1. Lung cancer: 157,400
2. Car accidents: 42,443
3. Breast cancer: 40,600
4. Prostate cancer: 31,500
5. Prescription drug reactions: 31,000
6. Suicide: 30,602
7. Murder: 20,308
8. Hypertension: 19,250
9. Illicit drug use: 17,000
10. AIDS/HIV: 14,175
11. Poisoning: 14,078
12. Suffocation: 5,555
13. Gallbladder cancer: 3,300
14. Drowning: 3,281
15. Terrorist attacks: 2,986

It’s tricky identifying *one* cause of death (e.g., was the cause of death smoking or lung cancer?), but I don’t think that negates the point here. Even at its height, namely 2001, terrorist-related deaths in the US were not particularly significant compared to other causes of death. When you further amortize those deaths across the decades with few if any terrorist deaths, the number becomes even less significant.

I don’t think there are a lot of good ways to die, but death is clearly inevitable. The more society does to curb death, the more it seems to restrict the quality of life. Laws, agencies, and procedures put into place since September 11, 2001 have done this and done so in the name of preventing a cause of death that may be dramatic, but is one that has never been significant. These costs and infringements on personal liberty are a sop to irrationality.

bkd

First off, I’m glad that the TSA is finally getting around to their most important assignment: self-preservation through public relations. Otherwise known as scaring people into thinking that they’re still relevant.

I love these accomplishments, though. System wide, an entire week of travel, and *these* are the Great Results that the TSA has wrought. They found TWO “artfully concealed” prohibited items? I’m guessing someone figured out how to turn a laptop into a water bottle. Arrests for “suspicious behavior”? I’m guessing bloggin about how stupid the TSA is would be considered “suspicious” by the TSA, no? 32 incidents that involved a checkpoint closure — and they’re trying to make out like that’s a good thing.

Seriously. Hire a new PR agency, one that’s willing to go the full monty and give you something worth reporting on by trying to smuggle timed explosives through. None of the things on the list above necessarily had anything to do with a terrorist activity. It’s very possible to have a gun in your possession without trying to take over an airplane (I’m not necessarily advocating allowing people to bring guns on planes, but if someone were to get away with it — that’s not in itself dangerous.)

How about putting another line item on there for productivity minutes lost nationwide as a result of the “enhanced screening process”? Maybe that’s what they were getting at with the closure count.

Remember that Simpsons episode with the bear patrol? Lisa tells Homer that the rock she has in her hand is keeping bears tigers away because, well, she’s holding it and neither of them see any bears tigers around.

Homer buys the rock.

bkd

More here.

Y’know, the Soviet Union started with good intentions. For that matter, so did the German Democratic Republic. I mean, sure, their politicians wanted all the power for themselves, but so long as they kept their populace safe, secure, and somewhat fed, who could mind?

Please wake up.

bkd

Anti-individualistic, the fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only insofar as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic entity…. The fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value.

Yes, I found this on Wikipedia.

To paraphrase, according to its father’s teachings, fascism is the governing theory in which the state is supreme and the individual exists for the sake of the state.

Endut! Hoch Hech!

bkd

Just saw this on Cato-at-Liberty:

(The recording and interview with the guy are the good part, the rest of the clip is usual FoxNews grandstanding and chest-thumping.)

Seriously, though, how can anyone *not* have a problem with a quasi-police force at the airport that’s not responsible enough to inform people of their rights, but feels empowered to harass and detain (and arrest) people that, in one officer’s opinion, are “suspicious”. TSA is a cost without a real benefit. It’s a system set up by the state to make a system less efficient and deprive individuals of privacy and that can provide no actual evidence of preventing any sort of terrorism whatsoever. The only “benefit” of the current TSA is that it makes the soft-brained feel better about traveling on airplanes.

Willingness to exchange privacy and liberty for perceived safety was a great hallmark of the Hitler regime. If what people want is fascism, they should at least have the self awareness to say so rather than misappropriating words like “freedom” and “equality”.

Man. I can’t stand that anyone still thinks that “heightened airport security” is a good thing. Man, but I wish these guys would get on with it and succeed already.

bkd

1. Seatbelt laws.
2. Patriot Act.
3. Airport security.
4. Airport closures for “suspicious comments” (and exploded batteries).
5. Homeland security.
6. DUI checkpoints.
7. Helmet laws.
8. Mandatory waiting periods.
9. Car seat laws.
10. School attendance requirements.
11. Having to register with your driver’s license in order to buy Sudafed.
12. Marijuana busts by helicopter.
13. Real ID.
14. Social Security identification for newborns.
15. Neighborhood speed bumps.
16. No Child Left Behind
17. Tax refund IOUs.
18. Increase in paramilitary police units.
19. State-enforced smoking bans in private establishments.
20. No-knock warrants.
21. Sorbanes-Oxley maybe.

Note: this isn’t a particularly serious piece of research or anything. But I still think I’m probably right. And I’m probably missing several major instances. Meh.

Power-fighting,

bkd

 

So I dunno. I think *most people* would say that the columns don’t matter nearly as much as the lines. They’d rather a positive outcome from a bad intent than a negative outcome from a good intent. In theory, I think most people would agree to that.

In practice, though, I think the opposite often occurs and people start valuing intent more than outcome. And then they do things like trying to spin a bad outcome as positive, because surely a well-meaning person’s action must result in something positive. Similarly, a positive outcome from a bad intent gets spun into something negative or is said to not have actually come from the mal-intender.

Anyway. I think the top row should always be preferred with NW > N > NE. On the other two rows, I’m not so sure. I think C might be better than W, if only because it was intended and therefore should’ve been expected. So maybe C > W > E. Similarly in the bottom row — I dunno. I guess I’d prefer it almost always if the person *meant* well, even if the outcome is the same as if the person had meant harm. At least someone who means well might have some other redeemable qualities outside the event in question.

I guess the other question is whether intent has any importance whatsoever. A person whose outcomes are always positive should possibly always be labeled as “good” and any claims of that person to have had bad intentions more a reflection of the person’s own lack of self-awareness.

Just a thought.

bkd

Nixon Library, though. Was mostly about his life and times, with strong focus on his political career. I came away from the career retrospective thinking he was a tragic figure, betrayed by his own ambition that repeatedly overruled principles (I think his downfall came when he defied his mother and joined the Navy). Otherwise, it’s a pretty good humble beginnings-to-ultimate power story up until the whole Watergate thing.

The library doesn’t actually bring up Watergate. And anyway, I’m guessing Lincoln did worse than Watergate to John Breckinridge and we just don’t know about it b/c the MSM was all deferential and stuff back then.

Nixon’s birth house (the library is located on the land that used to be the family farm) was neat, but then I sort of just like old houses. Seems like it used space more efficiently than a modern house would, although I supposed there might be reasons why homes don’t have master bedrooms coming off the entry way any more.

Here’s a photo:

Reflecting pool with old farm house in the background!

And the docents were friendly.

bkd

If someone really has the audacity and desperation to throw themselves off a bridge, it kind of seems like we should let them. If someone wants to die, why does it even matter if I or you or anyone else *doesn’t* want that person to die? It seems like there should only be one vote that matters in that situation.

bkd

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailout/index.html

I suppose the upside of all this is that at least the presidential election is starting to focus on things that matter. Of course it doesn’t help that both candidates agree on the same mid-bellcurve policies of failure. Oh well — maybe next time.

And I wasn’t going to do any more political rants.

bkd

As a result of this remembrance the United States has:

• Created two wars.
• Estranged itself from its allies (as a result of those wars).
• Encouraged its enemies (as a result of those wars).
• Significantly endangered the strength of its economy (government spending as a % of GDP is at its highest level since World War II and some day we’re going to have to pay for that — and, yeah, this is the *biggest* problem with those wars even though no one in the MSM has thought to talk about it (because it’s much more entertaining to “remember 9/11″)).
• Forfeited formerly rightful claims to morality and ethical behavior (as it applies to prisoners and intelligence gathering).
• Given the FBI sweeping powers of surveillance — does anyone else think it’s interesting that “police state” has a *negative* connotation?
• Instituted the practice of warrantless searches (seems like maybe there should be something in the Constitution about that — oh wait, there is…).
• Reduced the ability of the judicial branch to limit the powers of the state.
• Reinforced unconstitutional power assertions of the executive branch.
• Turned domestic air travel into a festival of harrassment (from having to disrobe at security to having to pass the “no fly list” test to having to get to the airport two hours early to not being able to park or stop a car near an airport terminal to…).
• Infuriated foreign tourists by treating each of them as a would-be criminal at customs.
• Accepted having a choice limited to one big-government party and another big-government party.
• Etc.

The “remembrance” of 9/11 is a place where Idiot Planet — this would be Earth — really shows its true colors. We are screwing ourselves in return for screwing ourselves. Way to remember, guys!

Some time soon I’m going to post about the Hindenburg. You’ll see.

bkd

The previous changes to parking availability (along with an increase in flights out of SNA) has already resulted in insufficient mid-week parking. I’ve experienced not finding any parking in any of the four on-site lots (yes, I ignored the “Lot Full” signs in order to verify that there really wasn’t any parking available), then driving to the off-site lot only to find that it, too, was full. And it’s not like there are private lots set up around SNA to handle overflow parking. (Yet.)

“Fortunately”, they’re opening up a new “Lot C” off-site. Except that they’re going to charge the new $20 rate, despite it being off site.

The upshot is that my decision-making airport-choosing flow has now changed.

• If there’s a non-stop from SNA to destination, fly out of SNA.
• If there’s not a non-stop from SNA to destination, but there *is* a non-stop from LGB, LAX, or, heck, even ONT, don’t fly out of SNA. (There’s never a non-stop out of ONT. That was just me being silly.)

And cops who cause traffic jams on the 5 South at 10:45 on Sunday nights in order to park on the shoulder and spend ten minutes verifying that a stalled vehicle on the shoulder is, in fact, a stalled vehicle parked on the shoulder should be [your favorite violent past-tense verb goes here].

bkd

1.

bkd

The kid’s obviously an idiot who doesn’t understand the world’s appropriate social order. When elected officials buy votes with billions of dollars of tax money through contracts and “entitlements”, that’s *cool*. When it’s private individuals? It’s just embarrassing for everyone. Similarly, when giant lobbyist groups pay off congressmen for *their* votes, there’s a certain grace and elan to the cultivated ubiquity of the action. *Private* individuals, though? No dignity at all.

It’s ugly when the proles forget their place.

bkd

Direct democracy and referendums are bad. Aside from the Target hassles, here’s why:

We already have a government. Several of them in fact — federal, state, county, city, school district. Plenty of levels of government. Direct democracy (those neat “ballot measures” that seem particularly exciting to us self-important Californians) constitutes yet another level of government. Only this one cannot be easily trumped, doesn’t have to make decisions unless it feels like it wants to, never gets held accountable for what it’s done, doesn’t even have to *pretend* to understand the decisions it’s making, and can’t be voted out of office no matter what kind of crap it does.

Further, direct democracy panders to idiots. “Everyone” hates taxes. “Everyone” wants someone else to give them stuff (like a free education for their kids). Therefore, everyone wants to have laws that lower taxes and increase entitlements (read: government spending). Therefore, wily states like California end up with referendum-mandated laws that both restrict the state government’s capacity to tax while at the same time requiring minimum levels of spending.

I hate taxes. But even more damaging is a government that writes checks it has no capacity to cover. Everyone loses — yes, including the suckers that voted in favor of these referendums. Uniformly brilliant.

Vote NO on everything.

bkd

Do they even know that the call came from that compound?

Listen, I *suspect* that the FLDS are some of the worst people in the country. I’m guessing they *do* marry off and impregnate 12-year-olds. I’ve read enough stories about “lost boys” in Utah to think that the FLDS really do abandon male minors when they become inconvenient, an utterly un-Christlike practice that royally sucks. But I can’t prove it. And no one else has done that in a court of law yet either. So how does Texas get off removing children from homes and asserting some sort of statist right to place them in foster care?

Am I crazy? The more I read about what’s going on with the polygamist kids, the more preposterous this seems. There wasn’t a trial. The entire action was based on ONE anonymous phone call. There did not seem to be any attempt during the “raid” to determine whether there were any improprieties going on with the kids there. I mean, did they *ask* the kids if they were abused? (No.) Did the kids voluntarily list off all the abuses they’d suffered when the cops came? (No.) The most damning evidence they found of anything was some information about cyanide (or whatever it was). Man. I have toxicology research sitting on my freakin’ hard drive. I have books about rifles and one about becoming a Marine Corps sniper of all things.

Is someone going to break into my house and take my Roomba away now?

And the women who went along with the kids have been stripped of their cell phones. Because people with cell phones can communicate. Use words. Speak. And Texas isn’t about to let someone have free speech if it, like, threatens their ability to kidnap children, I guess.

It’s easy to pick on people that are different — and, as far as I can tell, that’s what’s happening to the FLDS in Texas. There’s been no court proceedings that have shown the individual parents of the abducted children have done anything untoward to their kids. (None that’ve been even suggested publicly, at least.) What there has been is a religious group that has different practices than are observed in the “mainstream”. And since they’re different, well then, there’s not going to be much of an outcry if we strip them of their rights, right?

It also makes me wonder about religious tolerance in Texas, at least among the “public servants”. If there’s one thing that Mike Huckabee taught me over the winter, it’s that there’s still a substantial element in American society that doesn’t understand that the difference between an individual’s personal beliefs and that person’s objective worth as a human being. Mike Huckabee is *still* looking for ways to defame Mitt Romney. Because he’s Mormon, face it. There’s no other rational reason for that level of pit-bullish, vitriolic hatred toward a political rival.

And the FLDS? They’re even crazier than Mormons. Let’s just take their kids and raise them as proper Baptists, Methodists, and Secular Humanists. You know, normal religions. State-approved ones. Because, really, we only need the middle 90% of society, right? The rest can be out-voted. So we’ll take their kids. It’s too late for the parents. We can leave the adults destitute and grief-stricken and it’s a-okay, because they’re not like us cool people anyway.

I really think the FLDS are shady people who have done some bad crap. But just because I or you or some judge in Texas thinks that (and someone received an anonymous phone call), that shouldn’t mean that due process is out the window. But apparently it means exactly that. Lousy fascists.

bkd