NationStates Jolt Archive

I had the wonderful chance to attend a mini-class yesterday on the question of Terrorism, which brought up some interesting questions.

As you may, or may not be aware, the number of people killed in the US due to terrorism each year averages 135 (since 1980). The number of people killed by drunk drivers last year was 16885.

However, the government is spending billions each year on terrorism, and not nearly so much on Drunk Drivers. Terrorists get captured without trial, tortured, and kept away for as long as 5 years, so far, all of this without conclusive evidence that they are, in fact, terrorists. Drunk Drivers get 5 or 6 years in a minimum security prison after a fair trial that determines that they killed someone by driving drunk.

Why is the government wasting my tax money on protecting me by something so negligible when compared to big problems, like Drunk Driving?

Perhaps you should ask the victims of 9/11 that question, or their families.

Perhaps you should ask the victims of 9/11 that question, or their families.

Should we ask the families of Drunk Driving victims, perhaps?

Let's keep the emotionalist nonsense out of this, and focus on facts and reason, please.

Because drunk driving dosen't grab headlines

It's certainly not the threat that the Bush administration makes it out to be, but what's more important, it's a threat that can be defended against. Of course, the nature of that defense is what should be the basis of discussion. Instead, the discussion has alwys been couched in terms of "if you don't go it the Bush way, you hate America," which is complete and utter bullshit.

Those versed in the realist (or even neoliberal) schools of international relations might conclude that the state actor has far more to gain from the "war on terror" (an interstate/global issue), in terms of the projection and accumulation of power, than it does from a "war on drunks" (a domestic/individual issue). It would be a mistake to conclude that the state is actually interested in stopping or punishing a given social ill; states are not motovated by such idealistic goals. Any opportunity or justification for a state to expand its ability to project power, and gain a relative advantage for itself in terms of balance of said power, must be taken or employed if that state is to be considered rational.

(edit: this is not to suggest that terrorism should be ignored, but rather simply explains why, in terms of international relations, it is more likely going to be the focus above and beyond a far more deadly, but completely domestic, issue.)

It's certainly not the threat that the Bush administration makes it out to be, but what's more important, it's a threat that can be defended against. Of course, the nature of that defense is what should be the basis of discussion. Instead, the discussion has alwys been couched in terms of "if you don't go it the Bush way, you hate America," which is complete and utter bullshit.

I agree, and unfortunately, a rational discussion on the merits of fighting terrorism has been prevented by emotionalism and "My way or go to Canada" rhetoric. The "War on Terror" has caused American rights to deteriorate, even at home, in the name of fighting a threat that, while it is importat, is not so important as we make it seem

Hell, Kerry lost support for reminding people that terrorism should be treated as a "Nuisance" (which it really is, in perspective), rather than as a massive threat.

I agree, and unfortunately, a rational discussion on the merits of fighting terrorism has been prevented by emotionalism and "My way or go to Canada" rhetoric. The "War on Terror" has caused American rights to deteriorate, even at home, in the name of fighting a threat that, while it is importat, is not so important as we make it seem

Hell, Kerry lost support for reminding people that terrorism should be treated as a "Nuisance" (which it really is, in perspective), rather than as a massive threat.

And it hasn't stopped. Even today, Cheney goes out and gives fundraising speeches that focus on "terraterraterraOMGthemuzzzliiimmmmsssaaaaaaaaaghhhhhhh!" Of course, he's so nuclear that most Republicans he's fundrasing for won't appear on the stage with him for fear that someone will take a picture of them together.

Very Important. On Par with Drunk Driving. But not as predictable as the latter.

Should we ask the families of Drunk Driving victims, perhaps?

Let's keep the emotionalist nonsense out of this, and focus on facts and reason, please.

Perhaps we should ask the Arctic Warbler?

I do not think terrorism is as big a threat as this administration has made it out to be.

That being said, the risks associated with terrorism are far, far greater than the risks associated with drunk driving. While the deaths to terrorism have been overall small, it only takes one extreemist with one WMD to cause untold destruction.

So while I think a certain degree of terrorism is to be expected, and is something we can live with, there still, in my opinion, be greater steps to prevent it then say...drunk driving, because a drunk, no matter how drunk, will never kill half a million people. A terrorist conceivably could.

That being said, I still say the administration has gone way too far.

And it hasn't stopped. Even today, Cheney goes out and gives fundraising speeches that focus on "terraterraterraOMGthemuzzzliiimmmmsssaaaaaaaaaghhhhhhh!" Of course, he's so nuclear that most Republicans he's fundrasing for won't appear on the stage with him for fear that someone will take a picture of them together.

"I'm going to fundraise whether you like it or not!"

Or perhaps

"You're either ok with us fundraising for you, or you're with the Democrats!"

I agree, and unfortunately, a rational discussion on the merits of fighting terrorism has been prevented by emotionalism and "My way or go to Canada" rhetoric. The "War on Terror" has caused American rights to deteriorate, even at home, in the name of fighting a threat that, while it is importat, is not so important as we make it seem

Hell, Kerry lost support for reminding people that terrorism should be treated as a "Nuisance" (which it really is, in perspective), rather than as a massive threat.

Actually, Kerry lost because he couldn't make up his mind on most issues. It depended on the day and his mood, that determined what side of an issue he was for or against. Better known as a "flip flopper".

I also believe Kerry and a lot more key Democrats did support the war at first and gave the okay and same for the war in Iraq. Since the war with Iraq began to lose the support, they were quick to jump to the other side. The record does show how they and many others supported the "War on Terror" and also with Iraq.

I do not think terrorism is as big a threat as this administration has made it out to be.

That being said, the risks associated with terrorism are far, far greater than the risks associated with drunk driving. While the deaths to terrorism have been overall small, it only takes one extreemist with one WMD to cause untold destruction.

So while I think a certain degree of terrorism is to be expected, and is something we can live with, there still, in my opinion, be greater steps to prevent it then say...drunk driving, because a drunk, no matter how drunk, will never kill half a million people. A terrorist conceivably could.

That being said, I still say the administration has gone way too far.

But statistically, one person is in greater danger of being hit by a drunk driver than being killed in a terrorist attack. So far, anyway...

Actually, Kerry lost because he couldn't make up his mind on most issues. It depended on the day and his mood, that determined what side of an issue he was for or against. Better known as a "flip flopper".

I also believe Kerry and a lot more key Democrats did support the war at first and gave the okay and same for the war in Iraq. Since the war with Iraq began to lose the support, they were quick to jump to the other side. The record does show how they and many others supported the "War on Terror" and also with Iraq.

Lost support differs from "Lost the election". I agree that the Bush smear campaign of "Flip Flopper" probably had a much larger effect, and that bringing the homophobes to the polls certainly did.

As you may, or may not be aware, the number of people killed in the US due to terrorism each year averages 135 (since 1980). The number of people killed by drunk drivers last year was 16885.
PLaying devil's advocate for a second: if the government did nothing against drunk drivers, you might have 100,000 poeple die in a year; if the government did nothing against terrorism, you might have 1,000,000 people die in a year.

PLaying devil's advocate for a second: if the government did nothing against drunk drivers, you might have 100,000 poeple die in a year; if the government did nothing against terrorism, you might have 1,000,000 people die in a year.

Except that's a flawed comparison, since no one is suggesting that the government ought not take precautions against either. To play devil's advocate, you have to actually make a reasonable argument.

But statistically, one person is in greater danger of being hit by a drunk driver than being killed in a terrorist attack. So far, anyway...

Well no, this is true. It's a matter of current, versus potential. As I said, yes more people have been dying to drunks then terrorists.

But a drunk won't ever turn a city into a mushroom cloud. A terrorist, conceivably, could. And yes it's unlikely, but it only really needs to happen ONCE.

Statistics don't really demonstrate much. yeah if we took all the funding towards preventing terrorism and put it towards preventing drunk drivers, we'd see probably far less deaths per year, overall. Until someone gets lucky. Which is all 9/11 was, a group that got lucky. Which is all a WMD attack would be, a group that got lucky.

Although more die a year from drunks than al qaeda, the potential for higher body count lies in the terrorists, as drunks aren't sitting there trying to figure out the best ways to kill lots of people, terrorists are.

Now again, don't think I am saying this to lend support to our current administration. But I think that terrorism poses a greater threat than drunk driving because terrorists are always looking for bigger and better, and would love for our measures to become lax so they can sneak that warhead into miami.

Well no, this is true. It's a matter of current, versus potential. As I said, yes more people have been dying to drunks then terrorists.

But a drunk won't ever turn a city into a mushroom cloud. A terrorist, conceivably, could. And yes it's unlikely, but it only really needs to happen ONCE.

Statistics don't really demonstrate much. yeah if we took all the funding towards preventing terrorism and put it towards preventing drunk drivers, we'd see probably far less deaths per year, overall. Until someone gets lucky. Which is all 9/11 was, a group that got lucky. Which is all a WMD attack would be, a group that got lucky.

Although more die a year from drunks than al qaeda, the potential for higher body count lies in the terrorists, as drunks aren't sitting there trying to figure out the best ways to kill lots of people, terrorists are.

Now again, don't think I am saying this to lend support to our current administration. But I think that terrorism poses a greater threat than drunk driving because terrorists are always looking for bigger and better, and would love for our measures to become lax so they can sneak that warhead into miami.

You win.

Drunk driving may overall have more deaths, however, on each incident is very limited on lives. Where terrorism is aimed at mass murder. So to be fair, on each occurence which is greater? I'd say terrorism.

PLaying devil's advocate for a second: if the government did nothing against drunk drivers, you might have 100,000 poeple die in a year; if the government did nothing against terrorism, you might have 1,000,000 people die in a year.

Well, obviously doing nothing isn't an option, but we may be doing far too much in a way that strengthens terrorists and doesn't effectively use the resources at our disposal.

Drunk driving may overall have more deaths, however, on each incident is very limited on lives. Where terrorism is aimed at mass murder. So to be fair, on each occurence which is greater? I'd say terrorism.

So we should focus our resorces heavily on a small threat because it kills more people at once...

Why not just acknowledge that what the press will cover is most important?

Well no, this is true. It's a matter of current, versus potential. As I said, yes more people have been dying to drunks then terrorists.

But a drunk won't ever turn a city into a mushroom cloud. A terrorist, conceivably, could. And yes it's unlikely, but it only really needs to happen ONCE.

Statistics don't really demonstrate much. yeah if we took all the funding towards preventing terrorism and put it towards preventing drunk drivers, we'd see probably far less deaths per year, overall. Until someone gets lucky. Which is all 9/11 was, a group that got lucky. Which is all a WMD attack would be, a group that got lucky.

Although more die a year from drunks than al qaeda, the potential for higher body count lies in the terrorists, as drunks aren't sitting there trying to figure out the best ways to kill lots of people, terrorists are.

Now again, don't think I am saying this to lend support to our current administration. But I think that terrorism poses a greater threat than drunk driving because terrorists are always looking for bigger and better, and would love for our measures to become lax so they can sneak that warhead into miami.

Now if the drunk was transporting a nuclear weapon :)

it's a question of influence per dollar, and if we cut funding for one and put some of that funding to another would we see a net gain, or a net loss?

It's conceivably possible that we could trip a few hundred million off our efforts to limit terrorism and put it towards drunk driving prevention, and less people would die.

That line where you get diminishing returns however is not an easy one to point out. And myself, being neither an economist nor an expert in either terroristm or drunk driving prevention, will not speculate as to where that line is, as frankly I have no idea.

So we should focus our resorces heavily on a small threat because it kills more people at once...



The somewhat obvious response that you're missing is "the reason it kills fewer people is because we focus our resources on it, and if we stopped focusing our resources on it, a lot more would die"

Drunk driving may overall have more deaths, however, on each incident is very limited on lives. Where terrorism is aimed at mass murder. So to be fair, on each occurence which is greater? I'd say terrorism.

terrorism is aimed at fear.

its not the numbers that count but the fear that it inspires in a civilian population.

so now we are afraid to fly. we are afraid to go on the london underground, we are afraid to travel to spain.

most years there are fewer than 1000 people/ year IN THE WORLD who die from terrorist attacks. (this year will depend on how they classify the civilian deaths in iraq and lebanon)

in the number of deaths its insignificant. in the amount of fear generated, its a huge problem.

The somewhat obvious response that you're missing is "the reason it kills fewer people is because we focus our resources on it, and if we stopped focusing our resources on it, a lot more would die"

But is that conclusion really justified? We didn't focus so much energy on it during the 80's and 90's, and there were less deaths than from drunk drivers then too.

But is that conclusion really justified? We didn't focus so much energy on it during the 80's and 90's, and there were less deaths than from drunk drivers then too.

The argument can be made that the current terrorist organizations aiming at the US were not greatly active in that time frame against the US, and were just emerging.

The argument can be made that the current terrorist organizations aiming at the US were not greatly active in that time frame against the US, and were just emerging.

If that were the case, we would see an increase in planned attacks. We really have not, at all. Big ones (IE, connected to Islam) have gotten more press, but the number of planned attacks has not increased.

If that were the case, we would see an increase in planned attacks. We really have not, at all. Big ones (IE, connected to Islam) have gotten more press, but the number of planned attacks has not increased.

well frankly, how the hell do you know that? The intelligence community is not to keen on publishing their findings ya know.

well frankly, how the hell do you know that? The intelligence community is not to keen on publishing their findings ya know.

Because the Bush Admin wouldn't hesitate to publish news of a success.

Because the Bush Admin wouldn't hesitate to publish news of a success.

I highly doubt that. The administration, while seemingly incompetant at times, would never risk the integrity of its intelligence community.

I highly doubt that. The administration, while seemingly incompetant at times, would never risk the integrity of its intelligence community.

Plamegate, anyone?

Why is the government wasting my tax money on protecting me by something so negligible when compared to big problems, like Drunk Driving?

Terrorism is a national issue, and one you can find signs for if you look hard enough for. Drunk Driving is easy to prevent if you can spot it in time. However there are more morons driving drunk than terrorists flying large planes into tall buildings, or into naval ships, or whatnot. Fortunately, enforcing the law in both respects is easy enough to accomplish in a large nation without straining what limited intelligence Politicans have.

Well no, this is true. It's a matter of current, versus potential. As I said, yes more people have been dying to drunks then terrorists.

But a drunk won't ever turn a city into a mushroom cloud. A terrorist, conceivably, could. And yes it's unlikely, but it only really needs to happen ONCE.

Statistics don't really demonstrate much. yeah if we took all the funding towards preventing terrorism and put it towards preventing drunk drivers, we'd see probably far less deaths per year, overall. Until someone gets lucky. Which is all 9/11 was, a group that got lucky. Which is all a WMD attack would be, a group that got lucky.

Although more die a year from drunks than al qaeda, the potential for higher body count lies in the terrorists, as drunks aren't sitting there trying to figure out the best ways to kill lots of people, terrorists are.

Now again, don't think I am saying this to lend support to our current administration. But I think that terrorism poses a greater threat than drunk driving because terrorists are always looking for bigger and better, and would love for our measures to become lax so they can sneak that warhead into miami.

I'm sure drunk-driving creates the equivilent of a massive terrorist attack in human and capital loss. The difference is that the terrorist attack would be concentrated together, while drunk-driving will have losses spred across the entire country. Its as if you are saying that having a huge pile of rubbish in your living room is inherently much worse than having that same amount of rubbish spred even across your home.

Watch out for those Muslim drunk drivers.

Should we ask the families of Drunk Driving victims, perhaps?

Let's keep the emotionalist nonsense out of this, and focus on facts and reason, please.

PWN3D!!

Let's keep the emotionalist nonsense out of this, and focus on facts and reason, please.

Are you insane?!? :eek:

Are you insane?!? :eek:

I try. ;)

I try. ;)

Good man. :)

I had the wonderful chance to attend a mini-class yesterday on the question of Terrorism, which brought up some interesting questions.

As you may, or may not be aware, the number of people killed in the US due to terrorism each year averages 135 (since 1980). The number of people killed by drunk drivers last year was 16885.

However, the government is spending billions each year on terrorism, and not nearly so much on Drunk Drivers. Terrorists get captured without trial, tortured, and kept away for as long as 5 years, so far, all of this without conclusive evidence that they are, in fact, terrorists. Drunk Drivers get 5 or 6 years in a minimum security prison after a fair trial that determines that they killed someone by driving drunk.

Why is the government wasting my tax money on protecting me by something so negligible when compared to big problems, like Drunk Driving?

Because its not just about what the terrorists have done, its about what they could do (nukes) and remember, 1 nuke can ruin your day.

Also, its hard to prevent drunk driving at the level you wish, if we could, we would.

Because its not just about what the terrorists have done, its about what they could do (nukes) and remember, 1 nuke can ruin your day.

Also, its hard to prevent drunk driving at the level you wish, if we could, we would.

Do me a favor and figure out how easy it would be to attain and transport a nuclear weapon in such a way that it could be used against a serious target. :p

Also, its hard to prevent drunk driving at the level you wish, if we could, we would.

Just have the entire US army standing at the side of US roads looking very very angry at drunk drivers. Might have an impact

Just have the entire US army standing at the side of US roads looking very very angry at drunk drivers. Might have an impact

lol

and to answer your question, Kinda Sensible, its not that hard at all:

October 5, 2001, Chicago Tribune, http://www.nci.org/01/10/09-1.htm, Mock terrorists played by US forces were able to sneak away with a household garden cart full of nuclear material and information, enough to build several nuclear weapons. Mind you, they were U.S. forces, but still, the terrorists have killed over 2,500 U.S. troops in Iraq, so its entirely possible they could pull it off.

Because drunk driving doesn't give them an excuse to secure the oil supply.

Because drunk driving doesn't give them an excuse to secure the oil supply.

Confiscate their fuel instead. Still quite valuable

Because drunk driving doesn't give them an excuse to secure the oil supply.

Seriously need a pic of the guy with his hand on his forehead saying "not this shit again"

I had the wonderful chance to attend a mini-class yesterday on the question of Terrorism, which brought up some interesting questions.

As you may, or may not be aware, the number of people killed in the US due to terrorism each year averages 135 (since 1980). The number of people killed by drunk drivers last year was 16885.

However, the government is spending billions each year on terrorism, and not nearly so much on Drunk Drivers. Terrorists get captured without trial, tortured, and kept away for as long as 5 years, so far, all of this without conclusive evidence that they are, in fact, terrorists. Drunk Drivers get 5 or 6 years in a minimum security prison after a fair trial that determines that they killed someone by driving drunk.

Why is the government wasting my tax money on protecting me by something so negligible when compared to big problems, like Drunk Driving?
are you sure?

take all the money spent on Homeland security, from when it was created in 9/11, (not from 1980) since before 9/11 the attacks mostly occurred outside the USA.
Devide that money per tax payers.

now take all the money spent on regulating Drinking and Driving... (including the money spent on Prohibition, traffic safety, commercials/campains etc) dont forget to recalcuate the value of the money spent to equal today's value of the dollar... and divide that among everyone.

I think you'll find that more was spent against Drunk Driving than terror attacks.

now note, as you said, how many american civilians die by terrorist attacks after the type of legislation put in place, vs the number of Civilians killed by drunk driving after all those years of regulations...

That makes it look like the Regulations against Terrorist attacks are working...

Now ask yourself this... do you really want that kind of heavy handed regulations in place for drinking and driving?

are you sure?

take all the money spent on Homeland security, from when it was created in 9/11, (not from 1980) since before 9/11 the attacks mostly occurred outside the USA.
Devide that money per tax payers.

now take all the money spent on regulating Drinking and Driving... (including the money spent on Prohibition, traffic safety, commercials/campains etc) dont forget to recalcuate the value of the money spent to equal today's value of the dollar... and divide that among everyone.

I think you'll find that more was spent against Drunk Driving than terror attacks.

now note, as you said, how many american civilians die by terrorist attacks after the type of legislation put in place, vs the number of Civilians killed by drunk driving after all those years of regulations...

That makes it look like the Regulations against Terrorist attacks are working...

Now ask yourself this... do you really want that kind of heavy handed regulations in place for drinking and driving?

oh, pwn, pwn, pwn

I had the wonderful chance to attend a mini-class yesterday on the question of Terrorism, which brought up some interesting questions.

As you may, or may not be aware, the number of people killed in the US due to terrorism each year averages 135 (since 1980). The number of people killed by drunk drivers last year was 16885.

However, the government is spending billions each year on terrorism, and not nearly so much on Drunk Drivers. Terrorists get captured without trial, tortured, and kept away for as long as 5 years, so far, all of this without conclusive evidence that they are, in fact, terrorists. Drunk Drivers get 5 or 6 years in a minimum security prison after a fair trial that determines that they killed someone by driving drunk.

Why is the government wasting my tax money on protecting me by something so negligible when compared to big problems, like Drunk Driving?

If the government were not spending that much (barring the war), then I assure the amount of terrorism would increase massively.

9/11 happened, and now because of post war hatred the risk has heightened. We must do everything we can to prevent something like that ever happening again.

Frankly, I'm convinced that the drunk drivers and the terrorists are allies in their war against our most holy and great nation of America. The drunk drivers spread bits and pieces of fear in everyday life, freeing the terrorists to plan the much larger, more devestating attacks against freedom. I daresay I dread the day when the drunk drivers go on the offensive, whipping out all manner of weaponry, nucular, biological, and chemical. The only way we can stop them is by torturing those pathetic, inhuman terrorists in our possession at our lovely punishment facility of Guantanamo Bay. Now if only the bleeding heart unpatriotic American-hating liberals would stop interfering in our mission to save freedom and spread democracy across the bread that is the world...

Frankly, I'm convinced that the drunk drivers and the terrorists are allies in their war against our most holy and great nation of America. The drunk drivers spread bits and pieces of fear in everyday life, freeing the terrorists to plan the much larger, more devestating attacks against freedom. I daresay I dread the day when the drunk drivers go on the offensive, whipping out all manner of weaponry, nucular, biological, and chemical. The only way we can stop them is by torturing those pathetic, inhuman terrorists in our possession at our lovely punishment facility of Guantanamo Bay. Now if only the bleeding heart unpatriotic American-hating liberals would stop interfering in our mission to save freedom and spread democracy across the bread that is the world...
Oy, why the hell do you have to use it as a way to attack something. This isn't about what is being done to prevent terrorism, its whether or not something should be done to prevent terrorism instead of drunk driving.

are you sure?

take all the money spent on Homeland security, from when it was created in 9/11, (not from 1980) since before 9/11 the attacks mostly occurred outside the USA.
Devide that money per tax payers.

now take all the money spent on regulating Drinking and Driving... (including the money spent on Prohibition, traffic safety, commercials/campains etc) dont forget to recalcuate the value of the money spent to equal today's value of the dollar... and divide that among everyone.

I think you'll find that more was spent against Drunk Driving than terror attacks.

now note, as you said, how many american civilians die by terrorist attacks after the type of legislation put in place, vs the number of Civilians killed by drunk driving after all those years of regulations...

That makes it look like the Regulations against Terrorist attacks are working...

Now ask yourself this... do you really want that kind of heavy handed regulations in place for drinking and driving?

Hmm... One fatal flaw...

Anti-terrorism hasn't been overfunded except after 9/11, so it hasn't got the years of backlog that anti-Drunk driving has. Do the average per-year for their existence, and Homeland Security wins hands down.

Obviously, I don't approve of the tactics currently used against terrorists (we give them credit and victory when we become them in the name of victory), but I do think that we need to take Drunk Driving more seriously than we do at this point.

However, I was using Drunk Driving as a rhetorical point. One could just as easily cite Food Poisoning, The Flu, or Secondhand Smoke as an example.

Oy, why the hell do you have to use it as a way to attack something. This isn't about what is being done to prevent terrorism, its whether or not something should be done to prevent terrorism instead of drunk driving.

My irony sense is tingling.

Oy, why the hell do you have to use it as a way to attack something. This isn't about what is being done to prevent terrorism, its whether or not something should be done to prevent terrorism instead of drunk driving.

No it isn't. But you'd like it to be, because you might stand a chance of winning, in that case.

Oy, why the hell do you have to use it as a way to attack something. This isn't about what is being done to prevent terrorism, its whether or not something should be done to prevent terrorism instead of drunk driving.
I'm not attacking anything. I'm merely reminding everyone that its the kind of stupidity seen in that post that is the reason we're not doing anything about drunk driving, or why what we're currently pursuing against terrorism is the wrong method, and whatnot. That kind of stupidity is actually held still by approximately one third of the country.

Hmm... One fatal flaw...

Anti-terrorism hasn't been overfunded except after 9/11, so it hasn't got the years of backlog that anti-Drunk driving has. Do the average per-year for their existence, and Homeland Security wins hands down.

Obviously, I don't approve of the tactics currently used against terrorists (we give them credit and victory when we become them in the name of victory), but I do think that we need to take Drunk Driving more seriously than we do at this point.

However, I was using Drunk Driving as a rhetorical point. One could just as easily cite Food Poisoning, The Flu, or Secondhand Smoke as an example.
oh really, consider this tho, Drunk driving has been around since the invention of the automobile. when Drunk driving was first reconized as a problem, rules and regulations were put into place and money started to flow. all that has to count in the money spent to halt drunk driving.

because 9/11 was a horrific and recent event, of course large amounts of money is injected to get things rolling. now again, look at the results. how many americans civilians died of terror attacks last year vs drunk driving.

Homeland security hasn't been around very long, but more has been attempted with Drunk Driving... including Prohibition, which, if it succeeded, would've removed Drunk Driving completely (or made it insignificant) yet everything has still failed. so again, ask your class if they want the same heavy handed tactics for regulating alcohol and driving?

say, an alcohol blood level test at every parking lot, if your blood is over the limit, you get arrested. or you can choose to call a cab before attempting to get your car but once to enter the parking lot... (that would also remove all street parking as well)

an Identification system to identify problem drinkers to bartenders so that they know not to serve them drinks...

no more sale of Alcohol in personal sized containers (bottles or cans).

there are more I can think up, but all in the same vein of regulations and rules set up by homeland security.

but then on the same topic, was there ever a single Drunk Driving event that rivaled the number of casualties as 9/11? and I am only counting the two planes that crashed into the wtc, not the pentagon or flight 93.

Same for Food Poisoning and cancer... has there been the same body count from one event.

as for Viral infection, look at the reactions when an outbreak occurs and the steps taken. one cow is infected with Mad Cow, and several, not one, but several herds are destroyed. One bird is found dead, and alerts go out about the Avian Flu untill that one bird is tested... those are worse reactions than with homeland security and anti-terror laws. the equivilant would be after 9/11 ALL muslims, every single Mulsim and Islamic follower is removed from society and "tested".

Here's something that the Pro-Gun people should tell some of the Anti-gun people.

More people were killed by hospital related mistakes than guns one year, that means we should ban doctors instead of Guns.

Terrorism is a more flasher more influencal action instead of Drunk driving, now if all of a suddenly there was a swarm of Drunk drivers driving down a busy city highway knocking people right and left. Then yes there would be huge Terror.

(The "Grey Dawn" South Park Episode, "RUN! OLD PEOPLE DRIVING!")

oh really, consider this tho, Drunk driving has been around since the invention of the automobile. when Drunk driving was first reconized as a problem, rules and regulations were put into place and money started to flow. all that has to count in the money spent to halt drunk driving.

because 9/11 was a horrific and recent event, of course large amounts of money is injected to get things rolling. now again, look at the results. how many americans civilians died of terror attacks last year vs drunk driving.

Homeland security hasn't been around very long, but more has been attempted with Drunk Driving... including Prohibition, which, if it succeeded, would've removed Drunk Driving completely (or made it insignificant) yet everything has still failed. so again, ask your class if they want the same heavy handed tactics for regulating alcohol and driving?

say, an alcohol blood level test at every parking lot, if your blood is over the limit, you get arrested. or you can choose to call a cab before attempting to get your car but once to enter the parking lot... (that would also remove all street parking as well)

an Identification system to identify problem drinkers to bartenders so that they know not to serve them drinks...

no more sale of Alcohol in personal sized containers (bottles or cans).

there are more I can think up, but all in the same vein of regulations and rules set up by homeland security.

but then on the same topic, was there ever a single Drunk Driving event that rivaled the number of casualties as 9/11? and I am only counting the two planes that crashed into the wtc, not the pentagon or flight 93.

Same for Food Poisoning and cancer... has there been the same body count from one event.

as for Viral infection, look at the reactions when an outbreak occurs and the steps taken. one cow is infected with Mad Cow, and several, not one, but several herds are destroyed. One bird is found dead, and alerts go out about the Avian Flu untill that one bird is tested... those are worse reactions than with homeland security and anti-terror laws. the equivilant would be after 9/11 ALL muslims, every single Mulsim and Islamic follower is removed from society and "tested".

I think that you are missing one particular issue here, which is this. The number of deaths this year due to terrorism is no different from the number of deaths in, say, 1994, in the US. There were terrorists in the US trying to kill people in 1994 too, we just weren't as panicked about it (In fact, a terrorist tried to kill 14 Jews on the Brooklyn Bridge in 1994, and Terrorists tried to bring down the WTC in 1993)... So... No Go, eh?

Is drunk driving the real problem? (http://www.mises.org/story/2343)

*Ducks*

I think that you are missing one particular issue here, which is this. The number of deaths this year due to terrorism is no different from the number of deaths in, say, 1994, in the US. There were terrorists in the US trying to kill people in 1994 too, we just weren't as panicked about it (In fact, a terrorist tried to kill 14 Jews on the Brooklyn Bridge in 1994, and Terrorists tried to bring down the WTC in 1993)... So... No Go, eh?
nope, the issue that your class brought up was a comparason between terror attacks and drunk driving. the money spent and the procedures to regulate/stop them.

yes, we had civilians attacked from 1980... and each time security on oversea bases were hightened... including areas on our soil where it applied... WTC, White House, etc...

now 9/11 changed all that when the terrorist changed tactics. so we changed tactics as well.

you have the equivilant event with a drunk driver... say, a group of Chronic Drunk Drivers, pissed that their licences were revolked, get tanked up, and while each has a bus filled with school children, drive their buses into varous oil storage/refineries causing causualites of up to 3000 people.

you bet your biddy that rules and regulations will change when dealing with repeat drunk drivers.

now for terrorist attacks
homeland security didn't exsist in 1994, terror attacks before 9/11 were 1) of the scale of many hurt and couple deaths. 2) mostly against Military targets (and security on bases were increased gradually. 3) didn't involve mass amounts of Civilian Deaths. 4) almost aways overseas... where the USA really has no jurisdiction outside their bases and embassies.

after the bombings of the WTC, security was hightened, then relaxed. same with the Brooklyn Bridge... the WTC was attacked twice before 9/11. each time they waited till security was relaxed.

now, the money pumped into anti terror regulations, and all the regs can be said to have stopped or significantly reduce terror attacks against US citizens (if you go by straight numbers and facts) and with current drunk driving problems still occuring, with all the money pumped into it from the time it was reconized as a problem, the solution then, by posit, is not to throw more money at it, but to change the regulations and laws.

next time your class brings that up... ask if they are willing to pay over $60 for a gallon of Coffee. if they're not, tell them that they already are. and that they go through that gallon of coffee faster than the gallon of Gas which is what... $3 dollars a gallon?

Is drunk driving the real problem? (http://www.mises.org/story/2343)

*Ducks*

I remember an interview with someone who supported that position on the Daily Show a while ago. They were suitably mocked and belittled.

Drunk-driving!

Do you ever get the feeling that you've been carried away too much on just one example?

I remember an interview with someone who supported that position on the Daily Show a while ago. They were suitably mocked and belittled.

I thought Lew Rockwell presented the idea pretty well. I mean, you don't punish someone when they murder because they were angry when they did it- why should they punish someone for being drunk when the problem is that they killed people?

It's prolly akin to drunk driving. Equal threat to the Constitution and the Republic (very little) but a substantial threat to certain individuals health and well being.

What makes terrorism more than a minor annoyance is the fact that ONE fanatic willing to die for his cause can kill thousands . And a group of them caan kill millions....just because they have not YET popped a nuke or a chemical attack doesnt mean they are not trying and wont.

Wonder why your class never mentioned that ?

They were capable enough to fly aircraft in a coordinated attack into muliple targets...and can blow up any cities transportation system they choose to when they choose and can even get a countrys own citizens to attack it.

Dont know many drunk drivers that can do that .

What makes terrorism more than a minor annoyance is the fact that ONE fanatic willing to die for his cause can kill thousands . And a group of them caan kill millions....just because they have not YET popped a nuke or a chemical attack doesnt mean they are not trying and wont.

Wonder why your class never mentioned that ?

They were capable enough to fly aircraft in a coordinated attack into muliple targets...and can blow up any cities transportation system they choose to when they choose and can even get a countrys own citizens to attack it.

Dont know many drunk drivers that can do that .

Precisely.

Is drunk driving the real problem? (http://www.mises.org/story/2343)

*Ducks*

According to the arguments in this article, we should allow people to bring bombs onto planes. After all, we need to judge what they actually do with the bombs, not what they're likely to do.

According to the arguments in this article, we should allow people to bring bombs onto planes. After all, we need to judge what they actually do with the bombs, not what they're likely to do.

or have a drunk pilot at the helm... :D

Why is the government wasting my tax money on protecting me by something so negligible when compared to big problems, like Drunk Driving?
:rolleyes:
Because, terrorism, if unchecked, will lead to much more than mere 300/400 deaths per year. It means insecurity and instability which leads to poor business climate and result in overall low social indicators. Not so with drunken drivers, which still needs attention, but will not lead to the above, unless the govt makes it like free alcohol, no enforcement of DUI laws etc.

There is a reason why business is booming in Bangalore and not in Srinagar.

According to the arguments in this article, we should allow people to bring bombs onto planes. After all, we need to judge what they actually do with the bombs, not what they're likely to do.

Good point, but there's a difference between how someone is feeling (being drunk) and what they actually do (swerving like a maniac or carrying an explosive). Also, I think Lew Rockwell, the author of the article, would say that the businesses could choose to disassociate with any bomb carriers (which I think is also a good idea).

Good point, but there's a difference between how someone is feeling (being drunk) and what they actually do (swerving like a maniac or carrying an explosive). Also, I think Lew Rockwell, the author of the article, would say that the businesses could choose to disassociate with any bomb carriers (which I think is also a good idea).

Being drunk isn't just a "feeling." When you're arrested for being DUI, you're being arrested for something that is extremely likely to happen-- sort of how a terrorist is extremely likely to detonate a bomb in an airplane. The point is to prevent them from actually performing an action. I'd rather have a drunk go to prison before his kills someone with his car.

Yeah whenever I meet Americans they're like "Where were you on 7/7?" and I'm just: "What?" Then they're all "Oh my gawd the bombings in London?!" Like 30 people died. It's NOT A MAJOR THING. Yes, it's bad, but there's probbaly more people dying from incidents connected to Stana Stairlifts. COME ON.

I had the wonderful chance to attend a mini-class yesterday on the question of Terrorism, which brought up some interesting questions.

As you may, or may not be aware, the number of people killed in the US due to terrorism each year averages 135 (since 1980). The number of people killed by drunk drivers last year was 16885.

However, the government is spending billions each year on terrorism, and not nearly so much on Drunk Drivers. Terrorists get captured without trial, tortured, and kept away for as long as 5 years, so far, all of this without conclusive evidence that they are, in fact, terrorists. Drunk Drivers get 5 or 6 years in a minimum security prison after a fair trial that determines that they killed someone by driving drunk.

Why is the government wasting my tax money on protecting me by something so negligible when compared to big problems, like Drunk Driving?

Because drunk drivers are not trying to use fear to change our system. The people that terrorists kill is very small but the effect they have is very large while in comparison few people change their lifestyle over fear of a drunk driver.

Terrorism is a bigger threat b/c the number of casualties is not what causes the damage to the country. The damage that is important is the fear instilled in the public and the damage to the economy. 100,000 dead drunk drivers will never have the same impact on the national psyche that 3,000 dead in a terrorist attack will. Now some may say that the way to diminish the affects of terrorism would be to ignore it. And you may be right, but in the end no matter how much the gov't ignores terrorism, the people will not.

The United States govt. is flawwed in the way they deal with terrorists. The law states that you can't negotiate with one. Well, that only leaves two options. You can ignore, or you can kill.

Also, 1/3 of America will always love there President. It's just a bias that people think there president is still better than every other one currently in power. I have a question though. Why take over Iraq. Osama did bad things, but if that's the case, why not take over N. Korea right now? 1 million lives would be lost is an estimate I heard but I highly doubt that.

Bush just wants America to think that the Middle East is terrible. I personally think that Bush should be taken out of power. He could technically be called a terrorist because he is making the people of America think that Islamics are bad. Boo his policy. He's the worst president I've ever seen. How'd he get in power anyways? Oh yah, by recounting certain states but not all of them. Only the Democratic states were recounted. Not really good.

Also, what about Illeagle Immigrants? Don't they pose a problem? They are after all, "taking our jobs" in America. So, we are now building a 700-mile wall that will cost millions that we don't have. America has been corrupted since the end of the Civil War.

My last statement, is on alcholism and being drunk (as they are different according to a signiture I've seen). Why not, for every two years, we raise the legal age for drinking, by 1 year. After it gets to 70 or so, we just make it illeagle for all? Now yes, this would take a century and a half, but hopefully, the companys that make drinks that make you drunk would run out of business. We could also do the same with smoking. We only recently found it was harmful in retrospect to the age of cigarettes altogether. Let's try to phase those two things out, and we'll definatly have a weaker economy but a stronger enviroment. Less deaths for many of the leading killers would be really helpful.

I've actually got one more statement. My history teacher thinks that terrorists won't take a plane and suicide themselves into a building. He goes with the quote, "They've already got the shirt for it". Now yes that's true. Let's try improving things in other areas now.

I had the wonderful chance to attend a mini-class yesterday on the question of Terrorism, which brought up some interesting questions.

As you may, or may not be aware, the number of people killed in the US due to terrorism each year averages 135 (since 1980). The number of people killed by drunk drivers last year was 16885.

However, the government is spending billions each year on terrorism, and not nearly so much on Drunk Drivers. Terrorists get captured without trial, tortured, and kept away for as long as 5 years, so far, all of this without conclusive evidence that they are, in fact, terrorists. Drunk Drivers get 5 or 6 years in a minimum security prison after a fair trial that determines that they killed someone by driving drunk.

Why is the government wasting my tax money on protecting me by something so negligible when compared to big problems, like Drunk Driving?

Terrorism is not only an attack on human life, it's also an attack on common sensibilities. The shock factor of seeing two skyscrapers go down is infinitely greater than the shock of seeing a car crash, or even 20 of them.

What makes terrorism more than a minor annoyance is the fact that ONE fanatic willing to die for his cause can kill thousands . And a group of them caan kill millions....just because they have not YET popped a nuke or a chemical attack doesnt mean they are not trying and wont.

Wonder why your class never mentioned that ?

T A terrorist does not have the money for such

It's certainly not the threat that the Bush administration makes it out to be, but what's more important, it's a threat that can be defended against. Of course, the nature of that defense is what should be the basis of discussion. Instead, the discussion has alwys been couched in terms of "if you don't go it the Bush way, you hate America," which is complete and utter bullshit.

With all the conservatives that are getting disgruntled with Bush, I wouldn't say that's true right now.

Terrorism is... nothing special.

There we go, really.

Even in 2001, there will have been about at least fifteen times more deaths from drunk driving than from terrorism.

And RockTheCasbah -

What about seeing about 1500 car crashes, then, all in an hour or two?

Is that not just as bad?

Yeah whenever I meet Americans they're like "Where were you on 7/7?" and I'm just: "What?" Then they're all "Oh my gawd the bombings in London?!" Like 30 people died. It's NOT A MAJOR THING. Yes, it's bad, but there's probbaly more people dying from incidents connected to Stana Stairlifts. COME ON.

1. 50 + died.

2. It happens coupla times more and you can watch London tourism crumble.

3. Happens 5/6 times more (like that airlines plot thing), you can watch BNP getting more popular, people baying for blood, vigilante and private militia, degradation of business climate and things will go south pretty soon...

Stana Stairlift accidents don't cause that.

Terrorism will not conquer a country by military force. It will not defeat an army in battle and it will not (often) even inflict a large number of casualties in comparison to annual death rates.

Even with 9/11 the murder rate in the US for 2001 was still 25% less than the murder rate in 1994.

The purpose of terrorism is none of those things. It is not intended to inflict military defeat, it is not intended to inflict economic damage, it is not even intended to kill people - that is just the means by which it operates.

It's intent is, unsurprisingly, to cause terror. To make us afraid. To cause us through our fear to act in a certain way.

When we change the way we live because of terrorists we are doing exact5ly what they intended.
When we curtail civil liberties in response to their actions we are doing exactly what they planned for us to do.
When we react with hostility to members of the terrorists ethnic group we are reacting in a way that they wish us to.
When we invade countries and kill thousands of innocent people we are implementing the terrorists plans more effectively than they could ever hope to themselves. All the while being their biggest recruitment campaign.
When we make our society less like our ideals and more like theirs their terrorism wins.

Terrorism itself is not a big deal, but our response to it is.

Yeah it's BS. Terrorism is no worse now than it was 20 years ago. Seriously. How often did you hear about Terrorism in 2000? What the fuck happened in 2001? Why does everyone play into this crap? What reason do you have to care more about terrorism now than you did in 2000? Are you that much of a bitch to the media? or is it the government. Geez, you know this problem disappears as soon as you stop giving a fuck. If Osama and his boys thought that everyone would just shrug their shoulders and down a beer if they flew some planes into some buildings, then they wouldn't have fucking done. Terrorism is like the ADD child of politics. It is the absolute bane of the stress-head nation, yet with a bit ritalin and a fuckload less coffee the whole problem fixes itself.