Misprioritization
 

I'm trying to make up big words.

Oh, and I'm also engaging in some more heresy. I'm challenging the popular notion that the problem of dealing with terrorism is by far and away the most important problem right now. How 'bout this:

You all know some of my feelings about the right versus the wrong way to handle this worldwide terrorism thing. I'll admit again here that military action may have some utility, and I'm both proud of the men and women who have volunteered to lay their lives on the line in service to my country, and hopeful that their efforts will bear fruit in our struggle against terrorism. But you also probably know that, just as I believe the drug problem in my country is not so much a law enforcement problem as it is a health and sociological problem, so too I believe that terrorism is less a military issue than it is a civil law enforcement issue and moreover....a worldwide social and security issue. so, ultimately, in the end, I am convinced that diplomatic and foreign policy efforts are the only methods of actually controlling terrorism. Indeed, you all know my feeling that the Iraq War is the exact wrong thing to do, and that it will exacerbate the problem rather than reduce it. I believe my president is very busy, with both feet, making this problem worse just as fast as he can. So, that makes this issue rise in priority.

But if it were not getting so much worse, so quickly (thanks Dubya!), I wonder how I might otherwise prioritize the issues that should be central to the current election campaigns. And in the greater scheme of things, assuming we're not going to eradicate terrorism, then how big a problem is it compared to others. How do the numbers of terrorism-related deaths stack up against:

1) Automobile deaths
2) Heart disease deaths
3) AIDS deaths
4) Cancer deaths
5) et cetera

Additionally, how much impact do terrorist attacks have compared to:

1) Americans lagging educational competitiveness with other countries
2) The looming and unavoidable economic crisis associated with economic glabalization (outsourcing, etc)
3) The collapse of Social Security and the agenda that would have us all playing the stock market to make up for the removal of SS benefits, and the (I wonder who really believes this) notion that we won't have to take care of folks who failed to plan and save.
4) Environment and...
5) The list goes on and on.

I'm suggesting that, absent the crisis being brought upon us by our president who is busy building worldwide America-hatred and America-ridicule and making terrorism a greater threat, I'm suggesting that terrorism's rightful place in the hierarchy of public policy debate, is nowhere near first place. Unless you are a big NASCAR fan, or a politician who cannot possibly campaign on his record of progress, and has to scare the country into voting for you out of fright and cowardice.

Discuss......

as far as terrorism goes, we should start with our borders... they are out of control, esp in the south, thousands of illegals immigrants flooding in every year. this is unacceptable.

Man...why can't you start your morning like every other f'ing liberal on the board and post something useful to the grid girls thread.

Aside from the rant straight from the DNC playbook, why all the hatred for NASCAR and it's fans??

As a major sport in this country, NASCAR covers all regions, races, religions, gender, political affiliation, income levels; in essence a snapshot of the USA as a whole, which leads me to wonder outloud if the hatred is for NASCAR fans or is it for the USA?????

jim, i might have to agree with you on this. it is really easy to look out at probs rather than look in. always has been and always will be. i agree with on-ramp. the mill...i mean billions spent on terrorism could buy one heck of a chain link fence on our borders. hell, i bet we could recreate the great wall of china for 10 billion. (if we used some cheap recycled material, or if we buy the rock from mexico.) lock up the borders a bit tighter, and get some effen solar power up and running in our country and i bet we can minimize 3 or 4 issues on your list, jim.

1) Automobile deaths

Ban all vehicles! For your own good, of course.

2) Heart disease deaths

Ban hearts! For your own good, of course.

3) AIDS deaths

Ban sex! For your own good, of course.

4) Cancer deaths

Ban cell division! It's for your own good, I'm telling you.

5) et cetera

Ban ceteras! I mean, really, you can't tell me we actually need those in modern society!!?

isnt it FRIDAY?

NASCAR references are his argumentative "hook".

That being said, he is one of my favorite word smiths in OT.

Well, then you are wrong AGAIN. The reason why terrorism is significant is not due to its death toll, it's due to its impact on consumer confidence, which has a direct economic effect on the entire world.

The numbers you use don't even make sense. If you aggregate deaths from MVA, Heart Disease, AIDS, Cancer and your catchall "et cetera" category, well, with the exception of handgun deaths (I'm surprised, is your ideological broken record running too slow this morning?) you've basically aggregated ALL of the big causes of mortality, which makes any single component small by comparison.

And one more thing. I don't know where you were on September 11, 2001, but I was right here in NYC. I'm sure it's very well for you to say that Terrorism is insignificant compared to all other causes of mortality, but for the families of people whose loved ones were killed that day, it's highly significant in a way that goes far beyond the death toll.

Your entire "analysis" seems reminiscent of the aphorism attributed to Stalin: "A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic." Well, I realize that for purposes of opposing George W. Bush you may think it's acceptable to claim that Terrorism is statistically not as significant as other causes of death, but virtually nobody in EITHER party has publicly agreed with you.

Why don't you find another way to express your distaste for the administration?

"I am convinced that diplomatic and foreign policy efforts are the only methods of actually controlling terrorism."

Yes, indeed. If we reduce terrorism to those hiding out in caves, we are missing the larger point. Terrorism has been used as an effective tool of statecraft for some time. Look at Yasser Arafat getting his Nobel Peace prize and lining his own pockets with stolen billions. Terrorism has worked for him, if not for his people. Look at the Iranians and their proxies. They have gotten much mileage out of a few pounds of explosives and foolish young boys looking for their virgins.

So what kind of diplomatic and foreign policy efforts would you suggest?? In dealing with this rabble, I prefer Mao's dictum that: "Political power grows from the barrel of a gun".

And I WOULD suggest that terrorism's rightful place in the heirarchy of public policy debate should be near the top. Are we willing to defend ourselves? Would we rather buy off or appease such monsters? Do we have faith in our own culture and place in the world? Are we worthy of those that came before us? Or shall we fiddle and wait for the next big building to burn??

Re: Misprioritization
 

Supe, I am a Nascar fan, and although I could stand to lose 10-15 lbs, I don't consider myself to be a BIG Nascar fan but...:) You obviously don't have a clue about the fans, and are just regurgitating what you have read/heard, etc. They're just a cross section of America, and have no more bias than football fans, baseball fans, etc. Please lay off the stereotyping...it doesn't help your cause.

ps: Politically speaking, most of the Nascar fans that I know (and have known for years), including myself, tend to share many of your concerns.

jesus Sup...why all the Nascar bashing? I mean 2 threads 2 days in a row?

I CANNOT wait for November 3rd. So that OT will have freaking useful and enjoyable threads again. Now where is that Random Pictures Thread?

Bill

I've said it once, I'll say it again:

There aren't stadium-wide prayers held in any other sport than NASCAR.

(baseball, basketball, soccer, hockey, F1, polo, badmiton, horse racing, etc etc etc)
"God... we ask that you bless this court... may the backboards be strong and clean, the ball bouncy, and the dunks be spectacular... in your name we pray, Amen."

Churchill summed it up best when he pointed out that an appeaser feeds the crocodile hoping it will eat him last. When you're dealing with a cult of death, no society is safe. Not Hindi, Buddhists, Scientologists and certainly not Christians and Jews.

The only way to get the terrorists to stop is to kill them or convert them. Shifting the focus to traffic accidents and heart disease or building a fence around the country is non-productive.

Also, nice stretch blaming Bush for the rise in terrorism. Superman, I'll give you that recruitment is up for Al-Qaeda, but Islamic fascism has been spreading for the last 2000 years. Ever since Abraham. That is your best hope right there. Converting the cult of death to Christianity. There is a link between Christ and Abraham and between Abraham and Islam. If A=B and B=C - you do the math.

Right now, the theocrats are getting their biggest support from Europe and the American left. Oh and BTW, they are having to fight now because W and the US armed forces and coalition members are killing them. Prior to that time, they just set off a bomb and the candy ass governments of the bombed country would roll over like a french poodle.

It's a different time. As of 9/12/2001 there is a price to pay for terrorism. Al-queda isn't losing one suicide bomber at a time, rather their leaders are being tracked down and killed. The killing (or converting , if possible) of these freaks needs to continue at a rate faster than the recruitment rate.

Supe,
You are really missing your Ellsworth Toohey mold today. Uncle Ellsworth's silver forked tongue was careful in not alienating any individual or group of subpar intelligence lacking capabilities of independent thought. You're alienating a potentially large group of Superman/Toohey indoctrinees by continuing to beat on the NASCAR fans. You should be courting them.

Just my own personal thoughts on "3": Continue to make SSA deductions mandatory, but make it like a mandatory 401k: fully vested, 100% participant directed, with a range of instruments ranging in risk and return from money markets and US government bonds all the way to emerging markets and tech stocks. The key is that the individual remains in control of the investment, and there is no 'pooling' in government coffers.

Keith, I like V8 engines myself and would love to see a NASCAR race. Perhaps I should ease up on that and other comparisons, but I also cannot seem to resist the temptation to hold some of peoples' beliefs in front of them, to see if they like the image. We've got folks who believe that we can scare the terrorists into stopping their attacks, and those same people may also believe in trickle-down economics. And now, we've even got this notion, outlined above, that the effects of terrorism are kinda like trickle-down economics in that you have to understand a (perceived to be) sophisticated cause-and-effect string of relationships in order to really understand why we should be sufficiently frightened of the terrorists to vote for Dubya. So again, I'm wanting to ease up enough to not unduly offend people here, but by the same token that goal will always take a back seat to my higher priority, which is the actual public policy debate, which is entirely critical America's interests and if getting to the heart of those matters means ruffling some feathers then you guys are just going to have to have thicker skins.

John, I'm not sure what you've added to the discusssion. 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. He's been fiscally irresponsible and his domestic policy is abysmal. You point to the emotional impact on the families who were directly impacted, and my heart goes out to them. 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. 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. 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?

Hey, no problem Supe, it's just that I was getting tired of being stereotyped just because I like Nascar. I DO appreciate the thoughtful commentary (from both sides), although I tend to stay away from these discussions. My girlfriend & I will be at the Richmond race tomorrow (and yes, I'll have a cooler of beer, but won't be driving), and next week, I might be in a tye dye at a 'hippie fest' if you know what I mean. Have a great weekend everyone!

Now yer talkin' Keith. I'll be at a college football game tomorrow (those guys are having fun and it;s fun to watch them), then jamming R&R with some friends in the evening (I play bass). Again, I'd love to attend a NASCAR event. We have just a 3/8 mile oval track just a couple of miles from my house (can hear them on Saturday nights), but I'd really like to see the Big Boys. The Outlaws (sprint car) come here once per year (not to the oval track, but to others..dirt...) and of course they're fun. talk about power to weight ratio!

Social Security? Well, if you're 60 and under, I think you can forget about ever collecting that.

Jim, you make some valid points. My thoughts are essentially the same as far as Bush stirring up more terrorism. Case in point: no Osama and no true justification for Iraq. This is what's awakened the terrorism beast. Now, as far as negotiating with them, I'm not entirely sure that is possible. The terrorists are, it seems, dishonest individuals. In most cases they are poor, desperate and uneducated. I can't see how a conglomerate of these qualities in someone merits a good basis for negotiation.

Terrorism is first and foremost the issue this election for every reason you state that it should not be. AIDS, Cancer, economic downfall are true tragedies, but 9/11 caused death and economic downfall in one swoop. Plus, it had the added issue of being an emotional event - we were attacked, after all.

This is what a lot of voters are seeing and hearing from Bush et al. As for Cheney saying we'll be attacked again if Kerry's nominated - well that's quite a bold, if not pejorative statement. Nevertheless, Cheney is playing on America's fear (as is GW), and it is working. All other issues have taken a back seat in the election - not because they should - but because terrorism appears to be a larger concern than the economy, health care, etc.

I think, to validate your point, the Dems should say of the Bush Administration exactly what the administration itself has been saying...

"...sure, America is safer now that Bush has started the war on terrorism and invaded Iraq. It was safer the moment he attacked Afghanistan. So now, with that "safety" established over a year ago, Bush should have already concentrated on the economy, lost jobs, social ills and other domestic issues, which he in fact has not done. Obviously he is too preoccupied with the war, and being preoccupied, he has let other American issues fall by the wayside. This makes Bush a one-trick pony of a president, which is not what America needs with the other internal issues the country currently has."

This is what Kerry should say. But again, it is another lost topic for him. Kerry's continual inability to think outside the box he's boxed himself in might guarantee Bush's victory, and keep us on the road we are on.

It is unfortunate Kerry is not an outward thinker.

Yes, the Bush administration is playing on, and fanning the flames of, America's fear. That's not the America I am proud of but no one seems to be noticing this very narrow and frankly anti-American political agenda. But let me also make something clear:

I would not be at all interested in bargaining, or any other dialogue, with terrorists. If I'm President and I pick up the phone and our good buddy Osama is on the other line, I'll have few words for him. He's got a bullseye tatooed on his forehead and his days are simply numbered. Hopefully not a three-digit number. And the same goes for all others of his ilk. We're gunnin' for those guys, and there's nothing they can do about that. Diplomacy is something done with legitimate authorities. And it's done to build a team with common goals. Like the financial strangulation, or perhaps the flushing out of terrorists so we can get good clean shots of them. So, when I say diplomacy, I mean diplomacy that results in the occasional world population reduction, if you know what I mean. You guys who pretend to think we libs just want to throw flowers at terrorists are not even being honest. We're just suggesting an effective anti-terrorism strategy, as opposed to the hillbilly shoot-'em-up "that'll teach them a lesson" waste of American lives we all know is occurring in Iraq. Mischaracterizing Kerry as a terrorist-kisser is the same dishonesty we've seen each week from your "leader."

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.

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

Funny! :D

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.?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?"

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?

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?