If...

I take issue with how so many people assess threat levels so ineptly. For example, which is worse for you? Someone who hates you but who can't do anything about it or someone who dislikes you and is going to do something about it? Which is more of a danger to you? A responsible adult with the tank or the crazy guy with a .22? Which prognosis is worse? A one in a million chance that you will die or the certainty that you will lose a limb?

Trying to assess real threat levels without factoring in the probabilities is meaningless. This inept analysis shows up in many different circumstances but the faulty logic is the same and you might be surprised how often people make these mistakes... Geez, I dunno, losing a limb isn't as bad as dying, is it?

I was reminded of this when I read a quote of Bill O'Reilly's from March 2003-- just another example of why he's not worth listening to:

It is absolutely eerie how closely the current Iraq situation parallels the rise of The Third Reich 70 years ago. I consider Saddam Hussein to be "Hitler lite" because he has the same virulent anti-Semitism, the same callous disregard for human life, and the identical lust for power that Adolf possessed. The only difference between the two villains is the size of the moustache.

Back in the 1930s, millions of people the world over simply did not want to think about the evil Hitler was brewing up. France and Russia were the chief appeasers, as they are today on the Iraq question...

Does anyone today believe that Al Qaeda or Saddam would not slaughter Jews and, indeed, Americans if they had the power to do so? So what is the difference between a dictator like Saddam and Adolph Hitler?

Did you notice how B.O. even slips in the answer to his own question? "Hitler lite" What does that mean? As bad a Hitler but without the wherewithal to do something about it, perhaps? But even more clearly there is "if they had the power to do so". So, the answer to B.O.'s question is: "He didn't have the power to do so" so, I guess it was more than moustache size after all.

The United States actually started a war because crappy logic like this was used by war-mongers like B.O. "I mean, why allow a dictator who has weapons that would make Hitler salivate remain a threat to the world? " Put like that (if it were true), a reasonable person might consider what was being advocated. But it wasn't true!!! Hitler lead a country that had the most powerful military force in the world. Saddam lead a country devastated by losing a war and the resulting sanctions; a country which was no longer posed a threat even to his neighbours, let alone the U.S.!

These lame attempts to equate alternatives which are very unequal remind me of the old saying: If I had some ham, I could have ham & eggs... if I had some eggs. Or, more crudely, if my aunt had balls... she'd be my uncle.

If, if , if...