Granted, it's more than just a little disappointing to be paying jillions of dollars for a giant surveillance state with a microscope up everybody's butt and double-secret probation lists that you can't even find out if you're on, only to have one of those listees turn up in Garland with guns blazing. Still, we pay jillions of dollars for a gigantic war on crime with an incarceration rate that boggles the mind and you still can't leave your car unlocked most places, so the inefficiency of the terrorism watch list thing shouldn't come as a surprise. If government is competent at one thing, it's incompetence.
Wednesday, May 6, 2015
Quote of the Day: War on Terror
Word:
In reality, of course, the crime rates in U.S. were declining steadily since late 1980s. And it's very likely that insane incarceration rates had something to do with it: when you start locking up criminals, there's less crime. Same goes for the terrorism. Immediately after 9/11 it was unthinkable that another such attack would not occur in the next 5 or 10 years. Frankly I think that the author of that quote is a dishonest propagandist and the police state measures made us safer. It's the cost that is in the question. It is already as easy or easier to get killed in a wrong-house SWAT raid than in a terror attack or drive-by shooting. At a certain point there should be a balance considered.
ReplyDelete"And it's very likely that insane incarceration rates had something to do with it: when you start locking up criminals, there's less crime."
ReplyDeleteNah, it's demographics (Boomers getting older) along with victims arming themselves. Also, sending a lot of people to jail for no good reason only schools them in crime and makes them unemployable.
When you start thinking government might actually be doing something effective for the peons, it's time to have your head examined.