“The CDC estimates that there are about 9,000 annual deaths in the U.S. from food-borne diseases, about 30,000 from guns, and about 20,000 from the flu. Traffic fatalities in the U.S. account for over 40,000 annual deaths and about 94 percent of total transportation related fatalities. Even in 2001 there were less than 300 airline passenger deaths out of over 400 million passengers.
How then, have the authorities succeeded in convincing us that the danger posed by terrorists to airline passengers is so great that 5-year-olds must submit to random searches and all of us have to take off our shoes to pass through airport screening?
With 3.4 million automobile injuries in 2001 and over 42,000 deaths, why arenâ€™t billions now being poured into improving highway safety?
Or how about a nifty color-coded system to let us know when itâ€™s safe to avoid E-coli, which statistically represents a far greater threat to our well being than terrorism.
So how does the threat of terrorism compare to things that we really ought to be worried about? Well according to the FBI and the CDC, the leading causes of death in the U.S. on an annual basis are: 1) Heart Disease: 700,000, 2) Cancer: 554,000, 3) Stroke: 164,000, 4) Respiratory diseases: 123,000, 5) Accidents of all types: 102,000, 6) Diabetes: 71,000, 7) Influenza/Pneumonia: 62,000, Alzheimer’s disease: 54,000, 9) Auto accidents: 42,000, 10) Kidney ailments: 39,000, 11) Blood poisoning: 32,000, 12) Murder: 16,000.
So why do we fear terrorism when we ought to fear arteriosclerosis? For the sake of comparison letâ€™s look at the odds of some very unlikely causes of death and see how they stack up against the threat of terrorism. Death by assault in a lifetime: 182/1, by falling: 250/1, by firearm: 325/1, by poison: 1,200/1, in a car crash: 5,000/1, by choking: 5,000/1, by drowning: 9,000/1, by murder: 20,000/1, in the bathtub: 1,000,000/1, by a tornado: 2,000,000/1, by falling out of bed: 2,000,000/1, and finally, death by terrorist WMD attack: 6,000,000/1.
To paraphrase FDR, the only thing we have to fear are the fear mongers themselves.”
The thought process behind your list is (redacted).
Your physics professor does not take into account that age kills people also.
Most of everything you mention is what kills people in their finall years due to simply being O L D !
It is not the highways that kill people, its the persons driving. Cell phones, drugs, alcohol , speeding etc…
Gee, if we didnt screen passengers I wonder if more than 300 would of died ?
If we didnt screen the five year old you and your gang would scream ” discrimination”
Would that child be aware that he might be carrying something ? No. he would probably be a excellent candidate carrier pidgeon.
E coli ? America has more food saftey laws in place that work more than any other country. Its been greed and ognorance that usually spreads food born disease
We have couteractive measurements to all you mentioned jersey.
All you mentioned does not have an active human mind that is convinced it must kill all of us.
Also , alot of what you mention is due to human error by choice or accident.
Its ridicilous to compare these things to an active human conscience that can plan and manipulate.
We have battled many diseases and won. You need to look at terrorism as the biggest disease we have ever faced. Except this one thinks.
Its clearly obvious now why you and your gang dont get it if this list is supposed to be some kind of resolving approach to terror
I agree. We should have a war on age. We should spend years and years and thousands of young lives and trillions of dollars fighting age! And the highways! I say we round up all the bad drivers and waterboard them in Guantanamo! As for E Coli, we should employ a shock and awe strategy, mass bombing E Coli bacteria with bunker-buster smart bombs!
Something you won’t likely see in major news networks but should be required reading for all those who still believe Saddam and his henchmen were harmless and that Al Qaeda wasn’t in Iraq… even though it sure was in the US for at least a little while… http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/iraqi/index.html
The point I was making before was the same point I’ve made a thousand times over – all the fear-mongering is unhealthy, unwise, and misplaced.
Take this comment by the good Mr Whitehead:
“…CAIR is focused on destroying our country’s form of government.”
Really? Wouldn’t that be a treasonable offense? If there was evidence that this group was seriously working on overturning the Constitution and Common Law, the actual body of our government, wouldn’t they all be in federal prison right now? Whatever CAIR may be, I doubt they are some Dr. Evil organization bent on overthrowing the US government.
Take this comment:
“Jesus Christ, Winston Churchill, and Ronald Reagan.”
These are his “3 heroes, be they political, military, or other.” Amazing. Now, I can see Jesus Christ, but when you look at the grand span of all recorded time, Winston Churchill, maaaaybe (just for WWII, but that is a pretty huge endorsement), but Ronald Reagan? Even a Reagan enthusiast (with a reasonable education) would be hard-placed to him rank in the top three. It seems a little, well… I mean, yeah, I get it that he’s a relatively recent figure, so I guess he’s more fresh on the mind then say Siddhartha, but still… Ghandi? Alexander? Jefferson? Any other names come to mind first???
And then finally this…
“The UN security council called sanctions on Iraq for over a decade…then did nothing until the United States chose to enforce sanctions unilaterally. If the US did nothing in light of the UN sanctions, we risked looking like a paper tiger (even a blind man could see that the security council was deliberately “tweaking” the US). The UN security council deliberately painted the US into a corner on the Iraq question and then left us out to hang when we invaded.”
The UN painted the US into a corner. Now I’ve heard some interesting takes on recent history over the years, but that about takes the cake. It’s as if somehow we were dragged into Iraq kicking and screaming whilst Don UN’no left us high and dry, happy we went in and happier we bungled it. Again, this sounds like Dr. Evil kinda stuff. Nobody could pull that off – except, of course, the US. Maybe China or Russia. But that’s about it. The US has never been a pliant of the UN, and has only been less so or even unilaterally belligerent with GOP administrations.
We went into Iraq because the administration wanted to – it had nothing whatsoever to do with the UN and that is why the UN stayed out of it. Everything I’ve seen, read and heard (let alone smelled) informs me of this obvious fact.
“The point I was making before was the same point I’ve made a thousand times over – all the fear-mongering is unhealthy, unwise, and misplaced.’
Then drop the global warming act.
theres a difference between fear mongering and reacting tio a true and proven enemy.
If the guy likes Reagan that speaks for him.
Not a major concensus among historians. especially you Jersey ( the historian).
We went to the UN because that was the course to take. Their support would of simply given us more of it. Still, 21 other countries signed on.
Then we should withdraw funding and tell them all to relocate their useless asses
Man, what is it with you with Global Warming? I’m not sure if the science is right either, but I know that less pollution, less oil dependence, and innocative technology can’t be an overall bad thing, for cryin’ out loud.
And with Reagan, c’mon! this isn’t a “historian” thing, this is “3 heros!” Reagan? Really? Where does that put his priorities?
And what is with you guys and the UN? You’re so “gay” with that. It’s just an international committee of nations. It really doesn’t do all that much. If there wasn’t a UN, there’s just be some other forum – or worse yet, forumssss. Best to just have one, it’s a pain enough.
“Man, what is it with you with Global Warming? I’m not sure if the science is right either, but I know that less pollution, less oil dependence, and innocative technology can’t be an overall bad thing, for cryin’ out loud.
Its a classic example of fear mongering in order to motivate for an angenda.
the science is inconclusive yet the methods of prevention or reversal are conclusive as a must and a neccessity.
It is not a proven and true enemy such as Al Queda is.
But the left would like to diminish the threat of our enemy such as you did jersey by putting them up against random acts of nature that carry no intelligent thought.
The technology being implemented on behalf of global warming is no more than a money making corporate scam.
It actually calls for less people and less technology and in its full perspective will destroy any modern society.
“And with Reagan, c’mon! this isn’t a “historian” thing, this is “3 heros!” Reagan? Really? Where does that put his priorities?’
Ahead of yours.
“And what is with you guys and the UN? You’re so “gay” with that. It’s just an international committee of nations. It really doesn’t do all that much. If there wasn’t a UN, there’s just be some other forum – or worse yet, forumssss. Best to just have one, it’s a pain enough.”
Gay ?Thats quite a stretch.
Just an international commitee of nations ?
Once again we see a clear example of the left minimizing a problem.
But of course if you need a freebee the UN is the place to go for all you altruistic lefties.
And 9 times out of 10 its the US picking up the tab.
My good friend wrote this peice. And it covers a few topics in this thread
I’m not going to comment on the flag issue. It’s interesting to see that Obama’s supporters think of themselves as far-left extremists and I think it reveals a whole lot as to what sort of “change” Obama’s supporters may be hoping for (since Obama himself has yet to actually define any sort of legitimate “change”). However, while everybody’s wetting their pants over this asinine flag ordeal, something far more concerning is slipping through the cracks that should scare the hell out of everybody in this country.
Senator Barack Obama has sponsored a bill that is coming up for a vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee called the “Global Poverty Act.” While this sounds benign and helpful (after all, who wouldn’t want to address global poverty?), it is far from.
The bill could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States and has the support of many liberal religious groups. This bill makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations. Is this wise?
It’s no wonder the far-left global socialism wingnuts are rallying behind Obama!
According to the UN, we were supposed to have committed .7% of our Gross National Product to the UN for fighting global poverty, and was supposed to go into effect as of 2002 with an end-goal of 2015. Over those 13 years, we were to have given $845 billion. Since this hasn’t happened yet, and now the UN and Obama have a new plan: a global tax on carbon-emitting fossil fuels.
According to the UN “Millennium Project’s” Jeffrey Sachs:
“The U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP in increased foreign aid spending would add $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends. Over a 13-year period, from 2002, when the U.N.’s Financing for Development conference was held, to the target year of 2015, when the U.S. is expected to meet the “Millennium Development Goals,” this amounts to $845 billion. And the only way to raise that kind of money, Sachs has written, is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels.”
Uh huh. Did anybody else note the phrase “The U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay?” I’m glad to see that Senator Obama is willing to sell us out to the UN in the name of “global poverty,” the UN and global warming.
The House passed their version of the bill in a sudden voice vote that was deceiving in nature and didn’t highlight the fact that it committed us to donating hundreds of billions of dollars to the United Nations. According to Accuracy in Media:
“Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require. According to the website of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, no hearings have been held on the Obama bill in that body.”
OK Obama folks out there, this one’s on you. How is this OK? We know that in order to raise this money the American taxpayer will be held responsible – whether through direct taxation or via indirect “green” taxes. For years we have listened to the Dems bitch and whine about spending and the deficit, so what is it that makes committing hundreds of billions of American dollars to the United Nations acceptable?
If this is what Obama the Senator is willing to do to us, what will Obama the President do? I don’t think that this is the road we want to go down.
Ladies and gentlemen, the entire Republican platform in a nutshell.
“The sky is falling, and global warming will be worse than any nuclear holocaust imaginable by the year 2012 and Al Queda and radical islam are to be treated as unruly children”
Ladies and gentlemen the entire Democratic party in a “Squirrel nutshell”