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

Watch five Wetbacks jump the fence as Bush spouts Bull**** about how
Secure the Border is for a TV Cameraman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPA75H5uVIo

--
Davey Crockett - No 4Q to Reply
-
WARNING:
It is dangerous to your Health to be Right when the Government is
Wrong

On Jul 2, 9:58 pm, Davey Crockett
wrote:
Watch five Wetbacks jump the fence as Bush spouts Bull**** about how
Secure the Border is for a TV Cameraman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPA75H5uVIo

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

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

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

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

wrote:
On Jul 2, 9:58 pm, Davey Crockett
wrote:
Watch five Wetbacks jump the fence as Bush spouts Bull**** about how
Secure the Border is for a TV Cameraman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPA75H5uVIo

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

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

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

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


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

In article ,
Fred Fredburger wrote:

wrote:
On Jul 2, 9:58 pm, Davey Crockett
wrote:
Watch five Wetbacks jump the fence as Bush spouts Bull**** about how
Secure the Border is for a TV Cameraman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPA75H5uVIo

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
In article ,
Fred Fredburger wrote:

wrote:
On Jul 2, 9:58 pm, Davey Crockett
wrote:
Watch five Wetbacks jump the fence as Bush spouts Bull**** about how
Secure the Border is for a TV Cameraman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPA75H5uVIo
But remember that France is simply letting them in direct from Al
Qaida training camps.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In article ,
Fred Fredburger wrote:

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
In article ,
Fred Fredburger wrote:

wrote:

[Tom wrote something]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't know.

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

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

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

On Jul 3, 8:56 am, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
In article ,
Fred Fredburger wrote:

wrote:
On Jul 2, 9:58 pm, Davey Crockett
wrote:
Watch five Wetbacks jump the fence as Bush spouts Bull**** about how
Secure the Border is for a TV Cameraman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPA75H5uVIo
But remember that France is simply letting them in direct from Al
Qaida training camps.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And it isn't just about marketplace goods.

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

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

Statism, the god that failed.

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

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

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

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

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

On Jul 3, 3:46 pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
In article ,
Fred Fredburger wrote:

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
In article ,
Fred Fredburger wrote:

wrote:

[Tom wrote something]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is about power.

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

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

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

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
The "change" was permanent. Are you a determinist or a free willer?

Depends on how drunk he is.

On Jul 3, 3:46 pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote:

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

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

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

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

Dumbass,

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

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

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

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

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

Ben