Not sure how much to credit this yet but the Guardian is reporting a quote from the Dept. of Health and Human Services stating that Katrina’s death toll is in the thousands already. Thousands to me is somewhere around 2000~3000. Does this mean that the whole nation will enact draconian anti-hurricane policy now? Why do we discriminate between tragic events?
Does 3,000 killed by Terrorists trump 3,000 by hurricane? Or 40,000+ by vehicles? Or 2,600 deaths a day from Heart Disease? Or 700 deaths a year from arson?
Why do we treat terror deaths differently (in terms of cash and government intervention in our lives) from these other causes?
“Well, deaths by natural causes aren’t preventable like terror attacks!”
Horseshit. I guarantee that for less than the annual budget of Homeland Security 90% of natural disaster deaths could be averted. We just don’t want to do it.
9-11 killed around 3,000 people and we went crazy with ridiculous security procedures, an entire Department of Homeland Security (and Fraud), and have used it as a political excuse to crack down on Mexican “illegals” (I love that term). Don’t think Homeland Security is a waste? (I will write a whole other article on that friends) Ok Fine, if HS is a good use of our time and money as a reaction to 3,000 deaths then should there now be a Dept of Hurricane Damage Reduction?
Shouldn’t every city in hurricane areas have massive bus fleets (along with drivers, maintenance guys, and management) on standby 24/7 for evacuation purposes? Shouldn’t every city be equipped with multiple lines of levee defense and multi-billion dollar contingency drainage systems? Maybe there should also be a National Guard Infantry Division on the constant ready in each hurricane state? What about stockpiling enough food and water for each cities population for 2 weeks?
Of course this would virtually bankrupt the entire nation and aside from a few pork-barrel projects that surely will come to pass in Katrina’s aftermath they wont happen.
The fact of the matter is that when it comes to traffic accidents, diseases, and crime we as Americans have done a fairly cold-blooded cost-benefit analysis and have collectively decided that it isn’t worth our time, money, or personal freedoms to save lives in these areas. We don’t want to drive 35mph on the interstate depite the massive savings in lives lost per year that this change would make. Accidents and disease prevention just are not programmed into our survival circuits.
When it comes to terror we seem unable to make this same calculation however. The fear of being attacked goes right to our hind-brain and shuts down our ability to reason. So like good little reactionaries we will spend massive quantities of cash doing useless things that won’t even prevent further attacks (with the simple and cheap exception of locking the cockpit door (this cost us nothing and is the one effective anti-hijacking measure we have enacted)) and that cut deeply into the freedom from government involvement that has long been a hallmark of American society.
Don’t get me wrong here. I am a vigilante when it comes to international politics. This means that I supported (and still do) the effort to smash everyone who supported, defended, or abetted the Al-Qaeda terrorists who attacked the US on 9-11.
Attack Americans and we take your countries. That’s my foreign policy in a nutshell. Lambast me over that on other articles please.
I do not support useless spending on meaningless knee-jerk reactions like Homeland Security though. Thinking like that will simply result in a Dept of Prevention of Everything that won’t function. People should keep this in mind as they listen to the post-Katrina hysterics who will call on politicians for meaningless policy changes (which politicians like since it provides pork for their constituents). We do not need another Dept. of Homeland Security.
