Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Selectric II who wrote (20479)	11/20/2001 11:21:54 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 59480

I think he was talking about warm fuzzies. A "feeling" of security. I know what he meant. A warm fuzzy is thinking that aliens carrying IDs will do anything more than making the deluded feel safe. If you want to live in a vault surrounded by armed guards, help yourself. I definitely don't want to live in a vault. I think that we have to accept a certain amount of risk in life. I find most of what has been done in the name of security in the last couple of months downright risible and more than a bit burdensome. If we are to reduce risk, we should do so in ways that are cost effective. It's probably not feasible to track down and kick out all the aliens in this country, even assuming that it were desirable, on balance, to do so. It's also not feasible to absolutely control our borders short of building an impenetrable fence, no minor cost. Yes, we could be more careful about handing out visas, but then the bad guys would just cross the Rio Grande in the middle of the night. Yes, we could track those on visas and track them down if they overstayed. But then they would use the Rio Grand route. The only idea I've heard that makes any kind of sense at all is the national ID. If we are to do anything at all the cheapest, cleanest, least costly, biggest bang for the buck thing we could do is a national ID. I've not decided if implementing it would be desirable or not, only that it's more feasible and more cost effective than anything else that's been suggested. Like I said, I'm not advocating it, but I'm not scared of it either. Nor am I particularly distressed about the risk of doing nothing at all. I only want us to stop the kind of deluded stupidity that was expressed by the bozo who said we were safer now that the Bush signed the airline safety bill. Yeah, right. Like all the incompetent screeners will somehow screen more effectively now that they're under the stress of knowing that their jobs will disappear! Karen