Next weeks news: Lugaru delivers severe beatdown to advertising executives.

[ow_tiobe_sb]

I'm just going to weigh in as one who, if the signs had been actual explosive devices, could have been injured or killed at at least three different locations on his way to campus yesterday: I think the incident is a marvelous exemplum that I hope all can appreciate.  A major media corporation has subverted everything I understand as "guerrila" (e.g., subaltern, desperate, etc.), and now certain Americans can associate in their minds this corporation and the idea of the enemy.  I do not feel insulted in the least (though I am sorry to read about lugaru's inconvenience and loss, and I can sympathise).  I admire "Aqua Teen Hunger Force" as a rollicking satire.  I also do not think that the city overreacted, given its ignorance of the cartoon.  If one bloated, capitalist entity wants to sue another bloated, capitalist entity, so much the better.  We can now see the serpent swallowing its tail or, if you will, the system cannibalising itself. 

The revolution is coming...mark my words.

:P

:P

:P

ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and You Know the Rest

[Panther_Gunn]

Taking my limited knowledge on the situations (I'm just not that bothered to read the news) as a grain of salt, I still see at least one (so I'll only illuminate one) difference between the cartoon/Muslim event and this advertising/bomb scare.

The cartoonist wasn't even remotely a part of the group that felt offended (religously, culturally, or nationally).

The people that green-lighted this ad campaign were most *definitely* a part of of the group that took things so seriously (perhaps not Bostonian, but very much American, and most likely residents/frequent visitors of large cities)

I figure either the Turner legal people knew of this, and either didn't see the potential to blow up (no pun intended) in their collective faces (not a very effective legal department if they can't imagine possible lawsuits and criminal charges), or they felt that the risk of it going bad was outweighed by the increased revenue that more viewers would bring (irresponsible and short-sighted).

The other possibility is that their legal department was blindsided by this, and somebody further down the chain will most likely be facing the axe very soon (gotta love corporate seppuku).

If it *was* a PR person that actually phoned it in, then woe be to him.  Can you say sacrificial lamb?

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

You overreact through outrage, they overreacted through violence. Different culture, different mindset. Same stupid, panicky instinctual response.

But that's the thing.  There wasn't much panic.  A suspicious device was found, the authorities were notified, and they dealt with the situation as best as they could.  They had no way of knowing the devices were harmless. (someone official should have been informed)  While I don't place much blame on the company itself (how were they supposed to know it would have this reaction when it didn't anywhere else?) I still think the official reacted the best they possibly could.

If this had gone down the opposite way, you would probably be saying that the very actions you now condemn were the opposite one.

These two situations are fundamentally different.

[captainspud]

But that's the thing.  There wasn't much panic.

What happened to "It shut down the whole city"?

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

That wasn't panic, that was a reasonable precaution, given the circumstances.

[captainspud]

They'd probably call the riot reasonable, too.

Objectivity's a wonderful thing.

[bredon7777]

Here's a sentence I never thought I'd type:

Spud is entirely, completely 100% correct on this.

I feel dirty now. :)

R

[GhostMachine]

Here's a sentence I never thought I'd type:

Spud is entirely, completely 100% correct on this.

I feel dirty now. :)

R

Ditto. Hell must've frozen over, because I'm actually with Spud on this!  :blink:

I think both sides in this are wrong: Turner and the advertising people, because they should have known better than to pull something like this considering the current situation, but also the people in Boston who started this panic because they didn't have enough sense to call in the bomb squad and have them examine one of the devices before throwing the whole city into turmoil.

However, if what Lugaru says is true and it was actually one of the people behind the advertising who called it in, then the two jokers should be tossed in prison for a long time and the advertising company (if there is one, and its not actually just the two idiots who got caught doing it on their own) should be sued out of existence and held to 100% of the blame, not Turner.

[stumpy]

I haven't seen any confirmation of the rumor that Interference Inc. or Turner or the two guys who put up the signs called in claiming they were bombs. Until such confirmation exists, I am assuming that rumor to be just what it sounds like: bull excreta. (BTW, I am interested in who actually started the rumor itself... Hint, look to someone who benefits from these guys looking worse.)

Meanwhile, I really don't see what Turner et alii can be held liable for, except maybe improper placement of advertizing placards. As steamed as people may be about the ultimate result of this, and as much as the natural reaction of Boston officialdom with mud in its eye is to find a scapegoat, I am not sure they have much of a case here. They are going to have a tough job in front of them, explaining to a reasonable jury that, although the signs were up in plain sight for several weeks before anyone gave a hoot, and although a half dozen other cities (including New York) had the same signs put up and Boston's government was the only one to react this way, nevertheless that reaction was the rational one and Turner should be forced to pay for it.

I'll admit, I may be biased because I saw pictures of the signs and didn't think there was anything threatening about them, although it took me a minute to recognize the character. But big cities are full of bright signs and lights and so on. Meanwhile, you can put explosives in anything, but it seems more likely that someone wanting to detonate a bomb would disguise it as something inconspicuous, instead of something designed to gather attention. IMO, of course.

[Panther_Gunn]

Here's a sentence I never thought I'd type:

Spud is entirely, completely 100% correct on this.

I feel dirty now. :)

Ditto. Hell must've frozen over, because I'm actually with Spud on this!  :blink:

Ya know, if he were already dead, I think that'd be two out of the three miracles required before becoming a saint!  ;)

I think both sides in this are wrong: Turner and the advertising people, because they should have known better than to pull something like this considering the current situation, but also the people in Boston who started this panic because they didn't have enough sense to call in the bomb squad and have them examine one of the devices before throwing the whole city into turmoil.

Do we know the sequence of events, a follows b follows c?  I'm pretty sure most bomb squads like to have an area cleared before they look things over (something about the whole blowing up because they did something to it thing, I think).  In the wake of 9/11/01 and Hurricane Katrina, most major cities have probably come up with some sort of large disaster plans, whether it was done for actual practicality or just for political appearances.  Plans that complex and widespread are hard to test for flaws until they're actually put into practice.  It could be a case of things not being in the right order for the emergency plans, or it could just be that the sheep of the general public can be *too* easily frightened, and rumors move faster than truth or common sense.  I'm a firm believer that a large percentage of the people around me are morons (driving on the highways around here during rush hours or when there is an accident or large road work *always* bears that out).  But my cynicism is a different subject.  ^_^

[stumpy]

Are we sure that the citizens of Boston were really in a "panic"? Or were they just annoyed that the city was in disarray because of the evacuation and other procedures employed? I am just asking because I don't live in the area and the news reports I heard were mostly people complaining about traffic. I mean, news is a deceptive business, so I have little doubt that they managed to find some people who were genuinely frightened and put them on camera out of proportion to their numbers. But, was "panic" the typical response of real people (outside of officialdom)?

[lugaru]

... the people in Boston who started this panic because they didn't have enough sense to call in the bomb squad and have them examine one of the devices before throwing the whole city into turmoil.

Actually that's the whole problem. Somebody called the bomb squad. The bomb squad's job is to take everything seriosly, be it a light bright toy or a lit stick of dynamite. When this happens on the train or a bridge, everyone is forced to work around it.

And to answer stumpy nah, no panic, like I said most people figured it was a suicide but then they start cropping up all over town and people are thinking "bunch of punks got organized, this cant be a good thing even if it's just a prank" because so far the internet news (boston.com) only says it was circuit boards with LED lights. Then around 4:30 or 5 they announced turner taking full responsability and well that was that.

[GhostMachine]

... the people in Boston who started this panic because they didn't have enough sense to call in the bomb squad and have them examine one of the devices before throwing the whole city into turmoil.

Actually that's the whole problem. Somebody called the bomb squad. The bomb squad's job is to take everything seriosly, be it a light bright toy or a lit stick of dynamite. When this happens on the train or a bridge, everyone is forced to work around it.

And to answer stumpy nah, no panic, like I said most people figured it was a suicide but then they start cropping up all over town and people are thinking "bunch of punks got organized, this cant be a good thing even if it's just a prank" because so far the internet news (boston.com) only says it was circuit boards with LED lights. Then around 4:30 or 5 they announced turner taking full responsability and well that was that.

Meh. That's what I get for posting when I haven't been up long - hadn't even been up an hour, so my mind wasn't fully clear.

What I meant was, it seemed from what I've read that there were something like 38 of these things (could be wrong, but I think that was the #) all over Boston, and there was crap going on involving a lot of them. You'd think they'd have figured out by examining one or two of them that they weren't bombs and wouldn't blow the situation all out of proportion. I do understand the paranoia and all due to the fact we're at threat level Orange, but it still seems to me like some of the people handling the situation didn't exactly do a stellar job.

And whoever the person is who thought up this ad campaign is clearly an idiot.

[captainspud]

I do understand the paranoia and all due to the fact we're at threat level Orange

You guys actually pay attention to that crap?

:blink:

[GhostMachine]

I do understand the paranoia and all due to the fact we're at threat level Orange

You guys actually pay attention to that crap?

:blink:

Not me, but I saw it mentioned in someone else's criticism of the situation at another board, and there are people who actually do pay attention to it.

[Dweomer Knight]

I do understand the paranoia and all due to the fact we're at threat level Orange

You guys actually pay attention to that crap?

:blink:

Absolutely I do.  For good or bad, those threat levels are going to determine how the government and law enforcement, etc. are going to respond to things.  I kinda like to know that.

Meanwhile, you can put explosives in anything, but it seems more likely that someone wanting to detonate a bomb would disguise it as something inconspicuous, instead of something designed to gather attention. IMO, of course.

Again, criminals can be really really smart down to really really dumb.

DK

[Lionheart]

You guys actually pay attention to that crap?

:blink:

Why not? We've paid attention to the political comments in this thread. Same texture and aroma.

I thought vehement politics were off-topic for this list.

[El Condor]

Hermanitos,

Oh my, what a pot this has stirred up! 

I have grown quite fond of this community in quite short order, so I feel I can safely say this: everyone who has posted on this thread, regardless of the side they've taken, clearly shares with the rest the common interest in both public safety and public sanity.  Noone has shown admiration for either mass hysteria or mass destruction.  Only our opinions on how to avoid these two kinds of calamities differ.  The fact that the two are now so inextricably linked in such complex ways is, from what I read here, the biggest source of tension among we who live in this massively complicated time.

That being said, Lugaru's original post refers to the consequences of this particular incident, so I'd like to draw focus back on what we know about it so far.  Mainly, that the motivation behind the installation of the devices came from corporate enterprise.  Second, that the response was initially a public safety response and not a law enforcement response.  I'll address this one first, as it is an important distinction.  That many are characterizing this as a case of "The Powers-That-Be" unfairly coming down on the "underground, independent artist" is misguided; the immobilization of parts of the city was a deliberate action to protect the people of Boston from a potential bomb threat.  Indeed, this is a remarkable test case of coordinated emergency services puting into action new protocols that they have toiled endless hours to design since 9/11.  There was no mass panic, largely because nearly everything worked exactly as it was supposed to: roads were blocked off, bridges closed, traffic diverted, threats investigated, and, yes, people were highly inconvenienced.  But within hours of this mechanism's triggering, the threat was found to be no threat at all, and life in the city returned to normal.  Only after this moment did the public nature of this incident take a legal and cultural turn, and an ugly one at that.

Much has been said about the City of Boston and it's cultural "cluelessness" in seeing the devices as a threat.  It's been said that "anyone could see it was the cartoon characters".  But that would only be anyone who was plugged into that particular zeitgeist.  Clearly, the person(s) who reported the devices was not. To top it off, the "artists" chose to install the mechanisms under the I-93 overpass and the Mass Ave and Longfellow Bridges, the three of which carry hundreds of thousands of commuting citizens every day.  I don't know what happened in the other cities, but choosing spots that are commonly known to be appealing soft-targets for terrorism was an astonishingly careless decision, and ensured a better-safe-than-sorry response.

Much reference has also been made to the Big Brother State keeping the brave, subversive artist down.  There are indeed brave, subversive artists among us, but keep them out of this!  These two guys, no matter how much they try to wrap themselves in the revolutionary's cloak, were doing this work for "The Man".  Their puppet masters were not innovative, off-mainstream gurus, but rather a bunch of suits gathered around the meeting room tables of Turner Broadcasting and the ad agency that designed the stunt, suits whose guiding interest was gorilla profit, not guerilla art.  Those who take deep pride in the culture of their youth and the independence of their expression should step as far away from these two bozos as possible, as they were merely functioning as cogs of mega-media incorporated.  And the more they put on the image and manner of the daring revolutionary/artist, the more shameful their dishonesty.

Ultimately, it was the media that couldn't resist elevating this story beyond it's magnitude.  The story was too juicy, as the debate began crackling in all corners of the public square, this thread included.  From what I see, Boston responded quickly and efficiently, then appropriately sought compensation from the responsible parties. It was the arousal of public opinions that gave this story legs, and gave cause to many to see this for more than it was: a misguided publicity stunt gone fabulously wrong.  Here's to hoping we can all take a breath next time and examine the facts first.  ;)

EC

[Gremlin]

So, if these devices were bombs disguised as cartoon characters, and they did explode and kill people, but nobody took it seriously because, as before, they looked innocuous, would it be the city's fault for not reacting at all?

[ow_tiobe_sb]

So, if these devices were bombs disguised as cartoon characters, and they did explode and kill people, but nobody took it seriously because, as before, they looked innocuous, would it be the city's fault for not reacting at all?

Better yet, if those signs were actually Certs breath mints disguised as Lite-Brite art and one bit them in the dark, would they still make a spark?

ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and You Know the Rest

[lugaru]

Not me, but I saw it mentioned in someone else's criticism of the situation at another board, and there are people who actually do pay attention to it.

I pay attention to it. I actually downloaded a reminder that is constantly in my task bar telling me the terror alert level of the day. I think it's stealing my credit card numbers though...      :doh:

(you know Im joking, right?)

[stumpy]

So, if these devices were bombs disguised as cartoon characters, and they did explode and kill people, but nobody took it seriously because, as before, they looked innocuous, would it be the city's fault for not reacting at all?

That's a fine argument until you realize that a bomb can be made to look like pretty much anything. What's the appropriate trade-off? One idea is to have government react to any unfamiliar object or situation as though it were a deadly threat. The advantage is that you will catch some sneaky attacks disguised as MacDonalds bags or stacks of The Onion. The disadvantages inlcude knowing that you will reduce overall productivity and the everyday quality of life for millions of people with constant disruptions for every little thing and knowing that it still will not ensure absolute safety because a smart/lucky enough bad guy will still slip something through. Another idea is to react only to highly likely threats and to make an effort to identify unfamiliar objects when possible before acting as though they are life-threatening. The advantage is less disruption of lives and use of valuable resources. The disadvantage is that a bad guy may be more likely to sneak something through and cause some harm.

I think a case can be made for either approach, but I am not laboring under the illusion that absolute safety is an honest option. Some evil people will manage to do evil things and I both hate and accept the fact that our best efforts cannot make that untrue.

As to the question of would I blame the city when something slips through, the answer is no. I expect government to have procedures in place to take reasonable steps to deal with likely threats and I expect them to follow those procedures. I don't expect the impossible miracle of absolute security.

BTW, with regard to part of EC's comment on whether artists have common cause with the people involved in this, I think art engaged to practical purpose is still art. Despite its popularity in some circles, the idea that making a profit and creativity are exclusive enterprises strikees me as simplistic. Meanwhile, I don't see why the people annoyed at what they see as an overreaction to expressive freedom should be comforted by the idea that a "big, evil" corporation (or an employee) happens to be the target (this time). Bad policy turned toward others is still bad policy.

[Midnight]

We should talk about hair styles of the 70s.

[Gremlin]

The entire hair fashion of the seventies was pathetic.  I've seen pictures of my dad in high school.  It's terrifying stuff.  I'm just glad I haven't seen sixties pictures...I don't know if I could stand that.

That's how terrorists will atack us next.  They'll overload our brains with the images of seventies fashion!  THE PAISLEY!  IT BURNS!

[Sevenforce]

Or just film the 'Making Of' scenes of us. ...THE NIGHTMARES! THEY BURN! THE GOGGLEZ, ZEY DO NOTHINK!

[ow_tiobe_sb]

'Tis a shame.  I often think that hairstyles were more interesting and more diverse in the seventies than they are now.  I know that all nostalgias are false, but I still adhere to the idea that only a handful of women I saw on the street resembled Farrah Fawcett in the seventies whereas every one of my students today resembles Jennifer Aniston. :(

The revolution is coming...mark my words!

ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and Che Guevara

[Sevenforce]

I know that all nostalgias are false, but I still adhere to the idea that only a handful of women I saw on the street resembled Farrah Fawcett in the seventies whereas every one of my students today resembles Jennifer Aniston.

Before or after the nose job? :blink:

[Ephemeris]

... the people in Boston who started this panic because they didn't have enough sense to call in the bomb squad and have them examine one of the devices before throwing the whole city into turmoil.

Actually that's the whole problem. Somebody called the bomb squad. The bomb squad's job is to take everything seriosly, be it a light bright toy or a lit stick of dynamite. When this happens on the train or a bridge, everyone is forced to work around it.

And to answer stumpy nah, no panic, like I said most people figured it was a suicide but then they start cropping up all over town and people are thinking "bunch of punks got organized, this cant be a good thing even if it's just a prank" because so far the internet news (boston.com) only says it was circuit boards with LED lights. Then around 4:30 or 5 they announced turner taking full responsability and well that was that.

Meh. That's what I get for posting when I haven't been up long - hadn't even been up an hour, so my mind wasn't fully clear.

What I meant was, it seemed from what I've read that there were something like 38 of these things (could be wrong, but I think that was the #) all over Boston, and there was crap going on involving a lot of them. You'd think they'd have figured out by examining one or two of them that they weren't bombs and wouldn't blow the situation all out of proportion. I do understand the paranoia and all due to the fact we're at threat level Orange, but it still seems to me like some of the people handling the situation didn't exactly do a stellar job.

And whoever the person is who thought up this ad campaign is clearly an idiot.

I live just outside Boston.  If anyone know s the geography of the city, they'd understand why the city was shutdown.  There are two major highways that intersect near the coast, Interstate 93 running north-south and I-90 running westerly from I-93.  The Charles River borders the city to the north, with several bridges connecting across the river to Cambridge (MIT and Harvard).  The city is 400 yrs old and has congested narrow streets.

As I understand, the first device was discovered on a column supporting Interstate 93, thus that road was closed.  The subsequent devices were discovered along the bridges leading over the Charles and other high traffic areas within the city.  At this point, the officials hadn't determined whether these devices were innocuous.  So we had gridlock.

If the advertisers had followed the law about permitting their advertisement locations, this could of been averted.  The advertisers should foot the bill (Turner has already said he would) for the chaos they caused by skirting the law.

What components would be included in a remote detonating bomb?  A circuit board?  Maybe.  Batteries?  Probably.  Wiring?  Definitely.  Where would such devices be placed?  High traffic areas?  Obviously.  The city government's reaction was exactly as it should of been.  The populace didn't panic, they were just ticked because the city was 'closed' down.

With hindsight, you can say the city overreacted.  Monday morning quarterbacking is always easy.

[lugaru]

Now that some time has passed let me add:

Ephemeris: yup, glad I dont own a car!   

The kids are making major scapegoats which is dumb. I've done sleazy illegal work for an advertising firm myself (a door to door campaign in a city where we didint have a permit) and I did it because I didint know that what I was doing was wrong. Then again just looking at these smirking hippies is enough to make anyone who works hard angry, which is why the Herald is really raging at them. "Pranks a lot! Geeks cause major caos" or something like that. Did I mention the Herald always works terrible puns into their covers?

About the whole "does it look like a bomb or not?" thing it just gets on my nerves to listen to all these armchair rambos. You know, the people who watch a horror movie and say "sheesh, I would just kill the guy with the ax" or watch an action movie and say "I would of known the gun was empty by the weight". I grew up around ak-47's (a friends dad was a drug smuggler, part of why Im super anti-drugs), drive byes (my first letter ever was in 6th grade to the mayor when a cop got shot down at a restaurant a few blocks from my house with his family), depressing crime (almost got mugged by barefoot kids looking for glue money) and preventable illness. None of that stuff is cool and when we pretend to be experts on it... ugh. And sheesh, my life is tame compared to my ex roomate Farid who got maced repeatedly as part of his training for the Irani army and who saw his share of soccer ball BOMBS at football riots in the streets (soccer ball + gunpowder + metal shards).

What about glam hair styles? a little more haut than mainstream but most of bowies stuff was great. Even the Aladin Sane Mullet.

[Dartman X]

  As someone who actually lives in NY, I can tell you that the reaction here was to roll our eyes and shrug (and that was from our PD, who said, "Yeah, we got a call and checked it out....", and then shrugged and rolled their eyes), but I'm sure if the boxes had been strapped to the base of the Brooklyn Bridge, it would have been a different story.  It didn't cause much of a fuss here, probably because most of the devices were quickly stolen (hey, this is New York!)  I do have to say that I don't get this 'Bostonian guilt' nonsense over the 9/11 planes leaving from Logan.  WTF is that all about?
  The mistake that the ad people made was probably in the placement of the devices - not too bright to place a blinking box with wires under an overpass or bridge.  I'm sure that's a violation of some statute or other, and they should be punished accordingly.  But it's not terrorism, it's stupidity.  In fact, the entire affair was a 'Perfect Storm' of no common sense.  And if the 'Ad Men' were indeed the ones that called in the bomb threat to drum up publicity (which I sincerely doubt), then I hope that Ted Turner puts on his best Captain Planet outfit and kicks the crap out of them all.

Lugaru:  Did you actually use the word "hippies?"  :o 

El Condor:  Yours was by far the most intelligent post in the entire thread....

Lionheart's: 

Why not? We've paid attention to the political comments in this thread. Same texture and aroma.

...was the second.

....whereas every one of my students today resembles Jennifer Aniston.

Ow:  I want to go to your school!  Do you have a class where everyone looks like Angelina Jolie?  I'm majoring in her!  :D  (and where is that 'Mean Machine' mesh??!!)

Midnight: Elvis had the best hair - hands down. ('Live at Vegas' Elvis, not 'Dead Bloated' Elvis)

And I liked you all a lot more when all you did was make skins....