Sunday, June 16, 2013
Thursday, June 13, 2013
What are the Odds
A little more info for the previous post.
From the CDC: 2010 data
From the Global Terrorism Database total domestic deaths from terrorism were 3,030 from 2000-2010. The data only goes to 2011 so far, So the annual average is 275. If you take the 10 years from 2001-2011 the numbers don't change significantly. Between 9/12/2001 and 12/31/2011 the total is 32 - or approximately 3 people annually.
Given that the NSA knew when the terrorist arrived in the U.S. and essentially did nothing with that data, and given the argument is; we need to let the NSA collect all this data because it will stop attacks. It's only useful if it's acted upon, so 9/11 doesn't meet the goal. From a Data analysis point of view the 9/11 attack is an outlier - completely uncharacteristic of other world wide attacks. The Post 9/11 number is about 3.
So, you're 140 times more likely to commit suicide than be killed by a terrorist. Without 9/11 you're 12,788 times more likely. Are you scared yet?
From Medical News Today - there are 195,000 in hospital deaths by error each year. Which means you are 709 times more likely to be killed by your doctor than a terrorist - that includes 9/11 - with out 9/11 the number is 65,000 times more likely to be killed by your doctor.
If TSA costs each person at the airport 15 minutes (yeah right) and the average wage is $20/hour (and I suspect the number is much higher) then we're taking 3.5 billion out of the economy each year. (source WSJ). And that's JUST the TSA - now add in the cost of all the illegal NSA programs, the DHS TANKS, the wars. It's not pretty.
So, from an economic point of view, the terrorists have won. Because rather than being rational about it - we let our selves be terrified and irrational and we made really stupid choices - like the TSA, or letting the NSA and DHS destroy the Constitution - which was exactly what Osama bin Ladin was after. It could only be accomplished with the help and cooperation of our Government. The scope of terrorism in the U.S. would have to vastly exceed the total world levels to even come close to matching what we're costing ourselves - even without the loss of Liberty.
Let's recap, compared to terrorism, you are:
140 times more likely to commit suicide.
709 times more likely to be killed by your doctor.
120 times more likely to be killed in an auto accident.
YES we absolutely need to take precautions - we need to investigate, we need to be aware, but we've gone WAY too far with this. There is no evidence that TSA has done anything other than harass and steal from passengers, except cost us money. Even with all the extra man power, the militarization of the police, the extension of armed forces into domestic policy - Boston still happened, and it was a civilian who found the terrorist. A little self reliance and paying attention did more than the DHS, National Guard, SWAT and Satellites, in capturing the perp.
So - Get a grip people - you want to be scared of something - be scared of your doctor.
From the CDC: 2010 data
Number of deaths for leading causes of death:
- Heart disease: 597,689
- Cancer: 574,743
- Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
- Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
- Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
- Alzheimer's disease: 83,494
- Diabetes: 69,071
- Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
- Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
- Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364
From the Global Terrorism Database total domestic deaths from terrorism were 3,030 from 2000-2010. The data only goes to 2011 so far, So the annual average is 275. If you take the 10 years from 2001-2011 the numbers don't change significantly. Between 9/12/2001 and 12/31/2011 the total is 32 - or approximately 3 people annually.
Given that the NSA knew when the terrorist arrived in the U.S. and essentially did nothing with that data, and given the argument is; we need to let the NSA collect all this data because it will stop attacks. It's only useful if it's acted upon, so 9/11 doesn't meet the goal. From a Data analysis point of view the 9/11 attack is an outlier - completely uncharacteristic of other world wide attacks. The Post 9/11 number is about 3.
So, you're 140 times more likely to commit suicide than be killed by a terrorist. Without 9/11 you're 12,788 times more likely. Are you scared yet?
From Medical News Today - there are 195,000 in hospital deaths by error each year. Which means you are 709 times more likely to be killed by your doctor than a terrorist - that includes 9/11 - with out 9/11 the number is 65,000 times more likely to be killed by your doctor.
If TSA costs each person at the airport 15 minutes (yeah right) and the average wage is $20/hour (and I suspect the number is much higher) then we're taking 3.5 billion out of the economy each year. (source WSJ). And that's JUST the TSA - now add in the cost of all the illegal NSA programs, the DHS TANKS, the wars. It's not pretty.
So, from an economic point of view, the terrorists have won. Because rather than being rational about it - we let our selves be terrified and irrational and we made really stupid choices - like the TSA, or letting the NSA and DHS destroy the Constitution - which was exactly what Osama bin Ladin was after. It could only be accomplished with the help and cooperation of our Government. The scope of terrorism in the U.S. would have to vastly exceed the total world levels to even come close to matching what we're costing ourselves - even without the loss of Liberty.
Let's recap, compared to terrorism, you are:
140 times more likely to commit suicide.
709 times more likely to be killed by your doctor.
120 times more likely to be killed in an auto accident.
YES we absolutely need to take precautions - we need to investigate, we need to be aware, but we've gone WAY too far with this. There is no evidence that TSA has done anything other than harass and steal from passengers, except cost us money. Even with all the extra man power, the militarization of the police, the extension of armed forces into domestic policy - Boston still happened, and it was a civilian who found the terrorist. A little self reliance and paying attention did more than the DHS, National Guard, SWAT and Satellites, in capturing the perp.
So - Get a grip people - you want to be scared of something - be scared of your doctor.
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
If you don't trust them
In a comment to JudgyBitch about the NSA spying, I wrote the following:
So I don't believe we need apply the Godwin Law
Most administrations since I understood enough to care, have shown a willingness to abuse their power. The will is there, we don't need to give them a way.
Something to think about, Historically speaking your more likely to be killed by your own government.
From Reason Magazine:
That's from 2001-2010.
From the Wall Street Journal
I find it amusing in a scary sort of way, that Republicans are somewhat OK with NSA snooping when a Republican is in office – Dems are very much against it. Reverse the party in office and reverse the results. What this shows is a serious lack of vision – no hindsight, no ability to project forward. Once a government takes a power to itself, it rarely (if ever) gives it up – so when your party is in power, the question you need to ask is – do I trust the other party with this power? And if the answer isn’t a resounding YES, then maybe you’d better avoid giving that power away.Someone suggested that I needed to take it a step further and ask if you would trust Hitler with it. I live in a community with a lot of retired liberals - when you listen to them, their is no doubt that that wouldn't trust Bush with anything. I suspect their response to any Republican would be similar. Most of them still think Obama was a good idea. The Republicans I know don't trust any Democrat from what I can see. The funny thing is, those two parties are so close in terms of behavior that the only significant difference is which lobbyists they let though the door.
So I don't believe we need apply the Godwin Law
Most administrations since I understood enough to care, have shown a willingness to abuse their power. The will is there, we don't need to give them a way.
Something to think about, Historically speaking your more likely to be killed by your own government.
From Reason Magazine:
Ohio State University political scientist John Mueller and Mark Stewart, an engineering professor at University of Newcastle in Australia recently estimated that the U.S. has spent $1 trillion on anti-terrorism security measures since 2001 (this figure does not include the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). Assuming that 2,300 Americans might have been killed by terrorists inside the United States, this implies a cost of more that $400 million dollars per life saved. Typically when evaluating the costs of protective regulations, federal government agencies set the value of a life at about $9 million.
That's from 2001-2010.
From the Wall Street Journal
Overall, academic and governmental databases report, terrorist attacks killed a total of about 5,300 people in the most highly developed nations since the end of the Cold War in 1991, a rate of about 300 per year. The chance of a Westerner being killed by a terrorist is exceedingly low: about a one in three million each year, or the same chance an American will be killed by a tornado.So, unless the NSA thinks Americans are building nukes or equally dangerous WMDs (the old definition - not the Boston one) monitoring us is also a waste of money.
Companies I've lost all respect for
Top of my list is Verizon - for obvious reasons.
Then we have Google for a number of reasons. So, I don't use Google directly - I use Startpage.
I've always had a love/hate relationship with Apple - love the hardware, hate the politics. Their approach to OS upgrades SUCK. I can live with the " Gee we're changing platforms so you'll need to go buy all new applications - to bad." What bugs me is when they take a working OS like Snow Leopard, and then turn it into a piece of crap like Lion. Then finally sort of fix it again with Mountain Lion. It's very Microsoft. I don't think I'm going to give up on Apple, it's one of those places where I'm willing to suck it up, because I don't care much for the alternatives. (specifically phones and tablets)
I'm not quite sure how I feel about the other companies on the PRISM list. Seeing what the NSA did to Quest (and I'm not talking about what might have been a valid conviction for Insider trading). Quest had the no-bid contracts - asked for total servalence and when Nacchio said no - they canceled the contracts, essentially punishing QUEST for failing to violate the public trust - the fact the Nacchio sold his stock before the news of the lost contracts came out probably does qualify as insider trading - but then I suspect the government could make a case for every sale of stock owned by a current CEO - and they don't.
I'm unsure how much coercion was being used. I think they all suck for going along with it, but depending on what they'd already signed, maybe some of them felt they didn't have much choice. But let me be clear - you do have a choice. You can either pave the road to Tyranny with your good intentions or you can say NO.
NO by the way is the correct answer.
Then we have Google for a number of reasons. So, I don't use Google directly - I use Startpage.
I've always had a love/hate relationship with Apple - love the hardware, hate the politics. Their approach to OS upgrades SUCK. I can live with the " Gee we're changing platforms so you'll need to go buy all new applications - to bad." What bugs me is when they take a working OS like Snow Leopard, and then turn it into a piece of crap like Lion. Then finally sort of fix it again with Mountain Lion. It's very Microsoft. I don't think I'm going to give up on Apple, it's one of those places where I'm willing to suck it up, because I don't care much for the alternatives. (specifically phones and tablets)
I'm not quite sure how I feel about the other companies on the PRISM list. Seeing what the NSA did to Quest (and I'm not talking about what might have been a valid conviction for Insider trading). Quest had the no-bid contracts - asked for total servalence and when Nacchio said no - they canceled the contracts, essentially punishing QUEST for failing to violate the public trust - the fact the Nacchio sold his stock before the news of the lost contracts came out probably does qualify as insider trading - but then I suspect the government could make a case for every sale of stock owned by a current CEO - and they don't.
I'm unsure how much coercion was being used. I think they all suck for going along with it, but depending on what they'd already signed, maybe some of them felt they didn't have much choice. But let me be clear - you do have a choice. You can either pave the road to Tyranny with your good intentions or you can say NO.
NO by the way is the correct answer.
Men and stuff
Bad night - Sinus headache, bad mood - and I'm going to rant - so be warned.
I've been getting more and more fed up with the notion that it's OK to attack men for being men. I had a conversation with an NPR talk show host when I lived in the Bay Area. This was back in the mid 90's and she wondered why it was the only group anyone could make fun of anymore was White Males - yep even back in the 90's. I called in and told her - Because we're the only one's with a sense of humor anymore. Everyone else takes themselves too seriously.
Well I seem to have lost my sense of humor - it's been pummeled out of me by the constant, unrelenting attacks by feminists.
The Captain had a link to A Voice for Men post about a Bill Burr rant
Where in Pual Elam busts Bill's Balls for easing up on women who trash a man's personal property as an act of revenge for cheating. All based on the Carrie Underwood song. Yeah I hate that song too. So where Paul has a problem with Bill's podcast is:
Where Bill went off the rails is when he decided to go down that same track and talk about two shots to the ball of lettuce on her shoulders. Even saying (and I paraphrase here) - "I'm not condoning hitting woman" - is pointless. It shows that you, as a man can talk about / dream about doing those types of things just as easily as a woman. Counter productive Bill.
The most telling point here - is that Radical Feminism's preaching of hate toward men is having a lot of unintended consequences. I for example, used to think feminists had a valid point of view - now I think they just hate men. Hmm, maybe hate is not the right word - despise perhaps. They've gotten women declared a protected class entitled to treat every criticism as hate speech, much like blacks and other minorities - but they're not a minority. And feminists are the one's distorting facts, preaching hate, and demanding special treatment. Men are starting to respond in a way that women are not going to like. We're being told we're not necessary - So. Fine. We'll go our own way, let's see how well that works for you.
Take Facebook's recent actions as an example. F***b**k has gone over the edge and become a tool for the radical feminists - they can post their hate men messages, but anything critical of feminism get's yanked. I'd have dropped F***b**k except it takes effort to log in and do that. An effort I haven't had the motivation to expend for quite a while. So, some time in the next few days I'll get around to deleting my F***b**k account. Why? Because they force their opinions on people, they spy on people, the treat peoples information and copyrighted data as fodder for their money machine. They represent the worst of the tech industry, much like Google (yeah I know blogger is a G-tool - it provides a platform for me to bash G's politics at G's expense). At least to date they've haven't decided to deny First Amendment rights to people who disagree with them. (I don't expect it to last - they're too progressive to let people disagree with their ideology.)
I'm not looking for protection and special treatment - I'm just going to boycott those who talk about being against hate, when they're really supporting it.
Oh and on the off chance that someone actually wonders - I'm all for equality, even if it is - in the end - a bad deal for women. When I say equality I mean it - if you can't pass the tests, we shouldn't be making them easier just so women can pass (yes I know there are any number of women who would do significantly better than I can on physical fitness tests - not the point, I'm not trying out for Spec Ops, or Fire Fighter). Women should not get any special treatment for being women, they should get equal treatment - period.
I've been getting more and more fed up with the notion that it's OK to attack men for being men. I had a conversation with an NPR talk show host when I lived in the Bay Area. This was back in the mid 90's and she wondered why it was the only group anyone could make fun of anymore was White Males - yep even back in the 90's. I called in and told her - Because we're the only one's with a sense of humor anymore. Everyone else takes themselves too seriously.
Well I seem to have lost my sense of humor - it's been pummeled out of me by the constant, unrelenting attacks by feminists.
The Captain had a link to A Voice for Men post about a Bill Burr rant
Where in Pual Elam busts Bill's Balls for easing up on women who trash a man's personal property as an act of revenge for cheating. All based on the Carrie Underwood song. Yeah I hate that song too. So where Paul has a problem with Bill's podcast is:
Well, Paul - no I don't think that's what he did. I think what he did was council women who might be thinking that way to try a different - less illegal track. Before they take that first step. Now I agree, judging a man by his car is a bit like judging a woman by her purse - kind of stupid. The notion that people use cars as a form of compensation is so exaggerated at this point - it serves no purpose.But here’s the deal. At straight up 9:00 minutes into the video, after ripping these women a complete new asshole for being unrepentant criminals, he challenges women who have been cheated on to find a more functional way handle the situation. And he encourages them to take some responsibility, saying, “You know, rather than looking inward going, you know, maybe I’m a bad judge of character. What sort of qualities am I looking for in somebody, and I’ll date that. I mean, didn’t the fact that the guy had a souped-up four wheel drive truck, didn’t that give it away on any fucking level?”And I am like, what?
Did I just hear Bill Burr counsel women who justify fucking vandalism as form of petty vengeance that the problem was that they chose men with bad character? What about her character? I mean, how much good is it doing to suggest to scumbag women that they need to pick principled men to date? And by what standard, their cars?This is where I think Bill, who was on a hell of a roll, skidded right off the tracks into the ditch. It is consistent with the Sugar and Spice mentality about women that even a guy like Bill can default to, and even when he is talking about some disaster of a cunt who slashes tires when she is upset. Did he imagine that before she was cheated on that this woman was some sort of fucking saint
Where Bill went off the rails is when he decided to go down that same track and talk about two shots to the ball of lettuce on her shoulders. Even saying (and I paraphrase here) - "I'm not condoning hitting woman" - is pointless. It shows that you, as a man can talk about / dream about doing those types of things just as easily as a woman. Counter productive Bill.
The most telling point here - is that Radical Feminism's preaching of hate toward men is having a lot of unintended consequences. I for example, used to think feminists had a valid point of view - now I think they just hate men. Hmm, maybe hate is not the right word - despise perhaps. They've gotten women declared a protected class entitled to treat every criticism as hate speech, much like blacks and other minorities - but they're not a minority. And feminists are the one's distorting facts, preaching hate, and demanding special treatment. Men are starting to respond in a way that women are not going to like. We're being told we're not necessary - So. Fine. We'll go our own way, let's see how well that works for you.
Take Facebook's recent actions as an example. F***b**k has gone over the edge and become a tool for the radical feminists - they can post their hate men messages, but anything critical of feminism get's yanked. I'd have dropped F***b**k except it takes effort to log in and do that. An effort I haven't had the motivation to expend for quite a while. So, some time in the next few days I'll get around to deleting my F***b**k account. Why? Because they force their opinions on people, they spy on people, the treat peoples information and copyrighted data as fodder for their money machine. They represent the worst of the tech industry, much like Google (yeah I know blogger is a G-tool - it provides a platform for me to bash G's politics at G's expense). At least to date they've haven't decided to deny First Amendment rights to people who disagree with them. (I don't expect it to last - they're too progressive to let people disagree with their ideology.)
I'm not looking for protection and special treatment - I'm just going to boycott those who talk about being against hate, when they're really supporting it.
Oh and on the off chance that someone actually wonders - I'm all for equality, even if it is - in the end - a bad deal for women. When I say equality I mean it - if you can't pass the tests, we shouldn't be making them easier just so women can pass (yes I know there are any number of women who would do significantly better than I can on physical fitness tests - not the point, I'm not trying out for Spec Ops, or Fire Fighter). Women should not get any special treatment for being women, they should get equal treatment - period.
Friday, June 7, 2013
Why does everyone sound so surprised?
The NSA is spying on us - wow news - NOT (from last year)
If you think they don't have copies of every email, post, IM and text you've ever sent - your probably wrong. It's what they do - they snoop - on EVERYONE.
Is it abuse - YES. Should they be arrested - YES, imprisoned - YES. Am I surprised? No.
Government Overreach is Standard Operating Procedure.
Welcome to the Police State. - Orwell just missed it by a few years.
If you think they don't have copies of every email, post, IM and text you've ever sent - your probably wrong. It's what they do - they snoop - on EVERYONE.
Is it abuse - YES. Should they be arrested - YES, imprisoned - YES. Am I surprised? No.
Government Overreach is Standard Operating Procedure.
Welcome to the Police State. - Orwell just missed it by a few years.
Thursday, June 6, 2013
Jazz state of mind
I go though phases with music. For months it was Folk/Rock vocals, lately I've been spending a lot of time listening to classic rock. Today I fell into a jazz state of mind today - There's a lot of jazz I really love that's been on the back burner for a while.
Claire Martin who records on the Linn label has been a favorite of mine since the early nineties when I found a copy of The Waiting Game
Claire Martin who records on the Linn label has been a favorite of mine since the early nineties when I found a copy of The Waiting Game
Here's a sample from my favorite album of her's - Old Boyfriends
The Wheelers and Dealers
Once I start down the path I'll be on it for awhile so I suspect I'll be mentioning some of my other favorites in the next few weeks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)