Over at the incomparable TalkLeft, host Jeralyn Merritt describes a startling ending to her recent flight to NYC, where the plane was ostensibly boarded by police and a federal agent in order to remove a 20ish male passenger. Now, not knowing the details of the young man's alleged infraction, I won't comment as to the detainment itself; however, I do wonder about the overtly public manner of the action, even whether the dozens of curious concerned eyes of the passengers were left in place as a target audience.
This kind of analysis never would have entered my mind before our three-day stay in DC on the tail end of our East Coast roadtrip. Two of the days we took the kids to the Smithsonian museums on the Mall, the third day we headed to the National Zoo. At both the Museum of American History and the Air and Space Museum, we were subjected to security searches, metal detectors, x-ray machines and rude staff included, not seen outside most major airports. Security at the Museum of Natural History was much more non-chalant, and there were no checkpoints at all at the National Zoo. Does this mean that the exhibits which push patriotic propaganda to the limit are somehow more deserving of protection than Chinese-born pandas, ancient dinosaur bones or one-of-a-kind birchbark canoes? Obviously, the safety of tourists are not of real concern, as the Dinosaur Hall was packed more tightly than any exhibit at either American History or Air & Space. But the, for lack of a better term, "mood", which exuded from the latter two institutions seemed to provide an apt forum for those in power to maintain a culture of fear; my partner quipped that TSA now stands for "Terror Sustains the Administration". Visitors to particular Washington sites are pulled from their bubble of safety to be brutally reminded of the immediacy of the "War on Terror", and shown first hand that George Bush is taking their safety seriously.
Never mind that a backpack bomb could inflict as much harm in the checkout area of a Safeway after work as it could in the lobby of any Smithsonian building. Or that by artificially herding crowds at museum entry points, "security" is creating an even more vulnerable target. And what of possible real threats to "Homeland Security"? Last I checked, terrorists used large airplanes loaded to the gills with jet fuel as missiles, and yet this Administration has proposed pulling air marshals off of cross-country flights, in order to save money. In the meantime, millions of containers enter American ports unchecked, and I noticed no overt security measures taken at the various major bridges and tunnels we utilized. The now cynical part of me believes that the Administration just doesn't get the same "mileage" out of hiring more container inspectors as it does out of frisking toddlers and their parents at the Smithsonian. Or dragging bedraggled young men through filled passenger cabins of large airliners.
Yup, Terror Sustains the Administration. Or so they hope.
Posted by MB Williams at September 3, 2003 01:43 PM | TrackBackDoes this mean that the exhibits which push patriotic propaganda to the limit are somehow more deserving of protection than Chinese-born pandas, ancient dinosaur bones or one-of-a-kind birchbark canoes?
Well, the thinking might go that the exhibits which push patriotic propaganda are possibly more tempting targets for terrorists than Chinese-born pandas, etc.
Posted by: Elayne Riggs at September 3, 2003 04:57 PMWithout wishing to give offense ...
A hanger full of unique, but ultimately reproducible aviation artifacts or a tilt-up full of ephemora-filled social history dioramas are not of themselves "targets".
The demographic that self-selects the Zoo is a target -- ecological and scientific organizations do targeted marketing to this demographic, both at the Zoo and via paid ads, mailings, etc.
The demographic that self-selects icons of nationalism is a target -- nationalist and/or jingoist organizations do targeted marketing to this demographic, and Capital Police are executing a marketing plan.
Having once used an Emajunga stroller to move something heavier than an infant, the best "target" I observed was the control point at the primary entrance to Air and Space -- where in excess of 100 persons were queued within 50 feet of a possible detonation point.
I don't think checking for pocket knives and so forth survives rational scrutiny, and the control points to (hypothetically) protect building interiors and their human and material contents from backpack bombs simply create better human targets at the defense perimeter. Allow (hypothetically) the Bad Guys and Gals (BGG) to kill 20 people and the Apollo 11 capsule and force a week-or-month-long building closure, or force the BGG to kill 100 people and mess up some vegitation and force a minor repainting of some exterior facade. This is the rational "military" choice I see.
The better analysis I think is that the Capital Police at the Air and Space, and American History Smithsonian venues, and the TSA at US airports, are executing a marketing plan, engaging in hands-on retail politics, for the benefit of the incumbent administration, and only incidently contributing to, and also detracting from, actual or probable security.
I think I witnessed a violation of the Hatch Act, and I'm going to file a complaint alleging just that.
Posted by: The SO at September 4, 2003 10:54 AM