The Conservative Cat

Here's how Arianna justifies her topic:

Rep. Joe Barton, the Republican chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, is actually blocking legislation that would safeguard what the New York Times calls "probably the nation's greatest vulnerability" -- our largely unprotected chemical plants.

According to Paul Falkenrath, formerly one of President Bush's top homeland security advisors, these plants currently stand "alone as uniquely deadly, pervasive and susceptible to terrorist attack." Such an attack could lead to a death toll far greater than that of 9/11.

What we have here are two quotes, one from a known liberal sounding post (the New York Times), and one from a former official in the Bush Administration. The principle here is that humans are more likely to believe pronouncements from members of their own tribe. By quoting a Democrat and a Republican, you cover the two biggest tribes.

The problem is, a vague superlative is still a vague superlative no matter who says it. Worse, the actual quote by Richard Falkenrath is as follows

Of all the various remaining civilian vulnerabilities in America today, one stands alone as uniquely deadly, pervasive and susceptible to terrorist attack: toxic-inhalation hazard industrial chemicals.

I know, I know. She got the guy's name wrong. But even if she had used the correct name, it's a leap to go from toxic chemicals to chemical plants. It's entirely possible that the biggest vulnerability is not the plants themselves, but the waste disposal or transportation methods.

But what matters is not the fact that toxic chemicals are dangerous, it's whether the current security is adequate. Here's Arianna's take.

But even though two of America's most dangerous chemical plants are located near Barton's district -- and put over a million people at risk -- the congressman doesn't seem the least bit concerned. Indeed, he is one of the few hearty (or is it "foolhearty"?) souls in Washington willing to take a stand AGAINST efforts to shore up security at these plants.

Here's where she makes her biggest mistake. She assumes, possibly without even knowing it, that more regulation is always better. We don't know what current vulnerabilities exist. We don't know what current measures are taken. We don't know what the new regulations are or what they'll cost. So how is it that we know more regulation automatically means more safety?

See, whether new regulations are funded by tax dollars or at an industry's own expense, it's the consumers who end up paying, and unlike the multi-millionaires who work at the Huffington Post, the average American has only a limited amount of money to spend. It's in the consumer's best interest that the regulations go where they're most needed. Maybe that's electric fencing, maybe that's armed guards, or maybe it's the voluntary safeguards the American Chemistry Council began putting in place back in 2002. I don't know. That's why I don't blog about it.

But that could be due to the fact that I'm a cat. When you're at the top of the food chain, scoring a hit off the majority party in Congress is worth serious bragging rights, even though the reasoning may not necessarily be sound. When you're under 20 pounds and average less than 300 readers a day, you only take what you're sure you can get.

Respectfully submitted,

Ferdinand T. Cat