Personal patches

[rob_spellberg]

in following this thread,
   i had a thought about the differences between u. s. and e. u. thinking
   and it led to some other thoughts as well.

anyone out there remember that tired anti-vietnam-war interrogative,
   "what if they gave a war - and nobody came?"?

it seems to me that, for terrorism to succeed [ in particular,
   the kind waged against a random sampling of the target population involving
   bombs, civilian locations and otherwise uninvolved children ],
   at least a significant minority of the population in question and
   a majority of its opinion shapers must be agreed that
   they are willing to be terrorized.

the last serious wave of political bombings in the u. s. was perpetrated by
   radical anarchist/socialist types in the 1880's.
it didn't last long because nobody else wanted to play their game.
they were found; they were hanged.
no twenty years of appeals to the supremes.

over on this side of the pond, bombing just isn't done.
it gets the same sort of disapproving sneer that
   someone would rightfully expect if they were to
   switch to their white limousine before easter.

so, yeah, more or less, it --is-- new to us.
the difference is that we don't feel any obligation to get accustomed to it.
we rather liked things the way they were and we want a "return to normalcy".

as for the other side of the pond,
   the typical e. u. denizen's complaint seems to be that
   we americans just aren't "european enough".
if only we were as enlightened as, say, the belgians, we would realize that
   it is first necessary to understand the grievances of the bomber.
why is he so filled with angst?

sorry, no can do.

europeans like to talk and talk and talk until they reach a consensus.
americans like to get things done.
the business of america is business and terrorism gets in the way.
it's as simple as that.
however, in europe, everyone has had his say and it is agreed:
   nothing can be done.

so here's my question.
what if a group of demented, disaffected types
   decided to throw a terrorism campaign and nobody showed up?
what if the target population refused to play victim?

here's the correct answer.
it applies in the u. s., the e. u., ireland, israel, iraq;
   everywhere, actually:

   terrorism is not healthy for children and other living things.

here's the american solution.

anonymity is a luxury for those who walk the straight and narrow.
it is necessary for those who want to be merely shameful.
but it is an absolute essential for the doers of evil.

i am not happy that my supply of anonymity is being reduced.
i am also not happy that
   i find myself looking at the sears tower more intently
   when i have reason to be in the chicago loop, as i will next week.
i miss the superb beef wellington at the restaurant on
   the 95th floor of the john hancock building
   [ sure, it was overpriced, but on a clear day you can see forever ].

in a dynamic economy, jobs are lost and jobs are created.
there is some serious money to be made [ oh, how gauche! ]
   by finding ways to enhance security for societies in the macro,
   while retaining individual political and economic liberties in the micro
   [ such as voting for the candidate of your choice,
   running for office yourself when the usual candidates suck,
   being able to decide for yourself the identity of your employer,
   starting your own business because the usual bosses suck,
   living anywhere you want within your means,
   being able to constructively criticize an elected official,
   being able to compare an elected president with an elected chancellor,
   posting to an internet mailing list,
   etc., etc., etc. ].
it's about what is really important vs. minor inconveniences.

microcontrollers are embedded in coffee pots and dogs, not humans.
it may require that each of us has to have
   a document trail gigabytes in length.
just remember, on that tuesday morning,
   more than a few had to make a snap decision:
   do i stay here and burn alive or do i break the window and jump?
some of them were liberals.

so if officers gidney and cloyd are
   watching the monitors of the outdoor cameras
   in the hardened underground bunker of the homeland security department
   [ to pick a metaphor, admittedly far-fetched ] and my face comes up,
   i want them to be able to rapidly determine that
   i am not a threat to public safety,
   even if they --do-- think my political and economic theories are wacky.
the less time they spend on the harmless,
   the more time that is available for real threats.
some of them need to be scrooched.

look on the bright side, it just might reduce the incidence of adultery.
that's good for private safety.

rob