Posted by
Dave on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 4:08:34 PM
Of course the discussion of whether or not we're safer is completely asinine. It's not like building a wall 6 feet tall instead of 3 feet tall makes you safer from a catapult. Does inspecting 5% of containers make us any safer than inspecting 3%. If someone wants to kill you and is willing to do so at any cost, how do you ever really know if you're safer?
You don't.
I have ants in my back yard. I put stuff down to get rid of them (or the left may say I "slaughter" the innocent creatures). I feel like I'm doing a good job, but since I can't see what they're doing all the time, how do I ever really know? Maybe they're in the front yard, or under the house. Maybe they're on top of the house? Maybe they're scheming in the tool shed. Maybe I should go home and check on things.
What the idiots who bring up this type of question are really getting at is: are we spending enough tax payers money? And their answer is obviously no.
My question is this: is it a requirement to be clueless on economics to be a politician? There are actually elected officials that want 100% of containers that arrive at our ports inspected. What in the world are these people smoking? (well, I can probably guess) Who is going to do this? How long will it take? How will the less efficient supply chain effect costs for the customer? Talk about putting a hurtin' on the poor.
I'm reminded of the discussion after Katrina on whether or not the Army Corp of Engineers could have built the levees taller and/or thicker. Of course they could. We can build 25 foot high, 10 feet thick walls. We can also strip search every passenger going on a plane. We can keep anyone from driving within 10 miles of a government building. But who is going to pay for this?
To our "special" people in government; didn't your mom tell you that money doesn't grow on trees?
Ya'll come back now, ya hear!