mathematical approach to terrorism

I have railed against Bush's policies from the beginning, and don't want to lend them any credibility by such a dispassionate analysis, but in arguing with my law professor/mentor, who is quite possibly the only neo-con for whom I have any respect, this is what I came up with.

Premises:

1 - terrorism is a method not an ideology
2 - sacrificing civil liberties, privacy, resources, or international standing, or pursuing warfare, or torture, or racial profiling could marginally reduce the (R) risk of terrorism by a factor (X)
But, 3 - terrorism is easy; there are so many manifold, emerging, and cheap methods, that its impossible to eliminate the threat completely.
therefore, 4 - it doesn't take special access, knowledge, resources, but only the will to do it.
5 - the policies in 2 cause blowback, by destablizing the countries attacked, galvanizing persons with a worldview supporting terrorist methods, and making life so manifestly cheap to persons vulnerable to such a worldview, that it increases (P) the number of persons with the will to pursue terrorism by a factor (Y).

factors:

R - risk of terrorism
X - factor by which neo-conservative policies might reduce R
P - people with the will to commit a terrorist act
Y - factor by which neo-conservative policies increase P
L - likelihood of a terrorist attack


formula: L = R x P
question: Is RxP > RxX x PxY.

Of course, I think not. But the only argument the neo-conservatives have left is the empirical statement "there hasn't been another terrorist attack in the U.S. since 9-11," so, empirically I suppose its still an open question.

But even if neo-conservative policies did reduce the risk, its not worth it. That's another blog.

Sheep's Prayer

God grant me the complacency to ignore the things I can change, the ignorance to judge the things I can't change, and the moral laziness never to learn the difference.


Dedicated to those borderline fascists with the nerve to call themselves Christians.

passage from The Brothers Karamazov

This passage was amazing. Can't say anything intelligent about it, you just have to read it:

"You see, Alyosha, perhaps it really may happen that if I live to that moment, or rise again to see it, I, too, perhaps, may cry aloud with the rest, looking at the mother embracing the child's torturer, 'Thou art just, O Lord!' but I don't want to cry aloud then. While there is still time, I hasten to protect myself and so I renounce the higher harmony altogether. It's not wort the tears of that one tortured child who beat itself on the breast with its little fist and prayed on its stinking outhouse, with its unexpatiated tears to 'dear, kind God! It's not worth it, because those tears are unatoned for. They may be atoned for, or there can be no harmony. But how? How are you going to atone for them? Is it possible? By their being avenged? But what do I care for avenging them? What do I care for a hell for oppressors? What good can hell do, since those children have already been tortured? And what becomes of harmony, if there is hell? I want to forgive. I want to embrace, I don't want more suffering. And if the sufferings of children go to swell the sum of sufferings which was necessary to pay for truth, then I protest that the truth is not worth such a price. ... I don't want harmony. From love for humanity I don't want it. I would rather be left with the unavenged suffering, I would rather remain with my unavenged suffering and unsatisfied indignation, even if I were wrong. Besides, too high high a price is asked for harmony; its beyond our means to pay so much to enter on it. And so I hasten to give back my entrance ticket, and if I am an honest man I am bound to give it back as soon as possible. And that I am doing. Its not God that I don't accept, Alyosha, only I most respectfully return Him the ticket." - Ivan Karamazov, Dostoevsky