Boston: Three Tries to Get the Right Question

As the individual and media coverage ramped up, it became pretty clear who would be hurt by the marathon bombings, and that led me to wonder who would benefit. In retrospect, not a particularly insightful question though my answers were the gun lobby and the safety industry.

As with the multiple stabbings a few weeks ago here was another instance in which guns did not kill people, people killed people. A bit more air out of a legislative balloon in Congress that already seems to be sinking fast.

Those who provide security — or in the case of governments mandate it — will benefit because demand for their “its for your safety” services will increase.

At best, these were cynical and not particularly insightful answers to the not-particularly-insightful question.

This led to “who thinks he will benefit” from making the effort to load gun powder, nails and ball bearings into double boilers then back packs to kill and maim a couple of hundred unidentifiable people? A universe of nut cases and whack jobs was revealed though timing the explosions to happen just when the average runners with greater numbers of family fans would be at the finish line was insidious enough to eliminate the craziest of the crazies.

The question I should have asked was, “who will exploit it?” The usual suspects include those who predictably grapple to appear the most heartfelt, the better to call attention to their superior heartfeltedness.  But, as in the event itself, there were winners in this despicable race to the bottom.

According to Politico, in a story entitled Boston Marathon Bombing: Congress reacts, Dems talk sequester, “With the Boston Marathon bombings less than 24 hours old, some on Capitol Hill are beginning to say the attack shows why Congress should’ve stopped automatic spending cuts from taking hold in March.”

Leave aside the idea that cuts beginning in March would have no effect by mid-April and let the quotes speak for themselves.

“House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), responding to a question at a Tuesday morning press conference, said the bombings are ‘clearly another place where it demonstrates why having the ability to address security concerns is important. I think there are multiple reasons for ensuring that we invest in our security both domestic and international security. That we invest in the education of our children, that we invest in growing jobs in America and don’t pursue any irrational policy of cutting the highest priorities and the lowest priorities by essentially the same percentage.’” [Please note the quotes and don’t blame me for those hideous sentences.]

“Rep. Xavier Becerra of California, the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said ‘the first responders working Monday aren’t sheltered from cuts. We have to send you less money to help your first responders.’”

Authorities have identified the three people killed in the blast as 8-year-old Martin Richard, 29-year-old Krystle Campbell, and Lu Lingzi, a BU graduate student from China. About 200 others were injured and all deserved far better than they got from Congressman Hoyer and Congressman Becerra. Both showed that they would miss no opportunity to seek political advantage.

Our lives might change as a result of the marathon bombings but it seems the Congress will not.

6 Responses to “Boston: Three Tries to Get the Right Question”

Guy Cipriano, April 17, 2013 at 12:55 pm said:

I can’t see any winners. Anybody who tries to use this murderous attack for political advantage will be seen , quite correctly, as being total scum. The lowest form of life. The FBI will track down the bomber. Then I hope he/she is indicted, convicted, and shot by a firing squad televised on all major networks. I’d be happy to voluteer to pull the trigger. Killing an 8 year kid as his father runs by is disgusting.
No Mercy for this bastard. On second thought it might be best if he were simply
Killed While Resisting Arrest. Let’s Hope.

Reply

Guy Cipriano, April 17, 2013 at 12:57 pm said:

PS I assume you are well aware that there was a court tennis court in the original BAA clubhouse. Tom Pettit was the pro. It didn’t survive the Great Depression and the BAA became defunct with the exception of running the Marathon.

Reply

Rudy Chelminski, April 17, 2013 at 11:08 pm said:

Haven, you’re a hell of an observer of the human comedy, but a lousy cook, if I judge by your selection of kitchen gear as the vehicle of the Boston bombings. FYI, a double boiler is the thing you use to make a hollandaise. A pressure cooker is the thing you use to (quickly) cook the artichoke for which you want the hollandaise. And it can also make bombs.

Reply

Haven Pell, April 18, 2013 at 5:20 am said:

shhhhhh. You are exactly right. I mixed up pressure cooker and double boiler. It makes my wife think I am too stupid to be allowed in the kitchen. Don’t tell though. I am sure this little secret will be completely safe here on the internet.

Reply

James Walton, April 17, 2013 at 11:57 pm said:

We can discuss the pros and cons of firing squad versus four horses attached to a limb each, which is my preference, but the truth is that in the USA now there seems little evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent, and convicted prisoners in the death row/appeal system cost more than just banging the killer up and throwing away the key. Given your country’s propensity for prolonged legal battles (ditto ours…) it seems that a short sharp (=less expensive) execution is not going to happen, so the only choice is the ‘life meaning life’ option and no appeals – certainly none using public funds. In that scenario, the prison system might well produce an internal solution – attack by fellow nut jobs – and we must decide if this bothers us or not….lets call this the death by turning a blind eye option. All in favour…..

Reply

Haven Pell, April 20, 2013 at 5:53 am said:

Fair is fair. The criticism of Congressmen Hoyer and Becerra is equally applicable to Senator Chuck Grassley (R.IA) who suggests that the presence of two useless Chechens in Boston is reason to oppose the proposed immigration law changes. Presumably the logic is that the law has to be 100% perfect or it should not happen. We are depending on Senator Grassley to apply the same logic to measures he favors.

Reply

Leave a Reply to James Walton Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *