JohnRich 4 #26 June 5, 2006 Here's some details for you. Oh, but wait, you already know all this stuff, because you're the biggest national expert on Homeland Security. Well, never mind. Let's just consider this a primer for everyone else who's not as knowledgeable as you on this subject. How Homeland Made Its Antiterror Grants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterblaster72 0 #27 June 5, 2006 QuoteHere's some details for you. How Homeland Made Its Antiterror Grants I saw nothing in that article that could possibly further the point that you're trying to make (whatever that may be). What I do see is typical Bush administration secrecy/lunacy. QuoteHomeland decided money would be handed out on the basis of a "risk" score, in which Homeland bureaucrats rated the likely exposure of a region to possible attack; and an "effectiveness" score, in which secret "peer review" panels of homeland-security experts from around the country—including state and local agencies—rated the quality of specific grant proposals submitted by cities and states. The names of officials enlisted to rate grant applications are being kept secret, the department says, to insulate the peer-review process from politics. ...and of course it's a coincidence that the red states reap the most benefits from the new funding grants. I'm sure this evaluation process was done with the highest degree of objectivity and integrity. Whoops, I forgot to add the emoticon there: For the thousands of tax dollars that the government gets from me, I would expect them to know that the Statue of Liberty, Empire State building are more likely targets for the terrorists than Podunk, Kansas since their main goal is to take as many people out as they can and do as much economic damage as possible. I never claimed to be an expert in homeland security as you say I am (though I do appreciate the compliment); it certainly doesn't take an expert to realize that you don't slash funding to your main target by 40% while raising funding for extremely unlikely targets significantly. I'm feeling like a broken record. Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #28 June 6, 2006 QuoteMeanwhile, 5 years after 911, a terrorist can still row across the Hudson with a dirty bomb if he wanted to. 5 years of time has proved you WRONG. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #29 June 6, 2006 Well, according to DHS, the individual states have to submit plans and information to DHS. Those plans and information are used to determine the amount of grant monies disbursed to the state. Sounds like someone at the NYS DHS program may have screwed the pooch...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #30 June 6, 2006 QuoteWell, according to DHS, the individual states have to submit plans and information to DHS. Those plans and information are used to determine the amount of grant monies disbursed to the state. Sounds like someone at the NYS DHS program may have screwed the pooch... Probably wrote the plan in Queens English and got points off for "dese dems and dose".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #31 June 6, 2006 Quote Probably wrote the plan in Queens English and got points off for "dese dems and dose". You forgot the "youse guys".... Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #32 June 6, 2006 QuoteI never claimed to be an expert in homeland security... And yet your sputtering here indicates that you think you know better than Homeland Security, the FBI, and all the other experts around the country and in various States, as to what the most pressing needs and priorities are. The bottom line is that this is just another of the many unthinking anti-Bush tirades we see here in this forum. Regardless of how those monies had been allocated, you would have complained about it. If they had given New York the same disbursement as last year, you probably would have been here griping loudly; "Well, what about all the other places that could be hit by terrorists? Bush is a freakin' idiot for ignoring those other places!" And of course, the fact that you're from New York wouldn't have anything to do with your pro-New York opinion. Yawn. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterblaster72 0 #33 June 6, 2006 QuoteAnd yet your sputtering here indicates that you think you know better than Homeland Security, the FBI, and all the other experts around the country and in various States, as to what the most pressing needs and priorities are. That's right -- I don't trust their judgement, especially if they take a secretive, black-box approach to the funding for states that get way more bang for their buck on each tax dollar paid. Quoteblah blah blah... If they had given New York the same disbursement as last year, you probably would have been here griping loudly; "Well, what about all the other places that could be hit by terrorists? Bush is a freakin' idiot for ignoring those other places!" Wrong. One thing I've credited this president for is the fact that we've not had another terrorist attack since 2001. We've been on the right track as far as security in NYC goes. But to think that the job is done here to the point where funds should be cut by 40% is absolutely foolish. It makes no sense to me in light of the fact that so much work still needs to be done. QuoteAnd of course, the fact that you're from New York wouldn't have anything to do with your pro-New York opinion. Just as I'm certain of the fact that you're from Texas wouldn't have anything to do with your pro-Bush opinion. I use the transit system here almost daily and see its vulnerabilities. And that's just one of the many vulnerabilities that needs to be worked on. The improvements that still need to be made won't get done with 40% less funding. For an administration that's constantly pimping an illusion of strength on the issue of national security and feeding off post-911 fear, I expect better. Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #34 June 7, 2006 Get NYDHS off their ass and have them turn in the correct information and follow the plan guidelines if they aren't already.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #35 June 7, 2006 QuoteI use the transit system here almost daily and see its vulnerabilities... Well, maybe now we're getting down to the heart of the matter. You just want all that federal money to make yourself safe, and you don't really care about all those other people in other cities who are also at risk. How altruistic of you! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #36 June 7, 2006 > You just want all that federal money to make yourself safe . . . Well, it would actually make the 4.5 million NY commuters safer, as well as the 22 million people who live and work around the mass transit lines. It would seem like a reasonable use of federal money to protect against a threat that threatens ~10% of the population of the US. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #37 June 7, 2006 Quote to make yourself safe, and you don't really care about all those other people in other cities who are also at risk. How altruistic of you! No shit - don't we all want to feel safe? You willing to give up the safety of yourself and your family to make complete strangers safer? Some would give up for themselves, but I know no one that would trade off for their personal friends and family. I'd call pot/kettle on anyone using that tactic. BV - same note, I have no issue if MB wants it for personal reasons - it doesn't always equate selfish, sometimes just the opposite. Riding in those cars and seeing the security risks, I doubt any of us would visualize 'joe the bum' over there having a catastrophe as easily as we'd visualize our sisters and brothers and best friends in jeopardy. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterblaster72 0 #38 June 7, 2006 mnealtx: QuoteGet NYDHS off their ass and have them turn in the correct information and follow the plan guidelines if they aren't already. You're making an assumption that the DHS offices for the smaller cities where the threat is extremely unlikely actually did their paperwork. And I'll bet if they did, it's probably because they don't have much else to do. To make a serious security issue reliant on some BS paperwork is exactly the kind of bureaucratic idiocy that you republicans claim to have such a disdain for. JohnRich: QuoteWell, maybe now we're getting down to the heart of the matter. You just want all that federal money to make yourself safe, and you don't really care about all those other people in other cities who are also at risk. How altruistic of you! Yeah, you're right, it's all about me. Never mind the fact that an attack on NYC would likely kill thousands more than an an attack in Louisville, KY ever would...and never mind that an attack on NYC will have seismic effects on the entire country's economy. That was *weak*, Mr. Rich. I know you're scrounging, but I'm sure even you could do better than that. Maybe you should try bringing guns into the discussion or something. Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #39 June 8, 2006 QuoteYou're making an assumption that the DHS offices for the smaller cities where the threat is extremely unlikely actually did their paperwork. And I'll bet if they did, it's probably because they don't have much else to do. To make a serious security issue reliant on some BS paperwork is exactly the kind of bureaucratic idiocy that you republicans claim to have such a disdain for. Yeah, you're right, it's all about me. Never mind the fact that an attack on NYC would likely kill thousands more than an an attack in Louisville, KY ever would...and never mind that an attack on NYC will have seismic effects on the entire country's economy. Ok... so you're saying that NY shouldn't have to follow the laws/regs that everyone else does...gotcha. I'll disregard the rest of the thread, now... after all, it's so much easier to blame fed.gov for it, instead...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #40 June 8, 2006 QuoteNever mind the fact that an attack on NYC would likely kill thousands more than an an attack in Louisville, KY ever would...and never mind that an attack on NYC will have seismic effects on the entire country's economy. Yeah, you're right. Those darned hillbilly rednecks in Kentucky aren't as important as you are in New York. New York City will receive $124 million - a larger amount than any other city, and comprising 60% of the national total. So I don't know what the heck you're bitching about. How much more do you want? 90%? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterblaster72 0 #41 June 8, 2006 QuoteYeah, you're right. Those darned hillbilly rednecks in Kentucky aren't as important as you are in New York. Who is going to attack Kentucky, Nebraska, etc? Get real. If you read the original article: QuoteThe fire chief of Charlotte, N.C., admits his city doesn't have any national monuments in danger of being bombed. And a spokesman for Omaha is "not aware" of a single credible threat against his municipality since 9/11. QuoteNew York City will receive $124 million - a larger amount than any other city, and comprising 60% of the national total. From this article: QuoteTracy A. Henke, assistant secretary for grants and training, told reporters that the new funding distribution was the result of a better review process and does not indicate lesser risk for cities such as Washington or New York. Officials noted that Congress had cut the program by about $125 million in 2006, to $711 million, and that New York, Washington and other major cities still would receive the largest shares. So I'd love to hear how you figure $124m is 60% of $711m. My calculator shows 17%. QuoteHow much more do you want? 90%? To reiterate my point for the sixth time, NY DHS funding should not be cut by 40%. NY and DC still get the largest shares -- and they should because that's where the threat is most real -- but the work is *very* far from done, and cutting by 40% will keep the work from getting done and still leave our vulnerabilities exposed. Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #42 June 9, 2006 QuoteWho is going to attack Kentucky, Nebraska, etc? Get real. The terrorists could attack anywhere. Who would have thought they would plot to destroy landmarks and kill people in Canada? But they were doing it... QuoteSo I'd love to hear how you figure $124m is 60% of $711m. My calculator shows 17%. Newsweek: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13082207/ Oh, I misread that. The 60% is the amount that New York's allocation this year is, compared to last year. Still, they're getting a larger chunk than anyone else. I repeat my question: How much more do you want? QuoteNY DHS funding should not be cut by 40%. NY and DC still get the largest shares -- and they should because that's where the threat is most real How do you know that? Do you have an inside track on how the terrorists are thinking? FBI terrorism experts were involved in the decisison-making - I think they probably know more about the current threats than you do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterblaster72 0 #43 June 9, 2006 QuoteI repeat my question: How much more do you want? $711m is 14% less than last year's $826m total budget. So if we get a cut (which we shouldn't in the first place, since the threat here is greatest), it shouldn't be much more than 14%. QuoteHow do you know that? Do you have an inside track on how the terrorists are thinking? It's just common sense. A strike here would have the most impact since NYC has such a high density of people on any given workday. And since the city has so many important financial institutions, the effect would be most damaging to our economy. If that's not convincing enough, well, they've already struck here. There's a reason why similar attacks occurred in London and Madrid and not Nottingham, UK or Salamanca, Spain, for example -- the population density isn't as high as it is in the bigger cities. QuoteFBI terrorism experts were involved in the decision-making No, a black-box secret panel of "experts" was involved in the decision-making. Therefore, neither you nor I really know who was involved. Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #44 June 9, 2006 Quote$711m is 14% less than last year's $826m total budget. So if we get a cut (which we shouldn't in the first place, since the threat here is greatest), it shouldn't be much more than 14%. So does all of the first 826m need to get re-spent the next year? Did they only buy stuff that lasted a year? Is it all labor? In many cases, a first year's budget covers a lot of infrastructure costs that don't need repeating too soon. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #45 June 9, 2006 QuoteQuote$711m is 14% less than last year's $826m total budget. So if we get a cut (which we shouldn't in the first place, since the threat here is greatest), it shouldn't be much more than 14%. So does all of the first 826m need to get re-spent the next year? Did they only buy stuff that lasted a year? Is it all labor? In many cases, a first year's budget covers a lot of infrastructure costs that don't need repeating too soon. Didn't you know any reduction in spending on a Govt. program from one year to the next, regardless of the reason, is a "Draconian Cut" likely to cause death? If you oppose it, then you are trying to kill or starve people. Wait till you see the panic, hysteria, and demands for Govt. freebies everytime a hurricaine appears this year. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #46 June 9, 2006 QuoteWait till you see the panic, hysteria, and demands for Govt. freebies everytime a hurricaine appears this year. I don't want anyone killed, but having NO swamped again would teach an even stronger lesson than what was taught last year: don't mess w/ mother nature. We can't stop nature, but we sure can elect not to build entire cities below sea level, or at least have the common sense not to re-imburse those that choose to do so. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterblaster72 0 #47 June 10, 2006 QuoteIn many cases, a first year's budget covers a lot of infrastructure costs that don't need repeating too soon. Well, that infrastructure certainly is not in NYC yet, not unless you consider a few barricades in front of Grand Central infrastructure...like I said, *tons* of work still needs to be done. You wouldn't believe how easy it would be to duplicate London July 2005 in NYC on any given morning. Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hairyjuan 0 #48 June 11, 2006 Those who fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it--George Santyanna A little old lady (who survived Auschwitz) said this about "homeland security", "It is the same thing Hitler did! She had tears in her eyes when she said it. He who would trade temporary security for LIBERTY, deserves neither and will lose both,--Ben Franklinwe are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
