The first question of the last presidential debate on Wednesday, Oct. 15, should be, "What is today's color-coded threat level?"
I would be surprised if either candidate knew. I would be surprised if you knew. Shame on you!
The answer is yellow (elevated), except in the airlines sector where it is orange (high).
The second debate question should be, "Now that people know the threat level, what should they do?"
- Be vigilant.
- Establish emergency plans.
These recommendations do not depend on the threat level. DHS tells us to follow both recommendations when the threat level is green (low) and when the level is red (panic). President Bush advocates a more nuanced approach. As I understand it, he wants us to vary our reactions as follows:
|Color||Threat level||Recommended behavior|
Is it permissible to worry more at high threat levels? It should be, so long as this does not interfere with shopping. While buying things that you don't need on credit in a futile attempt to keep the economy from cratering, you may worry about mall-based suicide bombers.
How much should one worry? Again, DHS does not tell us! They should publish guidelines:
|Color||Threat level||Recommended level of worry while shopping|
Then, we could all feel patriotic as we tell ourselves, "Not only do I engage in a futile attempt to keep the economy from tanking by buying foreign goods that I don't need on credit, I also follow DHS color-coded worry recommendations. I am scared."
If everyone were equally patriotic, our problems would disappear. In addition to helping us feel patriotic, color-coded threat levels deter terrorists.
Faced with elevated threat levels, terrorists fear heightened vigilance and refrain from bombing shopping malls. Conversely, terrorists also suspect that low threat levels are a ruse to conceal heightened vigilance and, again, avoid mall bombings.
Note that not a single shopping mall has been bombed since DHS initiated color-coding.
Nor has any airliner been highjacked since DHS initiated profiling at airports. Through statistical analysis, DHS has determined that people with artificial hips (like me) are likely hijackers. I calculate that DHS spends $63,525,000 annually to prevent artificial hip terrorist from wreaking havoc. Expensive, but worth it.
DHS finances this enhanced vigilance by confiscating shampoo in the carry-on bags of elderly grandmothers.
DHS is well positioned. If there is a terrorist attack, DHS will say, "We warned you. We deserve a larger appropriation."
If there is no attack, DHS will say, "We have deterred terrorist attacks. We deserve a larger appropriation."
Unlike you, DHS need not worry.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!