Until we learn that ALL Muslims are “extremists” we’ll just keep bumbling along. If you question this you need only to read the Koran. It’s all spelled out there quite clearly.

Jim Wright

Incidentally, I also find that war is treated with a similar “doublethink” by the federal government. On the one hand, there has not been a declaration of war by Congress since World War II. On the other hand, the rhetoric that “we are at war” and must therefore “sacrifice” X, Y, or Z is ubiquitous.

On terrorism, I think the origin of the term dates back further than Lenin, to the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution. The meaning of the term has certainly evolved since then, perhaps past the point where the original meaning could be said to be preserved to any great extent. The original types of terrorism were largely instigated by governments (e.g., the Jacobin Committee of Public Safety in France or the regimes of Lenin and Stalin in the USSR), though some organized revolutionary movements (e.g., the various militant “anarchists” who assassinated political leaders during the late 19th and early 20th centuries) could also be classified as terroristic. Today, the term’s meaning is (at best) approaching that of “mass crime targeting civilians and committed by someone who holds a non-mainstream ideology” – which is so broad as to be almost indistinguishable from “mass crime targeting civilians” (which would mean that school shootings or gang fights with substantial bystander casualties might eventually qualify). Worse yet, some are using “terrorism” to label anyone who leaks or disseminates “classified” US government information (e.g., Julian Assange and Bradley Manning) – including information which exposes atrocities committed by or on behalf of the US government. The best solution would be to retire the term altogether and instead refer to each criminal act by whatever its legal classification would otherwise be – and, certainly, existing law has an adequate vocabulary to meaningfully delineate among the possible criminal acts to which anyone could presently refer to as “terrorism”.

The law of non-contradiction is a philosophical law refering to concepts. But it is conceivable that the legal definition of a term for purposes of a contract might differ from the general definition; hence it is conceivable that the act might not be terrorism in a legal sense yet is so for other purposes.

Finally, it seems quite obvious that this was terrorist activity, regardless of whether the Tsarnaevs were part of a larger organization.

My point regarding the terrorism certification was one of consistency. Whichever way this act is treated, the law of non-contradiction necessitates that it either is an act of terrorism or it is not; the federal government cannot it have it both ways. If there is a desire not to issue a terrorism certification for any reason (even if it is just to save the affected businesses money), then the rhetorical use of the “terrorism” threat to motivate liberty-infringing measures should also be discontinued.

To consider a related issue, the consequences of any public hysteria about terrorism will be attempts (possibly successful ones) to limit essential individual liberties even further. Perhaps it is time to retire the term “terrorism” and to refer to these criminal bombings in a different manner, which is not so emotionally loaded and not so prone to causing knee-jerk authoritarian and totalitarian political reactions. Even though many grievous criminal acts occur throughout the US on a regular basis, no crime which does not bear the label of “terrorism” can drum up so much support for completely disproportionate and counterproductive political reactions.

An insurance contract is meaningless if after an event occurs the government can arbitrarily decide whether to declare the event an insured event just to favor one group over another. And no, this can’t reasonably be described as an attempt to “avoid needless bureaucratic complication.” If it was an act of terrorism, then this is an attempt to get insurance to cover damages that were not in fact insured. Why even bother with defining insured vs. non-insured perils and events if the definitions will be arbitrarily applied?

Also, even if the government refuses to call this terrorism so that insurers bear the burden, that would be no reason to then not treat this as terrorism for other purposes, especially that of pursuing the possibility of Chechen or Saudi involvement. In fact, this would be extremely dangerous, not “Orwellian.”

Personally I think it obviously qualifies as terrorism (if it isn’t, what would qualify?) but the more important point is that definitions be applied objectively, not on after the fact criteria such as “what is best for the business community?”

Is anyone listening?

Jim W.

Regarding your points #1, 2, and 3, suicide rates in the US, while they are indeed slightly higher than rates of automobile fatalities, have also been in modest decline since 1950. The following chart shows statistics for selected years between 1950 and 2005:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0779940.html. As another example, in Japan, absolute numbers of suicides have recently declined below 30,000 for the first time in 15 years: http://www.halojepang.com/todays-japan/6433-suicides

Thus, the beneficent trend of greater self-preservation I described can be said to apply even to reduce the prevalence of people choosing to take their own lives.

Regarding your point #4, my video “Eliminating Death – Part 10 – The Immortal Wealthy Elite Argument” – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfPUtUha_ck- addresses part of your concern. My remaining response is that, while moral advancement is not guaranteed by longer lifespans, it certainly is incentivized thereby. The more time people anticipate having ahead of them, the more likely they are to personally witness the consequences of their actions. This raises the importance of acting virtuously, in such a way as to bring about the best consequences for oneself and others, as failure to do so is increasingly likely to backfire over time.