Friday, March 13, 2009

...they will undoubtedly hang themselves

Zombie Quiz #2:

Hey boys and girls....it's time for another zombie quiz! For this one, we're going to have to jump in the voodoo time machine and go back to December of 2007. Thankfully the internets does an amazing job of archiving digital information...unlike our City's MIS staff. So here we go....wwwhhiirrrhhhhh.....Kablooeeey!!!




In case you don't remember what this poster was all about...let's ask Eli:

Mobilization Tactics Thwarted By Crazy

and the TP:

Tensions rise over public housing




and Katrina Daily News:

Housing advocates deny role in threat to burn New Orleans; FBI investigates

Now back to the present. If the person who distributed these flyers was actually identified....what would the pending charge be?

A. Felony Terrorist/Arson Threat
B. Defacing Public Property
C. Poor Graphic Design
D. Failure to purchase a color printer
E. All of the above

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

I have read a few of these blog posts and I have to say 1. GREAT JOB, and 2. it is really difficult to take it all in. Would it be possible to develop some kind of timeline? What do we have so far?

Head calls for information on Sanitation contracts -> preemptive break-in and rifling through of files, old school with a new twist (i.e. the emails)

Crime cameras, technology officer deception, insider dealing with Ciber, LCG, Jones and the rest -> Boyd and Jones work in concert with White to deliver Council emails.

Then we have Suber, Jefferson allies, Nagin....

Trash
Technology
Public Housing
Voting
Jefferson
Nagin

While you're at recollecting, rightly, the public housing self-generated "crisis", now may be a good time to recall the fliers that came out during Nagin's first run for mayor in which Paulette Irons was taken out Nancy Kerrigan style in a similar fashion.

Something is so incredibly afoot. Is this just a massive unfurling of the huge web of insider contracts and thievery that has been going on in this City for decades in the face of repeated and ever deeper inquiries? In the end it may turn out that our City government has really just been nothing more than one, big, massive RICO racket all along, with Bill Jefferson as kingpin.

Anonymous said...

might there be a link between the first and second quizzes?

Dambala said...

- might there be a link between the first and second quizzes?

Oh gee....I didn't notice. :)

olegonzo said...

Hopefully we still have enough civil rights to say that the answer to your question is NONE OF THE ABOVE.

Saying a condo will be torched is not the same as torching a condo or threatening to kill somebody. It is still legal to say in print that something illegal could happen, though.

This is a political free speech statement that is not actionable until a.) a condo is destroyed and you have a suspect, or b.) you catch somebody with a can of gasoline and a matchbook who seems to be attempting to burn down a condo.

And no this is not the Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. test of "fire in a crowded theater" nor is it hate speech. So it's protected speech except maybe in some hillbilly courthouse down south.



However, whoever did this poster should be fined heavily for the use of the IMPACT font. (Insert emoticon here.)

Dambala said...

- This is a political free speech statement that is not actionable until a.) a condo is destroyed and you have a suspect, or b.) you catch somebody with a can of gasoline and a matchbook who seems to be attempting to burn down a condo.

NOT. this is a terroristic threatening plain and simple. these flyers threatened arson...a felony charge. and you're also wrong about the "fire in a crowded theater" 1st amendment argument. That law specifically states you cannot "incite violence"....i'm not sure what court on the planet would not equate burning condos with inciting violence. Arson is felony brah....threatening arson is a felony.