Not to get all DoorFrame on you, but I kinda think that people who show up to airports wearing circuitry should know how it's gonna be interpreted.

Well, that was exactly my point. This is an instance of someone who is not very good at interpreting at how society-at-large views them at all, is my uninformed guess. This is a common feature among Asperger-type personalities, at least from a folk medicine point of view.

The purpose of my post was to voice frustration at the media, rather than at the police reaction. But their reaction should probably be looked into as well. (boingboing is probably the place for that discussion.)

The Globe handled it better. They called it a "bomb scare" which it was, and referenced the fact that she had been charged with having a "hoax device," which she was.

Part of the problem seems to be the sharp decline in the quality of CNN's coverage in the last five or so years.

Yes, that is a much more accurate way to cover it.

New York Anthony told me about this incident and he explained it as a bomb hoax and that it was a piece of performance art, so I guess the media coverage of this has been pretty shitty as it seems she was just an idiot wearing circuitry and didn't realize that it could be viewed as a bomb.

Considering that she's not dead, I am not upset at the police reaction.

Nor was she, it seems, tased for it. Hopefully with due process it will become apparent that her intention was never to scare anyone (I read she had just come from an MIT career fair to pick up her boyfriend at the airport) and that will be that.

I would not call that a police overreaction at all. The response she was trying to provoke would have worked better at MIT's campus rather than an airport, which is in the business of safety. Police have to make judgments about people in baggy clothing, nevermind with wires and circuits strapped to them. Again, a waste of our public resources and a disappointment to me. I agree with my parents on the decline of civilization! :)

"The response she was trying to provoke would have worked better at MIT's campus rather than an airport"

Again, I don't think she was aware of this. Still, it does seem like the police acted reasonably in all of this, although the verdict isn't entirely in yet.

But, as the Rodenator said, the first impression the media gave was that she did this on purpose, as a sort of performance art. That's certainly how I interpreted the headlines, before I started reading deeper.

What are you disappointed in, Annie? That nerds can sometimes be clueless?

No, I'm disappointed and tired of people who just can't think of anyone but themselves. I have no doubt she wasn't trying to harm anyone physically; I'm pretty sure her one goal was to make her boyfriend laugh when she picked him up (which therefore is on purpose). But I just cringe at people with so much privilege and opportunity who can't think of people around them. I get disgusted as I "people watch" lately and see simple opportunities to help someone out go unfulfilled (or just to anticipate someone needing more room to get by). I can't explain it here, it's just loss of social graces and then people like this who go out of their way to make trouble for other people (in any small way). Why can't people simply try to make someone else's day a little better, a little less complicated, a little more positive?

I really doubt she's unable to anticipate that this could have been an issue walking around with a circuit board on her chest and choosing to wear that at the airport. I don't care what her story is. I think anyone above 4th grade knows that. I'm not thinking her behaviour is criminal or anything, and I could frankly care less about the whole issue, I just think it's a sign of the times and the generation.

I think your sentiments about the self-oriented nature of people is more or less correct, and I refer you to this excellent graduation speech by David Foster Wallace on this topic: http://www.marginalia.org/dfw_kenyon_commencement.html

Where I disagree with you, or at least think needs further argument, is that it's "a sign of the times and the generation." My casual reading of history has led me to believe that urban environments have always been socially rude to some extent, depending on the density of the population. I can't help think that people are as selfish as they've always been, but that perhaps technology has given us tools that further enable it. But I find it extremely difficult to make any objective comparisons by putting previous generations on a pedestal, especially when such generations relied so heavily on racism, misogyny, and homophobia to support their existence. Not that those things don't exist now, but the very same technologies that cause problems in our society are also the very same vessels that lead to the solution of others. See, e.g., the effect of television on Indian women: http://www.slate.com/id/2172474/fr/rss/

How can anyone sum this all up and determine whether civilization is "declining" or not?

Declining is how my parents put it and I don't pretend to have such a long range view, but yes, I do think I can compare to other generations and places I've been (outside of North America and Europe). And I don't get the sense that suburban or rural America is any better off (I actually am generally pleased with my community and my daily encounters, which is why I live here and work where I do with mostly immigrants who have more of the values of working hard and thinking of others first). Our generation-ish people have had relative economic prosperity and very little sacrifice, compared to the rest of the world and compared to previous generations. Doing 5ks for breast cancer and buying Livestrong arm bracelets does not cut it for helping others. We are currently at war and we're still thriving. And about 75% of what intelligent people talk about is TV shows. And half of the mainstream role models for young women are pregnant, abusing drugs, and in jail all at the same time. And I realize that this was true before and the media just lets us know more easily.

And I do agree technology increases the quantity and decreases the quality of communication. At the same time I understand the contribution of technology, take full advantage of it, and see my students doing photo exchanges with students in Ghana, etc. I'm just talking about treating everyone like they're having a bad day and you're trying to make it better. I guess I am one of the feminists that wonders at the point of it (and truly values the advances, don't get me wrong), when it means that doors are slammed for everyone. I just don't see why holding the door open for men, women, and children is so difficult. And people of a certain age need to decide it's time to give back, whether that's through art, volunteering, or just holding a door open(my expectations are really actually low); at least not go out of your way to play on fears and add to destruction. I'm all in favour of required service months at age 18 or something (homework help, trash pick-up, mural painting, whatever).

And this is just my opinion. I know that I'm hyper-sensitive to the treatment of others. It's practically a burden. My brother told me that I'm hypersensitive and I told him to treat me like he would his Senegalese host mother. It's improved our relationship greatly.

Two points:

1. People always think things are getting worse. I acknowledge that sometimes they must in fact be getting worse, but it seems to be a fairly universal sentiment.

2. I HATE when people hold the door open for me if I'm not immediately behind them. People hold the door open when you're fifteen feet away and then expect you to hurry up so they don't have to hold the door for so long. Just let it close, I really don't mind opening it again but I DO mind hustling to the door because you decided to do me a favor/obligation. Argh.

Does my lack of hurrying to the held-open door mean that I epitomizing what you're lamenting, or does the person holding the door for me and then being unhappy when I don't hurry epitomize it?

no, #2 that can be annoying. It's really not about holding doors either, it's just an example. Last week I was walking by and these two women with walkers were trying to get in somewhere with a heavy door and no one stopped to help them. It took 3 seconds and they were very pleasant. It's really just the cliché example. It involves picking up something that someone dropped or moving to the side when someone is trying to get by or RSVPing or asking the elderly woman if she needs help with the grocery bag or to reach something on the top shelf, asking a blind person if they'd like an arm to lead them into the metro, asking someone with a map if they need help with directions....I guesss sometimes it's just people lack confidence or trust to approach people. And don't get me wrong, Americans are better than some. But I do see a weakening of these simple gestures.

And if you know me, you know I'm also fairly optimistic. I like people. I just want them to have a good day. Voila.

I believe Andre DeBuss (sp?) used the example of returning the shopping cart and I had a professor in college who used the better example of replacing the toilet paper roll.

Crazymonk, why are you constantly repeating that the jury is still out on the police. Did they not arrest her in a non-violent manner? Do you not think she should have been taken into custody? Are there rumors of the cops using unneeded force?

It'd be nice to hear what happened from the girl's point-of-view. The cops keep on saying that she's lucky that she didn't end up dead -- I'd be curious to know at what point they are trained to shoot to kill in such a situation, especially outside of the security area of the airport.