Boston Security "Scare"

How to react to the "Boston security scare" of a few weeks ago? Do you say that, in a post-9/11 world, there's no such thing as an "overreaction" and applaud Mayor Menino, Governor Patrick, and Police Commissioner Davis for taking every precaution regarding the 10 or so "suspicious packages" strategicaly placed around Boston and outlying areas?

Do you blame Turner-owned Cartoon Network and its marketing strategy, conceding that, again, in a post-9/11 world, one should be sensitive to the world climate and understand that any misidentified "suspicious package" could be part of a terrorist plot?

Is it right for Turner and the contractor behind the marketing scheme, Interference Inc., to pay $2 million dollars to make amends for the publicity campaign, and for the two men who placed the devices, to be brought up on criminal charges?

Or...

Is Boston now more than ever a national embarrassment, mistaking a marketing scheme by the Cartoon Network as the work of Islamic fundamentalists? Then demanding retribution in the amount of $2 million dollars to save face, deflect blame, and excuse behavior?

What of the fact that these devices had been there for at least two weeks in Boston and in other major cities without so much as a peep of their existence? (apparently, the marketing scheme wasn't working anyway)

And the fact that it seems that Mayor Menino, Governor Patrick, and Police Commissioner Davis clearly have no idea what terrorism actually looks like, what constitutes a terrorist threat, and what means terrorists use to threaten us?

so...
which argument is more plausible?

To me, it has to be THE LATTER.

A lengthy excerpt from John Stossel's revealing piece, Panic In Boston:

"The Boston Globe reports, 'Turner Broadcasting acknowledged that it never sought approval or alerted authorities that it would put up the signs.'

"Good lord, if advertisers now have to apologize for not seeking prior approval from authorities for putting up signs, what have we come to?

"One of the men charged, Peter Berdovsky, said, '[It's] kind of ridiculous that they're making these statements on TV that we must not be safe from terrorism, because they were up there for three weeks and no one noticed. It's pretty commonsensical to look at them and say this is a piece of art and installation.'

"Terrorism is horrible, but your chances of dying in a terrorist attack are relatively low. You're more likely to be killed hitting a deer with your car. (Two hundred Americans die on average every year from car collisions with deer. Including the toll from 9/11, the average number of Americans to die each year from international terrorism since 1981 is 145.)

"Excessive fear of terrorism hurts Americans, too. After 9/11, many people chose to drive rather than fly, leading to 1,000 additional deaths in automobile wrecks.

"Boston's crazy reaction reinforces the theme I've been sounding in recent columns: Decentralization of authority is always better than centralized power. Imagine if the federal Department of Homeland Security imposed procedures on all cities for when suspicious devices are spotted. The whole country might have come to a standstill.

"Instead -- thank goodness -- cities and states can establish their own procedures based on their own knowledge and experience. If Boston's procedures cause the city to panic and shut down, at least New York's and L.A.'s don't."

Michael Graham's take:

"So, do you think the people in New York and LA are really bummed out that THEY didn't spend an hour stuck in traffic or trapped on a stopped subway train? Do you think the taxpayers in Portland and Seattle wish they had blown a million bucks chasing Lite Brites on Wednesday?

"Or do you think they're thinking their lucky stars that their mayor isn't named Menino?"

Again...THE LATTER.