Saturday, February 25

Security Versus Being Secure

It is, to say the least, unsettling to find out that no one in the higher positions of authority in the country seems to have been aware that the USA was putting out the welcome mat to the UAE on the ports issue. It is especially unsettling when Bush and others claim to be watching out for us, and we are supposed to believe, they have our security well in hand.

Quite frankly, I have been trying to figure out how they can possibly believe that. As I thought about it, it came to me that the Bush administration does not see security as I see it. Since I was watching an old kung fu movie on the TV this morning, I´ll use that as an example. An old crook hired the kung fu expert as his bodyguard, and so he was secure. He had his security. Of course, that did not last long in the movie. The kung fu expert soon discovered his boss was a crook and became his worse enemy. Security was having the force necessary to repel all attacks. Being secure was something else.

My idea of being secure is like building a castle. If you build a castle where there are holes in the wall where anybody and everybody can get in, then you're dead meat. You can have lots of security, but you are not secure.

Does the Bush administration focus on security or on being secure? If I have to use the ports issue, or the border with Mexico as an example, then I would have to say that they are more focused on security, but not on being secure.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

eXTReMe Tracker Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com