Terrorism and risk tolerance

Posted on by

By all accounts, we screwed up in not stopping Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab from ever boarding the Christmas Day flight from Amsterdam to Detroit. But before we become too absorbed in self-blame, it’s worth noting a few points:

• Almost all of the red flags (he paid cash for ticket; he had no luggage; his father had warned U.S. about his extremist links) were things that should have led to his detection and apprehension before he ever made it to the security screening device. Certainly, no changes to in-flight rules and regulations would have helped in these matters. So let’s not get carried away with ridiculous in-flight procedures (such as turning off the televised map that shows the plane’s location or forcing you to stow your laptop for the last hour of flight) that will almost certainly not have any effect on any future terrorist attempts.

• While there are definitely things that need to change to prevent another similar terrorist attempt, this doesn’t mean that our current system was a complete failure. Yes, some luck was involved in the attempt not succeeding. And the actions of other passengers certainly played a role. But I believe it is also true that the attempt failed at least partly because our current security measures forced the terrorist to use a low-probability-of-success method. Otherwise, he would have had many more “desirable” options to choose from.

• We can never be 100% certain that an attack will not succeed. As we try to get the risk closer and closer to zero, there is a trade-off: we give up more and more of our privacy rights and we make flying less and less enjoyable (some would argue it is already completely unenjoyable; count me in this group). At some point, we have to ask: Is the extra security worth the trade-off? For example: Would it be okay to require that every passenger be strip searched if that meant that the odds of a terrorist attacked dropped only from 2 in a million to 1 in a million? I would say no. Bear in mind that no lives have been lost as a result of a terrorist attack on a U.S. plane since 2001.

So let’s fix what needs fixing. But let’s not get carried away and ruin what is already working well enough.

The Dover Trial Merits Top Ten Consideration

Posted on by

Having now read several “top ten news stories of the decade” lists, such as this one from the Associated Press, I was disappointed to see that one of my top choices was nowhere to be found.

What is my choice? It’s the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District “evolution” trial of 2005. Without doubt, it is the most significant such trial in U.S. history, easily outdistancing even the Scopes trial.

At least for supporters of evolution, the Dover trial showcased the arguments and motives of both sides of this debate in the starkest and clearest of terms. Scientists were permitted to offer evidence for evolution with a detail and scope rarely if ever before seen in a legal forum. The deceptions and religious motives of the opposing side were made equally clear. This culminated in a judge’s ruling that was a more thorough indictment of “intelligent design” than anyone had predicted — or might have even hoped for.

With related stories, such as the voting out of office of all the Dover school board members who supported the intelligent design policy, this story combined melodrama with science. No wonder than that it has been the subject of numerous books (including my favorite, The Battle over the Meaning of Everything) and a superb Nova episode (Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial).

The evolution debate casts a wide shadow — far beyond this trial. While there is no debate among scientists, the issue continues to play a role in national politics, cropping up for example in the 2008 presidential election via Sarah Palin’s support for creationism.

The Dover trial did not put an end to the creationist/intelligent design movement. No trial could do that. But it has apparently resulted in a permanent shift in strategy. The movement has curtailed, if not entirely cut back, its attempts to force intelligent design into school curricula based on claims that ID is science — especially so if a court challenge seems likely. If for no other reason, this trial deserves serious consideration as one of the top news stories of the decade. It’s certainly on my list.

(Atheist) Signs for Our Times

Posted on by

In a New York Times column, Nicholas Kristof expresses hope that a new crop of books, with titles like “The Case for God,” will lead to a truce in the “religious wars.” This is just one of several articles I have read recently — that all seem to suggest that prominent atheists (such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris) represent a form of intolerance that is equal to those of religious fundamentalists at the opposite extreme. What we need to find, so the argument goes, is some middle compromise.

I have already stated my general opposition to this viewpoint. I won’t repeat all of those arguments here. I will, however, point out one particular dismay: Although the “truce” articles pay lip service to the need for accommodations by “both sides,” the onus of responsibility always seems to fall on the atheists. It’s as if they are saying: “Things were going so well before people like Dawkins came along to upset the apple cart. Can’t we just return to the civility we used to have?”

First off, unless you ignore the inflammatory statements made over the years by religious extremists, it can hardly be said that things were civil before Richard Dawkins arrived on the scene. To the contrary, any superficial appearance of civility was only because religion has had the playing field to itself, fending off criticism by claiming that it should be immune to critique. The “new atheists” did not create the current controversy. Rather, they are simply the ones to be outspoken in pointing out that there is another possibility to consider (a bit like the child who shouts “the emperor has no clothes”). If one believes that God does not exist, then it follows that all religions are wrong and are based on a myth. It is not intolerant to point out this implication, any more than it is intolerant to point out that humans are the product of evolution.

All of this, however, is not the primary reason for my blog entry today. Rather, it is something more specific. On December 2, a New York Times article described a new advertising campaign for atheism. It features signs on buses and trains with statements such as “No god? … No problem!” and “Be good for goodness’ sake.” A major sponsor of the campaign is the American Humanist Association.

In a letter to the editor, Edd Doerr (a former head of the American Humanist Association) wrote that he was “embarrassed” by the campaign. He argued that we should avoid the divisiveness resulting from these ads and instead focus on those things we (atheists and religious believers) hold in common, such as “peace, civil liberties, religious freedom, the environment, social justice…” He described the signs as “name-calling and invective.”

Whew! I was both saddened and angry to see this letter. To me, it captures almost everything that is wrong with the current criticism. To have it written by someone within the humanist movement was especially disheartening.

First of all, to suggest that these signs represent “name-calling and invective” is almost libelous. They are incredibly tame, especially compared to the true invective that is often directed toward atheists. “Be good for goodness’ sake”? Where is the invective in this? If atheists are not to be “allowed” to express their views even in these mild terms, in what form can we express our views? Or, to turn it around, should any signs promoting a religious belief, no matter how mild, be banned as well?

But let’s put all that aside. Suppose we accept the idea, however wrong, that these signs are provocative and hostile in some way. Does this mean that these signs are necessarily a bad thing? Hardly. When it comes to making progress against discrimination, being provocative has often been a requirement.

Where would African Americans be today if Rosa Parks had quietly sat in the back of the bus? Or if Martin Luther King had never staged a sit-in? Where would women’s rights be today if not for the provocations of people such as Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinham — women who were criticized as “strident” in expressing their beliefs?

The actions of such people may not be the only ingredients necessary to move the country forward. Conciliation will also be needed. But without these actions to lead the way, there will be no movement at all.

As such, these signs represent a mild and relatively polite form of political activism. If nothing else, they help make it more acceptable for atheists to be open about their beliefs and will ultimately lead to greater tolerance of such beliefs (see this Wikipedia page for a discussion of discrimination against atheists). We may actually already be seeing the beginnings of this shift. As pointed out in the above-cited NYT article, there is a “growing number of nonbelievers. Fifteen percent of Americans identified themselves as having ‘no religion’ in a 2008, up from 8 percent in 1990…”

Sorry Edd, but it is the rest of us who should be embarrassed by you. Your letter represents the sort of frightened head-in-the-sand attitude that, if followed a half-century ago, would have resulted in blacks still drinking from separate water fountains today. As an atheist, I am proud of these signs. I also look forward to the day when they are no longer needed.

V: In danger of contracting X-Files Disease

Posted on by

So I’ve watched the season thus far of V. It’s been good enough to keep my interest — and keep me returning for the next episode. But I fear this will not last too much longer.

Why? Because the concept behind V is much better suited to a mini-series (as was the original show upon which the series is based; although it too was expanded into a one-season series the next year) than a multi-season series with an unknown end point.

Essentially, the plot boils down to answering two main questions: “What are the aliens really up to?” and “When will the majority of humans figure out what’s going on and fight back?” It’s hard to imagine how you can drag out these answers for more than one or (at most) two seasons. I see the writers trying here; in the last episode (until next March), the heroes argued why it wouldn’t be wise to simply expose the aliens just yet. I wasn’t convinced.

There are also some plot points that stretch my credulity (such as inter-species romantic love and a human pregnant from an alien). My knowledge of biology and evolution suggests that this has a zero probability. But that’s another story.

If the people behind V keep trying to stretch things out (as they apparently intend to do), they risk the dreaded “X-Files” disease. This is when the answers to the central conspiracy/mystery of a series are artificially delayed, so as to keep the series going for as long as it remains popular. After awhile, viewers get annoyed at how contrived everything becomes, how the plot never seems to advance (despite teasers suggesting that something will actually happen). Viewers ultimately abandon the series because they just don’t care anymore. Or at least don’t care to wait anymore.

That’s what happened to The X-Files in its later seasons. And this was exactly what was in danger of happening to Lost, until the third season, when the producers got ABC to agree to set the sixth season as the final one for the series. With a known end point, the producers/writers could now map out the plot without having to worry about “What if we need to make the series last a seventh season?; We can’t afford to reveal too much.” After this decision was made, Lost quickly evolved to become one of the greatest most compelling series in television history. I am counting the minutes until the final season begins on February 2, 2010.

Flash Forward, another new series this year, has so far done a much better job of handling this balancing act. I feel mostly satisfied that events are progressing, even though the fate of the series (in terms of how many seasons it may last) is still unknown. And, from what I have read, major questions will indeed be answered before Season 1 is over.

V, in contrast, has been unable to figure this out. Given the limits of the plot, it may be an impossible task. Still, unless it figures something out, I predict the series will burn out before the first season is over. I give it low odds of surviving to a second season and near-zero odds of a third.