Monday, February 26, 2007
Mascots
Last week, the University of Illinois was forced to retire its long-time mascot, Chief Illiniwek. The chief is the victim of a 2005 NCAA ruling which prohibits schools from hosting post-season mascots if they utilize "hostile and abusive American Indian nicknames." The threat of losing lucrative post-season games was enough to tip the university's hand.
In the world of professional sports, Native American names have been a staple of countless athletic teams. Some teams have chosen offensive stereotypes (like the Cleveland Indians and Washington Redskins) while others have chosen a more solemn and respectful approach (Atlanta Braves, Kansas City Chiefs, and Florida State Seminoles.) Among Native American mascots, Chief Illiniwek was perhaps the most dignified of all. Instead of seeing all Native American mascots as offensive, we should view them as an opportunity to preserve Native American culture and present it to a larger audience, if it can be done in a sensitive and dignified way.
The politically-correct thuggery of the NCAA shouldn't surprise anybody. This is the same governing body which gave us Title IX. As the role of money grows exponentially throughout the world of college sports, the NCAA is able to wield more and more power over individual schools by threatening to pull post-season games. At the same time, Florida State was able to keep its "Seminoles" name as a result of its good relations with the Seminole tribe. The Peoria Tribe of Oklahoma, the last descendents of the Illiniwek, used to be strong supporters of The Chief; as the mascot controversy has dragged on, the tribe has become more hostile to The Chief. Shame on the University of Illinois for not trying harder in maintaining strong ties with the Peoria tribe.
The University of Illinois is now debating whether it will remain "The Fighting Illini." My suggestion is that the university should drop all Native American ties. From now on, The University of Illinois shall be called "The Dirty Dagos," and feature a heavily-stereotyped Italian who plays an organ-grinder as its mascot. Is the nickname hostile and offensive? Of course. Will the NCAA complain? Probably not, because the school is only making fun of caucasians (just like the Fighting Irish of Notre Dame.) Perhaps an absurd act such as this will make people realize the absurdity of forcing Chief Illiniwek off the basketball court and football field.
In the world of professional sports, Native American names have been a staple of countless athletic teams. Some teams have chosen offensive stereotypes (like the Cleveland Indians and Washington Redskins) while others have chosen a more solemn and respectful approach (Atlanta Braves, Kansas City Chiefs, and Florida State Seminoles.) Among Native American mascots, Chief Illiniwek was perhaps the most dignified of all. Instead of seeing all Native American mascots as offensive, we should view them as an opportunity to preserve Native American culture and present it to a larger audience, if it can be done in a sensitive and dignified way.
The politically-correct thuggery of the NCAA shouldn't surprise anybody. This is the same governing body which gave us Title IX. As the role of money grows exponentially throughout the world of college sports, the NCAA is able to wield more and more power over individual schools by threatening to pull post-season games. At the same time, Florida State was able to keep its "Seminoles" name as a result of its good relations with the Seminole tribe. The Peoria Tribe of Oklahoma, the last descendents of the Illiniwek, used to be strong supporters of The Chief; as the mascot controversy has dragged on, the tribe has become more hostile to The Chief. Shame on the University of Illinois for not trying harder in maintaining strong ties with the Peoria tribe.
The University of Illinois is now debating whether it will remain "The Fighting Illini." My suggestion is that the university should drop all Native American ties. From now on, The University of Illinois shall be called "The Dirty Dagos," and feature a heavily-stereotyped Italian who plays an organ-grinder as its mascot. Is the nickname hostile and offensive? Of course. Will the NCAA complain? Probably not, because the school is only making fun of caucasians (just like the Fighting Irish of Notre Dame.) Perhaps an absurd act such as this will make people realize the absurdity of forcing Chief Illiniwek off the basketball court and football field.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
The Long War
While congressional Democrats are trying to restrict the US mission in Iraq, General Petraeus is laying out a strategy that appears to committing the United States for "the long haul" in Iraq. Based on successful counterinsurgencies that have been waged throughout history, the US may be committed to Iraq until 2012 or 2017.
While defense secretary Robert Gates has said that the US may be able to scale back its force if the surge succeeds, the Newsweek story paints a very different picture. While Michael Hirsh seems to feel that General Petraeus's strategy can work, it will likely lead to increasing American casualties and may require a substantial number of troops to be injected into Iraq (think along the lines of 300K-400K, as General Anthony Zinni projected in the 1998 war plan which treated sudden regime collapse as the biggest challenge if Iraq was invaded.)
It seems highly unlikely that congressional Democrats can end or even limit US involvement in Iraq unless they're willing to spend their political capitol by cutting funds for the war effort. Imagine that the Democrats pass some kind of legislation limiting the US mission in Iraq (over an expected Republican + Lieberman fillibuster in the Senate.) Imagine that the Democrats even had the votes to override a presidential veto. How do the Democrats enforce their legislation? Simple: they don't. As long as President Bush remains commander-in-chief and as long as the funding is available, the military has to carry out the orders of the president and those appointed under him (including General Petraeus, who was confirmed by hypocritical Democrats who opposed his strategy but voted for him anyway.)
Yet it also seems unlikely that the American people will have the tolerance to stay the course, especially if there isn't a dramatic drop in the casualty rate. America's biggest weaknesses are its eagerness to engage in short military conflicts, and its unwillingness to stick it out through protracted wars.
How do I see the endgame in Iraq to play out? I think that US involvement will continue through the 2008 election. After all, President Bush "stayed the course" during 2006, even though it cost his party control over Congress. If Americans are still dissatisfied with our progress in Iraq, they'll elect somebody like Barack or Hillary or Al Gore as president. A Democratic president would be certain to implement a timetable for defeat, and Iraq will erupt in civil war. Sunni states (especially Saudi Arabia and Sunni-majority Syria) would finance a Wahhabist battle to control Anbar and central Iraq. Iran and Hezbollah would side with the Shiites in the south and battle the Wahhabists for control of Baghdad. The Kurds would break away, but would likely have to fend off an invasion by Turkey which would force the Kurds to take sanctuary in the mountains, but will be very costly in terms of Turkish military casualties.
There are two possibilities for Iraq's future, based on the success of General Petraeus's strategy and the will of the American people. Either the US leaves during 2009-10 and the middle east descends into chaos, or the US stabilizes Iraq and withdraws around the time that President Bush promised we'd have a man on the moon again. America is caught between Iraq and a hard place, with no quick, easy or obvious ways ahead.
While defense secretary Robert Gates has said that the US may be able to scale back its force if the surge succeeds, the Newsweek story paints a very different picture. While Michael Hirsh seems to feel that General Petraeus's strategy can work, it will likely lead to increasing American casualties and may require a substantial number of troops to be injected into Iraq (think along the lines of 300K-400K, as General Anthony Zinni projected in the 1998 war plan which treated sudden regime collapse as the biggest challenge if Iraq was invaded.)
It seems highly unlikely that congressional Democrats can end or even limit US involvement in Iraq unless they're willing to spend their political capitol by cutting funds for the war effort. Imagine that the Democrats pass some kind of legislation limiting the US mission in Iraq (over an expected Republican + Lieberman fillibuster in the Senate.) Imagine that the Democrats even had the votes to override a presidential veto. How do the Democrats enforce their legislation? Simple: they don't. As long as President Bush remains commander-in-chief and as long as the funding is available, the military has to carry out the orders of the president and those appointed under him (including General Petraeus, who was confirmed by hypocritical Democrats who opposed his strategy but voted for him anyway.)
Yet it also seems unlikely that the American people will have the tolerance to stay the course, especially if there isn't a dramatic drop in the casualty rate. America's biggest weaknesses are its eagerness to engage in short military conflicts, and its unwillingness to stick it out through protracted wars.
How do I see the endgame in Iraq to play out? I think that US involvement will continue through the 2008 election. After all, President Bush "stayed the course" during 2006, even though it cost his party control over Congress. If Americans are still dissatisfied with our progress in Iraq, they'll elect somebody like Barack or Hillary or Al Gore as president. A Democratic president would be certain to implement a timetable for defeat, and Iraq will erupt in civil war. Sunni states (especially Saudi Arabia and Sunni-majority Syria) would finance a Wahhabist battle to control Anbar and central Iraq. Iran and Hezbollah would side with the Shiites in the south and battle the Wahhabists for control of Baghdad. The Kurds would break away, but would likely have to fend off an invasion by Turkey which would force the Kurds to take sanctuary in the mountains, but will be very costly in terms of Turkish military casualties.
There are two possibilities for Iraq's future, based on the success of General Petraeus's strategy and the will of the American people. Either the US leaves during 2009-10 and the middle east descends into chaos, or the US stabilizes Iraq and withdraws around the time that President Bush promised we'd have a man on the moon again. America is caught between Iraq and a hard place, with no quick, easy or obvious ways ahead.
America Alone?
The title of Mark Steyn's recent book provides a seemingly-apt description of the coalition that's trying to stabilize Iraq. Supporters of "finishing the job" were probably disheartened to hear of the UK and Denmark planning a gradual withdrawl from Iraq. Yet the vice president is trying to present that as a hopeful sign.
I don't think that Dick Cheney is totally wrong here. The UK and Denmark have been patroling sections of southern Iraq that, in comparison to the center and west of the country, have been pretty peaceful. The pullback plan is an acknowledgement of that, and the British plan includes the flexibility to extend the withdrawal dates if security should deteriorate. That flexibility is an advantage over proposals offered by Democrats that set hard and fast dates for withdrawal; these plans amount to nothing more than a phased defeat that will cause unnecessary suffering for America's armed forces in comparison to immediate retreat.
The risk inherent in the loss of the UK and Denmark is a potential escalation of Shiite-on-Shiite violence in the south. The Badr Brigades and Mahdi Army have been quitely waging war against each other, and against Sunni minorities in the south. Blogger Stephen Vincent fell victim to this violence during summer 2005. While foreign troops can serve to keep the militias from waging open war, they lack the power to build understanding and trust between Iraqi factions who hate each other mutually.
At the same time that the UK and Denmark are beginning their withdrawals, Australia is adding 70 military advisors to Iraq. Prime Minister John Howard seems to be reaffirming his commitment to the Bush Administration and its mission in Iraq. This comes at the same time that the prime minister is involved in a war of words with Senator Barack Obama regarding the senator's plan for a phased defeat. Barack snapped back by saying that Howard has no room to speak, because America has made all the sacrifices. Barack's choice of words runs the risk of insulting the Australians and the sacrifices they have made in trying to create a better future for Iraq.
John Kerry's "Coalition of the Bribed" is walking away, although its limited mission in Iraq seems to have been accomplished for the time being. Some Americans will let their truest allies know that their contributions have been appreciated, while others (mainly on the political left) will ridicule, downplay, or outright ignore the sacrifices of America's allies in Iraq.
I don't think that Dick Cheney is totally wrong here. The UK and Denmark have been patroling sections of southern Iraq that, in comparison to the center and west of the country, have been pretty peaceful. The pullback plan is an acknowledgement of that, and the British plan includes the flexibility to extend the withdrawal dates if security should deteriorate. That flexibility is an advantage over proposals offered by Democrats that set hard and fast dates for withdrawal; these plans amount to nothing more than a phased defeat that will cause unnecessary suffering for America's armed forces in comparison to immediate retreat.
The risk inherent in the loss of the UK and Denmark is a potential escalation of Shiite-on-Shiite violence in the south. The Badr Brigades and Mahdi Army have been quitely waging war against each other, and against Sunni minorities in the south. Blogger Stephen Vincent fell victim to this violence during summer 2005. While foreign troops can serve to keep the militias from waging open war, they lack the power to build understanding and trust between Iraqi factions who hate each other mutually.
At the same time that the UK and Denmark are beginning their withdrawals, Australia is adding 70 military advisors to Iraq. Prime Minister John Howard seems to be reaffirming his commitment to the Bush Administration and its mission in Iraq. This comes at the same time that the prime minister is involved in a war of words with Senator Barack Obama regarding the senator's plan for a phased defeat. Barack snapped back by saying that Howard has no room to speak, because America has made all the sacrifices. Barack's choice of words runs the risk of insulting the Australians and the sacrifices they have made in trying to create a better future for Iraq.
John Kerry's "Coalition of the Bribed" is walking away, although its limited mission in Iraq seems to have been accomplished for the time being. Some Americans will let their truest allies know that their contributions have been appreciated, while others (mainly on the political left) will ridicule, downplay, or outright ignore the sacrifices of America's allies in Iraq.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Hearts and Minds
The new campaign to restore security in Baghdad is obviously an attempt to win the trust of Baghdadis and convince them that America can keep them safe in the face of terrorism and sectarian militias. However, the surge also has an equally-important audience back home that must be won over.
America is losing faith in the Iraq mission. A recent poll showed that over 60% of Americans want all the troops home by the end of 2008. Realistically, nobody expects the Iraqi government or army to be able to stand on its own by that time. While we can hopefully put the Iraqis in the lead within the next 18 months, they will need advisors, supplies, air support and even reserve contingients of US combat forces to back them up. The next 18 months is an opportunity to reduce the US footprint in Iraq and move to a less vulnerable position, but it's not time to completely pull out--as long as the American people believe that the mission is achievable and worth the sacrifice.
If the American people can be convinced that we can achieve our goals in Iraq, will they be more willing to tolerate a lengthier (albeit smaller) US military presence in Iraq? For that matter, will the incoming administration and Congress in 2009 be willing to commit to a small but long-term military effort to assist the Iraqi government? Will the current congress continue funding the forces which are currently shoring up the Iraqi government? Congress and the American people owe the miltiary some patience, but they should also be able to see some signs that the mission is achievable. To that end, the Baghdad security crackdown should be given a chance to succeed, at least until this fall. If the effort falters, America should beat a hasty retreat. If there is reason for hope by that time, the American people and their congress should reaffirm their commitment to victory, rather than retreat.
America is losing faith in the Iraq mission. A recent poll showed that over 60% of Americans want all the troops home by the end of 2008. Realistically, nobody expects the Iraqi government or army to be able to stand on its own by that time. While we can hopefully put the Iraqis in the lead within the next 18 months, they will need advisors, supplies, air support and even reserve contingients of US combat forces to back them up. The next 18 months is an opportunity to reduce the US footprint in Iraq and move to a less vulnerable position, but it's not time to completely pull out--as long as the American people believe that the mission is achievable and worth the sacrifice.
If the American people can be convinced that we can achieve our goals in Iraq, will they be more willing to tolerate a lengthier (albeit smaller) US military presence in Iraq? For that matter, will the incoming administration and Congress in 2009 be willing to commit to a small but long-term military effort to assist the Iraqi government? Will the current congress continue funding the forces which are currently shoring up the Iraqi government? Congress and the American people owe the miltiary some patience, but they should also be able to see some signs that the mission is achievable. To that end, the Baghdad security crackdown should be given a chance to succeed, at least until this fall. If the effort falters, America should beat a hasty retreat. If there is reason for hope by that time, the American people and their congress should reaffirm their commitment to victory, rather than retreat.
Friday, February 09, 2007
Fuel for Insurgency
A spate of American helicopter losses in Iraq is fueling media speculation that the insurgents are getting better at shooting down choppers. AT this point, the jury is still out as to whether the recent crashes represent a change in tactics by the insurgents, acquisition of new insurgent weapons, or if it's just a coincidence.
Helicopters are inherently vulnerable to being downed by ground fire that wouldn't faze a fixed-wing aircraft. Due to the complex drivetrain involved in driving the helicopter's main & tail rotors, one well-aimed (or lucky) bullet can bring a chopper down. Traditionally, insurgents have been able to destroy American and allied helicopters with small arms and rocket-propelled grenades. Man-portable surface-to-air missiles (MANPADS, like the SA-7) have been used, but not in the same numbers as small arms and RPG's. While Iraq is awash in rifles and RPG's, SA-7's are much harder to come by.
Nevertheless, the recent helicopter shootdowns raise disturbing questions about the lethality of the insurgents. If SA-7's are indeed responsible for many of the recent crashes, where are the insurgents getting them, and why are they only using them now?
One possibility is that Iran (or some element of the Iranian government or military) is smuggling SA-7's into Iraq. There is no doubt that Iranian weapons (and IED's of Iranian/Hezbollah design) are in Iraq; the question is how they are getting there. Is this a deliberate and provocative act on the part of President Ahmadinejad? Is it the work of fanatical rogues within the Revolutionary Guards? Or could it even be the work of Hezbollah, supplying insurgents with weapons they received from Iran?
The Iranian support for insurgency in Iraq is troubling, but it's also clear that the insurgency would be strong without any Iranian aid. There are too many weapons already inside Iraq, the fruits of Saddam's plan to use the Fedayeen and hidden arms caches to crush a Shiite uprising. The saddest irony is that those same Shiites are now rising up against America, using the weapons that Saddam had intended to kill them with.
Helicopters are inherently vulnerable to being downed by ground fire that wouldn't faze a fixed-wing aircraft. Due to the complex drivetrain involved in driving the helicopter's main & tail rotors, one well-aimed (or lucky) bullet can bring a chopper down. Traditionally, insurgents have been able to destroy American and allied helicopters with small arms and rocket-propelled grenades. Man-portable surface-to-air missiles (MANPADS, like the SA-7) have been used, but not in the same numbers as small arms and RPG's. While Iraq is awash in rifles and RPG's, SA-7's are much harder to come by.
Nevertheless, the recent helicopter shootdowns raise disturbing questions about the lethality of the insurgents. If SA-7's are indeed responsible for many of the recent crashes, where are the insurgents getting them, and why are they only using them now?
One possibility is that Iran (or some element of the Iranian government or military) is smuggling SA-7's into Iraq. There is no doubt that Iranian weapons (and IED's of Iranian/Hezbollah design) are in Iraq; the question is how they are getting there. Is this a deliberate and provocative act on the part of President Ahmadinejad? Is it the work of fanatical rogues within the Revolutionary Guards? Or could it even be the work of Hezbollah, supplying insurgents with weapons they received from Iran?
The Iranian support for insurgency in Iraq is troubling, but it's also clear that the insurgency would be strong without any Iranian aid. There are too many weapons already inside Iraq, the fruits of Saddam's plan to use the Fedayeen and hidden arms caches to crush a Shiite uprising. The saddest irony is that those same Shiites are now rising up against America, using the weapons that Saddam had intended to kill them with.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
A Last Chance?
When President Bush announced the troop surge in Baghdad and Anbar, many pundits referred to it as his "last chance" to get things right in Iraq. Yesterday, defense secretary Robert Gates claimed that it did not represent a last chance, and although he anticipated that it would succeed, he is planning for the event that it does not.
At the same time, a majority of Congress doesn't even want to give the president a last chance. The Senate and House have both drafted non-binding, anti-surge resolutions. Senators Kerry and Obama (the Democratic Party's new "rock star") have both tried to introduce withdrawal bills, with the latter pledging to begin withdrawal by May 1 and completing it by March 31, 2008.
For the congressmen who oppose this "last chance" surge, they apparently believe that Iraq is beyond hope. Nonetheless, they mostly refuse to endorse actions that would end US involvement in this war.
For the military leaders like General Petraeus who are tasked with making the "last chance" work, they believe that it may take until September before we can judge whether it was a success or not. Will a war-weary American public be willing to wait that long, or will they impatiently call for us to acknowledge defeat before that point? It's a PR problem that the military has to address, because the surge will likely make US casualties rise before any potential drop sets in.
At the same time, if we make it to Sepember without seeing a decline in sectarian violence or an increase in the capabilities of Iraq's government and army, what will the military leaders and the administration do? If the surge fails, then it's clear to most Americans that the Iraqis will never succeed, and it would be suicidal to not acknowledge that.
In spite of the Barack Obamas of the world who believe that a 10-month withdrawal is the key to "peace with honor," it's a dishonorable attempt to save face while sacrificing the lives of Amercia's armed forces. Americans should give the surge a good seven months to show results. If there are no results at the end of that time, America should withdraw precipitously and let the Iraqis have the bloodbath they want (and deserve.)
At the same time, a majority of Congress doesn't even want to give the president a last chance. The Senate and House have both drafted non-binding, anti-surge resolutions. Senators Kerry and Obama (the Democratic Party's new "rock star") have both tried to introduce withdrawal bills, with the latter pledging to begin withdrawal by May 1 and completing it by March 31, 2008.
For the congressmen who oppose this "last chance" surge, they apparently believe that Iraq is beyond hope. Nonetheless, they mostly refuse to endorse actions that would end US involvement in this war.
For the military leaders like General Petraeus who are tasked with making the "last chance" work, they believe that it may take until September before we can judge whether it was a success or not. Will a war-weary American public be willing to wait that long, or will they impatiently call for us to acknowledge defeat before that point? It's a PR problem that the military has to address, because the surge will likely make US casualties rise before any potential drop sets in.
At the same time, if we make it to Sepember without seeing a decline in sectarian violence or an increase in the capabilities of Iraq's government and army, what will the military leaders and the administration do? If the surge fails, then it's clear to most Americans that the Iraqis will never succeed, and it would be suicidal to not acknowledge that.
In spite of the Barack Obamas of the world who believe that a 10-month withdrawal is the key to "peace with honor," it's a dishonorable attempt to save face while sacrificing the lives of Amercia's armed forces. Americans should give the surge a good seven months to show results. If there are no results at the end of that time, America should withdraw precipitously and let the Iraqis have the bloodbath they want (and deserve.)
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Bears Down
After a season that gave Bears fans a reason to believe that Bill Swerski would be coming back after his heart attack, the Bears really dropped the ball with their 29-17 loss to the Indianapolis Colts in Super Bowl XLI.
I was very excited after Devin Hester ran the opening kickoff back for a touchdown, but I also remembered that Ohio State had started the same way just a few weeks ago when they were routed by Florida. Sure enough, the Bears imploded. They got a few lucky turnovers early on, but failed to capitalize. The defense didn't put enough pressure on Peyton Manning, and he passed his way down the field (in addition to fine rushing performances by Joseph Addai and Dominic Rhodes.) As time worked against the Bears, Rex Grossman panicked and threw two critical interceptions in the 4th, one of which was returned for a touchdown. Aside from Devin Hester, the Bears didn't play with the heart that's required of Super Bowl champions.
What's next for the Bears? I think they should re-examine their choice of quarterback. Rex Grossman doesn't have the clutch, level-headedness, or control that are needed to guide a team to the championship. While backup Brian Griese might have what it takes, the Bears would be better off if they tried trading for a top-tier, veteran quarterback. Getting defensive starters like Tommie Harris and Mike Brown back from the injured list will help. Then again, the Bears got this far partly due to a very weak NFC. They won't be able to count on that factor next season, and their play must step up to a new level next season.
I was very excited after Devin Hester ran the opening kickoff back for a touchdown, but I also remembered that Ohio State had started the same way just a few weeks ago when they were routed by Florida. Sure enough, the Bears imploded. They got a few lucky turnovers early on, but failed to capitalize. The defense didn't put enough pressure on Peyton Manning, and he passed his way down the field (in addition to fine rushing performances by Joseph Addai and Dominic Rhodes.) As time worked against the Bears, Rex Grossman panicked and threw two critical interceptions in the 4th, one of which was returned for a touchdown. Aside from Devin Hester, the Bears didn't play with the heart that's required of Super Bowl champions.
What's next for the Bears? I think they should re-examine their choice of quarterback. Rex Grossman doesn't have the clutch, level-headedness, or control that are needed to guide a team to the championship. While backup Brian Griese might have what it takes, the Bears would be better off if they tried trading for a top-tier, veteran quarterback. Getting defensive starters like Tommie Harris and Mike Brown back from the injured list will help. Then again, the Bears got this far partly due to a very weak NFC. They won't be able to count on that factor next season, and their play must step up to a new level next season.
Friday, February 02, 2007
Don't Any of You Idiots Watch Aqua Teen?
It's both funny and sad that much of Boston was brought to a standstill over a misunderstood advertisement. It's even sadder that two men have been arrested for it.
The confusion stems from several electronic signs depicting a Mooninite from the warped and funny "Aqua Teen Hunger Force" cartoon. The signs were hung from several stop lights in Boston (as well as other cities) as part of a "guerrilla" marketing campaign. This led to the deployment of the bomb squad on suspiction that the mysterious signs were bombs.
Two men who carried out the "bomb hoax" on behalf of their ad agency have been charged in court, being used as scapegoats so the Boston authorities can blame somebody instead of kicking themselves over their own stupidity. It's undetermined whether the ad agency or Cartoon Network will face criminal charges. Regardless of how the court rules, it's the Boston authorities who flipped out and assumed terrorism who look like the villains. Maybe if they'd stayed current on their cartoons, this mess would have never happened.
The confusion stems from several electronic signs depicting a Mooninite from the warped and funny "Aqua Teen Hunger Force" cartoon. The signs were hung from several stop lights in Boston (as well as other cities) as part of a "guerrilla" marketing campaign. This led to the deployment of the bomb squad on suspiction that the mysterious signs were bombs.
Two men who carried out the "bomb hoax" on behalf of their ad agency have been charged in court, being used as scapegoats so the Boston authorities can blame somebody instead of kicking themselves over their own stupidity. It's undetermined whether the ad agency or Cartoon Network will face criminal charges. Regardless of how the court rules, it's the Boston authorities who flipped out and assumed terrorism who look like the villains. Maybe if they'd stayed current on their cartoons, this mess would have never happened.
