But the Borders are Secure now..........

Quoted message said:

On Jul 2, 9:58 pm, Davey Crockett <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Watch five [censored] jump the fence as Bush spouts [censored] about how
Secure the Border is for a TV Cameraman

But remember that France is simply letting them in direct from Al
Qaida training camps.

I do find it somewhat humorous that the news services are attempting
to imply that the bombers in Great Britain and Scotland aren't Al
Qaida because they weren't all that professional. To listen to them
you'd have to wonder how professional a suicide bomber can be. Does
practice make perfect?

And do you notice how they're strictly avoiding making the connection
between all of the Al Qaida chiefs killed or in custody and the
falling "professionalism" of the terrorist attacts?

Good thing we have the American media to keep us so well informed.

I'm curious ... is it your opinion that we are now safe from meaningful
attack by Al Qaida? You didn't say that, but it could be inferred from
what you just wrote.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Fred Fredburger said:

Quoted message said:

On Jul 2, 9:58 pm, Davey Crockett <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Watch five [censored] jump the fence as Bush spouts [censored] about how
Secure the Border is for a TV Cameraman

But remember that France is simply letting them in direct from Al
Qaida training camps.

I do find it somewhat humorous that the news services are attempting
to imply that the bombers in Great Britain and Scotland aren't Al
Qaida because they weren't all that professional. To listen to them
you'd have to wonder how professional a suicide bomber can be. Does
practice make perfect?

And do you notice how they're strictly avoiding making the connection
between all of the Al Qaida chiefs killed or in custody and the
falling "professionalism" of the terrorist attacts?

Good thing we have the American media to keep us so well informed.

I'm curious ... is it your opinion that we are now safe from meaningful
attack by Al Qaida? You didn't say that, but it could be inferred from
what you just wrote.

Well, it can be inferred that we are "safer" from Tom's statements
above, but "safe" is, logically speaking, putting words in his mouth.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Fred Fredburger said:

Quoted message said:

On Jul 2, 9:58 pm, Davey Crockett <[email hidden]>
wrote:
> Watch five [censored] jump the fence as Bush spouts [censored] about how
> Secure the Border is for a TV Cameraman
>
>

But remember that France is simply letting them in direct from Al
Qaida training camps.

I do find it somewhat humorous that the news services are attempting
to imply that the bombers in Great Britain and Scotland aren't Al
Qaida because they weren't all that professional. To listen to them
you'd have to wonder how professional a suicide bomber can be. Does
practice make perfect?

And do you notice how they're strictly avoiding making the connection
between all of the Al Qaida chiefs killed or in custody and the
falling "professionalism" of the terrorist attacts?

Good thing we have the American media to keep us so well informed.

I'm curious ... is it your opinion that we are now safe from meaningful
attack by Al Qaida? You didn't say that, but it could be inferred from
what you just wrote.

Well, it can be inferred that we are "safer" from Tom's statements
above, but "safe" is, logically speaking, putting words in his mouth.

Sure, that's why I asked for his evaluation of the risk and noted that I
was running the risk of making an invalid inference. Or perhaps phrasing
the inference badly.

There's a general question here: how does one evaluate the risk of a
terrorist attack? The problem, as I see it, is that all evaluations are
subjective. I can live with that. What I find difficult is that those
evaluations run a very wide range. If you were a policy maker, how could
you make reasonable decisions? I don't think you could. I think you
might be reduced to gauging popular angst on the subject and responding
to that. Then next year, when popular angst died down or heated up
again, you'd be taken to task for last years' decisions. But, and here's
the unfortunate thing, neither this year nor next year would you be
making policy based upon a risk assessment. Just on popular opinion. So
you'd be a yo-yo or else very unpopular. Possibly both.

Maybe I'm wrong with that, maybe realistic assessments are available but
politicians follow public opinion regardless. Maybe the media finds
realistic risk assessments boring and therefore doesn't report them.

Now to circle back, since I believe Tom to historically have evaluated
the risk posed by Al Qaida to be higher than I have, it would be
interesting to know if Tom is now feeling more secure than he used to as
a gauge of popular opinion.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Fred Fredburger said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Fred Fredburger said:

[email hidden] wrote:

[Tom wrote something]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm curious ... is it your opinion that we are now safe from meaningful
attack by Al Qaida? You didn't say that, but it could be inferred from
what you just wrote.

Well, it can be inferred that we are "safer" from Tom's statements
above, but "safe" is, logically speaking, putting words in his mouth.

Sure, that's why I asked for his evaluation of the risk and noted that I
was running the risk of making an invalid inference. Or perhaps phrasing
the inference badly.

There's a general question here: how does one evaluate the risk of a
terrorist attack? The problem, as I see it, is that all evaluations are
subjective. I can live with that. What I find difficult is that those
evaluations run a very wide range.

The easiest way to evaluate the risk of terror attacks is to look at the
historical record, which is pretty much how actuaries like to study risk
when they're insuring you.

Risk of dying of a terror attack: not much.
Risk of dying in a vehicular fatality: not insignificant!
Risk of dying: in the long run, we are all dead.

Quoted message said:

Now to circle back, since I believe Tom to historically have evaluated
the risk posed by Al Qaida to be higher than I have, it would be
interesting to know if Tom is now feeling more secure than he used to as
a gauge of popular opinion.

The problem is that terrorism isn't so much about raw deaths (even Nazis
can't kill that fast, as Benjamin Franklin once said) as about critical
disruptions of the system.

Knocking down the two tallest towers in the USA with airliners was a
critical disruption. It just wasn't permanent.

The problem for Al-Q is that they really needed to be able to do that
_again_, and very powerful forces are arrayed against them ever getting
that chance. Note that as time has passed, the successful Al-Q terror
attacks have been, in general, moving further from the USA and have been
diminished in sophistication, ambition, and deadliness. They've gone
from blowing up Manhattan towers to explosions in Spanish train stations
to failing to blow up London nightclubs.

I see no indication that they've started to like the USA more, though
maybe that's what we're seeing: Al-Q isn't an interesting cause anymore,
perhaps because the release of the Nintendo Wii has brought next-gen
gaming to a whole new group of people who could not afford a PS3 or XBox
360. Maybe most doctors figure that blowing up Glasgow airport isn't the
most reasonable way to end their medical career.

I don't know.

ObBike: last night I was riding my folding bike back from buying a
Squishee and a Buzz Cola at the Kwik-E-Mart when my rear tire exploded
like a bomb. I had to call my wife and get her to pick me up in the car.

What's really weird is that entire story is true,

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Fred Fredburger said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Fred Fredburger <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote:
> On Jul 2, 9:58 pm, Davey Crockett <[email hidden]>
> wrote:
>> Watch five [censored] jump the fence as Bush spouts [censored] about how
>> Secure the Border is for a TV Cameraman

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>

> But remember that France is simply letting them in direct from Al
> Qaida training camps.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I do find it somewhat humorous that the news services are attempting
> to imply that the bombers in Great Britain and Scotland aren't Al
> Qaida because they weren't all that professional. To listen to them
> you'd have to wonder how professional a suicide bomber can be. Does
> practice make perfect?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> And do you notice how they're strictly avoiding making the connection
> between all of the Al Qaida chiefs killed or in custody and the
> falling "professionalism" of the terrorist attacts?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Good thing we have the American media to keep us so well informed.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm curious ... is it your opinion that we are now safe from meaningful
attack by Al Qaida? You didn't say that, but it could be inferred from
what you just wrote.

Quoted message said:

Well, it can be inferred that we are "safer" from Tom's statements
above, but "safe" is, logically speaking, putting words in his mouth.

Sure, that's why I asked for his evaluation of the risk and noted that I
was running the risk of making an invalid inference. Or perhaps phrasing
the inference badly.

There's a general question here: how does one evaluate the risk of a
terrorist attack? The problem, as I see it, is that all evaluations are
subjective. I can live with that.

That's right, and that's good, especially since you don't have a
choice.

http://www.mises.org/austecon/chap4.asp

And it isn't just about marketplace goods.

Quoted message said:

What I find difficult is that those
evaluations run a very wide range. If you were a policy maker, how could
you make reasonable decisions? I don't think you could. I think you
might be reduced to gauging popular angst on the subject and responding
to that. Then next year, when popular angst died down or heated up
again, you'd be taken to task for last years' decisions. But, and here's
the unfortunate thing, neither this year nor next year would you be
making policy based upon a risk assessment. Just on popular opinion. So
you'd be a yo-yo or else very unpopular. Possibly both.

http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-God-That-Failed-Economics/dp/0765800888/

Statism, the god that failed.

Quoted message said:

Maybe I'm wrong with that, maybe realistic assessments are available but
politicians follow public opinion regardless. Maybe the media finds
realistic risk assessments boring and therefore doesn't report them.

To the degree they claim realism, maybe we can have some moneyback
guarantees. "We" always like a good bang for "our" buck.

"Every theory must ultimately meet two tests: one, that of internal
consistency, the other that of consistency with reality." -- Frank
Fetter, stating the obvious.

Quoted message said:

Now to circle back, since I believe Tom to historically have evaluated
the risk posed by Al Qaida to be higher than I have, it would be
interesting to know if Tom is now feeling more secure than he used to as
a gauge of popular opinion.

You could go simple on the explication of evaluation. Ask him what it
means to "need" a 12t.

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Fred Fredburger said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Fred Fredburger <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> [email hidden] wrote:

[Tom wrote something]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I'm curious ... is it your opinion that we are now safe from meaningful
> attack by Al Qaida? You didn't say that, but it could be inferred from
> what you just wrote.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well, it can be inferred that we are "safer" from Tom's statements
above, but "safe" is, logically speaking, putting words in his mouth.

Quoted message said:

Sure, that's why I asked for his evaluation of the risk and noted that I
was running the risk of making an invalid inference. Or perhaps phrasing
the inference badly.

Quoted message said:

There's a general question here: how does one evaluate the risk of a
terrorist attack? The problem, as I see it, is that all evaluations are
subjective. I can live with that. What I find difficult is that those
evaluations run a very wide range.

The easiest way to evaluate the risk of terror attacks is to look at the
historical record, which is pretty much how actuaries like to study risk
when they're insuring you.

If you knew what was going to happen to you, you would not buy
insurance. You buy because of uncertainty -- a lack of objective
valuation. Of course, one makes certain decisions on "how much to
buy" and of "what form," but those are mere traces/shadows of
objectivity in a sea of subjectivity.

Quoted message said:

Risk of dying of a terror attack: not much.
Risk of dying in a vehicular fatality: not insignificant!
Risk of dying: in the long run, we are all dead.

In rbr, numbers are facts. Please provide an ordinal rating so anyone
can easily corrupt them to cardinal. Thanks.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now to circle back, since I believe Tom to historically have evaluated
the risk posed by Al Qaida to be higher than I have, it would be
interesting to know if Tom is now feeling more secure than he used to as
a gauge of popular opinion.

The problem is that terrorism isn't so much about raw deaths (even Nazis
can't kill that fast, as Benjamin Franklin once said) as about critical
disruptions of the system.

It is about power.

Quoted message said:

Knocking down the two tallest towers in the USA with airliners was a
critical disruption. It just wasn't permanent.

Dumbass, it, like everything, influenced the course of history, which
can't be changed. There is only one path. The mystical "could have
been" will never be. The "change" was permanent. Are you a
determinist or a free willer?

Ryan Cousineau said:

Quoted message said:

Knocking down the two tallest towers in the USA with airliners was a
critical disruption. It just wasn't permanent.

SLAVE of THE STATE said:

The "change" was permanent. Are you a determinist or a free willer?

Depends on how drunk he is.

Ryan Cousineau said:

The easiest way to evaluate the risk of terror attacks is to look at the
historical record, which is pretty much how actuaries like to study risk
when they're insuring you.

Risk of dying of a terror attack: not much.
Risk of dying in a vehicular fatality: not insignificant!
Risk of dying: in the long run, we are all dead.

The problem is that terrorism isn't so much about raw deaths (even Nazis
can't kill that fast, as Benjamin Franklin once said) as about critical
disruptions of the system.

Knocking down the two tallest towers in the USA with airliners was a
critical disruption. It just wasn't permanent.

Dumbass,

I agree with your evaluation of the risk from terror
attacks, but I disagree on the goal of terrorism.
It is not sabotage (critical disruptions of the system).
It is to induce fear. That's why they call it terrorism.

Knocking down the WTC (which arguably Osama wasn't even
counting on doing) and taking out a small piece of
the Pentagon was not a critical disruption of the
system. There were a lot of casualties and a colossal
mess, but later that day, everybody outside several
blocks of the WTC had water, food, power, a working
phone line, and so on. The next day everyone could have
gone to work, shopped, and traded stocks or watched
football if the stock exchange and the NFL hadn't
closed out of sensitivity, or whatever, just not
flown anywhere. The only thing really disrupted was
aviation.

The biggest disruption to the US and its economy was
presumably that everybody spent the next few days in a
trance talking about it at work, watching CNN, or
at home with the covers over their heads, rather than
being a good worker bee. I'm not blaming anybody; that
was the right thing to do. (I was out of the country on
a remote mountaintop at Tora Bora^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H working
and am guessing at what y'all did.)

I'm sure there are people in AQ who think they can
bring the infrastructure of Western Civilization[tm]
to its knees with enough bombs and chemicals and what
not, but cleverer terrorists realize that their goal
is to discomfit the civilian population. The British
are used to this from the IRA days. Their experience
and the fact that the recent bomb attempts didn't hurt
anyone is one reason they are responding in a
relatively measured way, I think.

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself, as
Greg White's favorite President said. I make fun
of the "If X, the terrorists win" slogan, but I
actually believe that it's partly true: if we change
our society or trample our laws in the name of
security, the terrorists win.

Ben

"Ryan Cousineau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Fred Fredburger said:

Quoted message said:

On Jul 2, 9:58 pm, Davey Crockett <[email hidden]>
wrote:
> Watch five [censored] jump the fence as Bush spouts [censored] about how
> Secure the Border is for a TV Cameraman
>
>

But remember that France is simply letting them in direct from Al
Qaida training camps.

I do find it somewhat humorous that the news services are attempting
to imply that the bombers in Great Britain and Scotland aren't Al
Qaida because they weren't all that professional. To listen to them
you'd have to wonder how professional a suicide bomber can be. Does
practice make perfect?

And do you notice how they're strictly avoiding making the connection
between all of the Al Qaida chiefs killed or in custody and the
falling "professionalism" of the terrorist attacts?

Good thing we have the American media to keep us so well informed.

I'm curious ... is it your opinion that we are now safe from meaningful
attack by Al Qaida? You didn't say that, but it could be inferred from
what you just wrote.

Well, it can be inferred that we are "safer" from Tom's statements
above, but "safe" is, logically speaking, putting words in his mouth.

Indeed! But the fact remains that we are making it extremely difficult for
Al Qaida and other terrorist organizations since they are running out of
volunteers to go to Iraq and kill themselves. Funny thing that when you
scream Allah Akbar! and nothing happens it becomes just another phrase.

"Fred Fredburger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

There's a general question here: how does one evaluate the risk of a
terrorist attack?

By the disruptions of the system. Tell me, just how many 9-11's do you
propose that the economy can handle?

Quoted message said:

Now to circle back, since I believe Tom to historically have evaluated the
risk posed by Al Qaida to be higher than I have, it would be interesting
to know if Tom is now feeling more secure than he used to as a gauge of
popular opinion.

Are you suggesting that I've felt unsafe due to terrorist attacks? That is
rather foolish if that is what you believe.

While some people no doubt have fear for their own lives terrorism is about
disruption of an orderly system. And the orderlyness of that system supports
300,000,000 people in this country.

Tell me, how would you like your assets to suddenly equal zero? How close to
retirement are you? In a a world without technology, without transportation
and without distribution systems what are your personal chances at a future?

If you don't understand the goals of terrorism what are you talking about?

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If we change our society or trample our laws in
the name of security, the terrorists win.

That must be why Bush is leaving the borders open and allowing Mexican
trucks to drive through boarder stations without stopping.

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If we change our society or trample our laws in
the name of security, the terrorists win.

That must be why Bush is leaving the borders open and allowing Mexican
trucks to drive through boarder stations without stopping.

or maybe the millions, possibly billions that his, and every other
politicians, corporate friends and donors are making by paying [censored] to
illegal aliens. Putting greed and profit ahead of the good of the
country and it's people is an old political tradition.
Bill C

Tom Kunich said:

That must be why Bush is leaving the borders open and allowing Mexican
trucks to drive through boarder stations without stopping.

Dumbass,
Thats where the [censored] that will kill them is coming from. If you're in the
right place at the right time you can get some (for your dog or horse of
course).

In article <[email hidden]>,

Donald Munro said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

Quoted message said:

Knocking down the two tallest towers in the USA with airliners was a
critical disruption. It just wasn't permanent.

SLAVE of THE STATE said:

The "change" was permanent. Are you a determinist or a free willer?

Depends on how drunk he is.

Did he say something about a free Willier?

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Bill C said:

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If we change our society or trample our laws in
the name of security, the terrorists win.

That must be why Bush is leaving the borders open and allowing Mexican
trucks to drive through boarder stations without stopping.

or maybe the millions, possibly billions that his, and every other
politicians, corporate friends and donors are making by paying [censored] to
illegal aliens. Putting greed and profit ahead of the good of the
country and it's people is an old political tradition.
Bill C

Well Secretary, Michael (Cry me a River) Chertoff says he can't nail
down the Borders because a bunch of Wankerz in the Senate nixed the
"Amnesty Bill"

But he would like to thank the following group of Traitors for their
support:

Akaka (D-HI)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Conrad (D-ND)
Craig (R-ID)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Schumer (D-NY)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

--
Davey Crockett - No 4Q to Reply
-
Just remember: Government works on the principle of doing what makes
the least sense

Bill C said:

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If we change our society or trample our laws in
the name of security, the terrorists win.

That must be why Bush is leaving the borders open and allowing Mexican
trucks to drive through boarder stations without stopping.

or maybe the millions, possibly billions that his, and every other
politicians, corporate friends and donors are making by paying [censored] to
illegal aliens. Putting greed and profit ahead of the good of the
country and it's people is an old political tradition.
Bill C

Some are fighting back though

--
Davey Crockett - No 4Q to Reply
-
The sheep hope the wolves never come while the sheepdog lives for the day.....;

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Fred Fredburger said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Fred Fredburger <[email hidden]> wrote:

> [email hidden] wrote:

[Tom wrote something]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I'm curious ... is it your opinion that we are now safe from meaningful
> attack by Al Qaida? You didn't say that, but it could be inferred from
> what you just wrote.
Well, it can be inferred that we are "safer" from Tom's statements
above, but "safe" is, logically speaking, putting words in his mouth.

Sure, that's why I asked for his evaluation of the risk and noted that I
was running the risk of making an invalid inference. Or perhaps phrasing
the inference badly.

There's a general question here: how does one evaluate the risk of a
terrorist attack? The problem, as I see it, is that all evaluations are
subjective. I can live with that. What I find difficult is that those
evaluations run a very wide range.

The easiest way to evaluate the risk of terror attacks is to look at the
historical record, which is pretty much how actuaries like to study risk
when they're insuring you.

Risk of dying of a terror attack: not much.
Risk of dying in a vehicular fatality: not insignificant!
Risk of dying: in the long run, we are all dead.

Oddly, we all act as though that last part isn't true but the first one
is a BIG threat.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now to circle back, since I believe Tom to historically have evaluated
the risk posed by Al Qaida to be higher than I have, it would be
interesting to know if Tom is now feeling more secure than he used to as
a gauge of popular opinion.

The problem is that terrorism isn't so much about raw deaths (even Nazis
can't kill that fast, as Benjamin Franklin once said) as about critical
disruptions of the system.

Knocking down the two tallest towers in the USA with airliners was a
critical disruption. It just wasn't permanent.

Yes, exactly. This is the problem with comparing 9/11 and the number
killed with New Orleans or a tsunami or something. Emotionally, 9/11 was
far more disruptive to a much larger number of people. That might be
irrational, but calling it names doesn't change it.

Quoted message said:

The problem for Al-Q is that they really needed to be able to do that
_again_, and very powerful forces are arrayed against them ever getting
that chance. Note that as time has passed, the successful Al-Q terror
attacks have been, in general, moving further from the USA and have been
diminished in sophistication, ambition, and deadliness. They've gone
from blowing up Manhattan towers to explosions in Spanish train stations
to failing to blow up London nightclubs.

I see no indication that they've started to like the USA more, though
maybe that's what we're seeing: Al-Q isn't an interesting cause anymore,
perhaps because the release of the Nintendo Wii has brought next-gen
gaming to a whole new group of people who could not afford a PS3 or XBox
360. Maybe most doctors figure that blowing up Glasgow airport isn't the
most reasonable way to end their medical career.

It's been said that invading Iraq has increased Al-Q recruitment 10
fold. That could be true for a particular type of recruit. Young, angry,
bitter, disaffected young men mostly. It's a useful group if you want to
send them to a market in Baghdad to detonate their exploding vest but
not so useful if you want to send someone to the US and fit in
nondescriptly for a couple years while learning to do something
complicated like fly a plane.

Quoted message said:

I don't know.

ObBike: last night I was riding my folding bike back from buying a
Squishee and a Buzz Cola at the Kwik-E-Mart when my rear tire exploded
like a bomb. I had to call my wife and get her to pick me up in the car.

What's really weird is that entire story is true,

My ObBike story is less fun. I was playing race Marshal at a crit this
morning. An older guy, dirty, black, walked by and asked me a bit about
the bike race. He'd taken about 2 steps after talking to me when 2
bicycle mounted cops swooped down, had him sit down on a park bench and
accused him of having shoplifted something. When he asked "From where?"
He was told "From 2 or 3 places." They radioed his data in and found out
he's a local resident, 45 and has no arrest record at all. They let him
go. The weird part: this was at 8 am on the 4th of July. None of the
stores were even open yet. At the risk of empathizing with the bad
guys, I'm damned glad I'm not a cop. How do tell the good guys from the
bad ones?

Tom Kunich said:

"Fred Fredburger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

There's a general question here: how does one evaluate the risk of a
terrorist attack?

By the disruptions of the system. Tell me, just how many 9-11's do you
propose that the economy can handle?

I think the economy weathered the first 9/11 better than did the
collective American psyche, but it's certainly not good for the economy
either.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now to circle back, since I believe Tom to historically have evaluated the
risk posed by Al Qaida to be higher than I have, it would be interesting
to know if Tom is now feeling more secure than he used to as a gauge of
popular opinion.

Are you suggesting that I've felt unsafe due to terrorist attacks? That is
rather foolish if that is what you believe.

While some people no doubt have fear for their own lives terrorism is about
disruption of an orderly system. And the orderlyness of that system supports
300,000,000 people in this country.

I agree with both of the things you've just said. I was using the word
"secure" to mean the opposite of fearful.

Quoted message said:

Tell me, how would you like your assets to suddenly equal zero? How close to
retirement are you? In a a world without technology, without transportation
and without distribution systems what are your personal chances at a future?

If you don't understand the goals of terrorism what are you talking about?

I wasn't arguing with you or suggesting that you're wrong. I just
wondered if you felt less fear of terrorism now than you did a year or 2
ago. Your earlier post suggested that you might. I'm pretty sure that
there IS no right or wrong answer to some of these things.

Fred Fredburger said:

Quoted message said:

The easiest way to evaluate the risk of terror attacks is to look at the
historical record, which is pretty much how actuaries like to study risk
when they're insuring you.

Quoted message said:

Risk of dying of a terror attack: not much.
Risk of dying in a vehicular fatality: not insignificant!
Risk of dying: in the long run, we are all dead.

Oddly, we all act as though that last part isn't true but the first one
is a BIG threat.

I think that's because for most of us life has become much safer,
with better medical care, and a longer life expectancy. A couple
generations ago getting killed or maimed on the job was a pretty real,
and regular occurrence. They had been through at least one real brutal
war with huge casualties and a nasty worldwide depression where the
basic needs were never a sure thing.
Today it's easier so we whine and cringe over things they would have
never even given a twitch about.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Knocking down the two tallest towers in the USA with airliners was a
critical disruption. It just wasn't permanent.

Yes, exactly. This is the problem with comparing 9/11 and the number
killed with New Orleans or a tsunami or something. Emotionally, 9/11 was
far more disruptive to a much larger number of people. That might be
irrational, but calling it names doesn't change it.

Same thing again. There was no real, serious damage or threat to the
Nation as a whole, but since we've had a free and safe existence this
caused massive emotional reaction way out of proportion to the actual
damage.

Quoted message said:

My ObBike story is less fun. I was playing race Marshal at a crit this
morning. An older guy, dirty, black, walked by and asked me a bit about
the bike race. He'd taken about 2 steps after talking to me when 2
bicycle mounted cops swooped down, had him sit down on a park bench and
accused him of having shoplifted something. When he asked "From where?"
He was told "From 2 or 3 places." They radioed his data in and found out
he's a local resident, 45 and has no arrest record at all. They let him
go. The weird part: this was at 8 am on the 4th of July. None of the
stores were even open yet. At the risk of empathizing with the bad
guys, I'm damned glad I'm not a cop. How do tell the good guys from the
bad ones?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Being a good, honest cop has to be about the toughest job out there.
I'm sure in a lot of small towns and cities it's not too bad yet, but
it's damned near impossible in most places though.
Here where I live I have no idea how they do the really good job they
do. Everyone is an activist with civil rights lawyers on speed dial.
There is little to no respect for them, and they are fair game pretty
much in any brawl or domestic dispute. The judges here tend to view
cops being assaulted as part of the job and do little to nothing to
those who attack them while protecting the hell out of the attackers.
Several of our judges have a real dislike bordering on hate for the
cops. Unfortunately in the last year I've spent a ton of time sitting
in court with other people watching this stuff and it was eye opening
to say the least. The amazing part is that our PD is incredibly
sensitive to PC concerns, is very diverse, and does a ton of outreach
stuff, but they are still treated like [censored] for the most part. The
real negative for Joe Officer on the street is that in 95% of the
cases and complaints they are going to get thrown to the wolves by
their Chief and Mayor on top of everything else. Kinda like racers
they are guilty until proven innocent by their own leaders.
Bill C