|
Is America Really "Engaged" in Big Government? by John Bottoms It
seems that Americans just aren't very enthusiastic about their
government's efforts to protect the homeland.
So commiserated hundreds of government and big business
Pooh-Bahs at the recent "Homeland Security 2005" seminar,
agreeing that they have "failed to engage the American
people." What,
Americans aren't "engaged" by the hours they spend standing
on security lines at airports? They
don't give thanks to the Homeland Security office as they're poked,
prodded, felt up or strip-searched by bored, incompetent, lecherous
federalized airport guards who don't notice when loaded guns pass
under their X-ray vision? They
aren't thrilled by the threat of being placed on a federal "no fly list" for
having the wrong political opinions?
They're not enthusiastic that their email, phone calls and
web-browsing habits are being scrutinized by their government? They question why hundreds of people are being detained
without criminal charges? They
wonder how it enhances their security to place into solitary
confinement a resident alien who volunteered to help the FBI catch the
terrorists? They doubt
the ability, integrity and intellect of a president who accuses them
of aiding terrorists if they don't approve of his policies?
What's not to like? But
Americans individually seem pretty "engaged" in the business
of security. The 20,000
airline pilots who are demanding
FAA permission to carry firearms to protect themselves, their
customers and their employers' multi-million dollar investment from
terrorists and the US Air Force (which promises to shoot down hijacked
planes) are engaged. Americans
who are buying record numbers of personal defense weapons are
definitely engaged. Jewish-American tourists avoiding visits to the Middle East
and France this year also seem quite engaged.
The airplane passengers and flight crew who subdued
shoe-bomber wannabe Richard Reid were about as engaged as you can be.
I guess those seminar attendees only want us engaged in government's
efforts to provide security. In
a rare and shocking display of honesty, several participants
(anonymously) said "they felt that without another terrorist
incident, keeping public attention on the gaps in security and support
for the expenditures was growing more difficult."
Well, guys, thanks for admitting that terrorist attacks are
just a means to achieve your real goal of funding your growing federal
fiefdoms. I'll remember
that during the next terror strike, and afterward when you demand yet
more tax money while threatening my remaining freedom. Lest
Americans really become more engaged in homeland security, symposium
attendee Richard Falkenrath, who is responsible for directing the
"national strategy for homeland security" said that it was
"largely impractical" to give the public information on
security threats. We get it: our rulers don't want citizens engaged in homeland
security; they just want servile inmates who meekly pay their taxes,
follow orders, and accept that government knows best. But
Homeland Security czar Tom Ridge has the solution.
Since he and his federal colleagues have done such a bang-up
job so far, just give them more
power. "We
need to take a look at restructuring government, probably perhaps
restructuring the office itself," the linguistically indecisive
Ridge said. Just as you
know a politician's lying when his lips are moving, you can be sure
that "restructuring government" means expanding it. Americans have shown at every opportunity that they are ready and able to become more engaged in the security of their homeland. Should the government on the Potomac ever decide to take them up on the offer, all they need do is ask. So far, it seems all those people know is how to crack the whip. discuss this column in the forum John Bottoms writes, works and lives in Phoenix, Arizona. |