The journey from there to here

I'm still shaking my head.

One of the latest bits of news is that Tommy Thompson expressed concern over the vulnerability of the nation's food supply to terrorist threat. While it is a very real, very rational fear, the solution is not one that is practical within the US. To test all food imports would mean an increased cost to the consumer, via trickle down prices and/or increased taxes to cover the burdensome expense. A tax would be most likely, meaning either a greatly increased deficit, or an increased tax burden on the American public. Barring such taxation, the cost of testing coupled with the steadily increasing fuel prices, would mean we're on target for runaway inflation, the bane of any administration's existence, let alone one that alleges itself to be fiscally responsible.

The larger issue, however, is that when we speak of "safety", we have confused our terms to mean absence of risk. Anything that you introduce to your body's metabolic system has a certain degree of risk, be it through allergy, unremoved pesticides, poisons, what have you. A terror attack would only increase the risk, an unpleasant prospect, to be sure, but one that cannot be avoided without becoming a totalitarian nation.

We have designed our automobiles to be increasingly safe, and yet we clamor for more, mindless of the fact that the safety laws already in place are a large reason that many Americans pay half as much in car payments as they do in mortgage payments. We do so under the ignorant assumption that we can create a riskless automobile. Physics dictate that when two objects are in motion, there is a risk of collision, no matter how small. I remember a story, possibly apocryphal, about a year when there were two cars in the state of Ohio, and those two cars ended up in a collision. When you consider the millions of automobiles in the US times the numbers of trips taken, the odds of having a collision on any given excursion are infinitessimally small, not even measurable as a percentage, and yet, that is not good enough.

Add to this the multibillion dollar a year child safety industry that, interestingly enough, has not eliminated child deaths due to injury, and you have a good example of how lack of common sense costs us Americans far more money than we're willing to admit.

Fortunately, I'm among the 300-some odd thousand Americans who can proudly say:

"Don't blame me...I voted for Badnarik".

Respectfully submitted,

Gideon MacLeish


Comments
on Dec 04, 2004
when we speak of "safety", we have confused our terms to mean absence of risk.

I argree with you here. Did you know the odd of dying in a car wreck are much later than they were in the 1950s? Injury from airbags and seatbelts is up (hense the lawsuits....) Did you know that the odds of being sued from involvement in a car wreck have increased exponetially since then? Do you realize that car companies spend a much greater persentage on "consumer safety" and litigation as they used to spend making, and marketing the cars?

That's one reason cars are so expensive. And it hasn't stopped accidents, death or injuries.

Do we really need this extra expense on the rare possibility that food could be contaminated? Please, any halfway smart terrorist would eliminate the extra step/inspection and simply get a job in the US......and hurt us from within. And then we would inspect all food made in country too? Good grief.
on Dec 04, 2004
It makes sense in a strategic economic sense. The US has signed free trade agreements with both of its main agricultural competitors (Canada and Australia), so the only realistic way to prevent their superior and more efficiently made products from taking over local markets would be to create artificial barriers through concerns over terrorism or disease - and terrorism is much easier to justify as a reason in international courts.

Maybe I'm just being cynical but it's happened too often in other countries to simply ignore the possibility.
on Dec 04, 2004
I have absolutely nothing significant to say,(here or in real life, take your pick) but I take it you've got your own internet now? Five, six articles in two days?
Wow.
on Dec 04, 2004
We have bicycle helment laws in our state because idiots who didn't wear them got hurt, don't have health insurance, and end up raising the costs of the health care industry. Yay. Even then, our low-income residents don't wear them. And yet the legislature can pat themselves on the back and say they've made the world safer.

Fortunately, I'm among the 300-some odd thousand Americans who can proudly say:

"Don't blame me...I voted for Badnarik".


Me too. The death of common sense will kill us all.

-A.
on Dec 06, 2004

I have absolutely nothing significant to say,(here or in real life, take your pick) but I take it you've got your own internet now? Five, six articles in two days?

Nah, still on the library connection, but the paper's been coming out late this past week.