Kerry Wants To Trash-Can The Color-Coded Terror Alerts
D. Spencer Hines
"From an interview with John Kerry in Rolling Stone magazine:
Q: What do you think of the color-coded terror alerts the Department of
Homeland Security issues?
Kerry: I think Americans, sadly, laugh at it. They don't know what to
do.
Q: Will you continue that program?
Kerry: No. I'm going to find some more thoughtful way of alerting
America.
Reader Jonathan Wilson offers a preview of Kerry's French-looking alert
system:
Level 1: Ennui
Level 2: Comme ci, comme ca
Level 3: Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose
Level 4: Regardez!
Level 5: Zut alors!"
James Taranto
The WSJ
------------------
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
stephan hurford
"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Hheed.147$E_3....@eagle.america.net...
Ian MacLure
news:hreed.239$qj2...@newsfe6-win.ntli.net:
L1: Move along nothing nothing here for you to see.
L2: Stay calm, everythings hunky-dory
L3: What? Me worry?
L4: Don't Panic
L5: You're all going to die, I'm going to Aspen.
or as Jimmah had it:
L5: Y'all are on your own, Bye.
IBM
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
David Thornley
D. Spencer Hines <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Rouge Alert!"
>
>"From an interview with John Kerry in Rolling Stone magazine:
>
>Q: What do you think of the color-coded terror alerts the Department of
>Homeland Security issues?
>
>Kerry: I think Americans, sadly, laugh at it. They don't know what to
>do.
>
point, why don't you address Kerry's second sentence.
What the heck am I supposed to do different at levels Green, Blue,
Yellow, Orange, Red, or for that matter Fuschia and Chartreuse?
If I'm supposed to stay alert, what for? If I'm supposed to prepare
for disaster, what sort, and how much should I prepare?
Should I keep my bathtubs full of water at Orange and Red, to guard
against some sort of water supply attack? How many rolls of duct
tape do I need on hand at each level?
Without some sort of guidance, publicizing the terror levels does
absolutely no good, and Kerry's remarks were quite perceptive and
apropos.
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
Jack Linthicum
> In article <Hheed.147$E_3....@eagle.america.net>,
> D. Spencer Hines <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >"Rouge Alert!"
> >
> >"From an interview with John Kerry in Rolling Stone magazine:
> >
> >Q: What do you think of the color-coded terror alerts the Department of
> >Homeland Security issues?
> >
> >Kerry: I think Americans, sadly, laugh at it. They don't know what to
> >do.
> >
> Okay, if you're going to post this as if it were some sort of anti-Kerry
> point, why don't you address Kerry's second sentence.
>
> What the heck am I supposed to do different at levels Green, Blue,
> Yellow, Orange, Red, or for that matter Fuschia and Chartreuse?
> If I'm supposed to stay alert, what for? If I'm supposed to prepare
> for disaster, what sort, and how much should I prepare?
>
> Should I keep my bathtubs full of water at Orange and Red, to guard
> against some sort of water supply attack? How many rolls of duct
> tape do I need on hand at each level?
>
> Without some sort of guidance, publicizing the terror levels does
> absolutely no good, and Kerry's remarks were quite perceptive and
> apropos.
He is actually trailing what was said last December and January by the
Republican head of the House Homeland Security Committee.
"WEB EXCLUSIVE
Newsweek
Updated: 4:57 p.m. ET Jan. 14, 2004Jan. 14 - U.S. Homeland Security
officials are coming under increasing political pressure to overhaul,
if not eliminate, their color-coded terror alerts as concern mounts
that the current system has become so dysfunctional that it may
actually be increasing the country's vulnerability to attack.
Describing last month's Code Orange alert as a "useless" warning for
the public, Rep. Chris Cox, chairman of the House Homeland Security
Committee, told NEWSWEEK that he now wants extensive changes in the
system that go well beyond the adjustments that are being publicly
contemplated by the Bush administration. "The more fundamental
question is whether the system can work at all," said Cox, a
California Republican, who has raised the matter in recent weeks with
top counterterrorism officials.
The concerns expressed by leading members of Congress—including Cox
and Rep. Jim Turner, the ranking Democrat on the Homeland Security
panel—have been heightened by some intelligence-community analysis
suggesting that the color-coded public alerts may have perverse
effects opposite to what the government intends. The public
ratcheting up of the threat level may actually alert Al Qaeda
operatives to measures that law-enforcement and security officials are
taking to thwart attacks—and might therefore prompt terrorists to
defer attacks that were conceivably in the planning stages, some
intelligence analysts say.
By the same token, the public downgrading such as was announced last
week—when Homeland Security scrapped the "Orange" alert for the
current lower-level Yellow—arguably puts terrorists on notice that
defensive measures have been reduced, and thereby might prod them to
strike. "We might actually be increasing the threat to American when
we reduce the threat level," said Cox. "
<more>
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3959828/
David Thornley
Jack Linthicum <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"WEB EXCLUSIVE
>Newsweek
>Updated: 4:57 p.m. ET Jan. 14, 2004Jan. 14 - U.S. Homeland Security
>officials are coming under increasing political pressure to overhaul,
>if not eliminate, their color-coded terror alerts as concern mounts
>that the current system has become so dysfunctional that it may
>actually be increasing the country's vulnerability to attack.
>
>Describing last month's Code Orange alert as a "useless" warning for
>the public, Rep. Chris Cox, chairman of the House Homeland Security
>Committee, told NEWSWEEK that he now wants extensive changes in the
>system that go well beyond the adjustments that are being publicly
>contemplated by the Bush administration. "The more fundamental
>question is whether the system can work at all," said Cox, a
>California Republican, who has raised the matter in recent weeks with
>top counterterrorism officials.
>
A public alert level can work if members of the public know what to
do differently. Compare it to the forest condition warnings in
these parts: when fire danger is high or extreme you can react by
not having outdoor fires. However, I really don't know what would
be reasonable for me to be doing differently at different alert
levels.
>The concerns expressed by leading members of Congress—including Cox
>and Rep. Jim Turner, the ranking Democrat on the Homeland Security
>panel—have been heightened by some intelligence-community analysis
>suggesting that the color-coded public alerts may have perverse
>effects opposite to what the government intends. The public
>ratcheting up of the threat level may actually alert Al Qaeda
>operatives to measures that law-enforcement and security officials are
>taking to thwart attacks—and might therefore prompt terrorists to
>defer attacks that were conceivably in the planning stages, some
>intelligence analysts say.
>
Yup. If the public is not to behave differently, and I've never
been told what do do differently between Red and Green, there is
absolutely no point in having a public alert level. Have a non-
public one and at least make the bad guys do a little work to figure
out what the alert level is.
The problem is that most security measures taking effect are either
for show or to carry out pre-existing agendas. For example, the
local sports stadium started checking purses after the 9/11 attack.
This isn't going to stop a terrorist, but it's quite effective
in stopping people from bringing food and beverages into the
stadium, to compete with the high-priced vendors. The alert
levels are just for show.
Fred J. McCall
:In article <7164002b.04102...@posting.google.com>,
:Jack Linthicum <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
:>"WEB EXCLUSIVE
:>Newsweek
:>Updated: 4:57 p.m. ET Jan. 14, 2004Jan. 14 - U.S. Homeland Security
:>officials are coming under increasing political pressure to overhaul,
:>if not eliminate, their color-coded terror alerts as concern mounts
:>that the current system has become so dysfunctional that it may
:>actually be increasing the country's vulnerability to attack.
:>
:>Describing last month's Code Orange alert as a "useless" warning for
:>the public, Rep. Chris Cox, chairman of the House Homeland Security
:>Committee, told NEWSWEEK that he now wants extensive changes in the
:>system that go well beyond the adjustments that are being publicly
:>contemplated by the Bush administration. "The more fundamental
:>question is whether the system can work at all," said Cox, a
:>California Republican, who has raised the matter in recent weeks with
:>top counterterrorism officials.
:
:A public alert level can work if members of the public know what to
:do differently. Compare it to the forest condition warnings in
:these parts: when fire danger is high or extreme you can react by
:not having outdoor fires. However, I really don't know what would
:be reasonable for me to be doing differently at different alert
:levels.
Plan for earlier arrival times for flights and expect somewhat more
delay generally.
:>The concerns expressed by leading members of Congress—including Cox
:>and Rep. Jim Turner, the ranking Democrat on the Homeland Security
:>panel—have been heightened by some intelligence-community analysis
:>suggesting that the color-coded public alerts may have perverse
:>effects opposite to what the government intends. The public
:>ratcheting up of the threat level may actually alert Al Qaeda
:>operatives to measures that law-enforcement and security officials are
:>taking to thwart attacks—and might therefore prompt terrorists to
:>defer attacks that were conceivably in the planning stages, some
:>intelligence analysts say.
:
:Yup. If the public is not to behave differently, and I've never
:been told what do do differently between Red and Green, there is
:absolutely no point in having a public alert level. Have a non-
:public one and at least make the bad guys do a little work to figure
:out what the alert level is.
Which means folks start missing flights and such. Not very smart.
:The problem is that most security measures taking effect are either
:for show or to carry out pre-existing agendas. For example, the
:local sports stadium started checking purses after the 9/11 attack.
:This isn't going to stop a terrorist, but it's quite effective
:in stopping people from bringing food and beverages into the
:stadium, to compete with the high-priced vendors. The alert
:levels are just for show.
Ah, and so we see your agenda. If you never go anywhere or do
anything (like if you're 15 or something), then you can just ignore
the alert levels. Someone else will take care of it for you.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Paul J Gans
>In article <Hheed.147$E_3....@eagle.america.net>,
>D. Spencer Hines <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Rouge Alert!"
>>
>>"From an interview with John Kerry in Rolling Stone magazine:
>>
>>Q: What do you think of the color-coded terror alerts the Department of
>>Homeland Security issues?
>>
>>Kerry: I think Americans, sadly, laugh at it. They don't know what to
>>do.
>>
>Okay, if you're going to post this as if it were some sort of anti-Kerry
>point, why don't you address Kerry's second sentence.
>What the heck am I supposed to do different at levels Green, Blue,
>Yellow, Orange, Red, or for that matter Fuschia and Chartreuse?
>If I'm supposed to stay alert, what for? If I'm supposed to prepare
>for disaster, what sort, and how much should I prepare?
>Should I keep my bathtubs full of water at Orange and Red, to guard
>against some sort of water supply attack? How many rolls of duct
>tape do I need on hand at each level?
>Without some sort of guidance, publicizing the terror levels does
>absolutely no good, and Kerry's remarks were quite perceptive and
>apropos.
We in New York City have been at Orange Alert since the system
was first established. Does that mean that we get our pro-rata
share of Homeland Defense spending? Of course not. It seems to
mean "Why waste money on them?"
So we pay for increased spending on safety out of our own city
pockets.
So I'd guess that Orange Alert means "Spend your own money".
----- Paul J. Gans
D. Spencer Hines
Gans, our radical-chic, Greenwich-Village Marxist, the Castro and Saddam
apologist, ALWAYS wants one more GOVERNMENT HANDOUT.
DSH
"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cle5jd$455$2...@reader1.panix.com...
D. Spencer Hines
Willie Black -- Brit Socialist, Soviet Apologist, Castro Apologist &
Saddam Appeaser -- referring to the terrorists seeking to kill us.
--------Cordon Sanitaire----------
That wins the prize for most air-headed, silly-buggers post of the
month -- in ANY of these newsgroups.
'Nuff Said.
WKensit
Paul J Gans wrote:
Your state votes democrat and still expects to receive equal
treatment by the republicans in power? Dreamer!
William Black
"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:yZWed.257$E_3....@eagle.america.net...
> "If you modify your behaviour they've won."
>
> Willie Black -- Brit Socialist, Soviet Apologist, Castro Apologist &
> Saddam Appeaser -- referring to the terrorists seeking to kill us.
>
> --------Cordon Sanitaire----------
>
> That wins the prize for most air-headed, silly-buggers post of the
> month -- in ANY of these newsgroups.
Always looking for the cowards way out then David?
Cowering in your custom built bomb shelter?
Run and hide, the boogie man will get you...
--
William Black
------------------
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government
Mike K
"David Thornley" <thor...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:417af86a$0$1352$a186...@newsreader.visi.com...
> In article <7164002b.04102...@posting.google.com>,
> Jack Linthicum <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> A public alert level can work if members of the public know what to
> do differently. Compare it to the forest condition warnings in
> these parts: when fire danger is high or extreme you can react by
> not having outdoor fires. However, I really don't know what would
> be reasonable for me to be doing differently at different alert
> levels.
>
> >The concerns expressed by leading members of Congress-including Cox
> >and Rep. Jim Turner, the ranking Democrat on the Homeland Security
> >panel-have been heightened by some intelligence-community analysis
> >suggesting that the color-coded public alerts may have perverse
> >effects opposite to what the government intends. The public
> >ratcheting up of the threat level may actually alert Al Qaeda
> >operatives to measures that law-enforcement and security officials are
> >taking to thwart attacks-and might therefore prompt terrorists to
> >defer attacks that were conceivably in the planning stages, some
> >intelligence analysts say.
> >
> Yup. If the public is not to behave differently, and I've never
> been told what do do differently between Red and Green, there is
> absolutely no point in having a public alert level. Have a non-
> public one and at least make the bad guys do a little work to figure
> out what the alert level is.
>
> The problem is that most security measures taking effect are either
> for show or to carry out pre-existing agendas. For example, the
> local sports stadium started checking purses after the 9/11 attack.
> This isn't going to stop a terrorist, but it's quite effective
> in stopping people from bringing food and beverages into the
> stadium, to compete with the high-priced vendors. The alert
> levels are just for show.
>
It's more cover-your-ass. If something does happen, the Administration can
say they had information and at least warned us.
Paul J Gans
>Paul J Gans wrote:
Expect? Oh my no. But it does make us grin when we hear
the incumbent rattle on about how he's fighting terrorism
and how we are all in this together. He seems to be either
an excellent liar or totally clueless.
Given our deficits (and the surplus of money sent to the government
over what we get back in return) we pay for it because if
anything happens, *we* will be damned inconvenienced.
But if it happens somewhere else in the country I suppose we
will be expected to send help.
If I'd only known that Stillwater, Oklahoma, was a major terrorist
target I'd not be quite so crass.
---- Paul J. Gans
David Thornley
Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>thor...@visi.com (David Thornley) wrote:
>
>:A public alert level can work if members of the public know what to
>:do differently. Compare it to the forest condition warnings in
>:these parts: when fire danger is high or extreme you can react by
>:not having outdoor fires. However, I really don't know what would
>:be reasonable for me to be doing differently at different alert
>:levels.
>
>Plan for earlier arrival times for flights and expect somewhat more
>delay generally.
>
very limited role for a very general status. It would be reasonable
to announce likely delays for the airports, but tying it to whether
somebody thinks terrorists are going to attack transmission towers
is a bit odd.
>:Yup. If the public is not to behave differently, and I've never
>:been told what do do differently between Red and Green, there is
>:absolutely no point in having a public alert level. Have a non-
>:public one and at least make the bad guys do a little work to figure
>:out what the alert level is.
>
>Which means folks start missing flights and such. Not very smart.
>
No, you just announce likely airport delays, not overall security
levels.
>:The problem is that most security measures taking effect are either
>:for show or to carry out pre-existing agendas. For example, the
>:local sports stadium started checking purses after the 9/11 attack.
>:This isn't going to stop a terrorist, but it's quite effective
>:in stopping people from bringing food and beverages into the
>:stadium, to compete with the high-priced vendors. The alert
>:levels are just for show.
>
>Ah, and so we see your agenda.
If you see something other than a desire for honest and effective
security, properly managed to get the best security for the buck
and inconvenience, you're wrong.
If you never go anywhere or do
>anything (like if you're 15 or something), then you can just ignore
>the alert levels.
You have mentioned airport delays twice, and nothing else. Some people
fly a whole lot, several times a week, and they need to know about
likely delays from airport security. They don't need to know if
terrorists are plotting something that doesn't have anything to
do with aircraft.
Lots of people fly rarely, and to them the airport security really
doesn't matter. They do go places, albeit more locally, and they
do do things.
Someone else will take care of it for you.
>
You know, Fred, there's a lot of things that somebody else takes
care of for me. I do certain things very well, and make money
on those things. I do certain things poorly, or don't want to
do them, and I pay money to other people. It's a market economy,
after all, and this is a transposition of "buy low, sell high".
There are also things that really shouldn't be done by too many
people, or people in too loose a group. There are actually a
whole lot of those, and I have nothing to do with the vast
majority of them. The people who are seriously trying to stop
terrorists work best without publicity over what they're doing
or what they're finding.
In many cases, the absolute best thing I can do is let other
people take care of things for me, and pay them in some manner,
either through individual deals or contracts, or taxes, or
some other manner. The exact same thing is true of you.
Ian MacLure
[snip]
> We in New York City have been at Orange Alert since the system
> was first established. Does that mean that we get our pro-rata
> share of Homeland Defense spending? Of course not. It seems to
> mean "Why waste money on them?"
>
> So we pay for increased spending on safety out of our own city
> pockets.
>
> So I'd guess that Orange Alert means "Spend your own money".
And why necessarily does more money spent within the
confines of NYC translate to better security?
T'ain't necessarily so.
The money is best spent making sure the goblins never
get anywhere near the continental US. If it comes down
to requiring a cop on every corner, things have gone
seriously pear shaped as the saying goes.
Taking down the Al Qaeda and their enablers ( Sodom the
Insane for instance ) does more for the nations security
than doubling the size of the NYPD. Not re-lecting some
of the looney toon statists NYC sends to Congress would
be a further boost to the national defence. What possible
good do having the likes of Nita Loewy(sp), Major Owens,
and Chuckie "Draft Em All" Rangel do for our national well
being?
Nought! Diddly! Nada! Squat! Bupkis even!
a.spencer3
"William Black" <ab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cljbaq$b7d$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
> "D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:yZWed.257$E_3....@eagle.america.net...
> > "If you modify your behaviour they've won."
> >
> > Willie Black -- Brit Socialist, Soviet Apologist, Castro Apologist &
> > Saddam Appeaser -- referring to the terrorists seeking to kill us.
> >
> > --------Cordon Sanitaire----------
> >
> > That wins the prize for most air-headed, silly-buggers post of the
> > month -- in ANY of these newsgroups.
>
> Always looking for the cowards way out then David?
>
> Cowering in your custom built bomb shelter?
>
> Run and hide, the boogie man will get you...
>
Now hold on. Hawaii is in mortal danger. It's a mere 60 years since their
last attack.
Surreyman
DHatheway
around the country but there are locales that DHS has identified as being at
greater risk. Why not spend additional money where the threats really are?
And, it's hardly a government handout in New York's case, more like getting
your tax dollars back... New York sends in a lot of tax money and doesn't
get
back nearly as much (81 cents on the doller in 2002, per the Tax
Foundation's
chart). Why not send them more DHS funding?
"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:TbSed.242$E_3....@eagle.america.net...
lal_truckee
The Japanese are now merely a nuisance - the clog up museums, but have
little effect elsewhere. Isn't that the goal?