He's only been the Department of Homeland Security Secretary for a couple months, but Michael Chertoff is a real dumbass. Chertoff, you're not going to win any fans by saying, "The truth of the matter is, a fully loaded airplane with jet fuel, a commercial airliner, has the capacity to kill 3,000 people. A bomb in a subway car may kill 30 people. When you start to think about your priorities, you're going to think about making sure you don't have a catastrophic thing first," no matter how true it may be. Because when there are millions of people who use mass transit on a daily basis just to get from here to there. Commuters in the area are angry, as well as quick to conjure up worst case scenarios. One man tells Newsday, "To me, Penn Station -- it's just a matter of time. I think more than 30 people would die from a bomb." And the Straphangers' Gene Russianoff says, "He obviously doesn't ride the train. It's staggering what damage an explosion might do at Grand Central or Penn Station... the real risks are in transit. It just couldn't be clearer than day." The American Public Transportation Association also condemned Chertoff's remarks, stating, "'To say that a terrorist attack on a subway is less important than an attack using a commercial airline is another example of how the federal government treats the millions of public transportation riders as second-class citizens when it comes to security."
Chertoff's remarks come as the Senate is figuring out how much funding security should get and where it'll go. He tried to backpedal by saying that there's already infrastructure at the local level to deal with mass transit terror situations, whereas there no support for aviation. At any rate, Gothamist invites Secretary Chertoff to ride the subways for one week during rush hour - we'll pay for your weekly Metrocard - and rethink his statement.
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
He's already writing it off because he knows it will happen and won't want to take the blame/heat.
Speaking of dumbasses: dirt is the yo-yo who didn't think al-Qaeda had anything to do with the London bombing. And Jen, why don't you lay out your master plan for making our transit system impenetrable? Stick to your Law and Order posts, lightweight.
well, he's kind of got a point.. federal priorities do need to be for national security issues. locally, we need to worry about the things that can affect our community.. the buck can't always go to the federal govt, just because they print the money.
What an idiot! Protect those who can afford to fly, while screw those who can't afford a car.
Nola> Interesting, as I haven't heard/seen proof that these "terrorists" are DIRECTLY LINKED TO AL QAEDA. Can you please enlighten me? By the way, still having problems getting laid?
I'm less angry at this idiot than I am at senators who insist Idaho and Nebraska need as many homeland security funds as NY, CA, DC, and other major cities with more likely targets. MORONS!
*probably not making any friends either warning*
Personally, I’m not sure I’m opposed to a government official who speaks candidly. To phrase the indisputable truth of what he said in any other way could be construed as... well... political. Hard truths are hard for a reason. Don’t get me wrong, concern over safety in public transportation is more than valid. It is only a matter of time, and there is no question as to whether commuters and commuter groups should be concerned over lack of funding. But his primary job is to maximize public safety with the money that is allotted, and perhaps trying to increase that allotment. Reassurances to the public that may or may not have any factual base is only a secondary job description.
and nolo, not to mention all the people who live and work in the tall buildings, and all the people who walk under the tall buildings, and all the police and safety workers who works to protect the lives of people who live and work in, under and around the tall buildings, etc,... I’m not sure this is a class issue.
And Lola is right
Ehh.. isn't Chertoff right?
Drew, this is only one man's opinion, but yes.
But is Chertoff's only job to decide where national funding is distributed? Surely his statement, while broad, should allow him to be chastised for not preparing at all for major commuter hubs like Penn Station and Grand Central to be attacked. Since we here in NYC are certainly a potential target, perhaps he can get with the Most Confused and Overwhelmed Man in America, Peter Kalikow at the MTA, and help him figure out what to do with all the security money he's sitting on. I know Kalikow is waiting for technology to improve before spending the money, but who knows how long it will take for Roomba to come out with a bomb remover?
futurebombvictim, awesome good answer! But imagine, as awful as it may be, that NY is victim of a bombing attack of equal scale to that of london. As a daily user of the MTA system, the probability of you being a victim is still incredably low. I know that is a horribly cold way to look at things, but that is a major part of chertoff's job. And yes, you are right, government officials should alway be open to being chastised.
And I'm still laughing about the roomba comment.
I think it's a false premise that the choice is whether we sacrifice the airport or the commuter systems. Why can't the bulk of the funding go to airports and commuter systems, with places like Wyoming and Iowa getting less money? Because they want to send pork home. We don't need to spend huge amounts of money to protect corn fields.
I honestly don't see how we can make a public transportation system 100% airtight without stepping on some civil liberties (and even some citizen's rights). It's absurd to think that the geeky-looking, overweight cop standing in the stairs of the Bedford L stop (when it's obvious he'd rather be exploring that hidden sex level in Grand Theft Auto) is going to make me feel any safer. If a brainwashed ding-dong decides to detonate something between Manhattan and Brooklyn in the good ole NYC Subway, there's no way this guy's gonna be able to do much. Love the men and women in uniform. Just don't know exactly what the hell they're supposed to be doing in the trains when EVERYONE could be strapped with explosives. How do you gauge a serious threat?
Not that I think the TSA is doing that stellar of a job either.
But aren't terrorist attacks also measured in not only the amount of people they kill, which is tragic, but the economic, psychological and social impact as well? Sure, a subway bomb might kill only 30 people, but it would be devestating to city economies as it would shut down transportation and hurt local businesses.
To use Chertoff's cold, cynical logic, only a few hundred people were killed on the planes that were involved in 9/11, out of millions of daily air travellers, yet no one would doubt the impact the hijackings had on greater airline business.
Chertoff's answer is right if you only measure the effectiveness of terrorist attacks in people killed. But their effect goes way beyond casualties.
g, unfortunately, it still applies. The potential for economic, psychological and social impact is still greater if the airline industry is attacked than if a public transportation network is attacked. It sucks, but it's true.
I understand the need for aviation security and why the federal government would concentrate its efforts on that. However, I feel Chertoff's remarks are somewhat irresponsible, especially since Congress is set on allocating money equally amongst states, versus using risk-based distribution. NYC, as well as other cities that rely on mass transit, are critical parts of the country's economy, so it's a little alarming that he's sort of writing it off. I'm sure the local agencies are happy, in that sense, that they won't have to deal with federal meddling, but in terms of funding, for an already underfunded system like the MTA, it just makes me fell shitty.
And I don't think the subways will ever be impenetrable, but it's disappointing that at every level, from the city to the state and up to the federal government levels, subways and mass transit projects get the shaft with funding.
Gothamist is being much too eager to jump on Chertoff. Yes, so he says money should be distributed based on risk. But according to an editorial in yesterday's Times, Chertoff was using the "risk" argument to try to get more money for NYC and other high risk areas. It was the traitorous Joe Lieberman who successfully argued to have it more evenly distributed, like al Qaeda would even consider bombing Hartford or New Haven. And to think I actually voted for the SOB for VP back in 2000.
And screw TypeKey. I just went through five screens like this because I signed in three times but after each time Gothamist told me I wasn't signed in. I'm never using that crap again.
I think everyone is in agreement that congress is the big shit for allocating the money equally among the states.
Indeed eebmore.
I don't think Gothamist was off the mark for busting Mr Chertoff's balls. But I can see public transport not being a huge priority for the administration. Most of the country doesn’t even rely on it with cities such as NYC being the unique exception.
But don't worry. The way the government runs things, we'll get a truckload of aid for security once an attack happens here...
hey dirt, do you have some "dirt" on Nola with regards to his/her inability to get laid? Pray tell!
I sense sexual frustration in "its" language...
shit, i was hoping for something specific. but theres nothing sexy about venomous bile, thats for sure
Maybe dirt and sp should get a room already?
dirt and sp are the same "it."
Nola> You'd love to watch, wouldn't you? ;-)