There’s little doubt that I personally stand a much greater risk of dying from a (frustration induced) heart attack in an airport security line than of being killed in a terrorist attack. The recent failed attack on Northwest Flight 253 doesn’t change that.
And, for the most part, we are fairly accepting of these inevitable risks of life. Not so, however, for terrorism. As to it, the acceptable level of risk often seems to be regarded as zero — something that is in reality, of course, impossible to achieve. Yet, in this quixotic quest to ensure total safety we have spent more of our money, bended more of our national principles and created more discomfort for ourselves and others than has been true in the cases of numerous much more likely risks to our safety.
And here we go again with new security measures in response to the attack on Flight 253 — measures destined to make air travel even more miserable than it already is. Will they make us safer? I’m no expert, but mark me down as dubious. But even if these latest assaults against our air travel sanity will provide some small measure of increased security, that still leaves the question of whether they will be worth the cost.
That’s a question we as a society need to be asking more often. Obviously, we must take all reasonable steps to keep ourselves safe, but the line between what is reasonable and what is unduly destructive of other interests and values couldn’t be any thinner. The threat of terrorism is likely to be with us for as long as anyone reading these words is alive, a risk that will provide endless opportunities for fear induced limitations upon our freedom and comfort. And whatever the Obama Administration does, rest assured, it won’t be nearly enough for the alligator brains of the far right.
From the link:
BUFFOON WATCH.... Some have wondered this year if, in the case of a deadly terrorist attack, Republicans could bring themselves to put patriotism over party, and rally behind a president they disagree with.
I think we're getting a sense of the answer.
Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) said Sunday that it is fair to blame the Obama administration for the attempted bombing of a Northwest Airlines flight bound for Detroit on Christmas Day.
Not quite 48 hours after a Nigerian man -- who got a visa to enter the United States from the Bush administration -- unsuccessfully tried to kill Americans, Pete Hoekstra, one of Congress' more offensive buffoons, is going on national television to blame the Obama administration.
I know I shouldn't be surprised, but this is nauseating.
Let's be clear. First, the Obama administration's record on counter-terrorism is very impressive. Second, Pete Hoekstra's record on national security issues is so ridiculous, it's hard not to point and laugh. And third, Hoekstra's attempts to exploit an attack that failed is almost certainly motivated by an effort to impress right-wing primary voters in advance of his gubernatorial campaign, making his attacks against the president cheap and disgusting.
What an embarrassment.
When a candidate like Hoaxtra has nothing, he can always fall back on Project Obama Fail and maybe convince enough morons to keep him on the gravy train.