SPORT

1. Ban Boxing

Boxing is a very popular sport, enjoyed by millions across the world. It is also a dangerous sport. Over 1000
boxers have died during or just after fights in the past one hundred years. Many more have been damaged for life
by injuries in the boxing ring. Some of these victims were professional boxers who made their living from the
sport. Others were amateurs boxing for fitness and fun, rather than for money. Sometimes it seems to be just one
punch which does the damage. In other cases it seems to be the overall effect of hundreds of punches over many
fights. For these reasons medical associations speaking for doctors all over the world have called for boxing to be
banned.
Asking “should boxing be banned?” usually makes for a good debate. As well as issues which are particular to
boxing, the debate brings in arguments of wider importance. For example, the purpose of sport, how much
freedom people should have, role models and the media, and whether banning something might make problems
worse. Issues like these often come up in debates and thinking about boxing can be a helpful way to learn about
them.

Boxing is a very dangerous sport. Every year both amateur and professional boxers die in matches, or afterwards as a result of
injuries. Others, such as Michael Watson, are disabled for life as a result of beatings in the ring. Medical studies also show that
boxing can lead to long-term brain-damage, and to illnesses such as Parkinson’s disease. For these reasons all the major medical
associations call for an end to boxing. Banning boxing would mean an end to needless deaths, injuries and brain-damage.

Boxers know the risks of their sport and choose freely to fight. They are also well-paid for the dangers of fighting. We have to
allow people to make their own decisions in life. The government should not ban something adults choose to do unless it clearly
affects other people. In boxing, it is the boxer who takes the risk and who will pay the price, no one else. Other sports are also
dangerous, for example horse-riding, skiing or parachuting - should we ban those too?

Boxing is unlike any other sport. The aim of boxing is to hurt the other man, and above all to knock him out. The sport appeals to
the worst and most violent parts of human nature. Such a savage sport has no place in modern society. We should not let men do
this to each other. We should not offer money to encourage them to fight. We should also ban it as a form of public
entertainment.

With running, boxing is the purest form of sport. All sport is about testing the human body and reactions against others. Boxing
does this in the most simple and direct way possible. There is no point trying to deny our human nature - man is an aggressive
animal and sports provide a safe outlet for that aggression. Contact sports such as rugby, American Football or Ice Hockey can
also be brutal. Society was much less violent sixty or seventy years ago when children were often taught to box at school. That
way they learned to control their aggression and to keep violence for the ring.

Boxing exploits young men (and sometimes women now). Some start before the age of ten. They often don’t have enough
education to make a proper decision about the risks of their sport even once they are adults. They train hard for long hours,
trusting a coach to prepare their body and a manager to arrange fights and handle money. Often those around the boxer do very
well at his (or her) expense. This gives them a reason to make the fighter take more fights, even if that would be dangerous. Even
successful champions (e.g. Mike Tyson) often end up broke and desperate.

Some boxers have been exploited, and that is wrong. And some have “wasted” their money on high-living - just like rock stars or
footballers do. Should the government stop them spending their own money as they wish? Many boxers do handle their money
and other affairs sensibly, for example, Evander Holyfield, or Lennox Lewis. More important is the way boxing offers a way out
of poverty for working class boys. There isn’t much hope in the inner cities. Isn’t it better for children to want to be boxers when
they grow up than drug dealers and gangsters?

Boxing has to have stricter rules than other sports because it is so much more dangerous. Injuries happen in other sports but they
are accidental. In boxing the injuries are the point of the sport and they are much more serious. In spite of all the regulations,
deaths and serious injuries take place every year in boxing. And they happen in amateur fights as well as professional ones, so
headguards seem to make little difference. Clearly it is not possible to control boxing well enough so that it is safe. The only way
to make boxing safe is to ban it.

Those in charge of boxing work hard to make sure that it is as safe as possible. Both professional and amateur fights are run
under very strict rules to make the risks as small as possible. Medical staff and equipment have to be on hand, and boxers are
checked before fights to make sure they are fit enough to take part. Having different weight divisions (Lightweight,
Middleweight, Heavyweight, etc.) means that fights should not be too unequal. Referees are there to stop fights if necessary.
Amateur fighters wear headguards and aim to score points rather than knockouts. No other sport takes such care with its athletes.

Boxing makes violence look cool. The money and fame a few champion boxers get for hitting people sends the wrong message
to young people. It isn’t just the fights themselves which are the problem. Fighting often breaks out at publicity events, or even in
the audience.
Boxing isn’t just about a few minutes of violent activity. It is also about thousands of hours of hard training and self-discipline -
that’s not a bad message to send to young people. Sports such as pro-wrestling, where violence is staged like a show are much
more dangerous. At least in boxing it is obvious that getting hit hurts and does lasting damage. In any case, most boxing is on
television too late at night to have much effect on young children.

There is no reason to think that if boxing was banned it would continue “underground”. Cockfighting and badger baiting were
banned and they are almost unheard of. If caught, those breaking the law by organising or watching a boxing match could be
punished severely. This will scare off others from trying to stage fights in future. Without television coverage there will be no
money left in boxing. It is not as if boxers have nothing else to do. With their athletic talents they could make it in other sports
instead

Making boxing illegal would just drive it “underground”. It would still go on, in remote barns and cellars, because men would
still want to fight and others would still be prepared to pay to see them. Banning drugs or underage drinking hasn’t stopped
people from doing those things. Once boxing is underground, it cannot be regulated and fights will become much more
dangerous. Bare fists may be used rather than gloves, fights may go on until one boxer is knocked out, and there will be no
medical support when injuries do come about. Boxing is much safer when it is legal but regulated.

2. legalize soft drugs

Individual rights: Does the individual have the right to consume drugs?

Yes

• Individuals have the right to control their bodies and consume drugs Individuals have sovereignty over their own
bodies and should be free to make choices which affect them and not other individuals. Since the pleasure gained
from drugs and the extent to which this weighs against potential risks is fundamentally subjective, it is not up to the
state to legislate in this area. Rather than pouring wasted resources into attempting to suppress drug use, the state
would be better off running information campaigns to educate people about the risks and consequences of taking
different types of drugs.

• Drug-use does not directly harm others, so it should be legalized - Indirect social harm is not a sufficient criteria
for illegalizing something. By this logic, smoking would certainly be illegalized given the death-toll it has created.
The only appropriate criteria for illegalization is whether drug-use directly violates the rights of other citizens. But it
does not.

No

• The state is justified in protecting individuals from their own drug-consumption. The state has the authority
vested in it by the people to protect individuals from doing harm to themselves and others. The need to assume this
responsibility is especially heightened if the individual is not aware of the risks, or is addicted and thus not making
informed choices.

• The state is justified in protecting society from drug-users. Drug-use affects the user, their families, children,
communities and society at large, and the state must legislate to protect these wider interests.

Morality: Is drug-use morally acceptable or tolerable?

Yes

• Drugs can have a beneficial mind-expanding capacity. Many drugs are used by philosophically inclined
individuals for the purpose of expanding their minds and better understanding and seeing the world around them.
Hallucinogenic drugs such as peyote and psilocybin-containing mushrooms are commonly cited by users as
deepening their understanding of the surrounding world. Given the complexity of the world humans live in, and the
very limited ability of our natural senses to perceive this reality, it is not unreasonable to claim that drugs can have a
beneficial effect in opening the eyes of humans to this greater reality. In any case, who is to claim that such drugs
don't have a beneficial effect in this way? It seems to be a subjective matter that makes it impossible for a government
to claim that drug-consumption is always immoral. Rather, the morality of drug-use seems to depend largely on the
intentions of the drug-user.

• Many things are harmful to individuals, but aren't made illegal. The legal drugs tobacco and alcohol have a
devastating consequence on society, and yet they are legal. How then can many other drugs be illegal on the basis that
they are bad for society? This would appear to be an arbitrary application of this criterion, especially when the
scientific evidence strongly suggests that some of the illegal drugs (e.g. cannabis, MDMA ('ecstasy') and psilocybin
mushrooms) are actually less dangerous than tobacco or alcohol.
 • Legal drug consumption blurs the line drawn against illegal drug consumption - Psychoactive drugs are widely
available and consumed in societies today. With powerful drugs such as Aderral, why should other drugs be deemed
illegal? And, particularly with the emergence of "neuroenhancing" drugs to improve the brain activity of "healthy"
individuals, it seems that the distinction being made against some currently-illegalized-drugs is subjective and blurry.

• Prohibition also costs lives Because the chances of any given drug user getting caught are miniscule (which means
that the deterrent effect of the law is also marginal), there is a lucrative market to be supplied, which organised crime
is happy to fill. As a result, we have well-funded, well armed gangsters fighting for territory in our cities, and large
sums of money going to terrorist groups like the Taliban in Afghanistan, or FARC in Colombia. Anyone killed in the
crossfire between drug dealer gangs, who only exist because of a drug's illegality, or killed by terrorist groups funded
by drug money, is a victim of our drug laws, rather than drugs per se. If you are going to talk about morality, you have
to be able to answer the question: how many innocent people are you prepared to see killed in order to enforce your
moral viewpoint?

No

• Attempting to alter with drug-use the God-given human state-of-mind is immoral. Humans perceive the world
how they do for a specific reason; God or nature determined it is the way human are supposed to perceive the world.
To attempt to diverge from this natural, God-given perception of the world is to diverge from the intended course of
human-perception. This divergence is morally repugnant. It is also symptomatic of a desire to pursue more than what
God or nature has naturally given to us. This culture of "more, more, more" is morally wrong. We should be content
with our natural mental state and have the discipline to eliminate eliminate any discontentment with that state-of-mind
without resorting to drug-use.

• Hedonistic drug-use is morally repugnant. Drugs are typically used because the "high" feels good or is pleasurable
in some way. Such hedonism is morally repugnant largely because it is so base and too easily obtained. Deeper
satisfaction in life can only be attained through discipline, intellect, and hard-work. The hedonistic experience
involved in drug-use exists at the polar opposite side of the spectrum from these historic moral principles.
Recognizing this, governments have a legitimate cause to illegalize drug use.

• The negative effects of drug-use make it morally wrong and appropriate for governments to ban. - The effects
of marijuana-use include, dullness during the "high", increased appetite, lower sex-drive, and impaired short-term
memory. Putting one's own body through this experience is morally wrong, and legitimizes state intervention against
drug-use.

• Legalization would send the wrong message that drug-use is acceptable. Consumption is wrong and should never
be authorized. Legalising drugs would only make them appear more acceptable. This would undermine health
campaigns by suggesting that drugs are not too harmful or even harmless.

It doesn't matter whether or not you legalise them people have used and abused them for ages and will continue to do so. Its a
matter of supply and demand, as long as there is a demand someone will supply it. Whether it is the government as in our
socialist European allies or the criminal cartels of the western hemisphere it will continue until people no longer WANT to stop
and that I do not think will ever happen.

Either legal or illegal it is a game that provides diversions, money and jobs for thousands of people. The only difference is the
role and title of who is on the receiving end of the money train and as 03 said there will always be people skirting the system.
The Boston Tea Party is a perfect example.
----------------
Just depends on how a society wishes to approach it. I think cops like my uncles and 03 are not in a losing battle but a stagnant
one that cannot be won. I also think that countries that legalise drugs are fooling themselves. I think more attention needs to be
paid to cutting off the demand. Why do people take drugs? Cure that and you cure the problem.
__________________
"The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield
and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental." - John Steinbeck
------
Why do people take drugs? Why not ask why people drink beer? Or watch football and go to the movies?

It's the exact same thing. Now some drugs are so deadly like heroin that they have to be illiegalized.

But Marijuana? We saw what happened when we criminalized alchohol and if you don't see the exact same thing happening with
marijuana prohobition you're blind.

The reason there will always be a huge demand for beer and marijuana is because for the vast majority of people it's fun and
never does a thing negative in their life outside of maybe sleeping with a fat chick.
-----
{A} Alcohol has been a legal drug longer than I've been alive and alcohol is the number one factor in accident related deaths on
the highway, and you're in favor of putting another "legal" mind altering drug out there on our roads!

{B} Almost every single study into hard drug usage leads to one common datum. When marijuana is described as a "gateway"
drug, there's a very valid reason for it. Every single hard drug user started out experimenting with marijuana and not one single
person (in the studies I've read) started out recreationally, using hard drugs.
(The footnotes on one study did state that out of the 532 cases in the study, 1 person was hooked on cocaine as a result of a
wound received in Vietnam - (yes) one of our fellow warriors).

{C} For those who bring up the legalisation of "soft" drugs in Holland, following are just a few eye openers:

NOTE: From a CNN Special Report (Don't remember date"

1) According to local law enforcement authorities, usage of hard drugs has been slowly increasing since marijuana has been
legalised and become readily available.

2) Since usage of hard drugs has become a source of worry for law enforcement authorities, the total number of non-licenced
streetwalkers has risen drastically.
(Correlation: more & more fixes needed when hooked + higher price of hard drugs = more non-licensed streetwalkers trying to
earn money for next fix because they can't hold a regular job).

3) Since the total number of non-licenced streetwalkers has risen drastically, the incidence of aids and aids related diseases has
risen to epidemic proportions.

Before those who are so blase as to say "soft drugs aren't dangerous", take a closer look at Holland, I believe that the facts just
don't support this statement.

I would love to see marijuana taken off the government's "hit" list for two reasons. There are way too many "three time"
criminals locked up for life because one of the crimes they were found guilty of was possession of marijuana (the felony charged
one).

The second reason has to do with medicinal usage of marijuana - until it is removed from the heavy-handed control of the federal
government, states will not be able to pass legislation which gives doctor's the power to prescribe marijuana for their patients
who really need it.

THE SIMPLE FACT IS THAT LEGALISING "SOFT" DRUGS ISN'T QUITE SO SIMPLE.

The way I see it, drugs should be legalized for a purpose - and that purpose is stricktly medical. If a cancer patient fail to
respond to the prescribed dose of morphine then maybe marijuana can be a better alternative as pain killer.

There are so many bad things happening in the world today and we should not make it worse by allowing other drugs than
alcohol.

That is not a logical argument WD. To have proper comparison you must follow logic, not a fallacy of logic. Equal comparisons.
A more apt comparison would be to say that committing grand theft auto is a gateway crime to armed robbery. Its when your
arguments lose their logic and enter into specious displays of ideology that you lose the edge in persuading people.

The fact of the matter is that marajuana is a gateway drug. Nearly all surveys have proven beyond a doubt that the vast majority
of all hard drug users do not start on that drug but in fact marajuana. This does not mean that all ganja smokers progress beyond
it but those who are on the harder more illicit drugs have almost all started with smoking marajuana. So a more proper way to
argue the "gateway" is by a proper comparison of the percentage of all people who smoke marajuana who then go on to use more
illicit drugs. IF the percentage is small you might have some sway in arguing this point being moot as a reason to keep the drug
illegal. If the percentage is high then the law and order crowd rule the day.

You may fire when ready

I guess there is only one final argument I can use.

Jonathan Swift said: "There's none so blind as they that won't see".

3.Blood Sports
The test for whether beings should enjoy moral significance is their capacity to feel pain. Animals react in a way consistent with
our understanding of what it is to be in pain - they scream and avoid the source of that pain. Research also shows that the pain
sensing structures of animals’ nervous systems are similar to our own. A distinction cannot be made between animals and
humans on grounds of intelligence since we don’t consider the new-born, senile or mentally impaired to be non-human.
Therefore, both humans and animals should enjoy equal moral consideration. Any attempt to distinguish between animals and
people is ‘speciesism’. To say that animals deserve less consideration simply because they are animals is analogous to claiming
that women deserve inferior treatment by virtue of their sex. "The question is not, Can animals reason? Nor, Can they talk? But
can they suffer" (Vicki Hearn, What’s Wrong with Animal Rights?)
Common sense tells us that there is a difference between animals and humans. In the presence of the senile or disabled we feel
sorry for them because they lack the faculties that humans normally possess. We feel no such pity for animals because they lack
faculties that they can never have. For example, animals cannot construct hypothetical scenarios, don’t have values and are not
consciously aware. The value of animals is not only instrumental but also because they contribute to the beauty of the natural
world and furthermore because of the symbiotic relationship between animals and human communities. People are the most
developed of all the species and as such are in the best position to consider the interests of all of nature.
Blood sports are cruel since the suffering caused can be unnecessary and prolonged, especially in the case of hunting with dogs,
where death comes only after an exhausting chase and may involve the animal being ripped apart by the hounds. Even when the
animals are ultimately shot, they are seldom despatched by an expert, trained marksman, so they may not be killed immediately,
but wounded and left to die very slowly from their injuries.
Hunting is an integral part of effective wildlife management and makes a positive contribution to the countryside in general.
Only those animals that are edible or pests are hunted - and they would have to be killed anyway regardless of whether it was for
sport or not. Hunting with dogs is not especially cruel as it is natural to many animals to be chased, and the adrenaline they
experience limits their suffering. Hounds may rip a fox apart, but this only occurs after its death, which is usually very quick.In
America, taxes collected from hunters are used to fund conservation work and monitor the number of animals that need to be
killed each season. Evidence from America shows a strong positive correlation between increases in hunting and the numbers of
game species, largely because hunting provides an incentive to protect land rather than manage it purely in the interests of
agriculture.
Another moral objection is that people take pleasure in the process of often-pointless killing. Man has moved well beyond his
natural state of being a hunter-gatherer and needing to hunt for food. There is something perverse about breeding animals, or
managing the land to encourage them, just so they can be shot. Bear- and badger-baiting and cock-fighting have been banned
already and it the abolition of other blood sports is well overdue.
Hunters are not bloodthirsty individuals- they derive their enjoyment from the thrill of the chase or practicing their
marksmanship. The key difference between blood sports today and practices that have already been banned, is that badgers, bear
and chickens are not vermin whose numbers need to be controlled. If animals have to be killed anyway, why does it make any
difference that people enjoy hunting them?
Wanting to ban blood sports is not the same as rejecting the need for the culling of animals. In Britain, the Burns Committee
concluded that investing money in better nutrition for ewes rather than in killing foxes would save more livestock. Technology
provides more humane ways of killing, (e.g. trapping and lamping), whilst also allowing devotees to test their skills against clay
pigeons or in drag hunts.
Many of the supposed alternatives to hunting with dogs are impractical. For example, it is illegal to use guns in proximity to
public roads and footpaths. It may not be possible to reach traps in time to prevent animals injuring themselves trying to escape.
Traps are also indiscriminate as to what they catch. Shooting or hunting with hounds ensures a kind of natural selection with the
weakest or sickest animals killed while the fittest survive, thus maintaining a healthy population. Death at the hands of hound or
hunter is much quicker than a lingering death due to starvation or disease.

An argument that highlights the economic costs of banning blood sports is analogous to arguing for the continuation of slavery
because slave traders might lose their livelihoods. Investigations in Britain have cast doubt on the extent of problems that a ban
would cause. Overall, however, the essential point is that it is morally wrong to kill animals for pleasure and no amount of
economic benefits can make that right.
Many rural communities would be devastated by a ban on hunting. Figures from the US estimate that some 1,000,000 jobs
depend on hunting, (which contributes $30 billion each year to the economy). In Britain figures from the Field Sports Society
estimate, that hunting is worth £175 million to the economy with some 11,000 jobs depending on the hunting industry. Whilst
these numbers might seem relatively small as a percentage of the workforce, the jobs are concentrated in a small number of areas
across the country. The majority of those who seek a ban live in cities where their only experience with animals has been with
animated or domesticated creatures. This encourages anthropomorphic attitudes that cloud judgements on rural issues and animal
welfare. While opinion polls might be against hunting, any change in the law would be the result of a tyranny of an ignorant
majority.

POLITICS
1. death penalty
KONTRA

A new bill introduced in the state House of Representatives would abolish the death penalty in Colorado. Majority Leader Paul
Weissmann, D-Louisville, claims his motive for sponsoring the bill revolves around fiscal concerns and he has no interest in
rehashing the moral debate surrounding the death penalty.

Good luck.

The bill, according to Democrats, would save the state an estimated $4 million annually, which would then be applied to help
investigate cold cases. While we're not sold on the veracity of the savings figure — considering the state has no idea how many
death penalty cases the future holds — we believe that Colorado, like many other states, should revisit the effectiveness and
necessity of the death penalty.

Republican Attorney General John Suthers has made an impassioned case that the death penalty is crucial in discouraging future
horrific criminal behavior. He also contends that the only deterrent many hyper-violent inmates with life sentences have to
murdering a guard or fellow inmate is the threat of the death penalty.

"If you don't have a death penalty, those are free murders," Suthers told The Post. "There remains some crimes, some murders,
that anything short of the death penalty is an inadequate societal response."

Yet, there is very little evidence that the death penalty discourages violent crime.

Nationally, the number of death row cases has dropped precipitously over the past decade. In Colorado, we rarely have to resort
to it.
As we have noted, the poster boy for the death penalty is Sir Mario Owens, who sits on Colorado's death row. Yet, the ultimate
punishment certainly did not stop the 23-year-old man from killing three people, one of them a witness about to testify in a
murder trial.

Are the moral and fiscal trade-offs to eliminating the death penalty both prudent and moral?

We believe so.
-------------

PRO

Sadly, the death penalty is a necessary. Societies lament this to ease the collective conscious. But what is a society to do with
murderers, rapists, child molesters, the doers of other vile deeds and even lesser criminals who are what we call "career
criminals?"

Lock them up in prison and society must house, feed and clothe them for the rest of their lives. These evil doers then become a
long term burden on the good, productive people of a society. Should these criminals escape society is in peril again.

I never understood the argument that "the death penalty is too cruel." All of us will die and only the lucky among us will pass
quietly without suffering. Death is not cruel; it is the result of living. One form of execution may be more cruel than another, but
we would have to ask the dead to know.

The guilotine or a bullet to the brain may be the most instantaneous forms of execution. An instantaneous death is much better
fate than most of us must face.

I think it all depends on what theory you hold on imprisoning people.

Is it to rehabilitate them or is it to punish them?
As Humans we have the gift of remembering yesterday and conceptualizing tomorrow but the time and place of our death is in
most cases not known to us.
Can you imagine knowing what it would be like to know exactly when that moment was?
Having said that I believe that there are some crimes committed that leave us no choice but to remove the perpetrator from this
World.
Dodger.

would personally welcome the death penalty in UK. As long as the person can be proven 100% so there is no mistakes. It would
save a lot of wasted money housing criminals in jails and would guarantee there is no reoffending.

The trouble is, judgement is decided by people, whether in China or any other country. If you've ever sat on a jury (as I have) you
will know how easy good rhetoric and persuasion can lead people to make decisions, based not on fact, but on feelings.

It's easy to 'feel' someone is guilty, after a terrible tragedy, and after a convincing lawyer/solicitor moves the jury, but
unfortunately, there is very little certainty. I wonder if you would feel differently if it were your brother, sister, mother or father
in the dock...?

2.terrorism should not be publicized

Should Terrorism be Reported in the News?

In the New York Times (read it here without registering), columnist John Tierney argues that the media is performing a public
disservice by writing about all the suicide bombings in Iraq. This only serves to scare people, he claims, and serves the terrorists'
ends.

Some liberal bloggers have jumped on this op-ed as furthering the administration's attempts to hide the horrors of the Iraqi war
from the American people, but I think the argument is more subtle than that. Before you can figure out why Tierney is wrong,
you need to understand that he has a point.

Terrorism is a crime against the mind. The real target of a terrorist is morale, and press coverage helps him achieve his goal. I
wrote in Beyond Fear (pages 242-3):
Morale is the most significant terrorist target. By refusing to be scared, by refusing to overreact, and by refusing to publicize
terrorist attacks endlessly in the media, we limit the effectiveness of terrorist attacks. Through the long spate of IRA bombings in
England and Northern Ireland in the 1970s and 1980s, the press understood that the terrorists wanted the British government to
overreact, and praised their restraint. The U.S. press demonstrated no such understanding in the months after 9/11 and made it
easier for the U.S. government to overreact.

Consider this thought experiment. If the press did not report the 9/11 attacks, if most people in the U.S. didn't know about them,
then the attacks wouldn't have been such a defining moment in our national politics. If we lived 100 years ago, and people only
read newspaper articles and saw still photographs of the attacks, then people wouldn't have had such an emotional reaction. If we
lived 200 years ago and all we had to go on was the written word and oral accounts, the emotional reaction would be even less.
Modern news coverage amplifies the terrorists' actions by endlessly replaying them, with real video and sound, burning them into
the psyche of every viewer.

Just as the media's attention to 9/11 scared people into accepting government overreactions like the PATRIOT Act, the media's
attention to the suicide bombings in Iraq are convincing people that Iraq is more dangerous than it is.

Tiernan writes:
I'm not advocating official censorship, but there's no reason the news media can't reconsider their own fondness for covering
suicide bombings. A little restraint would give the public a more realistic view of the world's dangers.

Just as New Yorkers came to be guided by crime statistics instead of the mayhem on the evening news, people might begin to
believe the statistics showing that their odds of being killed by a terrorist are minuscule in Iraq or anywhere else.

I pretty much said the same thing, albeit more generally, in Beyond Fear (page 29):
Modern mass media, specifically movies and TV news, has degraded our sense of natural risk. We learn about risks, or we think
we are learning, not by directly experiencing the world around us and by seeing what happens to others, but increasingly by
getting our view of things through the distorted lens of the media. Our experience is distilled for us, and it’s a skewed sample that
plays havoc with our perceptions. Kids try stunts they’ve seen performed by professional stuntmen on TV, never recognizing the
precautions the pros take. The five o’clock news doesn’t truly reflect the world we live in -- only a very few small and special
parts of it.

Slices of life with immediate visual impact get magnified; those with no visual component, or that can’t be immediately and
viscerally comprehended, get downplayed. Rarities and anomalies, like terrorism, are endlessly discussed and debated, while
common risks like heart disease, lung cancer, diabetes, and suicide are minimized.

The global reach of today’s news further exacerbates this problem. If a child is kidnapped in Salt Lake City during the summer,
mothers all over the country suddenly worry about the risk to their children. If there are a few shark attacks in Florida -- and a
graphic movie -- suddenly every swimmer is worried. (More people are killed every year by pigs than by sharks, which shows
you how good we are at evaluating risk.)

One of the things I routinely tell people is that if it's in the news, don't worry about it. By definition, "news" means that it hardly
ever happens. If a risk is in the news, then it's probably not worth worrying about. When something is no longer reported --
automobile deaths, domestic violence -- when it's so common that it's not news, then you should start worrying.

Tierney is arguing his position as someone who thinks that the Bush administration is doing a good job fighting terrorism, and
that the media's reporting of suicide bombings in Iraq are sapping Americans' will to fight. I am looking at the same issue from
the other side, as someone who thinks the media's reporting of terrorist attacks and threats has increased public support for the
Bush administration's draconian counterterrorism laws and dangerous and damaging foreign and domestic policies. If the media
didn't report all of the administrations's alerts and warnings and arrests, we would have a much more sensible counterterrorism
policy in America and we would all be much safer.

So why is the argument wrong? It's wrong because the danger of not reporting terrorist attacks is greater than the risk of
continuing to report them. Freedom of the press is a security measure. The only tool we have to keep government honest is public
disclosure. Once we start hiding pieces of reality from the public -- either through legal censorship or self-imposed "restraint" --
we end up with a government that acts based on secrets. We end up with some sort of system that decides what the public should
or should not know.

Here's one example. Last year I argued that the constant stream of terrorist alerts were a mechanism to keep Americans scared.
This week, the media reported that the Bush administration repeatedly raised the terror threat level on flimsy evidence, against
the recommendation of former DHS secretary Tom Ridge. If the media follows this story, we will learn -- too late for the 2004
election, but not too late for the future -- more about the Bush administration's terrorist propaganda machine.

Freedom of the press -- the unfettered publishing of all the bad news -- isn't without dangers. But anything else is even more
dangerous. That's why Tierney is wrong.

And honestly, if anyone thinks they can get an accurate picture of anyplace on the planet by reading news reports, they're sadly
mistaken.