Bin Laden Is Dead

[mrdannyg 274]

you're the one that has things that are confused easily in ways

Damnit you win.

[Roll the Bones 74]

I'm sorry you guys are so easily confused.

That's odd. I actually understood it first time through.

[mrdannyg 274]

That's odd. I actually understood it first time through.

That must mean I wrote it like a Rush lyric. Which would also mean it is reasonable that every person who was not you did not know/care what the hell I meant.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

That must mean I wrote it like a Rush lyric. Which would also mean it is reasonable that every person who was not you did not know/care what the hell I meant.

I lie awake, staring out at the bleakness of Megadon. City and sky become one, mergingInto a single plane, a vast sea of unbroken grey. The Twin Moons, just two pale orbs asThey trace their way across the steely sky. I used to think I had a pretty good life here,Just plugging into my machine for the day, then watching Templevision or reading a TemplePaper in the evening.My friend Jon always said it was nicer here than under the atmospheric domes of the OuterPlanets. We have had peace since 2062, when the surviving planets were banded together underThe Red Star of the Solar Federation. The less fortunate gave us a few new moons.I believed what I was told. I thought it was a good life, I thought I was happy. Then I foundSomething that changed it all...

[ezelisko 0]

I lie awake, staring out at the bleakness of Megadon. City and sky become one, mergingInto a single plane, a vast sea of unbroken grey. The Twin Moons, just two pale orbs asThey trace their way across the steely sky. I used to think I had a pretty good life here,Just plugging into my machine for the day, then watching Templevision or reading a TemplePaper in the evening.My friend Jon always said it was nicer here than under the atmospheric domes of the OuterPlanets. We have had peace since 2062, when the surviving planets were banded together underThe Red Star of the Solar Federation. The less fortunate gave us a few new moons.I believed what I was told. I thought it was a good life, I thought I was happy. Then I foundSomething that changed it all...

You got aids?

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

You got aids?

...and the meek shall inherit the Earth, Gomer.

[ezelisko 0]

...and the meek shall inherit the Earth, Gomer.

It was just a question..

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

It was just a question..

If you chose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

[Balloon guy 158]

Bailing them out helps Eurozone stability but ultimately, they don't control their own destiny in terms of printing their own currency. They cannot inflate their way out of debt like we can. Weaker Eurozone partners = a weaker Euro, given certain commonwealth principles they all signed on to.I hope the EU dissolves, Greece completely fails and Italian coastal real estate gets cheap.Either way, Germany pays.

Looks like you might be getting your wish

[ahosang 0]

If your goal was to suggest Bob was wrong, you have severely failed. Terrorist attacks happen as isolated incidents as well, just typically kill more people than drunk driving. The effects of a drunk driving incident cause more severely negative effects to those effected (as you say, emotionally, structurally, financially) than terrorism. The only reason a terrorist attack is more harmful overall than drunk driving is because people choose to fear terrorism instead of drunk drivers, even though terrorism is statistically less likely to harm them, and (arguably) is more avoidable. So the argument is circular, and requires the stupidity of the masses.

Your emphasis here is to attempt to rationalise the threat posed by terrorism in purely statistical terms. But you don't attempt to address the fundamental differences between the events. The activities of drink-drivers are contained within a system which has managed the life, and death, of the agents and their existence in society. Your drunk-drivers are part of a calculable and ordered system. What you miss is the accumulated effect on a social and political level. The diminishing marginal dis-utility of death in a system where numerous drink-driving deaths already occur is such that the effort to prevent 'extra death' or even to reduce death levels is seen to be disproportionate to the benefit to 'the system'. There is a steady flow of DD death which is systematically processed. The marginal dis-utility of terrorist attacks is much higher, due in part to the low-frequency/high-intensity nature, as well as the political demands which accompany them.The people will seek protection from the state, to which they have entrusted their security, and the state will seek to protect itself from the 'other' who seeks to undermine its security as a political entity(this itself is supported by its domestic legitimacy, as well as its position in the system of sovereign states). Since there is no systematic way for such interaction(the 'strangeness' of terrorism itself leads to this dilemma – it is extra-systemic), such as the international arena or domestic law enactment, the response is often heightened.What terrorists represent is an 'othered' agency who seek to disrupt the (relatively)calculated, known and and accepted determinants of death, as well as life. The response as a nation, whether it includes irrational fears of terrorism or not, is a response to insecurity, and to the threat to the status quo within the state. Even the domestic terrorist is quickly condemned from within the society, and 'othered' against the normality of society.What the policy response should be is debatable. However, I think it is unreasonable to suggest treating terrorist 'outsider-led-attacks-on-the-political-community' the same as drunk-driving 'offences-of-foul-play-within-our-political-community-over-which-we-already-have-some-control'.

[mrdannyg 274]

Your emphasis here is to attempt to rationalise the threat posed by terrorism in purely statistical terms. But you don't attempt to address the fundamental differences between the events. The activities of drink-drivers are contained within a system which has managed the life, and death, of the agents and their existence in society. Your drunk-drivers are part of a calculable and ordered system. What you miss is the accumulated effect on a social and political level. The diminishing marginal dis-utility of death in a system where numerous drink-driving deaths already occur is such that the effort to prevent 'extra death' or even to reduce death levels is seen to be disproportionate to the benefit to 'the system'. There is a steady flow of DD death which is systematically processed. The marginal dis-utility of terrorist attacks is much higher, due in part to the low-frequency/high-intensity nature, as well as the political demands which accompany them.The people will seek protection from the state, to which they have entrusted their security, and the state will seek to protect itself from the 'other' who seeks to undermine its security as a political entity(this itself is supported by its domestic legitimacy, as well as its position in the system of sovereign states). Since there is no systematic way for such interaction(the 'strangeness' of terrorism itself leads to this dilemma – it is extra-systemic), such as the international arena or domestic law enactment, the response is often heightened.What terrorists represent is an 'othered' agency who seek to disrupt the (relatively)calculated, known and and accepted determinants of death, as well as life. The response as a nation, whether it includes irrational fears of terrorism or not, is a response to insecurity, and to the threat to the status quo within the state. Even the domestic terrorist is quickly condemned from within the society, and 'othered' against the normality of society.What the policy response should be is debatable. However, I think it is unreasonable to suggest treating terrorist 'outsider-led-attacks-on-the-political-community' the same as drunk-driving 'offences-of-foul-play-within-our-political-community-over-which-we-already-have-some-control'.

So, they're more scary because we choose to be more scared of them. Even though the fear is illogical, as terrorist effects are both statistically less likely to be harmful, and more easily avoidable.To argue on your level, I would simply say that the 'systems' you refer to are arbitrarily sized, if they include drunk drivers but do not include terrorists. In the 'system' that I live in, drunk drivers are 'othered', thankfully due to them being so unusual and unlikely. I will admit the basic reasons behind a drunk driving incident and a terrorist incident are more understandable to me, and therefore less 'extra-systemic'. Still, most of us spend a lot more time doing things (driving, walking near a street) that could reasonably cause us to be drunk driving victims, rather than doing anything that could put us in harms way of a terrorist. I spend a lot more time worried that a car is going to swerve into my line or onto the sidewalk than I do worrying if someone is going to walk into my office with an assault rifle, or my building is going to explode.Lastly, that post was 5 months old. Appreciate the thoughtful response, though oddly delayed.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Qaddafi is reportedly dead too after rebels completed the capture of his home town Surt. Apparently he was wounded in the attack and succumbed soon after.To say very little, he was a bad person. I'm not completely optimistic about the country's future, but hopefully this will be the beginning of some stability for them.

[akoff 0]

Qaddafi is reportedly dead too after rebels completed the capture of his home town Surt. Apparently he was wounded in the attack and succumbed soon after.To say very little, he was a bad person. I'm not completely optimistic about the country's future, but hopefully this will be the beginning of some stability for them.

damn he didn't even get his own thread...racist!

[ahosang 0]

So, they're more scary because we choose to be more scared of them. Even though the fear is illogical, as terrorist effects are both statistically less likely to be harmful, and more easily avoidable.To argue on your level, I would simply say that the 'systems' you refer to are arbitrarily sized, if they include drunk drivers but do not include terrorists. In the 'system' that I live in, drunk drivers are 'othered', thankfully due to them being so unusual and unlikely. I will admit the basic reasons behind a drunk driving incident and a terrorist incident are more understandable to me, and therefore less 'extra-systemic'. Still, most of us spend a lot more time doing things (driving, walking near a street) that could reasonably cause us to be drunk driving victims, rather than doing anything that could put us in harms way of a terrorist. I spend a lot more time worried that a car is going to swerve into my line or onto the sidewalk than I do worrying if someone is going to walk into my office with an assault rifle, or my building is going to explode.Lastly, that post was 5 months old. Appreciate the thoughtful response, though oddly delayed.

Sure, you are correct - as an individual - to fear and focus on DD more than terrorism. Just as the government is correct to fear and focus on terrorism more than DD. As a rational individual who may worry about his own potential expiry as paramount, addressing and trying to look out for DD is a better priority as things stand from your perspective. However, from the perspective of government who are charged with safeguarding the system which they have juridical authority over, the introduction of a new agency which coerces behaviour from without is more of a priority than the aggregate of deaths which is already inherent in the system(there are cars in the system, and people do drink-drive already, and there is already DD deaths in the system). The systems are not arbitrarily sized as such. There is a relation of agency which corresponds to certain threats. Who is best to deal with a potential shock to the system of mrDannyG's body? mrDannyG i would say through being alert, staying away from lifts from drunk people, not dding, not doing extreme sports, driving defensively etc.Who is best to deal with the potential shock to the system of the political community? I would say mrDannyG is pretty powerless to offer any significant resistance to al-Qaeda, so I'd go for the military/intelligence/political class. So they have to respond, not necessarily by invading Iraq + Afghanistan, but it would be extremely irresponsible to do NOTHING!! Even if they bow to AQ's demands and pulled out of Saudi, that would be fine, as it is a response calculated to disincentivise further attacks on the nation. But they must do something. Your posts seem to suggest that there is some strange reaction for the government to respond to terrorism rather than do something about deaths caused from DD, because of a disparity of casualties between the two. The government is not there to prevent death, but to manage and maintain an acceptable system of life, and death. However, a state with the power of the US is able to choose the option of highly punitive action taken against those who harboured terrorists(and to declare to the world that you are either "with us or against us"), if only as a means to restrict further terrorist action by coercion of all global activity into an anti-terrorist narrative. And when you have the power that the US has, it is going to be difficult not to use it in an aggressive manner in response to aggression(do we need to go into this?? Appeal to honour, rights, someone else will avenge if president doesn't etc etc).You are arguing for arguing sake. I post here only to learn and share understanding. I'm trying to share understanding with you about the nature of the world we live in, and you're trying to argue for argument's sake. Being stubborn and argumentative will not help you in dealing with the world as it is. I already said I didn't agree with invasions etc, but I am just trying to point out the simple realities of socio-political structures. And how's chinese poker treating you??

[mrdannyg 274]

Sure, you are correct - as an individual - to fear and focus on DD more than terrorism. Just as the government is correct to fear and focus on terrorism more than DD. As a rational individual who may worry about his own potential expiry as paramount, addressing and trying to look out for DD is a better priority as things stand from your perspective. However, from the perspective of government who are charged with safeguarding the system which they have juridical authority over, the introduction of a new agency which coerces behaviour from without is more of a priority than the aggregate of deaths which is already inherent in the system(there are cars in the system, and people do drink-drive already, and there is already DD deaths in the system). The systems are not arbitrarily sized as such. There is a relation of agency which corresponds to certain threats. Who is best to deal with a potential shock to the system of mrDannyG's body? mrDannyG i would say through being alert, staying away from lifts from drunk people, not dding, not doing extreme sports, driving defensively etc.Who is best to deal with the potential shock to the system of the political community? I would say mrDannyG is pretty powerless to offer any significant resistance to al-Qaeda, so I'd go for the military/intelligence/political class. So they have to respond, not necessarily by invading Iraq + Afghanistan, but it would be extremely irresponsible to do NOTHING!! Even if they bow to AQ's demands and pulled out of Saudi, that would be fine, as it is a response calculated to disincentivise further attacks on the nation. But they must do something. Your posts seem to suggest that there is some strange reaction for the government to respond to terrorism rather than do something about deaths caused from DD, because of a disparity of casualties between the two. The government is not there to prevent death, but to manage and maintain an acceptable system of life, and death. However, a state with the power of the US is able to choose the option of highly punitive action taken against those who harboured terrorists(and to declare to the world that you are either "with us or against us"), if only as a means to restrict further terrorist action by coercion of all global activity into an anti-terrorist narrative. And when you have the power that the US has, it is going to be difficult not to use it in an aggressive manner in response to aggression(do we need to go into this?? Appeal to honour, rights, someone else will avenge if president doesn't etc etc).You are arguing for arguing sake. I post here only to learn and share understanding. I'm trying to share understanding with you about the nature of the world we live in, and you're trying to argue for argument's sake. Being stubborn and argumentative will not help you in dealing with the world as it is. I already said I didn't agree with invasions etc, but I am just trying to point out the simple realities of socio-political structures. And how's chinese poker treating you??

Haha, probably haven't played Chinese Poker since we last played. Such a fun game, but gets boring quickly, especially since I'm too lazy to learn the proper plays.I don't disagree with the vast majority of what you're saying, but I do agree with the point about drunk driving being an acceptable part of our infrastructure. If it was, then I'd agree that the government would be correct to focus on externalities. That's why I'm ok with the government spending more on defence (offence) than medical research. But why? Drunk driving is not a part of any normal cycle. It is not any more of an acceptable behaviour than rape or murder. In fact, it is less acceptable than those things because it accomplishes something that is less strongly felt as necessary by the purpotrator.You are right to refer to the terrorist narrative. The US gets a certain kind of terrorism, due mostly to their standing in the world as weathy, prosperous and indulgent. Well, unless America wants to stop being a great place to live and/or wants to stop kicking global ass to better themselves, that isn't going to stop. So why is someone wanting to destroy just a little piece of that any more of an externality?For what its worth, I don't think the government is wrong to spend more on anti-terror than drunk driving. If I did any research, I'm guessing I'd find that giant national ad campaigns don't do shit to lessen drunk driving. It's the type of thing that has to be minimized with a community approach, not complicated laws and more cops.Regardless, I do think it is an emotional and illogical reaction to spend so disparately on two things, when the one receiving the least attention is more problematic, more preventable, and (arguably) involves less harm/inconvenience to 'innocents' with its preventive measures.

[ahosang 0]

Haha, probably haven't played Chinese Poker since we last played. Such a fun game, but gets boring quickly, especially since I'm too lazy to learn the proper plays.I don't disagree with the vast majority of what you're saying, but I do agree with the point about drunk driving being an acceptable part of our infrastructure. If it was, then I'd agree that the government would be correct to focus on externalities. That's why I'm ok with the government spending more on defence (offence) than medical research. But why? Drunk driving is not a part of any normal cycle. It is not any more of an acceptable behaviour than rape or murder. In fact, it is less acceptable than those things because it accomplishes something that is less strongly felt as necessary by the purpotrator.You are right to refer to the terrorist narrative. The US gets a certain kind of terrorism, due mostly to their standing in the world as weathy, prosperous and indulgent. Well, unless America wants to stop being a great place to live and/or wants to stop kicking global ass to better themselves, that isn't going to stop. So why is someone wanting to destroy just a little piece of that any more of an externality?For what its worth, I don't think the government is wrong to spend more on anti-terror than drunk driving. If I did any research, I'm guessing I'd find that giant national ad campaigns don't do shit to lessen drunk driving. It's the type of thing that has to be minimized with a community approach, not complicated laws and more cops.Regardless, I do think it is an emotional and illogical reaction to spend so disparately on two things, when the one receiving the least attention is more problematic, more preventable, and (arguably) involves less harm/inconvenience to 'innocents' with its preventive measures.

The bolded is interesting. I guess that's what you meant by setting/deciding the boundaries and contents of the system? You could easily take a larger system as the globe, and include terrorist attacks as a variable event within that system? I would only say that in fact such a system does exist and can be analysed(it is by scholars, academics, security analysts, etc). And you under-exaggerate the status of America in this regard. The attacks happen not just because of being wealthy, prosperous and indulgent - but in the eyes of attackers, they are imperial, and authoritarian in the wider world. But that wider world is not the community which the elected politicians can be seen to give equal standing to. Morality aside, the domestic constituency will always take priority. It is the domestic constituency that demands action after the attack on that smaller political community.

[mrdannyg 274]

The bolded is interesting. I guess that's what you meant by setting/deciding the boundaries and contents of the system? You could easily take a larger system as the globe, and include terrorist attacks as a variable event within that system? I would only say that in fact such a system does exist and can be analysed(it is by scholars, academics, security analysts, etc). And you under-exaggerate the status of America in this regard. The attacks happen not just because of being wealthy, prosperous and indulgent - but in the eyes of attackers, they are imperial, and authoritarian in the wider world. But that wider world is not the community which the elected politicians can be seen to give equal standing to. Morality aside, the domestic constituency will always take priority. It is the domestic constituency that demands action after the attack on that smaller political community.

I agree, especially with the second paragraph. I don't see terrorists attacking Norway or Luxembourg. For better or worse. The original contention (I think) was that fear of terrorist attacks as opposed to drunk drivers is illogical. I would not argue that given that (illogical) fear exists, it is reasonable to expect elected politicians to deal with what concerns their citizens, which seems to be the point you're making.

[Balloon guy 158]

I agree, especially with the second paragraph. I don't see terrorists attacking Norway or Luxembourg. For better or worse. The original contention (I think) was that fear of terrorist attacks as opposed to drunk drivers is illogical. I would not argue that given that (illogical) fear exists, it is reasonable to expect elected politicians to deal with what concerns their citizens, which seems to be the point you're making.

They did

[mrdannyg 274]

They did

Wow, that's pretty hardcore.

[brvheart 1,752]

How did you not hear about that?

[mrdannyg 274]

How did you not hear about that?

I did, just didn't realize how many casualties there had been. Plus, most of what I've read has suggested the attack was by Norwegians, which doesn't necessarily cancel out what I was saying.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

I did, just didn't realize how many casualties there had been. Plus, most of what I've read has suggested the attack was by Norwegians, which doesn't necessarily cancel out what I was saying.

The attack was by one blond haired blue eyed Norwegian Wingnut

[brvheart 1,752]

The attack was by one blond haired blue eyed Norwegian Wingnut

Timothy McVeigh was also a terrorist.