Tag: homeland security
"Homeland" sucks
Note to everyone in the United States:
Can you please… pretty pretty please with cream and sugar on top (and oil if you’re driving an SUV) stop calling the United States the “Homeland”?
Since 2001 — before or after 9-11, I forget which — every time I’ve heard the word “Homeland” associated with America, I’ve cringed. The name invokes memories of Stalinist Russia, or perhaps Nazi Germany. I don’t want to get into how I feel about the “Office of Homeland Security” in general (that’s another post I made years ago) but the term “homeland” — that’s a basic lack of using a thesaurus.
“Homeland” is the nation, it’s internal part of the country (or interior), It’s domestic. It’s considered the state as well. So why the hell are we using “Homeland”? Cripes, the DEFENSE DEPARTMENT is supposed to defend the United States, why do we need another agency to begin with? Why not fix the focus of the first one…?
OK, I’m going off topic. The fact is the “Homeland” is the country. It’s the US. It’s the nation… Referring to the country as “our homeland” makes things feel even more like we’re living in a fascist state. Dissenting activists should be able to recognize this… Everyone else in the population (especially patriots) should be wary of this.
Less Defense, more Beauracracy
Beside George Tennet, I wonder how many people see the proposed breakup of the CIA as a step backwards instead of a step forward?
There are already a handful of security and intelligence agencies int eh United States and a handful of Investigative agencies as well. The 9/11 Commission cited lack of communications/cooperations between agencies as part of the reason 9-11 happened.
So why is it that breaking the CIA into three is supposed to be the way to mend the problem? You have more agencies that need to answer to other agencies and more groups that may or may not share data. It’s taking the wrong approach to finding a solution.
Just like the Department of Homeland Security is giving the Defense Department a day off from defending the United States of America so that they can go ahead and be the Offense Department and take War elsewhere, changing the CIA to three different agencies doesn’t rectify the problem – it just adds bureaucracy so that other groups can focus on other things instead of solving the real problem — the glut of agencies and the lack of coordination with them.
I’m not totally opposed to the dismantling of the CIA but then again? I want to see the FBI and ATF factored into this group. I would think one super agency with divisions for national Investigation and law enforcement as well as international intelligence is going to be more beneficial than adding more groups to an already crowded field of agencies that are only loosely connected… And of course, having one person overseeing those agencies is not going to help cooperation and coordination between them…. It’s just going to add to the mess.
And what are other politicians going to tell you? That dividing and confusing is going to make America safer? That’s hardly a way to protect America… It’s more likely a way to contribute to more trouble – both Political and Geo-political – in the future.
Homeland Security and NaderNation
I’ve been debating this on Skyscraperpage.com for a few days now and basically I’m still put off — or all out LOST – trying to understand the logic that Herr Bush is using:
Since the Office of Homeland Security came into being shortly after the 9-11 Terrorist Attacks against the United States, I’ve been trying to see George W. Bush’s logic in the creation of this new department in the first place. One might tell me that the Office of Homeland Security is specifically there to help “Protect the Homeland” and the only logic I can give you is this:
So is the Defense Department. Read the title of that department over: the Defense Department. Defense, as defined by our friends over at Dictionary.com give us the following definition:
de·fense ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-fns)
n.
1. The act of defending against attack, danger, or injury.
2. A means or method of defending or protecting.
3. Sports. The act or an instance of defending a championship against a challenger: will box in his third defense of his title.
4. An argument in support or justification of something. See Synonyms at apology.
5. Law.
The action of the defendant in opposition to complaints against him or her.
The defendant and his or her legal counsel.
6. The science or art of defending oneself; self-defense.
7. (often defns) Sports.
Means or tactics used in trying to stop the opposition from scoring.
The team or those players on the team attempting to stop the opposition from scoring.
8. The military, governmental, and industrial complex, especially as it authorizes and manages weaponry production.
Wowwie, gee whiz, lookie here.. There are so many definitions to Defense but the key to it all that keeps coming back to is guarding or protecting. Does this mean the Office of Homeland Security gives the Defense Department a chance to be the Offense department? Is this like Los Buccaneeros firing Tony Dungy for the sake of hiring Jon Gruden and being able to take what they want instead of protect what they have?
I made an analogy that Dungy used to preach and I firmly believe in – Defense wins championships. You streamline, you get back to basics, you do the basics really well and you will have success through that. The US Government doesn’t believe this though. Why would they? They have the biggest military in the world (one that has not been tested by full scale war – thank god – since WWII) and only have use for it in an offensive capacity. No one figured that the military might be better if it was tied together and not so many loose branches. That’s part of the reason 9-11 happened: red tape and bureaucratic bullshit and loose ties between government agencies. If the CIA and the FBI were one intelligence and Investigative agency instead of two units, they wouldn’t have ignored each others warnings. If the Air Force, Army, Navy and Marines were all one entity instead of 4 groups that resent each other, maybe we would have seen air force jets scrambled a lot faster than they were on the morning of 9-11? Or less cost in waging war for that matter?
Homeland Security is a farce. They aren’t even in charge of those dandy Color Coded warning levels that they keep pushing on us to warn against possible terrorist actions. The Justice department was originally in charge of that, and now the President and upper administration officials are overseeing it.
In other news, I’m annoyed at the Green Party and Ralph Nader just a tad right now. There is a common enemy for those who are moderate or on the left side of the political fence right now and that’s the entire Bush administration. Ralph’s got political ambitions and it would be wise for him to get somewhere in the political world for both the Green Party sake and his own – but he’s aiming real high with the presidency. Right now we need a unified left and having the Greens and the Dems wage war is not the way that it’s going to happen. It would be better if Nader was running for Senate or the House of Representatives.
But Ralph won’t. He’s got ego to go along with his beliefs.
I love the guy – I really do – but at the same time I don’t want to see what another 4 years of George W. Bush will give to the American people and the world. They are an elitist group as is that gives money back to the rich and steals from the poor – they use a false sense of patriotism to push their will, etc. It’s manipulation on the masses and it must end and I don’t see Ralph as a legit way to get things to that end. The Green Party in the United States needs to continue building up from the ground up and having someone run for president (who isn’t even allowed to debate with the other Presidential candidates) is not a strong way to build things.. Especially when the left is already angry with Nader for getting enough votes to put Bush into office.
I’m a registered Green and I am supporting Howard Dean or Bob Graham as of right now. I don’t want the other fence-poll Democrats. If they (the fence-poll Democrats) end up with the nomination, I may very well vote for a Green, but if Dean or Graham end up with the nomination – they have my vote fully.
