Unless you live in the center of one of the five largest cities your children are at NO risk when going to school. And even if you were they are many times more likely to die in the traffic, by food poisioning in the catina or simply by getting shot at.
How many children have been killed in US on their way to, in, or on their way from school by terrorists in the last two years?
This Homeland security stuff is the largest passifier the world have ever seen until this date.
"In 2002 the Bush administration introduced the homeland security advisory system and now you´ll see why 2003 will be like "1984"
Sorry, Anders, I'd like to apologize. I completely misread your post. Yes, the warning system is rather silly and vague, though I don't object to some sort of warning system in principle, if it's even really possible. Though I don't see why it's anything like 1984 in your previous post, unless of course it's always been like 1984 because this whole intelligence game is nothing new, not by a long shot.
Honestly, this is the SECOND time they've raised the level to orange! They're not saying that they EXPECT an attack to happen, but that it's highly possible. We're to remain more vigilant than usual, that's all.
Are you saying you'd prefer another 9/11 should happen if they raise the level?
<strong>What was the moral of that story again?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I would assume the difference here is that these alerts aren't facetious like the boy's cires in the fable.
They might not come true, but I'd rather deal with false alarms (preferably much more specific ones, though I understand that can't always be deciphered ahead of time) than deal with the potential consequences otherwise.
I would assume the difference here is that these alerts aren't facetious like the boy's cires in the fable.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you sure about that?
No more sure than I am that they are.
Anyone here seen "Bowling for Columbine"? Fear gives the gov't the opportunity to remove citizens' rights and continue defense spending while allowing real issues to be forgotten. It's what's fueling this war campaign and it also happens to serve the president's agenda of further destablizing a region that's on the brink of destruction. As long as the world is unsafe, we can lose our rights. Quite convienent, especially if you want to be able to suspend the writ of habeas corpus.
That is what my problem is with the stupidly vague warnings. Someone was complaining that the iTunes song ratings are too restrictive/not descriptive enough. What's the difference here?
<strong>I guess i'm just not cynical enough to believe that the government wants absolute control overs its citizens. Call me a hopeless romantic.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Honestly, this is the SECOND time they've raised the level to orange! They're not saying that they EXPECT an attack to happen, but that it's highly possible. We're to remain more vigilant than usual, that's all.
Are you saying you'd prefer another 9/11 should happen if they raise the level?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Could you please explain to me how I'm supposed to be "more vigilant"? How vigilant am I supposed to be on a normal basis? Should I wear armor? Shoot up my local mosque? Keep an eye on anyone who looks "suspicious"? I'm a little unclear on what, precisely, suspicious people look like. Care to clue me in?
Are you suggesting that, somehow, if I am more vigilant than I am when I'm, say, buying raman noodles at the store, I might be able to stop some kind of massive terrorist attack, whose method, location, and target I *cannot possibly* know?
Raising the "level" of threat has no effect whatsoever on whether or not a terrorist attack can or will happen. It only serves to scare us and make us trust in our fearless leaders. There is NO other reason for this to be a national and public alert.
Could you please explain to me how I'm supposed to be "more vigilant"? How vigilant am I supposed to be on a normal basis? Should I wear armor? Shoot up my local mosque? Keep an eye on anyone who looks "suspicious"? I'm a little unclear on what, precisely, suspicious people look like. Care to clue me in?
Are you suggesting that, somehow, if I am more vigilant than I am when I'm, say, buying raman noodles at the store, I might be able to stop some kind of massive terrorist attack, whose method, location, and target I *cannot possibly* know?
Raising the "level" of threat has no effect whatsoever on whether or not a terrorist attack can or will happen. It only serves to scare us and make us trust in our fearless leaders. There is NO other reason for this to be a national and public alert.
I am hopeful that in 2 years, we will have someone other people in the Executive branch. We're overdue for a decent president (just don't ask me who). </strong><hr></blockquote>
You are a hopeless romantic. I'd take anyone not from a war-mongering party, personally. Someone who's willing to address the concerns of the people rather than the PACs. I guess that means someone not from either of the two political parties. Nader jumps to mind. Not that he's the best person out there for the job, but.... Anyway, I'm veering this thread off course, so I'll stop now.
Anyway, code orannge, eh? I saw a few dozen suspicious looking guys earlier today. Should I call the cops?
<strong>Anyway, code orannge, eh? I saw a few dozen suspicious looking guys earlier today. Should I call the cops?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You look suspicious to me. You must be an evil-doer who hates freedom. Anyone who questions the administration's policies is not a patriot and is aiding the terrorists.
<strong>Raising the "level" of threat has no effect whatsoever on whether or not a terrorist attack can or will happen. It only serves to scare us and make us trust in our fearless leaders. There is NO other reason for this to be a national and public alert.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It is one of those things where, if anything happens, we won't feel completely blindsided. Anders is right that it will probabyl never go below yellow alert, if only so that the administration can cover its tush with an "I told you so." I mean, it is silly, but I guess I look at it like I look at almost everything else about the government: it's a sort of Keystone Cops routine. It's the same reason why I can't buy elaborate conspiracy theories about our government: they're sort of hapless about this stuff. Sure, overt war and simple acts like that is easy enough (I was just reading about our CIA operations in Vietnam in the 1950s -- simple terrorist acts, than playing the blame game), but to ask a bunch of beaurocrats to do better or more sophisticated is like asking monkeys to write Shakespeare.
PS: like I said, torifile, don't ask me who would be that great President we're due.
You look suspicious to me. You must be an evil-doer who hates freedom. Anyone who questions the administration's policies is not a patriot and is aiding the terrorists.
<strong>It is one of those things where, if anything happens, we won't feel completely blindsided. Anders is right that it will probabyl never go below yellow alert, if only so that the administration can cover its tush with an "I told you so." \\</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree with you completely. It is, most certainly, an attemtp to stave off any claims that the admin didn't "do anything" to warn Americans of an impending attack (and thus not conceal vital information). The problem, though, is that the warnings are so vague that they can have no other effect but heightening tension and fraying nerves. And the end result of that is that we look for guidance and safety. Where? In the comforting arms of Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, and Ridge.
Oh, you don't know the half of it. I'm 26, a male AND middle-eastern!! I'm screwed. (But, I'm not religious and don't have a beard)</strong><hr></blockquote>
A-HA!!! Dammit! Where's my local postal worker so I can report you!!!???
I thought up a good analogy for the whole "greater vigilance" thing. All though not completely synonymous with terror, it proves a point:
Green -- Sitting in your car while parked.
Blue -- Driving in your car on an empty road during the day.
Yellow -- Driving in your car on a moderately occupied road.
Orange -- Driving during a rain storm, or when the roads are wet.
Red -- Driving during a snow storm, or when ice is building on roads.
Each one has a little more "awareness" needed to what is going on around you, although you're always STILL in your car. It doesn't say not to drive, just to be more careful as conditions get more potentially hazardous. What do you think?
Comments
How many children have been killed in US on their way to, in, or on their way from school by terrorists in the last two years?
This Homeland security stuff is the largest passifier the world have ever seen until this date.
"In 2002 the Bush administration introduced the homeland security advisory system and now you´ll see why 2003 will be like "1984"
What was the moral of that story again?
edit: fixed link.
[ 02-07-2003: Message edited by: torifile ]</p>
<strong>
What was the moral of that story again?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Honestly, this is the SECOND time they've raised the level to orange! They're not saying that they EXPECT an attack to happen, but that it's highly possible. We're to remain more vigilant than usual, that's all.
Are you saying you'd prefer another 9/11 should happen if they raise the level?
<strong>What was the moral of that story again?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I would assume the difference here is that these alerts aren't facetious like the boy's cires in the fable.
They might not come true, but I'd rather deal with false alarms (preferably much more specific ones, though I understand that can't always be deciphered ahead of time) than deal with the potential consequences otherwise.
<strong>
I would assume the difference here is that these alerts aren't facetious like the boy's cires in the fable.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you sure about that?
No more sure than I am that they are.
Anyone here seen "Bowling for Columbine"? Fear gives the gov't the opportunity to remove citizens' rights and continue defense spending while allowing real issues to be forgotten. It's what's fueling this war campaign and it also happens to serve the president's agenda of further destablizing a region that's on the brink of destruction. As long as the world is unsafe, we can lose our rights. Quite convienent, especially if you want to be able to suspend the writ of habeas corpus.
That is what my problem is with the stupidly vague warnings. Someone was complaining that the iTunes song ratings are too restrictive/not descriptive enough. What's the difference here?
<strong>I guess i'm just not cynical enough to believe that the government wants absolute control overs its citizens. Call me a hopeless romantic.</strong><hr></blockquote>
hopeless romantic.
<strong>
Honestly, this is the SECOND time they've raised the level to orange! They're not saying that they EXPECT an attack to happen, but that it's highly possible. We're to remain more vigilant than usual, that's all.
Are you saying you'd prefer another 9/11 should happen if they raise the level?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Could you please explain to me how I'm supposed to be "more vigilant"? How vigilant am I supposed to be on a normal basis? Should I wear armor? Shoot up my local mosque? Keep an eye on anyone who looks "suspicious"? I'm a little unclear on what, precisely, suspicious people look like. Care to clue me in?
Are you suggesting that, somehow, if I am more vigilant than I am when I'm, say, buying raman noodles at the store, I might be able to stop some kind of massive terrorist attack, whose method, location, and target I *cannot possibly* know?
Raising the "level" of threat has no effect whatsoever on whether or not a terrorist attack can or will happen. It only serves to scare us and make us trust in our fearless leaders. There is NO other reason for this to be a national and public alert.
Cheers
Scott
I am hopeful that in 2 years, we will have someone other people in the Executive branch. We're overdue for a decent president (just don't ask me who).
<strong>
Could you please explain to me how I'm supposed to be "more vigilant"? How vigilant am I supposed to be on a normal basis? Should I wear armor? Shoot up my local mosque? Keep an eye on anyone who looks "suspicious"? I'm a little unclear on what, precisely, suspicious people look like. Care to clue me in?
Are you suggesting that, somehow, if I am more vigilant than I am when I'm, say, buying raman noodles at the store, I might be able to stop some kind of massive terrorist attack, whose method, location, and target I *cannot possibly* know?
Raising the "level" of threat has no effect whatsoever on whether or not a terrorist attack can or will happen. It only serves to scare us and make us trust in our fearless leaders. There is NO other reason for this to be a national and public alert.
Cheers
Scott</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well said.
<strong>
I am hopeful that in 2 years, we will have someone other people in the Executive branch. We're overdue for a decent president (just don't ask me who).
Anyway, code orannge, eh? I saw a few dozen suspicious looking guys earlier today. Should I call the cops?
<strong>Anyway, code orannge, eh? I saw a few dozen suspicious looking guys earlier today. Should I call the cops?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You look suspicious to me. You must be an evil-doer who hates freedom. Anyone who questions the administration's policies is not a patriot and is aiding the terrorists.
I'm watching you.
Cheers
Scott
PS
I saw that.
[ 02-07-2003: Message edited by: midwinter ]</p>
<strong>Raising the "level" of threat has no effect whatsoever on whether or not a terrorist attack can or will happen. It only serves to scare us and make us trust in our fearless leaders. There is NO other reason for this to be a national and public alert.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It is one of those things where, if anything happens, we won't feel completely blindsided. Anders is right that it will probabyl never go below yellow alert, if only so that the administration can cover its tush with an "I told you so." I mean, it is silly, but I guess I look at it like I look at almost everything else about the government: it's a sort of Keystone Cops routine. It's the same reason why I can't buy elaborate conspiracy theories about our government: they're sort of hapless about this stuff. Sure, overt war and simple acts like that is easy enough (I was just reading about our CIA operations in Vietnam in the 1950s -- simple terrorist acts, than playing the blame game), but to ask a bunch of beaurocrats to do better or more sophisticated is like asking monkeys to write Shakespeare.
PS: like I said, torifile, don't ask me who would be that great President we're due.
[ 02-07-2003: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
<strong>
You look suspicious to me. You must be an evil-doer who hates freedom. Anyone who questions the administration's policies is not a patriot and is aiding the terrorists.
I'm watching you.
Cheers
Scott
PS
I saw that.
[ 02-07-2003: Message edited by: midwinter ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh, you don't know the half of it. I'm 26, a male AND middle-eastern!!
<strong>Oh, you don't know the half of it. I'm 26, a male AND middle-eastern!</strong><hr></blockquote>
a bit of advice: don't live with a lot of male middle-eastern housemates.
<strong>It is one of those things where, if anything happens, we won't feel completely blindsided. Anders is right that it will probabyl never go below yellow alert, if only so that the administration can cover its tush with an "I told you so." \\</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree with you completely. It is, most certainly, an attemtp to stave off any claims that the admin didn't "do anything" to warn Americans of an impending attack (and thus not conceal vital information). The problem, though, is that the warnings are so vague that they can have no other effect but heightening tension and fraying nerves. And the end result of that is that we look for guidance and safety. Where? In the comforting arms of Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, and Ridge.
Cheers
Scott
<strong>
Oh, you don't know the half of it. I'm 26, a male AND middle-eastern!!
A-HA!!! Dammit! Where's my local postal worker so I can report you!!!???
Cheers
Scott
Green -- Sitting in your car while parked.
Blue -- Driving in your car on an empty road during the day.
Yellow -- Driving in your car on a moderately occupied road.
Orange -- Driving during a rain storm, or when the roads are wet.
Red -- Driving during a snow storm, or when ice is building on roads.
Each one has a little more "awareness" needed to what is going on around you, although you're always STILL in your car. It doesn't say not to drive, just to be more careful as conditions get more potentially hazardous. What do you think?