Liberals: "Rational," or Just Rash?

Articles

Nicholas Meyler

Liberals: "Rational," or Just Rash?
Sept 18, 2003

After the brouhaha raised by Academician/Spy Rear- Admiral Poindexter's recently quashed PAM (i.e. "The Terror Futures Market"), I was led to reflect on the objections of the Liberals and Democrats to this far-thinking venture, which went so far as to employ a 'radical' methodology that might easily have issued from the brain of John Forbes Nash, Nobel Economist.

For one, the early objections came from two Democrats, prior to Rumsfeld cancelling the program. Now, "The Nation" runs an article discussing the "failures" of the Defense Department ("Ideas [they] Wish They Never Had"). Apart from the fact that rival publication "The Economist" beat "The Nation" to the punch in backing this research, the acrimony is highly irrational. Katrina vanden Heuvel's "Coalition of the Rational" effort to the contrary, little is rational about Liberal thought.

From driving on the freeway to riding attractions at Disneyland, we all fundamentally make wagers on Terror and Catastrophe. Clearly, the objection that such a practise is outrageous or immoral, is, itself, outrageous and irrational.

Whatever small probability exists, every time we step outside our houses, we take some (small) risks. In Los Angeles, we all bet, to some extent, that an Earthquake will not destroy our homes. Insurance companies do the same, in offerring financial remuneration to those who suffer damages.

Taking my recent vacation to Mt. Rainier as an example, allow me to discuss the virtues of "terrorbetting." Frankly, I doubt that mountaineering is as safe as riding "Big Thunder Mountain," at Disneyland; yet, the recent headlines emotional impact would perhaps lead some astray.

Approximately 11,000 climbers per year essay to summit Rainier. Typically, they will spend two days on the mountain, with an average mortality rate (over the last ten years) of three people per year. This provides a mortality rate of 3 people per 22,000 people-days, or about 1 death per 7,000 people-days. In contrast, the current occupation in Iraq has resulted in about 250 deaths among 250,000 American troops, over approximately 180 days. This calculates to 1 death per 180,000 people-days. Speaking from a purely statistical perspective, on a day-to-day basis, being a soldier in Iraq is about 26 times safer than climbing Mt. Rainier, which I would consider a very acceptable risk. Still, the Liberals whine about "not having a plan for the Occupation."

I'm not suggesting that I would volunteer to serve in Iraq for a vacation, or that there is nothing courageous about being a soldier in Iraq. Still, the math shows us something that a "Coalition of the Rational" doesn't want us to think about. So, the Occupation is no "walk in the Park;" still, should we simply walk away and hand back Iraq to Saddam Hussein, as the Liberals would have us do?

Liberals talk about "not having a plan," but, I haven't heard any Liberals discussing Al Gore's climb of Mt. Rainier in 1999, when he was lost in a white-out (in an environment with a mortality rate 26 times higher than in Iraq). What was his plan, there?

Let's talk about planlessness, sometime!

------------

Email Nicholas Meyler: nmeyler@gte.net

Comment on this column in the forum.

Tell a friend about this site!

------------