The evening news in NY last night had interviews with people-in-the-street and NY execs expressing "outrage," "Surprise," "shock" over the fact that the government has slashed the terror defense budget by forty percent. This brilliant decision to cut back on funding for a city that's been attacked twice in thirteen years, claiming that there are "no national icons" that would present targets (because the Statue of Liberty, Brooklyn Bridge, Empire State Building, Radio City Music Hall, etc., apparently don't count) while stepping up money and protection for cities that would not seem to be on anyone's radar--Jacksonville, FL, St. Louis, MO, Milwaukee, WI, Louisville, KY, and Omaha, NE--has officials claiming they're stunned. Stunned!
Why are they stunned? Beats me.
New York didn't vote for Bush. Not only that, but one of the major Dem challengers for 2008, Senator Clinton, represents New York. Nothing like trying to slap a black eye on NY's representation ("Our funding got cut! Why weren't you watching out for us?") Florida, meantime, is Jeb Bush's backyard. Missouri voted for Bush. Kentucky went for Bush. Nebraska went for Bush. Wisconsin went for Kerry, but only by 49.8 as opposed to Bush's 49.4. Close enough to flip in 2008.
I have no idea how anyone can think that this administration, which outs its own CIA operatives in order to exact vengeance, would have done any different.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at June 1, 2006 08:28 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingMaybe it's a ruse. Like in The Return of the Jedi, when the Empire feeds the rebels bad intelligence, fooling them into thinking the Death Star II isn't fully operational when, in fact, it is.
Yeah, yeah, I know. Wishful thinking.
Well, Pitaki seems to be in the running as well, although he's moderate, which means the Republicans will flay him alive before long.
The anti-terrorism funding since 9/11 has been a complete joke, and this is only the latest proof.
You had states like Montana getting more $/person than California and New York, and nothing has changed.
Politics make me so angry I feel like I could split atoms.
Sometimes I swear that Bush is "The Al-Qaida Candidate" or something.
Well, Louisville does have one spot that has over 100,000 people at least one day a year - and lots of famous people then, too. If that doesn't jog your memory - it's the first Saturday in May and draws more folks than the other two races combined. Being as how I've been one of the 100,000+ people a few times, I'd say they need a bit more extra protection for that at least...
It is pretty suspect that, just after Chertoff announced that the grants would be given out based more on risk than politics, the two cities that are the highest risk both receive substantial cuts. A strike to undermine Hillary's standing in NY? Could be. I wouldn't put anything past this administration.
And New York has Shea Stadium and Yankee stadium which, particularly when there's a hot team in town, draws around 50,000 on ANY given day. And then there's Belmont Race track which has been known to be host to crowds now and then.
I'm not sure where trying to increase protection one day a year in one place justifies gutting protection required on a regular basis in anaother.
PAD
Let's see: Louisville has 100,000 people at a single event once a year. NYC has 20 million people going in and out and around the city daily.
Yeah, I can see how the risks are the same. /sarcasm.
The surprizing thing is why anyone is surprized anymore by this incompetent imbecile.
Worst President ever!
I can see the terrorists planning now: Terrorist #1: Should we go for New York again? I liked the way we knocked out the economy for a few weeks. And all that money spent on rebuilding?? Haha thats nice.
Terrorist #2: yeah but if we hit Kentucky, think of all those expensive horses we get to kill too! The dog food companies won't know what hit them!
Terrorist #1: Hmm its tough. I mean, that derby place might mean more to Americans than the Statue of Liberty. One is considered no more of an icon than the other!
Terrorist #2: yeah, but you can't bet on the Statue of Liberty!
No offense to the people of Kentucky, Nebraska, Montana and anyone else who may feel slighted...but you should be happy you live in a state of such little importance that terrorists dont give a crap about you. My girlfriend just accepted a job in Manhattan (coming from Staten Island) and the one thing that really frightens her about moving to the city is she was already involved in 9/11, having worked across the street from the Towers...and she is extremely fearful it may happen again. Fortunately for all of you...they dont want you. Kentucky and Missouri are not symbols of America that terrorists hate.
The problem is beans.
New York's got them, everybody else wants them. Unfortunately, New York's got them because there's more PEOPLE there that got them. All the other places are like a spoiled four year old, I want beans too!
So the bean counters say, right, let's be fair. Let's split it up equally based on the area. Which, of course, means that Rancher Bob in Montana is JUST as protected as everyone in New York. Of course, the fact that the biggest threat to Rancher Bob is in fact the possibility of being stepped on by Bossie, who is in fact his nearest neighbor, never enters the equation.
Don't actually accomplish anything as a leader, just look LIKE you're doing something and let history be the judge. Of course, history will make the judgement that most people already have.
Bush is full of beans.
Nothing the government does to its citizens should shock anyone any more. After all, we live in a society now where the police will toss you out of a bookstore and threaten to arrest you for making a joke about Rick "man-on-dog" Santorum.
This probably won't be a popular view but with the $9 trillion deficite it's probably time to cut the majority of these anti-terrorist funds entirely. The vast majority of it is completely and utterly wasted. My city used its funds to throw ketchup on people and have them lying in the street as our police/fire department/EMt forces proved that they could handle a preplanned, forwarned attack of the killer tomatos. I feel totally safe if the tomatos ever raise up and riot from the local ketchup factory.
Beuracey, red tape and more idiots who can only say, master you are so correct is not going to stop the next terrorist attack. Only people intelligent enough to listen and connect the dots is going to stop it, not 15 more layers of ues men with a text book of inadequacies.
Every attack on american soil has been in foresight a sequence of missed opportunities to stop it. Pearl Harbor, Columbine, Federal Building, Unibomber, NY and Washington and half of those were perpetrated by our own citizens! The very nature of terrorism means you aren't going to stop it and things will happen.
All the shrub has managed to do since 9-11, in my opinion is probably make us less safe than we were pre 9-11. Nearly a year later and Katrina is still one big fracking disaster.
Here is St. Louis we have the beautiful, gleaming, soaring Gateway Arch, which as a symbol of westward expansion, is a very likely target for destruction by terrorists. It, like the Sears Tower in Chicago, was ordered closed on 9/11. It could well be the kind of icon whose destruction would be more powerful simply because of it's symbolism.
George
Well, Brian, the only way to really test an emergency response plan, short of waiting for the real thing, is to run drills. Maybe your city could have made it more challenging, but they at least used the money for emergency preparedness, instead of what some communities used their anti-terrorism funds for, such as air conditioned garbage trucks or bulletproof vests for dogs.
The problem is, every time the federal government offers up a huge pile of cash, no matter what the intentions, the temptation is there for influential members of push for handing a big slice of the pie to pork-barrel projects in their district.
I don't live in Washington DC or NYC, but to cut the funds on the two biggest terrorist targets in favor of Jacksonville and Louisville is ridiculous.
As far as I know, not beign american and all, New York have a big tradition of public civil services and have some huge emergency management departments (NYFD, NYPD...). Those departments can handle any security improvement, while maybe other cities would have to hire a company to do much of the job and handle a big chunk of that money. Say...Haliburton?
How high is the Gateway Arch on the terrorists' list of symbols to blow up compared to say, the Statue of Liberty, the UN Building, the Empire State Building, the White House, the Pentagon, and Congress?
How many terrorist think about the Arch when they think of America? The Statue of Liberty gets used in political cartoons all the time to make comments about America, but here and abroad. How many international cartoons have featured the Arch?
Hey now, Omaha is home to what used to be a fairly important Air Force base (Stratigic Air Command) and I'm pretty sure it still is. Remember, the idiot president touched down briefly in Omaha on 9/11 because he wanted to find out what happened to the goat before he went back to D.C.
That being said, yes, it's pretty ridiculous to have budgets slashed for NY and D.C. while boosting them for cities most Americans couldn't find on a map, let alone terrorists.
When I first heard about this, I thought it was an article from The Onion.
++i++How high is the Gateway Arch on the terrorists' list of symbols to blow up compared to say, the Statue of Liberty, the UN Building, the Empire State Building, the White House, the Pentagon, and Congress?--i--
Ive been to the USA twice, I am an avid consumer of american media (I even watch FoxNews sometimes for the laughs) and I dont know hwere that Arch is (tho I think ive seen it in the Simpsons or somewhere like that).
P.S.
Oddly enough, I was born in Louisville, KY and live in Omaha...how strange...
Nothing surprises me any more. This is the same government that thought a random security system was the best way to catch more terrorists. You know, stopping the 80 year old white woman as a possible terrorist for an extended search as an effective deterrant to some guy wanting to sneak a bomb onto a plane.
I'm surprised only a few have touched on this. This isn't about protection, it's about reward and punishment. Friends of the administration are getting these funds. Everyone else suffers. This administration isn't about doing what's best for the country, it's about securing future votes by making good on the promises made to those that voted for you 2 and 6 years ago. Everyone can and should fend for themselves, in their minds.
Just for the record, COlorado is also getting it's grants cut by 40%, with Denver itself getting hit by a 50% cut.
And Colorado unfortunately went to the Chimp.
Yeah, and the fact that Jacksonville, FL is the 13th largest city, with a fairly large Navy base - that makes it just another city, no strategic military target.
Florida gets a bum rap as hicksville, but between Mayport in Jacksonville, Tourism Heaven of Orlando and the beaches, MacDill in Tampa where a lot of planning and staging takes place, and the spaceport, I think having funds in place isn't outrageous.
I'd be interested to see a breakdown of monies over time, and how they were spent. My reaction is, I'll admit, kneejerk to the implied insult. Yes, Jeb is our governor (I didn't vote for him), but honestly, there's *some* merit for funding anti-terrorism in Florida, if only because it's a place where international visitors come to visit in droves.
Yes, even Jacksonville.
Funny, I haven't seen anyone argue that Jacksonville should get zero dollars in counter-terrorism funds. No one disputes that there are potential targets for foreign and domestic terrorists outside of NYC and Washington.
The question is, how many terrorist attacks has Jacksonville suffered? How many credible threats involving Jacksonsville have been uncovered?
I live in Harrisburg, PA and I can point to dozens of things that could be potential targets for terrorists: A major naval distribution center, the Army War College (where military intelligence officers receive training), Three Mile Island, just to name a few. That's not the point.
The point is, if the federal grants are supposed to given out by risk, it makes sense to give the places that have the highest risk priority funding. And that isn't Louisville, Jacksonville, or Harrisburg. It's NYC and Washington.
I don't believe that the decision to slap NYC and Washington with 40% cuts were done with a "screw the blue states" attitude, but they are an indication that despite Chertoff's assurances, pork barrel politics are still plaguing these grants.
To all of you who have been indignantly pointing out the important targets in cities other than NYC: I don't think any reasonable person would assert that NYC is the only city that deserves protection, nor that NYC is the only important city in the U.S. And I don't think Peter, nor the majority of the posters in this thread, have said any such things.
When you're dealing with risk management, however, you can't treat all risks equally. You have to allocate funding based on the severity of the risk. Like when you go into the ER with a sprained ankle, and you have to wait behind the guy holding one of his eyeballs in his hand, and the woman who has a sucking chest wound from being impaled on a pogo stick that was unfortunately manufactured with an unnecessarily sharp point. The people who are in the greatest danger get the most attention.
If you look at recent events, NYC his been hit twice by Al Qaeda. It is therefore logical to suspect that Al Qaeda may choose to target NYC again. Does anybody really believe that Milwaukee, Louisville, or Omaha need as much spending per capita as NYC?
Yes, your cities and their populaces need and deserve protection. The question is how much you need relative to other cities. I mean, I live in Rochester, N.Y., and I think we're an unfairly overlooked city in the grand scheme of things. But I don't think we need as much anti-terrorism funding as NYC, D.C., or Los Angeles.
Oh, and to the poster who pointed out the military base near his city: Al Qaeda seems to prefer civilian targets. They're not fond of people who can fight back. Doesn't mean the danger for you is zero, by any means. But I still think NYC is higher on their list.
And I don't think NASA is in any danger from Al-Qaida either, they kill enough astonauts without help from Bin Laden...
Remember, your shuttle was built by the lowest bidder....
Well, I live in Indiana, we went for Bush both times, and I haven't seen any money. I even-- voted for him--seven times, yeah, that's it. And I drove people to the polls to vote for him in a...tru--va--bus, that's the ticket. And I even got my wife, uh--Morgan Fairchild to vote for him and to get her Hollywood elite friends for vote for him.
So where's our money? I--work for Homeland Security. In fact, I'm the--lead--bos--presi-- king, yeah. Please send the money PayPal to my e-mail. Once I get it, I'll keep an eye out for terrorists, yeah, that's it.
And I don't think Peter, nor the majority of the posters in this thread, have said any such things.
- Bill Myers
Well, let's examine what's been said:
This brilliant decision to cut back on funding for a city that's been attacked twice in thirteen years, claiming that there are "no national icons" that would present targets (because the Statue of Liberty, Brooklyn Bridge, Empire State Building, Radio City Music Hall, etc., apparently don't count) while stepping up money and protection for cities that would not seem to be on anyone's radar--Jacksonville, FL, St. Louis, MO, Milwaukee, WI, Louisville, KY, and Omaha, NE--has officials claiming they're stunned.
- Peter David, original post
Let's see: Louisville has 100,000 people at a single event once a year. NYC has 20 million people going in and out and around the city daily.
Yeah, I can see how the risks are the same. /sarcasm.
- Den
...you should be happy you live in a state of such little importance that terrorists dont give a crap about you.
- Michael
Of course, the fact that the biggest threat to Rancher Bob is in fact the possibility of being stepped on by Bossie, who is in fact his nearest neighbor, never enters the equation.
- Sean Scullion
I don't live in Washington DC or NYC, but to cut the funds on the two biggest terrorist targets in favor of Jacksonville and Louisville is ridiculous.
- Den
How high is the Gateway Arch on the terrorists' list of symbols to blow up compared to say, the Statue of Liberty, the UN Building, the Empire State Building, the White House, the Pentagon, and Congress?
How many terrorist think about the Arch when they think of America? The Statue of Liberty gets used in political cartoons all the time to make comments about America, but here and abroad. How many international cartoons have featured the Arch?
- Den
I'm done. I had a lot of respect for Mr. David as a writer, but I don't care to follow his blog any more (and this after less than a month). Most likely this will have some effect on my future purchases as well, but who's to say.
Yes, it is true that NYC has many targets which need protecting from terrorist attacks. But what no one has pointed out so far is that NYC also has many protectors -- more, in fact, than any other US city. Not only are Spider-Man, Daredevil, and numerous other super-powered individuals based in NYC, but super-powered groups such as the Fantastic Four and Avengers are based there as well. The other cities being listed may have fewer targets, but they have fewer qualified super-heroes based in or near their city to guard the targets. Therefore they have a much greater need for the money.
Oh, sure, if one relies on liberal media sources such as the New York Times one might not be aware how well-protected NYC is. But those aren't the intelligence sources this administration uses in formulating its policies. The key question to ask yourself in wondering if the current administration is making wise decisions is: Are they basing this on pre- or post-Civil War?
Floridian, on the off chance that you've not yet left in a huff, I'm going address each of the examples you cited:
Posted by: Floridian at June 1, 2006 12:40 PM
Well, let's examine what's been said:
This brilliant decision to cut back on funding for a city that's been attacked twice in thirteen years, claiming that there are "no national icons" that would present targets (because the Statue of Liberty, Brooklyn Bridge, Empire State Building, Radio City Music Hall, etc., apparently don't count) while stepping up money and protection for cities that would not seem to be on anyone's radar--Jacksonville, FL, St. Louis, MO, Milwaukee, WI, Louisville, KY, and Omaha, NE--has officials claiming they're stunned.
- Peter David, original post
Forgive me, but I think this one proves my point for me. Peter said these are cities that would not "seem to be on anyone's radar" (emphasis mine), which is a reasonable statement in light of the fact that Al Qaeda has hit NYC twice and has not hit any of these other cities once.
And I defy you to find for me anything Peter wrote that suggests that cities other than New York should have their funding completely stripped away. He was simply pointing out absurdity of cutting funding for NYC, which again has been hit twice by Al Qaeda, in favor of smaller cities with fewer targets which, by the way, haven't been hit once yet.
Are you really going to argue that a city like New York doesn't need more funding, per capita, than Jacksonville, Fla.?
Let's see: Louisville has 100,000 people at a single event once a year. NYC has 20 million people going in and out and around the city daily.
Yeah, I can see how the risks are the same. /sarcasm.
- Den
Again, this proves my point. Den was simply asserting that NYC is at a higher risk for an attack. The fact that Al Qaeda has hit New York twice would seem to support that assertion.
Please show me where Den said that Louisville deserves no protection whatsoever.
...you should be happy you live in a state of such little importance that terrorists dont give a crap about you.
- Michael
Yep, that one was unfair. That's one, so far.
Of course, the fact that the biggest threat to Rancher Bob is in fact the possibility of being stepped on by Bossie, who is in fact his nearest neighbor, never enters the equation.
- Sean Scullion
Yeah, that one was a bit unfair as well, although I think you have to allow for the fact that he was using humor to make a point. Sean's a reasonable guy.
Anyway, that's two.
I don't live in Washington DC or NYC, but to cut the funds on the two biggest terrorist targets in favor of Jacksonville and Louisville is ridiculous.
- Den
Again, he's arguing that it's stupid to cut New York's funding to protect cities at lower risk. Again, I defy you to show me where he said that Jacksonville and Louisville deserve no protection whatsoever.
How high is the Gateway Arch on the terrorists' list of symbols to blow up compared to say, the Statue of Liberty, the UN Building, the Empire State Building, the White House, the Pentagon, and Congress?
How many terrorist think about the Arch when they think of America? The Statue of Liberty gets used in political cartoons all the time to make comments about America, but here and abroad. How many international cartoons have featured the Arch?
- Den
Again, he's asserting that New York has more high-profile targets than any other city. That's a good argument for not cutting NYC's funding. Show me where Den said that no other city deserves protection?
I'm done. I had a lot of respect for Mr. David as a writer, but I don't care to follow his blog any more (and this after less than a month). Most likely this will have some effect on my future purchases as well, but who's to say.
On the off chance that you're not "done," I'd like to ask you to think about something, as dispassionately as you can. Your own examples lend credence to my assertion that the majority of posters here are not asserting that smaller cities are undeserving of protection, only that NYC is at a higher risk than most other cities.
You seem to be projecting your own emotions onto others. And that surprises me a bit, because you seem like an otherwise intelligent and articulate person. Why are you upsetting yourself over something that the majority of posters here haven't actually said?
Thank you, Bill. I've tried to explain risk assessment to Floridian and even said that no one is claiming that Jacksonville deserves no protection, but it's clear he just doesn't get it.
Spending is all about prioritizing and when it comes to terrorism prevention, you have to take care of the high risk targets first. Obviously, no one wants to die in a terrorist attack and everyone thinks that anything in their backyard that is famous or a military asset is high priority. But the fact is, when Al Qaida thinks of the US, they think of our military apparatus (symbolized by the Pentagon) and our economic engine (symbolized by the WTC). That makes NYC and Washington the highest risk targets. They don't think of Jacksonville or the Gateway Arch.
Personally, I'm glad I live in a low risk community, even if it means we aren't eligible for a big piece of the federal kitty.
Floridian, if you haven't walked off in a huff, I'm sorry if you felt I was dissing your town. I wasn't. I wasn't saying that Jacksonville doesn't deserve any funding either. I was just trying to illustrate that these fundings changes weren't being made based on the actual risks each community faces, as was promised by Chertoff. It's clear that these decisions are being made by more political, rather than security driven factors.
Oh, and just to be fair, to the comment about Al Qaida preferring civillian targets over military ones:
That's not exactly true. Al Qaida hit the Pentagon, the USS Cole, and the Kyber Towers, all of which are military targets. A more accurate statement is that they don't really see any difference between hitting a military and a civillian target.
When I saw the headline on today's paper (NY Newsday), my first thought was "No shit."
And if NY gets attacked again, this administration will probably use the "no one could have forseen" defense again.
I find it somewhat surprising that nobody has posted the actual figures yet. Percentages are not the way to look at this. Seeing New York go from $5million to $3million and Jacksonville go from $2million to $4 million would be a very different story than New York going from $100million to $60million and Jacksonville going from $.5million to $1million, yet both situations would fit the circumstances described (40% cut and Jacksonville going up.)
And as for the person who complained about stopping 80 year old women, I'm fairly certain it was the ACLU that was against it, on the grounds that it violated peoples civil rights.
Posted by: Den at June 1, 2006 02:02 PM
That's not exactly true. Al Qaida hit the Pentagon, the USS Cole, and the Kyber Towers, all of which are military targets. A more accurate statement is that they don't really see any difference between hitting a military and a civillian target.
But the Pentagon is not a facility from which we deploy troops, to the best of my knowledge, but facility from which the orders are given. And it probably wasn't as well-defended then as it is now.
That said, I suppose that troops on duty at a military base during peacetime wouldn't have been any more able to defend themselves against a suicide attack by fanatics controlling an airliner. I would hope that military bases have taken steps to better protect themselves, but, y'know, this is the government we're talking about.
And if NY gets attacked again, this administration will probably use the "no one could have forseen" defense again.
Nah, they'll just say it was because the evil liberals wouldn't let them tap our phones without a warrant from FISA.
But the Pentagon is not a facility from which we deploy troops, to the best of my knowledge, but facility from which the orders are given. And it probably wasn't as well-defended then as it is now.
But that's exactly what makes it such a high priority target. You want to cripple a military, you take out its leadership and its ability to send orders to the field.
I would hope that military bases have taken steps to better protect themselves, but, y'know, this is the government we're talking about.
Having gone onto military bases since 9/11, I can tell you that the ones I've been to have much tighter security than before, but I don't think there's anything that can be done to defend against a hijack jetliner on a deliberate collision course except to scramble the jets to shoot it down.
Hopefully, next time someone will tell Bush he needs to put My Pet Goat down and give the order.
The place that really needs protection dollars is Kansas.
Remember how the national economy was affected when Magog split open Captain Atom's armor? With Superman shamed into retirement? Man, I wouldn't want to have to live through that again.
.
.
.
What?
Nah, they'll just say it was because the evil liberals wouldn't let them tap our phones without a warrant from FISA.
Actually, they'll probably have at least a dozen reasons why they're not responsible, since this administration never takes responsibility for anything. (Even though they occasionaly talk of 'personal responsibility')
Then their apologists will start supplying reasons why Bill Clinton is to blame.
For those who want to know, the exact figures are on msnbc.com
C'mon, even Bloomberg, who is a Republican (though nominally) thinks it's absurd that NY is getting stiffed.
If we need to pinch pennies, why not put a freeze on tax cuts for a while rather than risk national security?
How much money have we wasted in Iraq, which was no threat to us prior to our invading it?
It's just insane.
I didn't vote for Bush in 2000 or 2004 (no chance of that ever happening). But I gave him the same benefit of the doubt I'd give anyone (just because we disagree politically doesn't mean you're a bad guy). However, what this administration has done in the past year has brought me to the point in which I don't think what PAD posted is hyperbole. I seriously believe that this administration would put the safety of millions behind political expediency. That's a sad statement -- even for someone as naturally cynical as myself.
Meanwhile, Justice Alito helps put a clamp on free speech -- can't have those pesky whistleblowers coming forward about the crimes a company might be committing if it violates that confidentiality agreement! Big business and big profits uber alles!
"I'm done. I had a lot of respect for Mr. David as a writer, but I don't care to follow his blog any more (and this after less than a month). Most likely this will have some effect on my future purchases as well, but who's to say."
Well PAD he "had a lot of respect" but you had to go and ruin it by having an opinion. Way to go PAD! Hang your head in shame and go tell your wife you lost another reader. Why can't you just be like all the other prolific authors out there and be a drone with no opinion, agenda, or free thoughts of your own. You know like.... um,... that guy....whats his name, or.....uhhh well I'm sure you can think of some.
JAC
Well, looking at the numbers i can't say the change is too shocking. New York previously had $207 million dollars, while DC was second with $77 million and LA was third with $69million. The "increases" put Omaha at $8.1 million, Jacksonville at $9.2 million, and Miluakee and Louisville each at $8.5 million. Even after the cuts, New York is still getting over 12 times the funding of any of these cities individually. I don't think thats all that alarming, to tell you the truth. I'd rather see our defenses more easily spread. We could put all the money in New York, but all that would do is convince terrorists to strike elsewhere. I agree that New York should get a larger share than most, but thats how it currently is. They are still getting $124million.
As for DC, if you've ever been there you'd know that about 90% of the buildings of importance surround a relatively small area, the National Mall. The White House, the Supreme Court, the Smithsoneon, the Capital, most of the memorials: they are all in the same vicinity. The majority of DC is suburbs, and are probably no more likely to be targetted than your average town.
Also, as for per Capita spending, I don't think thats the only way to look at it. Who cares how much money New York gets if a plane gets hijacked at an underfunded Rhode Island airport and flown in? We can't simply look at how many people live in an area and give money accordingly. I live in Santa Barbara, a fairly medium sized California town that has its own airport. If we don't secure our planes here, its a mere 45 minute flight down to LA, but I'm sure having a lower population would make the cost per capita of airport security here much greater than LAX in overly populated Los Angeles. Yes, I am aware that there are other factors involved, and that is why LA gets more funding than some other smaller city, but there is more to it than just the amount of funding you give per person.
Meanwhile, Justice Alito helps put a clamp on free speech -- can't have those pesky whistleblowers coming forward about the crimes a company might be committing if it violates that confidentiality agreement! Big business and big profits uber alles!
So theoretically, an employee of the mob can't come forward as a witness if he signed an agreement to keep mob activities secret?
But I don't think telling NYC that it's okay for them to eat a 40% cut in their funding by saying "you're still getting a lot more than Omaha" makes much sense either because the odds of a New Yorker getting killed by a terrorist is still much more than 12 times than an Omahan, er, Omahian, Omaher? Anyway, the point is, the risks for New Yorkers is greater.
As for Washington, the other important thing is that the federal government already pays for protecting the buildings on the National Mall through a seperate budget, so the majority of the the city's grant is actually going to protect the residents who may get hit in the crossfire due to their unfortunate choice of address.
Posted by: djinnmastr at June 1, 2006 03:39 PM
Well, looking at the numbers i can't say the change is too shocking. New York previously had $207 million dollars, while DC was second with $77 million and LA was third with $69million. The "increases" put Omaha at $8.1 million, Jacksonville at $9.2 million, and Miluakee and Louisville each at $8.5 million. Even after the cuts, New York is still getting over 12 times the funding of any of these cities individually. I don't think thats all that alarming, to tell you the truth. I'd rather see our defenses more easily spread. We could put all the money in New York, but all that would do is convince terrorists to strike elsewhere. I agree that New York should get a larger share than most, but thats how it currently is. They are still getting $124million.
Yes, but the question is whether that money is enough given the level of risk to NYC. It's not enough to simply say, "Well, they could always strike elsewhere." The only way to predict what might happen is to look at what has happened. I think there are many reasons to believe that NYC and D.C. are at very high risk. As others have pointed out, D.C. is our capitol. NYC is rich in high-value targets in terms of both economic and symbolic significance.
As for DC, if you've ever been there you'd know that about 90% of the buildings of importance surround a relatively small area, the National Mall. The White House, the Supreme Court, the Smithsoneon, the Capital, most of the memorials: they are all in the same vicinity. The majority of DC is suburbs, and are probably no more likely to be targetted than your average town.
Except that a terrorist attack on the Capitol, depending on the form it takes, could have an impact on the surrounding suburbs.
Also, as for per Capita spending, I don't think thats the only way to look at it. Who cares how much money New York gets if a plane gets hijacked at an underfunded Rhode Island airport and flown in?
I think a lot of people would care how prepared NYC is for another suicide attack, regardless of where it comes from. The ability of air traffic controllers to recognize a possible threat and respond accordingly, and the ability of police, fire and ambulance crews to mobilize effectively and communicate with each other in order to save the maximum number of lives possible would matter, I think, to many people.
Stopping the plane from taking off is the first and best line of defense, but not the only one.
And before anyone feels compelled to point it out, yeah, I know full well that just because lots of money is being spent doesn't mean we're getting results. But still, I think the allocation of monies is nevertheless worth discussing.
We can't simply look at how many people live in an area and give money accordingly.
No, we have to look at the overall severity of the threat to a given city. The size of the population is but one factor that should be used to gauge the risk.
I live in Santa Barbara, a fairly medium sized California town that has its own airport. If we don't secure our planes here, its a mere 45 minute flight down to LA, but I'm sure having a lower population would make the cost per capita of airport security here much greater than LAX in overly populated Los Angeles.
But no one said that smaller cities aren't worth protecting. The question is simply how the funds should be allocated. I don't think the risks are spread equally, and therefore I don't think the funds should be.
Yes, I am aware that there are other factors involved, and that is why LA gets more funding than some other smaller city, but there is more to it than just the amount of funding you give per person.
I agree that there's more to evaluating the risk than just the population. I think you're getting a bit hung up on the "per capita spending" concept. I was simply pointing out that spending more money per capita on a high-risk city doesn't mean there's an inequity in the distribution of funds.
Per Jim MacDonald, a simple metric for the liklihood of a terrorist attack on an American target; how many times in the last decade has that target been shown destroyed in a blockbuster movie (I'd add a bit about seen on tv or movies to account for the WTC a bit more). If the point of a terrorist attack is to destroy known icons, well, those are the ones Hollywood's choosing too.
Well, those of you without a life will have to find some other time waster since I went and crunched a few of the numbers from the article (and THANK YOU DEN for the link).
PAD's implication that the loss or gain of monies can be directly traced to how the states voted seems suspect- 4 states that voted for Kerry gained money (Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Wisconsin) while states that 8 that voted for Bush lost money (Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, Louisiana, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas) (TEXAS???).
I don't know where to put Georgia since the article states that it's funding was "$18.6 million, down from $13.1 million.". I'm no Math teacher but the ones I checked with agreed that usually 18.1 million is UP from 13.1 million so, whatever.
Still, while one could make an excel;lent argument that the cutting is wrong, the argument immediately gets weakened when it takes the leap of logic that turns it into electoral payback.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at June 1, 2006 06:50 PM
Well, those of you without a life will have to find some other time waster since I went and crunched a few of the numbers from the article (and THANK YOU DEN for the link).
That's our Mulligan. He's the "Scrubbing Bubbles" of PAD's blog: he doesn't have a life so you can get one.
I don't know where to put Georgia
Put it in another state, and then put a "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" theme park where Georgia used to be. Not only will everyone enjoy the "Buffy" theme park, but Georgia and the state with which it merges will become an uber-powerful super-concentrated state. One state with the power of two. It's win-win for all concerned.
Oh, you were speaking figuratively. Never mind.
since the article states that it's funding was "$18.6 million, down from $13.1 million.". I'm no Math teacher but the ones I checked with agreed that usually 18.1 million is UP from 13.1 million so, whatever.
DUH! It's the new math!
I thought you were a teacher!
Still, while one could make an excellent argument that the cutting is wrong, the argument immediately gets weakened when it takes the leap of logic that turns it into electoral payback.
It may not be electoral payback, but something's definitely odd about the way the funds are being allocated.
It may not be electoral payback, but something's definitely odd about the way the funds are being allocated.
I'll bet when all is said and done it has more to do with good old fashioned bridge to nowhere pork barrelling than anything else. Which is plenty reason all by itself to get pissed.
That's our Mulligan. He's the "Scrubbing Bubbles" of PAD's blog: he doesn't have a life so you can get one.
So I expect the rest of you to get cracking on that Cancer cure that was supposed to be on my desk last Friday. And Myers! Where are those Victory Streak pages!
I noticed that Oklahoma City is getting its funding cut after this year. I guess OKC - being in the heart of the red states - is too Democratic, too. Besides, no one would ever think that a terrorist would attack Oklahoma City, right?
This is an inexact science. Infrastructure upgrades done to DC and NYC power and water plants might now need to be directed elsewhere, too. It's not just about $$$, but how they are spent.
But hey, why let that get in the way of a partisan conspiracy theory.
But hey, why let that get in the way of a partisan conspiracy theory.
Because this is the US government we're talking about, a government that sure as hell is partisan, and sure as hell knows how to flush money down the drain (see: Iraq).
Because this is the US government we're talking about, a government that sure as hell is partisan...
There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that this decision is partisan. In fact, there's counter-evidence. So, that makes your whole argument seem rather pointless.
There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that this decision is partisan.
How about sheer incompetence? Plenty of eveidence for that....
"I'm done. I had a lot of respect for Mr. David as a writer, but I don't care to follow his blog any more (and this after less than a month). Most likely this will have some effect on my future purchases as well, but who's to say."
Ah, the old reliable: The complete inability to separate the person from the work, coupled with the need to administer some sort of financial retribution in exchange for opinions the person doesn't like. Because obviously I don't give a crap about Florida...
...where my eldest daughter lives...
PAD
What about this decision suggests incompetence? The fact that money is going elsewhere? Without knowing how the money is being spent, you can't gauge it.
Frankly, this story begs for a more in-depth analysis. It may very well be that the money needs to go to New York. It may also be that Orlando needs the money more now. Imagine Disneyworld being hit.
Until now, the grants largely have been awarded based on cities’ populations. Homeland Security still is weighing population as a factor in the grants, but it is mostly awarding the money based on a city’s threat risk and how effectively the city will use the funds.
That's about the best I can find on how the decision is made. It still doesn't explain why a given metro area can use it better right now. Are Oklahoma City, Buffalo and Sacramento as protected as they could be to get their funding cut?
Without knowing how the money is being spent
Which is part of the problem - I'm sure not even the people signing the checks know how the money is being spent.
Imagine Disneyworld being hit.
Which, quite frankly, still doesn't compare to the image of a baseball or football stadium being hit.
Disneyworld is pretty spread out over some odd-acres of land. So they do what exactly... blast the hell out of the Magic Kingdom castle and maybe hope Space Mountain, a quarter mile away, gets taken out in the process?
Please keep in mind that the REAL plans are being kept where no one will find them. Especially the damn liberal media elite.
With W's National Guard records.
Cutting anti-terror funding for the city at the very heart of your excuse for every illegal, murky, dirty deed in your resume makes sense. Now they'll attack again, he can blame Iraq, and give himself an excuse for the next waste of soldiers lives.
Remember this quote when questioning Bush's capacity for logical rational thought: "There are limits to hpow much corn we can use for ethanol, I mean we have to eat some of it."
No, I did not make that up.
Imagine Disneyworld being hit.
Which, quite frankly, still doesn't compare to the image of a baseball or football stadium being hit.
I don't know...the image of Disneyland being hit, with a large number of the dead and wounded being children, is one that would be like a suckerpunch to the American soul.
I've long felt that the next attack, if the terrorists were smarter than they probably actually are, would be like the attack in Russia where the school was taken over. Low tech stuff, it doesn't take anything more than a few guys willing to die and armed to the teeth. And it would be far more effective if done in one of the Red States, just to show that it isn't just the coasts that are vulnerable.
Of course, no real defense is possible against such a thing, other than arming teachers. And you don't want to do that because a lot of us are just one smart alec comment away from going postal as is but so what, we gonna throw chalk or something?
Anyway, back to the topic--left out of the discussion is the fact that the money given to New York actually went up in 2005 from 46 million to 207 million. Strange way for Bush to punish New Yorkers for their lack of votes.
And it would be far more effective if done in one of the Red States, just to show that it isn't just the coasts that are vulnerable.
McVeigh deliberately chose the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City for that reason. The federal offices there were relatively small and undefended. The first few hours, everyone thought it was an act of Islamic terrorism, too.
I really can't help but think the next attack will be a coordinated attack on some malls: Hit the middle class malls by pulling up explosive trucks right outside food court entrances on a Saturday afternoon.
Or Craig's example: look at the stir caused by the student accident/suicide in Norman last fall during an OU football game. Some of the conspiracy sites still claim he had a link to terrorists.
There isn't a good defense against attacks like that. I would imagine that most of this money is being used to beef up perimeters of power and water plants.
About Louisville: I'm amazed its funding has been so low, as a single strike there could probably put a serious crimp into a fair amount of shipping -- the local SF club's name refers to the "Falls of the Ohio"; Louisville is where it is because, since the falls necessitated a portage from upper to lower Ohio River, it was a logical place for a trading center.
Without the lock(s) at Louisville, vessels can't move from the lower to thye upper Ohio River, or vice-versa, and barge-tow cargoss would have to be unloaded, moved overland some distance, and then reloaded on different barges. Not a pleasant picture.
(I don't know how much traffioc that actually amounts to, but tyhere's definitely some.)
Then of course, in Georgia, we have Buford Dam and Lake Lanier. In Lake Lanier, there are (at normal pool level; it's gone over normal a few times in recent rainy years) 1,917,000 acre-feet of water (over half a billion gallons) at an altitude of 1070 feet, which puts it somewhat above Atlanta, through/by which the Chattahoochee river continues below the dam.
Buford Dam is the world's largest earthen dam. A busy public road runs along its crest.
Pack a largish UHaul with ANFO, stop in the middle of the dam and earn your 72 virgins, and all hell breaks loose from Atlanta to the Gulf.
Buford Dam Road was closed for about a week 0r more after 9/11, which raised hell with local commuting patterns...)
I'm not saying that New York's funding should have been cut, but, as has been pointed out at some length in posts above, a lot of places have local conditions that might not be generally known.
And Rochester, N.Y., where I live, has a nuclear power plant that could be compromised. I think there are few, if any, places at zero risk for a terrorist attack. I neverthless believe certain cities are at a much higher risk than others.
I wonder how much of this money is actually being spent to prevent attacks, and how much is being spent to respond to them. Because, as someone else has already pointed out, the FBI and the CIA had the puzzle pieces necessary to see that something like 9/11 was coming, but poor judgment and a lack of communication within and between the agencies prevented them from putting those pieces together. Had those agencies used the resources they already possessed more wisely, it's possible September 11, 2001, might have been a day easily forgotten.
Spending millions of dollars doesn't do a damn thing to change an organization's culture, unfortunately.
Did Oklahoma City SEEM like a potential target before it was hit?
You never know what the next target is until it gets hit. South Dakota could claim Mt Rushmore as an important psychological target, Delaware has Dover AFB, California could be hit by a bio-weapon in the farm valley. There is no city with a population over 50,000 that could not make the argument they are a target.
Cutting counter terror funding anywhere is ludicrous to say the least. However, the people who live in NYC, for example, would be more vocal than most given the bulk of the 9/11 casualties were there.
W has to pay for all those millionaire tax cuts somehow.
Posted by: Rich Steeves at June 2, 2006 06:32 AM
Did Oklahoma City SEEM like a potential target before it was hit?
The bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City was an attack from a domestic group. They targeted the Federal Building in Oklahoma City because it was: a) a symbol of everything they don't like about the Federal Government, and b) it was accessible given their resources.
Al Qaeda is a different organization. While domestic terrorism is an ever-present threat, I'd say Al Qaeda is probably the greater threat. Al Qaeda has, I think, a larger network and access to greater resources. They have an appetite for the spectacular. And they seem to like hitting NYC, which they've done, twice.
W has to pay for all those millionaire tax cuts somehow.
But haven't tax revenues gone up? I know that here in NC we are suddenly flush with money after a few lean years and, predictably, the politicians are falling over themselves trying to find ways to spend it. I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that revenues from corporate taxes have been far over projections.
So in that case it isn't the "millionaire tax cuts" that are forcing us to cut back but the fact that we are wasting so much money on other programs. Bush has spent money like his name was Kennedy. But of course, it's impossible to even cut back on increases without people accusing you of starving orphans for political gain, so damned if you do, damned if you don't (in which case you might as well do and hope that the results are so obvious that you can rightly take credit, I say.)
Pennsylvania went through the same thing, as a lot of other states did. We had a few lean years, but now state tax revenues are up. Of course, here all of that is overshadowed by the midnight payjack and the neverending debate over property tax reform.
The federal government is different, however, we've been running a deficit over every year Bush has been president with no end in site. Whether you want to blame that on the tax cuts or the reckless spending, that's up to you. Personally, I think it's a combination of both.
Funny thing about the starving widders and orphans, I haven't heard much of that during the Bush years. Sure, it gets tossed around for a week or so during budget time, but there's no traction on it. Remember all the hue and cry when Clinton signed the welfare reform act? I don't know whether it's because the Dems have become so impotent or that Bush hasn't seriously tried cutting anything, but the media just isn't giving the starvin widders and orphans any love.
Ah, the old reliable: The complete inability to separate the person from the work, coupled with the need to administer some sort of financial retribution in exchange for opinions the person doesn't like. Because obviously I don't give a crap about Florida...
...where my eldest daughter lives...
***********************
Yeah, it's really sad. I mean, I can certainly understand someone expressing a set of opinions so odious to me that I'm not in a hurry to have a round of drinks with them. But if they're a musician, actor, writer, and so on whose work I enjoy, I don't see how their personal opinions should it deny me the pleasure that work brings.
It's also a double-standard that only artist-types have to deal with -- I mean, if someone on this board whose opinion you disliked worked in the mailroom at Pepsi would you really stop drinking Pepsi?
I wouldn't lose any sleep over Floridian not buying your books anymore. From what I see here, reading comprehension wasn't his strong suit anyway.
I'm angry at the Republicans for stealing my idea and perverting it. For decades, I've argued that New York City should be evacuated, its residents resettled to the Midwest, South and Southwest, and the entire city should be leveled.
It's mostly because I wanted to see snooty jerks like Woody Allen try to practice their cultural superiority act in Rolla, Missouri or Newark, Ohio. See if Broadway bases most of its plays on gay characters in the theatres of Key West, where being gay is not tortured or isolated, it just IS. And it would finally get rid of those century-old urinals still being used in Manhattan, simply because labor costs and corruption make replacing them with modern units impossible.
But leave it to the Republicans to take my good, sensible plan and screw it up, by not evacuating the city before destroying it, and outsourcing the labor to foreign contractors (terrorists). And they wouldn't even have my sensible plans for putting something useful on the site, like turning it into a parking lot or a mall or a beach or something.
You know, all this talk about terrorism is starting to freak me out. I have to take a business trip to San Francisco next week, and yet another business trip to NYC the week thereafter.
I'll tell you what, though -- if anybody tries to hijack one of my flights, I'll be leading the group that rushes them. If they're on a suicide mission, the most satisfying thing I can do is to make sure the plane doesn't crash where they want it to, and watch the look on their faces as they go to Hell without accomplishing their mission.
Of course, I hope I don't get overzealous and attack a harmless Hare Krishna or something. :)
Ok, this is completely off topic here for this thread, but I just can't resist posting this link, since I think it fits just wonderfully with some of the recent thread titles here: mainly, to paraphrase, Why should we be surprised at the Comedic Stylings of Bill O'Reilly. This also, imo, goes back to Luigi's defending of Fox News.
What will Bill O'Reilly say next?
And only a couple of days after Memorial Day, no less.
Ouch. I don't think I've ever seen Olberman that pissed. Usually, he just laughs off the idiocy of that comes out of the Big Giant Head.
Can someone tell what O'Reilly's point was anyway? Even if he was right, how does an atrocity committed over 60 years ago make what happened at Abu Graib okay?
Den wrote:
Nothing the government does to its citizens should shock anyone any more. After all, we live in a society now where the police will toss you out of a bookstore and threaten to arrest you for making a joke about Rick "man-on-dog" Santorum.
I followed the link and read the article. Sgt. DiJiacomo needs to find a new line of work, preferably one that comes with a paper hat, a mop and maybe a middle-school social studies textbook with the part about the Bill of Rights highlighted.
For what it's worth , the Department of Homeland Security is now saying that the part about New York not having any national landmarks or monuments is highly misleading--things like the Empire State Building and Brooklyn bridge were considered not as landmarks but as, respectively, a tall office building and a bridge--which resulted in HIGHER scores for NYC than if they had been listed as mere monuments.
Which, if true, is a decision they surely regret about now.
So what is the Statue of Liberty classified as? A lighthouse?
And what is the reasoning for scoring tall office buildings and bridges higher than monuments? More people in them?
Oklahoma City certainly didn't seem like a likely target before it got hit. In fact, it wasn't even the first choice. The first choice was the TCBY tower in Little Rock, Arkansas. And how likely of a target was *that*?
Hmmm. Perhaps Homeland Security doesn't care about protecting the Statute of Liberty since she is French?
Last I heard they said that NY didn't get as much money because the proper forms weren't filled out. For Pete's sake, don't damn my hometown because of a technicality. Talk about bureaucracy. Later, when complaints were lodged, Chertoff said that threatening him wouldn't make him act faster. Awesome attitude towards Terrorism, dickhead.
So what is the Statue of Liberty classified as? A lighthouse?
According to the Homeland Security report The Statue of Liberty is located on federal land and was included in the analysis for the State of New York. Critical infrastructure around the Statue of Liberty, including its ferry system and two maritime port facilities, were included in the analysis for New York City.
Whatever that means. Considering that New York is still getting about the same percentage of funds that they always have and the fact that these funds seem to rise and fall like the tides from 2003 to 2006 it goes like this:$149.7 million, $46.7 million, $207.6 million, $124.5 million...I don't know if this story is all it seems to be. I wonder why it wasn't a bigger story in 2004 when NYC had a far greater cut both in raw dollars and in the percentage cut.
And what is the reasoning for scoring tall office buildings and bridges higher than monuments? More people in them?
Probably. Which is as it should be.
This is just another paragraph for the future history books' chapters detailing America's eight year struggle under its perhaps worst President ever.
I don't think this has anything to do with voter payback or dinging future D Presidential nominees. I think it's just another textbook example of bad management and bad decisions.
I can think up tons of arguments for the pro side of this debate. Lots of them really good. Many make perfect sense when looking at the finite budgetary resources being stretched here and abroad.
It's just that I can blow them all out of the water with one con argument.
President Silver Spoon needs to roll back a few of his top tier tax cuts, call on the American spirit of pride and sacrifice and call on Americans, as has been done in many wars of the past, to put up with a few luxury sacrifices. Won't happen though. I truly doubt he or his most loyal base understand the meaning of the word and the greatest hawks in the media, the ones that cheer sending under supplied soldiers and ill equipped platoons into combat in a foolishly started and waged war as proof of their greater patriotism and "true" American spirit, are often the first to scream bloody murder at the idea of not only raising taxes but not continuing to lower them.
There are days that I just can't believe the things that come out of the White House and the chimp that commands there.
Jerry C wrote "I don't think this has anything to do with voter payback or dinging future D Presidential nominees. I think it's just another textbook example of bad management and bad decisions"
An excellent point. Did not the burning Bush present himself as the "CEO president"? Did anyone actually look at his business history? Kind of like those inspirational, feel good billboards I see everywhere, mostly the one with Lincoln.
"Failed, failed, failed,...and then...failed again" would be W's.
For Mike Weber and Floridian if you're still around, the trouble with some of the locations that you're mentioning is that if terrorists, God forbid, DID hit them, people's reactions wouldn't be "My God, I've worked in that building!" It would be, "Where?" And then they'd have to go to Wiki to find out where the heck it was.
Not to say there isn't need for protection everywhere. (If I got anybody upset with my Rancher Bob comment above, I REALLY apologize. I was having a REALLY bad day.) But the terrorists, at least Bin Laden's little band, go for symbolism. They want to cripple our spirits, and if the economy goes out of control for a while, then, hey, bonus points!! There's a reason why the Twin Towers was hit twice. It was the biggest symbol of American success/avarice/opulence in the city that everyone in the world thinks of when they think of American business. They also want to show their underlings for seriously lack of a better word, that "We can DO this, we can HIT THEM WHERE IT HURTS." You want to hit a rich company? You don't attack their landscaper. You attack where they get the money from. It's that simple. Seriously, once I thought about it, I was kind of surprised that DC wasn't hit earlier, but I don't know how DC is thought of overseas. I've got a good friend from Romania and my bosses are English, might be interesting to find out. I'll let you guys know if I get anything.
As for Disney getting hit--THAT's one I worry about. A lot. Actually, Disneyland out in California more than Disney World, for the reasons I said above. It's in California, where you know, all the beautiful people live.
And again, if I offended anyone, especially ranchers, I apologize.
Posted by djinnmastr at June 1, 2006 03:39 PM
Well, looking at the numbers i can't say the change is too shocking. New York previously had $207 million dollars, while DC was second with $77 million and LA was third with $69million. The "increases" put Omaha at $8.1 million, Jacksonville at $9.2 million, and Miluakee and Louisville each at $8.5 million. Even after the cuts, New York is still getting over 12 times the funding of any of these cities individually. I don't think thats all that alarming, to tell you the truth. I'd rather see our defenses more easily spread. We could put all the money in New York, but all that would do is convince terrorists to strike elsewhere. I agree that New York should get a larger share than most, but thats how it currently is. They are still getting $124million.
Shhhh... If people talked about the actual numbers, then they couldn't bash the President as much. Well, they could, but they'd be shown for the disengenuous partisan hacks they are.
Also, don't dare point out how some of the money they've been getting was used for upgrades and really don't need to be ongoing expenditures, just a one time cost to get it going. That would be unfair and stuff.
PS- Bush is an evil genious, but also so retarded he can't tie his shoes! No, it doesn't make sense, but so what? Neither do most liberal beliefs.
>b>Posted by Sean Scullion at June 2, 2006 11:58 PM
For Mike Weber and Floridian if you're still around, the trouble with some of the locations that you're mentioning is that if terrorists, God forbid, DID hit them, people's reactions wouldn't be "My God, I've worked in that building!" It would be, "Where?" And then they'd have to go to Wiki to find out where the heck it was.
Oh, if they successfully hit Bufiord Dam, everyubody would hear pretty damned quickly -- it might not be a Katrina-size disaster, but a half-billion gallonms starting 110 feet above sea level would play merry hell from Roswell Georgia, through Atlanta, along the Georgia/Alabama state line and down throuhgh Florida into the Gulf;of Mexico -- taking out flood control structures, flooding cities and pretty well rendering major parts of the three states without drinkable water and so on.
Get a map and trace the course of the Chattahoochee from Bufor Dam on south.
And then there's the Old River COntrol at the junction of the Mississippi and Atchafalaya rivers. Or rather, the point where the Big Muddy changed course back in the Sixties to flow down the Atchafalaya's true curent course to the Gulf, not its former one.
When it lets go, not if, it ought be ineresting.
Posted by: Bloggy McBlogblog at June 3, 2006 12:39 AM
Shhhh... If people talked about the actual numbers, then they couldn't bash the President as much. Well, they could, but they'd be shown for the disengenuous partisan hacks they are.
Really? Let's look at the actual numbers, then. But, let's not look at them in terms of raw dollars per city, which is overly simplistic and distorts the debate.
New York State, on the whole, will receive federal grant funds of $2.78 per person. Wyoming, on the other hand, will receive $14.83 per person this year.
That would indicate to me that someone believes Wyoming is at higher risk than New York. Yet I've seen no evidence that such is the case.
Also, don't dare point out how some of the money they've been getting was used for upgrades and really don't need to be ongoing expenditures, just a one time cost to get it going. That would be unfair and stuff.
Really? Then why didn't the Department of Homeland Security say that when responding to critics? Instead, they've struggled to explain their decision, which includes: a 46 percent drop for San Diego, where several of the September 11, 2001, hijackers lived; a 61 percent drop for Phoenix, where an FBI agent suspects some of the terrorists were getting flight training; and a 30 percent drop for Boston, where two of the hijacked planes departed from.
Undersecretary for Preparedness George Foresman tried to rationalize the new allocations by saying the money is meant to improve readiness for "an act of terrorism or an act of Mother Nature."
Yet they slashed the budget for New Orleans from $9.3 million to $4.6 million.
PS- Bush is an evil genious, but also so retarded he can't tie his shoes! No, it doesn't make sense, but so what? Neither do most liberal beliefs.
The question is not one of "beliefs" but one of facts. I've provided some facts to back up my statements. If you can provide facts that support your counter-argument, let's see them. I always retain an open mind and can be persuaded by a superior argument. Insults, on the other hand, do little to change my mind.
By the way, you misspelled "genious." There's no "o" in that word.
Posted by: Bloggy McBlogblog at June 3, 2006 12:39 AM
Shhhh... If people talked about the actual numbers, then they couldn't bash the President as much. Well, they could, but they'd be shown for the disengenuous partisan hacks they are.
Really? Let's look at the actual numbers, then. But, let's not look at them in terms of raw dollars per city, which is overly simplistic and distorts the debate.
New York State, on the whole, will receive federal grant funds of $2.78 per person. Wyoming, on the other hand, will receive $14.83 per person this year.
That would indicate to me that someone believes Wyoming is at higher risk than New York. Yet I've seen no evidence that such is the case.
Also, don't dare point out how some of the money they've been getting was used for upgrades and really don't need to be ongoing expenditures, just a one time cost to get it going. That would be unfair and stuff.
Really? Then why didn't the Department of Homeland Security say that when responding to critics? Instead, they've struggled to explain their decision, which includes: a 46 percent drop for San Diego, where several of the September 11, 2001, hijackers lived; a 61 percent drop for Phoenix, where an FBI agent suspects some of the terrorists were getting flight training; and a 30 percent drop for Boston, where two of the hijacked planes departed from.
Undersecretary for Preparedness George Foresman tried to rationalize the new allocations by saying the money is meant to improve readiness for "an act of terrorism or an act of Mother Nature."
Yet they slashed the budget for New Orleans from $9.3 million to $4.6 million.
PS- Bush is an evil genious, but also so retarded he can't tie his shoes! No, it doesn't make sense, but so what? Neither do most liberal beliefs.
The question is not one of "beliefs" but one of facts. I've provided some facts to back up my statements. If you can provide facts that support your counter-argument, let's see them. I always retain an open mind and can be persuaded by a superior argument. Insults, on the other hand, do little to change my mind.
By the way, you misspelled "genius." There's no "o" in that word.
Posted by: Sean Scullion at June 2, 2006 11:58 PM
And again, if I offended anyone, especially ranchers, I apologize.
Sean, I said you were a reasonable guy. I was sure you'd prove me right, and you did.
By the way, your remark about ranchers wasn't that horrible. It was unfair, but only a bit. I mean, I knew you were using humor to make your point. I think it was primarily offensive to anyone looking for a reason to be offended.
The fact that you could make the same point without humor just shows that your underlying message was correct. The fact that you were willing to apologize to the easily offended and articulate your point another way says that "Sean, the artist formerly known as 'Rat'" is a good guy.
Oh, if they successfully hit Bufiord Dam, everyubody would hear pretty damned quickly
Oh, no doubt. The one thing that will probably stop terrorists from targeting the dam and other structures like it is the uncertainty of success. Just how big a bomb WOULD you need to ensure the collapse?
It's obvious that the terrorists have limited resources. They have to allocate their material for maximum impact. Assuming we are talking non nukes here, is it possible to load a truck with enough conventional explosives to destroy a dam that size? (Especially since the force of the blast will be largely wasted, unless they mange to drill a hole and drop it into the dam.
It would be smarter to just split up the explosives into 100 smaller vehicles and have them go off at different locations around the country at noon.
I'm glad that the actual terrorists seem to be several magnitudes of order less intelligent than the folks on this board.
Actually, if they want to hit Americans hard and a symbol of our "corruption", take out Hoover Dam and/or Las Vegas...
That would seem to be more offensive to them than New York certainly?
Ahhh yet another PAD article with Bush as satan viciously punishing NY for not voting for him.
So is Bush the dumbest man alive or some machiavellian monster?
Maybe he's both...
I wonder on 6/6/06 will PAD's story be about Bush being the antichrist.
Hmmm. If Bush is the Antichrist, does that make Hillary the Messiah? :-)
Posted by Bill Mulligan at June 3, 2006 08:03 AM
Oh, if they successfully hit Buford Dam, everybody would hear pretty damned quickly
Oh, no doubt. The one thing that will probably stop terrorists from targeting the dam and other structures like it is the uncertainty of success. Just how big a bomb WOULD you need to ensure the collapse?
It's obvious that the terrorists have limited resources. They have to allocate their material for maximum impact. Assuming we are talking non nukes here, is it possible to load a truck with enough conventional explosives to destroy a dam that size? (Especially since the force of the blast will be largely wasted, unless they mange to drill a hole and drop it into the dam.
Well, it took a standard-sized van loaded with ANFO to take out a multi-story building in Oklahoma City, and it wasn't inside the building, nor even in contact with it, as i recall.
I'd bet you could manage to load enough fertiliser into one, or even two UHaul 14-footers to make a significant breach.
Or, take a couple of the barge-type houseboats that are popular on anier, gut 'em and load your ANFO in there, ignore the rules that say stay a certain distance away from the dam, shove 'em up against the dam, and do it that way. (A couple of container-loads on a barge would take out the locks i mentioned at Louisville very nicely, too.)
And remember -- while it's a well-engineered pile of dirt, Buford Dam is an earthen dam -- Lake Lanier is the largest impoundment above an earthen dam in the US (possibly in NA or even the hemisphere, i'm not sure). Crack it good and let the water start to run, and the water will do your job for you. Even if it doesn't take out the dam, the resources necessary to prevent it, added to the damage to the local economy if you lose the ability to safely and reliably get water from the lake, plus the loss of hydro power, not to mention the necessity to be ready 24/7 all the way down stream, Just In Case, are a significant economic hit.
I messed up somehow in my last post; please note that Bill's last sentence is the one that ends "...drop it into the dam."; everythimng thereafter is me. Sorry
Ironically enough, I just got a call from a friend in Vegas. That's pretty funny. At least, it is in my head.
Something that I was thinking about all day and night at work yesterday (and kept reminding myself of at work today) was, how hard WOULD it be to kill a dam? (First one to say anything about washing your mouth out with soap gets whacked over the head with the Christmas Story DVD.) I've never been near a dam of any great size, so CAN you just drive up to them? Would you have to be near the base/foot/bottom(Sorry, dam terminology isn't my forte) or could you be near the middle on the top and just put your trust in entropy? To say nothing about small submersibles. And just how much damage would you have to do to really get things going?
Just struck by another thought, and this one WILL leave a bruise. I really hope none of the terrorists are Peter David fans, because looking above, we've worked out a shipload of ideas for them.
Bill Myers--thank you, my friend.
As for Bush being the Antichrist--Damien with a Texas accent? Chnges it from one of the scariest movies I've ever seen into a Dukes Of Hazzard rip off. "Cheney, you dipstick!"
This cartoon puts some things in perspective in a nicely twisted way. (Only available til about 6/20/06).
According to the Homeland Security report The Statue of Liberty is located on federal land and was included in the analysis for the State of New York. Critical infrastructure around the Statue of Liberty, including its ferry system and two maritime port facilities, were included in the analysis for New York City.
OOOkay. Is that a long-winded way of saying they don't consider it a monument?
Whatever that means. Considering that New York is still getting about the same percentage of funds that they always have and the fact that these funds seem to rise and fall like the tides from 2003 to 2006 it goes like this:$149.7 million, $46.7 million, $207.6 million, $124.5 million...I don't know if this story is all it seems to be. I wonder why it wasn't a bigger story in 2004 when NYC had a far greater cut both in raw dollars and in the percentage cut.
I think the real story, as I said before, is that the funds are being allocated as pork barrel projects rather than being based on real or perceived risks of each city suffering another terrorist attack. It's hard to argue against our largest city and the site of two previous attacks, not to mention one of the targets in the foiled millennium attacks, getting the biggest chunk of the funding.
But for all the talk about accountability and risk assessment, there doesn't seem to be much rhyme or reason to any of these allocations.
Probably. Which is as it should be.
Well, if it is, it would be the first thing in this process that makes any sense at all.
Something that I was thinking about all day and night at work yesterday (and kept reminding myself of at work today) was, how hard WOULD it be to kill a dam?(First one to say anything about washing your mouth out with soap gets whacked over the head with the Christmas Story DVD.) I've never been near a dam of any great size, so CAN you just drive up to them?
You can drive across Hoover Dam. I imagine a few 18-wheelers loaded with ANFO could do some serious damage.
Gee, I hope no terrorists read that.
Actually, just to comment on why, maybe, Jacksonville, FL got funding... we have two Navy bases there, one which is a battleship port, one which services nuclear submarines. That might just be a bit of the reason why there was funding for there. (Says someone whose dad works on the submarine base (as a programmer, though) and thus hears about it.)
...no idea about the others, though, and cutting it where they did is STUPID.