January 31, 2007


My friends, Fox News and the Boston Law Enforcement scene just fucking rule.

To paraphrase the awesome Peter Teichman, Exhibit 1.

Never mind the wonderful Fox-ish quote "Suspicious Device Diffused at Sullivan Square Not a Bomb" which is hilarious in its own right. No, let's move on to... Exhibit 2.

As Bob Green points out, too: Exhibit 3. Note that this pic, at least, has apparently been there over two weeks. Unknown if that device has been there for two weeks of nights also.

It just doesn't get much better than this.

I can't wait to see what the charges are, because of course there have to be some. You can't make official entities look this silly without getting charged.


Update: Oh, wait, it's not that we're morons, it's that these packages were a HOAX. Oh, yes, certainly. Well, I admit, I've only seen pictures of one of 'em, but was that one (referenced above) a 'hoax'? A hoax of what precisely? A 'fake viral ad for a silly movie'? Erm. Jesus.

No, Governor Deval Patrick, it's not a 'hoax.' These things have been in place for TWO WEEKS. It's an idiotic mistake, is what it is, and loudly declaiming that they were a deliberate attempt to fool people into thinking they were bombs (which is what calling them a 'hoax' is, sir) is not only stupid but makes you and yours look, well, even worse. Learn to laugh at yourselves, maybe. What the hell is it about politicians and officials that somehow, screwing up our responses to future situations like this is irrelevant compared to making sure NOBODY'S LAUGHING AT THEM?

Update update: Oh, it gets better. Here, we're told that Officials said it contained an electronic circuit board with some components that were "consistent with an improvised explosive device," but they said it had no explosives. Erm, let me guess. A battery? Maybe a light sensor so it would know when it was night time and it should switch on? GASP! A *switch*?

The problem with the phrase 'consistent with an improvised explosive device' is that by its very nature, an IED will use things that are used everywhere for all manner of other purposes.. So tagging things as suspicious because they use components that might show up in an IED is just...silly.

Again, I'm not trying to second-guess the bomb squad, here. They got called. They found something with electronics. At that point, yes, they do what they're trained to do - they detonate it in place, or (as apparently happened with the one on the police car) they decide it's not a threat and remove it. I am trying to second-guess whoever told the press 'it had components similar to an IED' - or, if they did so with the context of 'and because we couldn't move it safely, that's why procedure dictated we detonate it, which is why we can't show it to you' then FINE. But they apparently knew enough to know there weren't explosives in the things. That's the critical piece of information. It wasn't a bomb. At that point, you tell the press "Well, we know it wasn't a bomb. What was it? We'll let you know when we're sure." You don't go yammering about how similar it was to an IED, especially if you're the press!

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia, brothers.

Posted by jbz at January 31, 2007 3:32 PM | TrackBack


At my office we looked over at the skyline and said, huh, four helicopters? Something's got to have gone wrong on I-93. Then we checked the traffic report.

When we found out what was up, we set Adult Swim to be the site of the day. :)

Posted by: Aaron at January 31, 2007 9:57 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?