MIT: Two severely burned by "strange" substance in river - ho hum. Girl with LEDs - terrorist.

[arendt]

News item #1:
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/general/view.bg?articleid=1029873
Note: the Herald is rabid rightwing tabloid. They didn't go ballistic about this.

Charles River cleanup blast injures five
By O’Ryan Johnson
Friday, September 7, 2007 -
A strange, 8-inch long “taffy-like” substance exploded and severely burned two people after it was fished aboard a Charles River cleanup boat yesterday.

Three Boston EMS workers who had arrived at a boat ramp near the Esplanade to help the injured themselves suffered minor burns and throat irritation from the substance, which emitted noxious fumes.

--------
News item #2 (some local blog in Cambridge (where MIT is):
http://blogs.townonline.com/cambridge/?p=8742

MIT to pony up for boat cleaning…
September 19th, 2007 by Matt Dunning
…but still hasn’t made any determination about a possible link between the Sept. 6 incident and a not-so-secret annual rite of throwing sodium in the Charles River.

MIT’s newspaper, The Tech, managed to rescue a video of what it claims to be the 2007 “East Campus Drop” from YouTube before it was taken down.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 19th, 2007 at 10:04 am and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

3 Responses to “MIT to pony up for boat cleaning…”

Ed Says:
September 19th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Word on the street is that the boat incident occurred several weeks later than the traditional East Campus sodium drop. And it’s not really possible for sodium to survive that long while exposed to the elements. And the East Campus drop happens down by the Longfellow bridge.
But allegedly a fraternity held their own sodium drop immediately before the accident, in the same general area.
This wouldn’t be the first time that a bunch of copycats without the requisite safety precautions ruined things for everybody.

Sally Says:
September 19th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
What, exactly, are the “requisite safety precautions” for stealing a chunk of sodium and then tossing it into the river so some kids can watch it explode?

MIT alumna Says:
September 20th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
I’m sorry, but I don’t think it matters much which fraternity is responsible for this particular incident. In my mind the real issue is the fact that MIT is allowing its fraternity to drop sodium metal into the river in the first place by looking the other way, not so much whether there’s a proven connection to this case. It’s littering and it runs counter to years of clean-up efforts and money spent to restore the ecological health of the Charles River.

Two weeks ago, two people were severely burned by a "strange" substance FLOATING IN THE RIVER, but nobody is worried - its just ANOTHER MIT PRANK. There is no serious investigation. I haven't heard that anyone was caught. I haven't seen any hyperventilating news stories about how biological agents could have been thrown in as easily as a lump of sodium.

But an innocent kid walks into a public place without theatening anyone and winds up in the middle of a political circus.

What a phony bunch of outrage from the MIT administration! What a hopeless overreaction from the Logan cops and the DA. And, what a complete double standard by every media outlet in Boston. Star Simpson gets pilloried for being a bright, happy kid. Isn't that what America says it is fighting this war to preserve?

Not for some people on this board. They tell me that they want our brightest kids to put on their hat and think like an absolute moron, lest they provoke "an incident". Welcome to Brave New World, where all the children of gammas and below were shown beautiful things and then given electirc shocks so that they would learn beauty was not for them.

Anyone on DU who buys into this is enabling the police state. We just got told by the Senate that we can't criticize a general who is a liar, just because he is a general. Now we are told we can't criticize ignorant cops with deadly weapons and no brains. Neither can we criticize a totally hypocritical bunch of corporatists at MIT, nor a grandstanding DA.

I hope the girl gets a good lawyer (someone should put MoveOn on this) and sues their asses off for defamation of character.

arendt


 

[DS1]

1. What a phony bunch of outrage from all sides

[Trillo]

2. Great sentence, quite revealing

"Welcome to Brave New World, where all the children of gammas and below were shown beautiful things and then given electirc shocks so that they would learn beauty was not for them."

[arendt]

3. That's really the core of what burns me up about this farce n/t

[piesRsquare]

4. Seems to me...

...that there are a number of dumbasses in attendance at MIT!

What the hell is wrong with these people? A "Sodium Drop" in the river?!?! Do it (on a smaller scale) in the fucking LAB, you shit-heads!

[arendt]

5. Focus on the double standard. Its how the authoritarians work...

we like it, no problem.

We don't like it, we will crucify you.

There are no rules. Its always up to us.

We are a government of men, not laws.

That is what Bush has made, and half of DU is buying this crap.

arendt

[davidinalameda]

6. the girl was an idiot

I can't imagine anyone with half a brain pulling this stunt

she's lucky some cop didn't shoot her

if I was a cop and I see someone approaching me with what looks like a bomb wired to her chest, I'm not sure if I wouldn't have fired to stop her from approaching

[ConsAreLiars]

7. You probably would have murdered her.

Fear and cowardice often, as in this case, overwhelm rationality and simple common sense observation and reality checking.

[Guaranteed]

15. Well, if it was a real bomb, I suppose somebody could have just said

to themselves, "Aww shucks! I don't want to be authoritarian by investigating my suspicions!" and just let her pass. Then they could watch the two or three hundred bodies fall out of the sky because they did absolutely nothing and the plane ended up in pieces.

Better safe than sorry, and it doesn't hurt to ask.

[arendt]

20. But NOBODY ASKED! They just drew their guns. They have no procedure, no control. Idiots. n/.t

[Guaranteed]

21. No, they DID ask. They asked her when she initially walked up to

the counter what it was that she was wearing. She just turned around and walked out. Then they called security.

[arendt]

23. Not the correct narrative.

She said it was "art", and went to look for the person she came for.
She didn't walk out. She went on with her business. There was no followup,
no further question.

How was she supposed to know anything?

arendt

[ConsAreLiars]

25. Even you are buying into the "Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid" garbage?

How fucking sad. What a bunch of blind, ignorant murderous pants-shitting wussies this nation has become.

(edit to fix a typo and add a word)

[cherokeeprogressive]

43. "You probably would have murdered her"

What an awesome insight into the mind of the poster. I NEVER would have been able to put 2 and 2 together as you have, and identified a potential KILLER. Have you called the authorities yet with your suspicions? I SURELY WOULD HAVE, IF I WERE AS CONVINCED AS YOU THAT SOMEONE WAS A KILLER.

Congrats! (or maybe not)

[ConsAreLiars]

45. Well, the poster claimed his cowardice was so extreme that

"I'm not sure if I wouldn't have fired to stop her from approaching" so I'm just concluding that if his fear was so intense on simply reading about the incident that if he were allowed a badge and a gun in the real situation his fear, and reaction, would have been even more extreme. Yours too, I suppose. The cowardice of the people who defend a police state mentality is rather appalling. "Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither." Unfortunately, they will destroy both for everyone. Cowards are natural-born authoritarians.

[arendt]

9. It wasn't a stunt. Take the poor kid at her word. She is lucky, but not the way you mean it.

You imply that it would have been justifiable if she had been blown away for walking down the street.

That's what happens in Iraq. Somebody does something a soldier doesn't expect and they die.
You are saying you want it to be normal here? You are saying you want America to be the same
hell we are inflicting on the Iraqis?

You better think things through.

arendt

[Demit]

16. And that's how it'll be for us all, depending on luck to not be shot by a cop w/hair-trigger nerves

Because we're letting it be all right for cops to be jumpy, to the point of firing their guns at someone who has what looks like a bomb on their chest. What a society this is going to be in a few years. Like one giant checkpoint in Iraq.

[arendt]

19. We are on the same wavelength...

and that might mean this is a meme that has legs.

Opinions?

arendt

[pnwmom]

38. But it didn't look anything like a bomb.

It looked like a toy circuit board from a 10 year old's science kit, with a battery that made lights flash in the shape of a star.

The problem is that the fearmongers have conditioned us to be afraid that anything, from circuit boards, to sneakers, to toothpaste tubes (larger than 3 ounces) could be hiding a bomb.

[Hissyspit]

46. Why was it a stunt?

She went to meet a friend wearing what she had apparently been wearing for weeks, from what I understand.

[eppur_se_muova]

8. And there's no chance it was industrial waste, or lost cargo?

What do you think the river cleanup is for? That's where most of the dreck in the river comes from.

There's little reason to believe this has anything to do with the "sodium drop" -- no "taffy-like" subsstance involved, the products are hydrogen (hence the flames) and NaOH, which is water-soluble.

This is not being overlooked as "just another MIT prank" -- there's no a priori reason to associate it with MIT, or anyone else, for that matter. (Besides, don't you know everything in Boston waters is Dukakis's fault? Same logic.)

I take your point that it needs to be investigated -- but like most industrial dumping/spills, it will probably never be traced to its source.

[arendt]

12. Excuse me. You have no facts, just a lot of opinions. The sodium drop is a fact...

MIT paying for the cleanup is a fact.

The bloody hypocrisy of the ho-hum, non-terrorist reaction to strange stuff in the river is a fact.

Do you understand hypocrisy or have you been buried under so much of it for the last six
years that it seems normal?

arendt

[eppur_se_muova]

18. One object was dropped into the river, another was pulled out --they MUST be the same!!

The evidence is incontrovertible.

B. U. L. L. S. H. I. T.

And no, I do not excuse your behavior.

[arendt]

22. A substance known to burn is dropped in, someone is burned pulling something out...

in the same river on the same night as the purported copycat fraternity.
Quick name me three solid substances that spontaneously burst into flames.

And MIT doesn't want to investigate, and nobody cares.

What a double standard.

Do you not see the double standard?

arendt

[eppur_se_muova]

27. a river is a BIG place ... still doesn't come close to proof.

If the object pulled out were better described, or a picture were available, I might be able to say whether or not I accepted MIT was justified in not investigating. But "taffy-like substance"?? That would have to be an add-on, and that' multiplying hypotheses. More reasonable hypothesis: it's a different object, just happens to be dangerous, too.

You can't just ASSUME MIT is responsible for every damned thing that falls in the river. Again, that sounds like GHWBush blaming Dukakis for the Boston Harbor.

[arendt]

30. Then why is MIT paying for the cleanup? Why aren't the tabloids screaming for river security?

Because it doesn't fit the frame they want.

They want people in AIRPORTS to be afraid of everyone and obey all the ludicrous stirp searches.

They don't want a panic about poisoned drinking water.

They want people to fear idiotic individuals that do suicidally stupid things, not clever terrorists
who kill thousand in the middle of the night, invisibly.

People might believe the idiots running this country can protect them from demented shoe bombers,
but I doutbt they believe the jerkoffs running this country can defend against biotoxins in the water.

Don't be a tool for the media frame.

arendt

[eppur_se_muova]

34. Ummm...now you're seeing conspiracies under every bed.

If the story of the 2nd incident didn't get proportionate coverage, you don't have to hypothesize a media conspiracy to explain it. You could just point out -- as Al Franken has -- that journalists are lazy, and tend to follow the crowd. No conspiracy needed.

Insisting on getting the facts straight -- and not connecting two incidents without sufficient evidence -- is not being a 'media tool'.

[arendt]

35. After six years, not seeing this playbook is "coincidence theory". n/t

[arendt]

37. People have been begging for port and chemical plant screening, the Bushies don't care...

stuff floating in the river fits the pattern of not caring about potentially high-casualty
incidents involving ports and waterways.

Ignoring this potential high-casualty "river attack" is part of an on-going pattern
that has been highly reported in the non-corporate press, and has been proposed
(and shot down) as legislation several times.

Your willingness to dismiss this as a coincidence is as naive as you say Star Simpson was.

arendt

[eppur_se_muova]

54. **I** said Star Simpson was naive? You aren't even talking to the right person. nt

[arendt]

36. ? What behavior of mine do you not excuse ? n/t

[eppur_se_muova]

55. Accusing me of posting opinions, not facts, and doing so in a very rude tone.

I happen to be a chemist, and I happen to have handled a certain amount of sodium in my time (not for river drops, for actual use). So when someone describes a "taffy-like" substance as being "obviously" the result of a sodium drop, I have to question that leap in logic. If I were to *assume* that petroleum jelly (which is sometimes used to pack sodium) could be described as "taffy-like", that's the closest to confirmation I could get, but it's stretching things a bit, so other explanations can't be ruled out *yet*.

It is not *out of the question* that the two are connected, but right now better evidence is needed. Objects floating in the river which might ignite include lost flares, oxygen rebreather canisters, and maybe gel battery innards. Of course, it could be sodium in petroleum jelly (IF taffy-makers in the Boston area follow an unusual recipe), but I would hate to see anyone tried and convicted on the basis of what's known so far, which you seem to be happy to see.

[madrchsod]

10. for what it`s worth.....

...Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
Step outta line, the men come, and take you away ...."

Buffalo Springfield

when we become afraid of a women with circuit board on her hoodie then we are in deep shit..

as for the dumb fucks throwing shit in the river they deserve what ever the law provides

[arendt]

14. Key words = "whatever the law provides"...

show me a law that says "you cannot wear LED jewelry in an airport".

arendt

[madrchsod]

42. what ever the law provides

does`t pertain to her

[TreasonousBastard]

11. You GO Arendt! We're becoming...

a nation of shit-in-our-pants terrified little weenies afraid of our own shadows.

Whaddya mean a girl with a piece of flashing jewelry shoulda known better? It's the cops who are PAID TO KNOW BETTER!

At least a trillion bucks a year we're spending to be "safe." That's a TRILLION bucks, so they're damn well gonna find something unsafe-- even if it's a college student with flashing jewelry.

How the hell do we stop the madness?

[Warren DeMontague]

13. Moveon's got more important shit to worry about than some kid who stuck wires and circuit boards on

her shirt and walked into an airport.

She WAS DUMB. DUMB FUCKING THING TO DO.

But, she's obviously not a "terrorist", it's fairly obvious it wasn't deliberate, so they should drop the charges.

But to turn her into some kind of a hero is just a fucking joke. She did something fairly stupid. Hey, I did stupid things when I was 19, too. But although some have picked her to be the next recipient of the Circuit City Brave Defender of Civil Liberties Award, really all she did was something totally fucking dumb.

She doesn't deserve to be prosecuted, but she doesn't deserve to win this year's "Mumia", either.

And the kids who are dumping shit into the river? They should be prosecuted. No question.

[arendt]

17. My issue is the hypocrisy. When are we going to stop giving the right a free pass...

to frame the issues, to delete inconvenient facts, to create totally artificial context?

The moveon line was just a throwaway.

My point is the total hypocrisy of the media and MIT.

I'm not turning the girl into anything. At the same time, her life does not deserve to be ruined.
What I'm saying is that this incident goes into the great big hypocrisy file that someone should
dump on the GOP.

Its becoming increasingly apparent that the corporate candidates are total hypocrites. So, some
outsider is going to have to ride the hypocrisy issue.

arendt

[Warren DeMontague]

24. It's a non-story. It's like the "Improvised IED" they found in the SF Starbucks bathroom

that turned out to be a homeless dude's flashlight.

So fine, it's a non-story. The prosecutor should drop the charges, the media should drop the subject.

But this girl isn't a hero. What she did was pretty dumb.

[arendt]

26. I never said she was a hero. But MIT and the DA are villains.

And, I refuse to buy into the "I must think as paranoid and stupid as cops too trigger happy to ask questions."

They could have gone off on her hairdoo.

My point is: there are no rules anymore. American airports are now a free fire zone for TSA, and dumbasses
applaud that.

arendt

[Warren DeMontague]

28. If this was about her hairdo, and not about a thing with wires and a circuit board and a battery

taped to her chest, it would be a different story.

Sorry, she was dumb to walk into an airport with that thing on her shirt. Honest mistake, perhaps, but still a dumb one.

[arendt]

31. She was naive (we say we love our kids). The cops had no procedure, guns first.

The cops are supposed to be trained. Clearly they weren't.

I think more blame goes to the cops than the girl on this one.
At any point, someone with authority could have confronted her.
No one did. They just sent for the shooters.

arendt

[pnwmom]

39. I agree that the DA is the grandstanding villain.

And I'm not happy with MIT's lack of support for her, either -- just as I wasn't happy with Duke's response to the false charges against its students. MIT should be pointing out that the student has pleaded "not guilty." Instead, MIT said she was reckless, "if" the media reports are correct.

[piesRsquare]

32. A homeless guy's flashlight?!

Sorry, but...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

:rofl:

[Warren DeMontague]

48. Oh, yeah, You couldn't make this shit up.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/09/starbucks.bomb/

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/13/BAGC9GMUSD1.DTL

[uppityperson]

29. k&r. thank you. How many people died of prevenable illnesses today? Car accidents?

omg the roads are dangerous and so is pneumonia after the flu!!! Don't hear that. Fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear. We have nothing to fear but fear itself? We have met the enemy and he is us? Thank you for your post.

[arendt]

33. Vague laws are the hallmark of totalitarianism

"Those...who had to execute the orders which the leadership...regarded as genuinely necessary ...were not much better off. Mostly such orders were "intentionally vague, and given in the expectation that their recipient would recognize the intent of the order giver, and act accordingly, for the elite formations were by no means merely obligated to obey the orders of the Fuehrer, but "to execute the will of the leadership". And, as can be gathered from the lengthy proceedings concerning "excesses" before the party courts, this was by no means one and the same thing. The only difference was that the elite formations, thanks to their special indoctrination for such purposes, had been trained to understand that certain "hints meant more than their mere verbal contents".

- H. Arendt, "The Origins of Totalitarianism", pp. 399-400

It really grates me how many people say "she should have known better", "she was stupid".

She wandered about this airport terminal for a long time. NONE OF THE OTHER PEOPLE IN THE TERMINAL PANICKED - ONLY THE COPS.

Someone tell me where one goes "to know better". Is there a government website, or do I learn it in the men's room over the stall?

I repeat, there are no rules. Procedure is non-existent, prosecution is capricious.

When we tolerate this kind of police misbehavior, this isn't a democracy anymore.

arendt

[pnwmom]

40. I agree. How would she -- who could build a real bomb, if she wanted to --

know that to the rest of us, anything with a circuit board and a battery could look like a bomb?

Her crime, apparently, was in not realizing how scientifically ignorant most of us are.

[tkmorris]

44. EggsssssssZACKLY

A lot of people have been commenting about how some obviously highly intelligent people lack "common sense". My reaction has been not that she lacks common sense, but is more likely continually shocked by how abysmally stupid some people are.

I could tell instantly upon seeing the picture of the thing on her shirt that it was not a bomb. It's a few tiny LED's and a nine volt battery for crying out loud. I think I still have a Christmas lapel decoration that is more involved than that thing is.

That's what bothers me. If I can tell what might be, and more importantly what definitely is NOT, a bomb, I certainly would think airport security could. And yet, people forgive them their ignorance. This whole incident should have been a quick look and an "On your way ma'am, sorry to have bothered you". It's absurd.

[pnwmom]

47. What she has lacked up till now,

is a sense of the common paranoia. Though I'm sure that she'll have that from now on, at least in airports.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

56. Not only vague laws but also vague enforcement.

I hate to say it (probably, shouldn't say "I hate to say it") but this young woman is a victim in a country that's lost any sense of the basic democratic values it touts as its own.

We are an empire, now. The rulers make a new reality every day so the rest of us are too confused to take charge of our own lives. It's what the neocons wanted and it's what they are getting,...at great loss to hundreds of millions of decent people.

I am sorry I had to live to witness such tragedy. I hope I live long enough to see some correction.

[arendt]

41. Bedtime for me n.t.

[ArbustoBuster]

49. I don't understand how these are related events.

Sodium isn't a taffy-like material. It's a solid metal. If a chunk is thrown into water, it will rapidly react violently until it's all gone. The reaction forms hydrogen gas, which will either burn and form water, or will vanish into the atmosphere as a gas; and sodium hydroxide, which is soluble in water and will dissolve away. A chunk of sodium sitting in the water would be splashing the water and possibly burning, and wouldn't look anything like an inert taffy-like substance.

[arendt]

51. They are related because both are potential "terrorist incidents"...

the media went ballistic on the girl, but a mysterious substance in the river, no problem,
no media feeding frenzy. Page 6 with the rest of the police blotter of wife beaters.

See my posts, numbers 30 and 37 in this thread.

Its all about the media frame, which is either arbitrary or has an agenda. We report,
you decide.

arendt

[ArbustoBuster]

53. That's not what I'm talking about, though.

I'm talking about the taffy-like substance and the sodium. There's no possible way they're related. Using unrelated events undermines your essay, unfortunately.

[Supersedeas]

50. gives you a glimpse into the perspective of the GoP/Media Establishment

[robinlynne]

52. Are there fish in that river?