I should probably be relaxing today, and I assure you I am, but I wanted to direct you to this AP article. Basically, the Associated Press has decided to analyze security at sporting events, specifically college sporting events. Near as I can tell, the article serves three purposes. Here they are, from least to most irritating:

1. To make us feel like security experts.

Now, if you're like me, and you aren't paranoid about anything besides the possibility of robots taking over or zombies, those paragraphs went in one ear and out the other (or the reading equivalent thereof). However, there's a pretty big group of people that worry about all sorts of things, or just want to be considered experts on all topics, and they are now going to go around evaluating and discussion security measures at every arena and stadium they enter. "Well, they don't have a SWAT team taking tickets," they will say, "this is a soft target." They will not be privy to the full set of security precautions at the stadium, but they'll make suggestions about how they could make things more secure. Fortunately, this article was released on Christmas Day, when people often have better things to do with their time than read essentially pointless AP articles.

2. To advertise the University of Southern Mississippi's Center for Spectator Sports Security Management.

I assume that the Southern Miss CSSSM didn't say, "We'll help you with this article, so long as you run our spiel for our program," but it would go a long way toward explaining the above two paragraphs. There's no news and no especially important information in the above paragraphs; there's no good reason to include them. Unless, of course, you're trying to convince readers that the topic of your article is important and worthwhile. In that case, you need to convince your reader that your source, your authority of choice, is legit. And I'm not saying that they need to do that because the real point of this article was to make us afraid of something we shouldn't be afraid of, but. . . .

3. To make us afraid of something we shouldn't be afraid of.

Okay, yeah, terrorism is a real threat. I'm going down to New Orleans for the national championship game (oh yes; no tickets, but I won't let that stop me. More on this later), and it's possible that I will be blown off the face of the earth. Of course, that could happen if I go into work, to the mall, to the park, or just stay home. Even if I don't get exploded, I could get hit by a car, I could fall and break my neck, I could contract the Ebola virus, I could be attacked by ninjas. There are so many threats to your life out in the world that you'll go crazy if you worry about them all. I resent attempts by the media to drum up readers and viewers by using fear. This is just a version of your local news channel's "There are five things in your kitchen right now that could kill everyone you love. Find out what they are, tonight at 11." This article doesn't change anything, doesn't offer anything new. Before reading this, you knew terrorism was a possibility and that you should keep your eyes open for anything suspicious. After reading it, you still know that terrorism is a possibility, and that you should still keep your eyes open for anything suspicious. Except now a certain set of the article's readers is more afraid than they should be. I mean, of course terrorism is a threat to be aware of. But the only reason to bring it up here, like this, without really anything in the way of new information, is because it's a slow newsday over the holiday, they have nothing else to write about, but they still want readers.

On the plus side, though, the story was posted over the holiday, which means it won't be too widely read. In fact, if I were smarter, I'd just ignore it and let it go away. But who ever said I was smart?