But what if the terrorists plant bombs in HoneyBuckets?
Thursday, February 01, 2007
I caught this on CNN today.
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/02/01/boston.bombscare/index.html
It has to do with a a NYC advertising firm hiring two freelance artists to place electronic light boards around the city of Boston that advertised the Cartoon Network's television show "Aqua Teen Hunger Force". The advertisement depicted one of the cartoon characters with their middle finger raised. Apparently, these light boxes were so bomb-like, major areas of the city were closed down while 911 operators fielded hundreds of calls from commuters. Consequently, these two brigands were arrested and charged with inducing panic. I think the situation is absurd. Apparently so do the two men charged with the crime.
At a press conference following their arraignment, the two people charged, Peter Berdovsky and Sean Stevens, approached the podium and immediately stated that they would only field questions regarding hairstyles of the 1970's. Here's a blurb from the CNN article:
When a reporter accused them of not taking the situation seriously, Stevens responded, "We're taking it (hairstyles of the 70's) very seriously." Asked another question about the case, Stevens reiterated they were answering questions only about hair and accused the reporter of not taking him and Berdovsky seriously.
Reporters did not relent and as they continued, Berdovsky disregarded their queries, saying, "That's not a hair question. I'm sorry."
These guys are my new heroes. I'm going to include one other blurb from the article that made me laugh outloud when I read it before I get on my soapbox. This one took place during the arraignment when the judge asked the D.A. to describe the crime the two were being charged with:
Assistant Attorney General John Grossman ...Asked by the judge to describe what the figure on the light box was doing, Grossman said, "Colloquially, he was flipping the bird, your honor."
This article stirred up alot of emotions in me. Obviously, the first inclination I had was to laugh outloud at these two guys. The more I thought about it, though, the more it bothered me. Remember when Bush kept telling us to get on with our lives or the "terrorists win"? Sorry, Bushy, they won. The more time that passes since 9/11 without an in-country incident, the more paranoid the public gets and the itchier the government gets to take somebody down. I understand the idea of the general public being more vigilant since 9/11 and I fully support it. A similar event took place a few years ago. In Los Angeles, random newspaper vending boxes were outfitted with devices that would play the Mission Impossible theme song whenever the door was opened. Paramount, the company that was releasing Mission Impossible 3 at the time, had done this as a means to advertise the movie. Well, a few people happened by these boxes and saw wires hanging out of the back of them and called police. The police investigated, realized it wasn't a bomb and Paramount agreed to remove all of the devices it had installed. That makes sense. You walk past a newspaper vending machine (what are those actually called, anyways?), see a bunch of wires and call the fuzz. Fuzz investigates, determines there isn't a threat, we all go home to our meatloaf. However, if I'm driving down the freeway and I see a lightbox with a cartoon character flipping the bird, bomb is not the first thing I think. Why? Because, to the best of my knowledge, Al-Queda isn't known for having a sense of humor. Why would they spend years and millions of dollars planning some city wide carnage and then subtly alert us to our impending doom? I'm going to be much more suspicious of a plain brown cardboard box sitting by the side of the road than I am of a cartoon character, and I see that almost every day and once the authorities determine there isn't a threat, we all get on with our lives. Is this "getting on with our lives"? Shutting down an entire city due to a bad idea for an advertisement? Also, where does the government get off even arresting these guys? The article states that, during the arraignment, the judge remarked that for these guys to be found guilty of inducing panic it would need to be proven that inducing panic was their intent and that he, the judge, didn't think it was. If that's the case, couldn't the Massachusettes State Police have deduced this in about 10 minutes after questioning these two? Furthermore, if the intent was to induce panic, it belonged to the advertising agency who cooked up the scheme, not the manual laborers they paid to place the panic-inducing lightboxes. But, where is the advertising agency in all of this? Why haven't the authorities questioned the idiots that came up with this idea? This whole thing reeks of bullshit. My first reaction was that I understand that our local, state and federal officials want us to feel safe, but is creating so much hoopla about something that turns out to be nothing the best way to do that? Now that I've thought about it, shouldn't the authorities have had a pretty good idea that this wasn't a bomb threat after the first lightbox was found to be harmless? Yet, they let the panic persist for hours as they checked each device before holding a press conference to state that it was "a hoax". Calling it a hoax automatically implies that the intent of this was to make people think there was a bomb threat, even though it's now been proven that it was nothing more than a bad advertising idea. So maybe we aren't meant to feel safe. Maybe we're easier to corrall when we're terrified? If I lived in Boston, I'd be pissed that the authorities are spending so much time on this nonsense rather than following leads (provided those leads don't end with someone going to jail because they accidentally dropped their dildo behind a space-heater that then caused a chemical smell).
Next, I'll comment on the two suspects. They're going to get ramrodded by the media (especially Bill O'Reilly...he makes Irish-Americans ashamed) because of the way they handled the press conference. I say Bravo, sirs! There is no better way to deal with the absurd than by acting absurd, which is precisely what these two are doing. I'm sure the media (except maybe the Daily Show) will miss the point altogether and instead crucify them for not taking the terrorist threat seriously. If you don't agree, sorry 'bout it, but these two guys really are getting on with their lives and shoving it in public's face so we can all get a good, strong wiff of it. It's too bad there aren't more people like this in the world.
Finally, the advertisement agency. It seems silly to me that placing lightboxes around a city with a random cartoon character flipping the bird was meant as an advertisement. There apparently was nothing about these lightboxes that directly referenced the show they were meant to advertise. What was the big idea? Lets, for a moment, give these chaps and...er...chappettes the bennefit of the doubt. Let's pretend that they didn't mean any harm, their singular goal was to raise awareness of the television show. How exactly does this advertisement accomplish that goal? Obviously, no one who isn't already familiar with the show is going to know what they're looking at and, without any direct reference to the show, they aren't made any more aware of its presence. It seems to me that they did this to elicit some kind of response, even if said response is only curiosity. But then what? Is the 40-year-old father of two driving his Subaru to his job going to get to work and immediately google "little computer guy giving the finger"? (So you know, I just googled "little computer guy giving the finger". I didn't get any links to the Cartoon Network show, though strangely I did get about 20 porn links...maybe tomorrow's topic) No, he won't and, as evidenced by my last parenthetical addition, it wouldn't do him any good if he did...or at least he wouldn't be any closer to being made aware of the Cartoon Network show. If anything, the advertising agency, Interference, INC, ought to be fired by Turner Broadcasting Company, not for giving them so much trouble, but for failing so miserably in their inital charge. It also strikes me odd that the name of the agency is Interference, INC, and this is the result of one of their campaigns. Coincidence?
I guess I'll end here with a few things I've learned from this#1: The general public needs to temper their vigilance with common sense#2: The government needs to stop proving to us that they can handle terrorist threats. Trying to prove it only leads us to believe that they don't know what in the hell they're doing.#3: Kamikaze advertisements have no place in our current society#4: Cartoon characters making obscene gestures are dangerous and scary.
I caught this on CNN today.
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/02/01/boston.bombscare/index.html
It has to do with a a NYC advertising firm hiring two freelance artists to place electronic light boards around the city of Boston that advertised the Cartoon Network's television show "Aqua Teen Hunger Force". The advertisement depicted one of the cartoon characters with their middle finger raised. Apparently, these light boxes were so bomb-like, major areas of the city were closed down while 911 operators fielded hundreds of calls from commuters. Consequently, these two brigands were arrested and charged with inducing panic. I think the situation is absurd. Apparently so do the two men charged with the crime.
At a press conference following their arraignment, the two people charged, Peter Berdovsky and Sean Stevens, approached the podium and immediately stated that they would only field questions regarding hairstyles of the 1970's. Here's a blurb from the CNN article:
When a reporter accused them of not taking the situation seriously, Stevens responded, "We're taking it (hairstyles of the 70's) very seriously." Asked another question about the case, Stevens reiterated they were answering questions only about hair and accused the reporter of not taking him and Berdovsky seriously.
Reporters did not relent and as they continued, Berdovsky disregarded their queries, saying, "That's not a hair question. I'm sorry."
These guys are my new heroes. I'm going to include one other blurb from the article that made me laugh outloud when I read it before I get on my soapbox. This one took place during the arraignment when the judge asked the D.A. to describe the crime the two were being charged with:
Assistant Attorney General John Grossman ...Asked by the judge to describe what the figure on the light box was doing, Grossman said, "Colloquially, he was flipping the bird, your honor."
This article stirred up alot of emotions in me. Obviously, the first inclination I had was to laugh outloud at these two guys. The more I thought about it, though, the more it bothered me. Remember when Bush kept telling us to get on with our lives or the "terrorists win"? Sorry, Bushy, they won. The more time that passes since 9/11 without an in-country incident, the more paranoid the public gets and the itchier the government gets to take somebody down. I understand the idea of the general public being more vigilant since 9/11 and I fully support it. A similar event took place a few years ago. In Los Angeles, random newspaper vending boxes were outfitted with devices that would play the Mission Impossible theme song whenever the door was opened. Paramount, the company that was releasing Mission Impossible 3 at the time, had done this as a means to advertise the movie. Well, a few people happened by these boxes and saw wires hanging out of the back of them and called police. The police investigated, realized it wasn't a bomb and Paramount agreed to remove all of the devices it had installed. That makes sense. You walk past a newspaper vending machine (what are those actually called, anyways?), see a bunch of wires and call the fuzz. Fuzz investigates, determines there isn't a threat, we all go home to our meatloaf. However, if I'm driving down the freeway and I see a lightbox with a cartoon character flipping the bird, bomb is not the first thing I think. Why? Because, to the best of my knowledge, Al-Queda isn't known for having a sense of humor. Why would they spend years and millions of dollars planning some city wide carnage and then subtly alert us to our impending doom? I'm going to be much more suspicious of a plain brown cardboard box sitting by the side of the road than I am of a cartoon character, and I see that almost every day and once the authorities determine there isn't a threat, we all get on with our lives. Is this "getting on with our lives"? Shutting down an entire city due to a bad idea for an advertisement? Also, where does the government get off even arresting these guys? The article states that, during the arraignment, the judge remarked that for these guys to be found guilty of inducing panic it would need to be proven that inducing panic was their intent and that he, the judge, didn't think it was. If that's the case, couldn't the Massachusettes State Police have deduced this in about 10 minutes after questioning these two? Furthermore, if the intent was to induce panic, it belonged to the advertising agency who cooked up the scheme, not the manual laborers they paid to place the panic-inducing lightboxes. But, where is the advertising agency in all of this? Why haven't the authorities questioned the idiots that came up with this idea? This whole thing reeks of bullshit. My first reaction was that I understand that our local, state and federal officials want us to feel safe, but is creating so much hoopla about something that turns out to be nothing the best way to do that? Now that I've thought about it, shouldn't the authorities have had a pretty good idea that this wasn't a bomb threat after the first lightbox was found to be harmless? Yet, they let the panic persist for hours as they checked each device before holding a press conference to state that it was "a hoax". Calling it a hoax automatically implies that the intent of this was to make people think there was a bomb threat, even though it's now been proven that it was nothing more than a bad advertising idea. So maybe we aren't meant to feel safe. Maybe we're easier to corrall when we're terrified? If I lived in Boston, I'd be pissed that the authorities are spending so much time on this nonsense rather than following leads (provided those leads don't end with someone going to jail because they accidentally dropped their dildo behind a space-heater that then caused a chemical smell).
Next, I'll comment on the two suspects. They're going to get ramrodded by the media (especially Bill O'Reilly...he makes Irish-Americans ashamed) because of the way they handled the press conference. I say Bravo, sirs! There is no better way to deal with the absurd than by acting absurd, which is precisely what these two are doing. I'm sure the media (except maybe the Daily Show) will miss the point altogether and instead crucify them for not taking the terrorist threat seriously. If you don't agree, sorry 'bout it, but these two guys really are getting on with their lives and shoving it in public's face so we can all get a good, strong wiff of it. It's too bad there aren't more people like this in the world.
Finally, the advertisement agency. It seems silly to me that placing lightboxes around a city with a random cartoon character flipping the bird was meant as an advertisement. There apparently was nothing about these lightboxes that directly referenced the show they were meant to advertise. What was the big idea? Lets, for a moment, give these chaps and...er...chappettes the bennefit of the doubt. Let's pretend that they didn't mean any harm, their singular goal was to raise awareness of the television show. How exactly does this advertisement accomplish that goal? Obviously, no one who isn't already familiar with the show is going to know what they're looking at and, without any direct reference to the show, they aren't made any more aware of its presence. It seems to me that they did this to elicit some kind of response, even if said response is only curiosity. But then what? Is the 40-year-old father of two driving his Subaru to his job going to get to work and immediately google "little computer guy giving the finger"? (So you know, I just googled "little computer guy giving the finger". I didn't get any links to the Cartoon Network show, though strangely I did get about 20 porn links...maybe tomorrow's topic) No, he won't and, as evidenced by my last parenthetical addition, it wouldn't do him any good if he did...or at least he wouldn't be any closer to being made aware of the Cartoon Network show. If anything, the advertising agency, Interference, INC, ought to be fired by Turner Broadcasting Company, not for giving them so much trouble, but for failing so miserably in their inital charge. It also strikes me odd that the name of the agency is Interference, INC, and this is the result of one of their campaigns. Coincidence?
I guess I'll end here with a few things I've learned from this#1: The general public needs to temper their vigilance with common sense#2: The government needs to stop proving to us that they can handle terrorist threats. Trying to prove it only leads us to believe that they don't know what in the hell they're doing.#3: Kamikaze advertisements have no place in our current society#4: Cartoon characters making obscene gestures are dangerous and scary.
posted by Ryan | 9:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home