Friday, September 21, 2007

Star Simpson



Someone had to take that other Simpson off our TVs. From Radar Online:

Star Simpson, the 19-year-old MIT student arrested at gunpoint in Boston's Logan International Airport today for wearing a fake explosive device with wires and Play-Doh, describes herself on her MIT Web page as "an inventor, artist, engineer, and student, I love to build things and I love crazy ideas."


The first thing I thought when I heard the story was: Nobody in Israel - or Baghdad - would be the least bit surprised to hear about someone wearing a bomb. Just another day. But this country, or large portions of it, is going to go apoplectic over this. Art? Art? You call that art?!!

Good thing she wasn't dressed as Jesus when she did it.

Look, she's a swimmer.



Digg!

8 comments:

rebecca said...

WIll Star be doing her own "How To Get Your Hair Really, Really, Really Fug For When You're Photographed" or "How To Make Crap Art And Become An Attention Whore in 5 Steps Or Less" or "Using Faux Terrorist Tactics To Go Incognito As An Ersatz Hetero On Special Occasions"?

Seriously, let's go gangbusters on this...

i think star's true crime is that FUG head of hair and super-fug "fashion statement".


oh, and the crap "art".

Anonymous said...

What bomb? There was no bomb, real or fake. The State Police knew this when they arrested Star Simpson.

In a sane world, the cops would have sent her away with a warning just as soon as they figured out her blinkie device was harmless. Sounds to me like this Major Pare guy is a publicity whore.

Joseph Dunphy said...

In a sane world, Pare's career would be over. Forgiveness is appropriate in moral grey areas or when those greatly tested have moments of weakness. Neither is the case in this incident. Pare brought shame to his force through his actions, and America has brought shame upon itself in its response.

The usual excuse I see for the bizarre conclusion that this was a bomb makes reference to the infamous remote controlled bombs used in Iraq, this excuse being offered by people who stubbornly refuse to notice the absence of a cell phone or anything else that looks even remotely like a receiver in Simpson's get-up. But most absurd of all has been the popularity of the argument that she should have known better than to walk into the airport wearing something that looked like a bomb, glossing over the fact that what she was wearing didn't look like a bomb. It didn't even look like the movie version of a bomb.

In essence, Simpson is being pilloried across the nation for failing to be psychic. One can sometimes anticipate reasonable responses, but the insane ones, like this one, are anybody's guess. She is being faulted for her failure to refrain from the commission of an offense that existed nowhere outside of the minds of those who endangered her life and deprived her of her freedom without reason - and that is the real issue.

Reckless endangerment. Note this choice phrase from the news story we've all seen:

"The trooper, joined by others with submachine guns, confronted her at a traffic island in front of the terminal."


What kind of idiot would bring a machine gun, an inherently sloppy weapon that no human being can hold steady enough to allow for straight shooting, into a crowded airport, and pull it out when the "threat" consisted of one understandably perplexed college girl? These cops were cowboys, jerks looking for an adventure, and they grabbed onto the first feeble excuse they could find to have one. They trained their weapons on an unarmed civilian in response to a fashion choice, and by their own account, hoped for the best, ready to kill somebody because she was wearing a blinking piece of homemade jewelry.

9-11 was six years ago, it was two buildings, and to be blunt I am tired of seeing insane or fascistic behavior excused on the basis that said event "changed everything"; ie. "you can't expect us to act like rational, civilized human beings in this country, because we can't cope with the memory of what happened". After six years, the proper response to an argument like that isn't patience and understanding, it's medication.

Pare should be the first recipient, just as soon as his careworker gets him on Medicaid.

Anonymous said...

Joseph

Your take breaks down at one point:

The usual excuse I see for the bizarre conclusion that this was a bomb makes reference to the infamous remote controlled bombs used in Iraq, this excuse being offered by people who stubbornly refuse to notice the absence of a cell phone or anything else that looks even remotely like a receiver in Simpson's get-up.

First - there is no one "look" that bombs have. Second, and much more obviously, why couldn't a cell phone or some sort of receiver device been hidden under her clothing? Right under the device?

I agree about over-reaction, but this isn't all on the cops, in my opinion.

Joseph Dunphy said...

"why couldn't a cell phone or some sort of receiver device been hidden under her clothing? Right under the device?"

And, for that matter, how do we know that she didn't have an invisible evil pixie hiding on her shoulder, carting along some invisible weightless plutonium with which Mr.Simpson would build an invisible nuclear device and take out Boston? Occam's razor, "Anonymous", and how interesting that you've kept your identity hidden - there was no reason to think that she did, and the acceptance of the kind of argument that you just put forth is a pretty good operational definition of the word "paranoia"; treating the absence of proof of the absence of the worst as a valid reason to assume the worst. If we accepted your logic, such as it is, then we would be forced to accept the idea of the police tackling scofflaws for bringing bottled water into public places, because how would we know that they wouldn't have bars of sodium hidden in packets under their clothes, ready to be placed into a small explosive device; likewise with those sniffly outlaws who carried around bottles of allergy medicine which for all we know could be laced with poison and about to be put on the next store shelf that somebody passes, or ... you name it. Under those standards, anybody could be stopped and arrested, because anything can be put to ill use if combined with some other thing that maybe somebody has hidden.


"First - there is no one "look" that bombs have."

Second, this isn't Vogue, and we're not talking fashion. We're talking technology, and while it is true that there is more than one design for a bomb, that doesn't change the fact that there are some things that clearly can't be bombs. Again, let's apply your logic elsewhere and see where it leads us. There is no "one look" for a working motor vehicle. Motorcycles, recreational vehicles and parade floats all certainly look very different from the outside. Therefore, by your logic, one had better be darned careful about standing in front of a park bench, because who knows when it might start moving and run one over.


"I agree about over-reaction, but this isn't all on the cops, in my opinion."


And speaking as somebody who has actually been to graduate school in Electrical Engineering and thus qualified to speak on this subject with some measure of expertise, I'm telling you that's a remarkably stupid opinion. I'm not really surprised that you kept your identity hidden.

Little Thom said...

Here's where that "I'm not really surprised that you kept your identity hidden" thing dies a lonely death: that was from me - the dude who runs this blog. I was very busy and wanted to comment quickly, so I didn't sign in.

Joseph - I'm willing to be schooled and convinced regarding shortcomings in my outlook, but not by assholes. Just say what you want to say. I'll listen and consider. The problem with what you wrote, IMHO, remains a problem. If what can't be seen doesn't matter (pixies? brilliant) then why mention what couldn't be seen? That's just dense. If you want to argue that the tinkertoy she was wearing should never have been considered a threat, well, I can't argue a whole lot against it except by way of human propensity to exaggerate danger. If you want to argue that such propensity shouldn't exist, then do that. But you'd be silly to argue that it doesn't. It obviously does. Maybe especially among cops, and maybe especially by cops at airports, and maybe especially especially by cops at Logan International Airport. if you disagree - fine. I'd rather be wrong about that one.

Joseph Dunphy said...

So in other words, all police reactions are reasonable by definition and the facts don't matter.

"If what can't be seen doesn't matter (pixies? brilliant) then why mention what couldn't be seen?"

When all else fails, you can always go for vagueness? What I'm telling you is that you don't get to just creatively visualize the evidence you want and claim probable cause on that basis; on those terms, any paranoid flight of fancy could be defended, and in this case was.

It's a simple concept, and if you have trouble understanding it, that's only because you've chosen to have trouble understanding it. I am not going to apologize to you for having pointed the grand canyon sized gaps in your logic or for having dared to call nonsense nonsense, and if you have a problem with that, then you have a lot of growing up to do.

Being neither friend nor family to you, I have absolutely no interest in taking the time to help you do so. Have a nice day.

Anonymous said...

Ha. Hilarious. I can't remember the invitation I sent you, neither family nor friend guy.

Bye.