Asymmetrical Information

The radio here in D.C. reported that two Acela trains were searched this morning based on specific threats.

At around rush hour yesterday, the subways around 72th steert (i think trying to remember exactly what was said) were shut down for a bit due to a 'police investigation' related?

"According to ABC News, the separate incidents [threats on tracks in Phila and NJ] in addition to other activity along rail lines between New York, Philadelphia and Washington has triggered concern among federal authorities in Washington prompting a massive counter surveillance operation."--ABC News, Phila, 5/20/04

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/news/052004_nw_trainprobe.html

I'm working near Ground Zero and just heard a ton of sirens outside. They seem to have stopped but still...

Great. Nothing I love better on a Friday morning than terror threats.

The 72nd street thing was apparently because an elderly man fainted and his head was hit by a train

Mindles, thanks for the scoop...hadn't heard this through the usual Wall St. buzz this morning.

I was at St. Patrick's Cathedral this morning, and there were a bunch of cops outside, and the police line thingies across from the cathedral. I assumed there was going to be some kind of protest later today.

This morning, outside my building on Trinity Place (in downtown Manhattan), there was a block-long line of police cars blocking a whole lane of traffic on the west side of the street. This had the effect of funneling the traffic, most of which was issuing from the Brooklyn-Battery tunnel, into one congested lane. This in turn was allowing a squad of police officers to "frisk" any vehicle they wished to stop and pull over.

As of one o'clock, the line of patrol cars was no longer there.

I've been riding my bicycle to work along the Hudson River. If anyone is nervous about taking the subway, I recommend bicycling, there's a great bike path that goes all the way up past the Cloisters.

The only thing that bugs me is that the cops don't alert the citizens of what to look for. I know that New York is the quintessential nanny state, and New York City is the quintessential nanny city, but I thought that what we learned on 9/11 was that the only success in thwarting the terrorists' plans was through the actions of private citizens and not from any police, etc.

Hey, authorities, LET US IN ON THE ACTION! It's our responsibility too!

"I thought that what we learned on 9/11 was that the only success in thwarting the terrorists' plans was through the actions of private citizens and not from any police, etc."

That's what I keep saying about the 9/11 Commission hearings. For all the second guessing, nobody has asked, "Why weren't the American people made at least generally aware of this?"

The whole country has a way to go to improve civil defense along the suggested lines. Didn't the radio stations in NYC mention anything about this during the day?

That's what I keep saying about the 9/11 Commission hearings. For all the second guessing, nobody has asked, "Why weren't the American people made at least generally aware of this?"
Posted by denise

Because the Bush administration is corrupt and incompetent.

jihadists' claim for the 3/11 atcha/spain attack came with time-sensitve warning: surrender or get another attack - only worse.

time is up.

The Bush administration is no more corrupt and incompetent than the Clinton administration (or the Kerry administration). Politicians are all crooks.

I think they don't alert people more because they don't want to induce alarm fatigue, be characterized as stupid by the media or incite a civil rights brouhaha.

The Bush administration is no more corrupt and incompetent than the Clinton administration (or the Kerry administration). Politicians are all crooks.
Posted by Jervis Ninehammer

"Everybody does it" is neither a sufficient excuse, nor even remotely true in this instance. For corruption and incompetence, Bush is sui generis.

Also, since the "Kerry administration" has yet to come into existence, I hardly think we are in a position to judge its honesty or competence.

"Everybody does it" is neither a sufficient excuse, nor even remotely true in this instance. For corruption and incompetence, Bush is sui generis.

Also, since the "Kerry administration" has yet to come into existence, I hardly think we are in a position to judge its honesty or competence.

Orbitron

It's an observation, not an excuse, and you'd be hard pressed to find examples of integrity or competence in the annals of executive history. Clinton confessed to felonies while in office, so I'd not pick him as a shining example. Kerry's testimony to Congress about atrocities in Vietnam marked him as either a liar or a war criminal. Either way, he exposed himself as a person of low moral character. If you want to argue that Clinton and Kerry are less flawed than Bush, I might agree. But our government is a cesspit of corruption, and few are untainted.

The Americans who wrote our Constitution were aware that power and money corrupt. They designed checks and balances that harnessed the ambitions of several centers of power into a contest of wills.

With the exception of the Civil War, the system has worked very well.

By historical standards, is the Bush administration nore or less corrupt? We'll know a lot more in thirty years, but right now the White House appears to be unusually honest and markedly not corrupt.

Corruption usually involves taking money in return for political favors. There are very few stories in the press alleging this against the Bush administration. Corruption was far more prevalent under Johnson and Nixon.

It's easier to see how Bush's handling of the Iraq war could sustain charges of incompetence, but I would pick the Carter administration as sui generis of incompetence.

I thought it was weird when they actually made an announcement in the subway to alert authorities to stray backpacks & other 'suspicious' objects.

I guess they _did_ get people involved. It made me look around anyway.

Comments are Closed.