Althouse: "Bean fest, but not Times Square... insect zoo but not the Statue of Liberty."

July 12, 2006

"Bean fest, but not Times Square... insect zoo but not the Statue of Liberty."

This really is shameful.

14 comments:

bearing said...: How did that happen? Did every state submit their own lists, and the feds just concatenated them?; 7/12/06, 11:33 AM
Ann Althouse said...: So, Gerry, the Department of Homeland Security is just a mindless receptacle?; 7/12/06, 11:37 AM
MadisonMan said...: I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that a Federal Bureaucracy could foul something like this up!

It seems silly that the DHS would just accept at face value the lists sent by States. Surely they'd recognize there'd be padding by the States to increase funding!; 7/12/06, 11:38 AM
Anonymous said...: The Department of Homeland Security is a joke, it should never have been established. The damage it does to our security probably dwarfs whatever good it does, as this example demonstrates.

Bean festivals and ant farms? This completely clueless lunacy ranks right up there with INS giving Mohhamed Atta his green card six months after he flew the plane in the WTC. One should know better, but doesn't anyone working there know how to exercise judgment?

On second thought, maybe they do and this is the result.; 7/12/06, 11:51 AM
Unknown said...: "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you."; 7/12/06, 1:12 PM
Wade Garrett said...: I try to give the Bush administration a lot of leeway on security issues, even though I disagree with their social agenda. But, as a New Yorker, I feel as if my state, and other blue states, have really gotten short changed. A lot of important potential targets in New York, California, Michigan, and Massachusetts have been left off the list, or were added to the list only at a very late date. Furthermore, homeland security dollars are allocated to states based on their representation in the House, not by the number of potential targets. So, red states with few if any targets (i.e. Idaho and Kansas) get far more anti-terrorism dollars per capita than New York. Its shameful.

Right now I am living in Brooklyn, and working on Broadway and Wall Streets. I pass more potential terrorist targets on the way to work in the morning than, I don't know, 50 of 75% of Americans see in a year. It bothers me that my safety has been turned into a political football. Call me a Bush-hater, but something tells me that if the Empire State Building was in Texas, it would have been on that list.; 7/12/06, 1:16 PM
Wade Garrett said...: I think what she's saying is that it is shameful that it took this long to find and correct the error. 9/11 was almost five years ago.; 7/12/06, 1:18 PM
XWL said...: I think this particular AP report (and the previous one about 'funding cuts') is dishonest.

NYC and DC, especially around major cultural institutions and sites, already have about as tight security as can be expected in a free society.

There have been massive expenditures in both places before and after the attacks on 9/11, on all levels, federal, state and local.

There is a limit to the security that money can buy, and I think that limit has been reached at places like the Statue of Liberty, and Congress, and Wall Street.

Not including those sites on a list of places that need more work and more funding doesn't mean that their protection doesn't remains a priority, it simply means that improving their security isn't as large a priority as securing other possible targets that exist throughout the country.

I'm sure there is a different list of expected targets, with likelihood of attack, and kind of attack, for every major facility across the nation.

These things the AP choose to report are just lower level political wrangling and infighting within the agency, but the real plans and lists are things that should be kept more secret, hopefully.

I don't want to know what we consider the top targets to be, and what the most likely type of attacks are expected to happen or cause the largest casualties, cause if the LAT or NYT prints that list, then the behavior of those actually planning to attack would change, and the chances of some place being targeted that wasn't prepared to thwart an attack would end up increasing dramatically.

Much of what the DHS does shouldn't be too open to public scrutiny, there should be oversight, but there shouldn't be too much public knowledge of specific details about the why, where, and how, sites are scrutinized and protected by the DHS. The more I know, the more the bad guys know, and I want to keep the bad guys guessing.; 7/12/06, 2:05 PM
Al Maviva said...: Before the screamingly radical draconian cuts in funding, NYC used to receive roughly 19% of Homeland Security total grant funds. After Bush's miserly, mean spirited cuts, NYC will only receive a tiny, eensy-weensy 17.5% of the total grant expenditure.

But don't blame me. I voted for Kodos.; 7/12/06, 2:31 PM
Anonymous said...: DHS is largely a boondoggle. The Democrats got their union (TSA, or Thousands Standing Around) and both the Dems and Reps got billions of dollars of pork to bestow on donors and voters.

AFter 9/11 people panicked and though the federal government because of its might and size should protect them. Now it's a typical government program: the most paperwork-savvy and politically connected get the dough.

DHS should be disbanded and site protection be entrusted to states who are more answerable to their constituents.; 7/12/06, 4:41 PM
Dactyl said...: Look, I think you're all missing the point here. Where's that bourbon festival, and when is it held?; 7/12/06, 5:15 PM
SippicanCottage said...: A terrorist attack on an ant farm?

Better call the Pink Panther:

Dead ant. Dead ant. Dead antDead antDeadantDeadantDead annnnnnnn ta!

Sorry.; 7/12/06, 5:32 PM
Peder said...: I think a per capita judgement here would be a terrible one. All of the noteworthy targes in NYC, for instance, would be covered by some centralized funds. You don't need 50 different units protecting 50 NYC landmarks.
But take a look at South Dakota. Mount Rushmore is an obvious target. But security used to protect it can't be used for anything else. Sioux Falls needs entirely different protection.
If aid was given out per capita, you'd have way too much fat in some spots and be way too thin in others. The best way to determine this would on some more objective basis than simply splitting the money evenly.; 7/12/06, 5:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Are we surprised?

Does anyone think George Bush really gives a damn about New Yorkers. I think he views an attack on New York as a convenient way of disposing of Democrats.; 7/12/06, 6:25 PM