dontthink2: Wrong....I have not broken the law and I yet I don't feel safer because of cameras, warrantless searches, and wire-tapping. Such intense surveillance and intrusions into our daily lives for the sake of "safety" only means the Constitution has been reversed with all innocent Americans automatically presumed guilty until they prove otherwise.

Funny, people who are breaking the law think the surveillance cameras are there to arest them, people who arn't think think they are there to save lives.

As long as the terrorists attending all hog calling events stand and salute he flag, they've got nothing to worry about.

I have one word to describe this article. Can anyone say C O M M U N I S M because here it comes.
Just remember, those who give up freedoms for security are no longer free or secure.

*The Bush administration has spent billions of dollars*

The Bush Administration can only suggest a budget. The Congress spends the money. Two, tango, etc.

* in the name of homeland security, and very little of it has provided any additional security at all.*

Yeah, skyscrapers continue to fall at an alarming rate. Pentagons are hit by jetliners every day.

*It has been used to set up phony procedures to visibly harass innocent air travelers by confiscating their killer hair gel. The whole idea is to create a public façade of fighting terrorism to cover up the administration’s bungling.*

People aren't scared of TSA.

*The Transportation Security Administration can make absolutely sure not a single one of us transports more than three ounces of Dippity Do in a plastic container within a quart-size zip-lock bag,*

Richard Reid wanted to blow an airliner out of the sky with his shoes. Other reports suggest that terrorists would smuggle components of explosives onto planes piecemeal and assemble them in the toilets. If this happened, people like this author would be screaming bloody murder about how the Feds did "nothing" to inspect passengers carry-ons.

* and that will do nothing to stop the tons of unexamined cargo flowing through our ports every hour that could contain enough explosives to blow us off the map.*

So first we do too much inspection and now we do too little. Classic ADHD logic.

Further, if we can't spot 12 million Spanish-speaking illegal immigrants hiding in plain site, I don't know how the author expects us to inspect every piece of cargo entering the nation.

*We’ve had a 5-year, trillion-dollar war that has cost us upwards of 4,200 American lives so far in a small country that had nothing to do with 9/11 to cover up the fact we still don’t have a clue about how to find Osama bin Laden, the perpetrator identified the day of the attack.*

There's so much conflation in this paragraph I don't even know where to begin.

We had a 4 year, TRILLIONS dollar war in the 40s and we still didn't "get" Adolf Hitler, either. And he had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor.

How's that for nonsensical conflation?

Also, I'd like this editorialist to explain just "how little" the Federal Government's efforts at Homeland Security has produced. I mean, he clearly states that "very little" has been produced. He must have some scientific method and an exact amount to which he can point us.

Are you kidding?!!! I don't want to get shot!!! I've already been shot!!!

paranoia: ive invited you and everyone to come meet me and SEE what im talking about. whos out to get me??
.
incoherent: i wont disagree with your post as you state it, but your point comes to light only AFTER you say i am 'Another typical case-in-point' referring to paranoia and incoherence. wheres my incoherence BEFORE that post?? incoherent to me is yesterday when you bring up my name, all but inviting a post, and then say that im the one who is exploiting the story when its actually you exploiting the story to get a reaction out of me.

The said "they really said it—livestock shows.
" yeah, because they have been listening to Wierd Al's cow's with guns!

I think that we can agree that $350,000 is a lot of money. My opinion is that this money would be better spent on "boots on the ground" law enforcement, one cop for 10 years, two for 5 years, or three for 3 years...This video surveillance issue gets everybody all hyped up over privacy issues, but if you were to see a few extra officers during an event, you wouldn't think twice about it. I would rather have trained police officers watching people than some video camera...

Paranoia: That we're out to get you.

Incoherent: That we drew you into a discussion because you're brilliant.

Flight of Fancy: That you're brilliant.

please define incoherent and explain how you view my posts as incoherent??

lol. in my book it was a discussion, and from my perspective;), if there is a loser to that one, well....my point remained the same and you at least acknowledged that the only thing wrong, or immoral about what i do is how uncle sam views it:)

thekid, it seems we disagree on what paranoia and incoherency are. I wonder how'd we each chime in on the meaning of "flights of fancy."

For brevity, I didn't mention Johnson. He in stupefying collusion with Westmorland caused the political debacle that the Vietnam War came to be. It all amounted to not effectively dealing with the enemy with proper measures. I'd add that Westmoreland deserves much of the blame for that debacle as a result of how badly he conducted the war up to the time Johnson had his own political concerns. Johnson was also culpable for not choosing a better commander.

I'd also argue that whether the communists during Tet could be regarded as military or not, they were most certainly terrorists as they murdered thousands of civilians during the offensive.

I just wanted to see if you were still mad about losing that last argument.

what do you want me to weigh in on billnewbie?? this story isnt about pot. i will say as to the story that lakennedy makes as much sense on here as anyone, good posts lakennedy. billnewbie do you an gfan have some kind of a fascination with me?? you both keep bringing me into threads im not even interested in commenting on. do you both want me to show your hypocrisy?? gfan says at one point hes 'all for personal responsibility' and admits to drinking his share of rum, but even tho he has no idea who i am assumes that i cant be personally responsible when it comes to pot smoke. billnewbie preaches that what i do is immoral, but if it was legal many people, he included would view it as morally neutral, if one breaks the law one is immoral. medical pot smoking in 12 states, or regular pot smoking in denver isnt immoral...but i am?? speeding?? jaywalking?? 20 yr old having a beer?? responsible adult blowz .09?? you both like to bring me into the conversation cuz you KNOW that what i talk about regularly is not paranoia nor incoherent. you know that i can and DO hold my own when my topic of conversation comes up, or you wouldnt be trying to bait me. you may not agree with what i say, but please dont insult your own intelligence further by saying my rants are about paranoia or incoherent. if i was paranoid i would shut my mouth, if i was incoherent you wouldnt get as much joy out of our discussions as you do;)

Lakennedy:
Perhaps you are unaware, but at that time, President Johnson was running for re-election and was being criticized for his handling of the war which was not going well. The President was attempting to limit the actions of the military to attain a standoff with the communists to re-establish the status quo that existed much as the Korean conflict had been resolved. The response to the Tet offensive, much like the rest of the war, was restrained in an attempt to contain it and limit its effectiveness and its damage to the re-election prospects of the President which was futile since he soon thereafter withdrew his candidacy, as I recall. At no time in that war was there any attempt to win anything more than a standoff. While General Westmoreland had much to answer for, the politicians at the time bear much of the blame for the poor decisions made.
Of course, the Tet offensive was a military operation directed at a military force, unlike the terror tactics the homeland security administration is trying to mitigate. Also the interval between battles in Vietnam was measured in time periods considerably shorter than 7 years.
I do agree that most likely the terrorist are plotting. Has not the government uncovered a number of such plots and shouldn’t those be counted as successes?

lakennedy, your "Vietnam" post shows that your "knowledge" of the Vietnam War is the same sort of "knowledge" that mentalities like Andreah have.

The communists (who were terrorists and not freedom fighters) in Vietnam were soundly defeated by U.S. troops before, during, and after the Tet Offensive. Believing that the Tet Offensive was a military victory for the communists reveals that there is more than one way to be a victim of terrorism. It is this sense of being a victim that caused many here to believe that the Tet Offensive was a military victory for the communists.

The appropriate U.S. intelligence agencies in Vietnam knew that the Tet Offensive was imminent. They deserve credit for that. General William Westmoreland (one of the worst generals in U.S. history) was the culprit for ignoring what our intelligence agencies properly and accurately reported.

The people here complaining about homeland security are of the same ilk as Westmoreland.

lakennedy, I refer you to billnewbie's finely written post below.

People at SummerFest have the right to express themselves there just as we are expressing ourselves here: Your first sentence makes no point.

The troops are smart and they are volunteers and they know that all wars are always fought on more than one or two fronts.

billnewbie: Just in case you were unaware, all indications (and lack of any real organized attack) showed that we were winning Vietnam. Then guess what, January 30, 1968 the Tet Offensive started, and we weren't really winning, were we? Am I saying that we aren't winning the war on terror? No. I will say, however, that we don't know if we're winning or losing and the absence of any attack on our soil doesn't necessarily mean we're winning. It could just mean that they're plotting.

I agree, Gazettefan. It's also easy to sit on a website and express yourself however you feel like when you've got these little things called called civil liberties allowing you to do so.
+
Back to the issue at hand, we can argue over and over about the war on terror. Do you honestly think that the money being spent on "surveillance" is going to help our efforts? I think it is targeting young people and punishing them for minor offenses. If what they are doing is illegal and they get caught, then they should be punished. But, to guise this surveillance behind the idea that it is being used to "fight terror" is not only ridiculous, but it is insulting to the people who actually are fighting terror.

The proof, as the English say, is in the pudding.
If all that homeland security money has been a complete waste, then where is McNally's list of successful homeland terror attacks? How many years have to pass since 9/11/01 for homeland security efforts to be called a success? I guess 7 years (almost, just 2 week 2 days short of 7 years) just isn't enough to satisfy McNally as he characterizes these efforts as a complete failure.
As for surveillance cameras set up in public places invading privacy, just what reasonable expectation of privacy can one expect at a rock concert or a cattle show? As dontthink2 alluded, if someone was to shoot up such a venue and it was discovered that such surveillance was available but not installed, the outcry by McNally and the like would be deafening. If a few drug users or perverts get caught in their unlawful acts, so much the better. Let them practice their criminality behind closed doors where their privacy is protected and warrants required.
That “caterwauler for consuming cannabis” will weigh in as soon as he sees this, no doubt.

On Aug. 1 t justsaynotomath wrote “this is the last straw gazette ! i will no longer read your crap paper and i will tell everyone i know not to support the gazette either”. I thought that never would be longer than 2 ½ weeks. The editor will be relieved that one of his favorite customers is back.

It's easier to be oblivious to an ongoing war when you're on the winning side and others are fighting the enemy and defeating or checkmating the enemy.

brain cells reproduce. defending my right to privacy is as American as it gets. liberty and justice for all. not just the ones you agree with.

Wow. I think his main concern is the effectiveness of using this amount of money to install surveillance cameras to "fight terrorism". It's pretty clear that unless your idea of a terrorist is a twenty-something dressed in a Braun jersey drinking a beer, enjoying a concert, and perhaps taking a hit off a joint, that this money is not going to be used to combat terrorism, but to target young kids doing what pretty much all of us once did at concerts.
+
I didn't know that Joel McNally was a drug kingpin concerned about his trade, Northman. Could it be that instead of his being concerned with the "buying/selling/using" of illegal drugs, that he's actually concerned with the erosion of civil liberties in this country? All in the name of safety, of course. I know I can barely sleep at night when I think of all of those college kids having a beer, smoking pot...the horror of it all.

Yes, northman, you have McNally nailed. His paranoia and incoherence is typical of the great majority of stoners (not all). Another typical case-in-point is this site's most chronic caterwauler for consuming cannabis.

I’ve often wondered why McNally’s columns were so inane and disconnected from reality. He makes it clear that years of recreational drug use have fried all his higher level circuits. His real concern obviously is that he’ll be caught on tape buying/selling/using illegal drugs. Hopefully, the last functioning brain cell that allows him to continue typing will fizzle out soon.

I think dontthink2 has a crush on Joel McNally! She's been following him around since July, pulling his pigtails and pinching him, saying he's stupid and ugly...

I'm a fan of Joel McNally after reading this column. He's dead on about the minor offenders and the massive spending by Homeland Security to make sure that the cows aren't packing WMD's.

Great truths never die: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - - Benjamin Franklin

Amen Joel

I think what he wrote, not said, is that the measures being taken are not fighting terrorism. Time will tell if this surveillance actually yields any results...other than arresting kids for smoking a joint or having too much beer.

Yea! and Joel is the sameone who would say "Why did we not do anything." after there was an attack."