Two Wisconsin malls have cut back the hours they are open for so-called mall walkers as a "terror precaution."
One mall spokeswoman noted "that a full complement of security guards is not in place until 9 a.m. to protect the walkers, should a terrorist attack occur."
Let's examine just where, exactly, the malls in Fond du Lac and Green Bay are on the terrorist strike list. Fond du Lac is a city of approximately 42,000 people. Green Bay is a city of approximately 102,000 people. It is safe to say that there are many larger, symbolically more important cities in America against which a terrorist could choose to strike. Now, let's try to guess just how many people show up at a mall at 8 a.m. to walk. Remember, all the stores are closed, so the only people showing up are people who open stores at 9 a.m. and mall walkers. Even if these were really big malls, the number of mall walkers couldn't possibly be more than a hundred.
Beyond that, those hundred people aren't walking around the mall in a tightly packed group. Rather, they are quite spread out as individuals and groups walk at slightly different paces. And, of course, the larger the mall, the more spread out these walker most likely are.
So, would it make sense for a terrorist to strike a very large building that contains a small, disbursed population in the relative middle of nowhere?
Wouldn't a terrorist trying to make a statement rather strike a building packed with a large number of people? Something like a concert hall or a football game?
Of course they would. Even if a terrorist wanted to strike a mall, wouldn't it make more sense to do so when the mall is packed with people? Like, in the middle of the day on a Saturday or Sunday (when both malls remain open)?
This is most likely just a way for the malls in question to cut the hours their buildings are open without simply saying, "Look. We're opening one hour later because it will save us $1000/day. Sorry folks, but that's the way it is."
It aggravates me to read how businesses and politicians take action to cut costs, reduce freedom, destroy privacy, and increase inconvenience to their customers and constituents, all the while claiming that the changes are for our own safety and security against terrorism. Do they think we are stupid?
Nadine Strossen, ACLU President recently said, "Too many provisions of that law are, in fact, the worst of both worlds. They do demonstrably make all of us less free without demonstrably making any of us more safe." She was speaking about the Patriot Act, but the thought behind the message could be applied to many situations in our daily lives.
Are we any safer because a pair of malls in Wisconsin have reduced the hours that they are open for mall walkers to use?