2005-09-09
What do you want to fight: terrorism or death?
Dr. Erica Frank of the Emory University School of Medicine provides a wonderful cost-benefit analysis of the resources we have misdirected to the "war on terror." In reports posted on several news sites this morning, Dr. Frank notes that on September 11, 2001, 1800 more Americans died from common diseases than from the terrorist attacks. And those disease-related deaths have kept happening at that rate every day since 9/11. Yet we ignore the mundane and divert our attention and limited government resources to the spectacular.
2005-09-06
Osama vs. Katrina
While I prefer not to pile onto the bandwagon of blame over whether or not the government has responded to Hurricane Katrina with sufficient speed and determination, one aspect of the government's disaster response has bubbled to my attention this morning. An AP article this morning, "First Responders Warned of Change," notes that since Homeland Security subsumed FEMA in March 2003, a grea deal of the training and equipment provided to emergency personnel has been aimed toward terrorist attacks rather than natural or accidental disasters.
Again, our disaster agencies (and there could be a double meaning in that phrase) need to look at the real threats facing the country. Terrorists have staged three major attacks on American soil in the last 15 years (World Trade Center 1993, one in Oklahoma City 1995, and WTC/DC 2001). On his best day, Osama managed to kill 3000 people and wreck four planes and handful of buildings. Hurricanes have hit the country every year, causing massive evacuations and economic disruption. Katrina has destroyed entire towns and cities, killed thousands who remain to be counted, and pushed us toward a worldwide energy crisis. Which threat poses the greater danger to the US? The numbers and the aftermath suggest hurricanes beat Osama.
If I'm a federal official trying to spend as wisely as possible a finite amount of taxpayers' money, I have to set priorities, and I have to base those priorities on a clear risk analysis. Our disaster responders should prepare for as many dangers as they can, but if they have to make choices about where to spend their money, they should address the biggest, most imminent threats first. The past week appears to show that the biggest threat to our civilization comes not from a few wackos in a cave, but from Mother Nature herself.
Again, our disaster agencies (and there could be a double meaning in that phrase) need to look at the real threats facing the country. Terrorists have staged three major attacks on American soil in the last 15 years (World Trade Center 1993, one in Oklahoma City 1995, and WTC/DC 2001). On his best day, Osama managed to kill 3000 people and wreck four planes and handful of buildings. Hurricanes have hit the country every year, causing massive evacuations and economic disruption. Katrina has destroyed entire towns and cities, killed thousands who remain to be counted, and pushed us toward a worldwide energy crisis. Which threat poses the greater danger to the US? The numbers and the aftermath suggest hurricanes beat Osama.
If I'm a federal official trying to spend as wisely as possible a finite amount of taxpayers' money, I have to set priorities, and I have to base those priorities on a clear risk analysis. Our disaster responders should prepare for as many dangers as they can, but if they have to make choices about where to spend their money, they should address the biggest, most imminent threats first. The past week appears to show that the biggest threat to our civilization comes not from a few wackos in a cave, but from Mother Nature herself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)