Blasts may spur fight over U.S. security spending
I hate these knee-jerk reactions to events. Maybe it's a good idea to double this spending, and maybe it's not. But if it is a good idea, maybe it would have been nice if someone had suggested it before. You simply can't protect everything, and trying to protect one specific thing better simply because it was the method used in the latest attack just doesn't seem to fit quite right. If there is an attack on a cruise ship tomorrow, will we double funding for cruise ship security? If there is then an attack in a mall, will we look to double mall security? How about we look at all areas now, before we see them attacked and decide what the best ways to protect them are, and what funding is required to accomplish it?
3 comments:
It does seem that we probably wouldn't want to wait for attacks to decide what to protect, but our leaders don't seem to work that way. They are somehow surprised by every attack like it was a brand new strategy. Maybe we should get some people together to brainstorm methods and locations of attacks. Or we could continue to be reactive and say that there was no way we could have anticipated ____.
John, you're afflicted with common sense, my man. That's not the way things work in faith-based America!
Yeah, common sense is unAmerican.
Post a Comment