Source
I don't understand this. We're cutting funds for antiterrorism grants?

I don't know that they are cutting funds exactly. They are just re-allocating the funds to cities that, in the eyes of the current administration, are in greater danger. Greater danger of their candidate not getting re-elected. Oink, Oink.

I think they may be inviting terrorists to blow up Ted Kennedy....and the problem with this is what?:)

New York and DC lost 40% of their funding. Louisville and Omaha got increases.
That makes no sense to me.

I suppose it depends on the overall figures rather than percentages and also what has been done thus far. I haven't done any research, so the following is hypothetical.

Let's say that most of the funding went to big cities originally to do things like put up concrete barriers so that car bombs couldn't drive into a building. Well, once that is done, the funding doesn't need to be there to do that and can be diverted elsewhere.

I would guess that the large portions of the funding went to large population centers to do that kind of stuff first. Once improvements like that are done, the funding then moves to smaller population centers to do similar facility improvements that only need to be done once.

Just a thought on why it may be happening. It may not be the reason, but it is plausible and logical.

New York and DC - solidly "blue". Louisville and Omaha - solidly "red". Fairly obvious, IMO.

I got that part. :D But what I'm wondering is is that DC and NY got attacked already. Shouldn't they be focusing on those places as possible repeat targets? I mean, I don't remember Louisville and Omaha being on the Al Qaeda tape... Then again, I'd be sad if they put concrete walls around Sleeping Beauty Castle...

I think the bigger issue is that we are a nation of soft targets. You simply cannot defend every building, stadium, fairgrounds, restaurant, train, bus, plane, concert hall, park, beach, bar, festival, church, etc... The money being spent on this type of "defense" is simply waisted. It would be much better spent on the CIA and incentives to foreign nationals. The best defence is a strong offense.




Ohh, and to our new NSA overlords who I'm sure are reading this domestic message due to all the key words: ;)

While I agree, Moonliner, a sad pathetic man named Frank Church led an effort to change the operating rules of the CIA back in the 70s. The CIA can't pay informants if those informants maintain relationships with "unsavory" characters.

How can you have an informant who doesn't maintain relationships with unsavory characters?

But isn't this administration's mantra all about national security, protecting the homeland... yaddah yaddah yaddah? Why would they cut funds from NY and yet remind us about 9/11 every chance they get?
:shrug: