'Mailed' Hoxes: Meh
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Sarah's Resources You Should See
Full-Text Search & Archives
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions. For investment, legal or other professional advice specific to your situation contact a licensed professional in your jurisdiction.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility; author(s) may have positions in securities or firms mentioned and have no duty to disclose same.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2018-10-25 06:16 by Karl Denninger
in Musings , 421 references Ignore this thread
'Mailed' Hoxes: Meh
[Comments enabled]

This is completely ridiculous.

A suspected explosive device mailed to CNN’s New York City headquarters and addressed to former CIA Director John Brennan reportedly contained an image parody of the ISIS flag, along with a popular catchphrase made famous by comedian Larry the Cable Guy.

It's now been admitted (roughly 12 hours ago) that the device was not mailed.  It has been reported that this one was hand-delivered by a courier, which explains how it managed to get to CNN without the stamps being canceled.

But that fact presents a second problem because couriers don't operate without knowing who they're delivering for and commercial buildings are bristling with security cameras.  In addition exactly what jackwad in said building allowed an apparent mail piece to be put into the building's mail stream by a courier with stamps on it?

But, of course, Fox Snooz is still saying mailed.

It wasn't mailed.

Anyone care to bet that's a pattern with that happens to hold with the rest of them?

Then there are the facts on these alleged "devices."  Notice the word suspected.  That word has shown up since yesterday afternoon and it ought to be dropped and replaced with the word hoax.

Not to say that there still isn't a crime here (and a serious one), because there is.  I used to have one of those gag grenades on my desk with the label "Complaint Department -- please take a number" on the plaque it was attached to, and a big number "1" on the pin.

Were I to detach said "grenade" from the base, yank the pin out and throw it to you (without you knowing it was a gag device of course) that would be assault since it sure as hell looked like a real grenade and it also appears that I just yanked the pin on it and threw it at you.  If I dove around the corner immediately after doing so for effect that would add emphasis to it and make it even more-believable.

But I still didn't throw a bomb (grenade) at you -- a bomb has to be both capable of exploding and intended to explode.  There is no evidence in the public eye at this point that these "devices" were either capable of or intended to actually explode.

I could go down a list of reasons that I highly doubt there's anything that's actually dangerous about them at all but I don't want to give anyone who might be thinking about making better hoaxes ideas -- so I won't.

Second, may I note that nobody in their right mind among law enforcement (whether ordinary LEOs or the bomb squad) are going to pull live explosive devices, or anything they believe is or might be one, out of its package, lay it on a table in an office building, stand next to it and take pretty pictures of it for the news!  If it's an actual bomb and has a timer on it that would be about the dumbest thing in the world one could do -- unless you're trying to kill yourself.  Bomb squad/EOD people aren't stupid; you don't live long in that line of work by doing idiotic things.

As I said yesterday my money is on that thing being full of kitty litter (maybe used kitty litter for added effect.)

So what we have here is a nasty hoax.  It's a hoax on several levels and the media, at this point, are actively and intentionally participating in it by continuing to insinuate that these are real explosive devices.  I'm willing to bet these are not actual bombs at all given the blatantly cavalier manner in which they're handling them for everyone to see for openers.  Now sending them (by any means, whether stuffed in a mailbox by hand or paying someone to courier them into a building) remains a serious crime -- but what hasn't been established and I'm not buying given the evidence presented is that these were actually capable of harming people.

Never mind this headline: "FBI IDs 7 'suspicious packages' sent to Dem figures containing 'potentially destructive devices'" -- yes, they were potentially destructive devices, if they had contained actual explosives and were both designed to and capable of actually exploding.

But, from all appearances, they weren't -- thus the qualifying word that the media is breathlessly downplaying.

As for the courier-delivered one at CNN in New York whoever delivered it ought to be trivially able to be found, along with whoever consigned him or her. I used to use inner city courier services ("messenger bag dudes") all the time to run documents and such between firms in Chicago's Loop when I had an office at 2 Prudential and they simply don't take a package from some random Joe on the street.  It's not just a safety thing; if the person to whom you want it taken isn't there or you screw up with the addressing in some way (wrong suite number, etc) the dude has to be able to bring it back to you, and as such he won't take it without knowing exactly who it came from.  Oh, and he wants paid too.

I'd say use your head here and apply a bit of critical thinking but given the level of intellect displayed by the average person in America today it certainly seems I'd be asking too much.