Funny Article from the Advocates

"  Terrified about terrorism

The story about British-born Islamic terrorists who allegedly planned to detonate bombs on transatlantic flights is dominating the headlines, so it's easy to forget how miniscule the odds are that you will ever become the victim of terrorism.

In fact, the likelihood that you'll be killed by a terrorist is no greater than the likelihood that you'll die from a peanut allergy.

With the renewed hysteria about terrorism, it's a perfect time to dust off the Fall 2004 issue of Regulation magazine, published by the Cato Institute. It featured an article entitled "A False Sense of Insecurity?"

In it, John Mueller (a professor of National Security Studies at Ohio State University) pointed out: "For all the attention it evokes...the likelihood that any individual will become a victim [of terrorism] in most places is microscopic."

How microscopic? "Even with the September 11 attacks included in the count, the number of Americans killed by international terrorism since the late 1960s...is about the same as the number of Americans killed over the same period by lightning, accident-causing deer, or severe allergic reaction to peanuts," he wrote.

Wait a second: Isn't terrorism the #1 danger facing the nation?

That's certainly what politicians would have you believe. They're constantly giving dire speeches, issuing color-coded alerts, and making demands for more government programs and more infringements of civil liberties to "fight terrorism."

But maybe there's another reason why politicians respond so franticly to the real and imagined dangers of terrorism.

In his 2003 book The Progress Paradox, Gregg Easterbrook noted bluntly, "Most politicians prefer bad news to good."

Politicians "drastically" exaggerate "all negative trends while denying all positive developments" in hopes of getting into office or remaining in power, he wrote. There are "self-serving reasons" why you so frequently see "politicians talking as pessimistically as possible."

That could explain why politicians are waging a "War On Terror" -- but no "War On Allergic Reactions to Peanuts." Being seen as tough on terror can get politicians re-elected. Being tough on peanuts won't.

Of course, citing the long odds of being killed by terrorism isn't meant to diminish the real pain and suffering that terrorists have caused, or to minimize the tragedy of those who have died at their hands. The suffering is real, and danger from terrorism certainly exists.

As Mueller wrote in Regulation: "Efforts to confront terrorism and reduce its incidence and destructiveness are justified. But hysteria is hardly required."

In fact, he continued, "It seems sensible to suggest that part of this reaction [to terrorism] should include an effort by politicians, officials, and the media to inform the public reasonably and realistically about the terrorist context instead of playing into the hands of terrorists by frightening the public."

Mueller is right.

Want to strike a real blow against terrorism? Know the odds. Understand the dangers. And refuse to be terrified.

Source: Regulation (Fall 2004)
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv27n3/v27n3.html "

If you liked this little excerpt, I recieved it in a free  online newsletter from the Advocates for Self-Government, a libertarian organization that works to promote and further libertarian ideas. 

If you'd like more information on this newsletter, you can find it here:    http://www.theadvocates.org/publications/liberator-online.html

>>1
Nice article.  Terrorism isn't near as much a threat as people realize, and the loss of liberties for safety we have had in the name of curbing terrorism is ridiculous.

The terrorist's objective was to whip up paranoia and a loss of liberty. The statists let them succeed.

In fact scratch that, the Statists made them succeed. In effect the statists are terrorists and should be prosecuted for soliciting genocide.

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH?????????????????????????????????????????????????????

>>5
The terrorists want to whip up paranoia and make the governemnt oppress the people so they gain more support. Statists are doing exactly what the terrorists want, the terrorists have committed genocide, so they should be prosecuited for soliticing genocide.

>>6 They're called neo-conservatives. They have statist tendencies, but they are no longer the fringe of the American right. They are almost its core by now, and we owe the christians, militarists and social conservatives for that.

>>7
What about the jews? You forgot to blame the jews aswell, since at least 1 jew must agree with Bush and his crowd. Don't forget to persecute the jews.

>>8 That would be that scumsucker Wolfowitz, who has caused nothing but grief and hardships for America, the only nation to always support his beloved zionist dream. He tried to flood the market with Iraqi oil so that Saudi Arabia would fall along with oil prices. However, Houston oil companies side-tracked him and sided with OPEC to shoot him down, later punishing Wolfowitz and demoting his accomplice Bolton to the powerless office of U.N. ambassador for their temerity. Less Wolfowitz, more Amos Oz.
They don't make jews like Jesus anymore.

>>9
Um.. I was being sarcastic, my point was you should stop generalizing.

>>10 Aha. Well, neo-cons have done nothing good for the country. At all. Ever. They have nothing to do with conservatism, individualism or anti-statism at all, so I dislike them even more than the socialists. Fundamentalists like them are very dangerous, because they believe in good and evil and humanity has no use for those words or concepts anymore. Saying that connecting Bush with the neo-cons is equal to connecting all jews with Bush makes no sense, mathematically or logically.

>>7
I love how you blame it all on the neo-cons.  There's a hell of a lot more to it than that, and I can assure you, most of the neo-LIBERALS voted for all these measures as well.  You can thank the feminists for THAT.

>>11
"Well, neo-cons have done nothing good for the country. At all. Ever."

Wrong.  Bolton stood up for the 2nd amendment at the stinking U.N. conference.  The neo-cons attempted to fix Social Security, and also gave us a massive tax cut.  Thanks to the neo-cons, and other conservatives in office, the 2nd amendment is stronger now than it has been in years - we have had almost non-stop pro-gun bills, and most anti-gun legislation (if not all?) has been shot down relentlessly. 

I guess this isn't accomplishing anything to someone who DOESN'T care about protecting our national sovereignty, or the Bill of Rights.  Thankfully, a good chunk of americans do care.

And of course, nextly, nearly everything you can blame on Bush, you can blame on the neo-liberals as well, so for you to sit here and say 'LOL TOLD YOU SO, STUPID CONSERVATIVES' is really kindof... bullshit... since the candidates who you would put in their place would do precisely the same things that you are bitching about now.  Yes, these things are bad.  I'm not denying it.  But I will say the neo-liberals are no better than the neo-conservatives, and I sure as hell am not going to let you get away with implying this here.

"They have nothing to do with conservatism, individualism or anti-statism at all, so I dislike them even more than the socialists."

The socialists are worse.  If we had a socialist government, the right to property (the base of all other human rights) would be gone entirely, or almost entirely, and the 2nd amendment would have been nonexistant years ago. 

"Fundamentalists like them are very dangerous, because they believe in good and evil and humanity has no use for those words or concepts anymore."

Yes they do.  Evil and good are words just like any other.  They have their place.  http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=evil
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=good

"Saying that connecting Bush with the neo-cons is equal to connecting all jews with Bush makes no sense, mathematically or logically."

I agree I think.