> Gary Nunn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
> Would I give up some liberties to ensure their [his
> children's] safety? Absolutely.
Yet, your giving up your liberties will not protect
your family from some determined fanatic who has
decided to protest his relative insignificance on the
world's stage by driving a stolen gasoline tanker
truck into a mall's food court.
One of the things that has struck me in this post-9/11
America is the near-hysterical search for "Safety."
It has trumped our constitutional rights (frex
indefinite hold without formal charges and no access
to legal counsel), shanghai'd common sense (does
anyone think that a would-be hijacker won't be piled
upon by a dozen citizens determined to prevent another
9/11? and how could said hijacker threaten anybody
with nail-clippers!?), and diverted attention from the
many dangerous acts we engage in daily (some of our
choosing, others unavoidable). To seriously consider
creating a massive government database on what
_everyone_ does (credit card transactions, bank
accounts, phone records etc. etc.), with a calculated
false-positive rate in the thousands, yet leave our
ports relatively unguarded and our borders porous is
neither rational nor effective.
Thousands die every year in traffic accidents (many of
these involving drunk drivers), in gang warfare, and
of diseases known to be greatly influenced by
lifestyle choices. Individuals pay for or are "given"
cosmetic surgeries like breast augmentation, a
procedure with a small but definite risk of *death.*
Not because it's a life-saving operation, or she was
in a horrible accident that mangled her body, but
because she...wants to *impress* some boy? Feels
_unworthy_of_attention_ as her very own self?
How pathetic and stupid is that?
Not a week goes by but I read/hear of a local woman
raped/killed, all too often by a man with a prior
conviction of violent behavior. I react to this
knowledge by being aware of my environs at all times,
being extra vigilant in certain circumstances (frex at
a bar), and avoiding clearly dangerous scenarios (frex
walking alone downtown alleys at night). (OK, I'm also
prepared to deal lethally with an intruder, but I
wouldn't advocate that for everyone.) I do _not_ do
background checks on every man who talks to me,
consider all men 'potential rapists,' or hide in my
house except for nervous forays to the grocery store.
The former are reasonable and protective, the latter
paranoid and self-imprisoning. My risk of being
attacked is not eliminated, but reduced, compared to
what it would be if I took no precautions whatsoever.
I *cannot* make the risk 0%. Ever. No matter what I
do, or do not do, some chance remains. I'm not going
to let that stop me from hiking by myself, going to
the grocery at night, or talking to a cute guy.
I drive nearly every day on the freeway, where weekly
someone is killed in a car crash; I ride a half-a-ton
of muscle and bone pre-programmed to react powerfully
to anything that startles it (which ranges from an
actually dangerous pack of pit bulls to an utterly
harmless shadow on the ground). I do not support
banning alcohol to improve my driving safety (for
several reasons, but the relevant one is that such a
ban will have multiple adverse proven consequences),
nor lobotomizing/torturing my horse into a docile
creature incapable of acting for itself (I accept that
this spirited creature I love might someday
accidentally hurt/kill me).
What is reasonable and has a good chance of reducing
risk from terrorist attack is logical to enact.
Strip-searching Grandma because she forgot to remove
her nail scissors from her purse...isn't.
Debbi
who BTW waves and grins at Dan ;)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
