Tag: redundancy

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.