Did Boston Overreact?

[Pangloss]

The Wikipedia has a huge write-up on this that appears to cover the basic points, so let me link that here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Boston_Security_Scare

 

The short version is that the Cartoon Network runs a program and some guerilla marketing was employed to promote it in 10 US cities. The marketing basically consisted of small flashing objects in the shape of the characters in the cartoon show, which were then placed on various buildings and other structures (bridges, for example) around town. Apparently nothing happened for several weeks, but then suddenly someone in Boston hit the panic button and all heck broke loose, with millions being spent on bomb squads and removal. It was a major story on the cable channels that afternoon. (Interestingly enough, CNN is owned by the same parent company as the Cartoon Network.)

 

What I think is interesting about this is that it's being reported one way in the television media (as a serious error in judgement), but on the Internet it is being reported as an overreaction by Boston authorities. Are the TV journalists just slow to pick up on the fact that the boxes went unreported for three weeks, and that nobody in other cities reacted this way?

 

Mind, I did see both of those facts reported on TV, but the whole emphasis of the TV stories I saw was on the hoaxers being wrong, and on the web site stories I've seen it's completely the other way around.

 

I can't help but think the media is a bit confused on this one.

[JesuBungle]

Yes, Boston did over react. I love ATHF. The thing they should be angry about, the Mooninites flipping the bird, was overlooked. I say charge them with graffiti and some kind of charge for an obscene gesture(at most).

[bascule]

(Like my new avatar? )

 

It was awesome seeing Ignignokt's visage on CNN, flipping off the entire country, and having them report on it with absolutely no idea what the image was or what it represented. A symbol which is instantly recognizable to a particular subculture confused and dumbfounded the public, DHS, and the media. At one point I saw a DHS spokesperson saying the devices were "probably" a bomb, after admitting he had not yet seen one himself.

 

Had I not been a fan of ATHF (in the past, can't say I've really watched it lately) and the Mooninites in particular, my take on the story may be different.

 

I've seen an awful lot of reporting about how this event was a "hoax" (ostensibly a bomb hoax). However, I don't think any connection between "cardboard covered with LEDs, D-cell batteries, and wires" and "bomb" was ever made by those who perpetrated the event. The connection was made by the media and DHS, and even after the gross stupidity of both agencies was revealed the word "hoax" was still used to describe the event (possibly because the media were too stubborn to admit their bumbling incompetence). Publicity stunt, yes. Hoax? Only if you fooled yourself.

 

I greatly enjoyed the reaction of the marketing team involved in the stunt during their press conference following their initial court date. They realized the whole event was a bumbling media farce and responded to the media in kind. It was brilliant.

 

If this event proves anything, it's that the terrorists have won: The public is terrified. I've heard several people trying to justify the three quarters of a million dollar reaction to the event as how we should be behaving status post-9/11, ignoring the fact that the devices no more resembled a bomb than, say, a neon sign or LED marquee. Were someone to call in a bomb threat on a neon sign, we'd call them a nut. When they call it in on a piece of cardboard with LEDs and D-cells attached, we call it a necessary part of the post-9/11 mentality.

 

I'm not alone in this assertion. Here's how local law enforcement responded to them in Seattle:

 

http://www.eatenbygod.net/Mooninites.jpg

 

"To us they're so obviously not suspicious," said King County sheriff's spokesman John Urquhart. "They're not suspicious devices or packages. We don't consider them dangerous."

[ParanoiA]

Dittos bascule. I love the press conference on hair styles - that was awesome.

 

I refuse to accept the charge that these individuals should be punished for other people's interpretation of an event. I realize they thought it was a bomb, but it wasn't - so laugh it off and chaulk it up as a lesson learned. I just about fell out of my seat with laughter when I read the DA actually said something to the effect that they were "clearly intended to be a bomb scare hoax". That's even more stupid than detonating these supposed "bombs".

 

Boston is making fools out of themselves and I say let them. I hope these two fellows continue making a mockery out of their stupidity and refusal to accept they made an honest mistake.

 

What law has been violated anyway? There something in the books about distributing blinking light thingy's around town? I wonder how the neon ridden downtown infestation of lights and signs doesn't qualify as the same.

 

Contrary to modern social norms, somebody doesn't always have to be punished when these things happen. Sometimes we just overreact, we live, we learn, we laugh about it and we move on...or maybe I just wish we did.

[bascule]

What law has been violated anyway?

 

There's a state law against making a hoax device designed to instill panic.

 

Which is probably the reason why both government officials and media continue to refer to the devices as a "hoax". It's from the wording of the law.

 

The government failed to exercise common sense to the tune of $750,000, and now they want someone to pay for their stupidity.

[ecoli]

I love ATHF... this is probably the funniest story of the year

[Mokele]

I actually heard of something similar about a year ago. Some very geeky people made Super Mario style blocks (some with coins popping out, etc) and put them up around town. The city called the bomb squad.

 

The people responsible were absolved of all charges, fortunately, but it was touchy for a while.

 

Mokele

[Sisyphus]

The press conference was the funniest part.

 

Actually, the funniest part is that out of the entire hierarchy of whoever had to be involved in shutting down an entire city, nobody had any clue what either ATHF was or a litebrite was.

 

Actually, maybe the funniest part was that the things were all over the city for three whole weeks, then all of sudden there's a mass panic.

 

Actually, maybe the funniest part was all the ridiculous quotes from city officials who can't admite they made asses of themselves, like, "I can't imagine a more unconscionable act." WTF?

 

Actually, maybe the funniest part was the AP photo of bomb squad guy holding, on the end of a pole, what is obviously a well known childrens toy from the 80s depicting a mooninite flipping him off.

[ParanoiA]

The press conference was the funniest part.

 

Actually, the funniest part is that out of the entire hierarchy of whoever had to be involved in shutting down an entire city, nobody had any clue what either ATHF was or a litebrite was.

 

Actually, maybe the funniest part was that the things were all over the city for three whole weeks, then all of sudden there's a mass panic.

 

Actually, maybe the funniest part was all the ridiculous quotes from city officials who can't admite they made asses of themselves, like, "I can't imagine a more unconscionable act." WTF?

 

Actually, maybe the funniest part was the AP photo of bomb squad guy holding, on the end of a pole, what is obviously a well known childrens toy from the 80s depicting a mooninite flipping him off.

 

yeah...I can't figure out which part is the funniest either...

[KLB]

If this event proves anything, it's that the terrorists have won: The public is terrified.

I completely agree and to add my own political comment to this, the terrorists have won in no small part because of a certain "leader" who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and his side kick who spends most of his time at an undisclosed location.

 

Some how, our nation has forgotten FDR's words at his first inaugural address: "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."

 

Let's get over this paranoia folks and start living life. I'm not going to hide in a cave for the rest of my life out of fear of getting blown up. Heck, the way I look at it I'm like 1,000 times more likely to get killed by a drunk driver than to become a victim of terrorism. Actually in any place but Iraq and Afghanistan one is probably WAY more likely to get killed by a drunk/bad driver than killed by a terrorist act.

[ParanoiA]

I completely agree and to add my own political comment to this, the terrorists have won in no small part because of a certain "leader" who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and his side kick who spends most of his time at an undisclosed location.

 

How do you figure that? The terrorists have won because Bush launched war on two countries - one of which was their home away from home, now virtually irradicated? I can understand disagreement on the war...but how have the terrorists won anything? And what did they really win?

 

Ok, so the american sheeple buy into all the media hype and keep track of the terror color of the day...big deal. It's not causing any problems for them. They still eat. Sleep. Go to work. Go to school. The economy perks right along. We still have reality TV... So what's the issue?

 

If they've won anything, they won over our conscious thought. Now we think about them, whereas we used to care less. It's not doing us any damn good, because everybody thinks they're an expert after watching some pointy headed geeks on CNN with "Expert" plastered under their bobble head, tell them what to think.

 

The blanket Bush bashing without logical arguments to support it is really getting annoying. I have no love for the man. But the things I don't like about him, I can support with logic and reason. Not because it's trendy...

[KLB]

The blanket Bush bashing without logical arguments to support it is really getting annoying. I have no love for the man. But the things I don't like about him, I can support with logic and reason. Not because it's trendy...

 

Who has pushed forth the Patriot Act? Who pushes forward the no fly lists? Who approved secret spying on Americans on American soil? Who resisted due process or court approval of said secret spying? Who keeps telling us that terrorists are an imminent threat to our security? Who keeps pushing for laws that erode our civil liberties?

 

The illogical fear of terrorism is a bigger threat to our country than the terrorism itself. Ever since 9-11 the threat of terrorism has been a center piece of Bush's policies. We are running in circles chasing phantom threats and innocent people are having their lives disrupted because the end up on secret no fly lists (that they can't get off of) and other similar encroachments on their civil liberties.

 

This President has help breed a climate where questioning his actions is unpatriotic as is questioning the war on terrorism. We have now been at war in Iraq for longer than we were in WWII. The key terrorist leaders are still at large, we have a completely destabilized situation in Iraq. People are so panic stricken that a stupid marketing stunt consisting of cardboard LEDs and batteries caused a massive overreaction and crippling of a major U.S. city for a day.

 

The President has the ability to lead the emotions and mind set of this nation and he has used the threat of terrorism to push forward his agenda. If instead of making everyone suspicious of everything and convincing this nation that everything is a potential terrorist threat, he calmed fears and presented a calming, reasoned and reassuring voice people wouldn't be so panic stricken that they overreact to really stupid stuff.

 

If we put even a fraction of the energy into preventing traffic fatalities caused by drunk drivers as we do into fighting terrorism here in the U.S. we would have saved thousands of more lives each year than we do fighting this "war on terror".

 

Follow the money, who is benefiting financially from this war on terror?

[Pangloss]

I didn't really take from KLB's post that he blames Bush for everything. But Paranoia has a point as well. There's room for criticism in a number of directions. Do you want to rant about Bush, or do you want to talk about overreactions to 911? These are two different subjects.

[john5746]

Follow the money, who is benefiting financially from this war on terror?

 

Follow the money, who is benefiting financially from heart disease?

Follow the money, who is benefiting financially from cancer?

Follow the money, who is benefiting financially from the internet?

 

I too am getting tired of this. I disagree with Bush and the start of the Iraq war, but I believe he actually thinks he is doing the right thing for the right reasons.

 

As for this bomb threat. Going forward, should this kind of thing be allowed? I don't know anything about bombs, etc., but I figure the less guessing people have to do the better. I would feel safer in Boston than Seattle right now.

 

They shouldn't be charged, other than possible loitering, but going forward this kind of thing should require some permission from the city, IMO

[ParanoiA]

Who has pushed forth the Patriot Act? Who pushes forward the no fly lists? Who approved secret spying on Americans on American soil? Who resisted due process or court approval of said secret spying? Who keeps telling us that terrorists are an imminent threat to our security? Who keeps pushing for laws that erode our civil liberties?

 

None of this is a win for terrorists. We may have lost something as well, but they don't "gain" from domestic spying. They don't gain from eroding civil liberties that sleeper cells rely on either.

 

And some would certainly take issue with your list. Many like legislated domestic spying. Many like secret spying (like myself). Many enjoy giving up their civil liberties. Not a lot of people like capitalism and freedom. They say they do. But then we have law books with millions of pages of "exceptions" and a tax code that punishes success.

 

The illogical fear of terrorism is a bigger threat to our country than the terrorism itself.

 

Have you been living under a rock the past 30 years? It's actually quite logical. What isn't logical is pretending like it's not logical. I actually agree with your personal attitude and approach to this as it pertains to your life, but to think terrorism is an illogical fear is ridiculous.

 

But blaming Bush for it is even more ridiculous.

 

This President has help breed a climate where questioning his actions is unpatriotic as is questioning the war on terrorism. We have now been at war in Iraq for longer than we were in WWII. The key terrorist leaders are still at large, we have a completely destabilized situation in Iraq. People are so panic stricken that a stupid marketing stunt consisting of cardboard LEDs and batteries caused a massive overreaction and crippling of a major U.S. city for a day.

 

This president has done no such thing. Conservative talk show guys, Fox News, Orielly - the conservative media has done that. Bush doesn't actually answer or debate much on the subject. We get sound bites out of him every 6 months that sound pretty much the same as the previous sound bites.

 

Yes we've been at war in Iraq for longer than wwII...and we've lost about 1/146th of the soldiers. We lost 292,000 in WWII. Sounds like we're doing pretty good to me. Maybe length is the answer huh? Looks like we've traded casualties for duration - that's a good trade, I'd say. But Bush can't take the credit anymore than he should take the blame - this is a military thing.

 

People are so panic stricken that a stupid marketing stunt consisting of cardboard LEDs and batteries caused a massive overreaction and crippling of a major U.S. city for a day.

 

Bush didn't do this either. The media did. All of them - conservative and liberal, local and national. The news is a business. The more dramatic, the more ratings - the more you use them and need them. They've been doing this for decades. Ever wonder why they almost seem to enjoy catastrophe's? They saw money bags when the trade centers went down, and they're still making money off of terrorism.

 

The President has the ability to lead the emotions and mind set of this nation and he has used the threat of terrorism to push forward his agenda. If instead of making everyone suspicious of everything and convincing this nation that everything is a potential terrorist threat, he calmed fears and presented a calming, reasoned and reassuring voice people wouldn't be so panic stricken that they overreact to really stupid stuff.

 

Now, here I agree with you for the most part. I wouldn't think that one incident in Boston out of 6 years of post 9/11 atmosphere should constitute rampant fears and panic, but there's no question Bush used terrorism to go forward in Iraq. The question is...did he believe in what he was doing or did he just herd the american sheeple. Personally, I believe he thinks what he is doing is right.

 

If we put even a fraction of the energy into preventing traffic fatalities caused by drunk drivers as we do into fighting terrorism here in the U.S. we would have saved thousands of more lives each year than we do fighting this "war on terror".

 

If we put even a fraction amout of the energy into fighting violent crime as we do demonizing the adminstration, we wouldn't have US cities with more homocides in a month than the entire country of Iraq.

 

Follow the money, who is benefiting financially from this war on terror?

 

ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox News, Radio Commentators....

 

Or were you really going to suggest that Bush wants to make Haliburton rich?

[ParanoiA]

As for this bomb threat. Going forward, should this kind of thing be allowed? I don't know anything about bombs, etc., but I figure the less guessing people have to do the better. I would feel safer in Boston than Seattle right now.

 

I don't know. I think it's clear the intent was to advertise, trying to do something different and wity. We do encourage that sort of thing here, as consumers. At the same time though, I'm not sure it's smart to allow everybody and their brother to do this kind of thing. Later it would become a terrorist tool.

 

So, maybe we call it littering and make them pay the fine?

 

I certainly see no reason to put anyone in jail or continue making asses of themselves...

[KLB]

I didn't really take from KLB's post that he blames Bush for everything. But Paranoia has a point as well. There's room for criticism in a number of directions. Do you want to rant about Bush, or do you want to talk about overreactions to 911? These are two different subjects.

 

And you shouldn't have taken my post as blaming Bush for everything. Just that he is not helping improve the situation. People are acting like irrational paranoid idiots as the Boston incident proves. What ever happened to rational judgment. How many people are killed each year world wide by terrorism? How many people die each year in the U.S. because of drunk drivers? Guess what, drunk drivers are a much bigger threat to our safety. People need to put the whole terrorism thing into some sort of healthy perspective and it is the responsibility of the President to provide leadership on this issue instead of constantly fanning the flames of paranoia with his fear mongering to justify his long drawn out war.

[-Demosthenes-]

As Robert Heron said on DL.tv, "What's in the water in Boston?!"

[ParanoiA]

And you shouldn't have taken my post as blaming Bush for everything. Just that he is not helping improve the situation. People are acting like irrational paranoid idiots as the Boston incident proves. What ever happened to rational judgment. How many people are killed each year world wide by terrorism? How many people die each year in the U.S. because of drunk drivers? Guess what, drunk drivers are a much bigger threat to our safety. People need to put the whole terrorism thing into some sort of healthy perspective and it is the responsibility of the President to provide leadership on this issue instead of constantly fanning the flames of paranoia with his fear mongering to justify his long drawn out war.

 

One incident in 6 years and people are acting like irrational paranoid idiots? Do you always leave zero room for mistakes when doing something brand new? There is such a thing as a learning curve, and we've managed to only have one incident (that I know of anyway...please memory don't fail me now) and terrorism is pretty new for us. It's always been "over there", on TV.

 

And again, how is Bush fanning the flames? He doesn't even talk about this stuff except for maybe twice a damn year. I think you're confusing media as the administration. They're far more guilty of fear mongering than anything I've seen come out of the white house.

[Pangloss]

I think that's a perfectly reasonable opinion, KLB. I also happen to think it likely would have played out exactly the same way under another president. Two wrongs don't make a right, but there is an individual component to the things you are speaking of, as well as a media frenzy component. It seems unlikely to me that Al Gore or John Kerry would have fared any better at "calming things down".

[KLB]

Pangloss,

 

John Kerry would have either bored us all into a passive trance with his speeches or made us beg for a reprieve from his bad jokes. He must be the most uncharismatic presidential wannabe in the last thirty years.

 

Here are some stats that should help bring the threat of terrorism into perspective:

 

Each year around 17,000 people die in the Untied States from accidents involving drunk drivers (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/RNotes/2005/809904.pdf, http://www.dot.gov/affairs/nhtsa3203.htm). While it is hard to find any stats on how many people are killed by terrorists each year, it is probably save to say that even considering 2001, more people die on U.S. roads because of drunk drivers than die world wide from terrorism.

 

According to a 1999 report in the British Medical Journal 34,000 people die each year in the United States because of gun violence or gun accidents (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/318/7192/1160). A more conservative figure from an ABC News article (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/story?id=1560771) states that last year 12,000 people were killed in the United States "by hot-headed people with guns" not terrorists. According to the U.S Department of Justice (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fidc9397.pdf) between 1993 and 1997 there were a total of 78,620 homicides committed with a firearm. It would certainly appear to any reasonable person that firearms pose a much bigger threat to one's life than terrorists I mean even by the most conservative figure I just quoted, 12,000 people a year are killed by a gun owner.

 

I'm not promoting or discounting gun control, I'm simply using the gun violence stats to help put things in perspective. Simply put I'm more likely to be killed by an idiot with a gun (I won't use the term hunter) trying to shoot a deer in my back yard then I am to be blown up by a terrorist.

[ParanoiA]

The problem with this is that gun incidents are numerous - people are dying one and two at a time, per incident. Whereas a terrorist act kills a mass quantity of people at once.

 

This is similar to the "Flying is the safest way to travel" logic. It is true, no doubt. But that doesn't make fear of flying any more illogical than a fear of driving. When there's an airline crash - usually there are nothing but dead people. Car crashes are fatally variable, cumulative dead.

 

I love this whole perspective you're posting, I just don't think that means it's a good idea not to fear something at all because something else is more likely to get you. That doesn't make any sense to me. I'm more likely to be killed by a non-drunk driver, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be weary of a drunk driver.

 

A better conclusion, in my opinion anyway, would be to say that there are hundreds of ways to die, some more popular than others, but to spend your life scared shitless of everything means you'll never really live. Rather than just pick on people for letting terrorism run their lives, how about pick on them about letting any kind of fear run their lives?

[KLB]

A better conclusion, in my opinion anyway, would be to say that there are hundreds of ways to die, some more popular than others, but to spend your life scared shitless of everything means you'll never really live. Rather than just pick on people for letting terrorism run their lives, how about pick on them about letting any kind of fear run their lives?

 

This is my point. We are way more likely to be killed in a car accident, but we never give this a second thought when we get into a car. It should be the same way with terrorism. Yes there are some prudent things that can be done to make terrorism harder (e.g. armored cockpit doors on airplanes, scanning of passengers/luggage, etc.). There must be; however, some sort of logic to our responses and there must be a balanced restrained response.

 

The Boston incident showed no restraint and no balance the powers to be panicked and didn't stop to look at the situation as a whole. Would a bomb really be put in such a thin package? Would a terrorist put bright LEDs on their bomb and then place it in plain view for everyone to see? The answer to both questions is probably not. In other words the "packages" didn't pass the straight face test for being a likely terrorist act.

 

Terrorism is about putting fear into people for a political purpose and causing them to change the way they live their lives because of this fear. The Boston incident shows that the terrorists have succeeded in their primary objective. They don't even need to conduct terrorists acts here on our soil because the simple threat of terrorism can completely disrupt the day to day activities of a major U.S. city.

[GutZ]

Guess what happen today at my college? lol

 

No mooninites(sp?) in site.

[Skye]

I can't help but think that this is all part of the viral advertising campaign, and the Boston local government is being paid a mint. I hope so anyway, as it would be wonderfully devious.