TOPICS
TOPICS
Ridge to appeal to citizenry for thoughts on homeland security
Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge on Tuesday launched a new initiative designed to engage citizens in homeland security efforts.
"Citizen participation is an important spoke in the wheel of homeland security," he said of the partnership with the Council for Excellence in Government to host a series of town-hall meetings with local and state officials, "first responders" to emergencies and citizen groups. The first meeting will occur Oct. 8 in St. Louis, followed by meetings in Miami, Rochester, N.Y., California, Kentucky, Texas and Washington state.
Calling the meetings an opportunity to gauge citizens' concerns, Ridge said he believes citizens are asking the same two questions he asks himself: "Is everything being done to protect my family?" and "How can I help?" Answering those two questions will help the department protect and engage citizens, he said.
The secretary said the initiative taps into the department's strategy of "two-way dialogue" to communicate with local and state officials. "You cannot secure the country from the [nation's] capital," he said, adding that partnerships with states, localities and private sector are necessary.
Ridge also highlighted accomplishments of the six-month-old department, saying that organizational changes since March have put "one face" at U.S. borders, improved information sharing with local and state officials, and bolstered security at airports.
Patricia McGinnis, president and CEO of the Council for Excellence in Government, said working groups with representatives from business, academia and government would meet after each town-hall meeting to make recommendations based on the public's input, with a focus on health, safety, transportation and economic viability.
McGinnis also said after the program is completed in February that the group will collect data to issue a survey and report on ideas and solutions for homeland security.
COMMENTS
- I have been involved locally with homeland security well before it became an executive office. I teach first responders awareness, operations and incident command. I am finding that the public is being kept in the dark. The first responders know what to do in the event of a terrorist act but the public is not aware of all the programs that the first responders go through. The way we teach WMD to first responders would scare the hell out of the general public because we teach worst-case scenario. Put a program or a series of programs together for the general public. Have the programs aired over public television weekly. As we always tell the first responders, keep your media in the loop and they will assist, let's go to the media to keep the public in the loop. Once the public is made aware of whats going on, they will feel better knowing we are prepared and possibly will want to get involved. Maurice Schall Posted September 18, 2003 8:42 AM
- From the tone of the article, it seems more like a PR move than a bona fide attempt at a "two-way dialogue". It also appears that Tom Ridge simply assumes that everyone is basically in agreement with what he and his office are doing, and the "town meetings" are merely to fine tune the details. Ridge supposes we, the unwashed masses, are asking two questions: "is everything being done to protect my family", and "what can I do to help?" Obviously, he is setting the federal government, and himself up, to answer these questions - "we want to do even more to protect you" (translation: we want to continue amassing more and more power over states and individuals, our so-called inalienable liberty rights be damned), and "prepare to suffer in the name of "security"; just do as we say, don't ask questions; we'll do all the thinking for you". A true "two-way dialogue" would address issues that intelligent, thoughtful Americans are really asking. For example, what are you and your department doing to ensure that the constitution, and individual rights, are not trampled in the process of fighting terrorism? Should the opinion of the general population be taken into consideration when deciding how much to spend on a "war" whose ultimate objective is vague at best? And most importantly, when do we decide the "war" is over? Mike from MD, Esq. Posted September 18, 2003 2:22 PM
