Dartblog

Deval Patrick, Massachusetts’ fool of a governor, said that in a presser yesterday. “This is about corporate greed.” To a liberal Massachusetts politico, even a clever advertising stunt for a cartoon show is evidence of the evils of commerce. The backlash against Turner Broadcasting, purveyors of the absurdly hilarious Aqua Teen Hunger Force program, and its guerilla marketing firm Interference Inc., has gone way too far.

The story so far: Weeks ago, hundreds of little lighted signs depicting Ur, an alien character (looking just like a Space Invader from the old game) from the aforementioned cartoon show went up in major American citizens. People noticed, laughed, took pictures. (An Associated Press photog snapped a picture two weeks ago and not a drought of panic.) The idea was that the alien race from the show was in fact invading major American metropolises. An awful clever marketing campaign, if you ask me. The trouble is that Boston was chosen as one of the targets, and some daft policemen saw the devices scattered about—they consist of a black board, a series of LED lights of the sort used on traffic lights, and four Duracell C-type batteries—and concluded they were bombs. Curiously, the police did not conclude that those suspicious Bud Light signs, dangling by the dozens in proper Boston, were improvised explosive devices as well.

Enter politics. As I say, the state’s governor said that it was all about corporate greed. The police have made arrests. Charges pend. Damages will be sought. But it’s all so, so stupid.

UPDATE: One further note. E! Entertainment news leads with this headline: “Aqua Teen Hunger Force Promotion Bombs.”

Actually, it could not possibly have gone better.

FURTHER UPDATE: A federal law enforcement agent who wishes not to be identified by name e-mails:

Hi Joe,

I don’t plan to get involved in the politics of this (actually, I think I generally lean in your direction), but I have to say that this hoax device—or advertising promotion—is a real concern for law enforcement officials. As a federal agent, I have seen the results of actual devices and been involved in a number of investigations. In fact, my agency is investigating two actual devices that were delivered just yesterday. Fortunately there was no detonation. I have attached a photo of the hoax device in question.

From the perspective of law enforcement, there was enough concern due to its appearance to require emergency response and the deployment of sufficient equipment and manpower to ascertain the device was, in fact, non-functional. So I take issue with your statement that “it’s all so, so stupid.” Unless you’re referring to the thoughtless idiot who placed or mailed the hoax devices in the first place.

It certainly did seem to me to be the case that the Boston officers who triggered the bomb scare were acting with extremely poor judgment. Photographs of the device that I had seen show a series of colorful LED lamps and a row of regular alkaline batteries. No room, in other words, for a reasonable observer to suppose the device a bomb. The correspondent, however, attaches a different photograph of the advertisement.

In this instance, the lamps are still plain to see—and in the dark would have been lit just like a Bud Lite sign—but the row of batteries is smothered in electrical tape, lending the contraption a more sinister veneer. If this is really how the things were placed around Boston, there would be a clearer-cut case for liability on the part of the marketing company.