Actually, the original announcement of the "Rainbow Of Death" ( http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=174 ) indicated that it was for both public and government use. The "scale" came about because of constant vague "warnings" from the government in the wake of September 11th were pissing off the populace who couldn't figure out whether today's "stern warning" was more or less threatening than the day prior's or the one that came the day after.

As I said in my blog entry about it, the "high" risk times always seem to be the times when travelers are going to be most on-edge about getting the jackboot-treatment at the airports. With the "newly heightened status", it's much easier to keep the sheep, I mean the travelers, in line as you strip away any pretense that they're actually human beings with civil rights.

If something is "high risk", you'd expect that once or twice it'd actually happen. For example, you might consider playing Russian Roulette to be "high risk", with about a 1 in 6 chance of causing serious injury.

Meanwhile, for all the times we've been elevated to "High Risk" alert has anything happened? Nope.

The government hasn't got any more clue today than they did yesterday. It basically is just propaganda, designed to keep the populace at fear, so that they'll gleefully continue to ignore the tromping on their rights that the present administration persists in performing.

OK, Derek, that's it. I've had it. Just one too many sneerers (sorry it had to be you but that's the breaks). So tell me - just *exactly* what you would do if you were in charge of "Homeland Security"? Everybody gripes but I've seen no *concrete* alternatives. And your reasoning?! It's never happened so the warnings were bogus? So in your logic, for a *warning* system to work it has to fail? You sound disappointed we haven't had an attack. Myself, I say, "Warn away" and keep on with the "failure."

Thanks Dean - I've been looking for someone with more maturity than a 5 yer old (re: warnings)and had about given up.

I would never have created a "homeland security" department in the first place, but that's beside the point. A Department of Homeland Security can only be about trying to prove the adage about people being willing to trade liberty for safety and being worthy of neither.

What purpose, exactly, does "warning the populace" do? Make them more likely to turn in the darker-skinned-guy-with-an-accent who lives next door when he breaks routine a little bit?

The logic is that if we're at high risk "today" and nothing happens, and nobody is caught, then by definition we can't be at a lower risk tomorrow. Whoever the culprits were, they're still out there, they've still got whatever "plan" it was, and we're no safer "tomorrow" than we are today.

Except that the risk level has fluctuated up and down with no real captures or anything like that. (Of course, there *might* be captures of people and stuff, we'd probably never know, since they'd be hustled off to the super-secret court-system that doesn't actually have to protect their rights to a public trial or anything).

Dean

I couldn't agree more with your post. I am frustrated with the snarks, who snark and snark, but who do not have alternative plans. I am glad to hear from the government - occasionally. However - living in the New York area, as I do, I feel like we are always at Level Orange.

I think the government should be monitoring serious specific threats and warning those who would be in danger from those specific threats. How can you generalize a threat level to the entire country? That's the madness.

As Derek pointed out, there's nothing a citizen can do to respond to a heightened threat level, other than to worry more. That's just not helpful.

A color-coded general threat level does not "keep us in the loop." It just keeps us on edge.

Phew. It's a good thing we have Derek to give us the real deal. I don't know what I'd do without him.

Derek, thanks for that sterling display of Not Being Able To Pay Attention When Somebody Is Talking To You.

In answer to your question:

"What purpose, exactly, does "warning the populace" do?"

The answer is:

"It keeps the American people from being intensely, and justifiably, pissed off that the government wasn't bothering to tell them what the crap was going down, to the best of their (unavoidably limited) ability to forecast it."

In times like this knowledge /might/ be worrisome, but ignorance is /not/ bliss.

Don't you /remember/ how nervous people were all over this country for the first several months after the 9/11 attack? How the /uncertainty/ was the worst thing of all?

God almighty -- you people bitch when the government tells you nothing, and now you bitch when the government tries to tell you something. That's a wonderful philosophy if all you want to do is bitch, but it has absolutely zero constructive value.

In your last post, Derek, you spent four paragraphs ranting about what you /wouldn't/ do, but not one word about what you /would/ do.

So answer the damn question, already. If you've got a better idea, WHAT IS IT?

And note, 'Do nothing' or 'Just sit on the pre 9/11 status quo' are neither valid nor sensible courses of action.

Chuck:

Actually, no. "do nothing" -- in terms of "homeland security" is *precisely* what I would do (well, nothing more than was already being done). Destroying the freedom of the country to preserve the "Safety" is not a viable answer.

I remember full-well how nervous people were. I also remember that might have had a lot to do with near-nightly reports that were carefully worded in a vague manner coming out of the government about "potential new threats"... ya know, if the gov't keeps saying "we're scared and you should be too", the people are going to be scared, too. Go figure.

One might even put out into the market the theory that said reports were carefully calculated for the expressed PURPOSE of causing fear and nervousness, so that the populace would be more willing to hand over copious quantities of power to the government that they would never ever in a million years have considered doing on 9/10/2001.

However, you ask: What would I /do/? ...

I might engage the State Department to figure out exactly why it is that the rest of the world despises us enough to kill civilians.

Instead of scurrying out in chicken-with-head-cut-off mode rounding up everyone with dark skin making them register as a Potential Bad Person, I'd try to spend more time trying to figure out why we're persona non grata throughout most of the region where people have dark skin, and then stop meddling in their affairs (since, by and large, that's what pisses them off enough to want to kill us).

The logic is that if we're at high risk "today" and nothing happens, and nobody is caught, then by definition we can't be at a lower risk tomorrow. Whoever the culprits were, they're still out there, they've still got whatever "plan" it was, and we're no safer "tomorrow" than we are today.

Hmm, by that "logic" if a serial killer sneaks into your house with the intention of raping and killing you, but changes his mind and leaves because he forgot his bullets or somesuch, you were never in any danger because nothing actually happened. And you won't be in any danger the next day, when he buys more bullets, because nothing happened the last time.

I don't think the word "logic" means what you think it means.

I'm cool wiht the color system, but I would tighten immigration enforcement and penalties like mad, (including making it profitiable to turn illegals in until the levels are down) and allow much more legal immigration to reduce demand for illegals.

Yours,
Wince

Gah. Dean, can I buy you a spell checker for comments?

Sorry,
Wince

Derek, has it ever occured to you that maybe, just maybe, the reason these people are trying to kill us is because of something we *should* be doing??

Or do you think that mass conversion to Islam, and establishment of Sharia and a caliphate in North America is a good idea??

Some commenters keep asking: "What would YOU do about these almost continual on-off threats of terrorist attacks on US soil?"

So here is what I would do, specifically.

1) I would ban all entry to this country of persons from Arab or moslem countries, except for those whom our national security agencies could prescreen, to the same level any American is prescreened by the Federal Bureau of Investigation before being permitted to purchase and take possession of automatic weapons (class III fireams). This was a process that includes fingerprinting, investigations that take 3-5 months, and a prepayment on my part of $200 per automatic weapon, to the US Treasury Department.

2) I would investigate for any and all subversive activities on the part of all Arabs and moslems already in this country, including those possessing citizenship. Any sign of disloyalty, and their residency status would be revoked and they would immediately be deported. I would change the US laws to terminate the citizenship of any such person involved in terrorism, and either deport them or incarcerate them in concentration camps such as the one we maintain at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

3) I would permit no entry of any item by air, ship or ground transport that had not been inspected at the port of entry. This process would include opening and inspecting any cargo container and inspecting any foreign ship allowed into a US harbor, any foreign aircraft allowed to land at a US airport, or any land transport vehicle allowed to pass onto a US road.

4) I would utilize the United States Army to guard the land borders of this country, in place of the US Border Patrol. This rule would be applied most rigorously to the long southern border with Mexico. The army would establish a floodlighted zone of death between parallel lines of razor barbed wire fences. The zone of death would be seeded with land mines and covered by machine gun nests arranged for interlocking fire lanes designed to kill any human being who ventured into the zone.

5) I would try and imprison any American citizen not specifically subject to the draconian rules described above, who gave any material comfort to terrorists, their families, illegal immigrants or those engaged in bringing these persons into our country. I would make certain that the terms of their imprisonment would be impartial and as unpleasant as possible under whatever emergency decrees that would be passed under the legislation needed to effectuate this status.

6) I would move immediately to utilize replacements for petroleum produced in any Arab or moslem states except for those under strict American domination, such as Iraq shall be for a long time. There would be no restrictions of any kind on seeking out and developing sources of fuel in the United States or in friendly countries. I would dig up national wildlife refuges in Alaska if necessary to get the oil there, or even cherished cemeteries, because I do not serve the dead in the face of a national emergency.

7) I would do everything feasible to break the power of international islam. This would include subverting their various social cultures, teaching their peoples the same kind and the same degree of self-hatred as a few generations of liberals have been systematically doing in the school systems of the United States and througout our society at large. Above all, I would break the pride of their men by teaching their women to disrespect them and even to despise them as backward, cowardly and powerless in the face of the overwhelming force of the United States. Exactly what our forefathers did in enslaving the Africans they brought here for labor or in destroying the spirit of the Indian tribes whose lands they stole from one side of the continent to the other.

8) If, in spite of all such precautions, an Arab or islamic largescale terrorist attack occured again on the soil of this country, I would retaliate by means of two mechanisms designed to act as a needle that would pierce the heart of the enemy religion and cultures. First, I would encourage the government of Israel to expel the entire remaining Arab population of the lands they presently occupy and to destroy their great temples in Jerusalem. Second, I would destroy the center of their religion in and around Mecca, with thermonuclear detonations designed to keep all life from that place for whatever is the half-life of the radioactive materials and the bomb coatings.

9) I would order our secret services to kidnap relatives of the chief terrorists, including Osama bin Laden, and hold them as hostages until such time as their master plotter were brought into US incarceration. If killing were required, I would begin with the first-born Arab males, inasmuch as in their culture this is the most important inheritor of the family name and birthright.

The nature of power, Stalin is said to have told one of his key henchmen, is that it is the one thing in the world that you cannot fake. You either have it or you don't. The other characteristic of power is it must occasionally be exercized in order to remind those who do not have it what happens if they try to overthrow that order. Sometimes this process requires gross unpleasantness, which, if not applied, leaves potential challengers further down the chain with the idea they can unseat you and take your power.

I am a citizen of the United States. I want this country to maintain its wealth, its power, and its level of inequality with the rest of the population of this planet. Forever, if possible. And by whatever means required. Because I have no other loyalties and no other concerns than the greatness and the power of our great commonwealth. If that power is to be challenged, than let us respond with terror of our own, a level of terror that has not truly been unleashed since the days of majesty that ended in the utter ferocity of the attacks we mounted against our enemies in Europe and the Pacific in 1945.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Chuck:

Again, I don't think the color system helps alleviate "uncertainty," it just exacerbates it. What real information does it impart? Does the government say how we should change our behavior constructively as the general, unspecified national threat level rises (or falls, for that matter)?

And again, I did say what I thought the government should do. Continue to investigate serious specific threats, and warn the specific people affected by those threats. Seems pretty simple to me.

Arnold:

I can't tell you how happy I am that you're not in charge of deciding the level of "disloyalty" among citizens of this country, or in possession of the nuclear launch codes. The Stalin quote on the nature of power was an especially nice touch.

Derek, after reading your response, one thought overwhelms me:

You thought that they were /justified/ in their attack, didn't you?

You thought that we were the ones in the wrong, and their striking back at us was an understandable form of aggression that we must change our ways so as not to 'force' them to strike us again, don't you?

Your suggested course of action is perfectly ideal -- from Al Qaeda's point of view. Not from ours. You think they have more right, more justification, to take our lives than we have to take theirs.

In short, you're on their side.

And you cloak this sentiment in a concern for /our/ freedoms? I am appalled. And I am disgusted.

Just curious, Derek, what freedoms have you lost?

> Again, I don't think the color system helps
> alleviate "uncertainty," it just exacerbates
> it. What real information does it impart?

It imparts which period of time the government estimates, after evaluating all intelligence data currently in their possession, that terrorist attacks are most likely to occur.

This is not rocket science.

> Does the government say how we should change
> our behavior constructively as the general,
> unspecified national threat level rises (or
> falls, for that matter)?

Does the government need to, or are you utterly bereft of the most basic elements of common sense? Are you unable to wipe your arse without a government-provided flow chart? Figuring out what we should do in a higher-risk period of time isn't that friggin' hard, if you actually bother to think about it as opposed to wasting your mental efforts thinking up more ways to bitch about Big Daddy not doing every iota of your thinking for you.

OTOH, while I /am/ capable figuring out basic common-sense measures unaided(*), since I do not have access to the full dataflow from all our intelligence services, or buildings full of analysts with which to crunch said data, I am not capable of determining unaided /when/ I should concentrate said efforts. For example, I can't eavesdrop on Al Qaeda communicatins traffic to listen for when the increased activity patterns are, but the NSA can.

------
(*) Measure #1 being, duh, 'restrict my visiting prime target sites and/or utilizing air travel only for necessary visits, and schedule the luxury visits at some other time. Measure #2 being 'allow more time when checking in or out of such places due to increased security screening'. Again, basic common sense.
------

So I need the government to tell me when a higher alert status is in effect. And they do. I *don't* need them to take over micromanaging my entire life, telling me exactly where to go and how to step. And they don't.

Personally, I think that works out the best all around.

> And again, I did say what I thought the
> government should do. Continue to investigate
> serious specific threats, and warn the specific
> people affected by those threats. Seems pretty
> simple to me.

It seems even /more/ basic to me that while it is possible for our intelligence services to determine periods of high risk, it is far less possible for them to know the exact time and place of every attack in advance... which is what they'd have to do in order to meet /your/ standards.

Whether you have bothered to think about the full nature and consequences of your plan or not, your demands would require both near-perfect omniscience and nigh-ubiquitous omnipresence to fulfill. And as such your suggested course of action is not only not simple, it is not even remotely practical.

Here's some sample rhetoric from the administration, taken from an AP story:

----------
The government on Sunday raised the national threat level to orange, indicating a high risk of terrorist attack, and said threat indicators are "perhaps greater now than at any point" since Sept. 11, 2001, with strikes possible during the holidays.

Americans were promised "extensive and considerable protections" around the country and told to stick to their travel plans despite intelligence indicating the al-Qaida terrorist network is seeking again to use planes as weapons and exploit suspected weakness in U.S. aviation security.
----------

So we should go ahead with our plans, despite dire warnings that planes will be used as weapons? Yeah, that's helpful. Thanks, Tom Ridge.

And Chuck: My point is, I don't expect omniscience. I just want them to investigate the best they can - it's called police work, and it's being done every day in this country. But I'd like them not to freak me out if there's nothing I can do about it. *That's* not rocket science.

That's you. I'd like to know what's going on. If you don't want bad news, then stay away from the media, I guess.

Geoffrey: How much does a color-coded threat level tell you "what's going on"? Is it really useful information? I mean, Tom Ridge says we shouldn't change our plans, even though he also says there's a high priority my plane will be crashing into a building. Is that helpful?

Adam:

1) What, you'd prefer that Secretary Ridge have run out onto the top of the castle walls and screamed "ABANDON YOUR POSTS! FLEE, IN FEAR FOR YOUR LIVES!"? Yeah, *real* useful public service announcement /there/.

It is an act of constructive leadership to be able to go 'We think the attack is going to fall here, so that is where we have concentrated the bulk of the defenses. Do not panic and scatter, but trust in the strength and skill of those who would defend you.' It is not such an act to advocate abandoning everything at the first possible risk indicator.

How can you condemn saying 'We think planes might possibly be hijacked, but we are doing everything we can and don't think the situation is dire enough to warrant grounding the planes yet' be an irresponsible act, but thinking planes might be hijacked and not giving the passengers /any/ warning be considered the proper course of action?

2) In your desire to find some way to complain, you just ignored the fact that Homeland Security did precisely what you were just now griping that they never did -- provide a forecast of where the attack is most likely to fall. If you can't be bothered to be logically consistent from minute to minute, I can't be bothered to take you seriously.

3) It is *not* common police work. It's foreign-intelligence-gathering against a determined and ruthless enemy who desires to wage unconventional warfare against the United State of America. That is *enormously* harder to accomplish with any degree of certainty, and people who obviously haven't got the slightest idea of the methods, hardships, or unavoidable uncertainties involved in such an effort have absolutely no place trying to grade the work of those who are involved in it.

Or, to quote Harlan Ellison -- "You don't have any right to your opinion. You have a right to an *INFORMED* opinion."

What disturbs me isn't that they can't tell us date, time, longitude, and latitude of the next incident; it's that the information about preparation seems so unhelpful. It took at least four clicks on the Homeland Security site to find a page of actual concrete advice about how to prepare for a disaster (maybe there was a shorter way, but if so, it wasn't obvious):

http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?theme=14&content=462

And even that is relatively vague and quite astonishingly brief. Most of the rest of the site, not surprisingly, consists of articles that begin, "The Department of Homeland Security is training professionals at a bureaucratic outpost near you to...." So while I wouldn't piss and moan about the fact that there's no specific information about what's going to happen, I don't think it's out of line to complain that "don't flip out, don't dig your way into a bomb shelter or found a survivalist commune" is about as far as the government seems to be going. Unless there's something I'm missing.

Oh, one thing I forgot to expand upon:

If the Office of Homeland Security had a certain enough warning for an attack against airplanes to warrant advising people to cancel their tickets...

... they'd also know enough to just *GROUND THE DAMNED PLANES*.

i.e. -- if the situation ever becomes dire enough that everybody genuinely needs to change their travel plans, they won't have to -- those plans will be changed for you.

OTOH, warning people of the /possibility/ of an attack is useful -- remember, the reason the shoe bomber did /not/ destroy the aircraft he was on is because the passangers responded quickly and alertly. Rub two neurons together and try to figure out how that fact relates to the point currently under discussion, why don't you?

No, he didn't say there was a "high priority". He said there was an increased risk. You can take that information and do what you'd like with it. What they want you to do is go on business as usual. However, if they knew there was an increased risk, and didn't say anything, these same people would be crying that we "knew about 12/27 and didn't do anything to stop it" or whatever day it may be.

I prefer to know. If you don't, there is nothing wrong with that. If your blood pressure goes up every time you hear it then you most likely have greater issues. Do you become a nervous wreck when the traffic is heavy? When it's windy? When driving after 1am on Saturday night? These are all high risk times also.

Sean -- I just Googled 'homeland security advice', and lo and behold, at the bottom of the page was 'Don't be afraid, be ready, click for more'.

I clicked for more, and got an intro page, and at the bottom a link to:

http://www.ready.gov/

I'm just starting to scratch the surface of the resources on this page, but it looks to be exactly what you people were looking for.

And then I went back and looked at the DHS front page, and lo and behold, there's this *NICE BIG BUTTON* saying "Ready.gov" on the right-hand menu, right underneath "Be Prepared, Stay Informed" and the list of links there.

So no, they didn't 'bury' it.

Chuck: I think it's irresponsible to say "Al Qaeda wants to turn planes into weapons" out of one side of your mouth, and "Don't change your plans" on the other. If they had just said, this is where we think the threat is, then fine. And yes, I do like that if they had specifics they said them. But warning passengers isn't going to do any good when they die in flames, and the ones who don't die in flames don't need to worry about something they absolutely can't control. So the warnings are essentially meaningless. I can't say it any plainer than that.

Wait - yes I can. This system is designed to whip up fear.

You would find fault with anything they did, Adam. You've got the "I hate Bush" syndrome. It doesn't matter what it's about.

Listen to you. You're crying because they said "Be Careful"

And also, Chuck: Please let neuron-challenged purblind idiots like me in on your extensive national security experience. I'm sure we'd all be impressed.

Geoffrey: Ah, the last refuge of a scoundrel - the "I Hate Bush" canard. Good one. Hey, let's keep it on the merits of the argument, OK?

That's completely on the merits of the argument. As I stated before, you are crying because they said to be careful. That's it.

Sadly, you don't even realize how stupid that is.

> Chuck: I think it's irresponsible to say "Al
> Qaeda wants to turn planes into weapons" out of
> one side of your mouth, and "Don't change your
> plans" on the other.

And I think you're not even thinking.

Al Qaeda has /wanted/ to turns planes into weapons every day of the past two years, at least. So by /your/ plan, commmercial air travel should just have been cancelled for all those years, all day every day?

Wow, what was that crashing sound? Ah yes -- the US economy and national confidence, hitting the dirt.

> If they had just said, this is where we think
> the threat is, then fine.

Wow, now you're not even waiting for succeeding posts to completely contradict yourself -- you're doing so within the space of a single post.

For those of us who just tuned in, Adam has just bitched about Homeland Security telling us where they think the threat is at the exact same time he said "If they had just said, this is where we think the threat is, then fine."

[snip]
> Wait - yes I can. This system is designed to
> whip up fear.

OK -- first they're irresponsible idiots for telling people to /not/ panic and abandon their plans, and now they're irresponsible idiots for 'whipping up fair'.

I will now invite a comment from a guest speaker who will hopefully be more successful at communicating to you on your own intellectual level:

"Would it be too much trouble if we could make up our minds? Hmm?" -- Daffy Duck

Dammit. Chuckg beat me to it: I knew about ready.gov--when I went back to Dean's link after posting and looked again, there was the button. I stand corrected. However, if you hadn't known from Googling that ready.gov was the site to go to for advice to citizens, would you have had any idea from what it says on the button (nestled among a bunch of other clickable zones in similar colors) that you'd found it? There also was no link to it from the original page I found from the DHS homepage. Perhaps that doesn't mean it's "buried," but it does seem to me to indicate that what's being emphasized is how the DHS will respond after the fact, now how citizens can be prepared to respond during. And anyone who's actually gone to ready.gov knows that you have to click through 1,000,001 mini-paragraphs before you finally have a checklist of all the things you actually need to do.

Sigh. I'll take one more stab at this.

If they have news about specific threats, like the plane thing, say them. Fine. But also saying, "don't change your plans" is stupid. Obviously a lot of people would want to change their plans after such a pronouncement. And haven't you all been saying that the threat warnings are so people can adjust their behavior accordingly? If the threat is serious, people *should* change their plans, or at least be trusted to decide for themselves. How serious can the threat be, if the government is urging us not to change our plans? It's contradictory information, and it's not helpful.

As for a generalized terror warning, I stand by my assertion that it does nothing to give people real, useful information, and in the end does nothing but engender fear. So yes, I would get rid of that if it were up to me.

For all the talk about wanting reasoned discussion on this site, there's precious little of it.

Adam,

The discussion on this website is as reasoned as possible, considered the unique and deadly threats that are rendered against our citizens, our way of life, our country, and our very civilization, by a pack of fanatic scum whose only weapons are assassination and mass murder borne from stealthily organized sneak attacks upon our many vulnerable places.

You are thankful that I am not in command of the codes of the thermonuclear weapons and their triggers. But there are other loyal Americans in command of our defenses and of our ultimate offensive weaponry.

So you should not think even for a fraction of a minute that they would shrink from using the full and deadly powers of this great commonwealth, were it to save hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of American lives. Our commander in chief and his loyal military personnel understand fully that we of this country shall never restrain them from such extreme actions, should we be be pushed too far.

If you think otherwise, then ask those who survived the firestorms of Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima or Nagasaki about the temper of the American nation and its command leadership when the world's rats climb up our legs to bite us.

Because we can and will be more ruthless than the lot of them and their kind. If they are lucky, the Arabs and other islamists will learn this lesson before it is applied to their bodies and to their civilization.

If we can live in peace and harmony with islam and its Arab believers, we shall surely do so. But if their imams shall continue to preach our destruction, and incite the murderers among them to try carrying this out, and if we therefore cannot live in peace with islam, than we will destroy their religion and we destroy as many of them as necessary to restore the peace that we enjoyed before they attacked us. But we shall never be their slaves, even if we must burn their fifth or sixth of the world.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Geesh, it's comment sections like this that are the reason I'm beginning to hate the blogosphere.

THERE IS NOT SPECIFIC WARNING, Adam. That is not difficult to understand--even for you.

The government knows, from experience, that there is increased chatter on cell phones and other communication mediums right before a terrorist attack. They don't spell out their exact plans, but they chatter more. That's what Ridge told us when he raised the warning level. The terrorists are trying to be careful what they say, and we can only discern that there is something in the works. They've picked up bits of phrases, airplanes, gas vehicles, etc., but nothing specific.

We have a right to know that. I WANT to know that. That enables me to decide if I want to alter my plans, and alerts me that I should play closer attention to what's going on around me. It's not different from the weather man saying there is a 50% chance of rain tomorrow. I can decide if I want to carry my umbrella or risk it for the lighter load.

It also treats me like an adult not a sniveling, whining, constantly negative and cynanical victim who expects or thinks the government should or COULD take care of me and everyone else.

Dean, I couldn't agree more with your post. This is serious. Terrorist attacks are going to be with us for a long, long time. Having some, simple mechanism that the local agencies and The People can refer to to get a general sense of the intelligence reports, without the government having to tell us anything that would compromise intelligence sources, is and was a GREAT idea. We can ignore it if we want or we can act accordingly, like grown ups--who are responsible for ourselves, our families, and our neighbors.

Every time they raise the warning level, and lower it without us suffering from a terrorist attack, it should be viewed as a victory--another thwarted attempt and a signal that we've won another battle in this long war.

> Sigh. I'll take one more stab at this.

Since you did nothing but repeat your original assertions, consider me to have repeated my original responses.

You're not going to wear us down with mindless repetition.

MDT: How about if the weather man said, "There's an 80 percent chance of rain tomorrow," but in the next breath said, "But I urge you to leave your umbrellas at home." That would be pretty stupid, wouldn't it?

I, for one, prefer that they provide a warning system.

It's a healthy reminder to pay attention to my surroundings.

And I'm not the least bothered that it is non-specific.

Suppose they DID have quasi-specific information. Say they knew there were airplane plans and they knew it would go down at Dulles. Would it behoove them or anyone to disclose that without knowing all the players? Would it help to announce that without having made any further headway in an investigation?

Those who say, well the average joe who is not in law enforcement don't need to know, are being shortsighted.

All healthcare professionals in metro areas may need to be aware. Retired law or EMT professionals may be interested. And sure, there's not much they can do about it until some shit hits the fan, but better aware then sucker punched.

Chance favors the prepared mind.

Adam seems to be overly concerned about Ridge saying, "don't change your plans." Did he even say that?

Suppose he did. Was he talking to everyone? Or do you suppose he should single out some plans and not other plans? Do you really need the gov't to tell you what plans to change or not change? And suppose, with quasi-specific information he tells you to change the wrong plans? Don't fly United, fly Delta? Don't go to New York, go to Branson, MO.

Yeah, that sounds reasonable. That way the thugs can change their plans accordingly too.

CBK

Adam -- how's about you pick an analogy that actually applies, instead of stacking your deck with 80% bullshit?

Your twist of my analogy is wrong, Adam, as Chuck has pointed out. If the weatherman said, there is a 50% chance of rain tomorrow, so don't leave your house or you'll get wet, catch a cold, that will lead to pneumonia, and you'll die, that would be overkill. But that is exactly what is implied in the warning of rain. Take precautions or not, depending on what you want to do.

Ridge said that there was no reason to cancel any plans, because, they have no fucking idea where the terrorists will strike. Telling everyone to cancel their plans, when we have no idea if the planned attack will be on the roads, the airways, or other transportions sources, sporting events, shopping malls, etc., would be stupid. He could have said, what he really meant, that anyone with half a brain understood, which was "Be careful, watchful, and BRAVE!" We're not going to cower in our homes or give the terrorists a victory by ACTING afraid and letting what they threaten to do scare us. If you're scared and want to cancel your plans, have a good time. The rest of us prefer to have the information and show a little spine.

Derek: "I might engage the State Department to figure out exactly why it is that the rest of the world despises us enough to kill civilians."

THAT'S your sole, concrete idea? Look for root causes? Christ! How about: "looking for likely terrorists and stopping them"?? Talk about someone who is completely out in left field. Even if your suggestion has any merit (which is doesn't: why do peripheral thinkers always start with blaming America, asssuming we "deserved it?") it does absolutely nothing to prevent any terrorist attacks on the US, nor does it empower citizens of this country to defend themselves.

When someone is severely bleeding, you don't worry whether it's due to a knife, or broken glass: you stop the bleeding. Only later can you start thinking about things like "how did he get cut in the first place." Talk about lacking any sense of proportion, or priorities... (shaking head)

Adam: while I won't tar you with "Bush hater," please be honest, and admit that you have almost certainly have never given the Bush administration any credit for anything. In fact, I suspect that you are one of the "Shrub/Mr. Chimp is so stupid/venal, that he... (insert insult here)" brigade. If you look around here on Dean's World, you'll find a couple folks who feel the same way about the Clintons, but the difference is that the Clintons don't matter anymore, and anyone who reflexively discounts anything said by the administration is doing themselves, as well as the rest of the electorate, a great disservice.

Actually, Adam, if you really think anyone is dumb enough to try the suicide airliner stunt again, then you really haven't thought things through very well. That will never work a second time. And while it's clear that you don't think the alerts are a good idea, you haven't provided any compelling reason to agree with you. That's what argument (real argument, not just sniping) is about, no? Nor have you provided -as Dean said- a better idea.

To many other posters (and you should know who you are): do you want to persuade people, or just hurl random insults at anyone who disagrees with you?

Yes, I think Adam doesn't have an argumentative leg to stand on, but I'm not going to just stand there and swap rude names with him; how does that change his mind, or demonstrate the superiority of your position? If you have a better point, then make it. Or shut up. Please don't prove to the other side that all you can do is grunt, and throw rocks, ok?

You mean like you just did, Casey? No, I disagree. There comes a time when the whining and constant negatively has to be called out for what it is. Adam, in MY OPINION, is a jerk--he's unAmerican and unPatriotic. He doesn't care about security, he just wants to complain about Bush. I'm sick of it. I'm not trying to change his mind--I've given up hope he actually has one. What I'm not going to do is sit by politely and passively allowing people, like Adam, to continue to get away with their lies and bullshit. Confrontation is appropriate with people like this for exactly the same reason you gave about figuring why there are terrorists, after we've eliminated the threat. I'll worry about why Adam is an asshole, and how he got that way, after he's learned to stop sounding like one and screwing things up for other people.

The color codes are useful to me. If I was planning on flying this holiday season (which I'm not, because my friends and relatives are within driving distance), knowing that the Threat Level was at Orange would not cause me to change my plans. It would, however, make me show up earlier for the pre-flight security checks and keep a sharper eye out for suspicious behavior.

And if it turned out that I was on a plane with terrorists who managed to evade the security precautions? I'd do my level best to make sure their plans did not succeed. No damn way a plane I'M on will be piloted into a skyscraper. Frankly, I think there are enough people with the same resolve out there that no hijacking of an American flight will ever succeed again.

Why should the Threat Level indicators inspire fear? I certainly don't WANT to be on a plane with terrorists, but I'd rather it was me on that plane than anyone who would be paralyzed in fear. Do YOU fear them?

MDT: Cut your last comment, replace my name with yours, click paste, and you have my next comment. You wrote it for me! Thanks - I'm lazy, too.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go study for my "Careful, Watchful and BRAVE!" Boy Scout badge. Enjoy, friends.

Yeowtch, Arnold! And I thought I was hardline.

*shrug* Sorry Dean [and Connie], while I agree with your post on the whole, I'm going to stand with the right of people like Michelle to make the odd snarky joke on this. Simply put, the gallows humour provides a needed tension breaker in the Alert atmosphere. And the alert periods are a point where there's not a great deal that a civvie can do except worry a bit more, and take what they hope are sensible precautions on travel.

On the snarks? Heh - no one makes more use of gallows humour than a grunt in a combat zone, and the alerts drive home that we're still in a combat zone and have been since 9/11. I don't begrudge anyone the tension breaker.

What would I do instead of the alerts? Hard to put in comment space. Nothing "instead of", but I'd keep the alert, and I'd scrap and replace some of the current Homeland Security.

1) Arm pilots and flight crews effectively, rather than at the piddling "looky ma! we're doing something!" show rate that's being done now.

2) Fire a lot of the people in charge of airline security, and replace them with professionals instead of jackasses screening 87 year old grandmas because they're afraid of offending the PC police. And while they're afraid of offending, they're missing guys slipping box cutters and knives onto planes for a "prank"...

3) A lot of Arnold's suggestions are way over the pale, but we can do a better job on border interdiction. A modified form of Dale Brown's "Hammerheads" system would work, implemented properly. But - it'd take a major restructuring of our Coast Guard and Border Patrol. And Customs.

4) As others have suggested here and there, implementing the "well regulated militia" section of the 2nd Ammendment wouldn't hurt.

That's brief. An actual answer to that question would take a series of weblog articles to outline, examine, and either propose or scrap viable options, rather than a quickie in comments.

And I'll keep the snarky wisecrack option, thanks, until Homeland Security loses incidents like This one and shows they're not gradually trading our liberties for an illusion of security.

Gee mom, did I earn my right to be a wiseass now by providing a few options? ;]

If Ridge had told us that not only was there heightened risk, but also said "Change your plans! Stay at home!" -- that would be whipping up fear. The government is mostly doing the right thing here, as far as traditional media relations are concerned. Tell us what they know and let us make up our own minds. Isn't this how the media are supposed to work?

Given that, I do agree that the color system is needless and a bit sensational. Surely this system is not intended for use by other government agencies (as someone claimed). Do you honestly believe that your local law enforcement is going to be aided by the knowledge that we're at orange? If the fed knows enough to know to raise the alert, they are likely to share more precise information with those who need to take action to help prevent the attack.

It's good that the government tries to keep us informed, but I don't think they need a vague, idiot-friendly color scale to do it.

Arnold Harris is dead-on on this issue. The things he recommends here are very much what I myself have been recommending for quite some time, and especially ever since 9/11/2001. I'm glad he is so forthright about it. I have had it with Political Correctness: "don't offend anybody" We must defend our country and culture and stop appeasing our enemies.

The Code ORANGE is Legit

It my nature to talk smack about The People Upstairs, it's just what I do. Today the threat level was raised to ORANGE and, as a professional, I have to say:

Well done gentlemen.

The rest of the story...

(Sorry Dean: No MT = No Trackback)

One thing to remember while we're all rupturing arteries here, folks: Americans just aren't used to this stuff yet. It's in our can-do nature to look at information and want to know exactly what we're supposed to do with it. Nothing fundamentally wrong with that, as long as we also recognize that being a good citizen means being constantly vigilant while going about your business (unless we want a society of checkpoints at every major intersection and on-ramp). Some of the people who snort about the code system are just Bush haters, but others probably just haven't internalized that we're living in a different world now. A few years' time should take care of that.

Doesn't bother me any. Interesting that their color spectrum goes green, blue, yellow, orange, red, when logically or according to the rainbow it would go blue, green, yellow, orange, red. The symbolism is psychological I think. Green (cool, grass, trees) is felt to be a more relaxing color than blue (cold, ice, sky, distance), so it symbolizes the least degree of threat. The other three, from sunny yellow through fiery orange to blood red, are obvious. I love red, a passionate color (though in astronomy blue stars are the hottest), but I hope we never see a red alert from terrorism. I love colors. Colors, colors, colors, colors....

Well, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do, other than, as Governor Rendell just told me, do what I would normally do.

Which leads me to the conclusion that the only effects this public alert system has are to cover the gov't's a** in the event of an attack and to depress the economy.

Not to mention the burden this puts on already stressed cities.

I think a good idea to improve relations would be a "sister-city" program with Islamic cultures.

For example, Mecca could be New York's "sister-city," and if a terrorist attack occurred in New York, America would randomly shower Mecca with 10,000 times the explosives used in the attack.

This way, we wouldn't need any additional intelligence about whatever Islamic murder cult would be responsible - we'd just automatically return the favor in spades.

Post the list of "sister-cities" publicly, and perhaps the relevant Islamic centers might even have a certain incentive to assist in ensuring that our cities remained terrorism-free.

[PS: I think the alert system is silly; it boils down to, "Worry more this week, but don't do anything concrete." Dumb.]

You're right, praktike. It's the Dept. of Homeland Security's fault the nation faces the threat of terrorism. Damn them for burdening already stressed cities. We should just send all the public servants home for the holidays.

I haven't read the entire comment thread, most of what I skimmed seemed repetive of the same theme. So I'll add my 2 cents:

Except that the risk level has fluctuated up and down with no real captures or anything like that. (Of course, there *might* be captures of people and stuff, we'd probably never know, since they'd be hustled off to the super-secret court-system that doesn't actually have to protect their rights to a public trial or anything).

This is incorrect. Remember the Lackawanna Six? The terrorist cell that was caught in Oregon? How about the "Paintball Terrorists" caught in Virginia (where I live)? None of those folks are in the "super-secret court system" you mention - all of them are in our federal judicial system. All of them have lawyers and have gone through the normal American court system. Some have plead guilty of their crimes and are serving time in prison. Others are awaiting trial.

There are others that I'm sure I'm forgetting. Some failure...I'd like to see more failures like these.

With all due respect to the people who have intelligently argued the side I find myself on, but who have also likened the alert system to a, "Worry more this week, but don't do anything concrete" charade, remember that real things happen when these alerts change.

Yes it's color-coded so the elite among us might find it all too pedestrian and an affront to our intellectual prowess. But with this shift to "orange / high" good people who work as law enforcement officers no longer get time off. Rangers and park police at our nation's monuments will now work daily twelve-hour shifts until the alert changes (hopefully downard). My best friend won't be home for Christmas because he's scouring the sewer systems and inspecting suspicious vehicles near one of our national treasures. The point is - as few keep trying to drive home - the system is a crude but meaningful one for government -- and it also happens to keep us all in the loop.

Make of it what you will. Merry Christmas.

One more comment. As each of these alerts is put into place, the standard comment is that the level of "chatter" has increased - and that some of the "chatter" is from credible sources.

My questions is simple; why are these "chattering" folks not down in Gitmo *already*, "chattering" to CIA interrogators, loaded to the eyeballs with scopolamine? I mean, if we're listening in on their "chatter," presumably we know who they are - why not round 'em up ... or take 'em out?

SKS

The public color codes are simply a way to keep the rumors down to a minimum when the local governments and law enforcement agencies increase what they're doing.
The retirees from my Sheriff's Dept., the ones that kept their Peace Officer's Commissions through appointments to reserve status, are back in harness, mostly straining the buttons of their uniform shirts, but back in harness. They're mostly doing desk jobs or routine report taking, freeing up the regular Deputies for things like increased patrols of the reservoir and local defense industries as well as hardening other atractive targets.
This cannot be kept secret.
The things civilians can do are important and one should look over that ready.gov website. Most important, though is the simple fact that it keeps the rumor mongering to a minimum.

What I don't get every time they raise the level it's the same remark over and over: "The chatter and threats hasn't been this high since September 11th".

Wouldn't that mean in this case: "The chatter and threats hasn't been this high since May?". Not as effective in scaring people... but this is about the 5th or 6th time they've said it was as bad as 9/11. No wonder why no one takes it seriously.

However, I'd like to point out one thing that everyone keeps forgetting in the "The boy who cried wolf"

There really is a wolf at the end.

I don't think the snarky remarks & jokes are appropriate. To be forewarned is to be forearmed.

Jazer,

Surely this system is not intended for use by other government agencies (as someone claimed). Do you honestly believe that your local law enforcement is going to be aided by the knowledge that we're at orange?

Since I work in local law enforcement, I can answer that.

YES. The alert system is very useful. The Feds certainly know things that we are not in a position to know. When Homeland Security (hate that name) tells us the threat level is up and there is a higher than normal chance of an attack via airlines, we not only increase our own staffing, but we pay more than usual attention to our International Airport.

We have specific plans for what we need to do at various alert levels. A level orange kicks in a higher than normal staffing level, and includes a staffing PLAN where we put more deputies on patrol at the airport, have officers paying close attention to certain infrastructure items like our nuke plant, water treatment plant, fuel storage depot, etc, etc.

Of course, the government COULD just inform law enforcement of the higher level and not tell the citizens. But then people would not be prepared for the longer wait times at the airport (we are checking cars a LOT more closely as they come in), and would, rightly, be very concerned that we were stopping and checking cars when we weren't doing that a few days earlier.

Further, I can tell you for a fact that, when the alert level is up, reports of suspicious activity are up. Citizens are more attentive to the unusual, and quicker to let us know about it, when alert levels rise. And, while we haven't stopped any terrorists locally, this increased awareness has resulted in the apprehension of a ring of car thieves and quite some number of burglars.

SKS,

My questions is simple; why are these "chattering" folks not down in Gitmo *already*...

It's one thing to intercept cell phone conversations between people in Iran and people in Germany. It's quite another to FIND those talkers and take them into custody.

Peter,

The public color codes are simply a way to keep the rumors down to a minimum when the local governments and law enforcement agencies increase what they're doing.

Yes, simply put, that is their greatest effect.

Jen,

The thing to remember about the "super secret court system" is that it is "SUPER secret". We'll never hear about the hundreds of innocent citizens that have been swallowed up by it. All their friends and relatives know they were arrested, but the friends and relatives have been arrested too, to keep them from spreading the word. And, the make things more secure, everyone who knows THOSE people have been arrested has also been arrested.

Hang on a sec, there's someone at the door....

Dean, thanks for writing what a lot of us have been thinking. I just found your blog, read 'about Dean' and your smell is not bothering me. Loved the link to Indepundit, and agree.

The 'color coding' is a bit trite, but overall I can't suggest something better, so what the heck. I think under the circumstances laid out by Tom Ridge yesterday, people in airports will be more aware of 'unattended' packages, which are even more plentiful than ususal due to the holidays. I think someone going to Woodfield Mall or Mall of the Americas will also be a bit more observant than 2 days ago.

For Derek" I'm not sure what things are like in Port Owen, but most Americans are not too eager to turn in their "brown skinned" neighbors. (By the way, have you ever seen most Middle Eastern people? They're not all "browned skin.") Why do some Americans resort to the racial threat, government gonna get you garbage? Maybe because, like everyone else is saying, they don't have an alternative so they just bitch and moan. Statements like yours are so annoying and to paraphrase Ambassador Welch, can we move on? I find this boring.

Derek

Here's one good solid reason for the government to announce heightened levels of security to the American public: I work at a bank. In a major metropolitan area. A fairly large bank. We also have several federal agencies next door in an adjacent building. If I were to come in to work to see several HEAVILY armed guards standing in front of my building and the Fed's, don't you think that might be a little disconcerting? Not if I just heard that we're at "High Threat Advisory."

So in part it is announced to prevent the public from freaking out when a SWAT team is standing guard outside the New York Stock Exchange.

Dean, you're right on.

Thanks.

Is it me, or are the same "Derek" types that poo poo all over the warnings as useless, the same ones that "know" Bush "knew" about 9/11 and didn't share.

Also, What if (I know, if Ifs and Buts were candy and nuts) there was no 9/11 because the Bush administration actually had come out and done something drastic, say grounding all flights that morning (starting at say 6:00 AM) because of the intel?

My how our world view would be different.

"The color coding is a bit trite."
Yes, I would have thrown in a purple alert. Perhaps some magenta. Perhaps turquoise and chartreuse. But no brown, I hate brown.
Speaking of brown, though, I, too, have had it with this nonsense about brown skin. We're fighting an _ideology_ not a skin color. If somebody believes that there's only one God and that the whole world has to be made to submit to that one God ("Islam" means "submission"), that there is to be no separation between state and mosque, that women should wear veils, that homosexuals should be stoned to death, why then, they're my enemy, no matter if their skin is as light as mine (see Johnny Walker Lindh). They could be albino for all I care. Brown skin has nothing whatever to do with it.

Dean (&c),

There is validity to the idea that the terror-status is a guideline which can be used by local officials. (For example, to temporarily increase manpower.) However, I believe that the real audience for this color-level thing consists primarily of potential terrorists themselves.

Nothing else even begins to make sense.

DEAN YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. I RESPECT THE ARTICLE YOU WROTE AND PEOPLE NEED TO GROW UP. THIS IS SERIOUS.

You bet our people are on the ball and working 27/7 for us. This is no time for slack. Those of you that posted here respectfully for what the government is doing, are intelligent and I for one am very glad you are working to help out and paying extra attention. Dean has a wife and child, parents & other family members across this country. I can only imagine the many friends he has and it is out of his deep love and affection comes forth this post as only Dean can do. I respect Dean and his love for our country and I hope you reread his post and go to the hyperlinks he took the time to post folks. I am with him 100% & you bet I pay attention to the color codes.

HE WROTE THIS FOR US-do you GET IT?

Thank you, Dean.

Using the colors codes appears completely justified for: Local agency communication (I'd add that redundant communication channels increase the likelyhood a message gets through) and rumor control (both positive and negative - SWAT teams showing up for a bank robbery should not cause terrorist rumors) and reminding civilians to be more observant, among other things. Hmm. All these knowledgable folks appear on the thread, and the nay-sayers have no counter. (Except to complain: Why can't we get a little more certainy from our intelligence? Every leader since Ughh the First has been wishing for that. Consult the soothsayers!) Great post and great readers, Dean.

Yours,
Wince

Ever watch the late-night and Saturday-afternoon infomercials? They always have someone hysterically failing to properly operate some mundane tool that we all take for granted, like scissors or a mop or plastic wrap. In all such cases, these are people who are purposefully exaggerating a minor annoyance, hoping that you will have an emotional reaction similar to what they are feigning, and will act upon that feeling to their benefit rather than your own.
That's what Derek and Adam seem like to be embodying in their arguments...

I rather like Blixa's point that the alert system sends a vague message to terrorists that "we're on to you", but keeps them uncertain as to precisely which terrorist cells we're on to, so they all have to watch their posteriors. Kind of like the way concealed carry does for criminals: they know that some of us are armed, but they don't know _which_ of us are. Could be the big tough fellow, the little old lady, or the skinny little nerd, or all three.
As to the color scheme: I was having a bit of fun with my colors. It's fine as is.
As others more knowledgeable have posted here, the alerts help state and local governments prepare as best they can for whatever's going on, and keeps the rest of us informed as best we can be given everything.

I agree with you Dean. This is no joking matter.

What's more interesting is that the public is connecting the dots: Saddam is in jail, but in the latest Newsweek poll, 51 percent of Americans say they don’t feel much safer or more secure now (41 percent do).

Furthermore, (and contrary to what the punditocracy is saying) this seems to vindicate what Howard Dean said last Monday in his speech to the CFR.

I'm just saying.

Gary, you said:

The thing to remember about the "super secret court system" is that it is "SUPER secret". We'll never hear about the hundreds of innocent citizens that have been swallowed up by it.

I'm with law enforcement too (federal), you're right to a certain extent about the secrecy. As long as judges put these cases under seal, then they'll remain secret - which I think is a good thing, btw. My point is that these folks are not at Gitmo, they're in our local jails and prisons while they go through the American judicial system with lawyers to defend them.

But warning passengers isn't going to do any good when they die in flames

Very late to the party here, but that kind of sentiment pisses me off greatly, as was Adam's Boy Scout badge comment. I hope for his sake that he's near a Boy Scout when the poop hits the air circulator. He'll probably make it out the other side alive, assuming he's not huddled in a fetal ball.

But to my main point -- warning passengers who are about to die in flames does one hell of a lot of good. Does the phrase "Let's Roll" resonate with you even the little tiniest bit?

And anybody who can claim ignorance of ready.gov has to have been in a hole for a long frikkin' time. Was it just the Boy Scouts out there that bothered with registering it in our brain pans? Nope, definitely not -- much fun was made by all the usual lefty suspects. That's all right -- the dumb Boy Scouts will have their water and food waiting for them when they need it, just like they always do.

Jen,

I'm with law enforcement too (federal)...

Just don't take it personally when I haul off and say something totally negative about Feds.. :) (I have no use for the BATF whatsoever, and not much use for the FBI.)

...you're right to a certain extent about the secrecy.

I was exaggerating for effect, and to highlight the paranoia of the original poster. It may be possible to arrest a handful (and I mean a SMALL handful) of people in secret in this country, but it's not the sort of thing that can be kept secret for long. Once the press learns (from a concerned wife or mother) that someone has been arrested and then dropped out of sight, the fecal matter will hit the rotary air circulation device.

Of course, arresting, sayyyyy, Iranian nationals is another matter, I'll just have to trust their judgement on that. :)

Does the phrase "Let's Roll" resonate with you even the little tiniest bit?

It is no longer possible to take over a passenger plane in this country, not with box cutters, not with real guns. The passengers will swarm you, and if there is gunfire they will likely tear you to small bloody chunks.

You may be able to crash a plane, but you can't hijack one anymore, and you certainly can't crash it on a target.

The TSA should be spending all thier time and effort protecting cargo planes and checking luggage for explosives.

Gary,

I'm not with either of the agencies you mentioned - no worries. =)

I wasn't sure if you were being serious or sarcastic - I responded as if you were serious.

It is no longer possible to take over a passenger plane in this country, not with box cutters, not with real guns. The passengers will swarm you, and if there is gunfire they will likely tear you to small bloody chunks.

Which is kind of my point about the warning system. Airplanes are not the only places where Americans would be willing to be make a personal sacrifice to save the lives of others and/or rip terrorists to bloody chunks. Even with something so simplistic as the color system, it theoretically should heighten the awareness of the citizenry around the country, who theoretically can make a difference. ***I*** don't think it's theoretical, but this would not be the first time I've been optimistic about the individual American's capabilities. Call me Pollyanna.

Dean, I totally agree with you on this. At least we have something right? At least the gov. cares enough. Yes a lot of times they turn out to where nothing happens but that is GOOD! Did anyone ever stop to think the warnings scare off the attackers?

Dean, with you on this all the way. Give me color any day of the week, that way I remember that there is a war going on out there.

I really hope the only firestorm we see concerning terrorists is here on this comments board.

Dean, with you on this all the way. Give me color any day of the week, that way I remember that there is a war going on out there.

I really hope the only firestorm we see concerning terrorists is here on this comments board.

Dean, with you on this all the way. Give me color any day of the week, that way I remember that there is a war going on out there.

I really hope the only firestorm we see concerning terrorists is here on this comments board.

Dangit. Sorry about that. . .somebody cut off my mouse finger.

Scott Chaffin:
"And anybody who can claim ignorance of ready.gov has to have been in a hole for a long frikkin' time. Was it just the Boy Scouts out there that bothered with registering it in our brain pans?"

Is that so? Is it, like, advertised and things? If so, I feel much better. Seriously. Perhaps it's wrong to measure it against the earthquake-prep machine here in Tokyo, where we know we're due to get socked by Mother Earth any minute, but when I've visited home (New York and LA most recently), keeping your supplies on hand and your communication network clear hasn't seemed to be much in the air.

hu