Slashdot Mirror
Human Nature Trumps Homeland Security
netbuzz writes "Security expert Bruce Schneier suggests this morning that 'there might not be a solution' to our post-9/11 penchant for making domestic anti-terrorism decisions based on the basic human desire to cover one's backside. He might be right. But shouldn't we at least try to figure out a better way? For example, wouldn't 'Commonsense Homeland Security' be a winning political banner, not a risky one? "
Like it or not, the only reason we have anything to fear from Islamic terrorists is because we've spent decades interfering with their politics. You can't fight an idea, but you can arrange things so that people don't have any motive to blow themselves up.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
the media for this CYA security. Every time A Bad Thing(tm) happens, the media (TV) is all about "How can we prevent this from ever ever ever happening again?". Nothing is ever a fluke, every time something goes titsup, we have to take action, dammit!
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Homeland Security is not about security. It is about using the public's tax money to enrich your friends and business partners. And politics are determined by the players not by the voters (as much as we'd all like to believe otherwise).
Terrorism isn't the product of random deranged individuals; it is bankrolled by foreign governments. Saddam Hussein, for example, used to pay $30,000 to the family of each Palestinian suicide bomber. For another example, the governments of many countries, including Palestine, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, teach lessons that extol terror in their government-funded schools. The only way to be secure against terror is to destroy it at its roots -- and that means seriously debilitating the governments that are paying for it.
If this is done, random individuals may still carry out terror, but such random terror will be much less well organized and much less of a threat.
But shouldn't we at least try to figure out a better way? For example, wouldn't 'Commonsense Homeland Security' be a winning political banner, not a risky one?
Scenario 1:
Scenario 2:
With options like that, it doesn't matter what they do, as they are always going to be wrong.
Being perceived as "tough on terrorism" is far more important than having a workable plan. Politics is mostly about posturing while having your way with an unrelated issue at the same time.
not the current ones, i'm talking FDR.
http://www.wired.com/news/columns/0,72774-0.html?t w=rss.index
Honesty. Loyalty. Kindness. Laughter. Generosity. Magic!
There should be a few new rules to be a president/VP of the U.S.
#1. If you start a war, you send your kids to the frontlines of whatever country you are attacking.
#2. Your kid stays there till your term is over.
#3. You cannot own any companies or be a shareholder of any.
Most of the time the politicians WANT the people to be afraid because fear is an emotion and emotions are easier to use when re-election time comes.
Politicians who run on fear don't have any thing else.
If the government was seriously interested in reducing the threat from terrorism, they would've come up with a comprehensive, and practical, plan for creating stability and peace in the Middle East. But that's simply not the case. For example, the only thing the extremists hate more than the US and the West is Israel. Unfortunately, the Israeli/Palestinian peace process has never been on the administration's frontburner when compared to Iraq and Saudi Arabia policies. And speaking of Iraq, what better way to galvanize potential terrorists than by fulfilling Osama's message that the Infidels want to invade the holy lands? Not having a competent reconstruction plan or means of dealing with sectarian conflict doesn't help either. Then there's the perception that the US is ignoring diplomacy with Iran because President Bush wants war. Even if this claim is meritless, that is still how many people see it. All of this, coupled with deep-rooted societal issues, creates the conditions that foster terrorism. New government agencies and stupid color-coded charts do jack shit to address the core issues. And by relying on bureaucrats, as the author says, we're setting ourselves up for disaster. The government needs to stop with the feel-good, expensive, worthless Homeland Security measures and really tackle the issue at its source...
"Commonsense security" would make a grand slogan. But in practice that would be the same stuff we get now, because the spin merchants would insist that whatever they're promoting is commonsense. "It's common sense to imprison everybody and have robots look after their basic needs; after all, if it saves one child..."
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
I can get a standing ovation in any presentation (even a presentation about replacing batteries in our server room UPS) by saying: "We must be eternally vigilant in this post-911 world where terrorist are waiting to strike the heart of every god-fearing citizen of this great country. Common sense dictates that the majority of the actions that we take will not be done in fear but in positive response to a potential threat against our children. Security must be on the mind of every person in this meeting and we also must continue to strive for our united goals to eradicate the danger"
Then, I quickly add...
"And so, we have to replace the 3-year old batteries in the server room"
Nobody argues. I could have said "we need to have three-hour Doom tournaments once a week" and I would get it.
Feel free to cut-and-paste my speech and try it out at your next budget meeting.
TDz.
I do not agree...at all.
0 001 012.html
Certainly, we are not without sin, but the current rift is more complex than you portray. At the very least, it is due in part to a clash of cultures and religions that are almost diametrically opposed to one another. Freedom of speech, expression and, yes, religion are basic tenets of American society. We have grown so used to these basic freedoms that we assume that they are universally true...and they are not...regardless of how much we (or others) would like them to be.
I am not attempting to flame, but I think that it is fair to say that some societies (especially some of those in the Mid-East) hold a specific religious dogma to be of principal importance to their society. All other laws and rules of behavior flow from that religious dogma...or, at the very least, cannot conflict with it. I think that it is also fair to say that the level of tolerance for conflicting beliefs is fairly low. Doubt it? Try carrying a stack of bibles into Saudi Arabia and see how far you get through customs. I'll tell you how far - to the line that leads to jail:
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE230022
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_
In America, the squeaky wheel gets the oil. I worked in Japan for some time and realized that a somewhat similar Japanese phrase crystallizes the difference between our two cultures - the nail that sticks up gets hit. The clash of philosophies between Islam and the West make the differences between the US and Japan look trivial.
Everything remains until such time as the electorate get sick of all of it and kick out the party that is profiting by it and replace them with the politic party that will shift the focus away from terrorizing the public with bogus threats and focus on all those mundane issues that will affect the lives of the majority like, universal health care, universal education, the environment and the falling average standard of living ie they toss out the party that focuses on the wealthy minority and making them richer, safer and protecting them from the poor that the rich create and instead focus upon the working poor and on preventing the now shrinking middle class from sliding down to join the working poor.
You can always tell the most corrupt politicians because they will always pat themselves on the back for how much profit the corporations and the wealthy that control those corporations are making and completely ignore how many ex-middle class families have joined the ranks of the working poor.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
We get the government we deserve.
No politician has even been fired for CYA. I doubt they will start firing them now.
Most people like the feel good security. It makes them feel safe. If you point out the men with the guns don't mean much if the airport perimeter is not secure or the luggage is not scanned, they don't worry. It's about the perception of security.
The American electorate is not particularly nuanced. Most buy into their candidates merely by party affiliation, or the people they see on TV. They buy their illusions of security with as little thought.
Every time someone dies somewhere of anything, people cry out for a new law to fix the supposed problem. Politicians rarely get in the way of the response, because it is a safe move to "do something" without doing anything or actually caring about the real outcomes, of even that pesky constitution.
We either need to change the way we vote or who we vote for if we have any intent on changing this mess.
When I think of the term security, my first thought is as the first word in the term "security blanket". It's an emotional state for a person, not a logical state to be achieved in a system.
The same holds whenever I hear the term 'homeland security' and 'national security' - these systems are not designed, oriented, or run in any way to make an impervious wall to potential damage - they are, and have always been, publicity measures to evoke the emotional state of security.
If we were to create a system of real 'functional' national security, it would be a nightmare all around. We would have to make it practically impossible for any damage to be done to the protected area - which isn't plausible unless you completely prevented living things from being in the protected area or anything in range. Even the middle of the Demilitarized Zone in Korea would not fit such a definition.
Beyond this technicality though, people don't want even limited functional security. They want a shield from external consequences - they want a daddy to look over them, a very biased daddy who will listen to their complaints and hurt the bad guys. This, to a degree, is the goal behind the current illusion of security.
At the same time though, I'm glad it is the merely political/emotional system it is. Because I'd rather have a bumbling mostly-absent daddy-figure in that space, than a system which actually had the power to implement a system of authoritarian measures beyond most people's 'convenience' threshold. I acknowledge that I'm in mild danger without some precautions (in any case, really) - but I find an entrenched abusable 'security' environment much more terrifying than all the horrible rebel terrorists in the world, in the same way that I'd find a poison labeled as candy more terrifying than all the poison in the world.
Ryan Fenton
Bruce Schneier Fact
1) Stoke terror fear, playing to basic self-preservation instinct - now you have the peoples' attention
2) Sell info, services, products, agendas (hidden or otherwise), snake oil and lies under guise of protection
3) (not needed)
4) PROFIT!
There's money (and one less step) in them thar fears!
War ain't about one man against the next,
It's poor people dying so the rich cash checks.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Ahh, Illusion. The cornerstone of any great Republic. Usually associated with the beginning of its downfall.
/for a good time watch the movie 'CRANK'
Unfortunately, illusion is needed as reality is too cold and harsh for mass consumption by the public.
Apparently the Germans bombed Perl Harbor? At least that's what the article said. I know that the Japanese allied with them to get some oil in WWII but I do not remember reading about 109's or Heinkels over Perl Harbor.
---- aut viam inveniam aut faciam
> wouldn't 'Commonsense Homeland Security' be
> a winning political banner
Nope. The media won't understand it. That banner has too many words.
In fact, bin Laden was refering to American bases such as Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia, created to enforce the U.N.-mandated southern no-fly zone established post Gulf War I to stop Saddam Hussein (May He Rot In Hell for Eternity) from committing genocide against Iraq's Shiite population.
IIRC, the American military presence at Prince Sultan and other other locations went to almost nil within 30 days of the liberation of Iraq.
And the "deep-rooted" causes of Islamic radicalism is a religion that is stuck in the 9th Century.
But you go ahead and buy into that jihadi/"Progressive" propaganda. Asshole.
commonsense (km'n-sns')adj.
Having or exhibiting native good judgment: "commonsense scholarship on the foibles and oversights of a genius" (Times Literary Supplement).
Synonyms: astute, businesslike, commonsense, down-to-earth, earthy, hard, hard-boiled*, level-headed, matter-of-fact, practical, pragmatic, pragmatical, prudent, rational, real, reasonable, sane, sensible, shrewd, sober, sound, unfantastic, unidealistic, unromantic, unsentimental, utilitarian
Antonyms: "Commonsense Homeland Security"
Oh, no, wait... That's how you increase terrorism.
hmmm.
The people will still be the people. They might be voting against you, but they are still the people.
In a Democracy, the government will still be the government. You might not be re-elected to it, but it is still the government.
The politician is not the government. The politician is not the nation. The politician is not the people.
These have all existed before the politician and will exist after the politician.
But the politician will attempt to confuse them and portray himself/herself as the people, the nation, the government, the only thing that stands between all of them and oblivion.
"'Common sense' is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
Just so you know your audience.
In case you hadn't heard, membership in the U.S. armed forces is voluntary
How can a parent "send" their seventeen year-old child into the military?
Oops! I forgot - no facts allowed when the "reality-based" community has the floor.
Asshole.
The problem is more complex than just blaming the media. It is a circular problem, modern Americans are amoral, lazy and uneducated so the media gives em what they want. Of course the media also had a large hand in creating that populace but gets to share the blame with the government schools, the entertainment industry (related to the media but somewhat seperate) and the socialists who pushed things down this road to hell we are now pretty much stuck on.
A hundred years ago the average American was a hell of a lot more educated than his modern descendent, such that most people would have seen right through the idiocy and emotional based 'policies' that drive modern political discourse. Which is why a determined campaign was waged to dumb people down.
Ideas that can't be expressed in a paragraph (or better a bumber sticker) have no chance of going anywhere in these days of two minute TV news stories that have to fit in the idea, the other party objecting to it and the network twit pontificating about it. And ideas that by all rights should be dead issues because they are so self evidently bogus are taken seriously because politicians can rely on 90% of the viewers being too ignorant to know better and that under no condition will the TV dude call them out on saying something retarded.
So where does it end? Can it be reversed? Doubt it. It will end, as Amb. Kosh said, "In fire."
Democrat delenda est
Let's GET IT ON!
. . .
That's the sad thing about Democrats versus Republicans. Republicans are AMAZING marketers, they have brilliant ways to convince the people their plans are the best. If they would only put this effort and briliance to work bettering the country instead of just working the media, trying to get re-elected, and giving kickbacks and crony positions to their supporters, we as a nation and as a planet would be in much better shape.
Democrats suck at marketing, and the 2004 campaign is perfect example of that. Republican marketers managed to turn a US war hero, Kerry, into a swiftboated lame coward, while the draft-dodging Texas Air Guard guy who went AWOL was turned into a war hero. Hell, there is no way any civilized country would have re-elected George Bush, after all his miserable failures, yet the Republicans convinced the US public that he was the better candidate.
It's really too bad that Republicans don't put this effort into making decent policies or solving national or global problems.
make world, not war
"what did Bush know and when did he know it?!"
Israel's approach is borne of being surrounded by enemies and inundated by non-friends. They deal with it by having intelligent people working in their security forces, including at the airport. They frisk you (usually with a metal detector wand) when you enter any gathering place - restaurant, bus station, theater, museum, post office, etc. They use profiling, political correctness be damned. Their security practices seem intelligent - you don't have to take off your shoes when you run their usual airport security gauntlet, and a grandmother traveling with her family isn't going to get run through the same ringer as a suspicious young person.
Israel deals with real terror threats every day. They defuse real attacks every day. Maybe they know what they're doing.
Exactly. You don't see terrorist bombings in Norway, because Norway isn't sticking their collective noses in other peoples' business.
Forget NORWAY! :-)
(kenya believe it?)
Fnord
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
There has arisen a contention between civil liberties and 'homeland security' (a term i loath) precisely because a people cannot remain free and 'protected'. Freedom requires that the coercive and intrusive capabilities of authority are limited and restrained; 'protection' requires that they are not. Can these two interests be balanced appropriately?
I, for one, believe not. Perhaps for this reason that free people seem reflexively aggressive in foreign relation (US and GBR for example); the inability to sufficiently balance these two interests lends itself to the use of external direct force. As a free people desire that their authorities protect their interests and shield them from harm (via police, fire and rescue squads, ambulance services, and yes military) they will only allow so much intrusion upon their liberties (civil rights and liberties, privacy, dignity, &c). In order to achieve its mandate to 'protect' the citizenry the authority applies direct, sometimes extreme, force upon the external threat (be it a criminal, foreign power, bomb chucking anarchist, &c).
Unfortunately, authorities in the US have evidently determined that we have enough of neither. Rights, liberties, and simple human dignity is being lost while simultaneously a rather large and significant amount of external force is being applied.
I was thinking about this the other day as I set up a zombie PC as a honeypot:
I wonder if the various agencies do this for would be terrorists? Here on US soil, even over in the big sandbox. I guess the more appropriate term would be sting, but the concept is the same. Setup a weapons depot, or something else the terrorists are interested in and wait for them to come get it, and bust their ass. Remember the old scam where cops sent people with outstanding warrants notices that they won a boar or something, then busted them? I think we need to get creative, and start to be a little more proactive.
Ceasing interference with their politics in order to stop terrorism is a bad idea. It proves that terrorism is an effective tool against the US. (See also, Barbary Pirates.)
Ceasing interference with their politics because its the right thing to do is a great idea.
Convincing anyone that our reasons are the latter is an impossible idea. :)
Granted, I've given no solution here. Perhaps the best solution is to cease interference with their politics (for the right reason of course), but if they take this as a sign that terrorism is a good idea in the future we thoroughly disabuse them of this idea at that time - while maintaining (due) vigilance against it in the present, of course. (Note: due vigilance does not include preventing fluids on flights!)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
This is mostly in response to all the other posts...but we should just get our current leaders...declare that they may not elect new officials (otherwise the armies would just be reclassified as leaders), given boards with nails in them and Nebraska, gated off and striped of civilians, vehicles, communication devices and weapons. Battle royale. By leaders, this includes anyone holding 1,000-5,000 year old grudges, and people taking orders from invisible men in the sky (including Tom Cruise). Of course I am, as a Californian, competent in my leader's ability to beat the ever loving sh*t out of yours. Arnold and Reagan. Who is still our governor. And totally not dead. Reagan lives! ((Sorry, Shortpacked! reference).
Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
Approaching security with "common sense" in a racist, sexist and capitalist society is dangerous at best...
Interfering with their politics? More like daring to a non-Islamic free society.
Yeah, right. Sure there are those opposed to Western-style governments, just as many in the west are opposed to Islamic governments anywhere. That alone does not make terrorists go after you. You can easily tell because there are non-Islamic free societies which have zero problems with Islamic terrorists.
Did you notice that even Bush lap-dog John Howard was saying it was Australia's foreign policy, their actions, which caused them to become a target? He's saying that they should have intervened in E.Timor anyway, that they shouldn't change their values to accomodate terrorists, and that's fine, he's still admiting it was interference that was the proximate cause. Or was Australia not a free society before 1999?
Also, let me quote Mr. Howard again:
"Those who assert that through some calibration of our foreign policy we can buy immunity from terrorist attacks advance a proposition which is both morally flawed and factually wrong."
Yes, that's trivially false, you can never buy "immunity". Yet the implied opposite argument is that there are no cases where calibrating ones foreign policy to take into account the reaction of those who are directly affected by that policy would prevent terrorist attacks. This is also trivially false. It is morally flawed and factually wrong to imply that at no point can your foreign policy legitimately inspire people to hate you when otherwise they would not, or that you should never take this into consideration when making policy.
Case in point: Over the next couple decades, there are going to be a lot of Iraqi, especially Sunni, kids who grow up hating the United States, and it sure as fuck won't be for our freedom. Unless "freedom" means "bomb that killed my family" or "soldier who raped my sister". So hypothetically lets say there is a terrorist attack on the U.S. performed by Iraqis. Would you then argue that the decision to invade Iraq had nothing to do with that act, that had we not invaded the U.S. that attack would have happened anyway?
This is why I can't stand the "they hate us for our freedom" gambit. It denies cause and effect. It denies that anyone else's actions could be in any way inspired by your own. It denies the possibility to actually rectify the underlying causes.
It would be as non-sensical as bin Laden claiming that the West hates him solely because he is such a devout muslim. He says it though, and there are surely people gullible enough to believe it and join him, just like the ones who buy "they hate us for our freedom". And thus the cycle of violence continues.
The enemies of Democracy are
Reasons why DHS (a.k.a. you) is in this situation:
Trust Factor: Why? because I don't trust you that you'll keep me safe. Cause I don't believe your methods of safety. Cause I'm lazy to analyze the problems myself (why I pay taxes). Cause I don't even know you.
Responsibilty factor: Since I pay taxes and my taxes represent my interest, and if I empower you to carry out my interests--YOU are responsible. You can't avoid it no matter how much you try (people tend torwards laziness due to conflicting interests). And you do try, hence causing the trust factor issue.
Fear of Failure factor: Since security in DHS is based on taxes, hence a economic driven system, if you (DHS) are held responsible and a failure occurs (a terrorist act), then guess what, I will blame you. Therefore you lose your job or lose funding. Hence creating a fear of failure from being solely responsible.
Remove the fear of failure factor (on both sides), enforce responsibility and make the people aware of the risks and costs, then you'll gain the trust of the people and the system will work. Just like our postal system... ;)
Here is a better campaign slogan: "Bringing our troops home takes courage. Sending our sons and daughters to die in a foreign land because of our irrational fear of terrorism at home is the work of cowards."
We could spend 1/10 as much as we're spending on the GWOT on child nutrition instead and save more American lives than the GWOT is protecting, and that's even granting the debatable conclusion that the GWOT is actually protecting, not endangering, lives. But 9/11 made Americans feel vulnerable and queasy, and that trumps child nutrition, public sanitation, immunizations for the poor, or any other project that could help a far greater number of Americans. Yes, the media feeds into this, the same way circuses feed into our love of circuses. But it isn't as if the population is intelligent and cool-headed and the media is swooping in to dumb us down. We get the media we choose. If people were reading the Economist and Harper's instead of People and TV Guide we still wouldn't have a perfect world, but it would reflect a more intelligent and rational citizenry.
Enlistment isn't for life, and you damned will know it. It's for a stated, defined term of service, and anything past that is a unilateral contract change, that though possibly legal, is not the same thing as "they volunteered!" The government gets away with it because they're the government, and you damned well know that too. What you're doing is saying "they volunteered! I have no sympathy!" while neglecting to mention that you've reserved the option of redefining the words however you want. That's the same way the government redefined terms like unemployment, civil war, deficit, WMD, and it's a fundamentally dishonest approach to your subject. Enlisting in the military doesn't mean they get to keep you forever and ever and still use the term "all-volunteer force."
But contemplating that line of thinking involvees dwelling on morally questionable decisions made by Presidents we don't like to think morally complex thoughts about (at least not in relation to poor brown people who should be thankful we gave them Coca-Cola and jobs making our Nikes) so we stick with the morally superior answer that they hate us because we're too kind and free and virtuous. It's vanity plus denial plus laziness that has led us to this conclusion.
Your second scenario seems better. Better for $PRESIDENT and $EXECUTIVE_BRANCH_POLITICIANS.
Because in such case they successfully eliminated a lot of power from the people and can do as they please. For example even do some terrorist attack themselves from time to time to for example "remind the people" as to why it is important to fight agains terrorism by all means available etc.
Of course quite a lot of people alredy were thinking abount such scenario so as to not post too long a list I pick examples from the "entertaning pool": 1984, Animal farm, Fahrenheit 451, Brazil, Æon Flux, Enemy of the state, ...
hany
Okay, I dont know where you get your information. But Norway has had troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Just these last weeks Norway was asked by the US/NATO to contribute more troops to Afghanistan. So we are sending even more special forces units. Not to mention our F-16s were flying missions down there. And I believe our Royal Norwegian navy is still part of related NATO missions in the Med.
No, we have not had bombings in Norway yet. However we have had attacks on the only Synagogue in Oslo by Pakistani militants. We have had attacks on our Jewish populace by Arab immigrants. And we have had the pleasure of hosting terrorists from North Africa that were involved in other European bomb attacks. If those people had not been arrested thanks to our Secret Service we might just have had our 9/11. Who knows.
Regardless, our nose is very much indeed in other peoples business.
We are active in Israel/Palestine, Sri Lanka, Guatemala etc. Remember the Oslo agreement that led to the Camp David signatures? Not loved by the Arab world. In Sri Lanka they burn our flags and effigy's of our Ambassador because we are trying to create peace. They do not want peace or our peacekeeping observer corps (troops). Did I mention the Muslims on Sri Lanka?
So you see there any number of reasons why Norway could be attacked.
Both your algorithms work until a more oppressive/aggressive party/individual gains power. Then they immediately turn to something another. If oppressive/aggressive parties/individuals are already in power when the program is first executed, it gets an immediate Zero day exploit : 1. $PRESIDENT and $EXECUTIVE_BRANCH_POLITICIANS say "Terrorist threat is continually on the rise" /* $PRESIDENT and $EXECUTIVE_BRANCH_POLITICIANS doing anything about terrorist attack does not matter, as it is commented out. Its just for novelty */
2. $PRESIDENT and $EXECUTIVE_BRANCH_POLITICIANS take more 'measures' that increasingly wrest power to their parties, curiously this always benefits their supporters to the extreme.
3. Terrorist attack happens OR Terrorist attack doesnt happen
4. People now CANT howl that $PRESIDENT and $EXECUTIVE_BRANCH_POLITICIANS only want to take away people's rights and institute fascism, because this counts as spreading dissidence and supporting terrorism.
5. This program is no longer necessary or relevant. This program will SERF-terminate immediately.
Read radical news here
The problem is that you're taking up all the slack. I'd like to have some, too.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
The first step is to demand that public officials accept responsibility for CYA blunders.
Boston still has yet to do this, with the mayor and other public officials continuing to point the finger at Turner Broadcasting and the poor buys who put up the LiteBrite ads (who are still in legal trouble) and referring to the ads that initiated the hysteria as "hoax bombs." Surely there was somebody in the police force or bomb squad who was smart enough to say, "Dudes, chill out. Even if a terrorist was stupid enough to put lights on his bomb, these things aren't even close to big enough to hurt a bridge or a building even if they were completely made of explosives." But the City of Boston went on to waste millions of dollars, shut down the city, and decrease the chance the people will take it seriously if there ever is a real attack.
Let's see some public officials stand up and take responsibility, instead of trying to cast blame on the people who put up the signs--who actually did us a big favor by revealing how unprepared Boston is to recognize a real threat.
A parent can't "force" their kid into the military, no, but parents can (and do) give their kids options which essentially amount to "stay here and I'll make your life a living hell and your only other option is to join the military" - happened to my sister.
picpix image polls. create - share - vote. fun!
The Boston problem became worse because two 'real' (actually fake, but made to look real) pipe bombs were found that day. One was planted by a disgruntled employee at Tufts (NE Med Ctr). So, when a bunch of vaguely claymore shaped things started to get noticed flipping the bird using LEDs (rather than blinking numbers, I guess), especially at 'strategic locations', well, the inevitable happened. I won't fault the response, at the time it just all seemed a little odd.