Mr. Smith has been writing sensibly about security theater for a long time. Shortly after 9/11 the RAND corporation, an organization not known for its liberal bias, came to the same conclusion as Mr. Smith. The report and an article in The Atlantic said that the most useful defense against pointy things was the airlines' blanket and a staff trained to toss it over the head of someone trying to commandeer a plane. The report also demonstrated the several reasons why liquid explosives are largely mythological threats to airport safety.

Our ignorance is willful. It is obvious that the current procedures do next to nothing. It is also obvious that we have placed a great many stupid people in positions of undue influence. Whether those people are sitting in Congress or checking our boarding passes, they have the power to do damage.

Power is addictive. TV pundits scare large numbers of people into believing falsehoods and are rewarded handsomely for bringing those frightened people to advertisers. TSA workers can, with no evidence, declare a traveler a terrorist, then be praised for vigilance. As long as we reward incompetence, that's what we'll get.

Salon can have Ann Bauer write openly and honestly about her autistic and violent son, but Myerson can't write about her addicted son?

Openly and honestly are the key words. A parent's blog that barely hides her children's identity is unfair and unethical on many levels. Myerson's blog in particular, was rather petty and shallow. Had she written a blog with more general, expansive purpose rather than a gossipy thing that was about details, not what they imply, then she would have a greater standing from which to announce her earnest intentions with the memoir.

Anne Lamott wrote about her son, Sam, when he was too young to understand what was happening, but the parents of Sam's friends understood completely. That too, was unfair, but Lamott did her book with some grace and has shown some contrition for parts that embarrassed her child. But then, Sam wasn't a drug addict in what might have been a violent household. Also, Lamott universalized her experience so that it wasn't an ego trip.

We need stories about the reality of childrearing, especially ones about having to cope with difficulties. We don't need exploitative memoirs. Myerson defense of her book, that it's her perspective, rings hollow. It's a memoir, so we know it's her perspective, what we need to know is how that perspective affects the story.

It's hard to know the truth of the story and, if Myerson's book doesn't leave the reader aware of what she can't see as well as what she can, then it fails.

Richard Reed, the poster boy provided for why we take off our shoes, was obviously crazy and should never have been allowed past the security gates. Photos of him - now impossible to find - show a disheveled, dirty, wild man, raving at personnel, wearing shoes with long strings hanging out the back. He had cut off his heels and filled them with toothpaste. No metal objects or liquids, so the TSA let him pass through to the boarding area.

Not only did he get past the security check, he wasn't even approached by security when he began screaming that he was going to blow up a plane. He was taken into custody only after he threw a tantrum.

Now we have in place a group of petty nazis who know they have power and the freedom to choose whether to be kind or, at a moment's notice, abuse their power. I've been threatened myself, when I defended a young mother's right to carry on baby food. The TSA agent intentionally broke the bottles of baby food, knowing full well there were no stores past the entry gate, no way to get food for a baby. I looked for a supervisor and followed up by contacting my Congressperson and the TSA, but nothing came of it.

If our government officials can't stand up against torture, require clear accounting from the banks they give money to or design good public health care, then genuine security procedures are far outside their abilities.

Because there's a difference between writing to be read and writing in a journal. There is such a thing as good writing just as there are such things as good design, good craftsmanship, good food. These all have basic principles that state a starting point and define a function. If one builds a chair without a seat, it may be an interesting art piece, but it's a bad chair.

Judgment is not a terrible thing; it's a helpful thing. We judge when to cross the street, regardless of the color of the lights, when to throw out the chicken in the 'fridge, when to let the kids stay at another family's house. Judgment is supposed to be a way into a situation or a work, not an exclusionary exercise.

The distinction must be made between judging the work and judging the person. Although some people are simply bad writers, people who cannot discern how language works, the description of this friend is of one who has talent, but not discipline. Constructive criticism is an analysis of the work, not of the writer. Talent requires discipline, the discipline of listening to someone who is pointing to the writing, to the work and saying why it doesn't reach the reader, what hinders the connection between reading and writing.

This is completely separate from taste. A good editor might not like a genre, but can still see how writing works or where it fails on it's own terms. If writing doesn't connect to the reader, then it's failed, maybe for that one reader, but possibly for all readers. One can put out a well written, non literary book, one that sticks to conventions, or a literary sort that requires the reader to approach with a more critical mindset. Either way, the reader has to have a way in. That's what form provides: a way in.