I (somewhat) Agree With Harry Reid!

[ylexot]

Reid says Chertoff should resign

U.S. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid called for the resignation of Homeland Security Department Secretary Michael Chertoff on Wednesday, one day after the government dropped Las Vegas from a list of cities considered potential high-risk targets eligible for special anti-terrorism grants.
...
"Anyone who can't see that Las Vegas is a high-risk area doesn't deserve to serve in a position like that," Reid said.

I don't know if Chertoff should resign over this, but is is pretty to not consider "Sin City" as high-risk. Anybody that knows anything about risk knows that it is a combination of the likelihood of occurrance and the consequence if it does happen ("it" being a terror attack in this discussion). It's pretty obvious that the consequence would be high. The likelihood is debatable and would come from a number of factors like security (which Vegas has quite a bit), intel, etc. I'd guess that the likelihood would be in the medium range which would make the overall risk somewhat high.

And before anybody says it, yes, I know that Reid's main driver is likely the loss in funding for his state.

 

[vraiblonde]

Yet you let DHS put up security cams on the Strip and watch Harry Reid lose his ever-lovin' mind.

I'd have to look it up, but I have a memory that Reid has been an opponent of Homeland Security all along. Now he's pissed because they're not coming to his town. What's up with that?

 

[rraley]

Vrai, Harry Reid, like almost all Democrats, supported the DHS, but voted against the final version of the department that passed because it did not include provisions that required the department to hire union workers.

You know, I have a feeling that many of you would agree with old Harry on a number of things. He's against Roe v. Wade, and gun control, for two matters. He isn't some far left whackjob like a lot of you would like to think.

 

[Bruzilla]

Reid just wants money for his constituents. What makes "Sin City" an especially appealing target for terrorists? "We", meaning Americans, look at Las Vegas as a "sinful" place because we contrast it to what we feel is normal in our own hometowns. To the Islamic zealots most every city in the United States is a "Sin City." Lastly, what would the consequences of an attack on Las Vegas be? You'ld probably have half the United States saying it was God's way of saying they had it coming, and the other half wondering where the new gambling Mecca is going to be. There is no vital infrastructure, no vital transportation, manufacturing, or military. Just sand and hookers.

 

[vraiblonde]

it did not include provisions that required the department to hire union workers.

Hello??? Think about that for a minute. He voted AGAINST Homeland Security because of union workers, one of the biggest special interest groups in America.

If that doesn't raise a red flag with you, brother, you are hopelessly brainwashed. That's worse than him voting it down because he flat didn't like it.

 

[rraley]

I disagree vrai...I think that there are other special interest groups out there that are much more powerful than labor unions.

Both parties are unduely influenced by special interests. If you don't see that, then you are brainwashed.

 

[vraiblonde]

I think that there are other special interest groups out there that are much more powerful than labor unions.

Name one.

 

[Bruzilla]

The NRA? I think they've influenced far more laws and elections than any labor union in recent memory.

 

[rraley]

Indeed, Bru. The NRA (as you said), health insurance Companies, and oil companies have all been more successful in influencing government and in exerting power in the political process than labor unions.

 

[SamSpade]

Vrai, Harry Reid, like almost all Democrats, supported the DHS, but voted against the final version of the department that passed because it did not include provisions that required the department to hire union workers.

That in itself is sufficient to convince me that Dusty Harry is permanently out to lunch. Union labor is not superior labor; it's just better paid labor. When your existing security measures have failed with deadly consequences, it's not time to factor in how well-paid the security guard is - it's to make sure IT NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN. And by that you make sure you retain the ability to fire anyone who does a lousy job.

I don't know anyone who works for, or in, a labor union who would support anything close to the idea that unions provide the best performers - if anything, I have heard a handful bemoan the fact that it very often provides exactly the opposite. They exist to protect workers - not to provide the best workers.

I believe his opinion on this matter stems from the inescapable fact that those on his side of the aisle trivialize the terror threat in this nation, and that is the guiding principle in their behavior. They p!ss and moan about the war in Iraq and elsewhere, because in some part of their brain, we're not actually at *war* at all, and terrorists/radical Islamists pose a trivial threat to us.

I'm glad you reminded me about this - I'd forgotten about that. You know, if my security guard downstairs had screwed up and let a bomb explode in one of the wings of this building, the LAST consideration I would allow is to hire another person just like him with better benefits and almost no chance of being fired. I'd want the very best I could afford and total control over firing him the next time something deadly occurs.

Unless I thought the threat was minimal.

Then I'd be Harry Reid. I'd be concerned about how pretty the uniform was.

 

[ylexot]

Reid just wants money for his constituents. What makes "Sin City" an especially appealing target for terrorists? "We", meaning Americans, look at Las Vegas as a "sinful" place because we contrast it to what we feel is normal in our own hometowns. To the Islamic zealots most every city in the United States is a "Sin City." Lastly, what would the consequences of an attack on Las Vegas be? You'ld probably have half the United States saying it was God's way of saying they had it coming, and the other half wondering where the new gambling Mecca is going to be. There is no vital infrastructure, no vital transportation, manufacturing, or military. Just sand and hookers.

Terrorists want to terrorize. They don't care about vital infrastructure, trasportation, manufacturing, or military. Was anything vital hit on 9/11? Not really, but the consequences were high because ~3k people died and some very symbolic buildings were hit. They want to make a statement by having large numbers of dead bodies on the news. Any location with a high population density would have a large consequence...even if they are just hookers and gamblers. Like I said, likelihood is debateable and would take into account factors that neither of us knows. However, I'd say the likelihood is higher that St. Mary's or wherever it is in FL that you live.

 

[SamSpade]

Terrorists want to terrorize. They don't care about vital infrastructure, trasportation, manufacturing, or military.

This is why I don't even understand what the terrorists - and I think the news media need to call them that, instead of "insurgents", because at this point, they're killing their own people - want. They're not making demands; Osama, at least, is against Americans, our way of life, the fact that we're infidels, that we support Israel, and at the top of his list (at least, originally) we have a presence in Saudi Arabia. He's made these qualms known. al-Qaeda has also expressed their purposes in their violence in Europe - get out of Iraq.

But the violence in Iraq makes little sense now - because we've made it clear enough that once the situation is peaceful, we will LEAVE. It seems to me, the *smart* thing to do would be to lay low for a couple years and wait till we leave. But they don't do that. They're doing the one thing that will make Iraqis HATE them, and force us to *remain* (unless we're wimps, and run like hell, which is the ONLY reaso I can think of for them to do this). They're attacking law enforcement recruiting - they're attacking Shiites - and they're attacking commerce. I can't see a purpose other than fomenting civil war.

 

[vraiblonde]

The NRA (as you said), health insurance Companies, and oil companies have all been more successful in influencing government and in exerting power in the political process than labor unions.

Regardless, the unions are a very powerful political force - obviously, or else they wouldn't have been able to get Harry Reid to vote against Homeland Security .

Curious, Raley, what you would say if Kay Bailey Hutchison voted against HS because it didn't include provisions favorable to oil companies? Or Haliburton?

 

[SAHRAB]

The NRA? I think they've influenced far more laws and elections than any labor union in recent memory.

Riddle me this, Why is the NRA, which is made up of Millions of Like minded Law Abiding (something libtards forget) UNITED STATES CITIZENS, a bad thing, because it Supports an agenda that its WILLING LAW ABIDING MEMBERS want?

Whereas, whats the Report on the Teachers Union now? 65 million Dollars, paid by its (not necessarily Willingly joined) Members to ....

A great editorial in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal entitled, "Teachers' Pets", about the profligate squandering of members' money by the gargantuan National Education Association (NEA). By the Journal's reckoning, the NEA burned in excess of $65 million of their members' dues (average teacher's salary is $48,000, in case you were wondering) on far-left causes -- many (if not most) of which are not in synch with their members' views. The NEA report also reveals that over half of their 600 employees make six-figure salaries. Says the Journal, "It seems you're better off working as a union rep than in the classroom."
The NEA gave $15,000 to the Human Rights Campaign, which lobbies for "lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equal rights." The National Women''s Law Center, whose Web site currently features a "pocket guide" to opposing Supreme Court nominee Sam Alito, received $5,000. And something called the Fund to Protect Social Security got $400,000, presumably to defeat personal investment accounts.

NEA Report on what it Spent its Member Dues on (<--Linky)

This is a Department of Labor (<--Linky) site, from there you can click on this link to search particular unions (<--Linky), and follow the money.

Pass it on.

 

[Bruzilla]

Terrorists want to terrorize. They don't care about vital infrastructure, trasportation, manufacturing, or military. Was anything vital hit on 9/11? Not really, but the consequences were high because ~3k people died and some very symbolic buildings were hit. They want to make a statement by having large numbers of dead bodies on the news. Any location with a high population density would have a large consequence...even if they are just hookers and gamblers. Like I said, likelihood is debateable and would take into account factors that neither of us knows. However, I'd say the likelihood is higher that St. Mary's or wherever it is in FL that you live.

Yes terrorists want to terrorize, but a group of terrorists is not like an invading army that can take and hold territory. They are extremely limited as to what they can do due to resources, personnel, and logistics, so they need to ensure that whatever they do yields the maximum return possible. They are also very driven by symbology, as was alluded to in rr's comment. The fact is that Islamic fundamentalists do not view Las Vegas as being any more decadent than any other American city. We view it that way because most of us don't live in cities where prostitution and gambling are so prevalent, but attributing that same sentiment to Islamic Fundamentalists is just silly.

Any terrorist leader has to pick a target that is going to yield a maximum return on the message they are wanting to spread, will get the most press resulting from casualties and or damage to infrastructure, and has a great chance of success... otherwise the mission is not worth risking and wasting resources on. So with that in mind, why would a terrorist ever target Las Vegas? They have a relatively low population density, there's no strategic or logistic value to the place, there's no major media, just sand, hookers, and gamblers. So... do you plan out a mission and expend resources to blow up a hotel and kill a couple of hundred people, or do you plan a mission where you can kill thousands or tens of thousands? Where you can cause major disruptions in business, transportation, or finances? Sorry, but planning an attack on Las Vegas would be as silly as planning an attack on Mechanicsville.

If another attack occurs it will be in Los Angeles, Washington DC, New York, Chicago, or another major mainstream city... not Vegas.

 

[Bruzilla]

Riddle me this, Why is the NRA, which is made up of Millions of Like minded Law Abiding (something libtards forget) UNITED STATES CITIZENS, a bad thing, because it Supports an agenda that its WILLING LAW ABIDING MEMBERS want?

Whereas, whats the Report on the Teachers Union now? 65 million Dollars, paid by its (not necessarily Willingly joined) Members to ....



NEA Report on what it Spent its Member Dues on (<--Linky)

This is a Department of Labor (<--Linky) site, from there you can click on this link to search particular unions (<--Linky), and follow the money.

Pass it on.

Riddle me this... where did I say that it was a bad thing? I was merely responding to Vrai's comment that there were no special interest groups who had more influence than labor unions... which isn't true. I'm a member of the NRA and support most of their positions... although I've had doubts about them ever since the NFA discussions in 1985.

 

[ylexot]

Yes terrorists want to terrorize, but a group of terrorists is not like an invading army that can take and hold territory. They are extremely limited as to what they can do due to resources, personnel, and logistics, so they need to ensure that whatever they do yields the maximum return possible. They are also very driven by symbology, as was alluded to in rr's comment. The fact is that Islamic fundamentalists do not view Las Vegas as being any more decadent than any other American city. We view it that way because most of us don't live in cities where prostitution and gambling are so prevalent, but attributing that same sentiment to Islamic Fundamentalists is just silly.

Any terrorist leader has to pick a target that is going to yield a maximum return on the message they are wanting to spread, will get the most press resulting from casualties and or damage to infrastructure, and has a great chance of success... otherwise the mission is not worth risking and wasting resources on. So with that in mind, why would a terrorist ever target Las Vegas? They have a relatively low population density, there's no strategic or logistic value to the place, there's no major media, just sand, hookers, and gamblers. So... do you plan out a mission and expend resources to blow up a hotel and kill a couple of hundred people, or do you plan a mission where you can kill thousands or tens of thousands? Where you can cause major disruptions in business, transportation, or finances? Sorry, but planning an attack on Las Vegas would be as silly as planning an attack on Mechanicsville.

If another attack occurs it will be in Los Angeles, Washington DC, New York, Chicago, or another major mainstream city... not Vegas.

Funny, I don't remember ranking the likelihood of an attack at Vegas being higher than NY, LA, DC, etc. It's definitely higher that Mechanicsville And if you think that Vegas has a low population denisty, I guess you've never been there over the weekend. Hit a casino or two with chem/bio and you've got your thousands or tens of thousands. Plus you have the added chaos from people prizing money over their own safety which would boost the death toll.

The point (for the very slow) is to adjust funds based on risk and if you think that the risk for Vegas is low, you're an idiot. Hell, I'd put the Mall of America down as a medium to high risk...especially on days like Black Friday.

 

[SAHRAB]

Riddle me this... where did I say that it was a bad thing? I was merely responding to Vrai's comment that there were no special interest groups who had more influence than labor unions... which isn't true. I'm a member of the NRA and support most of their positions... although I've had doubts about them ever since the NFA discussions in 1985.

Sorry mistook it as critiscm. usually (it seems) when someone mentions the NRA and their political dealings its in a negative light.

Ive had many doubts about the NRA mainly due to their failing to act on/for/against legislation unless it somehow affects hunting.

 

[vraiblonde]

The point (for the very slow) is to adjust funds based on risk and if you think that the risk for Vegas is low, you're an idiot.

Lost Wages can #### in their boot for all I care. That's what they get for voting in a psychotic left winger who votes against their security in favor of campaign contributions for himself.

When Takoma Park voted themselves a "Nuclear-Free Zone" my most fervent prayer was that they'd get hit with a 1kt neutron and teach their hippie asses a lesson.

 

[rraley]

Regardless, the unions are a very powerful political force - obviously, or else they wouldn't have been able to get Harry Reid to vote against Homeland Security .

Curious, Raley, what you would say if Kay Bailey Hutchison voted against HS because it didn't include provisions favorable to oil companies? Or Haliburton?

I would say that Senator Hutchinson acted out of far too much regard for a special interest, but I would not say that she opposed the DHS.