To show continuity from Clinton to Bush administrations, perhaps too prescient language, this page 4, from this online pdf item, here (dated December, 1999).
Wired, today, this link.
This link, Wired again, about McChrystal's JSOC changes; and is it a model for something nice for the homeland? That item mentions a recollection by "Andrew Exum, now a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security," which opens up an entirely new can of worms. Here. These things have rosters of people who influence our decisions where many have never faced a major federal ballot box yet the names of some that way are familiar. Exum is not without interesting observations. The CNAS does list key people here, here and here, and you can read bio statements showing a distinct military, CFR, and academic-policy-wonk backgrounds. Seeing that diversionary thread from Wired's item made me recall an intent to post something about the personnel of the Aspen Institute, for readers to weigh as they might. It looks as if it might be some kind of recruitment effort. Names you might recognize.
Wired, here.
Reading from elsewhere in the world, so that we are not too insular. Times Live online.
Next
 |
| p4, of this link |
For those wanting to shrink the federal government, or curb its growth, the fastest growing part apparently is DHS. Those posturing themselves against Keynesian pump priming, might look at questionable "necessities" when bridges and roads could be made safer and wider; specifically, one humongo chunk of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 spending for yet another new house of bureaucracy where bureaucrats on the dole can place their desks and act busy. Two googles, here and here.
Not that interim digs are wholly tiny, cramped, too small and crowded, but be ready for this -- 4.5 million square feet of homeland DC desk space, no less, and guess what this is, (photo link explains):
 |
| This link. |
Readers, this I cannot directly help you with greatly, but drop a few dollars, and follow the market, its opportunities, and promise. Helpfully, there is this teaser-intro for free, online. If you are in it for the money, I suppose you have to spend money to make money, or that's what some selling something say.
Whether or not you feel more secure, do you feel your levels of personal privacy, freedom from intrusion, are greater now, or less than say during the Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon years? In trying to understand our nation, and its directions, and Sept. 11, consider a google = "September 11, 1973".
Is the homeland more secure because we have Henry Kissinger, or is "security" imbalanced among us from Henry's effort? Chile after Allende's murder, under Pinochet, involved higher domestic surveillance levels, and price increases for basic livelihood necessities relative to the income levels of the general Chilean population, which income levels did not advance greatly. Was the Chilean homeland more secure? Against what? Probably it is a question only having meaning if asked as, "For whom?" A suggestion now is that Chile, Brazil and Argentina have lived through junta years and evolved. That is arguably a promising thing to believe. I have no idea whether it is true.
And remember in all this, unlike others I am not telling you what to think; instead I am noting only things you might read. So you tell me, is there a difference?
________________________
This link. Is there truth in parody, is there greater security to the homeland [fatherland, Mother America] in diverting a flight because of Cat Stevens? Go figure. Nobody said he tried to light his shoe or underwear.
That's the post for now. There are a few browser tabs open, possible info for UPDATE additions, but hey, the Bears and Ravens are on now. A treasured part of our homeland is the noon Sunday game, Vikings on the 3:00 - 3:30 slot - re the near homeland, Arlen Heights, inflated dome, all that. Also, link checking will be postponed, so post a comment if any are bad, and they'll be fixed.