and which seems to be missed by most of the respondents:
People are afraid. They fear the unknown, they fear that which they cannot understand.
In today's world, there is much that most people do not understand. Cell phones. Personal computers. The Internet. GPS. Electronic fuel injection. Digital watches. Genetic engineering. Nuclear power. Mars rovers. SDAI-Tech. Plasma TVs. International terrorism. The continued popularity of Reality TV. Kim Jong-Il. The US electoral system. Substance abuse. Martha Stewart. Cable. Jet airliners.
In the past, most of the world around could be more-or-less understood by a bright person - steam engines, sail boats, muzzle loaders, candles, quill pens - you could see how they worked, with a bit of looking.
Not so today. The list of things that even a bright, inquisitive person has little chance of understanding is long. And there are a lot of people who are neither bright nor inquisitive.
But a lot of the things I mentioned above are COOL! Who cares how your latest colour camera phone works, it's awesome! And the Internet? Couldn't live without it! And so they are accepted.
Nevertheless, I think that people are uneasy with things they don't understand, even if they are way cool. This unease sits there, looking for an outlet other than big-screen TVs.
The ones that are presented as not-cool are a good outlet!
Nuclear power plants might blow up and cause the Earth to melt! Fear them!
Kim Jong-Il is a madman with bad hair! Fear him!
International terrorists blew up the World Trade Center! Fear them!
Now, I'm not saying that some of these things should not be feared. They should, in measure with their real degree of threat.
However, politicians can take those fears and magnify them for their own ends.
Terrorism really isn't a major threat to the average American in Lansing or Eugene or Tupelo. But show them enough shots of the WTC collapsing, tell them enough about beheadings, have enough Orange Alerts, say "Bring it on!" in a macho-enough way, and they will go along with almost anything, because THEY NEED SOMETHING TO BE AFRAID OF. They can't be afraid of their talking car or their TV remote control, but Osama bin Laden? Some lunatic named Sadr? Scares them spitless.
And once people are convinced they should be afraid of something, you can take away some of their rights, spend billions of their dollars, send thousands of their sons and daughters to death or disfigurement, so long as you appear to be fighting that which they fear.
Wake up!
Current Events » in reply to What I don't get
My point is...
The whole thread (41 posts)
- What I don't get
- Probably not very many. Throwing money at a problem seldom works.
- Conservatives don't REALLY get upset over violent American deaths.
- My point is...
- Spending
- Because terrorism effects much more than just death counts
- Life has a 100% mortality rate. No one gets out of here alive.
- That is why statisticians are not running the world.
- I would think you would be right if.......
- You might want to read the link in Tom's post below...
- If we want to break up terror, Iraq is the current theatre of operations
- Well duh.
- Where would the theater of operations be otherwise?
- So Saddam was not a major player in terrorism prior to our invasion?
- Not only that
- Well duh.
- I would think you would be right if.......
