As Mayor Bloomberg says, "Nobody ever arrested a terrorist with a map of a cornfield in his pocket."
New York is a target. It makes sense to spend the money where the target is. Homeland Security money is turning into just one more big barrel of pork.
Omaha is hardly a corn field.
The people who oppose this generally live in New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, California and maybe Texas. The states with the most to lose money-wise. While the people in Wyoming and Montana among many, many other state support equal dollars for states. No one is going to change anyones' mind.
When Sheriff Barney Freaking Fife started getting his MP-5s and anti-bomb robots out in Mayberry I started to get a bad feeling.
I also find it ironic that at least 90% of the massive government expenditures incurred by New York under its anti-terrorism efforts could be eliminated simply by allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons.
Murrah Building, Oklahoma City.
The majority of military bases are in the 'sticks'. The world doesn't revolve around NY City. I'm so sick of NY and CA whining all the time.
Actually, it makes more sense to spend the money on the origins of the threats to the targets. Therefore, Boston's Logan Airport would be a good candidate for money to improve security...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1655778/posts
Cow pastures and wheat fields are a different matter.
It is not as if these fools could be a real problem where/when they were there. Other times, though, there could be a problem if a concerted effort were made by a determined foe. And that is the limit of detail I will present about that.
Noo Yawk is not the only place with important targets, whether the others are regarded as 'symbolic' or not.
So are the aqueducts in the middle of the California Desert.