home

Boston Non-Terror Scare

On the ridiculous over-reaction to the Boston non-terror scare:

Next, let's all get out our dictionary and look up "hoax", shall we? Because while "War of the Worlds" was a hoax, this was not. There was no subterfuge involved, and no effort made to convince people that these devices were bombs. If I see a scary looking tree out my bedroom window, think it's a monster, and then discover upon closer inspection that it isn't, it doesn't mean the tree has perpetrated a hoax against me. What it means is that for a moment I took leave of my senses. And just because I'm embarrassed about it doesn't give me the right to go cut down the tree.

< You Get What You Pay For | Taking The Bait: War With Iran Would Only Come If We Stay In Iraq >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Speaking of hoaxes (1.00 / 1) (#4)
    by bx58 on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 03:56:20 PM EST
    All this (Talkleft)coverage of the Scooter Libby trial is a hoax. The guy lied about Valerie Plame (you know,the spy who loves herself), so what?

    Wouldn't it be more productive to follow the money trail that decided the votes in 2002 to go to war with Iraq?

    Who took money from defense contractors? Who in congress is getting rich off of this disaster?

    Just two questions that should be asked. You seriously think these folks voted their "concience?"

    OFF TOPIC TROLL POST (none / 0) (#5)
    by Sailor on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 04:43:56 PM EST
    If this guy isn't limited to 4 a day he should be.

    Parent
    "Off topic troll post" (1.00 / 1) (#9)
    by bx58 on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 06:19:34 PM EST
    Do you think the media is doing a good job investigating why we went to war with Iraq?

    And you're probably college educated...

    Parent

    I hope (none / 0) (#1)
    by kdog on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 12:52:19 PM EST
    the authorities up there come to their senses, admit they screwed the pooch, and drop all the charges.  The longer they stick to their guns the more foolish they will look.

    On Hoaxes and Overreaction (none / 0) (#2)
    by Peter G on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 02:34:47 PM EST
    If I may be permitted a shameless plug, I believe a young blogger friend of mine, James Grimmelmann (who teaches internet law or something like that at New York Law School, or something like that) really nailed this story on his consistently interesting blog, "Laboratorium."

    On a related personal note, the famous "War of the Worlds" panic did not involve a hoax, either.  My father was part of the production staff for that famous 1938 Orson Welles radio play.  "War of the Worlds," adapted from the H.G. Wells sci-fi novel, was broadcast as part of the Mercury Theatre of the Air, at its regular time, with a clear statement at the beginning, and at each break, that it was a fictional play, part of which was a mock newscast.  There was no attempt, much less intent, to make anyone think differently.  At least no more than any other play, or TV show, or movie is a "hoax" because it is produced in a realistic style that is designed to suck in the viewers and cause their minds to "suspend reality" while they enjoy the show.  That some people apparently believed, because the production, writing, and acting was so good, that Martians had actually landed in Hoboken, New Jersey, to take over the Earth, did not make the radio play a hoax, any more than the recent movie remake was.  A gullible or stupid person might think anything was real or true.  

    thanks (none / 0) (#7)
    by dutchfox on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 05:12:53 PM EST
    But I can't read Grimmelmann's blog, the text is all in white (at least on my browser).

    Parent
    Laboratorium (none / 0) (#10)
    by Peter G on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 08:54:22 PM EST
    Sorry, I can't help you with that, dutchfox.  The link works perfectly for me, and the site comes up in its usual clear, attractive black on white in the text boxes, with a baby blue background.  I use Netscape ("based on Firefox") 8.1.2, fwiw.  Maybe if you try a different browser?  (Do you have an alternative?  I have IE, for example, but never use it unless for some reason the site I want won't cooperate with Netscape.) If you e-mail Jeralyn, she can forward the message to me (I'm a friend) and I'll respond it to you personally, if you like.  (I just don't want to post my e-mail on the blog.) Having checked more carefully into his current doings, btw, I see that James is now a post-doc at Yale Law School studying information technology issues, and an adjunct professor at New York Law School.

    Parent
    Apparently you don't care... (none / 0) (#12)
    by Aaron on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 01:58:14 AM EST
    ... that everyone who visits this site using Internet Explorer is just going to pass you by because they can't read it, nice attitude to take.

    Maybe you should be grateful that someone pointed this out, as opposed to dismissing it and everyone who uses Internet Explorer, who are still the majority these days.

    Parent

    Aaron (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 09:04:52 AM EST
    Why not just download FireFiox? It's free and I have had no problems with TL, links, etc., since I did.

    Parent
    Who Cares? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Peter G on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 12:05:48 PM EST
    Aaron, are you addressing me with the "Apparently you don't care..." remark?  Go back and read what I wrote.  "Laboratorium" isn't my site, I just recommended something I'd read there and thought was good. No one's "pass[ing me] by" on this account.  When Dutchfox pointed out a problem viewing it, I responded, in what I thought was an amiable and helpful tone, what I knew of the situation.  What isn't "nice" about my "attitude"?  What in my comment could be called "dismiss[ive]"?  (If I'm missing something, I'll try to do better.)  I see you posted a comment there also, and that James -- who does run that blog -- said he'd try to figure out what was wrong.  What you being so nasty about, bro?  


    Parent
    How to work around the problem (none / 0) (#15)
    by roy on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 02:11:38 AM EST
    I have the same problem when I view it with IE (Firefox works fine).  Just hit Ctrl-A to highlight all the text.  It's not pretty, but it's readable.

    Parent
    Blatant plug (none / 0) (#3)
    by roy on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 02:58:17 PM EST
    Aqua Teen Hunger Force is getting some bad press, and I'm a fan of the show, so please enjoy this clip.  It's even got the Mooninites.

    There's no such thing as bad press... (none / 0) (#13)
    by Aaron on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 02:03:44 AM EST
    ... when you've got a movie coming out.

    No doubt the ratings for Aqua Teen on the cartoon network will be peaking over the next few weeks, and thousands will be flocking to see the movie as a result of this incident.

    This could turn out to be one of the greatest marketing coups of all time.

    Parent

    The "suspects" speak out (none / 0) (#6)
    by roy on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 05:02:06 PM EST
    Freaking hilarious.  These guys are my new heroes.  Or they might be high.

    I pledge to work "that is not a hair question" into every conversation until they are freed.

    Thanks roy.... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 07:10:32 AM EST
    made my morning.  Hilarious indeed.  I associate the greased hair style with the 50's...though it may have originated in the 20's.  The seriousness of this issue demands we commision a congressional report to identify the decade of origin of all hairstyles.

    They can be heroes if this is our society's "snap out of it" moment.

    Parent

    Well, why don't they go after (none / 0) (#8)
    by dutchfox on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 05:16:30 PM EST
    Time Warner, the producer of the show, rather than the artists? (In a fascist state, it's so normal attack the "degenerate" artists, right?)

    Mayhem of the Moonites -- another media failure (none / 0) (#11)
    by Aaron on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 01:36:05 AM EST
    As I watched press conference with two guys who were paid to distribute these advertisements, I took a bit of perverse pleasure in watching the crowd of journalists be snubbed and humiliated by the refusal of these freaks to respond as they were expected, as they were being pelted with questions.

    The frustration and anger of the reporters asking the questions started to become obvious when we started hearing questions like,

    How are you taking it seriously, by causing "widespread panic and destruction." (reporter question at news conference with Sean Stevens and Peter Berdovsky)

    Now I'm not aware of any destruction caused by the placement of these light Brite advertisements, and if anyone was responsible for panic, it was the media, specifically CNN who apparently had the entire country on edge as they milked this story for all it was worth.

    Perhaps CNN and the other bloodsuckers in the media should cough up the money to pay for this debacle, instead of Ted Turner.

    Let's try looking a little bit closer at what happened, something that the major media providers will not do because it isn't in their best interests, they are eager to put this episode behind them since it has become a serious embarrassment for them.  Another added to the long list of embarrassments and abject failures we've seen since 9/11.

    Unless I'm mistaken, because I missed most of the coverage on the day of the event, no one bothered to look into who reported these LED signs, the modern equivalent of neon signs, and why they described them as having the appearance of suspicious devices possibly bombs.

    Who were these unnamed people, and what were their motivations?

    For anyone unfamiliar with America and US society, we have a population filled with petty small minded manipulators.  An ocean of embittered passive aggressive conformists, stifled control freaks who constantly search for ways to get their way in every aspect of their sad excuses for lives.

    All across the United States, hundreds of thousands if not millions of people saw the signs, if only for a moment in a passing glance.  Most of them didn't give them a second thought.  But then there are those who go through their lives constantly searching for ways to enlist others in their their causes by any means necessary.

    Apparently one such person, or several persons, perhaps acting in collusion, saw the signs and were offended by the sight of Ignignot or Err flipping them the bird.  Every day on their way to work they were forced to endure this insult, they tried not to look, but I couldn't help themselves because once they knew that Moonite was there and couldn't help but look, compounding their disturbance daily.  They wanted those signs removed so that peace and tranquility could return to their pathetic excuses for lives, but how to achieve this goal, that was the question.

    These are not the kind of go getters who would start climbing onto overpasses or on top of bridges to get their way, that would be far to proactive for their ilk.  No they had to find a way to enlist others in their cause, but how to do it, that was the question.  If they called the police and told him that they were offended, no doubt a report would be filed but the police have better things to do than try to appease the hyper anal.

    So they formulated a plan, a plan that would insure the removal of these little Moonite demons that invaded their delicate peace of mind as they toiled away their lives on the job, and haunted their dreams as they slept.  Those signs weren't just offensive, they were dangerous, the work of terrorists, maybe even Al Qaeda.  They'd been placed there to drive Americans crazy little by little, and then explode when least expected. Yes that's what they were, it was obvious to anyone with eyes that this was a plot to destroy America.

    Now all they had to do is convince the authorities.  And that was simple, all it took a phone call to the Boston police, with a few well-chosen words and some false concern for the safety of Bostonians.  Once the cops heard the words bomb and suspicious device, it was on baby.  Once those words had been logged by law enforcement recording devices, it became a liability matter, that any right minded, police sergeant, chief of police or mayor would be insane to ignore in this day and age.

    Imagine the glee of these little manipulators as they watch the entire country placed on high terror alert, just for the sake of their personal peace of mind.  What a feeling of power they must've had as they watch CNN munching grapes and calling their relatives to boast and brag about how they saved the land from Al Qaeda.

    Aside from their coworkers, friends and relatives, no one will know their names, but their place in history is assured.  No doubt they are quite pleased with themselves feeling that they have finally accomplish something worthwhile.

    Of course in another time and place they would be the ones who found themselves in handcuffs instead of Sean and Peter, or the authorities would have looked into their allegations and dismissed them as they ravings of cranks.  But this is the age of George W. Bush and his all-encompassing war on terror, the age of hyper paranoia in America where no doubt millions now believe that those long-haired dreadlocks wearing tree hugging gold bricking slackers responsible for posting these advertisements should be drawn and quartered in the town square, prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and executed with extreme prejudice for scaring us all so. Sean and Pete fit perfectly into their conception of what's wrong with America.

    No doubt many conservative minded Americans believe that the individuals who reported this "threat" be commended, perhaps even sanctified as modern-day heroes and receive a special presidential medal to be pinned upon their chest on the South lawn by the president himself, and be honored on the floor of the Senate and House for their contribution in the war on terror.  Thankfully I do not count myself among them.

    No doubt the creators of Aqua Teen Hunger Force have been laughing themselves silly and are overjoyed at the free publicity generated by this little stunt.  Perhaps they've already sent thank you notes to those who reported the mayhem of the Moonites and provided them tickets for the opening of the movie along with some coupons for free refreshments.

    CNN, Turner (none / 0) (#14)
    by roy on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 02:07:33 AM EST
    Perhaps CNN and the other bloodsuckers in the media should cough up the money to pay for this debacle, instead of Ted Turner.

    CNN is a Turner company.  Whether Turner Broadcasting or CNN pays the bill kind of only matters on paper.  I don't think anybody has seriously suggested Ted Turner personally pay.

    But that got me wondering, why would CNN make their parent company look bad?  Is it crazy to suggest they were trying to create publicity for the movie?  If the guestimate from this story is right, the panic might only cost Turner $500,000.  That's a bargain.

    Or maybe the CNN newsroom is insulated from the boardroom, and they thought they were doing a good job.  Although I'd expect more "full disclosure" about the CNN/Turner relationship if that were the clase.

    Parent

    Turner (none / 0) (#19)
    by Sailor on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 10:46:50 AM EST
    On January 29, 2003, AOL Time Warner announced that Ted Turner would resign as a vice chairman.

    On February 24, 2006, Turner announced that he would not seek re-election as director on the Time Warner board of directors.

    Turner was forced out by Time Warner.

    Parent
    Aaron (none / 0) (#28)
    by glanton on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 09:14:41 AM EST
    What a feeling of power they must've had as they watch CNN munching grapes and calling their relatives to boast and brag about how they saved the land from Al Qaeda.

    That's just great stuff.

    Parent

    Isn't the question....?? (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 09:40:05 AM EST
    I gather these were placed on "public" and "private" property. Did these guys ask if it was okay to place them on either? No.

    Why didn't they? Did they think they had the right to place these private devices wherever they wanted? They had to know that billboards and other advertising devices are regulated.

    The first device reported was at the Sullivan Square commuter rail station, near the suburb of Somerville, Wednesday morning. Wednesday afternoon, four other devices were reported -- near the Longfellow and Boston University bridges over the Charles, at New England Medical Center and near the intersection of Stuart and Columbus avenues in the city itself, and four more turned up over the course of the day.

    The discovery of the light boards led state, local and federal authorities to close the Boston University and Longfellow Bridges and block boat traffic from the Charles River to Boston Harbor. In addition, the Pentagon said U.S. Northern Command was monitoring the situation from its headquarters in Colorado Springs, Colorado, but said none of its units were dispatched to assist.

    CNN Link.

    While all of this was going on, why didn't these two guys run, not walk, to the nearest policeman and say, "Hey!! It's a marketing stunt!!" That they did not is damning.

    The scare forced bomb units to scramble across Boston all day.

    The real damaged here, ignoring the cost, is simply this:

    Those who have attacked us, and want to do so again, got a free look at how the police responded. For them that is a priceless piece of information.

    We have now placed a question mark in the minds of the police. From this point forward the thought that it might be a hoax will be in their minds. I wonder how many will be killed when it isn't a hoax?

    We walk a fine line, trying to keep a civil and free society functioning while trying to protect the rights of everyone. I find it ironic that those who don't want to fight abroad, but want to depend on the skill of our investigators and police to protect us, now make light of what, at the very best, can be describe as a stupid and very harmful actions.

    Jimakappj

    No, that's not the question (none / 0) (#21)
    by roy on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 11:31:02 AM EST
    I gather these were placed on "public" and "private" property. Did these guys ask if it was okay to place them on either?

    Abbot and Costello, or whatever their names are, are charged with a felony.  Not with violating sign  regulations.

    While all of this was going on, why didn't these two guys run, not walk, to the nearest policeman and say, "Hey!! It's a marketing stunt!!" That they did not is damning.

    IIRC, it only took a few hours from the time the Mooninites appeared on TV 'til Turner relayed all the information.  It's not a good idea to read anything into silence over a few hours.  If Bill and Ted, or whatever their names are, just didn't happen to have the TV on they wouldn't have known what was going on.

    The scare forced bomb units to scramble across Boston all day.

    That word "forced" is pretty strong and, since 90% of the affected cities didn't scramble bomb units, a blatant lie.

    Those who have attacked us, and want to do so again, got a free look at how the police responded.

    Since the Boston PD was also responding to a device that actually looked like a bomb, they'd have gotten that look anyway.

    We have now placed a question mark in the minds of the police. From this point forward the thought that it might be a hoax will be in their minds.

    Since hoaxes and mistaken identifications have been around for a long time, that's a blatant lie.

    Bottom line, Cheech and Chong, or whatever their names are, didn't make devices that look like bombs.  They look like boards with lights, batteries, and wires.  No room for boom-boom.  The Mooninite devices just got caught up in the response to the device that looked like a real pipe bomb.

    Parent

    I'm surprised you replied Roy ... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Sailor on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 01:52:35 PM EST
    ... since "that is not a hair question";-)

    Parent
    Hair-brained counts (none / 0) (#24)
    by roy on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 02:13:57 PM EST
    Sailor can't respond. (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 08:47:55 AM EST
    Well, I note you couldn't respond.

    No surprise there, eh?

    Parent

    That's ... (none / 0) (#29)
    by Sailor on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 10:52:11 AM EST
    ... still not a hair question.

    Parent
    Sean Stevens and Peter Berdovsky (none / 0) (#25)
    by Aaron on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 04:44:25 PM EST
    The charges were dropped, freaks always beat the rap.

    Parent
    roy (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 08:43:37 AM EST
    What they were charged with has nothing to do with my question. Why did they think it okay to place anything on public and/or private property.

    IIRC, it only took a few hours

    It would have taken only minutes for these two guys to call the cops. So your point is?? BTW It was more than a few hours. They had to have known what was going on. A bomb scare at an MBTA terminal would have been BIG news.

    The first device was found at an MBTA subway and bus station located under Interstate 93 on Wednesday morning. The device was detonated and determined to be harmless, but as a precaution the station and the interstate shut down temporarily.

    Then, around 1 p.m., four calls came into Boston Police reporting suspicious devices at the Boston University Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge, which both span the Charles River, and the corner of Stuart and Columbus Streets and at the Tufts-New England Medical Center.

    Another device was found in Somerville under the McGrath Highway Bridge. The latest package was found outside Fenway Park around 5:30 p.m.

    The scare forced bomb units to scramble across Boston all day.

    You call that a lie? Do you think that the police had a choice??

    Force - compel by physical, moral, or intellectual means

    Since the Boston PD was also responding to a device that actually looked like a bomb, they'd have gotten that look anyway.

    Huh??? Try remembering that the police would not have acted had the bombs not been placed.

    Since hoaxes and mistaken identifications have been around for a long time, that's a blatant lie.

    Evidently you haven't ever heard of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf." BTW - I see you have joined others in throwing  the "Lie" word when a `I disagree" would have invoked a reasoned response.  Since you have, I conclude that you understand your argument is so weak that you must resort to insults.

    BTW - What does hoaxes, etc., being around for a long time have to do with this placing a question mark in the minds of the police the next time? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

    BTW - How they looked is irrelevant. Have you ever heard of devices that trigger a remote explosion?? I bet the police have.

    Parent

    Lies (none / 0) (#30)
    by roy on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 11:42:20 AM EST
    You've said your bit, I've said mine, so we may as well focus on semantics now.

    I'll grant that I shouldn't have called "the scare forced bomb units..." a lie.  I think it was wrong, but I don't think you think it was, so it wasn't a lie.  Sorry for the insult.

    As for the other, let's review:

    We have now placed a question mark in the minds of the police. From this point forward the thought that it might be a hoax will be in their minds.

    Prior to the Mooninite invasion, did police have to consider the possibility of a hoax or mistake when responding to a call about a suspicious device?

    If the answer is "yes", then your statement is false.  If you know the answer is "yes", then your statement is a lie.

    Because hoaxes have been around a long time, and because most suspicious device calls are hoaxes or false alarms, and because police are observant enough to realize all the above, I think the answer is "yes".

    Because you've been around even longer than me, and you seem to follow law enforcement issues, I think you realize all the above too.  So you know the answer is "yes".

    As they say, "therefore".

    I will give you some credit, though.  I half expected you to take the Mooninites' side so you could criticize how a Democratic mayor in a blue state handled security.

    Parent

    interestingly enough jim (none / 0) (#20)
    by cpinva on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 10:50:06 AM EST
    the same placements were made in every other city, from ny to atlanta. only boston's police were stupid enough to respond, at all, much less in the hyperventilated manner that they did.

    as well, the nimrods of the MSM, nearly breathless with an almost orgasmic excitement, creamed their jeans reporting on this potential "terrorist" non-event. thus proving that they are as big a bunch of boobs as the boston police.

    my suggestion: whoever the nitwit on the boston police force, responsible for inciting fear and hysteria, by failing to do even a modicum of investigation, before sending out the troops and notifying the press, should pay for this.