safety

Reading William Gibson’s recent novel, Zero History, I came across an interesting passage:

There were cameras literally everywhere in London. … He remembered Bigend saying they were a symptom of auto-immune disease, the state’s protective mechanisms ‘roiding up into something actively destructive, chronic; watchful eyes eroding the healthy function of that which they ostensibly protected.

I find his comparing the hyper-protective state’s infringements on freedom to an auto-immune disease quite provocative.

As a young analyst, I worked on a project for the military, researching sabotage threats to American security.  We found that preventing sabotage was impossible-a risk free world wasn’t in the cards.  However, nation states were reliable disciplinary forces against saboteurs.  Today, however, terrorists are often stateless.  Thus, there are no obvious ways of disciplining such behavior.

Still, although we cannot ensure a “safe” world, we need to do what we can to make the world “safer.”  To do so, everyone must be mindful of security; we cannot simply accept the measures pushed by bureaucracy as sufficient.  Airlines are not only better equipped to determine the weak points in their passenger and freight handling systems but also have a greater stake in the success of security measures.

Government, in assuming responsibility for air safety, for example, creates moral hazard and neglects the costs to our economic and civil liberties.  Consider the security risk created by bottlenecked security lines.  We are all targets as we inch through the lines, waiting to be cleared for safety.

America’s response to 9/11 created far more costs than the attack itself.  We as a society have failed to distinguish between healthy defenses and paranoid bureaucratic responses.  HSA and its sub-agency, TSA, are but two examples.  As many have noted, on 9/11 some horrible individuals did terrible things to America; on 9/12, our politicians took over!  The costs – both direct and indirect – of such bureaucratic anti-terrorist policies are massive.  And now the TSA has embarked on a massive new campaign to force air travelers to submit to either electronic nude-searches or the equally intrusive pat downs.  The outrage from this move may allow us to reevaluate our whole approach to achieving a safer world.

Everyone wants to live in a safe world but only government has the arrogance to claim they can achieve this.  In fact, all the government can do is make the world less convenient, less free, and more costly-exactly the result the 9/11 perpetrators sought.  Should we allow them to succeed?

Photo Credit: bfraz’s Flickr photostream

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxO3bPNyWzo 285 234]

The U.S. tax code stands at well over 100,000 pages. All but the hardiest of souls hire professionals to do their taxes for them. Cries for simplification grow every year.

How does Congress respond? By introducing legislation to “amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to classify automatic fire sprinkler systems as 5-year property for purposes of depreciation.”

As threatened, the new CAFE standards have arrived, with the EPA muscling in on territory reserved by statute to the Transportation Department. As Marlo Lewis and I have noted repeatedly, this is an unconstitutional
step on a road to economic devastation
.

However, in the light of recent events, this quote in particular caught my eye:

Gloria Bergquist, vice president at the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said . . . “We have a hill to climb, and it’s steep, so we will need consumers to buy our fuel-efficient technologies in large
numbers to meet this new national standard.”

Even with very high gas prices, Americans have been unwilling to buy fuel-efficient vehicles in the same numbers as Europeans, because they rightly regard them as less safe. When the president talks about how
vehicles have not become more efficient over the past few vehicles, he is being disingenuous, because they have actually become much more efficient at providing more horsepower and more mass for the same amount of fuel. That’s what consumers want and in many cases need, but that’s also what makes this a particularly steep hill for the auto manufacturers to climb.

With the principle that the Federal Government can mandate that individuals purchase something now established with the Obamacare Act (although that too is unconstitutional, as my colleague Hans Bader explains), how long before we see an act of Congress aimed at forcing Americans to buy unsafe but fuel-efficient vehicles?

A chicken in every pot and a fuel-efficient car in every garage . . . or else!

Cross-posted from The Corner.

How do we know the terrorists are winning? When a man kissing his girlfriend good-bye at Newark Liberty International Airport results in the evacuation of an entire terminal, 200 delayed or canceled flights, and re-screening for thousands of passengers.

There is a word for this: overreaction. If this how the government reacts to a threat that is 20 times scarcer than being struck lightning, we are doing something wrong.

Yes, the criminal kisser was wrong to sneak under a security rope to get one last peck from his girlfriend. But closing down an entire terminal at a major airport for six hours is overdoing it. Just take a look at the offender.

His name is Haisong Jiang. He is 28 years old and very much in love. He emigrated to the U.S. from China in 2004, and met his girlfriend at Rutgers University. She recently moved to California, though they remain together. Mr. Jiang remains in the New York area, pursuing a biology Ph.D. When he receives his degree later this year, he plans to move to California to be with her. He is clearly not a terrorist.

Mr. Jiang’s forbidden kiss was recorded by surveillance cameras. It was clear that he was sneaking a kiss, not a bomb. Even so, a five-day manhunt ensued. Mr. Jiang was arrested and tried. Fortunately, his sentence is a light one: “a $500 fine and $158 in costs and fees,” plus 100 hours of community service.

I was a bit worried that he would have been shipped to Guantanamo Bay, frankly. Hopefully retired Maj. Gen. Robert Harding, the new head of the TSA, will take steps to make airport security more rational and less driven by fear.

Hot dogs are delicious. Especially if you don’t think too hard about what they’re made of. Kids love them. So do adults. With baseball’s spring training already underway, consumption of the national pastime’s unofficial food is set to skyrocket in the coming months.

All is not sunshine, happiness, and home runs, though. The American Academy of Pediatrics’ Committee on Injury, Violence and Poison Prevention thinks that hot dogs are dangerous, calling them a “high-risk food.” They are a choking hazard for children.

“We know what shape, sizes and consistencies pose the greatest risk for choking in children and whenever possible food manufacturers should design foods to avoid those characteristics, or redesign existing foods when possible, to change those characteristics to reduce the choking risk,” said Dr. Gary Smith… “Any food that has a cylindrical or round shape poses a risk,” he pointed out.

Dr. Smith also wants mandatory warning label regulations for all hot dog packaging. But nobody seems to be asking: Just how big is the risk here?

According to WebMD, 66 to 77 children under 10 die every year from choking on food in the U.S. That’s out of more than 42,000,000 children under 10, according to my calculations from U.S. Census data.

That means your child’s odds of choking to death on food are about 1 in 545,000. And that’s assuming 77 deaths, the high end of the range. Little Timmy is literally more likely to be struck by lightning (1 in 500,000) than choke to death on a hot dog.

That’s the level of threat we’re dealing with. Treat it that way.

Our children face far greater threats than mere hot dogs. Instead of advocating hot dog safety regulations of dubious benefit, the AAP should rethink its priorities. They should focus on where they can do the most good, instead of where they can do the most nothing.

OSHA has published a proposed rule to regulate one of the greatest threats to mankind: combustible dust.

It is defined as “all combustible particulate solids of any size, shape, or chemical composition that could present a fire or deflagration hazard when suspended in air or other oxidizing medium.”

Maybe it speaks well of workplace safety if OSHA has made combustible dust one of its highest priorities.

A pessimist might counter that OSHA, having regulated everything else, has been reduced to regulating obscurities in its never-ending search for something to do, and for someone to command.