What is the Base Rate of Terrorism?

This is dumb

Los Angeles Metro will be the first U.S. transit agency to use a security system created by the federal Transportation Security Administration to scan riders as they enter the system, the agency announced this week. New York and San Francisco has also been testing the technology, which TSA says will thwart terrorism or mass shootings. The agency says it plans to install the system at transit stations around the country, the New York Times reports.

Why is it dumb?

First, ut degrades the experience of passengers by making the environment more hostile, encouraging distrust, and slowing down people's movement. Security theater is dumb, and honestly I doubt it actually makes people feel safer. I suspect that if you act like there is a threat people will assume (not unreasonably!) that there actually is a threat. 

Second, its a misallocation of resources. The thing about security and "hardening" targets against terrorism, is that you can't defend everything because of resource constraints. 

To quote Frederick the Great: "He who defends everything defends nothing".Hardening targets against terror doesn't disrupt plots, it just causes them to shift their targets. In a city there are essentially infinitely many "soft" targets for terrorists.

Security measures like these (if they even work!) cost money but mostly just shift risk around, making places safer without making people safer. That's not always a dumb idea, but in this case it is - about 80 people die in transit rail accidents any given year, whereas there hasn't been a terror attack on any American metro in,  well, ever.

But the main reason that this is a dumb idea, the one that beats out all the rest, is this:

The base rate of terrorism is low

Terrorism is a tactic, it isn't defined by its weapons - terrorists don't have to use bombs.

Alternative definition

Terrorists can use guns, cars, knives, etc. And getting access to all tools of terror in America is frankly trivial.

I'm an Indiana resident writing this in Illinois. I could decide to commit an act of terror at 9, buy a gun in Indiana at noon, eat lunch, and commit an act of terrorism in Chicago before 5.  This would cost $1000, tops. Get me a pre-approved credit card and I'm set.

With even the smallest amount of planning  I could buy a gun on the internet and get it mailed to me, no questions asked. Or I could buy it from some guy at a gun show. Or I could 3-d print the parts and assemble it myself.

I could use a car or truck. If I don't own one I could rent one for less than $100 - or just steal, say, a UPS delivery truck.

I could use a blade,  or hell, I could just take a big stick to the metro and try to shove people in front of the cars.

But I'm not going to do any of those things - because I don't want to.

There's practically no barrier keeping a moderately-determined person committing terrorism. And yet terrorism is rare. Every day, hundreds of millions of Americans drive their cars, tens of millions have access to firearms, and essentially everyone could get access the tools of terror in a week (at most!).

Most days, most weeks, (hell, most months!) terrorist attacks in America do not happen.

Because most people don't want to commit acts of terror.

Maybe they're deterred by the threat of punishment, maybe they have some basic human decency, maybe they're just lazy. But they sure as shit aren't deciding not do it because of security checks at airports and metros.

Solve the Fucking Murders

In 2017, Chicago experienced 650 murders. CPD cleared 17% clearance of those murders.

In 2017 NYC experienced 269 murders. NYPD cleared 77% of those murders.

CPD and NYPD have similar budgets per capita ($400-600 per city resident). They employ similar numbers of officers per resident (~4.4 and ~5.2 officers per thousand, respectively).

And in absolute terms CPD solved HALF as many murders as NYPD did.

A lot of this is resource disparities. I'm going to be sloppy and just divide overall department budgets by the murders. It's my blog - you can't stop me!

NYPD's budget is ~ 5.6 billion. That's $20 million per murder, and $27 million per solved murder.

CPD's budget is ~1.5 billion. That's ~$2.3 million per murder and $14 million per solved murder.

But here's the thing - the whole police department ins't dedicated to solving murders. Resources can be shifted around, things can be reprioritized (e.g. minimal investigation of non-violent crime.). CPD can do their jobs more effectively.

And frankly, budgets can be increased - and spending that brings down the homicide rate is almost certainly a good deal for the city because of how much money murders cost. That study estimated that the tangible costs alone of each murder at $1.2 million - so 650 homicides is HALF the entire budget of CPD. Add in intangible costs and Chicago homicides are costing society more than the entire city budget. Even if you think that those intangible estimates are too high, its still a huge number.

So what does this lead me to think?

1) Chicago should commit more resources to law enforcement - especially solving murders.

2) CPD needs to get their shit together, embrace reform and innovation, and commit do doing whatever it takes for them to solve the fucking murders.

National Mottos

This is a quibbling bit of cultural criticism, but in my opinion, the official US national motto is terrible and should be changed.

I think a good motto is some concise combination of boast, threat, and statement of purpose. Like Quebec's: "Je me souviens" - literally, "I remember". It promises a commitment to maintaining national identity against assimilation pressure, stubborn resistance and a desire/ability to reward friendship and avenge wrongdoing.

Or consider the motto of the Starks from Game of Thrones: "Winter is Coming". This a statement of purpose (we need to try and survive), but also a boast and a threat (b/c the Starks used to be the Kings of Winter).

So what does "In God We Trust" convey in that frame? And how well does it fit?

The boast and threat aspects are fine. A claim of divine favor sorta works for that ("We're so awesome that God's on our side, so we can't lose!"). But as a statement of purpose? Is the US just supposed to go around trusting God all the time? This isn't a monastery!

"In God We Trust" would be a good motto for, say, a crusading order, which risks life and limb to expand trust in some deity at swordpoint. But that's not what America is or should be about!

And the thing is we have a really good national motto just lying around that we aren't using to its full potential:

"E Pluribus Unum"  (from many, one) has been on our national seal since 1794. And as boast ("look at us, we've got our shit together") and a threat ("We're united and therefore powerful") it might be a little squishy. 

But as statement of purpose - hell! as a description of the country - its perfect. The US is federation of states, and I think the highest conception of America is as a country peopled by a diverse array of hyphenated-Americans who despite their different backgrounds are all Americans together, with a shared commitment to liberty, democracy, and prosperity.

TL;DR: "In God We Trust" is exclusionary, "E Pluribus Unum" is inclusionary. America should be an inclusive place!