oh, the irony
Oct. 18th, 2010 01:34![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
piranhai'm watching criminal minds, season 4, episode 24 "amplification". the unsub got rejected by the army because he failed the psych eval by answering "yes" to the question "is it ever justified to sacrifice the lives of a few for the lives of many".
the unsub lets loose a weaponized anthrax strain in a park as a test, and everyone expects a major attack. the entire episode spends much of its internal agony over whether it'd be ok for the agents to notify their loved ones so they can get out of town, and the official attitude is to keep this from the public for as long as possible, because otherwise mass panic would set in.
uh huh.
and then at the end, when emily gripes about having lied to a woman according to the company line, telling her everything was perfectly safe when in fact it wasn't at all safe, rossi asks her "how would people feel if they knew everything we've prevented since 9-11? would they feel safer, or more vulnerable?" as if that perfectly justified the lies. i think i wouldn't feel more vulnerable, but i would have a more realistic assessment of the dangers and counter-measures out there -- and i always, always rather know than don't know.
i think 9-11 proved that feeling safe isn't particularly good for people; so much overreaction came about in part because people had had no actual concept of the real and present dangers of terrorism. being realistic, being prepared, is important IMO, even though that doesn't make one safe, of course. it changes my mindset, and i am less likely to panic, more likely to have a plan, or at least reasonable objectives if actual danger hits.
i still miss gideon (though not greenaway whom i never liked). i'm sorry about gideon throwing in the towel, but that writing was large on the wall even before frank returned. though i really, REALLY hate it when shows like this put a team member in the direct crosshairs of an unsub -- once i can take, but they've done it to greenaway, gideon, garcia, and reid, and i am afraid it's just gonna continue, and since the boston reaper episode i am pretty sure it'll be hotchner. the show has drama enough, it doesn't need to artificially rachet it up. *grump*.
the unsub lets loose a weaponized anthrax strain in a park as a test, and everyone expects a major attack. the entire episode spends much of its internal agony over whether it'd be ok for the agents to notify their loved ones so they can get out of town, and the official attitude is to keep this from the public for as long as possible, because otherwise mass panic would set in.
uh huh.
and then at the end, when emily gripes about having lied to a woman according to the company line, telling her everything was perfectly safe when in fact it wasn't at all safe, rossi asks her "how would people feel if they knew everything we've prevented since 9-11? would they feel safer, or more vulnerable?" as if that perfectly justified the lies. i think i wouldn't feel more vulnerable, but i would have a more realistic assessment of the dangers and counter-measures out there -- and i always, always rather know than don't know.
i think 9-11 proved that feeling safe isn't particularly good for people; so much overreaction came about in part because people had had no actual concept of the real and present dangers of terrorism. being realistic, being prepared, is important IMO, even though that doesn't make one safe, of course. it changes my mindset, and i am less likely to panic, more likely to have a plan, or at least reasonable objectives if actual danger hits.
i still miss gideon (though not greenaway whom i never liked). i'm sorry about gideon throwing in the towel, but that writing was large on the wall even before frank returned. though i really, REALLY hate it when shows like this put a team member in the direct crosshairs of an unsub -- once i can take, but they've done it to greenaway, gideon, garcia, and reid, and i am afraid it's just gonna continue, and since the boston reaper episode i am pretty sure it'll be hotchner. the show has drama enough, it doesn't need to artificially rachet it up. *grump*.
no subject
on 2010-10-18 09:11 (UTC)....ohdear.
no subject
on 2010-10-19 05:29 (UTC)no subject
on 2010-10-19 05:36 (UTC)Yeah....I understand it's in the nature of US episodic TV that you have long-term contracts for about half-a-dozen people, and then the suits feel everything has to happen to those people to keep up Viewer Interest, but for me the sum total results in _too much_ happening to about half-a-dozen people so it gets ridiculous with very little background or secondary character stuff. Maybe novels spoil me.
no subject
on 2010-10-19 05:44 (UTC)There's one series in particular where every time a book introduces a new relative of the main character, you can be assured that this relative will be in peril before the end of the book.
no subject
on 2010-10-18 09:52 (UTC)I'm solidly against scaremongering, but that's quite different from just being told the facts. And if we could trust the authorities to actually tell us the facts, then scaremongering might have less purchase.
A justification I'd care more for would be security vis-a-vis terrorists and foreign powers: if they can see what you've protected against in the past and some measure of how you've done it, that might give them something to go on in planning new and novel attacks on you. I don't know if this is sufficient justification in practice, but it'd convince me much more readily.
I started watching in Greenaway's final episodes, so didn't think much of her, and didn't know Gideon well before he was gone. But on rewatching, Greenaway grew on me, while Gideon never really did - I get him but only intellectually.
--I'm presuming you want to avoid spoilers, otherwise you'd go look for yourself, right?
no subject
on 2010-10-19 05:53 (UTC)but yeah, if i really wanted to know, i'd read wikipedia. :) i gotta remind myself frequently that i cannot go there to look up anything, because people go into totally obsessive detail for their favourite shows and spoil every little bit.
more on the thinky stuff later.
no subject
on 2010-10-18 11:47 (UTC)The thing that bugged me about all the hand-wringing ethical turmoil of JJ not being able to evacuate her kid because it wouldn't be "fair", etc, was that it came right after something at the end of the previous episode that is a huge ethical violation in my opinion and is entirely glossed over.
Don't believe it for a minute
on 2010-10-19 01:56 (UTC)I'm a cynic whenever I hear the "if only we could tell you" lines. Maybe it would provoke panic (depending on the details of how some plot failed to come off) or maybe equanimity. But mostly it would in practice be like the self-reports by gun owners of crimes foiled by display of a weapon.
Re: Don't believe it for a minute
on 2010-10-19 05:38 (UTC)of course i have absolutely no idea whether that question is part of the army's psych evaluations, and whether a single "yes" there has the repercussions shown.
i sort of understand fearing a panic because i have seen people panic over little shit, and i tend to stay out of crowds myself because i've almost got killed at a rock concert once. but i also think there is a difference between "fire in a crowded theatre", and a warning about a possible anthrax attack in one's community. the former is much more immediate, and therefore more likely to induce blind panic. and i think that the better people are prepared (which includes public drills), the fewer will panic.
Re: Don't believe it for a minute
on 2010-10-19 14:58 (UTC)Re: Don't believe it for a minute
on 2010-10-19 22:18 (UTC)no subject
on 2010-10-19 05:30 (UTC)no subject
on 2010-10-19 05:45 (UTC)