Blogs

I took a petit vacation to Quebec City for the long holiday weekend and I must say, those French Canadians are crazy - in a fun way, of course. Actually, I might be a little crazy too for traveling farther North in February, but it was the last weekend of Carnival and I wanted to say goodbye to Bonhomme. If you haven't had a chance to experience Carnival, I highly recommend you check it out. I can't help but appreciate people who instead of suffering and whining about winter, choose to throw a huge 17-day outdoor party. If you go, just be sure to wear the warmest clothes you own (people wear their snowsuits, so don't worry about fashion).

Anyway, so, of course, going to Canada means crossing the border. I grew up near the border in Vermont and I know that it's usually a lot easier to get into Canada than to get out, but luckily we didn't have any problems or long waits. However, when I got back to the office this article caught my eye.

The article is about a new paper released this week by the Canadian International Council which highlights the importance of border collaboration and argues that working together can not only improve border security, but also have economic impacts as well.

Since 2001, border management in the United States has been dominated by security and law enforcement perspectives, but the author [Geoffrey Hale] argues for a much broader review of border management policies to ensure Canadian and American administrations optimize cross-border collaboration, while containing and reducing identified risks to their citizens and pursuing policies that contribute to their broader economic well-being and security.

In his paper, Dr. Hale further argues Canadians and Americans must jointly:

1. Show effective leadership to drive necessary investments in new infrastructure and technologies and strengthen cooperation among departmental agencies and orders of government.

2. Further ensure full and joint capacity-building for the processing of goods and persons, especially at border crossings that operate on a 24/7 basis.

3. Immediately improve the coordination of trusted shipper programs to better harmonize entry requirements, reduce duplication of services and implement additional land pre-clearance projects.

President Obama is set to visit Canada soon and I'm sure this will be one of the many things on the agenda.

I apologize about the infrequency of my blog posts this week. We've been finalizing our March issue this week (takes up more time than I'd like to admit) and I've been the sickest I've been in years. It is times like these I wish I could clone a healthier version of myself (I wonder if she'd be more productive too?)
Officials have been talking and talking and talking about the security plan at Ground Zero/WTC for seven years now. And I just came across another item today. The bad economy is forcing the NYPD to cut back on its plans to assign 800 officers to the area near Ground Zero and Wall Street.
The article from Newsday says that the move is a result of budget cuts and the fact that Freedom Tower is still facing significant delays.
Police commissioner Ray Kelly has warned from some time that budget restrictions could slow down plans to add manpower and install 3,000 security cameras. To date, 300 have been installed, the newspaper reported.
If the NYPD can't keep enough men on the street or secure enough money to fund projects already in motion to protect the site of this nation's most deadly terrorist attack, how can any department hope for funding? It's an uphill battle, folks.

In summer 2007, I had the great pleasure of visiting Oklahoma to view the security installations at a number of Choctaw Nation casinos. Along that fine journey with Frank Baitman, who was the president of Petards at the time, Brad Wills, CEO of Wills & Associates, and Dan Breshears, executive director of public safety for Choctaw Nation, we stopped at this historical landmark, which I've come to fondly remember as the Giant Peanut.

Although Durant, Okla., argues it is home to the world's largest peanut, I guess there is some controversy over that title.

Regardless, this is a reminder of one of my more memorable trips.

Former VP Dick Cheney is stirring up some controversy today. In an interview with Politico, he warned that there is a “high probability” that terrorists will attempt a catastrophic nuclear or biological attack in coming years, and said he fears the Obama administration’s policies will make it more likely the attempt will succeed.

Some choice quotes:
“When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an Al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry."

Protecting the country’s security is “a tough, mean, dirty, nasty business. These are evil people. And we’re not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek.”

Hey, I'm Switzerland here but according to a recent Security Director NewsPoll, 44 percent of of readers said they thought Obama's national security team choices were poor. On the flip side, 25 percent ranked them as OK and 30 percent opined that the choices were great.

I may be simple minded but all I want is for our country to be safe. Is it as dirty of a job as Cheney expresses? Do you think his views are valid? Or is he just spewing negativity?
—Rhianna Daniels