I'm not sure what you would have spokesperson do, though. And I think this is/is going to be played as "Leftist Terrorism," not "Muslim Terrorism." Recruiting station, etc.
Agreed, on all counts, but weirdly, John McCain is talking sense:
"My friends, a bad thing happened in Times Square this morning, and that is some idiot tried to harm a recruiting station there in Times Square where we recruit men and women who serve in the military,'' he said. "We have to track down and prosecute and put in jail people that commit acts of that nature."
Terrorism's salient characteristic is that it's perpetrated by Muslims? Not even remotely correct. The top "domestic terrorism" groups are the ELF and ALF, according to the FBI. Also, Operation Backfire.
It blew a hole in the front of a military recruiting office. I suppose there's an outside possibility it's just a pissed-off wife of somebody who worked there.
I'm not even sure of "leftist terrorism" if it is in fact linked to the two earlier hokey explosives that were lobbed at the British and Mexican consulates. Who hates army recruiting, the UK, and Mexico?
3: Didn't the FBI decide that angry vegans were the greatest threat to domestic peace, because Ashcroft took anything to do with anti-choice protesters off the table?
Who hates army recruiting, the UK, and Mexico?
Lyndon LaRouche.
3: That cute little fuzzy alien is a terrorist?!
This reminds me a lot of the looting/foraging distinction that news organizations observed in New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina.
2: What were you expecting? "We've got to declare martial law in response to this"? He's basically saying that when people commit crimes, they should be caught and punished -- I think there's pretty broad agreement on that point.
I don't even get the comments on the linked blog post saying, "Yep, looks like leftists to me!" Wow. People are really, really crazy.
The premise being that "We're still investigating," is shorthand for "We're still investigating to see if Muslims are involved because then and only then will we know if it was an act of terror," as opposed to the more preferable, "Of course it was terrorism because when a bomb goes off in a crowded spot it is an act of terror and I don't need to know who did it to say that with conviction"?
The bomb went off at like 4 in the morning. It wasn't crowded.
Maybe the Weather Underground is reforming.
I'm pleasantly surprised to see him talking about it as a law-enforcement issue, Adam. Are you suggesting that I shouldn't be so hard on John McCain?
15: It wasn't crowded. There was no one there or around at all. At 4am, even Times Square is nearly empty (especially now that the sex shows are all gone.)
Ok, so -
The premise being that "We're still investigating," is shorthand for "We're still investigating to see if Muslims are involved because then and only then will we know if it was an act of terror," as opposed to the more preferable, "Of course it was terrorism because when a bomb goes off in a public spot it is an act of terror and I don't need to know who did it to say that with conviction" or the even more preferable "no, it wasn't because I can tell that right from the get-go"?
What I'm saying is, I don't get it. Could the point of the post viz the language used by the spokeswoman be more thoroughly explicated for the woman with a head cold?
sybil is correct.
It is not Terrorism unless Muslims are involved. The word has been re-tooled.
What caught my eye was this.
What caught my eye was this:
At the time of the Mexican consulate attack, Mr. Kelly, the police commissioner, described the two improvised explosives. He said they were training, or dummy, grenades -- perhaps purchased from a novelty shop -- that had been hollowed out and stuffed with gunpowder, possibly black powder, and equipped with pyrotechnic fuses.
That's not really what the military means when they say IED. The various improvisations in Iraq involved the different attempts at remote trigger mechanisms (cell phones, string, what have you) all attached to shitloads of plastic explosive. Now that they've regularized on production, IED's are the roadside equivalent of an RPG round. (Scaled way up in size.)
This thing is improvished, but it's just lame. Improvised Lame Black Powder Thingy seems more accurate.
I suppose calling it an IED gets the NYPD grants and shit, to study the evil Muslims.
max
['The only thing sensible about this guy is his use of something that doesn't carry markers.']
Ogged's point is that it is de facto terrorism, and the spokeperson's unwillingness to grant as much evidences his xenophobia, right? I think I get it now.
evidences his xenophobia
Her xenophobia, sexist.
I don't get why oudemia and Kostko made a point of correcting my wrongness about the crowdedness. Does that, the non-crowdedness, factor into the close-reading of xenophobic statements that is going on here?
Perhaps not the spokesman's xenophobia so much as ours, the culture. Because it is, in fact, true that if he said "this terrorist incident", people *would* think "Muslims!" It's one of those bizarre catch-22s where, in trying *not* to be racist, he's revealing not only his racism but the racism of the country at large.
(That said, it's interesting that we, or at least I, tend to think of "terrorism" as actions against the *state*. I'd argue to the death that, say, abortion-clinic bombings are terrorism, which they are, but it is nonetheless the fact that I have to *think* to make that connection; it doesn't come automatically.)
Does that, the non-crowdedness, factor into the close-reading of xenophobic statements that is going on here?
No, they're just pedants.
Hey Kotsko, can you email me? I can't find an email link at your blog.
The non-crowdedness is important -- it looks like a deliberate intent not to kill many if any people. That combined with the amateurishness is not typical of Al Qaeda or radical Islamic terrorism in general.
I don't get why oudemia and Kostko made a point of correcting my wrongness about the crowdedness
Because it was incorrect, not because it bears on the point of the post.
While this is no doubt inextricably tied into "OMG teh musselmenz!" being delicate about tossing around the word "terrorism" in New York City is probably wise.
Basically, the first thing they say when anything blows up here now -- an overheated cab, a steam pipe -- is "It isn't terrorism!" So here, where it surely is terrorism of a form, but sort of ridiculous, they say "well, we're still investigating."
Of course it was terrorism because when a bomb goes off in a public spot it is an act of terror and I don't need to know who did it to say that with conviction
I don't buy this --- a bomb is not inherently an act of terror. Terrorists aim to terrorize, after all. Explosions that don't threaten a lot of people are hardly effective this way.
A bomb could be a criminal disagreement, and insurance scam, a very messy divorce, whatever.
the point in 29 suggests exactly the opposite of what I paraphrased in 23; that is, because it wasn't crowded, among other things, one can safely assume it wasn't terrorism, which should've been the woman's answer. But as she can't really conclude until she finds out if teh Muslims were involved, she reserves judgment.
Perhaps not the spokesman's xenophobia so much as ours, the culture. Because it is, in fact, true that if he said "this terrorist incident", people *would* think "Muslims!" It's one of those bizarre catch-22s where, in trying *not* to be racist, he's revealing not only his racism but the racism of the country at large.
This, by B, seems right.
Ogged, what is the non-xenophobic statement you think she should/could have made?
a very messy divorce
We had one of those! A townhouse on the UES was blown-up by a guy who didn't want his wife to get it in a divorce! Of course, the empty lot was worth much more than the lot+house, so his wife got way more (and he maybe got nothing? profits from a crime and all that?).
I would argue that there's an insufficient element of general fear that comes with a true terrorist attack, which by its nature involves both (1) injury to, or death of, uninvolved bystanders (and specifically using the word "uninvolved" as opposed to "innocent," since by a terrorist's logic nobody is innocent), and (2) disruption of public life. It happened at an odd hour, reducing the impact of (1) to, well, nothing, and it wasn't a large enough event to make me think that (2) is significant either.
One also has to consider the case of the crackpot with a grudge, such as we saw in Oklahoma City. In that case the motive seems to have been far more to strike at the federal government itself, and less to destabilize the populace. If I were involved in the investigation, I'd be looking for somebody with a specific grudge against military recruiting.
I support the spokeswoman's vague answer as being both syntactically and operationally correct. On preview, I seem to be agreeing with 32 and 33.
I didn't know Obama was in Times Square this morning...
That said, it's interesting that we, or at least I, tend to think of "terrorism" as actions against the *state*.
That is interesting, but I don't know how widespread it is. I actually tend to think of terrorism against non-state targets as more typical of the phenomenon.
It's not that I disagree that we are fundamentally xenophobic or that 'terrorism' has come to mean largely an act perpetrated by Muslims. What I am curious about, in this case, is wether it is the fact of this incident's being apparently non-terroristic in nature or obviously terroristic in nature that makes the woman's comments particularly telling. If a case can be made for either, as it seems to me it can, I find the point less persuasive.
39 I didn't know Obama was in Times Square this morning...
But maybe someone black was. Perhaps Obama should proactively denounce and reject, just in case.
What I am curious about, in this case, is wether it is the fact of this incident's being apparently non-terroristic in nature or obviously terroristic in nature that makes the woman's comments particularly telling.
The assumption in the post seems to be the latter.
The suspicion among the cops right now, and I have no idea if they're right or not, is that this maybe by the same person or persons unknown who lobbed something a-little-bit incendiary at the British and Mexican consulates at the same hour of night a few months ago. Even with only minor damage, incendiary devices lobbed at two consulates and an army recruitment office seems like it may be (kind of lame) terrorism of a sort.
"I don't buy this --- a bomb is not inherently an act of terror. Terrorists aim to terrorize, after all. Explosions that don't threaten a lot of people are hardly effective this way"
Remember that the IRA used to tip off the police before their bombs went off, in most cases anyway. Are you claiming the Provos weren't terrorists?
Ogged, what is the non-xenophobic statement you think she should/could have made?
The xenophobic framing actually comes from the questioner: this bomb that went off in times square, was it terrorism? Of course it's logically possible that the question is meant to distinguish between someone with a personal grudge and someone with a political motive, but that's not how I read it, especially considering that even obviously crazy foreigners who become violent get classified as suffering from "sudden jihad syndrome" by wingers. The spokesperson was in a tough spot because she can't give the correct answer "of course it was terrorism, moron" without also communicating the subtextual answer: "yes, it was muslims." So she says they're investigating, which is about all she can say.
Shorter and correct ogged:
You can't have a sensible conversation with deranged people.
Remember that the IRA used to tip off the police before their bombs went off, in most cases anyway.
Indeed, bomb threats have long been a common terrorist tactic. There doesn't even need to be a real bomb to get the desired effect.
Terrorists aim to terrorize, after all
This is key. The distinction between terrorism and sabotage has been getting fuzzy for political reasons—as in the application of anti-terror law to ELF arson and vandalism in the PNW—so any hesitation to call even a bombing terrorism seems like a good thing.
Lake Wobegon has its own terrorist. Sarin. Not a completely functional guy.
it's interesting that we, or at least I, tend to think of "terrorism" as actions against the *state*.
Really? The WTC was private property. So are most if not all airliners. You don't think of hijackings as terrorism? If anything, as teo says, it's the reverse; strikes against state targets can in some cases be defended as acts of war.
Are you claiming the Provos weren't terrorists?
By definition the Provos weren't terrorists; they received US funding. They were "rebels".
I think there is an official rule that says if a plot is sufficiently pathetic, it doesn't count as terrorism. The rule is a spin off of the fact that terrorists are supposed to terrify.
I think the woman was holding back because if this explosion can be linked to the consulate explosions, it is clear that the perpetrator is a hopeless dork that we don't need to worry about.
The spokesperson was in a tough spot because she can't give the correct answer "of course it was terrorism, moron"
This doesn't seem like the correct answer to me. Given the facts I would be inclined to say this wasn't a terrorist incident.
Things like this create strange alliances. Kostko doesn't really feel bad about the bombing of a recruitment office in an "obvious" act of terrorism, and you can bet the right-wingers will be all over this as an "obvious" act of terrorism precisely because it is a sacrosanct recruitment office. Any media reluctance to call it such will be, to them, representative of anti-millitary bias.
This strikes me as more vandalism than terrorism.
Ah, I thought I'd posted about this before. And got called "stupid" by the retired, lamented Magik Johnson.
I was about 12 at the time of that post, I can't be responsible for it.
I'm 30. 2003 just seems like a long time ago. I don't get the question in 59.
Aw, Sybil isnt one of the Youths anymore?? When did that happen?
How old is w-lfs-n? He has one of those faces.
Sybil, what do you live in?
Let's try to guess. A yurt!
Obviously I meant "what state do you live in".
I just turned 26, uppercase Will.
Isn't it obvious that Sybil lives in a state of bliss and contentment?
But what valence do you think she assigns to those states?
live in GA, and am technically 29 for a few more months, but I always feel like it feels so fake to announce one's self as 29. I've felt like I was lying this whole year.
I always feel like it feels so fake to announce one's self as 29. I've felt like I was lying this whole year.
Technically, you were.
You lie about your age so as to not seem like you're lying about your age? You have to inhabit the you, man.
My state of being is slightly less contented now that Brett Favre has confirmed retirement.
(Assuming you were announcing your age as 30. And what's wrong with saying you're 29, anyway?)
26?!?! Very interesting, young w-lfs-n.
16 is exactly what I thought when I read the story.
In person, I think I can say 29 with the conviction to inhabit it. But I look young. As an online persona, I feel like 29 sounds really flim-flamy.
My state of being is slightly less contented now that Brett Favre has confirmed retirement.
First, Vick. Now, Brett.
All of Sybil's heros are fading away.
Asked if there was a link to terrorism, the spokeswoman, Laura Keehner, said, "At this time we're still investigating."
Just on this point, the response seems perfectly reasonable and, in fact, is a pretty canned response to crime response in general.
Big Ben is making Big Bucks now. He'll be around for some time.
Is there an age graph for Unfogged?
(So we can decide whose comments to dismiss as youthful naivity and whose comments to dismiss as the jaded rantings of the nearly dead.)
it feels so fake to announce one's self as 29
It only increases at 39, I can assure you. I've just started saying, "I turn 40 this year."
We're paying w-lfs-n now? Why wasn't I informed?
But why ask about my state?
Because if you're 17, whether your tender is legal depends on what state you live in. Talk to Emerson for details.
Because if you're 17, whether your tender is legal depends on what state you live in.
If she's 18, though, it's legal everywhere. And saying you're 17 sounds like such a lie.
I've just started saying, "I turn 40 this year."
Anymore, I just give people a weary, desperate look, and walk away silently.
I feel so happy when people use "anymore" as it is used in 85.
86: So nice to know that this old man can still make a young woman happy.
...laydeez.
In the days before your birth, Sybs, the "positive anymore" was quite the topic around here.
"I think there is an official rule that says if a plot is sufficiently pathetic, it doesn't count as terrorism. The rule is a spin off of the fact that terrorists are supposed to terrify. "
Doesn't always apply. Carried liquids onto a plane recently? That plot was pathetic and had no chance of succeeding, but the US and UK governments stuck an enormous flashing terrorism sign on it.
Huh. My friends from Chicago are the loudest laughers when I use the word that way. I assumed it was a rust belt thing.
I assumed it was a rust belt thing.
The Rust Belt actually consists of (at least) two major dialect areas, which are not particularly similar.
They may not be, but everyone I know from the rust belt uses the positive anymore, and in the humanities we call that Hard Evidence.
Positive Anymore has spread a bit beyond its traditional territory, probably because it's a marker of a "folksy" style.
But I thought your Chicago friends laughed at you for it?
I've never heard it in Chicago, except from my friend from the 'burgh.
Why are you people discussing language with someone who probably uses the word "jag off" in every sentence?
Seriously. Language discussions with someone from Pittsburgh?
They (a law enforcement talking head on NPR's Morning Edition, iirc) said the same thing about the ricin guy in Las Vegas; something like "premature to designate as a terrorist" someone with vials of ricin in his motel room and the Anarchist Cookbook on the nightstand.
I'm not sure about this, but could it be that the spokesperson wasn't sure whether or not to call it terrorism because they weren't sure about the intent? I mean, if he had set off the same explosive at the same time and place in order to kill his business rival, who he expected to be there at that time, I wouldn't call that terrorism. Now one might counter that there's already enough information to decide that this is terrorism, but I don't mind police spokespeople being cautious about that.
I've found myself screaming at NPR in the mornings. I think I need a vacation.
96: People in Chicago *do* say jag-off. It would crack me up when Sipowicz on NYPD Blue would call people jag-offs in his think hog-butchery tones. Not so much with the NY!
I think I need a vacation.
You could try not listening to NPR.
I had stopped reading the thread before I got to comment 32. Oops.
98 gets it right.
If the person hasn't committed any terrorist acts, then he hasn't committed any terrorist acts. Maybe he likes to fantastize in his spare time. Maybe whatever he was going to do was targeted at actually killing someone instead of scaring people.
I just want them to be consistent. Do you think that they would exercise similar caution if the suspect was Muslim or black (same thing now, I understand)?
similar caution if the suspect was Muslim or black (same thing now, I understand)?
I think it's likely they would. To reason speculation based on a routine response is problematic. The media is another story altogether.
105:
I dont doubt Unfogged's caution. I doubt the media's caution.
People in Chicago *do* say jag-off. It would crack me up when Sipowicz on NYPD Blue would call people jag-offs in his think hog-butchery tones. Not so much with the NY!
It was rather late in the run when it was firmly established that Det. Sipowicz had grown up in Brooklyn. Before that one could have imagined that he had somehow moved from Chicago to NYC as a teenager after forming his accent. I'm disappointed, though, to learn from you that he has Chicago vocabulary as well as a Chicago accent. That's the writers' fault.
46
The xenophobic framing actually comes from the questioner: this bomb that went off in times square, was it terrorism? Of course it's logically possible that the question is meant to distinguish between someone with a personal grudge and someone with a political motive, but that's not how I read it,
For better or for worse, this is how more-or-less-responsible journalism works. If you're talking to a spokesperson or director of communications or someone similar about something that's legally or politically sensitive very soon after the event and you don't know them, you ask for every detail that you can't see with your own eyes, and you don't expect to get an answer. And the corollary is that if you're a spokesperson and you're talking to a journalist very soon after an event, you don't tell them anything they don't already know, unless your boss has said you could.
If they find the guy and it turns out to be a white right-wing nut who bombed the place on Fred Phelps grounds and the media doesn't call it terrorism, then yeah, racist reporter/media/society. So far, not so much.
96: Seriously. Language discussions with someone from Pittsburgh?
After I red up my room I'm goin daan taan.
107: I always imagined that the writers wrote "jerk off" and he was constitutionally incapable of saying it. "Jag off" gains extra awesomeness when said with a super-thick Chicago accent.
I am very meta about being from Pittsburgh when it comes to language discussions. I can get distance.
And yea, the Chicagoans laugh at me about "anymore" but I don't count them as real rust belt-ers because they are sort of snotty urbanites.
Okay, well, if you're not counting Chicago as part of the Rust Belt, this becomes a lot simpler. I presume your positive-anymore-using friends are from places like Pennsylvania and Ohio rather than, say, Michigan or Upstate New York.
We can count Chicago, we just can't count these particularly snotty and performatively urbane persons who disprove my theory.
The distribution of positive "anymore" is only vaguely geographic
I now say gum band.
But just because it is objectively pro-awesome.
My theory is that decent, grounded, non-pretentious people, like myself, from the rust belt, use anymore positively.
I didn't know gum band was regional until this exact moment.
114: Yeah, that's what I was referring to in 94. To the extent that it is associated with a regional dialect, though, it's the Midland one.
The rust belt, as I understand it, roughly describes a half circle, and descends down from Buffalo to Pburgh, cuts across OH, MI, and IN, heads north, hugging Lake Michigan, through IL, WI, etc.
Huh. Wikipedia says it cuts way east too, covering almost all of PA, NJ, and even NYC.
Buffalo to Morgantown points in between, Pittsburgh to Toledo or maybe Chicago points in between, OH except not as far down as Cincy, perhaps northern Indiana. I've generally not considered Michigan to be involved at all, nor New York as Buffalo is more or less Erie and shouldn't count.
Wikipedia makes it go way further east than I would have thought. A couple exits east into the turnpike and I think it's over.
121: That's a more narrow definition than I've usually heard (oudemia's is more common), but it almost exactly coincides with the North Midland dialect area, home of positive "anymore."
See then, we're both right. You in your claim that 'anymore' happens in the North Midlands, me in my claim that it happens in my made-up idea of what the rust belt is.
Just butting in to say the Wilkes-Barre-Scranton area has a very similar accent to Pittsburgh. "Anymore" is everywhere there, though certain distinctive words ("Yinz", "n-that", "gum band", and "pop") are not.
106- I dont doubt Unfogged's caution. I doubt the media's caution.
What do you mean by Unfogged's caution, Will?
Yeah, the Midland dialect area encompasses pretty much all of Pennsylvania.
it's a gummy stretchy band obviously.
Some people call rubber bands "binders", though I suspect it's some kind of Wisconsinese plot.
Yes, you have the overlay of several semi-independent components of language variation (vowel sounds, regional vocabularies and sub-regional idioms like "jaggers"). This map (which I think I've linked before) simplifies it all ... It does show how several important linguistic markers divide parts of the Rust Belt (by any definition).
And Chicago might not be in the rust belt, but Gary, Indiana sure as shit is.
133: I think that Chicago is definitely the rust belt, as Gary is much like the southern end of the city, what with all the rusting steel plants. And although the rust belt hugs Lake Michigan and goes straight up through WI, there is not much rusty (linguistically or otherwise) in Kenilworth, say.
133- Unquestionably. Anywhere in that general region where the average age qualifies for social security should be considered Rust Belt.
Gary is like the southern end of a city! Maybe even more than he's like this yeti.
I was always under the impression that Dayton, Ohio was the Southern-most city in the Rust Belt.
w-lfs-n, you are the second Unfoggeteer to make the "Gary is a dude named Gary" joke to me today. You are both nerds, but I love you well.
I was thinking specifically of Gary Farber.
140: Oh OK. That's entirely different.
So, what, you don't love me well anymore? Is that the difference?
*weeps*
If Gary had been named 'Ron' instead, it would be a thriving metropolis.
This is not a bad map of the "Rust Belt", although it does go a bit far south. I think Cincinnati, Indianapolis and Columbus are not really in. (While Dayton & Springfield, Ohio certainly are ).
Columbus (and probably Indy, I'm less personally familiar with it), may have been more industrial once but know it is basically characterized by the SUV-driving whitebread government leeches that populate the suburbs of all capital cities in these day of the Republican faux small-government gravy train . (Can you say "smearing with a broad brush?", sure you can.)
Anywhere in the mid-west where you can't get a latte should be considered rust belt.
The map linked in 133 (based on the work of William Labov at Penn) is, indeed, the standard division of the US into dialect areas used by most sociolinguists.
Just a note for everyone: I am not a warehouse grocery store. It's K O T S K O.
("Kostko" is a common mistake, but today I had a really weird one: someone responded to an e-mail with "Mr. Kotuku." On another note, a Japanese friend of mine is starting to push back by mispronouncing Costco as "Kotsko.")
Wouldn't answering "yes" to the question "was this terrorism" immediately 1) take a case out of local jurisdiction and dump it into Homeland Security hell, and 2) demand that the US President declare war on someone?
Calling this Islamic terrorism would be an insult to Islamic terrorism.
"Kotsuko" does appear to be a Japanese name. With the u silent, of course.
On the other hand, it would be a girl's name.
Gary Indiana works hard. He keeps telling you, but it bears repeating.
34: Please remember this logic next time there's a big discussion about sexism, etc.
51: Yeah, the WTC was private property. Nonetheless, the point of flying planes into it was to strike against America, not against whatever corporation owned the damn thing. Ditto hijacking airplanes. This is a no-brainer.
I think I might be in love with that yeti.
Mr. Kostko likes his little joke. Don't fall for it.
Just a note for everyone
No need to be coy, Adam. You can just say, "Sybil, your inability to spell my name does not dispose me to take your point seriously."
Sybil, in your state you are allowed to date anyone from age 14 to age 82. As they explained, it varies from state to state.
Medication sometimes works of you want to change your state.
153: Yeah, the WTC was private property. Nonetheless, the point of flying planes into it was to strike against America, not against whatever corporation owned the damn thing. Ditto hijacking airplanes. This is a no-brainer.
Oh, I see what you mean. What about someone who's aiming to strike against a particular group rather than the state as a whole? A Loyalist who bombs a pub in a Catholic area of Belfast, say? Or a bigot who blows up a gay bar in London? He's not striking against the British state, he's fighting his own little ethnic/religious/whatever war. This sort of thing is pretty common - see Kosovo and Iraq, for example.