Friday, November 26, 2010
On TSA Body Scanning and "Enhanced" Pat-Downs
The justification cited for the TSA's implementation of body scanning and "enhanced" pat-downs of air travellers is last year's attempted act of terrorism by the so-called underwear bomber. Both defenders of the new policy and the TSA cite the criticism the TSA and the administration faced last year over the incident as evidence of bad faith on the part of the new procedures' critics. However, there is a very, very, important point to note here. The criticism both faced as a result of the incident was not in response to the TSA's failure to sufficiently rub Mr. Abdulmutallab 's testicles. It was a result of the fact that the DHS had received prior warnings about Mr. Abdulmutallab's intent from the British and from Mr. Abdulmutallab 's own father regarding his intentions and had failed to act to prevent him or even attempt to prevent him from bringing these plans to fruition. It's not at all clear to me that these problems with intelligence distribution and implementation have been corrected. Instead, the government seems to consider random crotch-groping a more efficient response.
The justification cited for the TSA's implementation of body scanning and "enhanced" pat-downs of air travellers is last year's attempted act of terrorism by the so-called underwear bomber. Both defenders of the new policy and the TSA cite the criticism the TSA and the administration faced last year over the incident as evidence of bad faith on the part of the new procedures' critics. However, there is a very, very, important point to note here. The criticism both faced as a result of the incident was not in response to the TSA's failure to sufficiently rub Mr. Abdulmutallab 's testicles. It was a result of the fact that the DHS had received prior warnings about Mr. Abdulmutallab's intent from the British and from Mr. Abdulmutallab 's own father regarding his intentions and had failed to act to prevent him or even attempt to prevent him from bringing these plans to fruition. It's not at all clear to me that these problems with intelligence distribution and implementation have been corrected. Instead, the government seems to consider random crotch-groping a more efficient response.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
On Food Appreciation
Glenn Reynolds excerpts from this imbecillic Newsweek piece about food and class in America. Frankly, I'll note that the author strikes me as sort of the epitome of the pretentious social climber with more money than good sense or good taste. And frankly I find her opining on the elite superiority of her pretensions tiresome. But it strikes me that Ms. Miller's blatherings speak to the presumptions of our "elite" class. Fist though, let me quote from the opening paragraph of her piece.
Does anyone want care to place a wager that Ms. Miller and her friends wouldn't have a clue if I replaced their espresso with something from Starbucks, their coffee with Maxwell House or their cheese with second rate Edam?
To my thinking, there are, to my thinking, roughly three categories of food afficianados. I'm not talking about someone who enjoys a good meal. That describes a good portion of humanity. I'm talking about people for whom good food is a passion. I'm talking about people who will go out of their way for food.
* Gastronomes - This is probably how I would classify myself. A gastronome is someone whose appreciation of food is a sensual experience. The look, the taste, the texture are the center of the gastronome's attention. The actual "type" of food is not really relevant. They are inclined to evaluate the food as food. They focus on the sensual experience of the food they are eating and whether the food is good for what it is. A gastronome can be as easily impressed with a wonderfully made pizza of Philly cheesesteak as Lobster Thermidore or steak tartare.
* Gourmets - Gourmets share the gastronome's appreciation of food as a sensual experience. However, their focus is more focused on haute cuisine. A gourmet tends to view food appreciaton as a luxury experience and focuses their demands on high end dining experiences. Often a gourmet's appreciation of good food will be more refined than a gastronome's. However, it will also be more narrow. Personally, I like gourmets, but I find their insistance on on haute cuisine a little limiting. A brilliantly prepared meal is no less because it is "comfort food".
* Foodies - I don't like foodies. I consider Ms. Miller and her friends foodies. Foodies are people for whom food is a status symbol. The actual experience of eating a food is secondary to the description of the food. Hence, for a foodie, where the food is from, how it is made, how the food is viewed, it's cost, etc. are of supreme importance. The actual taste, texture, smell, appearance at the time of eating are almost an afterthought. This is the reverse of the thought process that a gastronome or a gourmet would engage in. For them, where the food is from, how it is made, etc. are only means to an end. And, as for the legitimacy of that end, well, the proof is in the eating. Only a foodie would consider "the hippest cheese in New York" an unqualified endorsement. For the gastronome or the gourmet, the thrill isn't in being hip, but in the food itself. If anything, owing to its inceased availability, a gastronome or the gourmet would probably prefer their taste's remain unpopular.
Glenn Reynolds excerpts from this imbecillic Newsweek piece about food and class in America. Frankly, I'll note that the author strikes me as sort of the epitome of the pretentious social climber with more money than good sense or good taste. And frankly I find her opining on the elite superiority of her pretensions tiresome. But it strikes me that Ms. Miller's blatherings speak to the presumptions of our "elite" class. Fist though, let me quote from the opening paragraph of her piece.
For breakfast, I usually have a cappuccino—espresso made in an Alessi pot
and mixed with organic milk, which has been gently heated and hand-fluffed by my
husband. I eat two slices of imported cheese—Dutch Parrano, the label says, “the
hippest cheese in New York” (no joke)—on homemade bread with butter. I am what
you might call a food snob. My nutritionist neighbor drinks a protein shake
while her 5-year-old son eats quinoa porridge sweetened with applesauce and
laced with kale flakes. She is what you might call a health nut. On a recent
morning, my neighbor’s friend Alexandra Ferguson sipped politically correct
Nicaraguan coffee in her comfy kitchen while her two young boys chose from among
an assortment of organic cereals. As we sat, the six chickens Ferguson and her
husband, Dave, keep for eggs in a backyard coop peered indoors from the stoop.
The Fergusons are known as locavores.
Does anyone want care to place a wager that Ms. Miller and her friends wouldn't have a clue if I replaced their espresso with something from Starbucks, their coffee with Maxwell House or their cheese with second rate Edam?
To my thinking, there are, to my thinking, roughly three categories of food afficianados. I'm not talking about someone who enjoys a good meal. That describes a good portion of humanity. I'm talking about people for whom good food is a passion. I'm talking about people who will go out of their way for food.
* Gastronomes - This is probably how I would classify myself. A gastronome is someone whose appreciation of food is a sensual experience. The look, the taste, the texture are the center of the gastronome's attention. The actual "type" of food is not really relevant. They are inclined to evaluate the food as food. They focus on the sensual experience of the food they are eating and whether the food is good for what it is. A gastronome can be as easily impressed with a wonderfully made pizza of Philly cheesesteak as Lobster Thermidore or steak tartare.
* Gourmets - Gourmets share the gastronome's appreciation of food as a sensual experience. However, their focus is more focused on haute cuisine. A gourmet tends to view food appreciaton as a luxury experience and focuses their demands on high end dining experiences. Often a gourmet's appreciation of good food will be more refined than a gastronome's. However, it will also be more narrow. Personally, I like gourmets, but I find their insistance on on haute cuisine a little limiting. A brilliantly prepared meal is no less because it is "comfort food".
* Foodies - I don't like foodies. I consider Ms. Miller and her friends foodies. Foodies are people for whom food is a status symbol. The actual experience of eating a food is secondary to the description of the food. Hence, for a foodie, where the food is from, how it is made, how the food is viewed, it's cost, etc. are of supreme importance. The actual taste, texture, smell, appearance at the time of eating are almost an afterthought. This is the reverse of the thought process that a gastronome or a gourmet would engage in. For them, where the food is from, how it is made, etc. are only means to an end. And, as for the legitimacy of that end, well, the proof is in the eating. Only a foodie would consider "the hippest cheese in New York" an unqualified endorsement. For the gastronome or the gourmet, the thrill isn't in being hip, but in the food itself. If anything, owing to its inceased availability, a gastronome or the gourmet would probably prefer their taste's remain unpopular.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
You Tell'em Penn Jillette
Great story from Penn Jillette on his response to treatment from the TSA. It's pretty clear that the TSA is essentially overpaid rent-a-cops. Their entire operation is designed as an assembly line with jobs broken down to simple repetitive tasks that require little judgement or thought on the part of those doing them. As long as that is the case, the TSA will not accomplish much in the way of preventing terrorism and will accomplish a whole lot in terms of insulting and harassing air passengers.
Great story from Penn Jillette on his response to treatment from the TSA. It's pretty clear that the TSA is essentially overpaid rent-a-cops. Their entire operation is designed as an assembly line with jobs broken down to simple repetitive tasks that require little judgement or thought on the part of those doing them. As long as that is the case, the TSA will not accomplish much in the way of preventing terrorism and will accomplish a whole lot in terms of insulting and harassing air passengers.
