Tuesday, May 08, 2012

the need to know...or not

There's a lot of stuff out there in the information age that's considered too much.  The only thing is, most of the time I hear "TMI", it's relegated to personal issues or things that conjure up mental pictures I could really do without.  While I agree with most of those, there are some things outside that realm that really fit the category.

One example of things I could really live without knowing is the number of days Kim Kardashian was in a state she referred to as marriage.  Actually, anything involving the name Kardashian fits the bill.

On a more important topic though, is anything involving how we thwart a terrorist.  Why does the news media insist on telling us how we managed to stop some terror threat?  Why can't we just let the world know we stopped it, and leave it at that?  I take for example, the recent successful thwarting of some new and improved underwear bomb in Yemen, that targeted a flight bound for the United States.

The news media is quick to tell us that somehow the CIA infiltrated a terrorist cell involved in the plot and we knew all about it before the attempt started.  Why do we need to know that?  Couldn't they just leave the details out?  Couldn't we leave the assholes guessing what they did wrong?  Now they know.  Now some poor guy got exposed as an informant.  Now he has to disappear.  Now they know the technology still has a chance if everyone keeps their mouth shut.  Wouldn't it be better if they were guessing about how detectable the bomb was?  Wouldn't it be better if they then wasted time/money trying to find a different way to get the bomb past security, not knowing that the current way probably works just fine?  I'd be just as happy just knowing the whole thing was stopped, without any idea how.