I have long thought that we waste a lot of time and energy fighting terrorism, which is probably one of the end goals of terrorists in the first place. Reading the reactions to the attempted bombing on Christmas day is amazing. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/29/airline.terror.obama/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn
The basic view of politicians and many Americans is: "Let's spend all the money we can and prevent 100% of all terrorist acts." I really want to know why the overreaction. Trying to prevent 100% of anything is a near impossible task. A more reasonable approach would be to try and prevent 80% of all attacks. This is much cheaper, more realistic, and doesn't cripple our systems. Besides, if the end result is to prevent American deaths, then there are areas where our money would be better spent. Car accidents still account for 30k American deaths each year yet we do not throw our resources into that. We are still wasting billions of dollars going after a cause of death that in the last ten years has claimed 3,000 lives. That is 1% of the car accident death total over the same period. In addition, the worst case scenario in this most recent attempt would have been the sum total of the passengers and crew on the one air plane. 300 people or so. Sometimes we have to be ok with casualties in order to run an efficient and intelligent system.
What other goals might we have in mind:
- The vague notion of protecting America's borders. If 1000 American's die this month in car accidents, it doesn't make are borders unsafe. If a foreigner kills 300 people, somehow that indicates that we are close to being invaded?
- We must prevent terrorism: This isn't an end goal. It is an ideal with no real purpose.
- Airplanes must be safe: Why? As long as they are really really really safe, as they are now, and they would be even with a couple planes being blown up every year, I still think they would qualify as really safe.
- We must protect the airline industry: Again, why? Any industry that needs protection should probably be dismantled anyway. Maybe we'd come up with something better if we weren't babying the airlines all the time.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Bill Simmons Interviews Tiger Woods
Bill Simmons is by far my favorite sports writer. His contribution to the whole Tiger Woods disaster, reposting a like to an old interview with Tiger. Pretty good read.
Wine Snobs are a Fake
Just read an article on wine tasting pointed out by TMQ from ESPN.com. The article from the Wall Street Journal reports on research done on Wine Tasting Judges over the years. Very interesting. The bottom line: Wine snobs are a fake and you should never fell "not good enough" to enjoy wine. Drink it and buy wine that is less than $10 a bottle. The article basically says that you have a 1 in 5 chance of getting a really good wine whether you're spending $5, or $100. Spend $10 and enjoy your wine.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Good Quote
Saying what we think gives us a wider conversational range than saying what we know.
- Cullen Hightower
- Cullen Hightower
Sunday, November 29, 2009
OnStar Subscription
I'm not one to order extras in my car or phone or tv services. So when I watch the commercials about OnStar on TV where they describe an accident and OnStar being there for you, I can't help but wonder what would happen if I didn't subscribe to the service. It seems to me that OnStar would still know that my car was in a crash, and that I could be hurt. But since I haven't paid anything, the operators ignore the "crash alert". Is this ethical? Have there been any cases where people have died while OnStar sat by and did nothing?
Thursday, November 19, 2009
The Future of Transportation
A blog I've been following written by Tan Kin Lian just alerted me to the fact that a Personal Rapid Transit system is being built at Heathrow airport. This is really great and I hope it takes off and works correctly. I kind of see this as a first step towards better transportation for the world as well as the next big economic and productive revolution. If done well, this system should be able to cut down traffic deaths (30,000 in the US annually), reduce commuting times drastically, and reduce the costs of transportation for everyone.
The only problem I see with the proposed system is that it's on wheels instead of rails. I really think that a track system, similar to those used on roller coasters, or a maglev system would be magnitudes better than a wheel on road system. There's less friction on a track, higher speeds possible, improved safety, ability to power vehicles through the track, and I believe less expense.
While I'm very excited about the system, I hope a track system is considered soon after. I've sent a letter to the company asking about tracks, not really expecting much in terms of response, but I think it'll be interesting to hear what they say. I will post again when they respond.
The only problem I see with the proposed system is that it's on wheels instead of rails. I really think that a track system, similar to those used on roller coasters, or a maglev system would be magnitudes better than a wheel on road system. There's less friction on a track, higher speeds possible, improved safety, ability to power vehicles through the track, and I believe less expense.
While I'm very excited about the system, I hope a track system is considered soon after. I've sent a letter to the company asking about tracks, not really expecting much in terms of response, but I think it'll be interesting to hear what they say. I will post again when they respond.
Gays and Lesbians in a Church setting
I am currently a member of a Lutheran Church in Colorado. I am not heavily involved, but I have been watching developments in the way churches treat Gay and Lesbian members. Our particular church has always been fairly conservative, so it is no surprise that when the ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America), decided to open up to Homosexuals that our church did not go along. Turns out quite a large number of churches are not in favor of this move and many are leaving the ELCA to form a new governing Lutheran body. I feel like I am the middle of a church separation. I can't imagine this happens very often, but it seems like down the road we may have two separate denominations of Lutheran churches and I was there when it happened.
Do I think the church is doing the right thing? Well, all churches are accepting of sinners into their congregation. They do preach against the practice and I imagine they request that those members repent and change their ways. However, very few, if any, homosexuals attend our church (as far as I know). The place where the churches seem to draw the line is in the appointment of homosexuals as clergy. I guess the reasoning would be that nobody who is actively and willingly committing what the church considers sin, should be allowed in the clergy. It's a fair point. However, I don't think it's right for the church or any of it's members to judge another. In addition, the church itself would likely admit that we are all sinners. So how can anyone be allowed into the clergy? I guess the distinction here would be those who are willing. So then let's look at a different example. What about people who get divorced? I know of many in the church who are and they don't seem to get preached against. Are they not willingly sinning in breaking their vows to their partner and to God? I think this is one case where churches should examine their bias against homosexuality and ask if they are being consistent, or simply bigots.
WWJD? Would Jesus tell a homosexual human being that they would have to cast down their lifestyle if they wanted to follow him? Or would he tell the person to follow and spread the word? What if a person was getting a divorce? Could that person spread the word of God along side Jesus? What's the difference? Is there a difference?
Do I think the church is doing the right thing? Well, all churches are accepting of sinners into their congregation. They do preach against the practice and I imagine they request that those members repent and change their ways. However, very few, if any, homosexuals attend our church (as far as I know). The place where the churches seem to draw the line is in the appointment of homosexuals as clergy. I guess the reasoning would be that nobody who is actively and willingly committing what the church considers sin, should be allowed in the clergy. It's a fair point. However, I don't think it's right for the church or any of it's members to judge another. In addition, the church itself would likely admit that we are all sinners. So how can anyone be allowed into the clergy? I guess the distinction here would be those who are willing. So then let's look at a different example. What about people who get divorced? I know of many in the church who are and they don't seem to get preached against. Are they not willingly sinning in breaking their vows to their partner and to God? I think this is one case where churches should examine their bias against homosexuality and ask if they are being consistent, or simply bigots.
WWJD? Would Jesus tell a homosexual human being that they would have to cast down their lifestyle if they wanted to follow him? Or would he tell the person to follow and spread the word? What if a person was getting a divorce? Could that person spread the word of God along side Jesus? What's the difference? Is there a difference?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)