Name: Anonymous 2006-08-21 2:27
" 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