Only in Boston would they think a marketing campaign is a bomb scare. How much money did they waste?

Is this funny or is it overreaction? In a post-9-11 America, shouldn’t we be better safe than sorry? We all believe our level of national diligence must be greater today than it was a decade ago, bud don’t’ we still need to have to be standards to our reactions. Our officials must still maintain intelligent response levels. At some point, even in a post-9-11 world, overreaction is STILL overreaction. No matter your opinion, it is fair to ask what should be the standards for overreaction. I don’t expect to actually set those standards here and now, but we can, perhaps, consider the cold facts, and boring numbers of the Boston case. Let’s consider if the devices fit a reasonable standard as to if they appear to be a threat. According to the Massachusetts state bar’s president-elect, David White-Lief, the devices most likely do not resemble an “infernal machine” which is the state’s standard for a hoax device. If we don’t want to take his word for it, let’s consider the numbers.

I am not a marketing expert. I do know, though, that marketing professionals calculate the impact a given campaign, such as a billboard, or Superbowl ad, will have. If any marketing experts want to weigh in with a good estimate as to how many people saw these devices I would appreciate it. In lieu of that, lets make a guess. These devices were placed in high traffic areas (they were ads after all) with the intent of being seen by as many people as possible. They were placed in ten cities, and they were up for nearly two weeks before a call was made to to the police. To make the math easy, lets just stay, ten devices were in ten cities for ten days. If 1,000 people saw each device each day, then 1 million people had seen one of these devices before someone called the police. That number sets a standard without needing to trust Mr. White-Lief’s opinion. That standard is one in a million. If one in a million American citizens think something looks like a bomb, than so we have to shut down a major American city over it? According the U.S. Department of Heath and Human Services National Survey on Drug Use and Health, during the 2002 to 2005 period an estimated 1.4 million persons, or 0.6% of the population, over the age of twelve had used methamphetamines in the past year. That is six out of 1,000 people. If we stick to our one in a million standard, that means it’s time for the Department of Homeland Security to suit up and face the giant spider menace threatening the rural Midwest.

All Americans want to fight terrorism. Fighting something usually implies taking proactive action, and generally does not conjure thoughts of restraint. A winning NASCAR driver might credit is engine with a victory, but ask him if he’d run his next race without his breaks. If we set an unattainable level sensitivity, that will not only overtax our protectors, thus preventing them from responding to true threats, it will shut down our ability to function as a civilized nation.

Is this funny or is it overreaction? I’m sorry, but the better-safe-than-sorry manta is not Carte blanche. Was this funny? Yes, yes it is funny. The inconvenience, cost to the Bostonians, and threat of jail time, however, make it tragically funny. The tragedy stems from the overreaction of the Boston authorities.

--- Ollie

P.S. I have to give a recent “Onion” article credit for the “Giant Spider” idea.
(thanks “Onion” http://www.theonion.com/content/news/meth_addicts_demand_government)

i first saw this on Fox News and got the typical "everybody be scared" blather... here in NZ "the terrorists have won" is often used as a joke about the whitehouse and the medias over reaction to things like this... only this time it's not funny.... it's true!

weren't there also Ignignoc's in New York that weren't taken out by the bomb squad? If so is that a failure of the NSA? Or sucess of common sense?