Just in case it’s not utterly obvious, I’m glad that the two murderous cowards who attacked civilians in Boston recently are off the streets. One dead and one in custody is a great outcome.
That said, a large percent of the reaction in Boston has been security theater. “Four victims brutally killed” goes by other names in other cities.
In Detroit, for example, they call it “Tuesday”.
…and Detroit does not shut down every time there are a few murders.
“But Clark,” I hear you say, “this is different. This was a terrorist attack.”
Washington DC, during ongoing sniper terrorist attacks in 2002 that killed twice as many people, was not shut down.
Kileen Texas, after the Fort Hood terrorist attack in 2009 that killed three times as many people, was not shut down.
London, after the bombing terrorist attack in 2005 that killed more than ten times as many people, was not shut down.
“But Clark,” I hear you asking, “what about the lives saved?”
There is no evidence that any lives were saved by the Boston shutdown.
“Yeah, but you can’t know for sure!”
True. I can’t. But in London, Washington, LA after the El Al shootings, and so on and so on and so on, there were not lockdowns, and there were no further fatalities. It’s not perfect proof, but it’s suggestive.
“Then why the hell do you care, Clark?”
First, the unprecendented shutdown of a major American city may have increased safety some small bit, but it was not without a cost: keeping somewhere between 2 and 5 million people from work, shopping, and school destroyed a nearly unimaginable amount of value. If we call it just three million people, and we peg the cost at a mere $15 per person per hour, the destroyed value runs to a significant fraction of a billion dollars.
And yes, I’m going to give away the punchline:
The government and police were willing to shut down parts of the economy like the universities, software, biotech, and manufacturing…but when asked to do an actual risk to reward calculation where a small part of the costs landed on their own shoulders, they had no problem weighing one versus the other and then telling the donut servers “yeah, come to work – no one’s going to get shot.”
Sandy Hook was wrong, this was wrong. What was also wrong was the Telegraph headline that the two killers had been caught, justice had been done and all was well.
Do they take us for idiots, patronizing like that? As if a newspaper or Obama and Co can “guarantee” safety?
Ah, hang on one moment. Maybe, just maybe they can. Maybe they know there’ll be no more attacks in this theatre. Maybe they’re well aware that now the play’s done, there’s no need for Manchurians and more. You no doubt read the testimonials about how those boys must have gone bad after they left school because there was nothing in their histories before.
Yes – they may well have and like Jack Ruby and Sirhan Sirhan, were both part of the theatre resulting in, as mentioned before, the new gun laws.
IMHO, if you trust anything Obama or Washington do or say, especially after the deeply unsatisfactory lack of transparency on his birth, his college records, his movements, anything about him, his inauguration theatrics, Fast and Furious and any of a large number of unresolved issues – if you still trust him when he sickeningly plays the “we are America, we are strong together” card, then I have a battleship to sell you.
These guys put this out the day after the event and yes, there is a rightwing slant but bear with that and look at the last minute because it does zero in on one major culprit – the press, the media.
And who owns the media? So press regulation is a red herring in this context – because it’s already in deep captcha.