1
   

DHS cuts anti-terror funding for Washington and New York

 
 
Thomas
 
Reply Sat 3 Jun, 2006 10:58 am
Meanwhile, Omaha, NE, San Diego, CA, and Louisvilly KY gained in funding. Among the many rationalizations politicians offered, here is one I liked in particular:

The New York Times wrote:
New York officials were given a one-page tally that explained, in part, how the region's risk-based standing was calculated. The document said the region had no "national monuments or icons," four banking or financial firms with assets of over $8 billion, 28 chemical or hazardous material sites, as well as nearly 7,000 other possible important, high-risk targets, like hospitals or major office buildings, a tally that some city officials said had major omissions or errors.

"It's outrageous that these bean counters don't think the Statue of Liberty, Empire State Building and Brooklyn Bridge are national monuments or icons," said Jordon Barowitz, a spokesman for Mayor Bloomberg.

Source

The Washington Post also has an interesting article for it.

On a per-capita basis, the US now spends more money protecting Wyoming from terrorists than it spends on Washington and New York. Any apologist of the current administration care to explain this to me?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,186 • Replies: 15
No top replies

 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jun, 2006 03:01 pm
This from CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/31/homeland.grants/index.html

"One of the more controversial programs is the department's Urban Areas Security Initiative, which is aimed at cities and for which $757 million is being distributed.

New York and Washington are getting less under that program this year. New York, for example, will receive nearly $125 million, a reduction of about $83 million.

Homeland Security officials pointed out, however, that New York is still the largest recipient in the program."

Does anyone think that this means the terrorists are going to be more likely to attack now?
Does anyone really think that the terrorists havent attacked based on how much money was spent?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jun, 2006 09:23 am
mysteryman wrote:
Does anyone think that this means the terrorists are going to be more likely to attack now?
Does anyone really think that the terrorists havent attacked based on how much money was spent?

Why not? If they observe that security at specific sites is especially tight, say the New York Stock exchange, the Empire State Building, or the Statue of Liberty, why wouldn't they refrain from attacking those sites?

Thanks for the link to CNN. Do you know why Homeland Security thinks New York has no landmarks to protect? Do you agree with them?
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jun, 2006 09:33 am
My guess would be that terrorists favor attacks on people, the more innocent, the better. DHS seems to guess that they favor cows and prairie dogs.

Of course, they got a lot more smarts than I.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jun, 2006 09:36 am
Laughing
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jun, 2006 06:27 am
Perhaps individuals (or parties) who hate government ought not to be expected to do it very well.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jun, 2006 07:17 am
blatham wrote:
Perhaps individuals (or parties) who hate government ought not to be expected to do it very well.

Well, this particular problem is about national security, which even staunch libertarians agree is best done by government.

Generally though, good point. So how would you suggest we pursue our political interests instead?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jun, 2006 08:53 am
Quote:
So how would you suggest we pursue our political interests instead?


What "political interests" might be conceived fall out entirely from the modifiers in red. In America, the political interests of Latinos or the citizens of Portland Oregon are rather dissimilar from the interests of Raytheon and Northup who are presently lobbying the Bush administration to militarize the southern border - using their benificent services, of course. And what might be the referent - the real referent - when Bush or Cheney use the term "we"? Homeless people? Black National Guardsmen with no legs? New York city doormen? An independent press? Government whistleblowers?

whoops...have to zip...incomplete post
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jun, 2006 05:59 pm
There was a cut to Boston's funds too.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jun, 2006 06:53 pm
Thank you, Thomas, for starting this thread. I started seeing stuff about this a few days ago. I am sickened by this. This is a stunning example of what can be done with just the right amount of corruption and incompetence.

Our government is officially broken. This is the kind of **** that should have us kicking in doors and just plain beating the **** out of our elected officials. How far off the rails does the government have to go before the bile that these corrupt, incompetent dicks inspire comes flowing back out at them, spewing violently forth in the form of millions of people in the streets, not marching peacefully, but burning motherf*ckers' houses down! In fac, I am so pissed, I'm about to start a f*cking revolution! ARE YOU WITH ME, PEOPLE?! I WANT NAMES, AND I WANT THEM NOW!!! ACCOUNTABILITY! NOW! REVOLUTION!!!

Ooh, Bill O'Reilly is doing a segment about whether Ann Coulter or Michael Moore is more insensitive to 9-11 victims. Gotta go!
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jun, 2006 12:45 am
littlek wrote:
There was a cut to Boston's funds too.

That makes sense, because you guys launched the airplains that hit Washington. No money for you!
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jun, 2006 07:06 am
blatham wrote:
Quote:
So how would you suggest we pursue our political interests instead?


What "political interests" might be conceived fall out entirely from the modifiers in red. In America, the political interests of Latinos or the citizens of Portland Oregon are rather dissimilar from the interests of Raytheon and Northup who are presently lobbying the Bush administration to militarize the southern border - using their benificent services, of course. And what might be the referent - the real referent - when Bush or Cheney use the term "we"? Homeless people? Black National Guardsmen with no legs? New York city doormen? An independent press? Government whistleblowers?

whoops...have to zip...incomplete post


In any case, and to avoid spinning off into what might constitute morally justifiable government...

Chertoff has given his reasons for the various fund outlays. I haven't bothered to read those reasons as I have zero confidence they will accurately reflect the real decision criteria.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jun, 2006 07:17 am
blatham wrote:
blatham wrote:
Quote:
So how would you suggest we pursue our political interests instead?


What "political interests" might be conceived fall out entirely from the modifiers in red.


In any case, and to avoid spinning off into what might constitute morally justifiable government...

Actually, my question was not about morally justifiable government. It was about what practical alternatives we libertarians might have to running for public office.

In your first post you had said: "perhaps individuals (or parties) who hate government ought not to be expected to do it very well." I am one of those individuals, though "hate" is probably too strong a word. But I agree with you that decent people who don't believe in government have little incentive to run it, so my question is, what's the alternative? How do you suggest we, the reasonably decent government skeptics, keep our government small and focused, without running for a government job in the process?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jun, 2006 11:18 am
Thomas wrote:
blatham wrote:
blatham wrote:
Quote:
So how would you suggest we pursue our political interests instead?


What "political interests" might be conceived fall out entirely from the modifiers in red.


In any case, and to avoid spinning off into what might constitute morally justifiable government...

Actually, my question was not about morally justifiable government. It was about what practical alternatives we libertarians might have to running for public office.

In your first post you had said: "perhaps individuals (or parties) who hate government ought not to be expected to do it very well." I am one of those individuals, though "hate" is probably too strong a word. But I agree with you that decent people who don't believe in government have little incentive to run it, so my question is, what's the alternative? How do you suggest we, the reasonably decent government skeptics, keep our government small and focused, without running for a government job in the process?


thomas
My earlier post that you have quoted above wasn't intended to point towards libertarians (or you) but towards the folks in and around the present administration. Of course, pretty much the whole nest of them have spent the better part of their adult lives as politicians or as party activists. Grover Norquist, classic government derogator, makes for a prime example, having spent his entire adult life from college onwards insinuating himself into the political process so as to direct and control policy. "Government is bad" or "government ought to be small" really means, to these guys at least, "only my ideology and interests define proper governance therefore only I ought to be allowed to govern. And the fundamental thrust of my governing will be to disallow anyone else to get near to power by defunding and disempowering everyone but those who demonstrate on-going fealty." Size of government is quite irrelevant in this equation except insofar as size or complexity might present an increased likelihood of dilution of tightly centralized power (thus the diminishment of Congressional power, thus the diminishment of judicial power, thus the diminishment of international bodies/agreements, etc). Homeland Security fundiing (the topic of your thread) has far more to do with shoring up power bases/alliances than any other claimed motivation.

As to what an actual libertarian ought to get up to politically...

You and I definitely do not agree on the benificence of a largely unregulated business world. Warring selfishnesses too often produce precisely this type of consequence.

Where we do agree on government over-reach into citizen affairs, I think, involves attempts to mandate/enforce someone's notion of virtue in adult citizens' private lives. As I do not mind your shoulder to the wheel assistance in attenuating government moves into this last area, I suppose I ought to suggest that a libertarian such as yourself should operate as either an activist or as a political representative like anyone else. And if you actually achieve any semblance of power and still maintain your position on that other matter, then I'll shoot you.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jun, 2006 11:28 am
blatham wrote:
And if you actually achieve any semblance of power and still maintain your position on that other matter, then I'll shoot you.


Are you saying that gun on your belt is real, Mr. Mountie ? ! ? ! ?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jun, 2006 12:28 pm
I knew Blatham was an gun nut deep inside. It was about time he came out of the closet.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » DHS cuts anti-terror funding for Washington and New York
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/05/2021 at 02:12:57