Actually, I'm having trouble finding any news articles that give Homeland Security's take on this whole thing, though NPR had quotes from Chertoff himself.
What the news agencies don't seem to care to report is that NY actually got MORE money based on the lack of "icons". The meaning behind icon made things like the Statue of Liberty and the Empire State Building be worth less in the grand scheme of things because their scale for granting money is based on the number of lives at risk. Since generally you don't have people *in* a statue, money isn't usually allotted for statues or other icons as much as it would be for any building where there are people at great risk. Rather than naming these buildings that obviously house people (even if temporarily) as icons and remove the amount of money budgeted to protect them, those in charge opted to call them buildings or whatever the actual term is, and therefore give more to the budget to protect them.
NYers are upset over the loss of the money they have been given, but they aren't taking into account that for the last several years they've been given a significant amount more than most of the rest of the country. What they should take into account is that NY being protected is good, but what if terroists decide to start attacking our food supplies? Should we not protect places that provide our vegetables or our meat? Wouldn't NYers feel a little attacked if suddenly the cost of carrots rose higher than the cost of gas?
I dunno, the whole thing angers me because most of us have to rely on news agencies to provide us all this information and they are warping it, and most likely intentionally, because this way the news is selling. Grr. Idiot news people.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2006-06-02 10:54 pm (UTC)What the news agencies don't seem to care to report is that NY actually got MORE money based on the lack of "icons". The meaning behind icon made things like the Statue of Liberty and the Empire State Building be worth less in the grand scheme of things because their scale for granting money is based on the number of lives at risk. Since generally you don't have people *in* a statue, money isn't usually allotted for statues or other icons as much as it would be for any building where there are people at great risk. Rather than naming these buildings that obviously house people (even if temporarily) as icons and remove the amount of money budgeted to protect them, those in charge opted to call them buildings or whatever the actual term is, and therefore give more to the budget to protect them.
NYers are upset over the loss of the money they have been given, but they aren't taking into account that for the last several years they've been given a significant amount more than most of the rest of the country. What they should take into account is that NY being protected is good, but what if terroists decide to start attacking our food supplies? Should we not protect places that provide our vegetables or our meat? Wouldn't NYers feel a little attacked if suddenly the cost of carrots rose higher than the cost of gas?
I dunno, the whole thing angers me because most of us have to rely on news agencies to provide us all this information and they are warping it, and most likely intentionally, because this way the news is selling. Grr. Idiot news people.