Fear is...Appropriate?

[alienmastermind]

Newt. (http://crooksandliars.com/node/28398/print) God love you.

[Ox]

Is this thread intended to mock Newt Gingrich or crooksandliars? Because I am gosh-darned confused.

I do hope Democrats take this whole "fear is weakness" thing all the way. I can't wait to see the Surgeon General's warning on a pack of smokes: "Only Pussies Worry About Lung Cancer."

[alienmastermind]

It's about the thing that Republicans have been accused of in the past, Ox. Playing the 'AIEEE! Be AFRAID!' card over and over again since 9/11, ad nauseum, until people start talking about their measures they used to protect us as punchlines.

Homeland Security
Duct Taping Windows to protect you from chemical or germ based attacks.

Here, Newt is saying that we should be afraid of terrorist strikes on US soil, and a constant state of fear is a good thing.

I believe taking the 'Fear is Irrational, and should be controlled' thing all the way is what should be done. I think concern about the problem and facing it realistically would better serve us than just constant panic. And I don't know if taking the advice of a guy who philanders AND writes a book on how to keep a family together is wise.

[National Kato]

Here, Newt is saying that we should be afraid of terrorist strikes on US soil, and a constant state of fear is a good thing.


A constant state of fear has been a good tool for the extreme right wing for some time. The Becks of the world need it to fuel their crazy rhetoric and it keeps people in acceptance of whatever these people advise. Fear usually comes from the unknown and there will always be the unknown, so Beck and others know their show will go on.

Should we be vigilant? Should we be conscious of possible attacks (internal and external) and plan to prevent them? Of course. However, fear and panic are not proper preparatory states of mind.

[Ox]

It's about the thing that Republicans have been accused of in the past, Ox. Playing the 'AIEEE! Be AFRAID!' card over and over again since 9/11, ad nauseum, until people start talking about their measures they used to protect us as punchlines.

Homeland Security
Duct Taping Windows to protect you from chemical or germ based attacks.
Yeah, let me tell you: whenever anyone summarizes the entirety of the Department of Homeland Security as advice to buy duct tape, I suddenly acquire a tremendous respect for his subtle and sophisticated thinking.

I believe taking the 'Fear is Irrational, and should be controlled' thing all the way is what should be done. I think concern about the problem and facing it realistically would better serve us than just constant panic.
You know, "panic" is an irrational overreaction to a frightening stimulus. The only way to evaluate whether something is "panic" or rational concern is to determine whether the reaction is rational or irrational. Right?

So, one might say that Democrats are fearmongering and panicking over global warming, or that Republicans are fearmongering and panicking over terrorism. And both parties might defend themselves by saying the other side has underestimated the danger. If global warming is really as dangerous as Democrats claim, then it's perfectly rational to be very concerned and advocate extraordinary measures to combat it. Likewise, if Republicans are correct that terrorism is very dangerous, it's rational to adopt extraordinary measures to combat it. It's only panic if the danger is exaggerated.

So the conflict isn't between supposedly "controlling your fear" and "giving in to fear." It's between different estimates of the danger. Clearly, you either think terrorism is not much of a danger or that Republican techniques for reducing that danger are ineffectual. Fine, that's a reasonable view. But don't pretend that you are somehow more courageous or more rational on this basis. You simply have a different technique for dealing with what I think we all agree is a worrisome issue. Sneering is obnoxious.

EDIT: And just to respond to the thread title: of course fear is fucking appropriate. Does any Democrat suggest letting known terrorists go free with a warning? Of course not. Everyone is genuinely concerned about terrorism and wants to avoid it. Everyone is willing to devote money and resources to combating it. That is entirely motivated by fear, and suggesting otherwise is silly.

[alienmastermind]

Yeah, let me tell you: whenever anyone summarizes the entirety of the Department of Homeland Security as advice to buy duct tape, I suddenly acquire a tremendous respect for his subtle and sophisticated thinking.

Those were meant to be two separate punchlines. Sorry bout that.


You know, "panic" is an irrational overreaction to a frightening stimulus. The only way to evaluate whether something is "panic" or rational concern is to determine whether the reaction is rational or irrational. Right?

Yes.

So, one might say that Democrats are fearmongering and panicking over global warming, or that Republicans are fearmongering and panicking over terrorism. And both parties might defend themselves by saying the other side has underestimated the danger. If global warming is really as dangerous as Democrats claim, then it's perfectly rational to be very concerned and advocate extraordinary measures to combat it. Likewise, if Republicans are correct that terrorism is very dangerous, it's rational to adopt extraordinary measures to combat it. It's only panic if the danger is exaggerated.

I would say that environmentalists are panicking, because global climate change, whether truly truly true or not, is happening. I don't care who dunnit. I want to know what the plan is when the tsunamis come.

Now, Ox, my opinion is that when the Dems fearmonger, they typically try to pass legislation to clean up businesses or act out their leftist fantasies of bringing down the bourgeois class of the super wealthy.

When Republicans fearmonger, they force shit through like the PATRIOT Act, and sign a bajillion no-bid contracts.

Sneering is obnoxious.

So is shrieking at the top of your lungs 'NOOOOO!! TERRRORISM!!!!!!! HE CAN'T PROTECT YOU! YOU'RE NOT SAAAAFE!!'.

EDIT: And just to respond to the thread title: of course fear is fucking appropriate. Does any Democrat suggest letting known terrorists go free with a warning? Of course not. Everyone is genuinely concerned about terrorism and wants to avoid it. Everyone is willing to devote money and resources to combating it. That is entirely motivated by fear, and suggesting otherwise is silly.

Okay, but blind fear is what Newt is talking about. Constant, white-knuckle fear of terrorists and their ability to hurt us, and why that justifies breaking our own laws and beliefs in not torturing enemies that goes back to the first president. Or, do we not care about American values other than being piss-scared of an attack?

[Ox]

Now, Ox, my opinion is that when the Dems fearmonger, they typically try to pass legislation to clean up businesses or act out their leftist fantasies of bringing down the bourgeois class of the super wealthy.

When Republicans fearmonger, they force shit through like the PATRIOT Act, and sign a bajillion no-bid contracts.
Somebody doesn't remember Waco.

So is shrieking at the top of your lungs 'NOOOOO!! TERRRORISM!!!!!!! HE CAN'T PROTECT YOU! YOU'RE NOT SAAAAFE!!'.
And when Newt or any other Republican begins shrieking, I'll agree that's not helpful. Even Cheney and Limbaugh have largely maintained their indoor voices, though.

Okay, but blind fear is what Newt is talking about.
No, he's not. Why must you say things that are obviously untrue? Gosh, I really don't know why I bother.

You think he's overreacting. Fine. Actually, you don't really think he's overreacting: you probably agree with him about how dangerous terrorism is. You simply think other values trump safety. Newt actually agrees with you -- note he hasn't called for banning firearms -- but he simply disagrees on which values trump safety. Second Amendment yes, habeas corpus no. This isn't blind panic or white-knuckled terror or any of the other astonishingly juvenile insults hurled in an effort to ridicule rather than argue: it's simply a different judgment about how important different values are. I don't really know why it's so fucking hard to address people's actual views rather than stupid caricatures. If you are right, have the courage to address the actual opposing arguments rather than suggest your opponents wet the bed. Because your current course is the truly fearful one.

[alienmastermind]

No, he's not. Why must you say things that are obviously untrue? Gosh, I really don't know why I bother.


Let's go to the tape, homie.

When asked ' Do you believe Obama's making us less safe?' Newt replies:

'Absolutely.'

When asked why, he says:

'Because I believe if you just look at the behavior of the last two months, the effort to open up past wounds--if you were a CIA employee today and you understood that there were people out there who wanted a truth commission, there are people who wanted to say to you, "I'm, I'm going to go back six, seven, eight years and I'm going to put you on trial potentially," if you look at what, what Speaker Pelosi said, "They all lied to--they lied to us all the time," the drop in morale, which frankly Director Leon Panetta, himself a former Democratic congressman, has testified, has said this has hurt morale. '


Dick Durbin said this:

SEN. DURBIN: Let me say--if you, if you step back and take a look at history for a moment, you will find the message we just heard from Mr. Gingrich, from Vice President Cheney and Mr. Rush Limbaugh to be the same, it's a message of fear: "Be afraid, be very afraid." And to say that this president is not doing everything in his power to keep America safe is just as irresponsible as anything I've ever heard said on your program. This president is dedicated to the safety of America. He has said clearly that he's not going to allow a single dangerous person to be released in the United States or be in a position to harm us. He's doing everything night and day to keep us safe. But let's look at what we have here.

The president said in his speech--he didn't question the motives of those like Vice President Cheney, who thought they were keeping America safe. The fact is, in a way it didn't work. Guantanamo became an inspiration for recruiting terrorists around the world. At the end of the day, it was President Bush in his second term who abandoned the Cheney approach, who said, "We're not going to use torture. We're going to close down Guantanamo because it isn't working to keep America safe." Now, I just want to tell you, when people like General Colin Powell step forward and say to us, "Put torture behind us and close Guantanamo," I believe they are on the right track.

Here's a person who served our nation in the military and on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and he believes we can keep America safe with a much better approach. And this notion somehow that President Obama is not keeping America safe has been rejected by the American people. They trust his leadership.

And Newt follows the suggestion of closing Gitmo and ending torture with 'Be Afraid is Right' Be shit-scared, America because the President is making you less safe.



You think he's overreacting. Fine. Actually, you don't really think he's overreacting: you probably agree with him about how dangerous terrorism is. You simply think other values trump safety. Newt actually agrees with you -- note he hasn't called for banning firearms -- but he simply disagrees on which values trump safety. Second Amendment yes, habeas corpus no. This isn't blind panic or white-knuckled terror or any of the other astonishingly juvenile insults hurled in an effort to ridicule rather than argue: it's simply a different judgment about how important different values are. I don't really know why it's so fucking hard to address people's actual views rather than stupid caricatures. If you are right, have the courage to address the actual opposing arguments rather than suggest your opponents wet the bed. Because your current course is the truly fearful one.

This is the exchange that says to me that their idea (if such can be called this) is to rely on fear to motivate policy, and use fear as a guiding principle when making policy decisions, Ox. I'm not lying about the man's position. I'll highlight the points that lead me to believe this, so you can point to that. Attacking me instead of the fact that the guy is proffering fear as a viable stratagem is fine, Ox.

I'm not painting the Republicans in toto with the 'Fear=Best Strategy' but it sure seems to be the mantra since 9/11.

REP. GINGRICH: Let me just say, I think people should be afraid. I think the lesson of 1993, the first time they bombed the World Trade Center, was fear is probably appropriate. I think the lesson of Khobar Towers, where American servicemen were killed in Saudi Arabia, was fear is probably appropriate. I think the lesson of the two embassy bombings in east Africa was fear is probably appropriate. I think the lesson of the Cole being bombed in Yemen was fear is probably appropriate. I'll tell you, if you aren't a little bit afraid after 9/11 and 3,100 Americans killed inside the United States by an effort, if you weren't worried about the second-wave attack that was designed to take out the biggest building in Los Angeles, I think that, that you are out of touch with reality.

That sentence requires you to believe the reports of confidential documents that were never released regarding an incident that was unproven to ever have taken place. That goes beyond genuine concern for the well-being of the populace, and into the area fearmongering for political gain.

This is the practice I have a problem with. The constant keening wail of 'Obama's making us less safe' (metaphorically speaking, Ox, of course no one's shrieking over here...but there's lots of sneering coming from Cheney, but I think that's just the man's neutral facial expression)

Here's the rest of the exchange.

MR. GREGORY: Right. But--wait, but Speaker Gingrich, you make the point about how Vice President Cheney felt personally, personal fear. And isn't President Obama's argument that fear as a basis of national security policy is not sustainable over time? How do you come up with a sustainable legal framework, a sustainable national security policy?

REP. GINGRICH: We, we...

MR. GREGORY: Don't we elect leaders to transcend fear for lasting policies?

REP. GINGRICH: Look, we sustained the Cold War against the Soviet Empire for 44 years because our national leadership came together and said to the country there are sufficiently great dangers to America to sustain our power worldwide. I mean, we sustained against the Soviet Empire worldwide for 44 years. Now, that requires us to have a--I think the first level of debate's simple: How much should you worry about something truly terrible happening to America? I belong to the wing that believes we live in an age when very few people using very dangerous weapons can cause incalculable damage, and I think we should take very strong steps to make sure that doesn't happen.

What I think about this is that it's that sense of lying on the square, that he's stating a truth in that dangerous weapons exist, and terrorists could use them, and far understating what "strong steps" are to be used. On 9/11, it's probably best to remember that the guys managed that terrible event with boxcutters and insanity.

I'm saying that using fear as the motivator, makes the populace less rational, and more hysterical. Americans have a history of behaving in irrational manners, and throughout history the 'shock doctrine' has had a foothold in the tyrant's playbook. Stun the populace with a shock, and then bend the country to your will while the populace is still fearful enough to do anything to quell the fear.

I think Newt is playing on those fears, Ox. Call me 'scared to call him out on it' if you want, but I think he's playing lowball.

[alienmastermind]

Somebody doesn't remember Waco.

I'm addressing this separately, because, you seem to think I don't find fault when it occurs on the Democratic side as well. Saying something like this, Ox, implies that I forgot that Waco happened, am ignorant that it happened, or gloss over it because someone on the Democratic side issued the order for it to be done.

The fact is, Ox, I feel that the decisions made by past administrations should serve as guideposts to when we screwed up, and as low tide lines for what we should change. That, of course, was a major major screwup by anyone's estimations. But I could just as easily say 'Somebody doesn't remember Ruby Ridge' as pointing to where governments and their law enforcement have reacted out of fear and ridiculous things have happened.

They are all the same, Ox, because it shows that when we let fear guide our principles, we make foolish mistakes.

[OUX]

Fear is the mind killer.

[Ox]

This is the exchange that says to me that their idea (if such can be called this) is to rely on fear to motivate policy, and use fear as a guiding principle when making policy decisions, Ox.
Of course it is. Why is that bad? Who doesn't rely upon fear as a guiding principle when making policy decisions? Are you telling me you support funding cops because you like the pretty uniforms? Funding education because you really enjoy swapping tales about Cicero? Protecting free speech because you love Rush Limbaugh?

Of course not. You're afraid of being mugged. You're afraid we'll lose our international competitiveness. You're afraid that, if you ban speech you don't like, others will ban your speech, too. Fear is simply dread of undesireable outcomes. All our choices, both in politics and life, are made by considering potential outcomes and deeming some more desireable than others. All decisions are grounded on fear and hope. Why does this have to be explained?

That sentence requires you to believe the reports of confidential documents that were never released regarding an incident that was unproven to ever have taken place. That goes beyond genuine concern for the well-being of the populace, and into the area fearmongering for political gain.
Huh? Relying upon a source of information whose credibility might be called into question can't be justified by genuine concern? Tell me, is there any source whose credibility cannot be called into question? All of life is based on making credibility determinations.

You, for example, think that enhanced interrogation has made us less safe. You don't actually have a whole lot of evidence for it -- less than Newt has for the existence of the Los Angeles plot, actually. But you have some, and it seems plausible, and you deem it sufficiently credible to be given at least some weight in your calculation of risk. That's perfectly reasonable, and even if I disagree with you about the credibility of your evidence, I don't suggest it's somehow cowardice to be frightened about the possibility of further angering potential terrorists.

This is the practice I have a problem with. The constant keening wail of 'Obama's making us less safe'
We're talking about an issue of national security. The whole point of national security is to make us more safe. Republicans believe Obama's policies are less effective than their own for that purpose. How would you like them to phrase it? "We would have more hope of not being blown up if we were in charge"?

I'm saying that using fear as the motivator, makes the populace less rational, and more hysterical. Americans have a history of behaving in irrational manners, and throughout history the 'shock doctrine' has had a foothold in the tyrant's playbook. Stun the populace with a shock, and then bend the country to your will while the populace is still fearful enough to do anything to quell the fear.
True. And tyrants have often used lofty rhetoric to advance their evil ends. But that's not an argument that anyone who uses lofty rhetoric is a tyrant, or even risking tyranny. Fear, hope, rhetoric -- these are persuasive tools. Like any tools, they may be used for good or evil. But there is nothing wrong with the tools themselves. Pretending there's something wrong with considering one's dread of an undesireable outcome is a cheat used to avoid addressing the opponent's argument. It's a base tactic, and you should try to rise above it.

[alienmastermind]

Ox, thanks for your reply, which does give me a good view of your side of the argument. Here's the thing, man. I don't think concern or even fear are bad things, and all too often those on the 'liberal' side (as well as their 'conservative' counterparts to some extent) believe themselves to be smarter than the public at large and 'know what's best'. Elected officials, unfortunately, seem to be good at getting elected, but not much else.

I know what's best for me and my family, and being concerned about terrorism is probably good, but unnecessary, since even if I were blindly scared of it, what would I do to prevent it? In what capacity other than joining the military or police could I have an effect on it one way or another.

I think we both agree that foreknowledge of future events is impossible, though giving your best guess based upon past instances is possible to gauge the probable outcomes of certain decisions. I didn't just pull 'torture doesn't work' out of a hat as my side of an argument, just as you didn't pull 'we need to psychologically strike our enemies' as a tactic as a random event. If I made it sound like you just blindly follow rhetoric, Ox, that's disrespectful, and I don't want to be that guy.

But, I think the problem here is I think that leading people through fear, or even lofty rhetoric alone is a chancy proposition, when the fear is less than actually advertised, or the rhetoric is mostly empty.

I work in a business based on actuarials, and have now had my first exposures to actuarial science (a very funny term, Ox, as I'm sure you're aware), but as I understand it, terrorist attack is still pretty low on the hierarchy of ways to get hurt in this country. So, by manipulating that fear of an event that is still pretty damned rare in this country, it seems like someone's being dishonest, and honesty is a value you and I share, Ox.

As to why I distrust the report on the 'prevented attack'; whenever someone in politics points to 'nothing happening' as a result of policy, I get suspicious. In case you're wondering if it works both ways; it does, man. For years Clinton took advantage of something he had little control over, the rise of the internet based business bubble, and took credit for an economic boom that lasted nearly a decade, even as he presided over a de-regulation of industries that were mostly to blame for the collapse of the housing bubble.

There's no way for me to know if the prevention of terrorism is made possible through extreme means, as I don't have access to the PDBs that talk about that, nor am I given information about that by any other source than the news. Which brings me to the source issue that I brought up at PiRi as my second or third post ever, Ox. I believe when the source is biased, or has a slant (all reporting is biased, I think, but doesn't invalidate it) we should regard it as the opposite of 'raw data'.

Newt Gingrich is not an elected official, he's a wordsmith of the highest caliber, and created his list of words to use against opponents, which are STILL used by both sides to this day; His memo 'Language: A Key Mechanism of Control' (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4443.htm) is a good look at how he views his fellow Americans, I think.

I guess I think that kind of across the board ad hominem strategy has been this guy's forte in all his years out there, and now, I almost always disagree with him out of hand.

[Ox]

But, I think the problem here is I think that leading people through fear, or even lofty rhetoric alone is a chancy proposition, when the fear is less than actually advertised, or the rhetoric is mostly empty.
I agree entirely with this. But I don't think the "fearmongering" slander is used as a shorthand for this proposition all that often. In the case of Newt, for example, you'd have to argue that he overestimates the danger of terrorism. There's a genuine argument to be made there, but one rarely hears it. Instead, you get arguments like the OP here: Newt refers to fear, therefore he's a fearmonger. That's what bugs me, not perfectly reasonable arguments about the probability of the danger.

As to why I distrust the report on the 'prevented attack'; whenever someone in politics points to 'nothing happening' as a result of policy, I get suspicious.
Another very reasonable stance with which I agree. But since we're talking about personal backgrounds, I'll mention my training is in economics. You cannot ethically conduct a controlled experiment of macroeconomics, manipulating an entire country's policies simply to determine what does and does not happen. So there's a lot of guesswork about what would have happened in various historical scenarios. Is that methodologically suspect? Yes. But it's all we have, and we have to make some sort of attempt to figure out economic policy. It's dissatisfying but it's all we have. Caution, not rejection, about our conclusions is appropriate.

[Slack3r78]

A constant state of fear has been a good tool for the extreme right wing for some time. The Becks of the world need it to fuel their crazy rhetoric and it keeps people in acceptance of whatever these people advise. Fear usually comes from the unknown and there will always be the unknown, so Beck and others know their show will go on.
Beck pushed it far enough that Shepard Smith spend the better part of an afternoon openly mocking him on Fox.

[ShivaX]

I think the problem with the whole "fearmongering" discussion is defining the line of where irrational fear starts and rational concern ends. Terrorism and preventing it should be a concern that we approach rationally and effectively, but how far do you go before you're not acting rationally anymore and are simply acting out of mindless fear?

I think theres some pretty clear examples of the government using the fearmonger tactic, the most blatant of which is probably the whole "duct tape and plastic" announcement. Duct tape wont save you from nerve gas and suggesting that people go out and get it as official policy was straight up playing the fear card to get the populace in line.

[ShivaX]

Beck pushed it far enough that Shepard Smith spend the better part of an afternoon openly mocking him on Fox.

Shepard Smith has taken tons of shots at Beck (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showthread.php?t=7846) and thats why he is my hero, or at least the champion of sanity and integrity over at Fox News.

[Ox]

I think theres some pretty clear examples of the government using the fearmonger tactic, the most blatant of which is probably the whole "duct tape and plastic" announcement. Duct tape wont save you from nerve gas and suggesting that people go out and get it as official policy was straight up playing the fear card to get the populace in line.
I don't understand this at all. First, duct tape actually can be effective against many forms of chemical attack: chemical weapons aren't that effective, and if you can limit your exposure through taping the drafts in your home or apartment, you may be able to limit the danger. It's hardly an NBC suit, but for a $4 item you can easily keep in your home and use with no training, it's not bad.

But much more important is this: how does advising people that duct tape will protect them count as fearmongering? At worst, it gives people false reassurance. It's downplaying the dangers of terrorism and convincing people that they can take simple steps to reduce the risk. And last I checked, owning a roll of duct tape didn't make me dramatically more at risk of succumbing to some Machiavellian scheme by a tinpot tyrant. How, exactly, were people more afraid when the government told them they could gain a measure of protection by owning duct tape? How did it get the populace "in line" for the (I guess we're assuming malevolent) plots of the previous Administration?

I think the duct tape issue illustrates all my objections to (some) leftist thinking in the past few years: specious logic, unclear thinking, and only the vaguest hand-waving toward an unspecified danger that apparently lurks around every corner but for which no actual evidence ever emerges. I hope you do not take it personally, ShivaX, when I point out that if ever an example of excessive fearmongering existed, your post would qualify.

[alienmastermind]

I agree entirely with this. But I don't think the "fearmongering" slander is used as a shorthand for this proposition all that often. In the case of Newt, for example, you'd have to argue that he overestimates the danger of terrorism. There's a genuine argument to be made there, but one rarely hears it. Instead, you get arguments like the OP here: Newt refers to fear, therefore he's a fearmonger. That's what bugs me, not perfectly reasonable arguments about the probability of the danger.

In specific to Newt Gingrich, I need to mention again that list of words he and GOPAC came up with to paint people who have reasonable, or any, opposition to he and his associates' views.

Ox, let's pretend we don't live in the world of contentious bastards who believe in the 'go team' 'all or nothing' 'winning is everything' brand of political discussion.

Let's say I can say I believe that Newt is overestimating the threat of terrorism without being labeled as 'unpatriotic' or 'naive of the real dangers' or 'soft on terrorism' by those who have an opposing viewpoint.

I believe we could have the discussion on that.

A problem with this board I think, or any other where people discuss opposing political philosophy, is it can become ad hominem attacks and misdirection of the topic to prevent 'losing' rather than achieving 'understanding'. This also leads to each side assuming that the other side will simply use what is said to call names and score a hit, freezes the discussion at stereotype and caricature, because beyond 'Drank the Kool Aid' or 'racist', it can reveal someone's ignorance of the full breadth of the discussion or a misinterpretation of facts and that can be viewed by some as 'losing' the argument.

But back to the real world Ox. If anyone says in the political arena that Newt is overreacting, they come home to negative political ads that push the public into believing (without investigation) that their elected representative doesn't care or worry about terrorism, quoting them out of context.

Suspicion of the other side's motives, again, comes easily when their view of governance (in the case of Gingrich and GOPAC) seems to be to trick or decieve the public or paint the opposition as 'evil' rather than wrong on the issue.

Civility in future, Ox. I promise to give anything you say a fair shake, and won't question your motives in the process, man. Because if the conversation begins with 'And before we begin I'd like to say that anything you say is automatically debunked by the fact that you're a poopiehead', nobody gets anywhere.

[alienmastermind]

...chemical weapons aren't that effective, and if you can limit your exposure through taping the drafts in your home or apartment, you may be able to limit the danger.

This is true, the sarin gas attacks in the Tokyo subway would not have been as effective if they had struck outside, since most nerve agents that people could create on their own require confined spaces to be the most effective.

However, Ox, one can say that suggesting that all neighborhoods should bear the same level of concern over nerve agent attacks seems a little overprotective.

The duct tape thing is a short-form for the entirety of the Homeland Security effort in terms of the color-coded threat levels, the TSA's stringency, and the people in general's need to feel safer without being constantly reminded they're being protected, I think.

Also, if I recall correctly, when Ridge made the 'plastic and duct tape' announcement, it was when the threat level went to orange for the first time, which seemed incongruous to people who don't know about the effectivness of nerve gas, and the spectre of 'dirty bombs' became a week-long discussion on most news outlets, leading people to equate nukes with the plastic, rather than the actual threat of gas attack.

People have also ridiculed Obama's fuel saving tip to properly inflate your tires, so, I'd chalk it up to fantastically bad timing on Tom Ridge's part, mixed with an underestimation of the effectiveness of just duckin' it. :)

[Ox]

In specific to Newt Gingrich, I need to mention again that list of words he and GOPAC came up with to paint people who have reasonable, or any, opposition to he and his associates' views.
People sometimes use rhetoric to make their opponents' ideas sound worse. News at eleven.

Actually, this is something I deal with pretty frequently, as you might imagine. I'm not required to cast the opposition's views in the most favorable light, especially when I am convinced those views are wrong. Yet there is a line over which I can't cross. Where that line is, that's the hard question. How much rhetoric may I use in discussing an opposing viewpoint?

Let's say I can say I believe that Newt is overestimating the threat of terrorism without being labeled as 'unpatriotic' or 'naive of the real dangers' or 'soft on terrorism' by those who have an opposing viewpoint.
Well, I would call you naive if I thought you were underestimating the danger of terrorism. Why do you lump in a reasonable criticism like 'naive' with an unreasonable criticism like 'unpatriotic'? If you label all criticism as unacceptable, that is both unproductive and a little thin-skinned.

But back to the real world Ox. If anyone says in the political arena that Newt is overreacting, they come home to negative political ads that push the public into believing (without investigation) that their elected representative doesn't care or worry about terrorism, quoting them out of context.
If you say, "We shouldn't be worried about terrorism," I'm not sure there's a context that makes that better.

However, Ox, one can say that suggesting that all neighborhoods should bear the same level of concern over nerve agent attacks seems a little overprotective.
It's actually more a matter of pork than paranoia. Counterterrorism means money, which most people equate with jobs. That's why there's unreasonable spending on counterterror in Wyoming, not paranoia that East Bumfuck is the next target.

People have also ridiculed Obama's fuel saving tip to properly inflate your tires
And Democrats rebelled at the unseriousness of that attack. And they were right. Both sides make bad arguments, but that's no reason for any individual to parrot them.