We needed a stupid answer...
Bureacracies can come up with the most insanely stupid answers. Which is where this gem of a story comes from. When explaining why New York City is getting less anti-terror funding next year, a Dept of Homeland Security spokesman explained:
New York has no national monuments or icons, according to the Department of Homeland Security form obtained by ABC News. That was a key factor used to determine that New York City should have its anti-terror funds slashed by 40 percent--from $207.5 million in 2005 to $124.4 million in 2006.
Heh. I wonder if if they've seen this:
Ironically, the Statue of Liberty is listed as a National Monument. It's things like this that prevent me from believing in conspiracies. Large organizations - public or private - are just too stupid to manage a good conspiracy :)
Comments
Spoiling The Fun
[] June 2, 2006 9:17:07.829
You are spoiling Americans nation past time - conspiracy theories.
[Tom Sattler] June 2, 2006 10:10:49.425
Uh .... their statement is actually true, because the Statue of Liberty is not part of New York City. It is not even part of New York State. The statue of Liberty technically is in New Jersey.
[James Arendt] June 2, 2006 11:04:28.792
Tom, you are so right!
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=statue+of+liberty&ll=40.6894,-74.0447&spn=0.061567,0.215607&om=1
Doesn't that look wrong? :)
Both the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island are in NJ borders, but NY manages (like a hand reaching out) to get the Statue and share Ellis Island. It makes me think back when NY claimed they were going to "host" the SuperBowl.... Where? The Meadowlands? lol
stupid indeed
[Charles Monteiro] June 2, 2006 13:32:21.792
New York City itself is a national icon, it is why we got hit in the first place
[Daniel Berger] June 2, 2006 14:49:16.186
I saw a pretty good interview with Chertoff on The News Hour last night where Chertoff explains, in pretty clear terms, why NY is getting less funding. The short of it was that it was independent assessment, and that NY had received an amount well above average last year. This year's amount was merely a return to "the norm".
Actually, that's the first time I've heard Chertoff really speak, and he seems like a level headed, intelligent guy. He did decry the "minimum funding" that Congress had setup for each state, and I agree with his stance that we can't adjust the Homeland Security $$$ every time a politician whines, otherwise you ultimately subvert the whole process, and it will have to be taken out of Congress' hands completely at some point.
[] June 2, 2006 15:57:04.068
"taken out of Congress' hands completely at some point"
I know United Statesians often go gaga over foreign royalty, but do you all want a King that much? No matter how stupid, I'd rather have such things in the hands of the legislature, not the executive.
Re: We needed a stupid answer...
[ James Robertson] June 2, 2006 17:00:03.416
Comment by James Robertson
There are ways to leave it with Congress, but tie their hands some. The way they normally decide military base closures, for instance. Most US bases are Indian war relics, and should close. They are local pork barrels though, so they stay open. The solution: a commission that creates a list of bases to close, and Congress can either approve the whole list, or reject the whole list - but not make changes.
I suppose you could try the same thing here.
[Tom Sattler] June 3, 2006 0:05:07.076
If everyone remembers back to 9/11, New York and Washington got hit, but none of those planes took off from New York or Washington. They took off from Boston and Newark. No matter how much "antiterrorism" money went to New York, it wouldn't have done anything to prevent the 9/11 attacks. There are other places to direct blame, such as our former Vice President. Remember the Gore commission?
If you don't, a quick timeline is here: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24638