sheer potentiality

Many motorists view road signs as simply traffic control devices intended to maintain safety and provide information, but in reality, they contain many hidden double and triple meanings, serving to uphold and represent the predominant white-male heteronormative patriarchy. Examples?

This sign is a prototypical example of masculine sexual power. The wedge shape suggests a purpose of splitting or opening (perhaps with a hammer), as a border of red (symbolic of danger) threateningly surrounds a field of white (symbolic of innocent, virginal womanhood, this symbolism itself rife with racial subtext), with the simple, monosyllabic command to “yield” a mere emphasis of the command. Such sexually-charged displays of dominance demand the (male) driver play the part of the woman, yielding obediently to cross traffic just as a woman is expected to yield obediently to her husband/rapist.

Interestingly, there is a feminine counterpart to the yield sign:

Yellow, symbolic of caution but less directly associated with danger than red, draws the viewer’s eye to the iconic car (a known phallic symbol) treacherously traversing an extremely curved path. The sign’s denotation, “slippery when wet”, simply serves as an encouraging double entendre; while supposedly a caution sign, this sign invites the driver to play the part of the man, boldly traversing the slippery curves ahead, the yellow background symbolizing the accused cowardice he would surely be guilty of were he to not proceed. The overall effect is to portray the woman as a “dangerous” thrill ride presenting herself for male enjoyment: the prostitute.In these two signs alone we have two vastly contradictory portrayals of womanhood, both of which emphasize “traditional” gender roles and male dominance. The virgin bride of the “yield” sign is portrayed as innocent, her virtue in danger from, yet ultimately submitting to, the dominant male. The whore of the “slippery when wet” sign is beckoning and inviting, dangerous, infinitely more interesting but ultimately submissive as well.

The political subtext behind this sign is obvious.

I was reflecting recently on the insurgent, internet-driven candidacy of Ron Paul and I realized something incredible just now.Ron Paul is the libertarian Jesus.Now, I don’t necessarily mean that he’s the savior of libertarians, or that if we repent to him our sins of statism and fiat currency he will bring us political and economic salvation. I’m not too hip on the gold standard anyway, but I think he represents a positive step forward for the popularity of libertarian thinking, particularly in leftist circles. I’ve always thought libertarians wasted too much time coalitioning with the crony capitalist Bible-thumpers of the right and not enough time coalitioning with our fellow non-interventionist civil libertarians on the left. Sure, they’ve got that socialist thinking going on, but even leftists will agree that real capitalism beats crony capitalism any day. And yes, this makes it even stranger that Ron Paul is a Republican, but when I see people like this compare Ron Paul to Kucinich or Gravel, I really wonder.But think about it. Jesus ministered to the prostitutes and tax collectors; Ron Paul ministers to the gold bugs, conspiracy nuts, marijuana advocates, and disaffected leftist hippies. And, just like Jesus, Ron Paul has a very enthusiastic group of folks who really like his message and want to tell everyone about it. And if you ever say a bad word about either of them, then their supporters are coming to your blog.

Interesting piece on a New York Times blog arguing for the TSA to handle inspection of cargo placed on passenger planes, instead of letting the airlines do it themselves under TSA supervision. The basic argument?

The Transportation Security Administration largely relies on the airlines to do any screening that is done. But we all should know now from the painful experience of 9/11 that, left to their devices, airlines put profit and speed ahead of security on their list of priorities. 

I tried posting a comment (it’s in their moderation queue as of now but should be posted), but thought I’d share my thoughts here as well. Comment is below:As far as I’ve been able to tell, the TSA itself tends to put inconvenience and the public illusion of security ahead of security itself on its list of priorities.If you investigate the value of United and American Airlines stock before and after 9/11, or Pan Am stock before and after the Lockerbie attack, you will discover a greedy, shallow—but effective incentive for private airlines to secure themselves.What we should know from the painful experience of 9/11 is that airlines, hamstrung by FAA regulations and forced to allow boxcutter knives to be carried on board with no provision of protecting the cockpit from a potential hijacking, lost four crews and hundreds of passengers. They couldn’t have a barricaded cockpit door, because that would violate FAA regulations. They couldn’t have security personnel on board, because that would violate FAA regulations. They couldn’t buy aircraft with cockpits physically inaccessible from the passenger compartment, because FAA regulations prevented any such airplane from being designed and sold. They were required, by FAA regulations, to immediately surrender control of the aircraft to hijackers under a doctrine of “passive compliance”.And after being hamstrung, set up, and forced to allow their property to be turned into missiles targeted at the World Trade Center and Pentagon, it was the airlines, not the FAA, who were blamed for letting it happen.But it’s the flying public who are put through a facade of security by the TSA, and the taxpayers who have to foot the bill.Nonetheless, I can’t see the airlines complaining about the TSA taking over cargo screening, just as they didn’t complain about the TSA taking over passenger screening. Perhaps in a different world we would ask for corporate responsibility—and allow it to happen. In this world, we stand in the way of corporate responsibility, and when the inevitable consequences happen, we let the government do the company’s work (poorly), saving the company money and ultimately leaving no one accountable for getting the job done.