Misprioritization

[Superman]

Now, I wonder if any NASCAR fans are comfortable that I didn't pick on them this time. And I wonder what hillbillies I offended.

[MichiganMat]

Its going to be interesting to see how GW handles the Chechens fight for freedom via terrorism.

[dd74]

Originally posted by Superman
Now, I wonder if any NASCAR fans are comfortable that I didn't pick on them this time. And I wonder what hillbillies I offended.

Funny!

I understand your type of diplomacy, and in many circumstances, it would be the correct form. Bush, however, has changed diplomacy as we know it. His can be - if I can paraphrase - an offensive diplomacy or better "first-strike diplomacy," which is what Iraq is shaping up to be.

The question is this: will this be the normal diplomacy from here on? Will it be successful diplomacy? Is it diplomacy at all? Will the ROW learn to live with this new form of diplomacy from the U.S.?

[304065]

John, I'm not sure what you've added to the discusssion.

You really aren't sure? The most intelligent one here isn't sure? I think what you really mean is you disagree with me, isn't that more accurate?

There are currently all manner of emotional dialectic designed to elevate the WAR ON TERRORISM to ensure it is clearly in the #1 spot, because frankly that's all the current administation has got to win this presidential race.

OK, so right off, you've backpedaled from your prior statement that terrorism isn't that significant in terms of human lives and we should focus on other causes of death. And so your "analysis" is revealed for what it was all along, a thinly-veiled attack on the Bush Administration.

He's been fiscally irresponsible and his domestic policy is abysmal.

Assertions without facts. I also believe that certain policies of the Bush Administration have been wrong. Stay tuned for my opinion on that, it will actually include FACTS.

You point to the emotional impact on the families who were directly impacted, and my heart goes out to them.

Hmm, where was that heartfelt emotion in your original post? I can't seem to locate it among your assertion that the death toll of terror in the USA didn't justify the importance attached to it by the Bush Administration.

Emotional aside: It's very well for you to sit out on the left coast and pontificate from behind your Internet nom de plume . For one month after 9/11 I got to breathe the smoke from the still-smoldering WTC site. This is a REAL issue, not some government-funded, how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin social experiement through which you can try out the latest BS academic theory. When discussing terror, Sir, I submit that you are UNQUALIFIED to comment on its effects on the American populace.

But then I want to get back to the question of what level of ongoing threat is posed by terrorism. And no, I'm not aggregating anything. I'm suggesting we compare each of those mortality causes independently with terrorism. My guess is that terrorism comes nowhere near stacking up to them in terms of mortality.

Which remains undisputed. What the point of YOUR thread was (you may want to re-read it to refresh your recollection) is the PRIORITY on Terror as a cause of mortality that our administration assigns is greater than the actual number of deaths reflects.

Your cause-and-effect string ending in economic decline due to consumer confidence trouble scores no points with me for at least two reasons. First (if you really understood my "broken record ideology" this explanation would not be necessary), I do not buy into the notion that what is good for business is good for people. Candidly, if the standard work week were cut back to four days, and if (a big "if," frankly) there were an equivalent economic decline, our white-hot economy might have a chance to cool a little, people would have more free time, perhaps that last 20% of income and the high-tech toys it buys are not the straightest roads to happiness.

ALL RIGHT! You are finally on the road to intellectual honesty! You've begun to reveal your TRUE, SOCIALIST agenda! Go with it! Tell us all more how business is bad for us! That institution that employs us, clothes us, fills our stomachs, houses us, and cures our illnesses! OUTLINE for us how you would replace BUSINESS with a TRUE SOCIALIST UTOPIA that provides for all those needs on a COMMAND basis, with SMART guys like YOU at the top running it!

By the way, you're describing labor conditions in France.

The other reason is that the same cause-and-effect relationship can easily, and perhaps more easily be drawn in the other issues. For example, what do you suppose is the unseen emotional and sociological fallout from the public's sleepy/dreamy/awakening awareness that the the social security promise, the retirement floor/rug, is going to be pulled out from under Americans soon? Ummm, would there be an impact on consumer confidence?

Superman, or Jim, since you are the most learned one here you are no doubt familar with what logicians call the "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy. And this last statement is a shining example of the fallacy at work.

I don't disagree with you that the Social Security system is on the verge of insolvency and needs to be dramatically replaced. We can debate that elsewhere, although I really genuinely question whether that debate can be carried on here without the inevitable degeneration into Bush-bashing that seems to result. (Have you noticed the quality of debate declining around here? I certainly have.) Let's try and debate how we eliminate the program, or replace it with a private-sector-funded alternative. For fun, YOU argue for elimination or privatization and I'll take the other side.

Neither do I disagree that the economic drag that funding Social Security "On-Budget" represents is a MAJOR concern, and a potentially catastrophic drag on our economy.

But here's where the fallacy of causation comes in: does that mean we should IGNORE the "War on Terror?"

That's what you propose, isn't it? That we shift focus and resources away from fighting terrorism and to those other socialist programs that YOU would prefer?

Sorry, I'm just not prepared to agree with you.

[Superman]

Listen, John....it appears I have irritated you. And I'll admit I'm irritated by some of the remarks I have seen here, and by the widespread belief that pummelling Iraqis is not just the best thing to do right now, but the only important thing. And that was my hope for this thread. Prioritization. I'm challenging that notion, which everyone seems to either accept, or at least are too timid to question. And for folks who are not ready for an objective discussion because their agenda for the foreseable future is simple revenge, whether terrorism is increased or decreased by it.

And as for your assumptions about my support for socialism, while I am a big fan of mechanisms like supply-and-demand for setting prices and quantities as opposed to ridiculous competing models like the soviet communist model of state-set performance figures, you can be absolutely sure that I do not regard "business" as my "savior." Nor do I regard commerce as an end in itself. My agenda is people, and "business" is not always aligned with their interests. So, call me what ever name you like.

But before we continue pretending to have a legitimate discussion, let's get a card on the table, face up. Here is your quote:

"But here's where the fallacy of causation comes in: does that mean we should IGNORE the "War on Terror?"

That's what you propose, isn't it?"

Is this what you think I'm suggesting?

[cowtown]

Superman, the error in your "prioritization" argument (and please notice that I didn't get an oh-so-subtle jab at your President and my President in there), in the language of statistics, is that you are comparing two non-normal random samples.

Take any cause of death from your original list: Say "2) Heart disease deaths." We know that X number of people died from heart disease in 2001, X+Y in 2002, etc. We can create a graph of deaths over time, do a linear curve fit, and have an extremely good idea of how many people will die of heart disease in 2010.

No try that with terrorism. How many will die between now and 2010 due to Islamic radicals? Could be 1,000. Bring nuclear capabilities in, and it could be 10 million. We're not fighting a disease here. We're fighting uncertainty. And that's expensive and, well, uncertain.

You can't run a linear curve fit on expected terrorism, then line up the graph side-by-side with heart disease deaths. But you can logically say that spending money to fight it should decrease the number of deaths caused.

So the real question boils down to one of philosophy. Do you believe that there is the potential for massive death due to terrorism? If yes, then go to step 2 - how much money do you allocate to fight it?

You seem to argue that each of your five causes of death may be more destructive than terrorism. Maybe you're right, this year, or next year, or the year after that. But don't bet on being right for long.

[304065]

So, call me what ever name you like.

If you insist, Jim. Socialist. Heir to the bankrupt ideological legacy of Marxism-Leninism. And you don't get to weasel out of it by saying your agenda is "People," what kind of impossibly vauge generalization is that? How do you propose to help "people" without simultaneously allowing "people" to carry on business? Or put more simply, where are you going to get the money to conscript to fund your agenda without "business?"

But before we continue pretending to have a legitimate discussion, let's get a card on the table, face up. Here is your quote:

"But here's where the fallacy of causation comes in: does that mean we should IGNORE the "War on Terror?"

That's what you propose, isn't it?"

Is this what you think I'm suggesting?

No, Jim that's what you ARE suggesting. Don't try to back away from it now that I've called you on it. You said right here that you disagree with the administration's prioritization of crises, and that based on the relative morality rates of terror vs. other causes of death, you think that we should have other goals that are more important than fighting terrorism.

I am beginning to see the shadows of another common, and fallacious, ideological crutch here, and that is, the zero-sum game. In your world-view, our government can only focus on one thing at a time, and government is the sole engine of progress in society. Well, guess what? Who do you think is developing all the cancer research vaccines? Who put together the anti-HIV drugs? Who invented the drug-coated stent and the cardiology procedure to install it?

Was it the NIH? CDC? Some other government-funded organization? (NIH and CDC have done a GREAT job, by the way, of funding PRIVATE organizations with research grants to stimulate basic science in those areas, so this isn't a knock on those hard-working, white-lab-coated types) No, the majority of the progress that's working to extend YOUR life is, has been, and for the foreseeable future will be achieved by . . .

. . . wait for it . . .


. . . B U S I N E S S!

But let's turn back to your other "priorities." WHY do we need to "save" the Social Security system? WHERE did people get the expectation that the government would care for them in their old age, and provide them with a check that could support them after retirement? FROM WHENCE was the idea derived that our benevolent guvmint would care for the elderly when they got sick?

. . .G O V E R N M E N T. Specifically, the "New Deal" programs that created the SSA in the first place. So this GREAT problem, this PORTENTOUS LOOMING PROBLEM that threatens to CRIPPLE our economy, who's fault is it? Who's oversight or ignorance has landed us in this pickle? THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

I get it now. Let's "de-emphazize" or "de-prioritize" the war on terror so we can focus our agenda on fixing a problem the government started.

Good luck generating the economic growth necessary to do THAT when you have smoking craters downtown. GOOD LUCK getting people to spend money on renewable resources, fuel cell technology, alternative energy investments and energy-efficient appliances when they're worried about whether to go to work that day.

YES, Jim, they really do worry about that. That's what terror does. In addition to maxing out their 401(k) so they don't HAVE to rely on the SSA, in addition to quitting smoking so they minimize cancer risk, in addition to practicing safe sex so they minimize the risk of AIDS, they worry about whether they'll suffer the same fate of the 3000 or so people whose only offense was to show up for work on time.

But YOU want to "de-prioritize" that.

Why? Why can't you agree that fighting terror is an important FIRST priority, that without security, everything else is a waste of time and effort?

Why must your hatred of the Bush Administration compel you to advocate something that is so obviously against the policy of both Republicans and Democrats? Do you hate EVERYTHING the Bush Administration stands for?

Do you hate the Bush Administration because they passed the Drug Improvement Modernization Act, that would extend Medicare benefits for prescription drugs to persons within 135% of the poverty line? Shall we "de-prioritize" that also?

[fintstone]

Originally posted by Superman
Mischaracterizing Kerry as a terrorist-kisser is the same dishonesty we've seen each week from your "leader."

Oh, that's right. He wants to fight that "more sensitve" war on terror. maybe he should be featured in that "Bad-Assed Chicks website! How can using his own words be a mischaracterization?