“3) The ‘zero-risk’ mentality vs ‘acceptable’ risk. Every society accepts some risks as part of its overall social contract. People die when they drive cars, they die when they drink, they die from crime, they die when planes go down, they die on bikes. The only way to eliminate the risk would be to eliminate the activities — no driving, no drinking, no weapons of any kind, no planes or bikes. While risk/reward tradeoffs vary between, say, Sweden and China, no nation accepts the total social controls that would be necessary to eliminate risk altogether.” (from: ‘Like a Full-Body Massage’: Thinking About the TSA)
Yup. I wrote about this before. And I agree. At this point we’ve gone too far in (pretending to) make it impossible for a terrorist hit of some kind. We can’t prevent it at 100% and the way we are going at it and the direction it’s taking us is not acceptable. Unfortunately there’s something about our political discourse that makes taking this position a hard one for an actual political ‘leader’ to espouse.