Have You Seen This?

The New York Times is now allowing its writers to actively brainstorm on how to most effectively carry out terror attacks in the U.S.  You know, if one were inclined to do so.   Steven D. Levitt—who is, by the way, a professor of economics at the frickin’ University of Chicago, which I could’ve sworn was supposed to be populated by smart people—opened up a little blue-skying session as to how one might best go about killing Americans and instilling the maximum amount of fear possible.  He asks for his  readers to write in with ideas.  Ideas.  You know, because this is all just academic: no harm in idly conjuring ideas for killing one’s fellow Americans.  If we could just put our heads together on this one, people, we could really get shit done!

Some gems:

1.  “One thing that scares people is the thought that they could be a victim of an attack. With that in mind, I’d want to do something that everybody thinks might be directed at them, even if the individual probability of harm is very low.”

     Wow.  The next Jack Handy, except not funny.  Great. 

2.  “Also, I’d want to create the feeling that an army of terrorists exists, which I’d accomplish by pulling off multiple attacks at once, and then following them up with more shortly thereafter.”

        The “feeling” that an army of terrorists exists. . .hey, ever heard of al Qaeda?     Radical Islam?  There is an actual army of jihadists who have devoted their lives to killing as many of us as possible.  Is this guy joking?  If so, he really should try to be funny.  Because that’s, you know, the whole point of jokes and being clever.  

3.  “Third, unless terrorists always insist on suicide missions (which I can’t imagine they would), it would be optimal to hatch a plan in which your terrorists aren’t killed or caught in the act, if possible.”

        He can’t imagine terrorists would insist on suicide missions. . .this just boggles the mind.  Again, is he serious?   Surely he can’t be.  Surely he isn’t really that stupid.

4.  “I’m sure many readers have far better ideas. I would love to hear them. Consider that posting them could be a form of public service: I presume that a lot more folks who oppose and fight terror read this blog than actual terrorists. So by getting these ideas out in the open, it gives terror fighters a chance to consider and plan for these scenarios before they occur.”

        I want to punch this jackass in his smirking, overpaid face.  Levitt, we are not “terror fighters.”  We are citizens who will be almost completely helpless to stop a terrorist attack plotted in secret, once it has begun.  This article is akin to asking young females to list the various ways by which they might be talked into letting a stranger in their home, for the benefit of aspiring serial killers—under the pretense that it will “empower” the young women as they are being raped and murdered.  It’s not merely offensive or inappropriate: it’s obscene.  

Levitt discusses terrorists as  if they’re creatures of myth about whom we can only idly speculate, like unicorns or fire-breathing dragons.  If someone like him is getting paid to write for the most prestigious and storied newspaper in the nation, maybe we’re not fit to survive the war that has been declared against us by those oh-so-peaceful sons of Allah.  

So, what I’ve learned from the New York Times today is:

(1)  You can be a complete idiot and write for the Grey Lady; and

(2)  You can be a complete idiot and make a living teaching economics at the University of Chicago.

#1 is nothing new.  #2 is.  And again, if he’s just trying to be “funny,” well, I still think he deserves to get the crap beat out of him.  He couldn’t be less funny if he tried. 

Advertisements

~ by lewdandlascivious on August 8, 2007.

7 Responses to “Have You Seen This?”

  1. Whoa! That was news to me. How bizarre – what were they trying to accomplish?

  2. He was right about one thing though. When the D.C. sniper was doing his thing, my father said to me, “If Muslim terrorists chose to do this we couldn’t stop them.” Not only that, but such a tactic would also probably lead to a citizenry willing to abolish the second amendment- not good at all.

  3. […] QueenofSwords […]

  4. It seems our favorite whacky Muslim living in the west (but hating every minute) has posted a poem celebrating those who blow themselves up for Allah….

    http://shaheenvision.wordpress.com/2007/07/27/the-blessed-mothers-of-martyrs/#more-103

  5. Wow, that is crazy. What a nut case. This actually fits with my theory that we are now in a fear motivated society. Both neocons and dems use it for their political gain. Politicians have replaced the old method of promising dreams with protecting us from nightmares. This little fear tactic can aid in further hacking of the second amendment like TT mentions above.

  6. Patrick, I’m kind of agreeing with you on that. But I think the politicians are not driving it; rather, they’re exploiting a cultural trend that gives them greater and greater power. It’s happening throughout the West—fearfulness and appeasement among populations that formerly did not take shit from anyone (e.g., England). People are more concerned with voting themselves more government freebies than they are with being free, independent citizens, and they turn over their autonomy to incompetent politicians in return for handouts. If we lose to the Islamist nutjobs, it will only be because we refuse to stand up and fight them for real.

  7. Thanks. Now I want to vomit. Concur with the statement that this is akin to speculating about how to best rape women. Bloody bastard.

    The problem with liberals is that they assume the only way to stop something is to regulate it. They are hoping that our response to terrorism would be regulation. Of course, if a bunch of citizens started being proactive (I believe that Isreal’s citizenry is that way), such terrorism measures would not work. It was proved with Flight 93 that we don’t need the government to do things for us. We can protect ourselves – not perfectly, but we do a lot better fighting on our own than waiting for someone to come to the rescue or babysit us.

    So what have we learned from this jerkoff?
    1) We should respond to terrorist attacks by increasing our personal vigilence and decreasing our expectations of government protection;
    2) The news media ought to stop overdramatising small issues and using scare tactics. We’ve known for a while that you’re more likely to get shot in DC than in Iraq (even though one is a “gun-free” zone and the other a freakin war zone), but the media doesn’t tell us every time someone gets nailed in the District. Likewise, 44,000 people a year die in car accidents and very few die in airplane disasters. If the media paid the same attention to car issues as it did to military deaths or terrorism, no one would drive; and
    3) We need to wipe out the preexisting army of terrorists, then move on to NY Times writers.

    Rant over. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: