"The use of geospatial information from military intelligence satellites may turn out to be a valuable tool in protecting the homeland." -- in a letter from the House Homeland Security Committee
The "homeland"? WTF? Americans don't refer to "the homeland"-- only people in Washington use this word 
, apparently. Not only does the use of this word illustrate the disconnect between Washington and the rest of America, but it also implies an imperialist world-view, in which power radiates out from the "homeland". If you think the word has fascist overtones, perhaps that is because it was commonly used by the Nazis 
. Of course, we already knew that Washington has no problem using the terminology of tyranny, as they frequently celebrate some of the most brutal tyrants in history: the Czars ("War Czar", "Drug Czar", "IT Czar", "Privacy Czar", etc.).
Oddly enough, I agree with Peggy Noonan 
(via Wikipedia ) on this point. The only thing that I can say to excuse myself is that my line of reasoning is completely different than hers. She is (was) simply interested in selling the DHS to the American people. Thankfully, I am not like her in that respect: she is the cynical Washington insider; I am the "regular American" who she is trying to sell things to.
How about we call it "Domestic Security"?
Comments :
I've never
had such associations with that word... We used it freely at the country where I was born :) So I have no serious problems using it here as it seems somewhat appropriate.
Then again I was born in the USSR :) Czar, Homeland... yeah...
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Department of Domestic Security
works for me. Department of Homeland Security works too, but I agree, it sounds a bit manufactured and very much like the product of a brainstorming meeting ("yeah, that one sounds great!").
But I really don't care what we call it, as long as it works. I'd rather we'd focus on its functionality than its name.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Ultimate Brainstorming Name
Trying to come up with a new cartoon for kids---
A: Hey, what do kids like?
B: Oh, I don't know--animals?
C: What kind of animal? Deer?
B: Naw. That's been done.
A: What hasn't been done? What else do they like?
D: Well, they like to see other kids. Why don't we make our characters teenagers?
A: Sounds good. What else?
C: Well, kids like Sci-Fi stuff, you know, horror stuff.
A: Like what? Anybody?
E: You know, ghoulish things, ghosts.
B: Ghosts have been done and done.
E: Okay, what about mutants. Kids like that!
A: Sounds pretty good. Let's keept that in mind. Anything else?
C: Well, that marrtial arts stuff is all the rage with the kids now. Maybe we can work that in.
D: Yeah, we could make them Kung Fu masters like Caine.
B: Naw, that's so seventies. How about making them numchucks?
C: that's a weapon, you numbnuts. You mean ninjas?
B: Yeh, that's it.
A: Anybody come up with an animal?
C: Chimps?
A: Too plebian.
B: Well, they're mutants, right? We could make them anything, and have them mutate smarts. How about Rhinoceroses?
A: Rhinos? I don't think so.
B: it worked for those Babar books.
A: All the more reason...
B: I got it! Turtles. Wait, hear me out, turtles. It'll work. Let's make a team of four, like comic book super heroes.
A: OK, that's it. We'll call it...
D: Teenage...
E: Mutant....
C: Ninja...
B: Turtles!
A: Ok, that's it. Now, what names should they have?
B: Boxy is out. Too cute.
D: I know, let's name them after famous baseball players.
A: Naw, that's too hokey. anyone else? .........
Why not rename it the Ministry of Love and be done with it? n/t
"Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, without ever bothering to examine the evidence." - George Orwell
How about the Department of Deporting
Radical Islamists. Make it mission specific.
name the enemy, win the war
No, better
because they will be moving people out of the country, why not call it the "Department of Transportation?"
more to the point
Thanks for the comments. Admittedly, this post is not really meant to be a call to action, but an illustration of the Washington mindset.
I also wasn't terribly clear about what bothers me (I wrote this post because I couldn't sleep last night). The problem really isn't with the name of a governmental department, or with the fact that this name is reminiscent of the Nazis.
The real problem is that this term (homeland) is seeping into our language...at least in Washington, including both officials and journalists. I really dislike this term because of its imperialist connotations. For the idea of a "homeland" to make sense, there must be a diaspora. Since we have not been deprived of our homeland, this suggests that we view our possessions to extend outside of our own country. We are basically adopting the language of a colonial power.
"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas
Abolished, not renamed...
The DHS is an abomination that goes goes far beyond it's etymological origins to the Germanic "Heimat," which conjures up references to the "Fatherland" and the Gestapo
The very concept of the DHS is antithetical to the american system of government, at least as it was orginally conceived. Terrorism, even in the age of WMD, is not an existnetial threat to liberal society. Unrestrained government, however, is. I'm reminded of Joseph Sobran, who went from a National Review Conservative to a now self-proclaimed anarchist, when he points out-in justifying his conversion--that governments in the 20th century killed hundreds of millions of people while terrorists killed only thousands. Always keep that little fact in mind when you are willing to entrust your liberty to the National Security State.
Excellent comment.
Do you have a link to those stats re: "that governments in the 20th century killed hundreds of millions of people while terrorists killed only thousands". If you do I would like to have it to save for future referance.
It is the economy, stupid.
death by government
This might get you started:
http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue06/governments.htm
There is a semantic problem here: why should we distinguish between a tyrant and a terrorist? Is it only that a tyrant gets international recognition? If that's so, then we've basically guaranteed that states will kill more people than terrorists, because an organization only becomes an internationally recognized state when it has proved that it is capable of methodically killing people (wage war and suppress rebellions).
It seems that the main difference between terrorists and tyrants is that terrorists are only capable of inflicting sporadic violence.
"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas
Terrorism
is just a tactic. Guerilla style warfare. Shocking when the US saw kamakazi pilots willing to use their planes and themselves as bombs. A difficult concept for the west to comprehend.
Tyrants rule nations with the force of government behind them.
It is the economy, stupid.
care to elaborate?
I see a few different tactics described in the above comment. Would you care to elaborate on them? Here's what I see:
1) Guerilla warfare.
2) Suicide attacks.
3) Terrorism.
4) Government (traditional warfare and policing)
I interpret "Guerilla warfare" as "hit and run" warfare--Surprise attacks, and a quick retreat, with a heavy reliance on keeping the enemy confused and off-guard.
With that definition, terrorism might be thought of as a type of guerilla warfare. However, we traditionally haven't equated the two strategies. Are you equating them, or do you think there is some distinction between them?
I don't think that suicide attacks are particularly relevant here, since they can be combined with any type of warfare.
The only distinction I can think of between "governments" and "guerillas" is that governments "hit and hold" rather than "hit and run". At the least, if governments "hit and run" (such as with a bombing raid) they are running back to controlled territory, rather than just dispersing into the surroundings.
In the end, the difference between guerillas/terrorists and governments seems to be that governments hold their ground, which in turn is largely a function of them being better able to kill people.
"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas
Pretty much agree
Though terrorism, or using guerilla style tactics and yourself as the weapon, is effective for the 'shock' value, plus it is a method the 'little guy' can use against the super power that equalizes the difference of wealth and power. Suddenly a scraggly loosely formed group can tangle with a super power and be effective. Though I think al_Queda's leaders have been more politicaly savvy in their operations. Bin Laden's biggest assest is that he understands the western macho mindset, and has used it to his advantage.
It is the economy, stupid.
What stats are needed??
Nazi Germany and Communist USSR alone over span of only 10-15 years account for far, far more deaths terrorists like Bin Laden or what have....10s upon 10s of millions of deaths.
without counting the battlefield n/t
"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas
true.
sad but true.
BTW, Adam
You should get Logan to come over.
PS: If you go in your account settings, you can get off that default black bar by choosing "libertarian" and getting a nice yellow bar :)
neutral democrat
I ended up choosing "neutral Democrat" because I could identify with a few of the "ideology" categories given. I see a bunch of red--so they're the commies, right?
"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas
that's strange
I've never seen two color bars like that before.
Something must be wrong.
Either way, I still think you'd look better in yellow. hehehe.
You can actually pick libertarian AND democrat. I think you'd still be yellow though.
I changed you
to centrist democrat for a short time, while I modify the logic.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
that's funny
that was a glitch of the system?
glitch in my logic :)
ok changed him back. I've rewritten it to be much clearer for the upgrade that I am working on but it's convoluted here.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I vote we just get rid of it entirely n/t
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
A rare place of agreement
between us. DHS was poorly thought out and poorly implemented, which is hardly surprising given the circumstances under which it was created. Trying to create such a monstrously huge bureaucracy is hard to do right even when people aren't panicking in the aftermath of something like 9/11.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Yes I agree
that has been my position from the start. It was never needed in the first place!
Btw - I beleive if we were to set aside the partisan finger pointing in a more neutral setting we'd find a few more points of agreement. ;0)
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Possibly
I'm fairly fiscally conservative, really. I'd support a federal balanced budget amendment that made exceptions for times of officially declared war or emergency.
But then we'd disagree immediately on what gets cut. I rather like social programs, and have no use for at least a third of the military.
Oh and another place- I think Affirmative Action is a very bad solution to a real problem, and should be done away with.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.