We issue 200,000 student visas a year. One of the hijackers had an F-1 student visa. The majority had tourist, business, or visit visas.
So if you are looking to protect the country, a more logical thing to do is ban (1) male (2) Saudi Arabians (3) between the ages of 21 and 43 (4) religious (5) possibly training in flight school.
IX.XI attacker profiles
And, yet, an irrational “strategy” as such would foment more terrorism:
It is necessary to note that relative deprivation
creating exclusion is a comprehensive phenomenon. It
is not merely a socio-economic driver. In fact, relative
deprivation in terms of political space and human
dignity is often even more significant than socioeconomic
factors. The Palestinians in Israel-occupied
territories, whose mobility is curtailed by the Israeli
defence forces, feel deprived of dignity. The Tamils in
Sri Lanka, who have to give up their linguistic advantage
and political balance of power because of constitutional
changes, feel deprived. The Acholis were socioeconomically
deprived for years but it wasn’t until the
Musevini government began to target them specifically
that they took up arms. The Moros of the Philippines
who see migrants from other parts of the country
dominating their economy feel relatively deprived not
just in an economic sense but also in a political and
cultural context. The Iraqis who see their country
overtaken by an external force feel relatively deprived
irrespective of the economic condition of any
particular citizen.
According to a report by the strategic foresight group.
Another reason why “terrorism” is a poor qualifier. We define terrorism to suit our “needs”.
It is possible for any ideology, delivered by
determined and able leaders, anywhere in the world, to
transform those feeling excluded from their society
into terrorists or extremists. In public discourse,
however, there is an unfortunate effort made to
emphasize certain forms of terrorism. As the global
power structure is dominated by the West, attacks on
Western interests are defined as terrorism. The attacks
that do not target the United States and its allies are
defined as acts of ethnic conflict, freedom struggle, or
mere violence
Terrorism is vague and ill-defined. A “terrorist nation” is too, by consequence.
Western discourse on terrorism, with a focus on
Islamist extremism, is therefore neither entirely about
terrorism nor about Islamist extremism. It is not
entirely about terrorism because it does not include
terrorism practised by several national, sub-national
groups, labeling some of them as liberation
movements. It is not entirely about terrorism because
it hardly considers rural-based revolutionary
organisations, responsible for killing thousands of
people in Asia and Latin America. It is not entirely
about Islamist extremism because it blames the groups
in the Middle East that have no ambition to alter the
international order, while giving inadequate attention
to the specific organisations that want to establish a
Caliphate by violent means and that are positioning
themselves to succeed Al Qaeda in the International
Islamic Front for Jihad against Jews and Crusaders. In
ignoring the threats of terrorism around the world
from nationalist, sub-nationalist and revolutionary
groups that commit violent acts and ignoring the threats
posed by Central and South Asian Islamist
organisations to the global security, Western discourse
is selectively focussed on the Middle East. It is more
about the strategic interests of the West in a particular
region than the threats to humanity emanating from
the ideologies of mass destruction.
The media manipulates the focus and definition of terrorism by framing.
The mutually obsessive discourse in Western and
Islamic societies is manipulated by the media, either
by design or otherwise. If North Korea tests a nuclear
weapon the news disappears from the front page of
most newspapers within a couple of days. If Iraq or
Iran is suspected to have even the most elementary
capacity to develop such a weapon, this is major
news for months after months. If Lord’s Resistance
Army forces children to kill their siblings in thousands,
it is a human interest story that appears only
occasionally in the inside pages. If Iran’s President
threatens Israel, it is major news and the subject of
endless op-ed analysis.
In short, terrorism exists on exclusion. Especially unfair exclusion and perceived loss of dignity.
What do you suppose a disproportionate and ignorant measure like banning students from “terrorist nations” accomplishes?
It gets ignorant people to feel good about their safety. It excludes more people who are already living under conditions that fuel terrorism, and it completely misses the point.
January 1st, 2008
Posted by
eaglescout |
World, Ron Paul, Psychology, Intellectual Dishonesty, Analysis, 2008 Election, Terrorism, Al-Qaeda, Strategy, Truth |
2 comments
But you’ll get it.
—
It may be easy to reject Ron Paul at first because you don’t understand him or his policies.
You can probably look at the other candidates’ names or faces and make a quick decision that way.
But if you spend any time making a thoughtful decision, and if you get past the learning curve, you’ll love Ron Paul.
—
Libertarianism is a political philosophy that upholds the principle of individual liberty. Libertarians maintain that all persons are the absolute owners of their own lives, and should be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property, provided they allow others the same liberty.
It is also one of the only political philosophies backed up by modern economics and psychology instead of pure dogma.
The opposite of libertarianism is authoritarianism; meaning you submit to authority simply because “you should”. Giuliani is a prime example of an authoritarian. Giuliani wants to tell you what to do even though he is no expert and even though he has no logical or rational explanation. Of course, Giuliani would never say that he doesn’t have a rational explanation. He’ll simply say something that sounds good like ‘9.11′.
An example of authoritarianism is Hillary Clinton’s assertion that we should ban mature video games. A libertarian would leave such decisions to the parents of a child. Another example of authoritarianism is the move to ban trans fats in NY. Sure, trans fats are unhealthy and undesirable. A libertarian would let people make the decision themselves.
In other words, libertarianism maximizes your ability to make your own choices. Authoritarianism maximizes Giuliani and Hillary’s ability to make choices for you, even when you disagree with them.
And what happens when Giuliani and Hillary make a bad decisions for you and you choose not to comply? Tough. If you disobey you get punished.
Next thing you know, you won’t be allowed to eat at your favorite restaurant.
—
A free market describes a theoretical, idealized market where the prices of goods and services is arranged completely by the mutual non-coerced consent of sellers and buyers, determined generally by the supply and demand law with no government interference in the regulation of costs, supply and demand. In theory, a free market will affect the price of goods such that the price reflects the real value of the goods.
An example of a society with free market society is Hong Kong. Hong Kong is ranked #1 when it comes to economic freedom. Hong Kong enjoys an employment rate nearly identical to that of the United States and there are no minimum wage laws. This keeps inflation at bay, which means residents can afford more with their money. The lack of artificial manipulation of the market means an umbrella costs more when it’s raining than when it’s not. And why shouldn’t it? An umbrella is worth more when it’s raining.
It also means there is more competition, and thus prices stay competitive. People will buy your umbrella if it is better or cheaper. In turn people make and sell better, cheaper umbrellas.
An opposing concept is the idea of nationalized healthcare systems, such as Hillary and Edwards’ proposals. These programs are wasteful because they raise taxes to pay people that have no incentive to provide good healthcare. They also raise the price of healthcare because people go to the doctor even when they don’t need one. They order expensive tests when they don’t need any. The patient (consumer) has no idea what their medication or their doctor visit costs, so there is no feedback that pushes prices back or indicates which services are more efficient. The end result is worse healthcare, longer waiting lines, and higher taxes.
If you are more interested in the concept of free markets watch John Stossel’s “Whose Body is it Anyway” and “Stupid in America“.
—
Studies involving psychology of ownership show that people place more value on goods they own than on public goods. This means private property gets taken care of better than public property. This is great news for the environment. In true free market conditions (that is, with no corporate welfare) an oil company has a real incentive to minimize its effect on the environment for two reasons: (1) It can resell the land it has bought at a better price and (2) If they pollute the surrounding private property they are liable for damages to private property.
Better news for the environment: If the oil companies do not get subsidies to drill for oil, and they must pay for the plot of land they will drill on, the price of the plot of land will increase. This means oil companies better do what they can to resell the plot of land once it has been drilled; and more importantly, it provides a real incentive for the oil companies to invest in other technologies - both to drill more carefully, and to avoid oil dependency.
This also explains why our government (and in particular the military branch) is the biggest polluter in the United States. What incentive does the military have to keep its easily-acquired land clean?
References
Jeffrey J. Rachlinski and Forest Jourden. “Remedies and the Psychology of Ownership”, 51 Vanderbilt Law Review 1541-82 (1998).
Recommended
If you are interested in Ron Paul, and this counter-intuitive concept, I highly recommend reading Think Rink - Freeing Minds by Smashing Paradigms.
September 21st, 2007
Posted by
eaglescout |
Psychology, Ron Paul, Libertarianism, Freedom, 2008 Election |
no comments
Loss of control
The point of voting in the elections isn’t to predict the winner. If it were, it would be called gambling, not voting. People vote to *choose* the winner, not to give away the little influence they have to yellow journalism.
People sometimes vote for whom they perceive will be the winner, because they feel like they have more control over the outcome. But that’s just an illusion, because you rejected your first choice. In reality you lost AND you didn’t even try. In reality, you forwent the little control you had, just to make yourself feel good.
That’s cowardly.
Consequences of pursuing the illusion
When you vote based on popular perceptions, you are handing your vote over to the media, as they control perceptions. You are perpetuating their illusion.
Exceptions
There are strategic times to vote for a second or third choice; which is why it would be good to have multiple choices and run-off voting range voting (thank you to commenter Bruce for this reference). However, if your first choice is Ron Paul, when all democratic and neoconservative candidates look the same, it is illogical not to vote for your first choice.
A Solution
If you need to predict the winner in order to feel good and impress your friends, create a time capsule and jot down your prediction; or spend your money on exotic gambling. If you predicted the winner, congratulations, you have a license to impress. If your favorite candidate won, you should instead be ecstatic.
August 30th, 2007
Posted by
eaglescout |
Ron Paul, Psychology, Analysis, 2008 Election, Journalism, Truth |
one comment