There’s no doubt that this question is at the forefront of in many minds over the past week, even as the answer is: no less, but no more, than it was the week before. The confluence of disaster film narratives and pervasive information and surveillance results in an ability — or the presumption — of instant feedback, and ever more granular analysis. We keep hearing about the 2,000 cameras that may result in data on the bombers in London last week. It may, but that data will have only a small causal effect on increased safety down the road.
It is rarely possible to condense the experience of terror or tragedy into a comestible event that can both be fully rationalized so that each step and misstep is logical and sensible and integrates itself into whatever hazy notion of self and reality we carry. And the repetition and myopic gaze of infotainment further occludes what is already a difficult process, seeking pat answers or insight that can be delivered in a news crawl under the latest update on Lindsay Lohan.
All of this makes it more difficult to draw conclusions about the seemingly random pieces of information that are identified and projected for the shock value or immediacy. Rarely are they entered into a wider analysis that might drive our understanding of what has happened, should happen, or could happen, leaving us feeling helpless and unable to contest the steps taken for ‘safety.’
So some disparate reports that have been brought to light this week, because they seem relevant in the context of the latest tragedy -– as well as being oddly congruent in some instances — but may well have been relevant well before, or perhaps are not at all. It is hard to say, because we have no framework for discussion or reference.
The most tangible was the recent failure of the FDNY to follow established command and control procedures regarding a pipe bomb found during a routine trash fire. I’m not an expert on the procedures, and have only been following in a cursory way the turf wars between the FDNY and NYPD, but this certainly undermines the FDNY’s complaint that they should be considered first responder to any major emergency (as it stands, I believe the NYPD has overall authority).
It would be good tabloid fodder regardless of the timing (the bomb squad arrived to the sight of a pipe bomb resting on a radiator –- which, it being July, was probably not heated), but this week it makes our emergency services look under-prepared.
But are things any worse than they were? One of the most quiet facts of 9/11 is that these very same command and control issues likely resulted in more firefighter deaths than would have occurred had a unified chain of command been established. But it’s a hard thing to bring up because it seems to besmirch the effort and sacrifice of those who died. But even as I thought of many of my firefighting neighbors as jerks before 9/11 (and I’ll admit more than once since), I have never questioned their commitment to their job. No one sees a rational calculus that results in thinking that if half the number had died they would have been half as brave.
The other major contributing cause to the communication breakdown both between agencies and among firefighters were radios with inadequate signal strength to reach those in the towers, a situation that still has not been fully resolved. And one of the pieces of information that came to light this past weekend was the failure of the MTA to allocate the $600 million they have been granted to increase security. One of their projects –- abandoned due to the assumption of technical complexity too great to overcome -– was the unification of frequencies for the LIRR and Metro-North. At a cost of $120 million, I have two questions: one, why is this so hard, and two, is this necessary? Whereas I can see a scenario in which the police and fire department should be in close communication, I have to wonder about unifying geographically disparate rail systems, or at least prioritizing this spending. Even as this ‘failure’ is underscored in a recent article, the same article doesn’t detail if there similar gaps in communication going unaddressed, such as those between the FDNY and NYPD (though the current imbroglio would not likely have been helped by radios).
So is it safe? Safer than 9/11? How could we know — would spending the $600 million have made us safer? To our great fortune (or perhaps, prudent planning), there haven’t been follow-up attacks. So by that very thin measure, we are. But what if we are less safe, even though there hasn’t been an attack? Now what should be doing?
The ‘problem’ is the lack of a coherent narrative, and the relentless effort of attention focused news outlets trying to bend every disparate snippet into a ill fitting role. Everyone wants a neatly packaged enemy with a one-dimensional motivation, so that we can dispatch some real-life version of Bruce Willis to attend to the evil doer with the just right combination of swagger and moral certainty, all of it ideally settled by the next commercial break. But the real world isn’t that neat, and terrorism will continue to exploit those areas least protected or considered. There will always be something. One expert pointed out that after dealing with the IRA for over a decade and installing cameras at a rate of up to 20 per resident in some districts, the attacks in London may well have been executed exactly as planned. It is far more likely that terror attacks fail due to any number of pedestrian causes — cold feet, bad timing, and slipshod planning — than the proverbial action hero swooping in to stop the ticking bomb.
So is it safe? Today, it was. Safe from terrorists, at least. Not so from the other myriad threats that we operate in both knowledge and willful ignorance of every day. Vigilance may be in order, but it’s not as simple — or offensive — as looking for dark-skinned men with packages on the subway. It is suspicion of those who preach the loudest while doing the least and understanding that the vested interest of most of our news sources is not necessarily our safety, but their success. Certainly they might not trade the former for the latter, but nor do they stop to properly knit together all the facts as the competition blares half-correct speculation that draws attention in the short-term. We are owed more careful consideration from our press, and from our leaders. Determinng the time to stand firm and demand it in terms so strident that it is open dissent is a challenge, and perhaps an impossibly tragedy yet pending. But for now, we are lucky, and safe.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
Is it safe?
There’s no doubt that this question is at the forefront of in many minds over the past week, even as the answer is: no less, but no more, than it was the week before. The confluence of disaster film narratives and pervasive information and surveillance results in an ability — or the presumption — of instant feedback, and ever more granular analysis. We keep hearing about the 2,000 cameras that may result in data on the bombers in London last week. It may, but that data will have only a small causal effect on increased safety down the road.
It is rarely possible to condense the experience of terror or tragedy into a comestible event that can both be fully rationalized so that each step and misstep is logical and sensible and integrates itself into whatever hazy notion of self and reality we carry. And the repetition and myopic gaze of infotainment further occludes what is already a difficult process, seeking pat answers or insight that can be delivered in a news crawl under the latest update on Lindsay Lohan. All of this makes it more difficult to draw conclusions about the seemingly random pieces of information that are identified and projected for the shock value or immediacy. Rarely are they entered into a wider analysis that might drive our understanding of what has happened, should happen, or could happen, leaving us feeling helpless and unable to contest the steps taken for ‘safety.’ So some disparate reports that have been brought to light this week, because they seem relevant in the context of the latest tragedy -– as well as being oddly congruent in some instances — but may well have been relevant well before, or perhaps are not at all. It is hard to say, because we have no framework for discussion or reference. The most tangible was the recent failure of the FDNY to follow established command and control procedures regarding a pipe bomb found during a routine trash fire. I’m not an expert on the procedures, and have only been following in a cursory way the turf wars between the FDNY and NYPD, but this certainly undermines the FDNY’s complaint that they should be considered first responder to any major emergency (as it stands, I believe the NYPD has overall authority). It would be good tabloid fodder regardless of the timing (the bomb squad arrived to the sight of a pipe bomb resting on a radiator –- which, it being July, was probably not heated), but this week it makes our emergency services look under-prepared. But are things any worse than they were? One of the most quiet facts of 9/11 is that these very same command and control issues likely resulted in more firefighter deaths than would have occurred had a unified chain of command been established. But it’s a hard thing to bring up because it seems to besmirch the effort and sacrifice of those who died. But even as I thought of many of my firefighting neighbors as jerks before 9/11 (and I’ll admit more than once since), I have never questioned their commitment to their job. No one sees a rational calculus that results in thinking that if half the number had died they would have been half as brave. The other major contributing cause to the communication breakdown both between agencies and among firefighters were radios with inadequate signal strength to reach those in the towers, a situation that still has not been fully resolved. And one of the pieces of information that came to light this past weekend was the failure of the MTA to allocate the $600 million they have been granted to increase security. One of their projects –- abandoned due to the assumption of technical complexity too great to overcome -– was the unification of frequencies for the LIRR and Metro-North. At a cost of $120 million, I have two questions: one, why is this so hard, and two, is this necessary? Whereas I can see a scenario in which the police and fire department should be in close communication, I have to wonder about unifying geographically disparate rail systems, or at least prioritizing this spending. Even as this ‘failure’ is underscored in a recent article, the same article doesn’t detail if there similar gaps in communication going unaddressed, such as those between the FDNY and NYPD (though the current imbroglio would not likely have been helped by radios). So is it safe? Safer than 9/11? How could we know — would spending the $600 million have made us safer? To our great fortune (or perhaps, prudent planning), there haven’t been follow-up attacks. So by that very thin measure, we are. But what if we are less safe, even though there hasn’t been an attack? Now what should be doing? The ‘problem’ is the lack of a coherent narrative, and the relentless effort of attention focused news outlets trying to bend every disparate snippet into a ill fitting role. Everyone wants a neatly packaged enemy with a one-dimensional motivation, so that we can dispatch some real-life version of Bruce Willis to attend to the evil doer with the just right combination of swagger and moral certainty, all of it ideally settled by the next commercial break. But the real world isn’t that neat, and terrorism will continue to exploit those areas least protected or considered. There will always be something. One expert pointed out that after dealing with the IRA for over a decade and installing cameras at a rate of up to 20 per resident in some districts, the attacks in London may well have been executed exactly as planned. It is far more likely that terror attacks fail due to any number of pedestrian causes — cold feet, bad timing, and slipshod planning — than the proverbial action hero swooping in to stop the ticking bomb. So is it safe? Today, it was. Safe from terrorists, at least. Not so from the other myriad threats that we operate in both knowledge and willful ignorance of every day. Vigilance may be in order, but it’s not as simple — or offensive — as looking for dark-skinned men with packages on the subway. It is suspicion of those who preach the loudest while doing the least and understanding that the vested interest of most of our news sources is not necessarily our safety, but their success. Certainly they might not trade the former for the latter, but nor do they stop to properly knit together all the facts as the competition blares half-correct speculation that draws attention in the short-term. We are owed more careful consideration from our press, and from our leaders. Determinng the time to stand firm and demand it in terms so strident that it is open dissent is a challenge, and perhaps an impossibly tragedy yet pending. But for now, we are lucky, and safe.