Are we really that afraid? And what are we afraid of?
The mass media-fed hysteria monster has gotten me rather unhinged. Terrorist scare? Really? Is that what we’ve come to? LED lightbrights. I can just imagine the first specialist on the scene: “Oh-my-god-tell-my-wife-and-kids-I-love-them Christ! We’ve got a situation down here. Call the boys in Washington, stat!” Okay, I’ll admit that I am an electronics hobbyist and I also read magazines from time to time, so when I saw a picture of the deadly device, I could readily identify that it wasn’t threatening. When I try to explain to people that -- no, I really could make an informed guess about the nature device -- I am met with an incredulous “But how could anyone know, they’re so suspicious – they could be anything and you just don’t know.” Flatly, that is wrong. One can know. And if one can’t know, one can still use a combination of raw data and reasoning to hone down the field of possibilities from the horrifying infinite to the manageable handful.
Just as a digression here, has anyone considered the story of how one bomb squad expert found out first hand that the device may not be a bomb? Now, this is just rumor, but rumor has it that this professional was moving the device and as he placed it into the shadows beneath the bridge, the LEDs lit up.
I’ll let this sink in for a second.
Essentially, if the device were a bomb, it may well have exploded right then and there. A simple photodiode trigger device caused the circuit to become live. Do I know this for a fact? No. But, like I said, electronics are a hobby of mine, so I know how you make lights turn on when it’s dark. My question: aren’t these experts supposed to be trained to look for possible triggers on a suspected bomb before they move it? For those of you who don’t play around with spare electronics parts in your spare time, a photodiode is a very obvious device, and an expert ought to be ale to spot one, just as they should be able to notice any sort of accelerometer, magnetic field device, or limit or mercury switch.
If you’re still missing the point, here is the silver platter: experts who should have known better didn’t take the time or precaution to investigate the devices properly from the get-go, imho.
And now we return from our digression…
“A suspicious package is a suspicious package, no matter how cute it is.”
That quote, pulled from the Boston Globe, was made by an old acquaintance of mine and serves to sum up the problematic knee-jerk response exhibited by all too many. Another phrase I’ve heard again and again is “Well, what are we supposed to think?” I’ll tackle these in order. What’s wrong with the simple linguistic identity a suspicious package is a suspicious package? On the surface absolutely nothing -- because it isn’t actually saying anything. There’s no real meaning there outside of reference to the abstract concept of “suspicious”. Of course a suspicious package is a suspicious package, just like a brown package is a brown package, or an attractively wrapped package is an attractively wrapped package.
I’ll rephrase my objection: who decides what constitutes a suspicious package? The savvy, the young, the twentysomething crowd didn’t see anything suspicious. It was the older, unplugged crowd that didn’t see what was going on. I think that there is a lot that needs to be discussed here about the failures of those in charge. Why did it take a crack team of anti-terrorist’s and bomb squad guys so long to figure things out? I mean - really - a simple internet search would have gone a long way towards unwinding the “mystery”. And as for Well, what are we supposed to think? How about…? – think for yourselves. How about…? – don’t believe the media hype. The whole notion that you’re supposed to think something, one thing, is ridiculous. If you take the available data and start using those archaic processes known as reasoning, chances are that you just might be able to figure something out for yourself.
But I’ll put aside my objections about the failures of our authorities to provide an intelligent, balanced, and efficacious solution to the initial incident. I’ll put aside my objections of the rabid, self-righteous, and self-serving media juggernaut. The greatest tragedy is that two art students who were hired by Interference Inc. via Turner Broadcasting are being held up as the scapegoats. It’s not as though they came up with this scheme on their own, so blaming them for their “behavior” seems more than a little misguided. I think that they should be exonerated of all charges except those that may pertain to acts of trespassing or defacement of property.
But really, who should accept responsibility? I say that the television media outlets and the authorities should share the blame for the escalation of this nonsense. Both want us to simply accept, without question, that they did nothing wrong, which implies that were they to do it all over again they would take the same course of action. That means make the same mistakes. That is unacceptable. I think that above all we must hold the media and the authorities accountable for their actions and demand that they learn something from this experience.
So I started this by asking if we were really that afraid, and if so, of what? I don’t know that I have the answer, but I suspect we might learn more about it if we took the time to look in the mirror.
No comments:
Post a Comment