Don's report archive
Wellness in the Headlines
(Don's Report to the World)
A Wellness Perspective on 9/11
It is always a good thing to work at maintaining perspective. Viewed as a disciplined determination to seek proportion in thoughts, feelings and actions, perspective fits nicely as a valued wellness trait, for it is one key to maintaining equanimity, resilience and, of course, panache. Perspective is defined as "the capacity to view things in their true relations or relative importance." A well person will always seek to maintain this sense of proportion, or perspective, no matter how tragic or glorious the event or circumstance.
A year ago today, religious fanatics unleashed maniacal suicide attacks against America and western values of pluralism, modernity, democracy, freedom and tolerance. Few would doubt that this madness was a disaster of the first order, or that terrorism sponsored by Islamic extremists remains a genuine menace or that increased security and other precautions are needed to reduce the threat of future attacks. However, it is not unpatriotic to ask if the response by the Bush Administration has been proportional. I believe the American people could benefit from another perspective on 9/11, one that is only now possible a year after the fact. Without a change in perspective, our financial and security responses to future terrorism could do more harm than the destruction of life and property suffered on 9/11.
Consider the following factors that I believe can be the start of efforts to gain a clearer perspective on 9/11:
- On 9/11, 2800 people were killed in the US as a result of four hijacked airliners; earlier in 2001, 20,000 citizens of India were killed in an earthquake.
- Every month, including the month of September, US highway deaths exceed the number killed on 9/11.
- The annual number of homicides in this country is 15,000, far more than the number killed on 9/11.
- Each year, falls in the home and in the workplace each kill more people than the 9/11 attacks.
- In 1918, half a million people died from this country's worst-ever flu epidemic.
- The toll on 9/11 was 1.5 percent of annual cancer deaths in America.
Naturally, there are many reasons for the skewed focus on 9/11, including massive media attention, the drama of the carnage that fateful morning, empathy for the victims and so on. Yet, a more rational allocation of resources based on a different perspective of the events might be in order. Perhaps greater societal returns would be gained from spending more on designing structures that might better withstand earthquakes, improve road design to lessen auto fatalities, prevent falls and homicides, vaccinate vulnerable citizens at risk of the flu, spend more on cancer and other research and so on.
All deaths are tragic and shatter families, and bring great suffering. The question about perspective on 9/11 is to explore the chances for less traumatic responses and the merits of other societal uses for the tens of billions of dollars shifted since 9/11 to "homeland defense." Also, perspective invites questions about how much freedom we have already and wish in the future to forego in the interests of added security.
- In the quest for a healthy, functional perspective on 9/11, we should know as much as possible about how we responded to the last disaster, the better to assess how to deal with the next. Here are some basics about post 9/11 funding.
- Federal (taxpayer) payments were awarded by the Congress to all victims to the tune of $1.5 million per fatality. What kind of precedent has this established, and how many other equally meritorious claims could be made by past victim families? Are the families of war dead, public service professionals killed in the line of duty and others killed in one cause or another less deserving?
- Billions were spent to prop up airlines. What about funds for uncovering corporate fraud and questionable benefit programs for CEOs and top executives, including the top brass of airlines that got bailouts? (The combined US airline industry lost $1.4 billion in the second financial quarter. The only exception was SouthWest Airlines, which neither requested nor received any federal assistance. The company made $102 million profit during this quarter. Southwest is widely seen as a well run, people-friendly organization whereas other US airlines are considered by many to be hierarchical disasters, overblown with overpaid executives. The events of 9/11 may have helped some of these executives deflect the focus away from their own incompetence.)
- Charitable giving has dropped nationwide, and this is attributed to the emotional outpouring of funds contributed to varied NYC victim groups. So much unprecedented funds have been donated to NYC charities that complete distribution methods have still not been devised -- and considerable acrimony has occurred among victim groups competing for the largesse. Is this a rational process and if not, would perspective on the 9/11 disaster mitigate some of these excesses in the future?
- While extreme, superfluous security measures are defended as "mere inconveniences well worth the aggravations and delays." The fact is that these measures have focused more power in the hands of the US Attorney General and other administration officials and add up to lost productivity, time, money and liberties while adding to frustrations, cynicism and hysteria.
In a free society where it is NOT a duty of patriots to follow leaders without discussion and debate, is it proper to ask questions that contribute to health perspectives? As you might guess from reading between the lines (!), I think it is proper -- and healthy, as well.
Naturally, perspective is not easy, any more than being fit is easy. If perspective were effortless, it would be manifest on all things, large and small. Perspective must be pursued and honed by experience, like any skill. It is something we can learn, like a wellness lifestyle and it is most likely to spread when it is modeled, not preached.
Perspective on 9/11 would follow from a greater degree of attention to objective cost/benefit studies. There are varied investment options for making the country a better place regarding all manner of advances than reflexively adding more funds for security to guard against terrorists. What are the relative costs for saving lives and improving quality of life? Clear thinking about risks seems superior than an attitude of "let's spend whatever it costs to improve security." At least it does to me.
What can be gained from perspective? For starters, it can bring about a reduction in the degree to which we have an irrational fear of terrorism, which must delight the terrorists. Another gain from perspective is a faster return to the elusive "normal life" much recommended by commentators and health care professionals, an ability to respond more constructively to future tragedies (including terrorist incidents), a more rational allocation of resources, a better balance of terrorist (and other) threats against other national and local priorities and reduced emotional vulnerability of the citizenry. The latter would by itself undermine the terrorists' goals of spreading fear and otherwise disrupting the still free societies they seek to destroy. A better perspective would be a form of democratic empowerment, adding to the nation's resilience to attack by our enemies. Large numbers of Americans are at more risk from tobacco, poor diet, firearms, failure to wear seat belts, excessive alcohol consumption, maladaptive stress responses and/or sedentary living than they are from al-Qaida, Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden. Perhaps our priorities and attendant expenditures should reflect that reality. What do YOU think?
Everyday is a good day for looking on the bright side of life -- but today seems an especially good day for doing so.
Domain: mentalSubdomain: mental health
Search other reports in the Don Ardell report archive.
Read about our
Featured Products
my shopping cart
Read Don's latest report or search his report archive to find commentary on what you're interested in.
 |
This site complies with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information: verify here. |
