Riding the subway home from work today, my eye rested on a whole bunch of other eyes. No, don't worry dad, I wasn't making eye contact in the New York subway system, these eyes were on an advertisement put out by the MTA.
The ad, part of the MTA's continuing campaign to prevent potential terrorist attacks features a resolutely multi-racial set of eyes, which we are supposed to believe represent the population of the five boroughs. Although they are on average, less bloodshot, sleepy, and suspicious than what I would expect from a random sampling, I am willing to suspend my disbelief, and take them for what they are meant to be.
As for what they are meant to be doing, I am not so sure. The text below the eyes reads, "There are 16 million eyes in the city. We're counting on all of them." The message I believe, is that if we are to prevent another attack in New York, we (New York residents, commuters, and visitors,) must all remain constantly vigilant -- keeping our eyes open for suspicious behavior at all times.
I have a couple of issues with this message. The first one is simply that I'm not sure if it will work. One of the most interesting things about the September 11 hijackers is that on September 11, up until the moment they rose from their seats and announced that they were terrorists, they hadn't done anything that was illegal certainly, or even all that suspicious. It wasn't illegal to book one-way tickets for a group travelling together. It wasn't illegal to have box-cutters, not even in your carry-on. Of course there have been other examples of people doing highly suspicious things and then trying to do something violent. A prime example would have to be that ten foot tall dude who was caught trying to set his shoe on fire! But, my point is just that you don't necessarily have to be suspicious to blow something up, and even less so if you were trying to do something even creepier, involving a chemical or biological weapon. Even if we assume that someone attacking New York City is going to be acting a little bit funny before he or she attacks, the question remains... how is that any different from a normal New York commuter?
My second issue with the ad is less tangible. It just feels a little creepy to me. As I looked at the eyes in the subway today, a name came into my mind: Pavlik Morozov. I took a Russian history course taught by Greg Hand in high school, and along with the former Soviet Republics (you can remember these by the easy mnemonic device, "ELBUM GAA TUTKK R") was the story of Pavlik Morozov. Little Pavlik, as the story goes, did his duty as a loyal citizen of the Soviet Union, and at the age of 12, denounced his father to the authorities for some type of traitorous behavior. His father was tried and convicted, and sent to Siberia, or Gulag, or Gaol, or whatever the Russians called the pokey back then (1930s I believe.) Angry members of the family killed Pavlik, who was then held up as a martyred exemplar of the ideal Soviet youth all over the country. School-children learned his story, and operas were written and performed, but I'm afraid -- not listened to (even Soviets are human.)
Okay, so, there is clearly a difference between one government teaching children to betray their families and another asking commuters to keep their eyes open and report what they see. But, what can I say, Morozov was the name that flew into my mind on my way home today. I don't want to keep my eyes open on my commute home and I don't want other people keeping their eyes open at me. I just don't think it's worth it. I'm not sure how much it will improve our chances of not being attacked by a foreigner and I'm pretty sure that creating an heightened atmosphere of distrust (and let's not forget that people would not actually be looking at me, they would be looking at light-brown skinned people...) can only inspire more violent acts between Americans. Maybe this would get filed as violent crime and not terrorism, but I don't think that's a trade that I would like to make.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Thursday, January 11, 2007
This is a blog. A what? A blog. Oh, a blog...
Most of my blog entries are not really appropriate for a blog. The conclusion I reached in an earlier entry (also, not really a true blog entry...) is that an authentic blog should be a survey of the websites that the author has been visiting lately -- a compendium if I will. And, it looks like today, finally, I will.
Recently a big news story in the New York metropolitan was the mysterious "natural gas" smell that covered the city and its neighbors a few days ago. As almost always happens when a funny smell occurs, people immediately blame New Jersey. We New Jerseyans get a little bit prickly about this. I particularly enjoyed a quote from Stan H. Eason, a spokesperson for Jersey City, who said, "'We’re going to get some industrial fans out and blow the smell back over to New York,'"
In other news from my home state, the state legislation is seriously considering making some important changes to the constitution. Nope, not gay marriage. No, not the death penalty. No... it was a five letter word!
Aside from horrid smells, and word choice, some of you might have noticed Bush's national announcement of the "troop surge" in Iraq. My first instinct was to question whether or not our Commander in Chief needed to make such a public display of increasing our troop numbers by a paltry ~12 percent? Having been convinced by one of my trusted advisers that this was, indeed, appropriate, I've distilled my objection to this: seeing as basically no one believes that 20,000 troops is going to make a significant change in the military situation in Iraq, then Bush' motivation must have been to make a significant change in the political situation in the United States, and I'm not really sure he should be trying to make political hay while the kids die. On this subject (and this is where the link comes in...) I read a New York Times column by Maureen Dowd (which is "reprinted" on someone else's blog, because you have to pay to read certain Times articles on-line these days.) In it she tries to psychoanalyze President Bush by making an elaborate allegory to his college days. She describes Bush in the following way:
"Junior was known as an extremely aggressive player in the venerable Parker Brothers board game, a brutal contest that requires bluster and bluffing as you invade countries, all the while betraying alliances. Notably, it’s almost impossible to win Risk and conquer the world if you start the game in the Middle East, because you’re surrounded by enemies."
Here's my beef. All psychological or military accuracy aside, if you are going to waste almost 24 column inches of the New York Times with a board game allegory, you should really get your facts about the game straight. You cannot bluff while playing Risk. I've never seen anyone attempt to bluster their way into a better position. Nor are there usually any alliances to betray. Risk is actually a game that is skewed to the defensive (when two players role equal numbers on the dice, the defender wins,) and rewards good positioning and overwhelming numerical superiority.
Sorry about that... it's just something I'm passionate about, and I hate when someone sullies such an important topic with politics.
I went to an art show in SOHO that my friend and ex-housemate Amanda Thackray was exhibiting at. The show was fairly political, intermittently sophomoric, and to my unrefined mind, over-priced. But, it did provoke the following conversational gem, which I wish someone had overheard and reported on this nifty website:
Ezra: What is that terrible noise?
Noise: WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Amanda (with no hesitation): I think it's either a fire alarm or art.
The curse of the yellow piece: a woman was hospitalized after playing poorly in a game of Trivial Pursuit. Which would suggest that perhaps it isn't such a trivial game after all. I love the fact that the person who reported on the incident felt the need to report that the woman in question was, in fact, playing as the yellow piece. I especially enjoyed that because I ALWAYS play as the yellow piece. I think it's because yellow is the color of the history questions or maybe because Nero Wolfe's pajamas are yellow.
My motivations are sometimes less than clear. But if you are interested in history, especially if you have ancestors who immigrated to this continent from England, then you might be interested in this little history thing, which doubles as my last link of the day. Enjoy!
Recently a big news story in the New York metropolitan was the mysterious "natural gas" smell that covered the city and its neighbors a few days ago. As almost always happens when a funny smell occurs, people immediately blame New Jersey. We New Jerseyans get a little bit prickly about this. I particularly enjoyed a quote from Stan H. Eason, a spokesperson for Jersey City, who said, "'We’re going to get some industrial fans out and blow the smell back over to New York,'"
In other news from my home state, the state legislation is seriously considering making some important changes to the constitution. Nope, not gay marriage. No, not the death penalty. No... it was a five letter word!
Aside from horrid smells, and word choice, some of you might have noticed Bush's national announcement of the "troop surge" in Iraq. My first instinct was to question whether or not our Commander in Chief needed to make such a public display of increasing our troop numbers by a paltry ~12 percent? Having been convinced by one of my trusted advisers that this was, indeed, appropriate, I've distilled my objection to this: seeing as basically no one believes that 20,000 troops is going to make a significant change in the military situation in Iraq, then Bush' motivation must have been to make a significant change in the political situation in the United States, and I'm not really sure he should be trying to make political hay while the kids die. On this subject (and this is where the link comes in...) I read a New York Times column by Maureen Dowd (which is "reprinted" on someone else's blog, because you have to pay to read certain Times articles on-line these days.) In it she tries to psychoanalyze President Bush by making an elaborate allegory to his college days. She describes Bush in the following way:
"Junior was known as an extremely aggressive player in the venerable Parker Brothers board game, a brutal contest that requires bluster and bluffing as you invade countries, all the while betraying alliances. Notably, it’s almost impossible to win Risk and conquer the world if you start the game in the Middle East, because you’re surrounded by enemies."
Here's my beef. All psychological or military accuracy aside, if you are going to waste almost 24 column inches of the New York Times with a board game allegory, you should really get your facts about the game straight. You cannot bluff while playing Risk. I've never seen anyone attempt to bluster their way into a better position. Nor are there usually any alliances to betray. Risk is actually a game that is skewed to the defensive (when two players role equal numbers on the dice, the defender wins,) and rewards good positioning and overwhelming numerical superiority.
Sorry about that... it's just something I'm passionate about, and I hate when someone sullies such an important topic with politics.
I went to an art show in SOHO that my friend and ex-housemate Amanda Thackray was exhibiting at. The show was fairly political, intermittently sophomoric, and to my unrefined mind, over-priced. But, it did provoke the following conversational gem, which I wish someone had overheard and reported on this nifty website:
Ezra: What is that terrible noise?
Noise: WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Amanda (with no hesitation): I think it's either a fire alarm or art.
The curse of the yellow piece: a woman was hospitalized after playing poorly in a game of Trivial Pursuit. Which would suggest that perhaps it isn't such a trivial game after all. I love the fact that the person who reported on the incident felt the need to report that the woman in question was, in fact, playing as the yellow piece. I especially enjoyed that because I ALWAYS play as the yellow piece. I think it's because yellow is the color of the history questions or maybe because Nero Wolfe's pajamas are yellow.
My motivations are sometimes less than clear. But if you are interested in history, especially if you have ancestors who immigrated to this continent from England, then you might be interested in this little history thing, which doubles as my last link of the day. Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
