This is a terrible analysis. The author looks at attempted terrorism numbers and concludes that terrorism isn't something that happens all that much. No conside

This is a terrible analysis. The author looks at attempted terrorism numbers and concludes that terrorism isn't something that happens all that much. No consideration is given to any determent effect from law enforcement or the possible effectiveness of our anti-terrorism activities. It's entirely possible that the $1tn we've spent has reduced the quantity and effectiveness of terrorist activities. I'm open to data analysis proving or refuting this possibility, but the author doesn't even mention it. Also, "...that's sixteen deaths in the U.S. to terrorism in the past ten years. Given the credible estimate that we've spent $1 trillion on anti-terrorism security (this does not include our many foreign wars), that's $62.5 billion per life saved." What purpose does this number serve? That's 16 deaths, not 16 people who didn't die. The actual number would be $3,333 per American who is not dead. I think this man is just upset about the cost of war and mad at Bush. This is a rant, not an analysis. A contrary analysis could say that in the 10 years up to and including 9/11, we've lost thousands of lives from terrorist activities, and in the 10 years since, we've lost 16 (not including our military). Therefor, our policies have drastically reduced terrorism. Either argument is ridiculous without thorough analysis and supporting data showing a direct relationship to terrorism levels.