July 31, 2002
READER CHUCK HERRICK accuses me of “conditional patriotism” in light of my various posts criticizing homeland security. He says if I were a real patriot, I’d be happy to surrender my civil liberties in the name of war, and that I shouldn’t set preconditions of governmental competence before I am willing to do so:
I was there during Vietnam. I watched when the war came to a close in the ’70′s and all the long-hairs promptly cut their hair, quit demonstrating, and went out and got corporate jobs and started collecting material possessions. When the draft ended, it was like a light switch was thrown. What I’m stating is that today’s version of that convenient lack of patriotism is alive and well in today’s Libertarianism. And, you’re not even being asked to carry a weapon and go into battle. All you’re being asked to do is to give up a few, “cherished” liberties in order to beat our enemies. Frankly, it’s rather pathetic.
You signed on for the former? No, you did not. I’ve made my case that in WWII, the ineptness in the government and in the military was just as egregious. You’ve a capacity for research. Use it to do some historical research on just how inept the government could be during WWII. My bet is that what you’ll find will stagger you.
I’m not that easily staggered. But Herrick misunderstands. I’m not talking about competence (everyone makes mistakes), but good faith. By refusing to deal seriously with the problems of homeland security, and by substituting bureaucratic wish lists and appearance-oriented political solutions for real action, the powers-that-be have made clear that they’re not serious about the war, at least on the home front. Ashcroft won’t fire the people who screwed up before 9/11 — when even FBI agents were speculating that Osama bin Laden had a mole in FBI headquarters because the incompetence seemed so spectacular — and yet I’m supposed to pretend that searching old ladies at airports and confiscating tweezers proves they’re serious? You want me to sacrifice civil liberties for a war, you’ve got to show me a war. Then we’ll talk.
The Vietnam analogy, it seems to me, cuts the other way. That was another war that was waged with more of an eye toward the wellbeing of the bureaucrats waging it than toward actually winning. (Herrick, whose email indicates that he works for the federal government, may take that the wrong way, but there you are). The Drug War is another example. Both of those failed, miserably. Homeland Security is looking more like those conflicts than like, say, World War Two. That’s my beef.
Herrick apparently confuses me with those protesters who felt that it was immoral to wage war in Vietnam. My own view is that it was immoral to wage war halfheartedly.
Reader Kenneth Summers says this:
What bothers me far more is restrictions on liberties in the absence of war, precisely because there is no distinct “end to hostilities”. This is why, in the “WOT”, I think we need to be extremely careful about what we allow. Ditto for the War on Crime. Big fat Double Ditto for the War on Drugs. Our liberties will be safer if we actively take out Iraq and Soddy Arabia [spelling intentional - more so after I looked up the derivation] in a hot war than if we pussyfoot around and keep accepting incremental restrictions.
An example is the FDR presidency – the programs, rights infringements, and restrictions which remained after his presidency (works programs, gun restrictions, ridiculous tax policies) were primarily those implemented for fighting the depression and Prohibition crime. Those that were lifted (censorship, military tribunals, travel restrictions, rationing – I even include the draft here because it would have ended, as it did after WWI, were it not for the cold war) were those for fighting the war. Unlike a war, there is no “return to normalcy” for crime and economic downturns.
I think that — as the post that somehow set off Mr. Herrick noted — restrictions on civil liberties so far haven’t been very onerous. But I also think that Homeland Security has been a joke, from the airline tweezer-ban right on down the line. I think that it’s allowed to be a joke because people in the government don’t think it’s very important. And if they don’t think it’s very important, why should I?
UPDATE: Reader Chris Mosely emails:
Unfortunately, it’s worse than you thought. The *very day* the feds announced the arrest of the skating kingpin, a man living in NJ, who was known to have sold fake ID to at least one Sept 11 hijacker, eluded police and FBI by fleeing to Egypt:
In other words, the long arm of the law can reach into Italy to find a guy who bribed skating judges, but can’t arrest someone in New Jersey who aided the Sept 11 attackers.
BTW, if you read the AP article it also says that this guy wired money to Saudi Arabia. Surprise!
I’ve been giving the feds the benefit of the doubt on “homeland security” but this tears it for me.
Well, nobody’s perfect, and I’m prepared to forgive (almost) any number of honest mistakes. I’m less forgiving when it appears that people aren’t taking the issue seriously.
ANOTHER UPDATE: A reader points out that it was the British, not any part of the Homeland Security apparatus, that found this al Qaeda training camp in Alabama. Another reader sends this quotation from Petronius Arbiter: “We tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing and a wonderful method it can be for creating an illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.” I’ve seen this quote before, and I don’t think it’s really Petronius. But it’s apt, nonetheless.
ERROR-CORRECTION UPDATE: Lynxx Pherrett says I’m wrong about the Alabama Al Qaeda training camp. Uh, okay. But I wasn’t “disingenuous” — I was writing what I thought to be true.
The Dodd says:
I am completely with you on this one. He starts out with a good point. David Horowitz made a similar one about peaceniks and the draft in _Radical Son_ – as soon as the draft was no longer a possibility, the “peace movement” lost a lot of members. Horowitz did not, as I recall, go so far as to say the dropouts were insincere in their previous protesting against the Vietnam War, but did note that only the truly committed kept it up after they no longer needed to establish their ‘conscientious objector’ bona fides.
But he rapidly goes astray. The left is absolutely right when they say that criticism of government falls well within the bounds of genuine patriotism. A patriot, to my mind, gives his fealty to an idea, not particular government officials. So, while critics can be patriots (though many are anything but, as we all spend so much time on our weblogs noting), but the fact that someone has a right to speak does not mean that they are thereby immune from criticism for their speech. If it’s patriotic to question our leaders, it is just as patriotic to tell the critics when they’re acting like morons.
Those of us who read your stuff daily know that your criticisms of the Homeland Security regime are far more likely to help bring about positive changes – and therefore better security – than deciding we should be willing to throw away the liberties that millions of us signed up (and often died) to defend. Keep it up.
July 31, 2002, 11:11 pmEd. says:
While reading and absorbing the words of this vital debate, two words continue to lay cold and dead at my feet:
Homeland Security.
I’m almost 50 years old, and have lived in America all my life. The words “homeland security” have never, to the best of my memory, left my lips until very recently.
My late father once showed me, in a moment of familial boredom, one of his posessions: a brass card sent to him from the government’s Social Security people. It had his name and his government-issued Social Security number engraved on it. He kept it in his toolbox in the garage, with his other valuables.
Do I need to tell you what the government at that time promised papa about the privacy of that Social Security number of his?
I’m with the rest as a supporter of the war against terrorism. I believe, with all my heart, that President Bush has been a Godsend. And I’ll do whatever he wants me to do to fight.
But this Homeland Security thing… can we talk first?
August 1, 2002, 2:17 amWill Collier says:
Yesterday I watched my sister, a military wife on her way to joining her husband in Germany, carrying her six-month-old baby, get searched in the Atlanta airport. The burger-flipper reject at the security gate confiscated a set of Allen wrenches from her camera bag (you do know how dangerous those 115-pound child-carrying Southern girls can be with an Allen wrench).
This was after we had to literally beg the airline agents (Luftansa) to give my dad, a sixty-ish dentist from Alabama, a gate pass to help her carry all the various baby paraphenalia to literally the farthest departure gate from the Hartsfield ticket counter.
The procedures currently being used in airports are not those of serious people; they are pure, distilled bureaucratic idiocy.
August 1, 2002, 6:48 amMatthew Yglesias says:
The most frightening thing is that sooner or later we’ll be hit by another attack, and rather than taking that attack as evidence that the “homeland security” bureaucracy isn’t/can’t do it’s job properly, it’ll be used as an excuse to fulfill even more insider wish lists.
August 1, 2002, 8:14 amrea says:
Yeah, a lot of people left the peace movement after the war ended–is there an inconsistency there?
August 1, 2002, 8:19 amChuck Herrick says:
Libertarians are missing the point, and I think the miss is a tad too convenient.
I’m right there by your side, criticizing our bungling government, and every inept act it perpetrates. I cheer with gusto when the life-long bureaucrat who ran Visa Express was forced to resign. She should have been prosecuted.
But, do not fall back into the Libertarian trap of justifying the unwillingness to make patriotic sacrifices with those blunders.
Here is another way of making the point. The Libertarian position boils down to making the statement “I object to sacrificing in the name of war, when …” and then throwing in one or more examples of ineptness on the part of our government. So, let me as you this. Precisely where do you think Afghanistan
would be today if the brave soldiers in the US military had all stood up
and said “I object to sacrificing in the name of war, when …”?
As for Horowitz, I’d be very willing to bet dollars for donuts that he would say that many of “the protesters were insincere in their previous protests against the Vietnam War.” Note: many, not all. I was here during the Vietnam War, and it was amazing to see the change when the draft and the war ended.
Libertarians need to be very careful here.
The sacrifices being asked of American citizens are trivial compared to the sacrifices being asked of our military, some of whom are dying in Afghanistan. No one is being asked not to rail against the government bungling in todays war against Islamists. For an intelligent and expressive segment of America to refuse to make patriotic sacrifices until the government achieve a state of perfection which governments have never achieved is not only not patriotic. It is treason.
And traitors should be called traitors, even if they happen to be right about some of their criticisms of govenment in today’s war.
August 1, 2002, 9:17 amGlenn Reynolds says:
I object to sacrificing in the name of a war when our leaders are acting in all other ways as if it’s not a war.
If this be treason, then make the most of it.
August 1, 2002, 9:38 amShannon Griffin says:
If we are in a war, and being asked to sacrifice freedoms, inthe name of that war, Americans will do so. But the sacrificing must start at the top. Valiantly defending a pay raise for our ‘hardworking’ Congress, and loading down bills designed to ‘defend’ us with the usual pork, tells me our government thinks sacrifice begins at (someone else’s) home.
Shannon
August 1, 2002, 9:56 amIain Murray says:
The Petronius quote is almost certainly bogus. I’ve never seen it in my readings of the man, and no-one on the web who quotes it provides a citation reference to his extant works. Some even put it at 210 BC, which would be a prodigious feat considering that he died in 65 AD…
August 1, 2002, 10:05 amAndy Freeman says:
>> Libertarian position boils down to making the statement “I object to sacrificing in the name of war, when …”
I think that whether that “Libertarian position” is bad or good depends quite a bit on the sacrifice and what’s in the “…”.
After all, anyone can say that anything is “in the name of the war”, just as they can claim that anything is “for the children”. However, making such a claim doesn’t make it true.
Similarly, one can suggest sacrifices that will do NOTHING to win the war.
If Herrick disagrees, he’ll have no problems with sending me $100 “for the war”. It’s a small sacrifice that he can easily afford and he doesn’t want to be one of those nasty libertarians.
What? The check is not in the mail? Is it that he doesn’t actually believe his little rant or that it doesn’t apply to him?
August 1, 2002, 11:20 amrea says:
Patriotism is foolish and evil when it is simply a matter of “my country, right or wrong”; when it means nothing more than simply an attachment to our real estate and symbols. We do not think highly, for example, of a WWII era German whose attitude was, “my country, right or wrong.” What makes America worth fighting for, worth “good patriotism,” is the ideal of constitutional liberty it embodies. Sacrificing those ideals can never be justified in the name of “patriotism”. What’s the point in fighting al Qaida if the result is a totalitarian regime? Will we all comfort ourselves by reading Byron, “A tyrant, but our tyrants then, were at least our countrymen”?
August 1, 2002, 11:33 amCraig Biggerstaff says:
What Mr. Herrick misunderstands, or chooses not to understand, is this:
We are citizens, not subjects. We can and will sacrifice to support our war effort; we will not surrender our right, and duty, to oversee and influence the actions of our elected representatives.
August 1, 2002, 12:14 pmSuman Palit says:
Patriotism is the flame that makes one serve one’s country, in times of need or not.
The idea that patriotism involves happily agreeing with every administrative bungle or ineffective beauracratic policy is ludicrous. In fact, I would argue that the true patriot, one who works to strengthen his or her country, would look even more closely at the actions of the people entrusted with homeland security.
Wherever there is ineffciency masquerading as “action plans”, and ineptitude masked by ignorance or just plain laziness, it is the duty of the patriot to point it out and fight against it in ringing tones…!!
Anything less is cowardice and a disservice to one’s country.
August 1, 2002, 1:25 pmChuck Herrick says:
Poor Suman Polit: “The idea that patriotism involves happily agreeing with every administrative bungle…” For some folks, apparently of whom Polit is one, you just can’t put enough caveats in your points to help them over the hump (big sigh). Go back and read the second paragraph of my comments above. Then come back and let’s discuss.
Andy Freeman is right, of course. It does matter a great deal what is inside the “…”. Clearly, we should have an argument about what liberties should be surrendered in an American war. So, if we’re now willing to change the discussion from “I’m not willing to give up ANY liberties until the government ” to “I’m willing to give up until the war is over, no matter how FUBAR my government is”, then hurrah! We’re on steady patriotic ground. My point is that the constant cant coming from the Libertarian wing on “the net” has not been the latter. It has been the former. This does not to me seem to be a subtle point, but based on the capacity of the Libertarian wing of the blogosphere, I suppose it must be.
Craig Biggerstaff is just flat wrong. No one, especially me has asked anyone to give up the effort to influence our elected representatives. In fact, if we’re going to have any reasonable chance of winning the War against Islamists, we’re going to need to pound our elected representatives and our governmental bureaucrats in an effort to get them to do a job which I agree to date has been at best comedic.
Once again, look at the Libertarian party line. It is not a reasoned negotiation of what sacrifices make sense in this War against Islamics. It is a constant bleating, in which a long list of governmental ineptness and blunderings are used to justify making NO SACRIFICES whatsoever.
Let’s have an argument about which sacrifices make sense in order to win the War Against Islamists. This is a war for our culture. Let’s not refuse sacrifice because we’re rightfully pissed at our government. This is not a war for our government. This iis a war for our country.
Here’s a straw list, if you will. If the government wants me to carry a national ID card, fine. Let me be the first in line to get one. If the government wants to implement TIPS, and wants me to turn in the Arab-looking pair of men taking videos of the local water-treatment facility, then give me the phone number and a quarter. I’ll make the call.
However, if the government wants to come and take away my guns, using the War Against Islamists as a justification, then I’m going to do my best to change that decision. It makes no sense.
I’m hoping you can see the difference here. On one hand, some sacrifices by ordinary citizens make sense in a time of war, and this is a time of war.
Stating that no sacrifices will be made until the government manages to act like no government has ever acted in history is worse than being near-sighted. It is treason.
August 1, 2002, 1:54 pmTony Pagano says:
We have now seen three (at least) statements to exemplify what this discussion is suposed to be about: (1) “I object to sacrificing in the name of war, when …”; (2) “I’m not willing to give up ANY liberties until the government “; and (3) “I’m willing to give up until the war is over, no matter how FUBAR my government is.” The leap from the first to a choice between the second and third seems to be illogical, as being unwilling to give up “any” liberties is fundamentally different than objecting to blindly (the “…” part of number 1) sacrificing liberties. The fact is, no one in this country should be asked to sacrifice liberties without knowing the compelling need for the sacrifice and the relation of the sacrifice to winning the “war.” That’s not asking for perfection from the government, and it’s certainly not treason, it is merely seeking governmental responsibility and reason.
August 1, 2002, 2:14 pmRic Gowan says:
Poor Chuck Herrick. Treason? You’re going to run out of ammunition before you run out of subjects for firing squads.
If this is a time of war, as you claim, perhaps you could call the White House up and ask them when they planned on asking Congress to declare it so. Declaring war is still not an Executive Branch privilege, unfortunately (or perhaps more accurate, fortunately). If this is more an exercise along the lines of Vietnam, or the War on Drugs, I hope we manage to get a better outcome this time.
Also, I’d like to hear your thoughts on exactly how long we would be tolerating National ID cards, or the TIPS system, God forbid they actually come to pass. Unlike WWII, there will never be a V-T day. How does one prove you’ve vanquished a mindset?
August 1, 2002, 2:26 pmThe Dodd says:
The part of my original email that I excised for brevity when Prof. Reynolds turned the comments on here stated that I, myself, did a hitch in the US military. So, when Mr. Herrick says, “The sacrifices being asked of American citizens are trivial compared to the sacrifices being asked of our military, some of whom are dying in Afghanistan”, I think I can answer with some authority.
I took my oath when Bush, Sr. was President. Later, Clinton took over, but that didn’t matter – my oath was to the Constitution. I did not sing up to defend – and, if necesssary, die – for my country so that quislings back home could take away the liberties of my fellow citizens on the grounds that the “sacrifices” of those of us in the service were so large by comparison. Quite the opposite, actually. We were willing to make such sacrifices, when necessary, because we were serving the ideal of those liberties.
No, military personnel in overheated, poorly ventilated bunkers on the midwatch, wondering when someone will sneak up and toss a grenade in with them do not sit there and console themselves that their ordeal is worthwhile because it furthers the Constitution. But go ask some guy in a uniform sometime of he wants you to “sacrifice” some of your freedoms so that we can all be a little “safer.” Most will tell you, “Hell, no!”
August 1, 2002, 3:34 pmSuman Palit says:
Chuck.. you might first want to read and spell my name correctly before you mispell your credibility away :-) just kidding :-)
I was making a general point about the nature of patriotism, not attacking your post specifically. However, to come back to your request to discuss what should be in the “..” when it comes to making sacrifices, do you believe that rolling back some of our civil liberties “in the policies currently proposed” will genuinely improve homeland security in the war on terror?
At this point, none of the policies, from federalizing airport screening to TIPS have demonstrated a result-oriented plan at their center. A plan that would provide a clear set of benefits against potential terrorism that override the temporary loss of civil liberties sacrificed.
I don’t think anyone is arguing for the government not to put forward proposals which might sound draconian. I think the argument that myself and some others are trying to make is that the current proposals for homeland security do not sound encouraging. They sound like half-hearted and non-serious attempts at power-grabs and not well-targeted at the terrorist infrastructure.
These policies are sound-bites intended for political consumption. It is their many unintended consequences, coupled with their evident ineffectiveness for their primary purpose, that prompts this disdain of the current crop of homeland security policies.
This is not lack of patriotism.. while it might indeed indicate a serious lack of jingoism on my part, I have no problem sleeping well knowing that :-)
August 1, 2002, 3:41 pmLynxx Pherrett says:
As an aside to your update:
It’s rather disingenuous to fault the US government because the British found a British Muslim al Qaeda recruiter in Britain who attempted, but failed, to arrange live fire training at a facility in the US.
It relies on continuing the myth that the Ground Zero USA facility was an al Qaeda training camp. It wasn’t, though wannabe jihadiis may have attempted (apparently unsuccessfully) to use the facility.
August 1, 2002, 4:44 pmGlenn Reynolds says:
Lynxx: That’s interesting. You got a link on that? If you do, please post it or email it and I’ll make it a separate item.
August 1, 2002, 5:37 pmCraig Biggerstaff says:
It would appear that Mr. Herrick is for certain sacrifices, and not for others. That puts him squarely within the bounds of what he calls treasonous in others who disagree with him about precisely which sacrifices are reasonable. I think the blogosphere’s public debate is both democratic and necessary; he thinks it seditious.
If he wants to attack the Libertarian Party, fine. I think there have been ample criticisms within the blogosphere of that group’s frequently nutty positions. But to equate all of us who value constitutional rights with capital-L Libertarians is to set up a straw man for attack.
August 1, 2002, 5:40 pmJoe Admire says:
Mr. Herrick, it is, if you like, a citizen’s *patriotic* duty to criticize the government when he or she believes the government to be acting wrongly or incompetently. It, in fqct, in my view, goes to the heart of what it means to be American – the obligation to call the government on its blunders, (Of course, I would also add that it’s the responsibility of those making criticism to offer better ideas, or ideas that they think are at least better than what the government is doing. Otherwise criticism becomes mere carping.)
On a somewhat different topic, you are absolutely right, Glenn; if you intend to go to war, FIGHT TO WIN – OR DON’T FIGHT AT ALL. If the Pentagon, or large sectors thereof, are _really_ that squeamish about the prospect of exerting all-out force to defeat Iraq, then one has to wonder whether it might not be better just to chuck the whole idea and look into hiring a team of ninja to assassinate Saddam. (I say this, incidentially, as one who is in favor of forceful military action to take Saddam down for good sooner rather than later, but if the Powers that Be aren’t wholeheartedly for the idea, or willing to get wholeheartedly behind it once the decision is made, then it’s better not to go at all than to go in half-heartedly.)
August 1, 2002, 6:28 pmAndy Freeman says:
>> Here’s a straw list, if you will. If the government wants me to carry a national ID card, fine.
I’m of an engineering bent, or as I sometimes call it, applied physical economics. In other words, I worry a lot about choices and “bang for buck”.
I’m having trouble figuring out why a national ID card is high on the list. A useful ID card would be incredibly expensive, and extremely unlikely. However, a stupid ID card, which is far more likely, would be a waste of resources. (“Stupid” likely to be about as expensive as “useful”, without the the benefits, which is depressing given the relative odds.)
Since resources aren’t unlimited and the likely benefit is low, why is an ID card so high on the list?
August 2, 2002, 1:38 amSteven Ehrbar says:
Mr. Herrick,
No domestic program aimed at the American public as a whole makes any sense when dealing with an external enemy. We know the terrorists are foreign-born, and it would be easy to specifically profile those people born in Muslim countries and leave the rest of America alone. Hell, just telling the INS in early 2001 to leave Mexican chicken-processers alone and follow up on expired Middle Eastern visas would have worked wonders.
Instead of those programs, we get asinine programs like ID cards. Excuse me, the hijackers got here legally; they’d have *had* ID cards. Same with, for example, the LAX shooter, Timothy McVeigh, and the original WTC bombers, among others. And TIPS? The FBI wasn’t able to follow up on tips from its own agents! What point is there to bringing in thousands of new tips from the same excitable people who mistook baby powder for anthrax spores?
So, yes, seeing as every proposal to limit my liberties so far (including every last clause of the PATRIOT Act) would have had no effect on any of the terrorists who attacked the U.S. in the last two decades, I’m going to put the burden of proof on the government to show that any further proposals are concieved intelligently and will be acted upon competently.
Because, while I will sacrifice some liberty for security, I’ll be damned before I sacrifice even the tiniest bit of liberty for no good reason at all.
August 2, 2002, 3:36 amWill Allen says:
Put bluntly, to expend the resources and energy of the nation’s citizens in an inept and wasteful manner is a loser’s strategy, which is what Herrick fails to realize in his defense of “security” measures which add nothing to security. Was there incompetence during WWII? Of course, because in a conflict which results in SIXTEEN MILLION men in uniform (what would the comparable figure be today, thirty-plus million?) it is impossible to weed all the incompetents out. Our current war hasn’t matched the scale of WWII yet, but if we don’t get a lot more ruthlessly efficient soon, we may get there. People who directly aided the murderers of 9/11 are allowed to skip to Egypt months after the fact, while our resources are spent on tracking down hookers or searching old ladies at airports. A national ID card would add nothing to the nation’s security, and given the current ability of the Federal bureuacracy to evaluate information, the TIPS program would be an impediment to security, given the high number of false alarms that would result. To call the wasteful and incompetent use of the citizen’s resources during a time of war a patriotic duty is frankly offensive, along with being incrediby stupid. If one wishes to call upon the citizens of the nation to sacrifice liberties, then make the case as to how the sacrifice will provide a net positive outcome, and until that case is made, please refrain from cheap demagoguery. The inept prosecution of war is the greatest failing a political leader can have, and while it is too early to yet declare the current leadership’s efforts as inept, there is no subsitute for holding leaders’ feet to the fire, lest anyone grow complacent.
August 2, 2002, 10:48 amAndy Freeman says:
BTW – Profiling isn’t necessarily superior to random.
The short explanation is that the bad guys can probe to learn the profile. Or rather, if the bad guys can figure out when they’re being subjected to extra scrutiny and they’re willing to adjust their behavior/personnel accordingly, they can figure out how to avoid said extra scrutiny.
The long answer is contains mathematics and is partially described in:
http://swissnet.ai.mit.edu/6805/student-papers/spring02-papers/caps.htm
August 2, 2002, 1:06 pmBill Dalasio says:
Perhaps I’m missing a point here. Much of what I’ve observed in the blogosphere seems to suggest that the libertarian bloggers object to the restrictions in the name of Homeland Security because they will have virtually no effect in making us more secure. Has anyone made a credible argument that making the same incompetent, undertrained, airport security screeners more highly paid and unfireable federal employees has made air travel more secure? Is someone suggesting that having the American people snoop on one another while doing little to boost our intelligence agencies’ ability to analyze the flood of information they’re already getting in is helping us keep track of terrorist threats? My impression is that the libertarian bloggers Mr. Herrick refers to have been pointing out that restrictions on our liberties (restrictions that will yield a tenuous improvement in our security, at best) have been the first resort of those pushing for Homeland Security. I, for one, don’t think there’s anything patriotic about sacrifice as an end in and of itself.
August 2, 2002, 4:19 pm