AA's "Fat Flier" Got Whole Row
State Sen. Savino Gets Noticed For Impassioned Gay Marriage Speech
Teen Gets Two Years For Killing Kitten
Ashley Dupre On Tiger Woods' Babes: "At Least I Kept My Mouth Shut"
Same-Sex Marriage Blame Game Aims at Paterson, Addabbo
As the casualties and death toll increase (1000 casualties/wounded/injured - the Brits seem to use casualties to refer to the injured and dead, so we were taking their lead, as Gothamist knows not of these style books commenters speak of - and at least 30 dead) in London, the U.S. has raised the terror level for all "regional and inter-city passenger rail, subways and metropolitan bus systems." Many New Yorkers seemed a little on edge, but kept in mind that the subway is the only way to get to work. Governor Pataki signed an order that allows "allows Connecticut and New Jersey law enforcers to ride on New York mass transit," (Gothamist supposes that means they'll be able to ride for free, given that up until recently, members of the NYPD and FDNY didn't have Metrocards in order to get to situations) but said, "We cannot live in fear. The greatest way to deter terrorism is to continue with our way of life Let the police deal with security and be alert. Report any suspicions but continue to enjoy the greatest society the world ever created." Coincidentally, the City's website has been trumpeting Ready New York's All Together Now, a program from the Office of Emergency Management that aims to empower residents on an individual, building, and block basis with ways to react to emergency situations. There are information sessions across the city this summer.
Gothamist noticed many more police officers at the West 72nd Street 1/2/3 station, but at Times Square, there didn't seem to be any more than usual. One woman asked a police officer if they were doing anything differently and one shrugged, "No, we're just looking out for stuff."
Photograph from the AP
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
We have been very fortunate that no attack like this has happened on our subways, but sooner or later someone will take advantage of the fact that our mass transit system is wide open for these kinds of attacks.
London, Tokyo, Spain and many other cities have gone through with it. Its not a matter of if, but when it happens on our transit system as well...
"One woman asked a police officer if they were doing anything differently and one shrugged, "No, we're just looking out for stuff."
Leave it to the average cop to be the most sensible. I've been watching TV with the hyperbolic prattling of newscasters and officious chatter about orange alerts. Seems like the best idea is to turn off the TV and look out for stuff.
The Queens Midtown tunnel appeared to have the same police presence they always have. Everytime they've raised the Alert Level they would stop busses, chat with the driver before letting them proceed. Didn't seem to do that this time around...
True that bob.
When I learned of the incident this morning, I searched out a newsource that gave information and analysis. Instead I heard shrill soundbytes, whether it be CNN, NY1, or the networks (no I didn't check Fox). I predict that by Tuesday or so these schlocks turn to the latest Michael Jackson-esque event.
Ehh I don't even think regular beat cops know what to look for to prevent these things from happening. That’s what concerns me.
We need more people like Jack Bauer from 24.
As automated as the Metrocard system is, why can't the MTA create a special Police-issue unlimited Metrocard for every officer in the greater NY region? With as much data as the system collects, any cop who abuses his card could easily be called on the carpet by his supervisors and any card that's lost can be easily cancelled. Just why is the MTA afraid to create such a card?
Man, back in 2001 the increased police pressence would simultaneously comfort and frighten me.
Nowadays, whatever. What can these guys really do if something really went down?
Having more cops on the street will only make tourists feel safer.
I agree with bob. Our cops do a great job and have no dout saved us from lots of stuff we never even hear about. For them to be saying they are just looking out for stuff is totally reasonable in that this has been a part of thier jobs for a few years now and they should just keep going on doing the same great job they have been doing.
I'd suggest changing the "1000 casualties, at least 30 dead." Standard procedure in the AP Stylebook (used by virtually every legit news org., not that you guys are a news org.) is to list people killed as casualties or "killed," and to refer to those still alive as wounded, injured, etc.
Yes, injuries are indeed technically "casualties" as well, but to say 1000 casualties sounds borderline sensational, given that every news org. reporting the story is saying "37-40 killed, hundreds/thousdands wounded."
-J-School Snob
I agree too. Also, new yorkers are generally pretty good about alerting authorities to "suspicious packages"... i've been held up a couple times because of investigations. what else can we really do without severly crippling free and speedy movement around the city?
Hopefully this is just another slap in the face to the damn hippie protesters in NYC to stop their complaining and realizing that something must be done. We have to be over there bombing and killing. These people are NOT merciful to us, so why do we have to be to them?
It seems too much of a coincidence that London was attacked the day after the 2012 Olympics city was chosen. I wonder what would have happened if NYC was chosen..
Please Joseph- be the first to go. "Damn hippie protesters" WTF?
Traffic accidents consistently kill about 40,000 per year and cause far more injuries. Not that terrorism isn't serious, and not that 9/11 wasn't horrendous, but there are much larger threats to life and limb, and so far 9/11 has been an outlier when it comes to terrorism.
"It seems too much of a coincidence that London was attacked the day after the 2012 Olympics city was chosen. I wonder what would have happened if NYC was chosen.."
It would have still happened in the U.K. since the 2012 Olympicbid is really no big deal when compared to the G8 summit.
Joseph is right, we need to kill more and kill fist to stop the killing!
maybe, joseph, if we weren't bombing and killing and propping up corrupt dictators 'over there', they wouldn't be attacking us. peace takes brains.
allow me to sum up the general divide in american opinion on this issue:
1) if we kill the right people we will be safe.
2) if we hug the right people we will be safe.
both have their issues, of course, but that's another issue in and of itself.
Drew - Given the number of cars on the road, traffic fatalities are inevitable. Are you suggesting we should accept subway bombings as an inevitable fact of life?
hijiki - Do you seriously believe that the Middle East would be governed by honest and peaceful leaders if it weren't for US meddling? Peace may take brains, but do you advocate meeting all of Al Qaeda's demands to achieve it?
nola - No, I'm saying that sometimes people get carried away worrying about terrorism. It's not a threat to "our way of life," nor does it usually kill vast numbers of people (9/11 was an aberration). In other words, it's usually not worth getting all worked up about.
We can and should try to prevent it, just like we should with auto accidents (a lot of which are preventable). But it's not the threat to democracy (or our lives) that many would have us believe.
For those with their panties in a twist over this, I suggest you leave NYC for a less target filled city. I hear Boise is nice this time of year.
Drew - A big part of our "way of life" is being able to travel freely without worrying about bombs going off. Acts of terror have a huge psychological impact that outweigh the number of people they kill, so it isn't surprising that people get carried away. If people stop getting carried away that would mean terror has become the norm and I don't think any of us want that.
To whomever said "9/11 was an aberration.":
Keep dreaming... maybe you'll survive the next 'one,' maybe you won't. But it's no aberration. It's a harbinger.
To whomever said "9/11 was an aberration.":
Keep dreaming... maybe you'll survive the next 'one,' maybe you won't. But it's no aberration. It's a harbinger.
And if you think just sheer numbers of dead matter much re: the importance/impact of an attack that's part of a long-term coordinated assault, you're also a fool.
nola, to put it simply, no. and dhex's sumation is just silly. but you can't honestly say that we did nothing to provoke extremism. our motives were never pure and they still aren't. joseph's two-wrongs-make-a-right formula is exactly what escalates violence.
to drew's point, the amount we spend and the liberties we throw away on futile attempts at preventing terror is out of perspective. they are using terror to scare people, cripple our economy and erode our freedom. if it scares you so much, nola, then you must admit that the tactic is achieving it's goal. if you want to continue meddling in foriegn affairs, then you better get used to it because it's a lot easier for them to hit us than for us to block their strikes. notice nobody attacking sweden? it's not tough to trace cause and effect.
Nola - The physcological impact is what I'm talking about. All the worrying isn't worth it, precisely because you're far more likely to die by other means. You're just as likely to drown in a bathtub, for example.
Jaxy - Uh, ok. I guess I'm a fool, because Al Qaeda's long term coordinated assault hasn't been too successful. But that's not what I'm talking about anyway, I'm referring to people's responses to terror attacks. Terrorism isn't the biggest threat in the world by any means.
"and dhex's sumation is just silly."
silly times call for silly summations.
Drew - While I agree that people should put dangers in perspective, there are certain dangers that we should not have to accept. If I drive I accept the risk of an accident and if I use a bathtub I accept the risk of slipping. But I should not have to accept the risk of planes flying into my building or bombs going off in the subway. It isn't a question of probability, it is a question of acceptability.
hijiki - Our role in the world is different than Sweden's, whether we like it or not. It wasn't Sweden who prevented the Soviet Union from rolling across Western Europe, was it? Our power requires us to be more involved in world affairs.
I recognize that reasonable people can disagree over what and where our involvement should be, but assuming our motives are corrupt while al-Qaeda's motives are benign is unfair. Who's to say the Middle East wouldn't be a lot worse without our "meddling"?
"but assuming our motives are corrupt while al-Qaeda's motives are benign is unfair."
...which i did not assume. that was part of my point. it's not that one side is entirely right and the other is entirely wrong as joseph claimed.
to extend your driving/bathtub analogy though... you must accept the risks associated with meddling in foreign affairs all the same. one of those risks is becoming a target for those you piss off. if you want to have american fingers in middle eastern pies, then how can you not expect the dangers that come with it? if we weren't involved like sweden, then we wouldn't have to accept those risks. whether we should or should not be involved and what the outcome of that might be is another argument, but it's still basic cause and effect. if you want to meddle, then you accept the fight.
hijiki - Your point is very reasonable. But did having a military base in Saudi Arabia (with their government's permission) justify 9/11? Does offering support to the Israelis (without which the only democracy in the Middle East would be imperiled) justify 9/11? I think you would agree that al-Qaeda's response to our actions have been disproportionate and morally wrong. Therefore we have a right to retaliate forcefully. So I'll accept the risks of our foreign policy as long as our government is working to destroy those who think terror is an appropriate response to our policies. That's why I never vote Democrat.
Nola - We're in total agreement on that. No one should accept terrorism. What I'm speaking to is the sense of fear that people have, and the disproportionate amount of attention that terrorism gets in the media. We definitely need to be vigilant, no doubt about it, but what we -don't- need is to stay up at night and worry, or be concerned about flying. There simply isn't that much danger from terrorism out there, despite the images on our TV screens. I hope that doesn't sound insensitive, but it's the truth.
How Opportune for the republicans! ever notice how all the bad terrorist things (i.e anthrax) happen at times when support for the war is flagging? why didn't they bomb during the republican convention when Bush was saying how safe it was during his administration? NO sirree, they bomb when G8 leaders are posturing to give aid to the poor in africa? when tony blair is allegedly pumping up the aid to 50 billion dollars while the rest of the g8 leaders are against it. As a political move for Al Queda it is so dumb cause all it is gonna do is reinforce the republican agenda and give Tony Blair a way to say "I know I promised to give 50 billion dollars to Africa but after the bombings we have to concentrate on Europe and the UK. SORRY AFRICA!" and he will look like a compassionate leader that everyone will sympathize with and can't confront. PRETTY CONVENENENT BOMBING eh! makes you wonder.
That cheap hussy at gawker.com is dissing jen chung's grammar in this story. This is war.
Yeah I read that little snippet on Gawker bob...
That Sentence made perfect sense.
Gawker is mostly a collection of retards and attention whores. Fuck em.
As for riding the subway, Im more afraid of stepping into a station reeking of piss then terrorists.
There's more threat from terrorism than benighted folks like Drew could ever know -- and I'd like to what inside scoop you have that proves that al-Qaida's campaign hasn't been too successfull -- i haven't too much crowing about "foiled" campaigns of late - the only notabl exception being the Jan. 1, 2000 planned attack in L.A. that was thwarted at the Canadian border, or so we're told.
There's lots of things that could get us - i fully agree that people shouldn't be getting all upset over terrorism, when there's the as likely devastating effects of the impending avian-flu epidemic to get you into a tizzy.
as i'm sure you're aware, nola, you were only getting started on that list of our meddling. no, i don't think there is justification for violence, but it doesn't take a lot of foresight to know that when you repress and inflict violence on people who have nothing left to lose and no recourse to defend their way of life, you're not going to get a standard 'morally correct' military response. yes, you have the right to retaliate, but do you think more force will really solve the problem? and if we're retaliating for 9-11 what the hell are we doing in iraq? what's the plan? are you going to find them all? and if not, what are we left to deal with?