Listening to this weeks Gabfest I was particularly hit by David Plotz's observation about how America has transformed into a fearful nation. I liked his expression "terror pornography" because in many ways it seems that is what of the media does nowadays. As Gore noted in An Assault on Reason, and Drew Curtis noted in It's Not News, It's Fark, our current media culture has become more and more about scaring the crap out of people and less about actual discussion of issues and the education of ideas. Michael Moore even hit on the theme in Bowling for Columbine. I'd enjoy greatly an article written by David Plotz expounding on this theme, as I think it is time for reason and respectability to reclaim our media.

I think Plotz should get on it. One question though. I don't see the link between reasoned debate and lack of fear. Surely Al Gore's slide show on global warming is so powerful because it frightens us no? A serious discussion of healthcare, education and a few other issues always includes a fair amount of doom and gloom that would be fear creating no? I'm asking because I'm interested about the link between fear and reasoned debate.

Well in my opinion that if you couple fear with reason debate it takes the wind of out fear's sails so to speak. Currently we have media outlets, and the government officials feeding them press releases, focusing very heavily on the sensationalist blood and gore and less on the more complete debate. A Bible quote that adorns the main building on the University of Texas at Austin is "Ye Shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." A reasoned debate about problems, takes facts and using reason puts them into perspective. For example a rational and logical look at our foreign policy might result in a different approach towards the War on Terror. It might emphasize that I'm more likely to die from a car accident within 25 miles from my home, than a suicide bomber. It might note that if the $400 Billion spent on the Iraq War had been spent on a worldwide water purification program in the third world, we might have reduced the effects of religious extremism by winning hearts and minds. There are things to fear, but knowing the facts and properly framing them you begin to see that we are not helpless against fearful things, despite what our government and media seems to say nowadays, but rather we can tackle these problems and solve them one at a time. And once we start solving problems, they don't seem so scary after all. To quote FDR, "We have nothing to fear, but fear itself." When we return to the national attitude that problems might seem scary, but ultimately we will prevail, fear becomes a manageable byproduct of our lives instead of this paralyzing force.

Another concept for Blackbeard to consider in his prospective article might be to think about how fear, as propagated by government officials, serves as a means to various ends. To illustrate a (oversimplified) spectrum, consider An Inconvenient Truth on one end, for which the fear evoked is meant to spur viewers to action (in the form of the recommendations at the end). The "War on Terror" propaganda, on the other hand, seems more about scaring Americans into submission and acceptance, in order that the civil liberties and democratic ideals being sacrificed (legally or illegally) will be called less into question. You can tell from my tone I'm biased, but there's probably many historical examples (both effective and ineffecitve, both right and wrong) of fear propagated for each of these purposes, and perhaps others.

Related topic: Solidiers and their families have been making great sacrifices, but since this war began (hell, even since 9/11), I've never felt like anything significant was asked of Americans at large, EXCEPT for utter acceptance administration policies and actions. Since I'm not joining the army, all I feel like I can really do is read the news, and wait for the next voting cycle. Maybe send a care package or join a local demonstration. I feel completely insulated. Had a sacrifice been asked, by this president or a different one, I wonder, what might it have been?

funny you should ask about sacrifice, I'm working on a piece on that. What would you give up if you were asked?

If the case was made that we need to sacrifice as a country in order to win this global war on terror, I'd gladly deal with higher taxes, rationing of goods and services. I'd also expect there to be a draft to get the necessary armed forces to accomplish military goals. One thing you guys remarked on the other week was that security was a necessary first step before any evolution of democracy in Iraq. If this war was necessary, why not draft enough soldiers and occupy the country like we occupied Germany after WWII? I think that Americans by a natural position prefer peace over war, but if asked in a meaningful way would do an awful lot. We can't make the argument that this conflict is on par with World War II and tell most Americans that the extent that their participation should entail is voting for a particular party and buying more DVDs from Wal-Mart.

This is a tough one. I like to think I'd be willing to sacrifice a lot, especially if what was asked was compelling. A nationwide sacrifice would require real innovation, so that said sacrifice (a) does not seem arbitrary, (b) contributes to the war effort in such a way that it minimally conflicts with Americans attitudes and beliefs. The ultimate goal in an act of national sacrifice should be to engage, energize and mobilize as many Americans as possible, regardless of whether they support the war in question. Thus, a sacrifice that, say, increases weapons production would be less preferable to something that directly supports and improves the well-being of the troops.

Very basically, it seems to me that what should be asked of Americans is time. How to secure, manage and utilize this time is where the realy innovative thinking would be required. But whatever time is asked, it should be significant. If Americans can leave work for weeks, or even months, to serve on a jury at reduced wages (a sacrifice to the individual as well as the business), than there's no reason we shouldn't be able to do the same in support of the troops. Preparing meals, work at hospitals, caring for veterans --- I don't know how it could work that you could still keep your citizen servants relatively safe, and that the campaign of national sacrifice isn't more expensive than its worth. But those are some basic guidelines.

Can't wait to read the article, John.