Strid said:
It came basically from the title. You seemed to be bothered with where tax money goes.
No, i'm annoyed that homeland security fails to find dirty bombs in test runs but someplace in alaska gets 200k for no justified or justifiable reason whatsoever. To clarify, i'm bothered where
this tax money went, i thought it had been implied by the content of the post.
So I said that as a little reminder of good things that DO come from taxes. As far as the town getting cameras, I'm still failing to see the big deal with it.
See above. Wise investments and security planning don't bother me that much, this is anything but that and glaringly so.
I mean here in TX we get Amber Alert signs on roads, severe weather Horns, and things like that. Those are all things to help some security issues here but not elsewhere.
These serve some kind of practical use to the area in which you live, making it a justified investment. In a populated area these things make sense. 1 camera for every 3 citizens in a remote area with no security interests of note doesn't work with being fiscally responsible or security oriented.
What is safe, or put up for protection, from one area to another is all off of what the places feel they need. We know the area is small, remote, and things like that but what we fail to see, because we do not live there or go there, is what problems they may be having, forseeing, and things of that nature.
You're kidding, right? So, it's ok for the money that could go to protecting borders, making sure we catch threats before they become disasters, and beefing up security on whole in problematic areas that get national attention because some eskimo felt they needed cameras for the
downtown area of a town with no roads to it...... k. Were this that far off time of long ago you pine away for when the government acted as a functional hardassed unit eskimo joe would've had his request sent back with a turd in the envelope.
To be honest, if I was a terrorist, I'd hit up locations like that for bases and things. It is really easy to cover up and transport things through those types of areas.
Right .. shut down infinite number of command posts with ......... cameras in the
downtown area of a town that almost isn't. Meanwhile fail miserably at security tests on our borders that get national attention on a daily basis. I feel safer already.
I'm all for putting out whatever people need to feel safe but all in all no one anywhere is going to be safe really as long as terrorist and things keep popping out the woodworks.
And so long as we keep pouring money in the wrong places, which was the entire point of the post. I'm for safety as well, but it's a matter of priorities this is an example of poor judgement and bad spending, nothing more nothing less.
I think the money would be better suited sending tactics teams out with the sole purpose to kill these people but that is to hardcore for the people and government of today.
'Cause .. y'know ... we're not spending enough hunting people down in the remote corners of the globe and on war after war after war after war to do exactly that. But ... cameras for the
downtown area of a village populated by inuits... yea, that's the key.
Makes me wished we still lived in a time where the CIA and groups like that would send in people just to destroy enemies.
We do. Much like in the past, you won't know anything about it for 20-50 years.
Nowdays the government and those agencies are to hell bent on not making people cry here at home to get back on it, like they use to anyway.
QFT. Let's not forget instilling paranoia, not sharing information with each other, building more useless branches of government that can't manage to spend properly OR communicate with each other, pandoring to corporate interests and winning re-election... which might as well be the same thing with a staggering voter turnout of around 20% :/ ohyea, and that war on terrorism thing .. securing the heartland .. er, remote reaches of alaska, and all that crap.
I'm for the hardass approach as well, this example is certainly contrary to that.
The sad part is i'm sure it's not isolated. I don't think calling this absurd is entirely unwarranted.
The other link is a bit outdated:
some more current food for thought. From MIT.
A more accurate account.
We conclude that a large portion of homeland security-spending decisions are made on a political basis rather than on a sound cost-benefit analysis, leading to the traditional public choice failures that plague government spending more generally. As a result, homeland security funding is likely to be misallocated, resulting in a less than optimal level of security in America.
But i'm sure that's just leftist jibba jabba designed to let the terrorists win...