From Fark.com and Yahoo! News comes this little tidbit...
CORONADO, Calif. - The Navy will spend as much as $600,000 to modify a 40-year-old barracks complex that resembles a swastika from the air, a gaffe that went largely unnoticed before satellite images became easily accessible on the Internet.
The Navy said officials noted the buildings' shape after the groundbreaking in 1967 but decided against changing it at the time because it wasn't obvious from the ground. Aerial photos made available on Google Earth in recent years have since revealed the buildings' shape to a wide audience.
Read the full article here .
Ok. Let's role-play for a second here. You're an employee at Boston's Logan International Airport. A young woman comes up to your counter and asks about a flight. The front of her shirt has a circuit board and battery attached to it, and a lump of an unknown substance is in her hand. You answer her question, and then ask her what that is strapped to her chest. She doesn't answer, and turns to walk away.
You: A)Wave politely and tell her to enjoy the flight.
B)Do nothing.
C)Mention her suspicious behavior to security.
I don't know about you, but I think I'd pick C. And that's exactly what happened yesterday. Star Simpson, age 19, was arrested Friday after the above scenario unfolded. Already, there are some coming to her defense. "It was an art project/shirt she wore all the time/clearly not a bomb" and so on. Frankly, I don't care. Wearing anything that even remotely could be confused with a bomb to an airport is STUPID. Let's face it. Airport security folks aren't always the best-trained or the most patient. This was asking for trouble-especially remembering that one of the 9/11 flights was hijacked at...hmm...what was it...oh yeah. LOGAN INTERNATIONAL. Frankly, she's lucky she didn't get tasered or worse.
I don't care if she "wore that all the time". I might enjoy walking around the house with a bandolier of .50 cal ammo hanging over my shoulder, but I know that it might not go over well in public. And if it turns out that this dingbat wanted to call this some kind of "performance art?" Give me a break. Save it for somewhere else. And as for the most common argument I've heard-"real bombs don't look like that...", HOW DO YOU KNOW? Which bomb squad did you train with? Did Richard Reid's shoes "look like a real bomb?" Doubtful, but they sure as hell were. It's a different world we live in, folks. I'm all for civil liberties, freedom, the whole ball of wax. But one thing I don't support is people who check their common sense at the door.
I came across this article today. Los Angeles city councilwoman Jan Perry, apparently concerned about her district's waistline, has proposed legislation that would create up to a two-year moratorium on new fast food restaurants in the area. It seems that the residents of the South L.A. district she represents have higher instances of obesity compared to the rest of the county. So in an attempt to remedy this problem, she has suggested...no more fast food. Not a community education program, not working to increase awareness regarding diet and nutrition, but a ban on new fast-food restaurants.
This idea is misguided at best, and at its worst, is a perfect example of unnecessary governmental intervention. Even if there's a higher-than-average number of fast food restaurants in the area, people choose to eat there. Furthermore, let's not forget that many such establishments now offer things like salad or fruit-which means people also choose what they eat while there. Anyone could tell you that a salad is better for you than a triple cheeseburger with a large order of fries. It's a matter of what people choose to do-and this is not to mention that one could just as easily eat at home, or take a meal to work.
Without getting into a lengthy discussion on the role of government in our society, I can say the following with certainty: I don't need the government playing the role of nanny-saving me from Arby's by means of legislation. Any reasonably intelligent person should be able to say the same. This is a case where the intent is noble enough-protect people from the adverse health effects of obesity. However, banning something as basic as where a person can eat is completely the wrong approach. Do some outreach. Give people information on a healthy lifestyle. Provide them with the tools they need to make an informed decision. Don't insult their intelligence (or mine) by doing otherwise.
