The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

A childrens book written by Obama is being released this week. In it a father talks about Americans that have inspired him. One of the Americans is Sitting Bull. Fox News ran the following headline:



I have to admit, that is so over the top I find it funny.

What's the over/under on Fox fans thinking that headline has something to do with his recent trip over to asia?

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

A childrens book written by Obama is being released this week. In it a father talks about Americans that have inspired him. One of the Americans is Sitting Bull. Fox News ran the following headline:



I have to admit, that is so over the top I find it funny.

Good thing we aren't still involved in Indian wars. Which side would Obama take?

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Obviously a decent amount. However, also obviously, good schools produce better education than bad schools. Having good pro-education parents and bad schools wouldn't necessarily be better than bad pro-education parents and good schools.

And it seems quite harsh to condemn a child to a less than optimal future simply because their parents didn't value education. Though it appears US society likes to do that sometimes (which is why social mobility is far less than we assume... and less these days than in European countries, IIRC).

Aren't we currently one of the biggest spenders on education per student in the world right now? What do you define as a "bad" school"? Test scores? Behavior? Teacher staffing and quality (Which I guess is another question of how you measure that)?

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Yes, is there a small loss in freedom of a more centralized government? Yes. But, the benefit (ie. a modern society) is worth the cost. So yeah, I'll take the loss of a freedom to not have to pay high interest student loans, insane health insurance premiums, etcetera.

I'd also point out that in fact when you have a strong social safety net, it gives people more incentive to take chances because just for example, they won't lose health insurance for their kids if they go out on their own. After all, Europe has far more small business/family owned shops that the great strip mall/big box homogeneous blob large chunks of the US have become over the past 30 years.

You do realize the stuff you want has to be paid for somehow? Europe is starting to feel of the pain of the social benefits that you want us to get.

[JediKooter]

Just because it "works" in Europe, doesn't mean it's going to work here. Europe has far more small businesses/family owned shops due to better public transportation and smaller communities than how cities and towns here in the US are designed. I go to Costco because it's convenient. I go to Safeway because it's cheaper and convenient. Very very very few places that I've lived here where I could just walk a couple of blocks and buy groceries or go shopping and guess what, those towns had less than 3,000 people and had a lack of variety that a chain store could provide.

As Galaxy said, we are now seeing the long term effects of the Euro style that you crave Steve. Ireland is about to declare bankruptcy and Portugal may be next and Greece has been fucked for the last couple of years. A sensible solution would probably be some hybrid of our system and the Euro system.

As for a small loss of freedom, I quote Ben Franklin: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

[SirFozzie]

I do think that as the financial markets get more and more complicated, a lot of this wealth that we see is not real. It's fake as monopoly money.

Take financial derivatives for example. It's taking individual mortgages and folding spindling and mutilating them into some kind of new bond markets (which is at the heart of the current problems in the foreclosure market), where you can't tell who actually owns a mortgage because it's been transferred and chopped up so many times that there's no clear title.

The whole thing is so freaking tangled up that it desperately needs to be untangled in the worst possible way, or we'll go right back to the situation we're in already. However, if we did it the most expeditious way possible (by forcing banks to take responsibility for the bad paper they issued), we'd be right back where we started, if not worse.

It sucks, it absolutely does, and it's killing hundreds of thousands of families future, but the only thing may be to say "Ok.. we're going to get out of this mess by the most expeditious way possible, despite the real cost it has", but find away to restrict the banks and the derivative markets from ever getting us in this market.

Of course, I think the other way that we could resolve this is to start throwing bank executives (and I'm not just talking about the "Executive Vice President" auto-signers) in jails, specifically for mortgage frauds in claiming they own mortgages that they do not have clear title.

[JPhillips]

It won't change until the people in charge start going to prison.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It won't change until the people in charge start going to prison.

Or assassinations.

[JPhillips]

I don't know if I'd go that far, but I'm all for bringing back tar and feathers.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

A childrens book written by Obama is being released this week. In it a father talks about Americans that have inspired him. One of the Americans is Sitting Bull. Fox News ran the following headline:

"Obama Praises Indian Chief Who Killed U.S. General"

I have to admit, that is so over the top I find it funny.

Today:

November Marks Native American Heritage Month - Native Americans - Fox Nation

They aren't even trying anymore.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by cartman

Today:

November Marks Native American Heritage Month - Native Americans - Fox Nation

They aren't even trying anymore.

That would imply that they were trying to begin with.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't know if I'd go that far, but I'm all for bringing back tar and feathers.

How about the stocks and the pillory? Gotta go with the classics, I'd think.. (and no, I'm not being serious)

[lungs]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't know if I'd go that far, but I'm all for bringing back tar and feathers.

Actually I like the tar and feather idea much better. I don't believe in the death penalty.

Color me surprised that none of those ass holes on Wall Street have been assassinated yet, though.

[JediKooter]

I'm with guys as well. Nothing is going to change until there is some serious accountability for those people.

[SirFozzie]

I should say this: I am not putting ALL the blame for this mess on the banks. People have to live within their means, and make rational judgements about twhat they can afford.

Everyone thought that the bubble was never going to pop, that it would turn into a perpetual money-making machine. It never is, and it never will be.

I'm specifically targetting the banks for taking a bad issue and spinning it completely out of control with their own personal set of greed, and now their furious backpedaling to get out of the mess THEY made (with hundreds of thousands of homes subject to foreclosure where there is no clear title), while insisting that the people "suck it up". It's called Hypocrisy.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by lungs

Color me surprised that none of those ass holes on Wall Street have been assassinated yet, though.

Wait, Michael Douglas is still alive?

[molson]

This has nothing to do with Obama, but it's a really spectacular government corruption story out of Massachusetts this week. The entire probation office was basically running a scam - legislators overfunded the department, who in exchange, guaranteed that almost every department job opening would be filled by a legislator relative/friend/connetectee (and it didn't matter if the "applicant" was unqualified, or a felon). Thousands of phony interviews were conducted for jobs that were already paid for and filled.

Whatever government is, big or small, liberal or conservative, these are the things that scare me, when government becomes a monster that just grows and feeds off of itself to sole the benefit of those in power, at the expense of the public.

SJC orders probation overhaul as report finds rampant fraud - The Boston Globe

[Greyroofoo]

And yet the voters will vote these same legislators back into office simply because they like the letter next to their name.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

And yet the voters will vote these same legislators back into office simply because they like the letter next to their name.

+1,000,000

Greyroofoo...nothing but net.

[tarcone]

In my in-laws county, the prosecuting attorney and a judge ran for the others office. Its a sparsely populated county, so they ran unopposed. The local paper wrote an editorial asking for people to vote for John Adams.
The guys are double dipping the pension plan. Double the fun. They both won, but the prosecuting attorney race had 900+ write in votes.

Crazy times.

[Edward64]

If he really thinks he stands a chance, he's an ass. What hubris.

TRENDING: Trump under ‘pressure’ for 2012 run – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Donald Trump says he's recently received more pressure than ever before to run for president, but he'd rather not throw his name in the ring.

"I love this country and I have had tremendous pressure over the years for me to run, but I've never had it like now," Trump said on CNN's "John King, USA." "I'd rather not do it. I'd rather have somebody in there that's gonna straighten out the country."

Trump said he thinks people ask him to run because of his "instinct for business" and "instinct for people," but would only say he's thinking about a presidential run in 2012.

[JPhillips]

Stop keepin whitey down!

The latest evidence of this comes in a poll released this week that was conducted by the nonprofit, nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute and financed by the Ford Foundation. The poll found that 62 percent of whites who identified as Tea Party members, 56 percent of white Republicans, and even 53 percent of white independents said that today discrimination against whites has become as big a problem as discrimination against blacks and other minorities.

Certainly explains a lot about the Tea Party.

[AFShadow]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Stop keepin whitey down!


Certainly explains a lot about the Tea Party.

Geez what is wrong with this country?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Stop keepin whitey down!


Certainly explains a lot about the Tea Party.

Before you know it, white people will only count as 3/5 of a person. Better put down those uppity minorities before it is too late!

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by molson

This has nothing to do with Obama, but it's a really spectacular government corruption story out of Massachusetts this week. The entire probation office was basically running a scam - legislators overfunded the department, who in exchange, guaranteed that almost every department job opening would be filled by a legislator relative/friend/connetectee (and it didn't matter if the "applicant" was unqualified, or a felon). Thousands of phony interviews were conducted for jobs that were already paid for and filled.

Whatever government is, big or small, liberal or conservative, these are the things that scare me, when government becomes a monster that just grows and feeds off of itself to sole the benefit of those in power, at the expense of the public.

SJC orders probation overhaul as report finds rampant fraud - The Boston Globe

Wow. Just.........wow.

[JPhillips]

Interesting info on why McCain couldn't pick Lieberman.

Former McCain veep vetter and Washington power lawyer A.B. Culvahouse made clear in remarks before a Republican lawyers group today that the campaign had investigated the legal issues surrounding putting Democrat-turned-independent Joe Lieberman on the GOP ticket last year and determined it would be a difficult task.

"Five states have sore loser statutes ... [making] it very difficult for someone who's not a member of the Republican Party to become the vice presidential nominee if they only switch parties to become a Republican shortly before the convention,' Culvahouse said in public remarks at the Republican National Lawyers Association annual meeting aired on C-SPAN.

[molson]

Maybe he doesn't have a choice politically, but nice to see Obama come out and say that the TSA procedures were necessary. That does seem to have calmed the hysteria somewhat, we'll see if it picks back up again towards Thanksgiving.

The guy is privy to a lot more information than us, and while Bush/Cheney would likely be accused of some weird psychological motivation for supporting the TSA procedures, it's not as easy to make such accusations against Obama.

[Tekneek]

What is harder to do is make the case that the TSA is staying one step ahead of the terrorists, which is what the head of the TSA has been saying. Every change in their policy has been in response to terrorist activity. That equates to being one step behind.

We can debate on how necessary the TSA is, but the truth is that it serves more as security theater than real security. I'm not aware of the TSA catching any terrorists yet. But they sure have hassled a lot of people and confiscated a lot of property that they later sold. I guess that probably hurt the terrorists a lot, in some convoluted way that I cannot figure out.

[panerd]

If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

What is harder to do is make the case that the TSA is staying one step ahead of the terrorists, which is what the head of the TSA has been saying. Every change in their policy has been in response to terrorist activity. That equates to being one step behind.

We can debate on how necessary the TSA is, but the truth is that it serves more as security theater than real security. I'm not aware of the TSA catching any terrorists yet. But they sure have hassled a lot of people and confiscated a lot of property that they later sold. I guess that probably hurt the terrorists a lot, in some convoluted way that I cannot figure out.

I'm positive you don't have all the info on what TSA procedures are based on, what terrorist plans were thwarted, etc.

[molson]

Originally Posted by panerd

If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom.

And in a society, our freedom IS compromised outside of prison, every day, it always has been.

I know people love that Ben Franklin quote, but I think they take it a little to literally.

Criminal laws take away your freedom. Potential imprisonment takes away your freedom. Gun control laws take away your freedom. Yet, everybody, including Ben Franklin, understands that in a society, you do have to give up a little freedom to gain a little security. He did it in his society and we do it in ours. It's just a matter of lines. And airline security is such a non-invasive, minimal kind of security, for the type of thing it tries to protect. There are people who will have a problem with ANY authority, regardless of the circumstance. They don't want to be searched for 2 seconds, or pulled over by a cop, or anything. The fact that THIS is where the battle lines are drawn though, does put things in perspective for me though, how people have completely taken REAL rights for granted.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by molson

And in a society, our freedom IS compromised outside of prison, every day, it always has been.

I know people love that Ben Franklin quote, but I think they take it a little to literally.

Criminal laws take away your freedom. Potential imprisonment takes away your freedom. Gun control laws take away your freedom. Yet, everybody, including Ben Franklin, understands that in a society, you do have to give up a little freedom to gain a little security. He did it in his society and we do it in ours. It's just a matter of lines. And airline security is such a non-invasive, minimal kind of security, for the type of thing it tries to protect.

I think Dwight Eisenhower may have a little better perspective but nice try.

[panerd]

Here's a couple more for you...

The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

[Edward64]

I travel alot in Atlanta Hartsfield (probably one of the worse), been full body scanned, been patted down etc. I am not sure what the big deal is.

I am sure there are some bad incidents (breast milk, the cancer bladder incident etc.) but all in all, not too inefficient for the vast majority of travelers.

[molson]

Originally Posted by panerd

Here's a couple more for you...

The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

Of course. But we're talking about security screening that takes seconds, in a controlled, regulated area. Not a late-night neighborhood sweep of homes for weapons. Not even police using racial profiling to stop people in their cars.

Your civil liberties simply are not as powerful when the harm is inconvenience, and when there's a legitimate government justification.

Why do you think Obama lives to inconvenience you by a few minutes or less at airports? What's his real agenda here?

Government abuses are plentiful and there's plenty of other places to fight this battle. The fact that THIS is the place where we make our stand is just kind of silly, really, and kind of minimizes any civil liberties movement. People just don't like being told what to do, and they disguise this as some kind of proud "civil liberties" cause.

Why is this so much more important than rampant government fraud revealed in Massachusetts this week? Steal billions, ya, that's unfortunate, but HAVE A STERN TONE AND DELAY ME FOR THIRTY SECONDS IN LINE AND I WILL GO BEN FRANKLIN ON YOUR ASS.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by molson

Of course. But we're talking about security screening that takes seconds, in a controlled, regulated area. Not a late-night neighborhood sweep of homes for weapons. Not even police using racial profiling to stop people in their cars.

Your civil liberties simply are not as powerful when the harm is inconvenience, and when there's a legitimate government justification.

Why do you think Obama lives to inconvenience you by a few minutes or less at airports? What's his real agenda here?

I never blamed this on Obama. This is the enitre government the past 10 years or so. It is out of control. So the usual response will be in the scheme of things who cares about the "small" TSA budget of billions? OK, how about the entire wargame that is bankrupting this country? They are out of control fighting the generic enemy of terror. Just like the war on poverty, the war on drugs, who could be against the war on terror?

Well I would love to install a $10,000 security system for my house and build a $5000 fence around my property and hire a $40,000 a year security guard to watch my property. It will make me and my family more secure. But guess what? I can't fucking afford it. And this country can't afford this nonsense. I don't understand why we continue to put our heads in the sand and argue over earmarks or even bigger items health care when compared to the defense budget are nothing. There is the elephant in the corner of the room that is the United States World Empire. We are going to go broke, what is happening in Europe isn't something that can never happen here.

[molson]

Originally Posted by panerd

I never blamed this on Obama.

Since this is a thread about Obama, I'll bring it back there. He says these new procedures are necessary. From the rest of your post, it's clear you think that's a lie. So what's the agenda here from his perspective?

I can understand being concerned about the government wastefulness and corruption within TSA, that's definitely something worth getting annoyed about. I thought you were more complaining about the long lines/people telling you what to do at airports, which is the usual shitstorm on this issue. But I certainly won't disagree with you on the wastefulness and corruption.

Though, whatever airlines security is, it's still WAY, WAY, WAY, less than "$5000 fence around my property and hire a $40,000 a year security guard to watch my property" kind of security. That's just not happening. There's a body scan, and if you don't like that, a frisk.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by molson

Since this is a thread about Obama, I'll bring it back there. He says these new procedures are necessary. From the rest of your post, it's clear you think that's a lie. So what's the agenda here from his perspective?

I can understand being concerned about the government wastefulness and corruption within TSA, that's definitely something worth getting annoyed about. I thought you were more complaining about the long lines, which is the usual shitstorm on this issue. But I certainly won't disagree with you on the wastefulness and corruption.

I believe in a system where United Airlines can have guys stick their hands down my pants and Southwest Airlines can have people take body scans of me and American Airlines can do the "2008" screening. Each airline will spend their own money and the people that are scared of terror can fly with the airline that does patdowns. If American's plane goes down they go out of business, no government bailout. If United's business practices lose them customers maybe they stop with the patdowns. Why is the government involved in keeping us safe here but not in other places? Why are there no full body scans on buses or cruise liners? Unfortunatly maybe that's coming. One can only hope not, I don't want to live in a society where I can full body scanned before a Cardinal's game or my wife gets felt up before she goes in to watch a play. Don't know what makes the airplanes so special. The only answer I can come up with is guilt over fucking up on 9-11.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by molson

Since this is a thread about Obama, I'll bring it back there. He says these new procedures are necessary. From the rest of your post, it's clear you think that's a lie. So what's the agenda here from his perspective?

I can understand being concerned about the government wastefulness and corruption within TSA, that's definitely something worth getting annoyed about. I thought you were more complaining about the long lines/people telling you what to do at airports, which is the usual shitstorm on this issue. But I certainly won't disagree with you on the wastefulness and corruption.

Though, whatever airlines security is, it's still WAY, WAY, WAY, less than "$5000 fence around my property and hire a $40,000 a year security guard to watch my property" kind of security. That's just not happening. There's a body scan, and if you don't like that, a frisk.

My example was that the security for my house would be about half my yearly income. That is about what the outragous bloated defense budget is, no?

[molson]

Originally Posted by panerd

My example was that the security for my house would be about half my yearly income. That is about what the outragous bloated defense budget is, no?

Yes, but obviously that isn't all airline screening.

If you want to talk about bloated military spending you'll get no disagreement from me. That's just the Republicans' version of the Democratic corruption for Mass this week (bloat a budget, pay off connected corporations and political contributors).

[Masked]

Originally Posted by panerd

Don't know what makes the airplanes so special. The only answer I can come up with is guilt over fucking up on 9-11.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings

Terrorists have been targeting airplanes and airports long before 9/11.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by molson

Yes, but obviously that isn't all airline screening.

If you want to talk about bloated military spending you'll get no disagreement from me.

Agree it isn't all airline screening. But again that is another 5-10 billion (don't know the exact number) piece of the pie. Homeland security? Another 50 billion. The shit adds up. I don't want to see anyone die from terrorism, I doubt anyone does, but it's a little ridiculous isn't it? We could mandate a 40 MPH federal speed limit plus helmets and extra padding in every car. We don't, instead we except the risks of highway driving. Doesn't the airline oversecurity seem a bit much?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Masked

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings

Terrorists have been targeting airplanes and airports long before 9/11.

OK. So what?

Risk of Death from Various Recreational Drugs, Compared to Other Activities/Exposures
1 in 10 - Extremely High
•Accident/Injury: Russian Roulette

1 in 100 - Very, High
•Drug Use: Tobacco, Methadone, Injecting •Leisure Activity: BASE Jumping, Serious Climbing, Grand Prix Racing
•Disease/Illness: Heart Disease, Cancer, Respiratory Disease
•Accident/Injury: Space Travel
•Other: Deep Sea Fishing

1 in 1,000 - Quite, High
•Drug Use: Heroin, Morphine, Barbiturates, Alcohol
•Leisure Activity: Hang Gliding, Parachuting, Motorbike Racing, Climbing
•Disease/Illness : Hypothermia, etc., Mental Disorders, Strokes, Prostate Cancer
•Accident/Injury: Violence (all), Sudden Infant Death, Hospitals (babies), Shaking (babies)
•Other: Pollution, White Asbestos, Offshore Oil Work, Mining

1 in 10,000 - Medium
•Drug Use: Solvents, Benzodiazepines, Dextropropoxy, Dihydrocodeine
•Leisure Activity: Motor Sports**, Water Sports***, Mountain Hiking, Canoeing
•Disease/Illness : Diabetes, Leukemia, Influenza, Skin Cancer
•Accident/Injury: Suicide, Falls, Road Travel/Use, Helicopter travel, GA**** by dentist
•Other: Construction Work, Farming/Agriculture, Police Custody, Giving Birth (overall)

1 in, 100,000 - Quite Low
•Drug Use: Ecstasy/MDMA, Amphetamine, Cocaine, GHB, Prescription Drugs, Analgesics, Contraceptive Pill
•Leisure Activity: Dance Parties, Fighting Sports, Snow Sports, Soccer & Rugby, DIY (home), Sports Spectator
•Disease/Illness : Meningitis, HIV/AIDS, Asthma, Sudden Death Syndrome, Food Poisoning, Cervical Cancer
•Accident/Injury: Airplane Travel, Rail Travel, etc., Stairs (falling), Eating (Choking), Electrocution, Drowning, Fires
•Other: Child Abuse, Refusal of Int. Care, Manufacturing (cars), Passive Smoking, X-rays, Machinery, Homicide, Guns

1 in , 1 million - Very Low
•Drug Use: LSD (acid), Mushrooms, Antibiotics, Viagra
•Leisure Activity: Fairground Rides, Jogging, Swimming, Riding Sports
•Disease/Illness : Legionnaire's, Food Allergies
•Accident/Injury: Falling out of bed, Clothing Fires, Boilers/Heaters, Police Cars, Toys
•Other: Clerical/Office work, Vaccination

1 in 10 million - Extremely Low
•Drug Use: Herbal Cannabis, Cannabis Resin, Amyl Nitrates
•Leisure Activity: Indoor Sports, Playgrounds, Gymnasiums
•Disease/Illness : CJD (BSE), Toxic Shock Synd.
•Accident/Injury: Insects, Dogs, Alarm Clocks, Lightening
•Other: Nuclear Radiation, Sexual Intercourse

1 in 100 million - Minimal
•Drug Use: Caffeine, Khat, Nitrous Oxide, Ketamine, DMT
•Leisure Activity: Table Games, Computer Games, Masturbation
•Disease/Illness: Bubonic Plague, Smallpox, Leprosy
•Accident/Injury: Snakes, Birds, Cats, Sharks, Earthquakes
•Other: State Executions, Spontaneous Combustion, UFOs/Aliens

[sterlingice]

I'm just not buying some of those numbers, but it's an amusing list (looks like it's from some drug website since they are separating out parts of cannabis).

1 in 100 who deap sea fish or base jump die? Is this from chronically doing these things or one per incident?

So, of the 1 in 100 million: Which of us is going to die from computer games, masturbation, leprosy, sharks, ufo, spontaneous human combustion... or earthquakes

(Wait- WTF? Doesn't the 200K dead from the EQ in Haiti this year pretty much blow that one out of the water? I mean, to be 1 in 100 million, there would have to have been 20 trillion people living on earth, right? Maybe I'm a couple 0s off, but it's more than have ever lived before. And it's not even the deadliest EQ ever: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_o...akes_on_record)

SI

[molson]

Airline travel is INSANELY safe from all threats, agreed, but the national consequences of a single mixup is a lot greater, on a national level, then an individual dying from electrocution or drowning.

And drowning is rare, but you're still an idiot not to wear a lifejacket. And that's basically the equivalent of modern airlines screening. Are we even screening all checked bags yet?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I'm just not buying some of those numbers, but it's an amusing list (looks like it's from some drug website since they are separating out parts of cannabis).

1 in 100 who deap sea fish or base jump die? Is this from chronically doing these things or one per incident?

So, of the 1 in 100 million: Which of us is going to die from computer games, masturbation, leprosy, sharks, ufo, spontaneous human combustion... or earthquakes

(Wait- WTF? Doesn't the 200K dead from the EQ in Haiti this year pretty much blow that one out of the water? I mean, to be 1 in 100 million, there would have to have been 20 trillion people living on earth, right? Maybe I'm a couple 0s off, but it's more than have ever lived before. And it's not even the deadliest EQ ever: Lists of earthquakes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

SI

Yeah, I don't know I just linked the first site that had death probabilities on it. Plus I thought it was funny when the x-rays were on the same line. I think it was showing the ingnorance of the drug war. It's not like panerd is going before a congressional panel or anything. We all know that the odds of an airline hijacking death are really really low, right? It would suck to have a loved one die in one but I think I would miss my family from a car accident death, drowning, or shooting just as much.

[sterlingice]

I know, I'm just screwing with you on the list. I agree with you on this topic about as much as we agree on anything.

As a country, or at least the controlling portion of it, have decided to spend a disproportionately high amount of money and "freedom" on this particular threat due to 9/11. We're ok with 33K automobile fatalities last year (it's actually down from the 40K we averaged most of the decade because the economy has caused us to travel less miles)- and we won't "hassle" people with slower speed limits or more safety requirements. But one incident one year with 3K dead and we throw proportional response out the window because of the "flashiness" of the incident.

Also, I think there's more of a complication to the example of "Southwest can have X security, United has Y security, and American has Z security" because you're playing small financial probabilities with huge, long odds that is the equivalent of the lottery (wherein buying 10 tickets versus 1 does increase your chance of winning a 1 in 100M lottery 10x but doesn't significantly impact it). Also, there are issues with the security community sharing various levels with different airlines in such a scenario. And, really, at the end of the day- the biggest problem is that there is so little competition in the airline industry: it's not hundreds of businesses whose supply and demand asymptote reaches perfect competition, but an industry ruled by a 4~8 headed oligopoly where all but a couple of fringe players are willing to match each other in price and service so there is no true competition at all.

SI

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm positive you don't have all the info on what TSA procedures are based on, what terrorist plans were thwarted, etc.

So, they had people taking their shoes off before Richard Reid (aka the shoe bomber)? They were checking everybody's groins before "the underwear bomber" happened? They didn't change restrictions on fluids after the uncovering of the British bomb plot involving liquids? There is a record that supports my view of TSA being one step behind, rather than your view that they somehow are coming up with these ahead of the plots being uncovered. Of course, I am willing to read any links you have that prove otherwise.

Are you also alleging that the plots thwarted by the TSA are the ones being kept secret? When the FBI busts it up, it makes the press. When the TSA busts one in the airport, amongst all the civilians, it doesn't make it to the media at all? I assert that this is a highly unlikely scenario.

I am not saying that we need to get rid of the TSA. That's a different debate entirely. However, I am surprised that there is really any debate about the TSA being security theater.

[Greyroofoo]

So if I want to interpret panerd's table in an outlandish way,

Masturbation is just as dangerous as leprosy and earthquakes and aliens???

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

So if I want to interpret panerd's table in an outlandish way,

Masturbation is just as dangerous as leprosy and earthquakes and aliens???

Just as likely to kill you. You might interpret that as so unlikely to happen that you need not worry about it in your daily life.