Phyllis Kahn mentioned: > Why can't I get any comments (more than one) on > the dopeyness of the feel-good proposal from the > Mayor to spend $500,000 to stop terroristic acts > against the city water supply?
I would like to get more details on what this plan is. I against spending this money specifically to protect ourselves from some vague terrorist threat and it seems very possible that it is being done just so we can say we tried to do something. If someone wants to do something bad enough, they'll probably find a way. Some may get caught, but some won't. However, if the plan is something a bit more broad and not just focused on the terroristic threat, then I would support it more. For example, if it were to involve making sure that the water supply is constantly monitored for incoming harmful components, it might not be such a bad thing. If someone dumped a lot of chemical X, whether it was for terroristic reasons, an industrial accident, or criminal waste disposal into the sources for our water, it would be good to be able to notice it before it gets into our taps. I would hope this is being done to a certain extent, but if it needs to be improved and this money would be used to improve it, then it might not be such a bad thing. I personally believe the chance of accidental or criminal contamination is likely to be much higher than terroristic contamination. Either way, having it be branded as "for terroristic acts" is a bit of a feel good label. So I'm up for dropping the distinction, but I guess I'd need to know the details of the proposal before I can make an educated decision on whether or not it is a good idea. - Jason Goray, Sheridan, NE __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
