Every once in a very great while, a major American news outlet publishes an article that actually makes sense and is related to critical thinking.
Time magazine put this one on its cover.
Good for them. Our inability– or more precisely, our lack of cultivation for the ability — to think clearly is crippling this country, and really the whole planet. In general, the media feed this crisis by concentrating on scary things that are very low probability. To be fair, they also constantly warn us about eating badly, driving badly, living badly, just being, well, bad, but that is something of a background hum against the shrill screams of talking heads trying to elevate our blood pressure over unlikely scenarios. As the article points out, no one in the US has died of bird flu, and yet we hear about it all the time. Sure, it’s a threat, but not nearly as big of one as the regular flu.
More people die in a month in traffic accidents in the US than died on September 11, 2001 — and more people die of smoking-related illnesses in three days. I think that’s a fascinating thing to keep in mind, especially when you hear our government talking about that day.
An analogy: when I clear off my hard drive because it’s filling up, I could sit down for hours and clear off every dumb 7kb text file I have, or I could delete a single 250 Mb video in three seconds.
That’s perspective — knowing what to concentrate on and what not to worry about so much. We need to keep that perspective, and carefully cultivate in kids. I know I am victim of distorted perspective myself, so I imagine it’s worse in people not experienced in focusing a skeptical eye on things.
Even knowing about it is half the problem. Questioning your perspective is always good.
In fact, it’s the irony of ignorance: if you know you’re ignorant, you’re on the road to curing it!
November 26th, 2006 at 11:37 pm
Totally agree, but what’s the solution?
CNN hired Nancy Grace and Glenn Beck, because audiences want to watch this sort of thing. It seems that they like being scared silly by lurid stories of terrorism and murder.
The television news media has become a race to the bottom, with very few exceptions such as Keith Olbermann.
I support independent journalism- Pacifica radio, Salon etc. What else can we do?
November 26th, 2006 at 11:51 pm
Oh, and I suggest people watch the BBC documentary ‘The Power of Nightmares’, which is available for legal download.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares
(Video links at bottom of page.)
This program puts forward the amazing thesis thesis that there really isn’t an international organization called Al Qaeda. The idea that there is, is almost entirely the creation of neo-cons and the complicit news media. The truth is that Bin Laden only ever managed to gather the support of a few thugs and never enjoyed the large-scale support that the news-media reported.
It appears that we’ve been fighting a non-existant enemy for the last half-decade. That hasn’t stopped us from creating an atmosphere in which terrorists by the thousand are being created in Iraq.
November 27th, 2006 at 1:16 am
Solution to inept media coverage? I think this Blog is a big step in the right direction. Every time we get onto a controversial subject, it draws in all kinds of commentary, some from as far right and left as you can get and still be on this planet. That’s real news, people thinking and arguing in the COMMONS,,,
Keep it going, Phil.
GAry 7
PS, Now that we’ve managed to destabilize the middle east, do you think we’ll start on Asia?
November 27th, 2006 at 1:18 am
Great post. I said the same thing. I think another problem, as I noted on my blog, is that the degree of menace is not always clear. Dangers to our health and the environment are only made clear through scientific investigation, which often incorporates uncertainty. So it’s hard to tell what to be scared about. One of the reasons people don’t panic about global warming is because the same people told us global cooling was a menace. Or that deforestation, smog, acid rain and overpopulation were going to kill us when all four were either overblown or solved with little fuss.
This is especially true of health dangers when every week bring something we are supposed to eat or not eat, add to our vitamins or not add, smoke, shoot, snort, rub into our belly or ask our Doctor about. And sometimes agencies are deliberately deceptive as the CDC was when they claimed 400,000 people die of obesity every year, an absurdity Dr. Flegal and the CCF quickly debunked.
But your general point — and one that Time missed - is right. If it bleeds, it leads and the media love panic. From fantasies about liquid explosives to school shootings, they are always on panic mode.
November 27th, 2006 at 1:24 am
Of course, not all people weigh risks and benefits the same. I know many smokers who think the pleasure of smoking is worth the risk of cancer. And skydivers who think the danger is worth the thrill. So we’re not all calculating risk the same way.
November 27th, 2006 at 1:36 am
One thing I have struggled to get and made little progress was getting my son’s schools to include education on marketing and media awareness.
I started my nursing career with an associate degree. When our class graduated some company offered us money for our grad party if we would sit through their sales pitch. They were selling ~$400 worth (a lot back then) of “fine china” and a bonus of pots and pans - but you had to commit right then. Such a common scam, pitch something and make sure the victim can’t shop around for a better deal.
But to my shock several people fell for it. Here were college grads falling for the most basic sales scam. And when I tried to get my son’s school to address sales techniques, they all looked at me like I was a flake.
They teach the evils of smoking in the health module yet not anywhere in the curriculum did they address the marketing to youth techniques like the Joe Camel campaign.
I talk to my friends about media literacy, some of them get it, some of them don’t have a clue. They recognize that the news covers murdered white girls disproportionately, but they don’t realize the piece on some new medical breakthrough was really a video news release distributed by the company selling the product in the study.
The country was led by the nose into the Iraq war because the news media didn’t question any information coming from the government and the TV media had 400 pro war commentators on and 3 anti-war commentators, (source - “Exception to the Rulers”, by Goodman and Goodman).
What we can do is expose the worst of public “bad thinking” and educate our children to recognize it when they see it, be it marketing, news, or anything else they encounter.
And what ever we do, we can’t let the corporate marketers do anything to control the flow of information on the Internet other than installing the fiber optic cable infrastructure they promised to but didn’t when the last round of major deregulation legislation was passed. Net neutrality! Otherwise you can expect to see the Net go the way of TV and newspapers: filtered, watered down, and rather than being a main source of information it will become another main source of commercial information.
November 27th, 2006 at 1:51 am
Risk perception is a whole other subject. There is some good work in this area by Peter Sandman. We perceive risk by a whole slew of things and real measured risk is rarely one of them. Driving - more dangerous per mile traveled than flying yet most people perceive flying as more dangerous. Driving is more familiar, we feel we have more control, and death is by attrition rather than 200 people all at once.
I try to educate people that you can decide to smoke or not wear your seat belt but at least do it with proper information about the real risk and how risk perception distorts one’s evaluation. Those smokers Mike knows seem to have left COPD and emphysema out of their smoking risk calculation.
On the other hand, smoking may be hard to quit. It’s really easy to change the battery in your smoke alarm (or buy one and hang it up) and wear a seatbelt. Yet thousands of people don’t bother with even the simplest risk reduction.
I am disgusted every time I hear about the terrorism threat because 3,000 people died 5 years ago. And have we even addressed that considering the distorted emphasis our President has put on the risk? Don’t get me started, I live next to a port city.
November 27th, 2006 at 1:53 am
“More people die in a month in traffic accidents in the US than died on September 11, 2001 — and more people die of smoking-related illnesses in three days. I think that’s a fascinating thing to keep in mind, especially when you hear our government talking about that day.”
Fascinating maybe but not terribly relevant. First, the 9/11 attacks were no accident. Terrorist attacks are deliberate acts of violence committed by enemies of the United States with political and military aims in mind. Traffic fatalities occur because people who mean no harm accidentally cause the death of others. There is really no comparison.
Second, even if we do compare terrorism with traffic accidents it should be obvious that terrorist attacks are a more serious threat than traffic accidents. I’d advise you to think beyond mere casualty numbers when comparing the relative risks and harm from traffic accidents and terrorist attacks.
I did a short internet search and came up with this info. Economic costs from traffic accidents for 2000 according to this 2001 US DOT report were $230 billion from over 6 million accidents. (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSFAnn/TSF2001.pdf) The cost of traffic accidents is high overall but low for each accident and the impact of each accident is fairly local. Estimates of the economic costs of the 9/11 attack vary but for the sake of this comment I’ll use the $120 billion figure in this article (http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itgic/0902/ijge/gj02.htm) Whether you count 9/11 as one attack or 4, that’s a whole lot of economic damage per attack: $50 billion per for 4 attacks. Also the fallout from the attacks was not confined to their locations but was felt nationally. When any one car crash can cause $50 billion in damage nationwide perhaps then we can start comparing traffic accidents to terrorist attacks.
Maybe there is little chance that any one of us will die in a terrorist attack. But that just means we as individuals shouldn’t feel a lot of fear for our own personal safety. I certainly don’t fear being caught up in a terrorist attack myself. However, the magnitude of damage caused by the 9/11 attacks warrants a serious response from the federal government. And the fact that the attacks were done deliberately by an organization that would do more attacks if they could warrants an aggressive response from the feds in order to eliminate the threat from Islamist Jihadism.
November 27th, 2006 at 3:23 am
Dave, dead is dead. It doesn’t make a whole lot of difference whether you go in a traffic accident or a terrorist attack. I’d say it is equally unpleasant.
However, your economic figures are interesting. I think that once you take away the cost of the property damage, the rest of the economic cost is mainly due to the overblown fear factor, which has changed people’s spending habits.
November 27th, 2006 at 4:03 am
Thanks for the sanity Dave.
Darin
November 27th, 2006 at 4:08 am
Thanks for the sanity Dave.
>Dave, dead is dead. It doesn’t make a whole lot of difference
Yeow. You are kidding, right?
I am sure the amount of deaths due to homicide are far less than the number due to auto accidents. But dead is dead.
What are you thinking?
November 27th, 2006 at 4:51 am
Darin, I am saying that death by car crash or by the hands of a terrorist (i.e., homicide) are probably on a similar scale of unpleasantness. Is that so shocking?
Your point being?
November 27th, 2006 at 5:02 am
Dead IS dead. And fear is the number one economic expense of a terrorist attack. Consider the actual property cost of 9/11 vs the costs to the airlines in lost business, increased security expenditures, etc. I for one, will likely only fly if I have NO OTHER OPTION. NOT because someone might hijack the plane, but because there is just so much hassle just to get on the plane. I’d rather drive, take a train or ship.
When airline security is more concerned with a passengers knitting needles than just including sleep gas in the airvents and steel doors to the cockpit, there is obviously a bias that is not being addressed.
Also, what ever happened to that good old tradition of assasination? Wouldn’t it be easier to offer a billion dollars for O’samas head than spending 150 billion for a war and 400,000 dead Iraquis?
Somehow, the latter just doesn’t do it for me,,,
Gary 7
November 27th, 2006 at 5:04 am
The point is that comparing numbers to determine reaction implicitly grants a moral equivalency to the act behind the death.
What is shocking is ignoring that intent behind the death has meaning.
Besides that, I’d rather die in a head on car crash than have my head cut off while 6 hooded terrorist chant Allah Akbar.
I think one is more unpleasant than the other.
November 27th, 2006 at 5:42 am
Yes, but I rather stand right next to a suicide bomber going off than being slowly crushed by a truck. Of course you can think of any scenario to support your specific point of view.
I do agree that there is a difference due to the (lack of) intent, but that has more to do with (geo-) politics than that actual act of dying.
November 27th, 2006 at 6:01 am
Besides that, I’d rather die in a head on car crash than have my head cut off while 6 hooded terrorist chant Allah Akbar.
Wow, I really shouldn’t read the comments anymore.
November 27th, 2006 at 6:58 am
How about not living in fear at all? I refused to be forced into cowardice. I know I’m going to die one day, and I’m going to live life to the fullest until that day. What an attitude! It serves me well. I wish more people could stop being afraid of death. It happens to everyone, it’s normal and natural, just deal.
November 27th, 2006 at 7:18 am
[…] “The danger of bad thinking“, no Bad Astronomy. Vale a pena ler… […]
November 27th, 2006 at 7:33 am
I agree with Phil’s post regarding the media’s fixation with scaring the public.
However………….
3,000-plus people didn’t ‘die’ on 9/11. They were murdered.
My father passed away peacefully in a hospital bed at the age of 75.
His passing was fairly easy to deal with. We knew it was coming.
He died.
Other ways he could’ve gone:
He falls down a flight of stairs: Careless. But we can deal with it.
Traffic accident: Senseless, but we can deal with it.
Cancer: Dumb, but we deal with it. He was a smoker. We knew it was coming.
He’s the victim of armed robbery: Tragic, senseless. Much anger, but we learn to deal….eventually.
He’s killed when his plane is intentionally slammed into an occupied office building: Unbelievable. Shocking. Very hard to deal with.
So…maybe….MAYBE…..’dead is dead’.
But how you get ‘dead’ makes all the difference.
Mike
ps. I do not believe that Phil meant to trivialize the losses experienced on 9/11.
November 27th, 2006 at 7:53 am
Fear keeps people in office who would be happy to scrap the US Constitution—and to a great extent already have. My chance of being killed by a swarm of bees is higher than my being killed by a terrorist attack.
Just something to keep in mind whenever your government wants to eliminate more freedom in the name of “safety.”
November 27th, 2006 at 7:58 am
Recognition of science and better science reporting are a major part of making improvements. skeptgirl pointed out awareness of marketing (a horse I’ve been whipping for a while), and I think some understanding that marketing is very much based in statistical science helps. When you’re watching a show and the commercials are advertising age-defying makeup, tampons, and the next episode of a soap opera, who do the network and advertisers think is watching the show? Probably women 34 and older. What’s that based on? Statistics.
As far as science reporting goes, they really just need an added bit of caution and explanation. You can be all scary about the health effects of grilled food in your lead-in so that people watch, but make it clear that this is a single study and more research is needed. That always ends up being the office talk the next day and I love pointing out that it’s a single study (which it is more often than not). A single study is more valuable than nothing, but it doesn’t usually get you much. Yet every year we hear this that and the other is bad for you based on single studies. Give people the cognizance to look at the trends of these reports. For instance, a lot of fried foods are probably bad for you and you should get some exercise. And science reporters should rather be able to write or speak clearly and concisely. They don’t, unfortunately. No, Jerry, they aren’t actually teleporting anything…
Also, some of it comes down to scientists. The most recent example which comes to mind is the recent flash fire reporting on the “Red Rain of India.” One of the scientists in the UK who performed tests showing that the red stuff was a fungus and did, no kidding, have DNA, said of the scientists back in India that perhaps they should have kept their traps shut (and he really wasn’t much nicer than that). Something he said which I see a lot, is that scientists when asked questions by reporters are over eager to say something that sounds good and jump into speculation. The reporter then doesn’t really emphasize the speculative nature of the “pronouncement” and here we are with a situation where millions of people for years to come will still think there was an alien invasion in India because one scientist in collaboration with one reporter screwed things up.
November 27th, 2006 at 8:01 am
I think most of us agree that it’s somehow better to die of natural causes than to be murdered (if the amount of suffering is similar).
However…
The statistics show that we have a tiny chance of dying by homicide and a much much smaller chance of dying in a terrorist attack.
It’s clear that our perceptions are skewed. There may be justification for spending relatively large resources on chasing murderers, but it’s wrong for the public to spend all of their time scared of murder and relatively blase about driving.
I suspect that this attitude mostly arises from our evolutionary heritage. We are stuck with the constant fear of being prey- no matter how unlikely it is. That’s probably why we worry more about sharks than drowning.
However…
When it comes to Iraq… We attacked a country that had nothing to do with terrorist acts against the US and posed no threat to our security.
November 27th, 2006 at 8:55 am
A few weeks before we were leaving Australia for London, the tube bombs went off. Everybody was very worried on our behalf and didn’t think it was a good idea to go. I used the traffic and cancer deaths numbers as an argument against being worried about terrorism but forgot the food. At least two times in the previous year have I had problems after visiting an eatery (”restaurant” is too good a word to use about some of these places here). As the English themselves say: “There is nothing wrong with English food that a good stomach pump can’t cure”. I beg to differ, I’m sure contaminated food related deaths outguns terror related deaths
November 27th, 2006 at 9:26 am
“When it comes to Iraq… We attacked a country that had nothing to do with terrorist acts against the US and posed no threat to our security.”
re: Iraq
1) Saddam invades Kuwait
Terrorism continues pretty much unabated. That U.N. resolution? Yeah? What about it?
2) Kuwait sez: “PLEASE GET THIS MADMAN OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!”
3) The U.N. convenes….countries agree to remove madman.
4) Desert Storm….Saddam is gone.
5) It is then agreed that Saddam must abide by certain regulations….by a certain date…or he will face removal (by force if necessary). Nations sign-off on this….as does Saddam, himself.
6) A new election, Bush Sr. is not re-elected.
7) Time passes. Saddam? Yeah? What about him? He (and his 2 sadistic sons) continue to terrorize their people. …la-la-la….
9) A new election. Bush Jr. is elected. (And he WAS elected.)
He sez: “Remember that U.N. resolution?”
Reply: “Yeah? what about it?”
He sez: “Time’s up! Either Saddam meets the requiremenst HE AGREED TO, or he’s outta there! He’s ignored THE U.N. RESOLUTION FOR FAR TOO LONG, and terrorism is getting way out of hand.”
Reply: “Why? He’’s not threatening us!”
Wellllllllll………he wasn’t a threat to us when he invaded Kuwait, either……back when the Twin Towers were still standing……back when there wasn’t a small crater in Shanksville, PA. But we were asked - by Kuwait - for help, and we removed the madman. (AND….people were pissed-off big time that Bush Sr. didn’t go after Saddam after removing him from Kuwait. All these years later they forget that part of history.) We, along with many other nations, agreed to the U.N. resolution to deal with Saddam all those years ago. But when we (The U.S.A.) show up to fulfill our obligation……..we get dumped on for being ‘barbaric’.
Either we abide by resolutions we sign off on…..or we don’t.
And if we can choose not to……….then why bother drafting them in the first place?
At no point did the U.N. ever say: “Remember that resolution? The one about Saddam…? Well, we decided to rescind that one. OK? Yeah, everything’s cool now.”
So what do we say in the future to countries that are invaded by madmen?
Too bad for you.
Gee, that’s gotta be rough.
Yeah? And?
And how far should we take that attitude?
A woman being attacked in public?
Too bad for you.
A victim of child abuse?
Gee, that’s gotta be rough.
Another beheading by the religion of peace.
Yeah? And?
Mike
November 27th, 2006 at 9:30 am
According to the NHTSA there were some 14,000 alcohol-related deaths on the roads in 2004. In 2003 there were 17,000 deaths. While deaths due to bad weather or just some speeding idiot might be just “accidents”, I wouldn’t call DUI deaths “accidents”. I’d say getting behind the wheel drunk as causing a deadly accident is as bad as outright murder. I work with someone whose mother was killed by some drunk frat kid in his car while she was just walking home one night. Now that stuff does scare me, not the possibility that some loony from the Middle East is going to set off a bomb in a mall. Come to think of it, Timothy McVeigh wasn’t middle eastern, was he? So yeah, I’m with BA. We worry too much about things that are difficult to control and ignore immediate problems that we face here at home every day.
November 27th, 2006 at 9:38 am
Mike, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Period.
November 27th, 2006 at 9:42 am
Just ran across this article to illustrate my point: “Humpback whales have ‘human’ brain cells - study
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061127/sc_nm/whales_brains_dc_2
Then the lede says that they have brain cells found in humans great apes and…other cetaceans.
Then it turns out they’re not really “human” brain cells so much as a type of cell found in higher-intelligence mammals. That a whale’s brain studied for the first time, like other whale and dolphin brains, contains the same structures is, well, not much of a story. Of course, were this story to take off, most people wouldn’t have read beyond the headline and lede and now humpback whales have human brains.
November 27th, 2006 at 9:43 am
There’s also the idea that the next car accident will be… another car accident. The next terrorist act might be ???
Worrying only about the statistical threat to *me* personally seems rather selfish. As others have stated, terrorist acts have much more wide ranging effects than Joe Average driving his car into a tree in Muncie.
Math and science are important, and they should be priority #1 in our schools, but there’s more to life and civilization than numbers.
skeptigirl said “I am disgusted every time I hear about the terrorism threat because 3,000 people died 5 years ago.”
I find this s ad statement. Not that I support Bush & co using 9/11 as an excuse for their rotten policy, but because you seem to belittle the event as if it’s something to just be forgotten because the mathematics of it does not affect you personally. Are you really this cold or am I misreading?
November 27th, 2006 at 9:46 am
Gary said: “just including sleep gas in the airvents”
I showed this to a lawyer friend of mine who is involved with liability cases. He laughed and laughed and laughed.
November 27th, 2006 at 9:50 am
Mike - the UN resolutions that Bush used to justify going into Iraq had nothing to do with Saddam’s way of treating his own people (possibly they should have, but that’s a different matter), they were to do with letting in the weapons inspectors - which Saddam did. It was Bush’s insistence (wrongly, as it turned out) that Saddam was hiding WMD that provided what scant legal justification there was for invading - at a time when Saddam was complying fully with the inspection regime.
Also, it’s not normally called ‘terrorism’ when a government rules by fear. Terrorism normally refers to things like 9/11, or the Eta campaign in Spain, or the IRA’s campaign in Northern Ireland - terror-inspiring attacks on civilians by a non-governmental (or possibly quasi-governmental) group (when governments do this, it’s called war).
On an entirely different (although ‘bad thinking’-related) subject - today’s Guardian has a very interesting article on the rise of Creationism/ID in British schools here. One head of Chemistry is quoted as saying “Just because it takes a negative look at Darwinism doesn’t mean it is not science. I think to critique Darwinism is quite appropriate.” over the use of packs that promote ID.
November 27th, 2006 at 9:50 am
Dave says: “Terrorist attacks are deliberate acts of violence committed by enemies of the United States with political and military aims in mind. Traffic fatalities occur because people who mean no harm accidentally cause the death of others. There is really no comparison.”
So in other words, it’s not the deaths themselves that matter, but the intentions behind the cause? This sounds like you feel people that lost loved ones in auto accidents can shrug it off as “just an accident,” and we should concern ourselves with safety only when righteous indignation is a driving factor.
Funny, I think I’ d feel better about losing a family member in the crash of the buildings, horrible as they were, than from being crumpled in front of the idiot who couldn’t put his f***ing cellphone down when driving. I have more difficulties with intentional ignorance like lane changes without use of mirrors or turn signals resulting in multi-car pileups, than I do with deliberate attacks intended to make me freak out.
But that could be because I recognize two things:
1) Terrorism is intended to provoke a reaction, more than anything else. What we need to ask ourselves is, “What reaction?”
2) Terrorism is commonly defined in our minds as being perpetrated by unthinking reactionaries, insane people. Wrong. Terrorism is a method of communicating a perceived injustice without the benefit of a standing army. In other situations we call it “freedom fighting.”
When we receive attacks on our soil from people thousands of miles away, the very first thing we need to ask ourselves is, “Why?” What motivates people to coordinate an elaborate plot to produce a remarkably high-profile but strategically worthless media event? Why the World Trade Centers (twice)? Why would anyone think this is useful?
And trust me, if you’re sitting there thinking of typing the canard, “Because they hate our freedoms,” in response, you need to recognize that you’re too stupid to be left alone in the house. Seriously. Go read Dr. Seuss instead.
Or, we could be bright enough, instead of asking ourselves these questions, to pay some attention to world events, and perhaps even to the stated reasons for the attacks. That’s at least a hint.
And that’s the point. Sometimes, you have to work the answers out for yourself, and not listen to the media tripe.
And Dave, you almost got it right when you started talking about the economic impact of the attacks. You’re getting warmer.
But I find it funny that, somehow, you didn’t find the economic impact of a prolonged and pointless invasion worth mentioning. How’s that work out when you do the math? Shouldn’t THAT merit a moral response?
Yes, it probably will. And it won’t be ours.
But just think! Then you’ll have something else to get righteous about, all over again! And your government will be happy to use this as justification to do something else totally unrelated!
Because an ignorant populace is an easily-manipulated one.
And the worst form of arrogance is the one where you believe you can do no wrong. It becomes the most dangerous when it applies to nations.
November 27th, 2006 at 9:55 am
Christian Burnham
>The statistics show that we have a tiny chance of dying by homicide and a much much smaller chance of dying in a terrorist attack.
Yes, we are far more likely to be murdered by someone we know and love and interact with daily than by a random terrorist, or even a stranger trying to score some cash or a car on the street. I personally have a 50 ft/5 times rule. If I have interacted with you 5 separate times, you are not allowed within 50 feet of me without being strip searched and having 1 hand duck-taped to your side. Sure, it makes it hard to keep a job, and parties are a nightmare, but I refuse to be a victim.
November 27th, 2006 at 10:20 am
Mike: Iraq did not have any connection to terrorism against the United States.
Hussein was a monster- but he did not pose any serious threat to us.
I agree that you could make a moral case for deposing a very nasty dictator- but as far as I can tell, the experts don’t believe that going into Iraq has made the world any safer.
It’s also hard to ignore the 655000 odd civilian Iraqi deaths when calculating this particular moral equation.
The truth is that the US and Britain mercilessly played upon our natural fears of terrorism in the wake of 9-11 to justify a dubious war- or have you forgotten the endless coverage of the WMD’s?
November 27th, 2006 at 10:22 am
Uh, that should read 65500.
November 27th, 2006 at 10:40 am
I have the impression that most people here are concerned about the effect and not at all about the cause. Whether it is about who did this or that has not been addressed.
I’m not going to criticise one party over another, but it seems clear that certain actions and reactions have occured since time immemorial, and the “revenge” principle has always been invoked. And each successive attack yields a greater casuality rate, because newer, better (?), faster, slower, cleaner, more horrible, cost-effective, insideous ways to overcome the “enemy”, and of course justify it with any convenient “truth” or religious belief.
Someone will say that it is only a matter of time before another sad event happens that will make 9/11 seem like a picnic, as that is what escalation is all about. Others will assert that that has already happened, referring to the attack on Iraq.
That the Think-tanks are not busy trying to out-do their predecessors, let alone their enemy, suggesting new ways to win, it is to the career soldier, and the so called revolutionary, the freedom fighter and the crazed dictator, all the same thing, just what side one’s on and what prejudice one holds.
That whoever gets in the way is considered just too bad, it is “co-lateral damage”, but “we are doing it for your own good!”, is the usual reply.
If our political leaders cannot see sense, it is really up to the People to ensure education is improved and elections become more responsible. Real education and not propaganda, or ill-considered notions about quazi-science or religion.
How come we never talk about “Attack Force”, but we do have a “Defence Force”? But the Defence force is precisely what we use to attack another country. I have to admit for the time being that each country retain a defence force, for that purpose only of course. In the event of an invasion anywhere, every other country will be obliged to defend the agrieved state. I thought that was what the original United Nations Organisation was all about, not the wimpy, always too late, if at all, reaction that was forthcoming.
Military economies - now that is another bad idea, but don’t get me started on that again.
Ivan.
November 27th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
“Six Muslims traveling from a religious conference were thrown off a plane last week…”
Yikes, it is getting bad.
November 27th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
PK sez: “Mike, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Period. “
…..which addresses absolutely nothing presented in my post.
But it does imply that, had 9/11 never happened, we never, ever would’ve gone after Saddam.
Which brings us back to: Then why have a resolution in the first place?
And what exactly is the point of that (PK’s) statement?
It was agreed to go after him when the towers were still standing…..prior to 9/11.
And who said that we went after him because of 9/11?
(Please provide links showing where any member of this administration stated that Saddam was directly involved with/responsible for 9/11.)
I do agree that Bush Jr. did mention ‘mushroom cloud’ when presenting his case for war.
Not the best choice of words
Rob sez: “Also, it’s not normally called ‘terrorism’ when a government rules by fear.â€
Welllllllllllll……..it might not be ‘called’ terrorism….but….
If citizens are governed/ruled by fear, I think it would be safe to say that they’re being ‘terrorized’. I think it would be safe to say that the Kurds felt a teensy bit terrorized as they lay gasping for air….or as they witnessed their children & loved ones dropping dead in front of them.
For anyone to quibble over what it should be called is………silly.
It’s very similar to the U.N.’s reaction to the Tutsi-Hutu bloodbath.
They really dragged their feet on that one.
“Let’s see….is it genocide…..or ethnic cleansing…..Hmmmmm…..this is a tough one. Hey, Tutsi’s…..please be patient while you’re being hunted down & slaughtered. We’re working on it. We’ll getback to ya.â€
Christian sez: “Iraq did not have any connection to terrorism against the United States. Hussein was a monster- but he did not pose any serious threat to us.â€
That’s not entirely true.
He threatened to assassinate Bush Sr…..and his troops fired on our planes.
(And correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t he fund suicide bombers? Didn’t he pay the families of suicide bombers?)
So I’ll toss it out there once more:
What’s the criteria for us ever getting involved?
Do we only assist when our butts are on the line?
How far do we take that “As long as I’m not threatened, why bother.†mentality?
My girlfriend & I always have Sunday breakfast at a local diner. Just a few weeks ago I overheard an elderly patron (whom I know to be Polish and very proud of it) complain that this country should mind its own business. I was sorely tempted to ask him if he would’ve felt that way if he were in Poland back in..oh,…the late 30’s, early 40’s. But it was Sunday morning and I didn’t feel it was appropriate to get into a (…a-hem…) discussion.
We can (probably) agree that Saddam was a psycho.
His goons would round up whomever they chose, kill them, and then bill the surviving family members for the bullets that were used.
And let’s not forget the playful antics of those 2 rascals Uday & Qusay.
Here’s a few examples of their hijinx:
Kidnap some poor guy’s fiancé, torture & beat her until she succumbs to your advances, then coat her with honey and toss her to your attack dogs, where she gets eaten alive.
As young boys, Father-Of-The-Year Saddam would allow them to participate in executions. It has been reported that the boys would continue shooting long after the victims bodies had been reduced to a pile of bloody paste & rags. After one particularly bloody dispatch, a teen-age Qusay was quoted as asking: “….are there any more bullets?â€
….not exactly Wally & ‘The Beaver’.
The purpose of terrorism?
Simple!
1) Scare the absolute sh!t out of other humans
2) Make them bend to your will
Should the U.S.A. go after every bloody dictator?
Sure!
But only if the U.N. prepares a resolution and our allies agrees to it and….
Oh……wait a minute…..
Mike
ps. I truly appreciate the civility shown in this forum. When discussing politics it can get downright brutal.
November 27th, 2006 at 12:58 pm
Well, here’s one from CNN
And by taking us from point 7 to point 8 above, you suggest a link between Saddam and terrorism. I take it this is not what you intended?
November 27th, 2006 at 1:14 pm
JustAl sez:
1) Terrorism is intended to provoke a reaction, more than anything else. What we need to ask ourselves is, “What reaction?â€
Me: I address the definition of terrorism in my last post. (Ok. It’s MY definition of terrorism. But I think it’s pretty accurate.)
2) Terrorism is commonly defined in our minds as being perpetrated by unthinking reactionaries, insane people. Wrong.
Me: No. I disagree. Think of the acts of terrorism we’ve witnessed in the past 40 years. Innocent people out shopping get blown up, never to go home again. Old men in wheelchairs get tossed overboard. Sleeping Marines get blown up in their beds. Friends sharing a drink in a disco get bombed. Jet airliners get….well, you know.
These are clearly, C-L-E-A-R-L-Y, the actions of insane people.
JustAl sez: Terrorism is a method of communicating a perceived injustice without the benefit of a standing army. In other situations we call it “freedom fighting.â€
Me: I disagree.
‘Communicating’ implies that there is a dialog…a discussion…a back & forth between 2 or more parties. Throwing a bomb into a crowded disco is not a form of ‘communicating’.
JustAl sez: Terrorism is (one more time): How can I scare the absolute crap out of these humans? How can I get them to do everything I tell them to?
Freedom fighters: George Washington and his troops….Easy Company (WWII)…those who do not target civilians.
JustAl sez: ‘When we receive attacks on our soil from people thousands of miles away, the very first thing we need to ask ourselves is, “Why?’
Why should we, or anyone, do that?
What possible answer could we come up with that would make any of us think: “OHHHhhhhhhh, so THAT’S why they did it. Jeez. I wouldn’t have thought of that reason. Hmmmmm. Kinda makes ya think.â€
If your home is robbed, is your first reaction to contemplate WHY?
How about a car-jacking?
Or a mugging?
Rape?
How about hijacking planes for use as guided missiles?
What possible answer could you arrive at that would make you (or anyone) go: “Ohhh! I see. I get it now. That makes sense. Now I understand why they did it.â€
Some yo-yo just shot an old man in a wheelchair and tossed his body over the side of an ocean liner.
What’s to understand?
He’s crazy.
Kill him now.
Mike
November 27th, 2006 at 1:20 pm
Traffic “accident” is a misnomer. ericnh already pointed out DUI’s. NHTSA recently concluded a study which found that 80% of collisions, drivers are inattentive or distracted.
We call them “accidents” and consider traffic infractions a victimless crime to sweep responsibility under the rug. In reality, they’re a not-unexpected but largely preventable result of our land usage and transportation decisions over the past half-century, coupled with an insistence on personal convenience and speed.
November 27th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
To PK: I’m not sure what points 7 & 8 you’re referring to in my post. Though I probably am implying a link between saddam & terrorism. I’m pretty sure there was news about him paying the families of suicide bombers.
The CNN link you provided states:
“Bush has tried to portray the war in Iraq as the “central front” in the war on terrorism that began with al Qaeda’s September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.
In September, after Cheney asserted that Iraq had been “the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11,”
->Bush acknowledged there was no evidence that Saddam’s government was connected to those attacks.
November 27th, 2006 at 1:28 pm
3,000 dead on 9/11… Plus 17 from the USS Cole, 19 from Khobar Towers, 6 from the 1993 WTC attack, hundreds in the African embassy bombings. Plus how many hundreds more in Israel, Morocco, Bali, the Islamic insurgency in southern Thailand, the London tube bombings… Once is a unique event, twice is coincidence, but 3 times is enemy action.
2) Terrorism is commonly defined in our minds as being perpetrated by unthinking reactionaries, insane people. Wrong. Terrorism is a method of communicating a perceived injustice without the benefit of a standing army. In other situations we call it “freedom fighting.â€
Except the goalposts of the perceived injustice are always moving, aren’t they? Whether it’s US troops occupying the holy lands, the reclaiming of Andalusia, Islamic regimes not being Islamic enough, the occupation of the Shabaa farms, there’s always a reason. They don’t necessarily hate our freedoms, they just want to impost their religion on the rest of us. And “they” may be a small percentage of all muslims, but in absolute terms they number in the millions.
Because an ignorant populace is an easily-manipulated one.
And the worst form of arrogance is the one where you believe you can do no wrong. It becomes the most dangerous when it applies to nations.
I think the belief that people who disagree with you do so only out of ignorance is just as arrogant. A population that buries its head in the sand is easliy conquered. Just ask France, Britain, and Germany in about 40 years.
November 27th, 2006 at 1:35 pm
Mike: “So it’s hard to tell what to be scared about. One of the reasons people don’t panic about global warming is because the same people told us global cooling was a menace.”
That’s actually stretching the truth quite a bit. In the 1970s, global cooling was a speculation with a few papers and articles about it. In the 2000s, global warming has thousands of papers referencing it, and has been confirmed by hundreds of independent research organizations all over the planet, including some pretty major players in atmospheric and environmental science. That’s hardly mere speculation on par with 1970s climate science.
One of the problems that causes many people to equate 1970s global cooling with 200s global warming is the large number of talking heads on TeeVee who naively claim equivalence between global cooling and global warming. I am afraid many of these personalities have far more enthusiasm in pushing politics than they do learning and teaching good science. But it certainly isn’t the science or the scientists creating the confusion.
If you want to know more about the global cooling versus global warming issue, Real Climate (realclimate.org) has several articles on the issue, and they link to other sites discussing the same topic (if you don’t trust Real Climate).
November 27th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
This was omitted from the end of my last post…
If I’m reading that CNN article properly, it shows that the adminsitration believed:
Al-Qaeda & Saddam were linked
…and…
Al-Qaeda & 9/11 were linked
…but…
Saddam & 9/11 were NOT linked
Which means……the Bush Administration & PK are in agreement.
Mike
November 27th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
Mike,
Do you at least agree that death by terrorism is an improbable, albeit grisly way to die?
November 27th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
so if we had a 9/11 scale disaseter every month you’d still only be as likely to die in a car crash as a wtc disaster? thats amazing.
November 27th, 2006 at 8:07 pm
Mike says: “Me: No. I disagree. Think of the acts of terrorism we’ve witnessed in the past 40 years. Innocent people out shopping get blown up, never to go home again. Old men in wheelchairs get tossed overboard. Sleeping Marines get blown up in their beds. Friends sharing a drink in a disco get bombed. Jet airliners get….well, you know.
These are clearly, C-L-E-A-R-L-Y, the actions of insane people.”
No. Insanity is individual, not group. Insanity is not a disease that people catch from others. There are other terms for that. Making that distinction is what leads you to effective methods of dealing with it.
You can lump everything you don’t like under the umbrella of “insanity” if it suits you. It puts you no closer to an answer, and requires you to roam the entire world trying to put an end to mental illness. Your problem then becomes, who begins thinking that it’s *you* that is the insane one?
We’ve already passed that point, by the way.
Mike says: “JustAl sez: ‘When we receive attacks on our soil from people thousands of miles away, the very first thing we need to ask ourselves is, “Why?’
Why should we, or anyone, do that?
What possible answer could we come up with that would make any of us think: “OHHHhhhhhhh, so THAT’S why they did it. Jeez. I wouldn’t have thought of that reason. Hmmmmm. Kinda makes ya think.—
Because once you realize that people don’t follow insane leaders as a matter of habit, then you start to determine how they perceive their leaders. What buttons are being pushed to convince people to act in these manners? What huge injustice are they seeing that causes them to think that bombs and gassings and genocide are a useful course of action?
And more importantly, what are the leaders actually after? Because nine times out of ten it isn’t what they claim it is.
Of course, you can insist that kneejerk reactions are the best course of action. As predicted, and as desired. It’s kind of like “faking the throw” when playing fetch with the dog. Works every time, doesn’t it? Go get it!
Mike says: “If your home is robbed, is your first reaction to contemplate WHY?
How about a car-jacking? Or a mugging? Rape?”
Murder? You missed that one. And yes, I *do* contemplate why. In fact, in this crazy little thing we have in this country called, “Due Process,” it’s a requirement.
Robbery? Easy gain - no brainer. Rape? Yep, that’s a bit tougher. Determining guilt within a reasonable doubt becomes much more necessary, though, since a very large percentage of rape accusations tend to be false - sad but true.
Terrorist attacks requiring months of planning and lots of accomplices? Yes, I *do* ask what it’s all about. Because people acting in concert have a plan and a goal, and it ain’t because “they’re crazy!” Settling for that answer is both lazy and ignorant.
What’s even more interesting is that we spent decades setting up legal processes within this country to do our best to ensure that people accused of criminal acts were treated fairly and with recognition that, despite what it appeared, they may not actually be guilty. And we suspend these entirely outside of our own country. Why, are *those* people less deserving? Less than human, don’t count, right? I hope you understand that, to a lot of the world, this looks like hypocrisy at best.
Mike says: “How about hijacking planes for use as guided missiles? What possible answer could you arrive at that would make you (or anyone) go: “Ohhh! I see. I get it now. That makes sense. Now I understand why they did it.—
How about this one: “We’re damn sick and tired of the United States constantly interfering in the trade affairs of the gulf region in order to prevent the nations with the most commodities from actually taking a fair share of trade concessions”?
Yes, we were real concerned about the Kuwaiti way of life. Just not enough to actually determine what it was. And not enough that this concern spread to about seven different countries in Africa (roughly 7.5 million since 1965, and still going on *right now*); China (30 million under Mao); Cambodia (1.7 million, hey, weren’t we right there at the time?); Pakistan (3 million); Afghanistan (1.8 million), Russia (20 million during the Stalinist purges, but that’s okay, we were loose allies at the time, so those dead people don’t count) and so on. These are simply figures for genocide, mind you - war is a different set of numbers.
But we’ve been in the gulf since WWII. And in fact, we created an entirely new country over there, armed it to the teeth, and told those that didn’t like it to get out. Know what? They’re still pissed.
Want an answer? Go to http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.html . It’s got big words in it though.
Isn’t it amazing what you find out when you actually ask, and don’t stick fingers in your ears?
November 28th, 2006 at 2:24 am
There is an easy way to understand (not condone!) terrorism: have you ever been in a humiliating situation where you were powerless to do anything (your school days, perhaps?). Remember the frustration?
Now imagine this happening collectively to a people, for example under foreign occupation. They will bitch and moan about the oppressors, and as group dynamics go, these sentiments get amplified. Enter a charismatic leader who will “lead his people to freedom” using violence. By now the people are so frustrated that violence seems perfectly justified. Some members of the community (who would in other circumstances be thugs and robbers) will step up to the plate and become heroes by bombing the oppressors.
What I am saying is that there is no collective insanity here, just human nature. It would be good to keep human nature as part of the equation when formulating foreign policies.
November 28th, 2006 at 3:23 am
The point here isn’t the morality or reason behind the risk, it is the disproportionate time, worry, and money spent addressing the hazard.
But if you want to argue we should worry more about less people killed in terrorist attacks and worry less about more people killed in preventable accidents, then perhaps you weren’t aware how many people are murdered every year in the US?
More than 16,000 people were murdered in the United States the same year 3,000 were killed by terrorists. I can’t tell if the 3,000 was included in the annual total but I suspect it wasn’t since the number isn’t very different from the year before or the year after. But even if it were, that’s still 3,000 vs 13,000.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
Just think what we might have done to decrease the murder rate with those billions we’re spending every week in Iraq doing nothing to lessen the risk of terrorism or to dampen the increasing civil war there.
November 28th, 2006 at 4:08 am
I am sorry Phil but this IS really funny
First ONE blog about “critical thinking”, and “knowing what to concentrate on and what not to worry about so much”, then TWO blogs about global warming, “it’s too late”, “Exxon Mobil is evil”
Let’s apply your critical thinking. No one in the US has died of climate change, and yet we hear about it all the time. Sure, it’s a threat, but not nearly a big one as regular climate
November 28th, 2006 at 4:21 am
[…] It is now the turn of Phil Plait the Bad Astronomer, a very funny, knowledgeable, interesting blogger that in fact has posted an entry about the importance of critical thinking, and of being able to concentrate oneself on the things that matter, instead of the latest scare stories… […]
November 28th, 2006 at 6:25 am
Yep, time to not read the comments anymore. People can’t get over their political leanings here. “My team is right! I win teh internat!”
November 28th, 2006 at 7:30 am
Oops…didn’t know Wordpress does such a good job at tracking back
I’ll avoid double-commenting next time around
November 28th, 2006 at 8:51 am
JustAl sez: “No. Insanity is individual, not group.â€
Mike sez: But if you have several ‘insane’ individuals associating with each other……that would qualify as a ‘group’. A group of insane people.
Let’s not forget that we’re talking about people whose logic dictates that they beat a woman if she is raped……or if her hair is uncovered…..or if she bares her wrist…..or if she is in the presence of a man who is not related to her…..or if….
‘Insanity’ is a legal term, not a clinical term. It is not uncommon for groups of people to obediently follow one insane person. Technically, the followers might not be insane. How about…..’extremely irrational’….or…..’completely-out-of-their-minds’….or…’just plain wrong’…..?
JustAl sez: “Because once you realize that people don’t follow insane leaders as a matter of habit….â€
Mike sez: Habit? Perhaps not. But they DO follow. And almost always….it’s bad.
Hitler
Stalin
Mao
Kim Jong Il
Jim Jones
Heaven’s Gate cult
L. Ron Hubbard
Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh
David Koresh
Sun Myung Moon
Louis Farrakhan
Madonna
(…heh-heh…)
JustAl sez: “You can lump everything you don’t like under the umbrella of “insanity†if it suits you.
Mike sez: No. It’s not there to ‘suit me’. Forget the term insanity. Let’s call it ‘crazy’ or ‘nutty’ or ‘sick’. Heck, let’s call it ‘Fred’. This is exactly the point (the one I made earlier about quibbling over a name) I made in my other post: Regardless of the name, the act is wrong and should be stopped. The terminology is not the problem. The problem is the act. (…of terrorism…)
JustAl sez: “It puts you no closer to an answer, and requires you to roam the entire world trying to put an end to mental illness. Your problem then becomes, who begins thinking that it’s *you* that is the insane one?â€
Mike sez: I don’t know what that statement means, or implies. I’ll leave it.
JustAl sez: “Murder? You missed that one.â€
Mike sez: No. I didn’t. It’s in that next statement. The one about the airliners being slammed into office buildings.
JustAl sez: “What buttons are being pushed to convince people to act in these manners?
Mike sez: It’s probably the thought of eternal martyrdom….the cash payout to the families of suicide bombers…….the ‘prestige’ of knowing that your children blew themselves up killing Jews or Americans (Infidels both!)……Oh! Oh-oh-oh! The 72 virgins!!!! I almost forgot that one. (And that’s the best one!)
JustAl sez: “What huge injustice are they seeing that causes them to think that bombs and gassings and genocide are a useful course of action?â€
Mike sez: Easy! The ‘mohammed’ cartoons! Such blasphemy!
JustAl sez: “And more importantly, what are the leaders actually after? Because nine times out of ten it isn’t what they claim it is.â€
Mike sez: Well….Osama is pissed because the Kuwaiti’s asked the U.S.A. (and not Osama) to get rid of Saddam……..and Ahmedinejad is pissed because….we’re friends with Israel (whom he wants to remove from the face of the Earth)…And really, who does he think he’s kidding? If it were possible to send every Jew/Israeli to the moon…..he’d turn his attention to blowing up the moon.
And who cares what they’re after. If they want us dead…..or if they want us to bend to their will, then what difference does it make WHAT they’re after? I would hazard a guess that they just want us to do a lot of stuff that we really don’t want to do. Like…..cover our women from head-to-toe….pray 5 times a day to a god we don’t believe in….strap bombs to our children and have them run into crowds….
JustAl sez: “Because people acting in concert have a plan and a goal, and it ain’t because “they’re crazy!â€
Mike sez: See Hitler, Mao, Stalin, etc. list above. Their plan was to wipe out a LOT of humans while enslaving the rest. That’s crazy. Or nutty. Or ‘just plain wrong’. (Or ‘Fred’.) And our ‘knee-jerk’ reaction was to go and stop them……..by seriously kicking their asses.
Mike sez: You provided a link to an article written by a political science teacher (a rather left-leaning fellow) from New Jersey. A man who swaps ideas with Noam Chomsky, no less. A man whom, only a week after the 9/11 slaughter, wrote an article listing 5 reasons not to go to war. The article basically implies: Do nothing. Let it go. No good will come of it.
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2001-09/19albert-shalom.cfm
Mike sez: And lastly, there’s this: “Isn’t it amazing what you find out when you actually ask, and don’t stick fingers in your ears?â€
Right there. That little parting shot. That little zinger that says “I’m smarter than you, so there!â€
Dude. We’re using computers. Wouldn’t it have been easier to just type this:
I’m done with this subject. (I should’ve stopped 2 posts ago. I know, I know….) All the best!
Mike
November 28th, 2006 at 10:33 am
Risk assessment has nothing to do with whether the risk is for an accidental event or not. The case could be made that most road traffic accidents are not accidental - in the sense that they could not be easily predicted and have no perpetrator - since they involve bad, dangerous or, at least, careless driving. The common feature of risks is that the event is not predictable (as in “when I drive to work today I will have an accident because it’s Thursday”) unlike events that are predictable (”as in “when I drive to work today I will stop at the garage because my fuel tank is usually empty by Thursday”). A risk has a probability and it’s likelihood and impact need to be assessed.
Terrorists attacks are risks. Road traffic accidents are risks. Dying from heart disease is a risk. I can do things to change the probability of these events as well as to mitigate the effects of their precipitation.
What really gets me is that for the risk of terrorism, the governments can do things like this but think that stopping people eating fatty foods requires persuasion rather than draconian laws.
November 28th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
[…] Anyways, why is this a topic for today? Well, the book club at work seems like it’s going to have me rereading Normal Accidents by Charles Perrow, which is a great book that talks about the “social” side of risk, and why we illogically perceive things like flying as being more risky than driving. Also, the Bad Astronomy blog turned me to this great cover article in Time magazine (it covers much of the same ground as Normal Accidents, but without the great anecdotes). […]
November 28th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
Ah, discourse and disent. Progress is now possible,,,
GAry 7
November 28th, 2006 at 11:12 pm
Boiling frog syndrome.
Put a frog in hot water it’ll jump out straight away.
Put it in cold water then slowly boil it and it’ll sit there till it dies.
Unfortunately too many people are like that & too many of our so-called “leaders” eitehrshare that intellectual flaw or bow obsequiously to those who do.
I read a book on this whole topic (slow attritrion risks versus abrupt events) that was excellent but twas a library one and I forget exact tiotle and authors name.
It would save a lot of lives, money and greatly benefit us all if we were actually aware of this intellectual blind-spot in prioritising and assessing risks that we have and if we taught people how how to think for themselves.
I think that JustAl has got it spot on right. Unfortunately, there are too many hypocrites and ignoramuses out there. Like people willing to fall for the lies about Muslims and subject them to the same sort of counter-productive scapegoating that saw medieval people killing cats as demonic when the rat carried Black Death was raging.
Climate change hasn’t killed any Americans yet? Don’t be too sure! Hurricane Katrina to name one obvious example killed quite a few. (some serious US, Portugese & Aussie bushfires are another) And if you think thatwas nothing todo with climate change well, wake up and activate those dormant brain cells …
Terrorism is an incredibly over-exxagerrated and misunderstood threat that has been deliberately whipped up to generate political gain. If you don’t believe that, then first you need to do some real thinking about the issue, second, you need to look at where your info’s coming from and thirdly, well if you still believe the lies, you’re probably toofar buried in the sand of willful ignorance to listen to me anyway. BTW. If you want to attempt refuting any of those statements please do so by actually facing the facts.
Eg. small things like say that 5% of America is Jewish and 5% is Muslim but the USA invariably supports Israel even vetoing UN Resolutions condemning Isreali massacres of innocent civilans.
Or that the only thing Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein had in common was former CIA training and American backing ..
Or take a look at the selective use and support for UN Resolutions -they used UN resolutions against Iraq as justification for war but the many resolutions commanding Israel to leave illegally occupied territory go totally ignored.
Or that Pres. George II has been utterly hypocritical and caviliar saying he’ll support - and export democracy but then when a free and fair Palestinean election is finally held and a party he dislikes gets voted in, cutting off all aid and not even hinting at criticism when half that government was kidnapped by an occupying power practising state-sponsored terrorism and arguably, genocide.
(No, I don’t like Hamas either but they did win an election fair and square, they are the legitmate government - prob’ly more so than the Bush regieme - and they have shown some willingness to moderate their position and talk peace. Meanwhile Israel has continually provoked violence, committed atrocities, broken promises, invaded and refused to talk so much that negotation seems like flogging a dead horse. Yet the Palestineans are punished and Israel gets off with praise and support. Only real international sanctions and diplomatic if not military action against Israel will it seems compel it to do what it should by law have done in 1967 - get the hell out of lands it wrongfully invaded and occupied. The best thing America can do for peace in the “Middle East”? Stop funding, arming and backing Israel. Simple as that.)
A bit of consistency and a lot less hypocrisy and arrogance would go one hell of a way towards resolving the over-hyped, over-emphasised and totally needless “terrorism” crisis.
As for the UN, we live in a world that really _needs_ proper global government because of global issues like climate change, poverty, religious violence, terrorism, nuclear warfare ad nauseam ..
But we get a hamstrung, derided and exploited mess without teeth or power to bring the real rogue nations - the superpowers - to heel or act effectively to correct injustices and fairly resolve international disputes like Palestine, Chechnya, Kosovo, Iraq, Tibet, Kashmir, Darfur, Rwanda, West Papua, Aceh, The Falklands, Taiwan, ad nauseam …
To my mind three big things need to happen :
1) Veto powers need to go. 2/3rds majorityvote should rule. One nation, one vote & no tampering. All humans are equal at law - & all nations too.
2) The UN needs to be seen and accepted as the _sole_ agency allowed to use or threaten force to protect other nations -and armed according with all nations contributing to a global army acting for all the world’s people. All nations need to adopt Japan’s pacifist “No Invading Anyone else” clause in their constituitions - & behave accordingly.
&
3) UN Representatives need to be more powerful, more effective, more intelligent and have their role over-ride that of national leaders whether Kings, Dictators, PMs or Presidents.
No, I’m not holding my breath either …
November 29th, 2006 at 8:37 am
Stevo - I really don’t know where to start.
Eg. small things like say that 5% of America is Jewish and 5% is Muslim but the USA invariably supports Israel even vetoing UN Resolutions condemning Isreali massacres of innocent civilans.
We veto those resolutions because there are no concurrent resolutions condemning the constant rocket attacks and other terrorist acts of the Palestinians. Israel pulled out of Gaza, and has gotten nothing but rockets in the teeth and kidnapped soldiers as a result.
No, I don’t like Hamas either but they did win an election fair and square, they are the legitmate government - prob’ly more so than the Bush regieme - and they have shown some willingness to moderate their position and talk peace.
Still bitter about losing Florida fair and square? Yes, Hamas is the legitimately elected government. And their position is to destroy Israel. It’s simple - give up that position, and the aid starts flowing again. That is not unreasonable, nor is it a failure to support the democratic process. It’s great that the Plaestinian people actually put their money where their mouth is, now they reap the consequences, so we can put this shell game of “the Palestinian people want peace, it’s just the radical groups that keep the conflict going” to bed once and for all.
Only real international sanctions and diplomatic if not military action against Israel will it seems compel it to do what it should by law have done in 1967 - get the hell out of lands it wrongfully invaded and occupied. The best thing America can do for peace in the “Middle East� Stop funding, arming and backing Israel. Simple as that.)
They just did that, in Gaza, and are apparently going ahead with that in the West Bank. I’m sure the Palestinians will be happy to coexist peacefully after that. But I’m not holding my breath! Those rockets and suicide bombers don’t pay for themselves, you know.
Yeah, if we stop supporting Israel, there’ll be peace. The peace of the grave for the Israeli people. Oh, and Hezbollah, I’m sure, will disarm and let the democratically elected government in Lebanon run that country. We can blame that on the Jews, too, through some wierd convolution of logic. I guess if we treat aggrieved populations like children, not responsible for any of their own actions no matter how despicable, well, it will make us feel better. Or something.
1) Veto powers need to go. 2/3rds majorityvote should rule. One nation, one vote & no tampering. All humans are equal at law - & all nations too.
Mm hmmmm. By all means, let’s allow Cuba, Libya, Iran, Sudan, Syria, and North Korea a say equivalent to ours. I guess they already do, to an extent, because they run the human rights council. Which is the perfect example of why this idea is so silly. They tried that before, it was called the League of Nations, and it failed, because the great powers would have to be idiots to let such an organization dictate to them. I can see it now - wealth taxes (excess consumption taxes?) to line the pockets of third world kleptocrats the world over. A UN Army to sit by and let people kill each other because they’re too busy boinking the local children in the back of their shiny new land rovers. Etc etc. Utopia!
November 29th, 2006 at 11:04 am
Mike says: “Let’s not forget that we’re talking about people whose logic dictates that they beat a woman if she is raped……or if her hair is uncovered…..or if she bares her wrist…..or if she is in the presence of a man who is not related to her…..or if….”
Um, that’s actually a religion. Regardless of whether or not you agree with it, it is actually one of those viewpoints that we have specific laws in our country to protect. And since there is no way to prove a “right” answer in such terms, we can only hope to respect one another’s viewpoints and practice tolerance.
This comes from an atheist, mind you. As far as I’m concerned, all religion is insane, and one of the reasons I support critical thinking. So I find your use of the word “logic” in there to be quite humorous. More on this later.
Mike says: “JustAl sez: “What buttons are being pushed to convince people to act in these manners?
Mike sez: It’s probably the thought of eternal martyrdom….the cash payout to the families of suicide bombers…….the ‘prestige’ of knowing that your children blew themselves up killing Jews or Americans (Infidels both!)……Oh! Oh-oh-oh! The 72 virgins!!!! I almost forgot that one. (And that’s the best one!)”
Unfortunately, the amount of muslims that follow these concepts is about equal to the amount of christians that pay any attention to the ten commandments and the seven deadly sins (or can even name them). Don’t forget the rather lurid history of christianity, most of which we prefer to sweep under the rug and claim was caused by mob thinking and all that.
The key point that I’m making here is that it is not the religion that motivates people - it’s usually much more deep-seated than that. Religion is the part that people seize on to justify it, “divine right” and all that. How many have forgotten the part that says that god is omnipotent and already has a justice system in place? We put up signs that say, “god bless America” all over the place, and I wonder, “All of us? The sinners, the murderers, the mormons?”
Well, no, we didn’t mean it THAT way, of course not the mormons! [humorous license here, I don’t mean to single out the mormons from all the other wackdoodles]. We meant, god supports us in invading another country! You know, for those reasons that keep changing and are all full of crap. Going after the heathens, that’s what god supports.
And while you might argue this, how does it appear to other countries, do you think? You think we don’t look fanatical? We still don’t even know why we’re in Iraq!
I’ll probably feel a little bit better about it someday when our news reports how many people have died in Iraq, now how many Americans…
Mike says: “JustAl sez: “Because once you realize that people don’t follow insane leaders as a matter of habit….â€
Mike sez: Habit? Perhaps not. But they DO follow. And almost always….it’s bad.”
[snipped totally valid list]
That’s actually what I’m going on about. The difference that I’m trying to point out is that it is not always the “other guy.” We have more than our fair share of insanity. Once we understand this, once we have a grasp of what it takes to start that ball rolling, we have a better chance of disabling it.
Genocide does not happen because the leader says, “Hey, let’s slaughter a bunch of innocent people!” It happens more by leaders saying, “Hey, they’re trying to kill you, or enslave you! And they hate your freedoms!”
Meanwhile, the leaders manage to have the followers push them one (or more) steps towards their own goals, which are usually economic. We look at the big names throughout history and call them megalomaniacs, which is probably true. But how come so few followers saw it at the time?
Mostly because, thinking for yourself is something most people avoid. And as long as that happens, we’ll have megalomaniacs in power.
Interesting article I found yesterday: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/issues/2006/december/philippines.php
Taking away the ability of terrorists to recruit new people by taking away the oppressive parts of their existence.
Mike says: “JustAl sez: “What huge injustice are they seeing that causes them to think that bombs and gassings and genocide are a useful course of action?â€
Mike sez: Easy! The ‘mohammed’ cartoons! Such blasphemy!”
I haven’t run across any news report that says any attacks were performed in relation to this. The protests from the religious leaders were all quite understandable, considering that it IS blasphemy to portray mohammed in any way. Again, this is their religion. In the countries that were protested against for running the cartoon, there are laws that there will be no predjudice on the basis of religion. The protests were about the perceived hypocrisy, the willful ignorance of their own laws when it applied to religions that were not in the majority.
Do I agree? I’m actually kinda vague on it. Islam does not make exceptions for satire, but then again, you cannot run businesses or make policies that will make everyone happy. Sometimes islam needs to be tolerant too.
We hear protests from the pope all the time. Do other countries think that’s why we screw with so much of the world?
Mike says: “Well….Osama is pissed because the Kuwaiti’s asked the U.S.A. (and not Osama) to get rid of Saddam……..and Ahmedinejad is pissed because….we’re friends with Israel (whom he wants to remove from the face of the Earth)…And really, who does he think he’s kidding? If it were possible to send every Jew/Israeli to the moon…..he’d turn his attention to blowing up the moon.”
Not sure where you got the part about Osama, never heard that one before. I heard he’s protesting US involvement in the gulf. As for Israel, well, that’s been a bone of contention for a long long time. But look up the history of Israel and tell me you honestly think anyone’s blowing smoke over being pissed at them.
Mike says: “And who cares what they’re after. If they want us dead…..or if they want us to bend to their will, then what difference does it make WHAT they’re after? I would hazard a guess that they just want us to do a lot of stuff that we really don’t want to do. Like…..cover our women from head-to-toe….pray 5 times a day to a god we don’t believe in….strap bombs to our children and have them run into crowds….”
And that, my friend, is the kind of thinking that means we’ll never get out of this mess, and it will simply escalate into more bloodshed. At no point in time has there been even the slightest indication that islam is attempting to convert the US (or anyone else) through terrorism. So where did you get it from?
And who would care anyway? No one can possibly tell you what to think. Take it from an atheist in America.
Let me ask you this: If we had a leader right now that told you he had proof that islam was trying to destroy christianity, would you be one of the people that happily, and self-righteously, purged this country of muslims? How many people around you would it take before that happened?
Deny it all you want - it’s happened more times than you can count in the past century alone. How many of Stalin’s or Mao’s followers believed they were killing people in self-defense? How many sneered at the citizens that said, “The guy’s f***ing crazy!”
Mike says: “See Hitler, Mao, Stalin, etc. list above. Their plan was to wipe out a LOT of humans while enslaving the rest. That’s crazy. Or nutty. Or ‘just plain wrong’. (Or ‘Fred’.) And our ‘knee-jerk’ reaction was to go and stop them……..by seriously kicking their asses.”
Um, one out of three is bad. We did absolutely nothing about Stalin and Mao. And Pol Pot, and Amin, and just about every place in Africa (Mogadishu, Somalia, “Black Hawk Down,” was a rare exception and we abandoned it anyway). I agree, genocide should be stopped, with force if need be. But that’s hardly our policy right now.
And if it can be done without force, we need to be using those options too. I would go out on a limb and say that that’s the policy we should take above all else.
Mike says: “You provided a link to an article written by a political science teacher (a rather left-leaning fellow) from New Jersey. A man who swaps ideas with Noam Chomsky, no less. A man whom, only a week after the 9/11 slaughter, wrote an article listing 5 reasons not to go to war. The article basically implies: Do nothing. Let it go. No good will come of it.”
Ah, good! Why read the article, look at the facts presented, check out the extensive bibliography, and decide for yourself, when you can label it “black” or “white” and dismiss it accordingly?
Don’t go to war over 9/11? More power to him! In five years and how many millions of dollars, have we accomplished anything yet? Or are we just posturing for the American public? Good thing we prevented those other terrorist attacks in the intervening five years, though, eh what?
Mike says: “Right there. That little parting shot. That little zinger that says “I’m smarter than you, so there!—
Yes, that’s what debate is all about. Never be ashamed of it. And I can be cheap and point out I didn’t initiate this debate
A lot of what I’m talking about here came from not knowing what the hell I was talking about before, and doing some research. And there’s plenty more I have to learn as well.
My point is, that’s the only way we, as a species (this includes muslims and mormons) can possibly hope to advance. Accepting the answers we’ve been provided simply means we’re ripe for manipulation.
November 29th, 2006 at 11:05 am
Hey Phil! First time I did not get an error message! It might be working.
November 29th, 2006 at 11:28 am
I have been fiddling with the spam filter. It makes it easier for people to comment, but I have to spend more time doing things manually. Figures.
November 29th, 2006 at 11:55 am
test
November 29th, 2006 at 11:55 am
I seem to be having intermittent problems posting.
November 29th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
Take 48:
———-
JustAl said:
>Dave says: “Terrorist attacks are deliberate acts of violence committed by enemies of the United States with political and military aims in mind. Traffic fatalities occur because people who mean no harm accidentally cause the death of others. There is really no comparison.â€
>So in other words, it’s not the deaths themselves that matter, but the intentions behind the cause? This sounds like you feel people that lost loved ones in auto accidents can shrug it off as “just an accident,†and we should concern ourselves with safety only when righteous indignation is a driving factor.
I don’t think you’re being fair. Intentions do matter. We make moral judgements precisely based upon intentions all the time. Consequences can’t be ignored, but intentions behind the actions are always evaluated. That’s why there are gradations of homicide, from 1st degree murder to manslaughter. And the punishments are graduated to fit the abhorrence of the crime, which is usually measured by intent. We definitely make the distinction between someone who loses control of their car in the rain and hits a pedestrian and someone who selectively stakes out and runs down a cheating spouse. We rate the difference between someone who shoots in self-defense and someone who shoots in rage. We rate the difference between someone who shoves their neighbor that falls and hits his head vs. one who beats his neighbor with a pipe until the victim is unrecognizable. And we can rate the difference between someone who, through laziness or stupidity or carelessness, causes a traffic crash that kills several passengers vs. the deliberate hijacking of multiple airliners and flying them into highly populated targets with the intent of high casualty rates and maximum damage. That doesn’t discount the lives of the people lost in the car crash, but it measures the morality of the person responsible, and measures their level of responsibility.
November 29th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
Mike said:
>JustAl sez:
2) Terrorism is commonly defined in our minds as being perpetrated by unthinking reactionaries, insane people. Wrong.
>Me: No. I disagree. Think of the acts of terrorism we’ve witnessed in the past 40 years. Innocent people out shopping get blown up, never to go home again. Old men in wheelchairs get tossed overboard. Sleeping Marines get blown up in their beds. Friends sharing a drink in a disco get bombed. Jet airliners get….well, you know.
These are clearly, C-L-E-A-R-L-Y, the actions of insane people.
No, they are C-L-E-A-R-L-Y the actions of highly motivated people who feel they do not have many recourses and wish to have a maximum impact upon consciousness in order to get the most attention for their cause/plight/concern/issue. Just because the actions are violent and reprehensible does not make them insane.
JustAl said:
>Terrorism is a method of communicating a perceived injustice without the benefit of a standing army. In other situations we call it “freedom fighting.â€
Mike said:
>I disagree. ‘Communicating’ implies that there is a dialog…a discussion…a back & forth between 2 or more parties. Throwing a bomb into a crowded disco is not a form of ‘communicating’.
Communication is any form of message. Rational dialog is a form of communication. So are hand gestures and hurled insults. A racial epithet spray painted on the wall is a form of communication, as is the brick thrown through the window or the molatov cocktail pitched on the car or the cross burning in the yard. Just because you don’t appreciate the form of the communication does not mean it is not intended to convey a message. That message may be simple (Go away!), or it may be more complex, but if the action has intent to convey meaning, it is communication. It may be vague and unclear, but it is still communication. Just like facial expressions and tone of voice.
November 29th, 2006 at 12:04 pm
John said:
>“They don’t necessarily hate our freedoms, they just want to impost their religion on the rest of us.â€
JustAl said:
>Um, your evidence for this? Because I don’t get Ahkbed Ishalamar’s Crusades on my television here, but I get Billy Graham’s. Curious to see where you’re getting yours from.
It’s a bit interpretational in both cases. I don’t think imposing their religion on us is the primary motivation for the terrorist acts. Yes, it is a primary motivation for a lot of other crap, but the goal of the terrorism is something else. But that does not mean that many Muslims wish to see the world made over in the image of Islam. They disagree with our western culture because it conflicts with Islamic doctrine. They fear the intrusion of Western culture into their Islamic countries and the “corruption” of their people to the “sinful” ways. They are very much like conservative christians in that, wanting to make legal restrictions against anyone to conform to their strict religious rules. The fact that the rest of the world has a different set of values and different moral code is irrelevant, they think theirs is correct and think everyone should conform to it. The amount of effort put into forcing others to conform differs by degree of fundamentalism, but ultimately everyone wants everyone else to conform to their own personal moral code.
Yes, that means liberals, too.
The difference is in the degree of allowing other people to make decisions for their lives that are different than the decisions you make for your own life.
Mike said:
>Let’s not forget that we’re talking about people whose logic dictates that they beat a woman if she is raped……or if her hair is uncovered…..or if she bares her wrist…..or if she is in the presence of a man who is not related to her…..or if….
This is not “insanity”, it is a difference of values and beliefs. Just because you don’t agree with the values and beliefs does not make them insane. Then again, we probably need a working definition of “insane”.
>Forget the term insanity. Let’s call it ‘crazy’ or ‘nutty’ or ‘sick’. Heck, let’s call it ‘Fred’. This is exactly the point (the one I made earlier about quibbling over a name) I made in my other post: Regardless of the name, the act is wrong and should be stopped. The terminology is not the problem. The problem is the act. (…of terrorism…)
But the terminology is important, because it frames the way we evaluate the issues and the actions. It determines the competence and health of the parties involved. The “legal insanity” defense may be overused and inappropriately claimed by legal strategy, but the concept has a valid purpose.
It goes back to my earlier comment about responsibility for actions. Calling the terrorists insane is an easy way to dismiss their motivations and jump to the conclusion of “kill them all”. But all that does is weaken your own moral position and create more people who are motivated to kill us back. Understanding legitimate political, social, and economic gripes does not justify their horrendous acts or get them off the hook. It does, though, help us understand why they take those actions, and helps us find solutions to eliminate future acts. And it asks us to scrutinize our own actions and responsibility rather than pointing the finger solely on the other person.
For example, looking and Central and South American “freedom fighters” and screaming about how they kill indiscriminately and kidnap our corporate representatives for ransom overlooks the fact that maybe we bear responsibility for propping up a brutal dictator and his death squads in the name of preventing the spread of Communism. It’s definitely hard to be morally more righteous
(we’re better than those murdering cretins) when we’re directly responsible for another set of murdering cretins, the ones that motivate them to take action in the first place.
>And who cares what they’re after. If they want us dead…..or if they want us to bend to their will, then what difference does it make WHAT they’re after? I would hazard a guess that they just want us to do a lot of stuff that we really don’t want to do. Like…..cover our women from head-to-toe….pray 5 times a day to a god we don’t believe in….strap bombs to our children and have them run into crowds….
What if all they want us to do is stay out of the Middle East and let them live by Islamic law in their country? Stop propping up a strict monarchy that maintains a strong class division? Coming into their country for economic reasons (i.e. oil) but bringing along and imposing our culture on them? The reasonableness of their requests/demands cannot be evaluated by ignoring them.
November 29th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
Stevo said:
>Climate change hasn’t killed any Americans yet? Don’t be too sure! Hurricane Katrina to name one obvious example killed quite a few.
It’s going to be a hard sell to convince climate change skeptics that Katrina was caused by global warming. The best you can justify is that the storm intensity was stronger because of it. Even that, though, is a difficult assertion to back up. And then you have to look at the deaths. The problems in New Orleans were not primarily due to the strength of the storm, but rather the bad decisions and infrastructure of a city that is mostly below sea level, nevermind below the storm surge line. The dike system failed not because the storm was stronger by global warming, but simply because it was old and not designed to take loads above category 3. And the local and state governments were aware of that, but failed to take actions to change that condition. They were provided information about the status of the dikes and the likely scenario if a large hurricane (cat 4 or 5) hit the city head on. They were warned and did not implement remedial actions or a plan to address the weaknesses.
I don’t say there weren’t deaths from Katrina beyond New Orleans, but it is very difficult to come up with any concrete number or even reasonable estimate that can be solidly attributed to global warming. Global warming may have played a role in storm intensity, which ultimately caused damage and deaths, but the link is tenuous and the numbers unassignable.
>Only real international sanctions and diplomatic if not military action against Israel will it seems compel it to do what it should by law have done in 1967 - get the hell out of lands it wrongfully invaded and occupied.
Lands it wrongfully invaded? You know, I recall the situation a little bit differently. I recall that Egypt and Syria both tried to invade and annihilate Israel in that conflict, and the occupation of the territory was a direct result of Israel defending itself. Seems to me if countries don’t want Israel to grow, they should stop attacking it.
>1) Veto powers need to go. 2/3rds majorityvote should rule. One nation, one vote & no tampering. All humans are equal at law - & all nations too.
This would be great in an ideal world. In the real world, we have nations run by hereditary dictators who oppress their own people. I can really see giving them equal authority to vote our policies.
>2) The UN needs to be seen and accepted as the _sole_ agency allowed to use or threaten force to protect other nations -and armed according with all nations contributing to a global army acting for all the world’s people. All nations need to adopt Japan’s pacifist “No Invading Anyone else†clause in their constituitions - & behave accordingly.
Japan’s “no invading others” clause was forced on them by the U.S. But it would be nice if everyone would sign up to that. The only problem is I can see legitimage justification for invading others as part of protecting yourself. I’m not saying that applies to the U.S. in Iraq, but I’m willing to think it applied to the U.S. in Afghanistan. Same thing with the Allies against Germany in WWII. After chasing the Germans out of France and much of Poland, it would not have made much sense to stop and defend the borders where they were before the conflict began.
>3) UN Representatives need to be more powerful, more effective, more intelligent and have their role over-ride that of national leaders whether Kings, Dictators, PMs or Presidents.
I’m not resistant to the idea of globalization and forming a true world government. But sovereignty issues are important, as well as protection. I could easily see the poo