old, apparently African-American U.S. Navy veteran had in his motel room was illegal and scary enough: a grenade launcher, for instance, and a .50 caliber semi-automatic weapon with the serial numbers filed off. He was wearing body armor. I think we can dismiss the argument that he was not up to no good.

As usual, we get the "cache of hundreds of rounds of ammunition" statement, although a recreational shooter intending to spend a few hours at a shooting range might easily go through much more than that. We get "hollow point" as though that's not what one uses for hunting anything from rats at the dump, to rabbits to elk. But, no, Woodson had just come to town, had a map of a military installation and another map of "an out-of-state civilian community." Perhaps you have a road map in your car, too.

So was he planning to shoot up a Navy base? Sure sounds like it and I'm sure glad a suspicious bystander reported him and the New Jersey Police arrested him, but what surprises me is that I haven't heard the usual Fox-based outrage that this isn't being sold as a terrorist attack and that Fox isn't already shrieking about how Obama isn't running down the street yelling "terrorist attack -- run for your lives" as they did when the underwear bomber tried to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner.

That just proves that boy in the White House just isn't up to keeping us all safe, after all. The very idea that the New Jersey police would be able to stop an armed assault is part of Obama's plot to sell us on the idea that there's any other way to deal with terrorism than to be terrified into bombing some godforsaken piece of desert. It's a war on terror, you know, not a game of cops and robbers.

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

I get mail -- worthy causes

By Libby Spencer

Even though I'm just a B-list blogger I get asked all the time to review books and pitch worthy causes. I often don't get around to even reading them before it's too late but this one is a really worthy effort and you still have one day to participate.

The International Medical Corps has been named as a finalist in a contest sponsored by American Express. International Medical Corps has been matched to one of the Top 25 in American Express’ Members Projects, ‘Saving the Lives of Malnourished Children.’

Chosen out of 1,190 projects, “Saving the Lives of Malnourished Children” is now eligible to receive up to $1.5 million in funding. The project with the most votes receives $1.5 million, 2nd receives $500,000, 3rd $300,000, and 4th and 5th $100,000. The funding – made possible by your votes – would bring a vital lifeline to hungry and malnourished children around the world.

We need your help between now and September 29th. Voting is easy and doesn’t cost a thing! In just a click, you can save the lives of thousands of malnourished children. Click here to vote:

For severely malnourished children, we offer a step-by-step treatment program that gives them what they need to recover, including nutrient-dense food supplements like the peanut-based product, Plumpy'Nut. Our comprehensive monitoring system saves more than 90 percent of children being treated in our feeding centers. Being one of the Top 5 would mean our nutrition could reach more children around the world who need our help.

It's a little complicated to vote, you have to join the group first, but I checked out the greater project and it's legit. You won't be charged any money and of the 25 projects, I liked this one the best. So if you have a few minutes, it's good way to spend it to end world hunger.

Another project I've been asked to promote is Ban Cluster Bombs. They don't seem to be involved in any time sensitive project but with the world at perpetual war and seeing our country is also an offender, it's worth a few minutes to check out their site. It's an eye-opener.

Finally, I don't generally pitch books I haven't read, but this request was so polite, you might want to check out Oxford University Press who are promoting a book on the Bush Doctrine that looks interesting based on the review they posted.

(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)

Iron Man review

By LindaBeth

I just saw Iron Man and I wanted to write a mini-review while it was still fresh. Semi-spoilers below.

The Tony Stark character is reprehensible. My stomach was on fire after the 1st 15 minutes; I asked my partner "I sure hope his superhero actions redeem him." By that, I meant does he see the jerk of a human being that he was? The answer is yes and no.

The beginning sets up the kind of person that Stark is. He a sexist womanizer. He sees every woman as a sexual conquest. He doesn't know their names and doesn't care. He treats professional women as nothing serious--only as sex objects.

His views on military weapons comes out when an attractive female reporter questions him about his company's support of the war industry. His responses were unapologetically pro-weapons and throughout he propositions her to have sex. She continues to stand her ground, ignoring his sexism and asking the tough questions. She's well spoken and savvy. We find out she's Brown educated. Then we find her going to bed with him.

The movie is about his change of heart regarding the effect that weapons have on international relations. His creation -- Iron Man -- is to rectify his participation in the war machine. Which was great: I love the weapons critique aspect of the story. (See this review for good commentary on the "good vs. bad" weapons users and the "us vs. them" dichotomy that I felt in the film but didn't know quite what I made of it.) I thought the movie as a whole is pretty good, with some predictability and far-fetched aspects (i.e. why would the Afghan militia men put Stark, a weapons designer, in a room with tons of weaponry supplies unattended?)

But he never rectifies his sexist approach to women. One line would have done. My partner even thought of the perfect spot in the script for it as well--when his assistant talks about "who" Tony Stark is--he could have said something about that not being him anymore, with a nod to his dehumanizing treatment of women. There was a space for it. But alas.

I also was annoyed that the script called for the reporter "caving into" his charm like every other woman we see in the film. It was completely unnecessary. The way he was speaking to her in the interview demonstrated quite well his (lack of) character; her going to bed with him only damages hers. In questioning him, she was smart and articulate. She persisted drilling him despite his attempts to seduce her. And later, she is instrumental in instigating Iron Man's humanitarian works. Her giving in served more to diminish her as a strong female character than to add to the audience's understanding of his sexist character.

Now as my partner rightly points out, she chooses to sleep with him. Which, of course is true. But that she 'chooses' to give into his manipulative, conniving, seductive ways doesn't speak very highly for her. There, she--an educated, professional woman--becomes "just like" every other women. Which makes women look like easily duped swooners. The problem here is that it didn't need to be written that way. The writer didn't need to "choose" to write that in. It does not serve the story; it only serves to weaken the smart savvy female reporter.

Their sleeping together also made space for the also-irritating catty girl-on-girl convo between Stark's assistant Pepper and the female reporter "the morning after" (when he, of course, vanishes). It poses the conventionally "hot" (long hair, lots of makeup, pretty) sexual-conquest (slut?) reporter vs. the pretty-but-conventionally dressed and made up (and thus, non-sexual) professional, assistant. They have a short convo where Pepper dryly states that the reporter's clothes have been washed, a cab is ready etc. like a laundry list, possibly rubbing it into the reporter that this is standard procedure. The reporter takes a jab at Pepper, criticizing that after all these years, she still just does Stark's dirty work. Not quite the virgin/whore dichotomy, but clearly along those lines. It's the sexpot vs. the subservient neutral/neuter female. And it's equally annoying.

(An aside: Even though the women (meaning Pepper and the reporter) were somewhat "accessories," they were absolutely necessary to Iron Man's success. Stark also directly says that he is nothing without Pepper. So I don't think the film necessarily positions the 2 female characters as incidental.)

Punk ass blog had this great article about what makes a movie misogynist. I wouldn't say that this movie is any more sexist than society is, and makes all the same generalizations about women that sexist society does too. But what disappoints me, and prompts me to write this "review," is that there was the potential to be good vis a vis women: easy! just add one line and cut one scene and I'd be pretty happy.

But what is unfortunate is that the writer/director didn't seem to think that Stark's misogyny needed to be accounted for. And that this is generally the attitude of Hollywood (hell, culture) as a whole.

(Cross-posted to Smart Like Me.)