On The Third Hand

Wednesday, 06 Feb 2002

Homeland defense is futile (US) [permalink]

Or so says David Carr [link via Matt Welch ]. I've said similar things a few times -- that the government's homeland defense cannot protect us. Carr gives extensive numbers and examples. He makes excellent arguments as to why it is impossible for the government to defend this country -- even at the cost of what we are. I believe he's quite correct.

He also shows, very clearly, a blind spot in the thinking of most American citizens. He proved that the government could not make the country safe, he did not prove that the citizens and residents could not.

That was the idea President Bush was pushing in his speech on "Citizen Corps". Of course, that will probably turn into another useless (and far too easily misused by police -- think snitch) bureaucracy in a couple of years. Meanwhile, with any luck, a lot of citizens will get a lot of valuable training and retraining. If they volunteer.

The blind spot is what I see as our biggest problem in homeland defense. It is also the reason that the president's rating is so high. Most people want to believe the government will take care of everything. It did a good job in Afghanistan, they think, surely it can defend us here on home territory even more easily. Let's just pass more laws, require higher security in 'sensitive areas'.

As that article mentioned, what people think will work is not workable if we are to remain a free and open society. Many seem to be urging the government to take away more freedoms -- so we can be safe. As far as I can see, safety from terrorism isn't possible in the US -- even if we were a totalitarian state. We are too big, we have too much open space and open seaboard to ever be totally secure.

We never were totally safe here; it's just that until recently most here had the illusion of safety. If we go back to that illusion, we will be just as safe as we were on September 10th. If we don't go back to that, if we keep our eyes open, learn to defend ourselves, get to know our neighbors and surroundings -- we still won't be totally secure. But we'll be much safer than we were then, and much safer than we are now.

The government can do some things: hunting down terrorists, messing up their funding, messing with their minds (I'm a psyops fan), stomping on governments that shelter them.

All that helps, but if "we the people" go back to sleep, if we urge the government to do it all, then I very much fear we may end up with neither safety nor the freedoms that made this country great.
09:35 EST Start or join a forum discussion

Short Stuff [permalink]

• Update Today's Pundit Watch is up. Go read it while I think of something to say... And thank you to Tony for figuring out how to get the Quasipundit group's "permalinks" working properly. Now if only all the rest of you would do the same... I'm tired of fixing the things by hand. No, I'm not obsessive -- I just hate making my faithful readers (all six of them) have to scroll all over a page looking for the post.
• This kid needs a good spanking. Seems the boy "lied about three teens hanging his dog in front of him." It was an accident, and he was afraid his parents would be mad at him.
• Campaign Finance Reform Might Be Delayed Until 2003 and there's always the (remote) possibility someone might gain some common sense by then.
• Safeway facing PETA boycott. It's too bad I don't have a Safeways around here. I'd start shopping there immediately.
• Queen Elizabeth Marks 50 Years on British Throne. I wish her well.
• Saudis say 15 Hijackers Were Citizens. Took them long enough to admit it.
• Senate Set to Give Up on Stimulus Plan. Good. There's far too much pork attached.
  
10:49 EST Start or join a forum discussion

Don't go! [permalink]

I find a new site, and suddenly they are threatening to pack up and go. According to the Bunion:

"With the news that Tony Bush and George W. Blair have been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, we feel that our work here is done. Satire can go no further and we simply have to hang up our pens."

Gentlemen of the Bunion, I suggest you learn the difference between satire and irony. Unless the gentleman who nominated them was being intentionally ironic, it was not satire. Satire is always intentional, irony does not have to be. He caused the irony... you write the satire. Got that? Good. (I may differ with your view, but I understand perfectly why you would see that nomination as ironic.)

I suspect that if they aren't joking (who knows with a satire site) that they are more likely discouraged by the low number of hits on their site counter. Patience, gentlemen, patience; it takes a few days to get noticed hereabouts!
09:35 EST Start or join a forum discussion