Homeland Security

I don't remember him ever saying he was getting rid of it, nor would I expect him to. There's a lot of cleaning up to be done, but Homeland Security is definitely a necessary component of whatever administration is in power.

Napolitano's a woman, btw.

Look at it on the bright side: stupid wasteful government jobs that might have a hope in hell of defending us against the miniscule odds of random bogeyman attack are better than more starving unemployed people, or much more expensively, detaining them when they start to roam the derelict streets looting for food.

cccc wrote: There are many people in this world who would love the have the opportunity to kill Americans;

Honestly, there's not very many. Ok, more than there used to be before the current administration hit its stride, but still not very many. Work out your chance of death at the hands of an American-hater vs. all other causes of death.

cccc wrote: and thus an agency whose goal is to "protect" the citizens of the United States is necessary.

Sure. The question is: how much do you want to spend to save how many American lives? And if you're prepared to spend that kind of money saving some Americans' lives, why not spend most of it someplace where you'd save hundreds of times as many. Like hospitals, for example. Or preventative measures against diseases like HIV and hepatitis, screening for various cancers and heart conditions. Or some more for the FDA to better protect against contaminated products and better/faster registration or deregistration of pharmaceuticals. Or better infrastructure and preparedness against hurricanes. You get the picture.

I think we could get by with a much smaller security agency, like most countries do. If we can live with car accidents and not ban cars, if we can live with shootings without banning guns, then we ought to be able to live with a tiny fraction of that number of people being killed by terrorist attack despite modest countermeasures. All it would require would be some way to bring people's fears more in line with the actual numbers.

cccc wrote:
As a lefty myself, I think it is extreamly naive and sterotypical of "liberals" to say or believe otherwise. If you disagree, I suggest you read the news-clippings over the last couple of years of the many terrorist attacks that targeted Western interests and citizens around the world.

Half a dozen attacks? A few thousand dead (and tens or hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals killed in retaliation). How many Americans died this year because their diabetes wasn't being managed because they didn't have health insurance? It's amazing the gap between people's fears and reality, between sound and rational economic priorities vs. what actually gets spent.

cccc wrote:
Saying that, in the long run, by far the most effective way of preventing future terrorist attacks is by having more thoughtful foreign policy that does not breed desperation and hatred towards the United States and its allies. The United States has failed at: "winning the hearts and mind" of much of the world's population ever since the start of the Cold War, but hopefully it will change with the new administration.

I'm with you here.