Lets look at "terrorism" and "rights denying" from a math perspective

[Rabrrrrrr]

(I posted this over on GD, but I don't think anyone will discuss in it, so I post it here)

On average, US air carriers (I tried to find worldwide statistics, but couldn't) fly about 30,000 domestic and international flights every day. EVERY DAY. According to http://www.bts.gov/press_releases/2006/bts038_06/html/b... that was 875,500 flights in May of 2006 (see Table 7) and 4,266,500 flights total from January 1 to end of May of this year.

Just from a statistical standpoint, there is no way that terrorists could ever hit enough planes to make it worth, in my opinion, all this ridiculous security bullshit. No water bottles, no toothpaste, no books, no electronics... fuck that. We're talking millions and millions of flights every year. Even if the terrorists could somehow manage to find enough suicide assholes to take out ten planes a day, that's an irrelevant statistical anomaly. Bad for the people on those planes, yes. But even then, not enough to make us get all bent out of shape with security.

And we have newly heightened bogus security just because of one failed attempt, nipped in the bud (assuming it was even a credible or real threat, anyway) in the last four years.

I wish people were smarter. I wish we would teach everyone a serious class on statistics in schools; and teach it a couple times. We need more math literacy in this country - and worldwide - so people can differentiate a true threat from an emotional one.

If we looked at things logically and truthfully, from a real mathematical standpoint, we'd spend the billions we're spending on bogus security (in the hopes of preserving a few thousand lives at most), and spend it on providing anti-malaria medication and malaria eradication to save the 10,000+ people who die EVERY DAY from Malaria.

People will gladly accept body searches and no carry-on luggage and other invasive measures in order to "be safe" on a plane, which is already insanely safe, but they happily will go without seat belts in cars, drive while eating or talking on cell phones or both, drive with pets on their laps, drive drunk... all of these things in a form of transportation is far, far, far more deadly than flying. Or happily fire up that cigarette while fearing a death on an airplane, even though smoking reduces one's life by years, while the statistical average of flying reduces one's life by one day.

Personally speaking, I say let's stick with the metal detectors and x-rays at the airports, but let's otherwise not live in contant fear and let the terrorists win: let's live normally, freely taking our laptops and books and bottles of water and even our lighters on airplanes, and live a more relaxed, sensible, fear-free life.

But, owing to our ignorance, this won't happen, and the terrorists truly have won.

[Taverner]

1. I agree completely. eom

[ZombieNixon]

2. Thank you!

:applause:

[flvegan]

3. Well stated.

"I wish people were smarter." They can be as smart as all get out, but if they aren't using them smarts, they is just as stooopid as if'n they didn't have 'em.

[Ellen Forradalom]

4. How they've REALLY won

The terrorists and putative terrorists have won by causing such a massive diversion of resources to protecting air travel that other parts of our infrastructure remain unprotected.

[NMMNG]

5. Indeed

My hope is that enough people get fed up with the increasingly extreme and ridiculous security protocols and stop flying except when absolutely necessary. When the airlines start going completely broke maybe they'll wise up and stop this asinine crap.

[SKKY]

6. So, what you're saying is that we shouldn't take all possible...

...and appropriate measures to protect the lives of some 3,000 people? About 100,000 people worked in and visited the WTC
every day, yet only about 3 percent died. Statistically acceptable, no? You don't take into account the psychological impact
that would be felt world-wide if we, because we refused to take additional measures, allowed 10 planes to fall from the sky.
Just the economic impact would be staggering. I think you're logic is flawed, but it is well stated. I'll grant you that.

[Rabrrrrrr]

7. No, I'm saying exactly that we should take possible and appropriate

measures.

It's just that we have gone far beyond appropriate into insane. All this new bullshit makes us no safer. It's pure psychological eye-candy, the appearance of doing-something while actually doing nothing, while eroding our rights and our freedoms in the name of an ephemerous, non-existent "safety".