Cato Kaelin
I stumbled upon this while trying to settle a discussion Los Pants and I had this weekend about how think tanks are funded. (If interested in that boring subject, click here).
When Kerry was quoted (out of context) as saying that terrorism is a nuisance on par with drug cartels and prostitution, he was destroyed by the Bush administration, whose best hope in this election is to prey on the fears of the electorate. But the research, however counter-intuitive, suggests we may be blowing the terrorism threat far out of proportion to its actual threat to our security.
For instance:
Since the late 1960s, which of the following has killed the most Americans?
a) international terrorism
b) lightning
c) accident-causing deer
d) severe allergic reaction to peanuts
e) all are roughly equal
When Kerry was quoted (out of context) as saying that terrorism is a nuisance on par with drug cartels and prostitution, he was destroyed by the Bush administration, whose best hope in this election is to prey on the fears of the electorate. But the research, however counter-intuitive, suggests we may be blowing the terrorism threat far out of proportion to its actual threat to our security.
For instance:
Since the late 1960s, which of the following has killed the most Americans?
a) international terrorism
b) lightning
c) accident-causing deer
d) severe allergic reaction to peanuts
e) all are roughly equal
posted by Neckface at 10:53 AM
1 Comments:
I would never argue that lightning, peanut allergies, etc cause nearly as much fear and hysteria as the reaction to the attacks on 9/11. And to minimize an ruthless attack that killed nearly 3,000 people and destroyed a world landmark would be, to say the least, insensitive. The multiple choice question was just used to illustrate the thinking in Cato's think piece.
Any way you look at it, though, the threat of dying from a terrorism attack today is miniscule. But if you watch the news regularly, you'd think that our entire society is on the verge of collapse. The truth of the matter is that no one, including the most evil, driven, and resourceful terrorists, can deliver chemical or biological weapons to kill more than a handful of people. In fact, according to this article, 'biological weapons have killed almost no one.' And the nuclear "threat" posed by terrorists is ludicrous.
I'm not saying that the US policy should resemble that of an insurance agency, calculating the relative probability of this or that threat. But looking at the problem is a reasonable manner, in context, is something
that is sorely needed.
Post a Comment
<< Home