George W. Bush, the security threat to America and the states that support him

Anyway, the point isn't to say that people in rural portions of the country are entirely insulated from terrorism; I just find it interesting that, rhetorically, people in presumably non-target areas seem to have a serious visceral fear of it that people in target-type areas don't, necessarily. Which is in some ways natural; living in big cities means dealing with a certain sense of non-safety from the get-go, and terrorism-wise means dealing with the idea, on some level or other. But it's nevertheless interesting.

no one's saying it couldn't, of course. only that if you live in NY or LA or Chicago, the chances of your dying in a terrorist attack are like a million times greater than the chances of anyone who lives in a rural area. unless it's near a nuclear plant, perhaps.

also, let's talk about a public secret here. terrorists want to kill Americans, but they want to kill jews even more. not too many of them in, say, Dothan, Alabama.

It seems fairly obvious to me that terrorism is a tactic, and has nothing to do with what "type" of person employs it. A person killed by a truck bomb is a person killed by a truck bomb is a person killed by a truck bomb. Because Oklahoma City may be populated with those "type[s] of people" (ugh I can't believe you used that phrase) and therefore may seem more homogenous to you and me and every other "urbane" New Yorker doesn't mean that those "type[s] of people" shouldn't be afforded protection from an event that has already proven to be as much an eventuality as it is here, no matter who carried it out!

Also I think it's totally specious to say that people in big cities are somehow NOT afraid of terrorism, and people out in the sticks are just big dumb "type[s] of people" who are the only ones susceptible to fear. Because even though I agree with some premises of this thread, I do think that's what some of us are saying here, and I don't buy it.

I found it very telling that these states/district are also recent (ie, GWB's term) terrorist targets or probably highly likely to be targeted if another terrorist group attacks an American city, and even yet, are least persuaded by Bush's commitment to protect the American people from terrorism.

I'm pretty sure that Clinton referred to them as terrorist acts. Dunno about Bush, that is a good question.

no one's saying it couldn't, of course. only that if you live in NY or LA or Chicago, the chances of your dying in a terrorist attack are like a million times greater than the chances of anyone who lives in a rural area. unless it's near a nuclear plant, perhaps.

How does one calculate the chances of dying in a terrorist attack? Is it something akin to the chances of being struck by lightning?

also, let's talk about a public secret here. terrorists want to kill Americans, but they want to kill jews even more. not too many of them in, say, Dothan, Alabama.

y'know, gabbneb, there are Jews in the South. And comments like that only serve to marginalize them. You don't know how many Jews live in Dothan, nor that there aren't any at all, so I wish you'd stop. It's offensive.

I agree with that. That's one reason why I'm for Kerry too. I'm talking about statements like this:

"I just find it interesting that, rhetorically, people in presumably non-target areas seem to have a serious visceral fear of it that people in target-type areas don't, necessarily."

which are completely impossible to even verify.

How does one calculate the chances of dying in a terrorist attack? Is it something akin to the chances of being struck by lightning?

I don't understand how this responds to my statement.

xpost: does Nabisco have to point out that most domestic terrorists are distrustful of government and that most who are distrustful of government live in rural areas?

Where is this coming from?

Gabbneb, I'm saying it's pretty silly to speculate on the Jewish population of a place you've never been, that you have no familiarity with. And yes, you are offending me by making statements like that. I find it a really weird and twisted mischaracterization on many levels. The South is not a monolithic, homogenous place, and it never has been.

does Nabisco have to point out that most domestic terrorists are distrustful of government and that most who are distrustful of government live in rural areas?

this doesn't follow at all. I'd wager that there are more people who are distrustful of government in large urban areas because, duh, that's where most people live. I also don't think it follows that people who are distrustful of the government are necessarily domestic terrorists, or we'd have a major problem on our hands. Domestic terrorism is just like international terrorism: a real threat, but so far a very small and isolated one.

As far as the "chances" of dying in a terrorist attack, I was serious with that question. I would like to know what metrics and methods determine such a figure, if it exists. I'm not convinced that anybody knows for sure.

And so all I've been saying is that I'm interested in the fact that from what I can see, rhetorically, a lot of voters in these areas that aren't "targets" (meaning targets for the kind of terrorism we're all talking about in this election) talk very strongly of a feeling of insecurity and fear, and talk about it as one of the prime animating things in their voting descisions. Which I don't see as much from people in actual "target" areas. Possibly it's just a difference in rhetoric and not really in feeling; possibly some of it is what Tom says, with people in certain cities having to process and deal with and, well, "get over" the threat; possibly it's something else.

you think it's pretty silly to speculate that the Jewish population of a randomly-picked small city is not comparable, per capita, to that of NY or LA?

ever seen a map of blue and red states? familiar with the militia movement?

Not even Germans (says he who dated a German from Alsace!)??

the argument i'm advancing here is that what people talk about, and how they do it or not do it, is not reflective of how they feel, comparatively. is Bush more religious than Kerry because he talks about it more?

well regardless I think gabbneb is full of shit. All over this thread.

I'd like to know why.

regarding American Jewry:

http://www.detnews.com/2003/nation/0309/11/a09-268491.htm

or better, http://www.uja.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=60346, or

http://www.ajc.org/InTheMedia/PressReleases.asp?did=602 (only synagogues)

A. Yes, not even Germans; and

B. Germans are Europeans, 'White', and from a country with a very Christian background and as such, would not likely be considered as immigrés like Maghrebins or Sub-Sahrans would.

xpost: Oh, I thought immigrant = foreign national. Lo siento muchisimo.

But Alsace has a lower absolute immigrant population (in the real sense of foreign nationals) than many, many other parts of France.

(xpost)

So the choice to accept greater risk along with the reward of not uprooting your life to live outside a big city = not giving a shit?

If you're a commercial air traveler do you not give a shit?

Am I stereotyping 'flyover states' by pointing to their consistent votes for the party that purports to favor limited government in the face of a party that purportedly would balloon it?

Do I have to be stereotyping the South somehow when I know that 1/3 of American Jews live in the NY metro area (also home to more Jews than the three largest cities in Israel combined)? Given that statistic, is there any way that a single small city could compare?

But if I need to refer to evidence, fine - this link suggests that there are at least about 120 Jews in Dothan, population more than 57,000. That's two-tenths of a percent. Now, let's look at New York. The Jewish population of the city is about 970,000, which is about 12%, or 60 times the per capita population of Dothan. The Manhattan population is about 245,000, which is about 16%, or 80 times the per capita population of Dothan.

Without judging the content of this I must say it's a delicious bit of visciousness. Equating Brooks and Momus is particularly awesome and referring to ignorance as gleeful, like a conspicuously cheery volunteer for a suicide mission is grebt.

i hope i'm clear that i'm here to have a better understanding of things and would like to be corrected if the understanding I lay out is wrong. but insults and dismissals are not corrections.

also the notion that any of these states - California
Illinois
Washington DC
Maryland
Massachusetts
New York - being kerry states is based on their failure to be persuaded of "Bush's commitment to protect the American people from terrorism" is absurd; these are bedrock democratic states ("blue states": brooks, < insert whatever halfbaked "clever" halfborrowed term here > : momus). also: if maryland's in here, where's virginia? and atlanta's got more mention al qaeda traffic than boston by a mile so where's a georgia? (also the notion of atlanta being a republican city will be laughable to anyone remotely familiar with it)(a group which doesn't include to be sure brooks, momus, or, apparently, proudly, gabbneb). more to the point: where's nevada? las vegas has received more repeated mentions/threats than any american city besides nyc, dc, and maybe san fran and bush barely won it in 2000 so if gabbneb's theory hold ANY weight and likelihood of being the target of an al qaeda attack (as opposed to terrorist attack)(cuz historically, outside of al qaeda attacks, red states have stood a far greater likelihood of suffering a terrorist attack than blue states) shouldn't kerry have a solid lead in nevada? his theory might - might - rank as a halfway worth thinking about if he didn't use states that would be solidly in kerry's column regardless of terrorism or bush's ability or perceived ability to defend against it. a rightwing spin on it would be that states that are more likely to be attacked would be more likely to fear and hence flee terrorism's challenge and therefore would obviously support kerry, the candidate of surrender. a rightwinger could even bring red staters disproportionately comprising the military into it by saying that red staters, not debilitated by fear of attack, are afforded the turpitude to stand up to terrorists and risk their lives (unneccesarily - since they have no reason to fear losing their own lives in a terrorist attack)(i can't spell unneccessarily) and therefore would obviously support bush, the candidate who wants to fight terrorists. for the cherry on the sundae this rightwing columnist could even top it off by stating that red staters, since their the ones who fight in wars, would naturally support the candidate who supports the troops and obviously that's not going to be the guy who was going to vote for the $87 billion before he voted against, etc. etc, insert anecdote about a diner in oklahoma in here somewhere. all of these arguments are bullshit.