Quotes About Security

The honeymoon phase is special in that it brings together the relief of reciprocated love with the excitement of a future still to be created. What we often don't realize is that the exuberance of the beginning is fueled by its undercurrent of uncertainty. We set out to make love more secure and dependable, but in the process, inevitably we dial down its intensity. On the path of commitment, we happily trade a little passion for a bit more certainty, some excitement for some stability.

We liken the passion of the beginning to adolescent intoxication—both transient and unrealistic. The consolation for giving it up is the security that waits on the other side. Yet when we trade passion for stability, are we not merely swapping one fantasy for another? As Stephen Mitchell points out, the fantasy of permanence may trump the fantasy of passion, but both are products of our imagination.

If you trade passion for stability, you basically trade one fiction for another. Both are products of our imagination.

Given the transient nature of life, given its ceaseless flux, there is more than a hint of arrogance in the assumption that we can make our relationships permanent, and that security can actually be fixed.

Erotic, emotional connection generates closeness that can become overwhelming, evoking claustrophobia. It can feel intrusive. What was initially a secure enclosure becomes confining. While our need for closeness is almost as basic as our need for food, it carries with it anxieties and threats that can inhibit desire. We want closeness, but not so much that we feel trapped by it.

His security rests not only on what Alice does but also on what she thinks. Her fantasies are proof of her freedom and separateness, and that

At its best monogamy may be the wish to find someone to die with; at its worst it is a cure for the terrors of aliveness. They are easily confused. —Adam Phillips, Monogamy

Romantics value intensity over stability; realists value security over passion. But both are often disappointed, for few people can live at either extreme.

Call me an idealist, but I believe that love and desire are not mutually exclusive; they just don't always take place a the same time. In fact, security and passion are two separate fundamental human needs that spring from different motives and tend to pull us in different directions.

But land is land, and it's safer than the stocks and bonds of Wall Street swindlers.

Ill-gotten wealth is never stable.

If God listened to mothers," the rabbi responds severely, "we would all rot away in a bog of security and easy living.

We did those things when we were acting of fear from the cold war. After 9/11 we learned a new kind of fear. A whole generation of brilliant minds started imagining all of the scary things that bad people could do to using genetic engineering, computer viruses, nanotechnology and a thousand other technologies.' 'Once you start thinking

threat, as well as a trillion-dollar biotechnology industry that keeps coming up with new ways to scare us.

Tri-acetone tri-peroxide. TATP." "Like plastic explosive?" I ask.

It's very common for people coming from a broken home to want material possessions around them. They are building their own nests.

It's very common for people coming from a broken home to want material possessions around them. They are building their own nests.

Assaults by fanatics on our safety... does not justify assaults by the government on our freedom!

Whenever we are attacked, people are willing to give up someone else's liberties for their own security.

After September 11th, that all changed for the Pentagon and the CIA, and like the render and torture program, something which began under Clinton and expanded under Bush, would exponentially increase in power under the Obama administration.

Before the 9/11 attack, the Bush administration cut counterterrorism funds, denied requests for more counterterrorism agents, threatened to veto additional counterterrorism spending, ignored numerous warnings about imminent attacks, and declared focusing on bin Laden a mistake.73 Later investigations would reveal, however, that at least seven months before 9/11, the Bush administration began domestic spying operations.74

Which would you choose: To be free or to be secure? State security and personal freedom often run along tense lines with each other, but our Constitution and its philosophical roots clearly bias freedom over safety.

Only problem is, we the people are not asked to choose liberty or security. In fact, we the people are often misled to believe that the only way to protect the homeland is by acquiescing, by placing our freedoms at the feet of our protectors.

Chequers and No. 10 enjoyed surprisingly haphazard security against assassination and terrorism. John Martin recalled that there was a competition in the Foreign Office to see who could get into Downing Street with the least adequate credentials. A railway season ticket and golf club membership card were runners-up, but 'finally the prize went to a man who walked confidently through the entrance holding out a slice of cake.