Dean has a great post about the "high security" level, and the people out there who take a cynical and snark-ish view of the government keeping us informed.
Whether or no the Level Orange protects the populace (of course it doesn't!) - whether or not the government has everything under control (of course they don't!) -
What would you have them do? What is your alternative plan? Do you have one? Or do you just love to have any opportunity to bitch and moan? Dean takes the snarks to task. Maybe color-coded warnings have nothing to do with anything, and it is a bad idea, and the government shouldn't do it - but sorry, folks: that is the only plan on the table right now. If you're gonna bitch, which is your right, then at least have something else to add, at least say: why don't we do it THIS way? Otherwise, you're just whining the same old story.
I never think that the federal government is going to be perfect. What world do these people live in? Just a world where everything is seen through the cynic's filter, that's all.
I, for one, am glad to know when the security levels change, although nothing in that information alters my own personal behavior. I don't get MORE jumpy, or MORE suspicious ... Nothing like that. I live in New York City, for Christ's sake. I am always jumpy, always suspicious ... and have been so even before September 11. You won't last long in this town if you don't have a healthy level of suspicion.
The bitch-fests are boring and unproductive if they do not offer an alternative.
Posted by sheilaI have to be honest: I'm going to be flying on the 24th and the alert level going up DOES make me more nervous. It won't affect my behavior, just make me worry. But do I blame the government for that?! No, of course not: I blame the schmucks who are trying to kill us.
Posted by: Dave J at December 21, 2003 9:13 PMI would rather know than not know.
If something awful happened again - with no warning - all the snarks would be shrieking: "so much for Homeland Security!!"
but you be careful now on the 24th ... as careful as one can be ... you hear?
Posted by: red at December 21, 2003 9:22 PMI think a lot of the snarky comments are a form of gallows humor.
Posted by: Bill McCabe at December 21, 2003 9:23 PMRead some of the comments to Dean's post. The belief that the government is looking for any excuse to make us terrified and make us hate our "dark-skinned" neighbors. it's ridiculous.
Posted by: red at December 21, 2003 9:27 PMHow do some people look at a terrorist warning and get "Tom Ridge wants you to hate your dark skinned neighbors" from it?
On the other end of the spectrum, did you check out the nine point comment on how to make America safer? I don't quite thinking nuking Mecca is the answer.
Posted by: Bill McCabe at December 21, 2003 9:36 PMyeah, i just read that one.
Hmm. the pendulum swings far far over ...
I also think a "zone of death" is probably not a good idea, although I think our borders could definitely be less porous.
Posted by: red at December 21, 2003 9:38 PMWith the exception of the 38th Parallel, I don't consider land mines to be a morally acceptable means of border control, either.
I don't have any objection to having the Army patrol the borders. However, "free fire zones" wouldn't be part of the rules of engagement.
Taking family members as hostages has also never succeeded in quelling partisan action, so I don't think it would work against terror either.
Posted by: Bill McCabe at December 21, 2003 9:42 PMThe thought I had upon reading the nine-point plan was: these are the steps for turning the US into a nuclear-armed version of East Germany, complete with Iron Curtain. At that point, remind me again what exactly was it that we'd be fighting to defend?
Posted by: Dave J at December 22, 2003 12:35 AMI don't ever want to get used to terror threat level warnings.
Posted by: Patrick at December 22, 2003 1:24 PM"if you're gonne bitch, which is your right, then at least have something else to add, at least say: why don't we do it THIS way? Otherwise you're just whining the same old story."
-don't we elect government officials to come up with alternatives? don't we pay for government sponsored 'think tanks' to debate and present options? the codes are ridiculous and are accompanied by no rational basis arguments for heightened or decreased security . . . we elect officials with the trust that they will give us the information with which to make decisions about our lives . . . we're not being given any information. we're being given reasons to be afraid.
Posted by: anne at December 29, 2003 11:11 PMAnne -
But - okay, so obviously you don't agree with the color-coding thing. That's fine. I'm not sure myself that it's the best way to go about this - but damned if I know what I would do if I were in power. I don't think government officials are supposed to come up with "alternatives" if they think that what they are doing is the right thing. They are supposed to come up with solutions - and this is their solution.
I believe that we are under threat every single day. I believe that the government knows WAY more about how much danger we are all in, and only chooses to tell us when things get REALLY bad or the chatter gets REALLY loud.
And by issuing a higher security alert - here is how I respond to it:
Okay. Someone's paying attention to this. Someone is working on this. Thank goodness. There's someone in charge.
It does not as you say "give me reasons to be afraid". I am afraid already. If anything, I feel a sense of relief that someone is actually working on this problem 24/7.
and i don't think you need a rational basis argument for heightened or decreased security. Or let's say I think we already have one. September 11. That's all I need to know.
Posted by: red at December 30, 2003 7:11 AM