[Trinidad]

The terror effect is not caused by the death toll or the number of injured. In this case, 3 people died. In the USA every 5 minutes 3 people die because of smoking. I live in The Netherlands. In Belgium -our neighbors- there was an accident just this week with a Russian bus with 40-50 students: several killed (I don't remember how many, but it was more than 3) and the rest got injured, some severely. It hardly made the news here. People find these things sad, but shrug their shoulders: "such is life".

The terror effect is due to the fact that "Boston" cannot be ranked under "such is life". It is terror because it intentionally converts happiness to horror.

We can rationalize converting happiness to horror without intent: Lethal accidents are sad but "sh-t happens". We know that today might be our last day because we may get hit by a bus while crossing the street. We even have life insurances.
We can rationalize intentional horror in a situation that was already horrible. (Did anybody notice that at the same time there was news about a bomb blast in Bagdad with many more casualties. "Well, there is a war going on there.")

We cannot rationalize how someone could intentionally convert happiness to horror.

It hurts us and it makes us angry. !!How can somebody want something like that!! It's incomprehensible. And it's the incomprehensibility that leads to insecurity, not the death toll or the number of injured. After all, the numbers on people getting killed in traffic or through smoking (just to name two) are not frightening us the least bit.

It's perfectly ok and normal to be terrified by a terror attack. It's also perfectly ok to try to bring it back to perspective: We can cope with this. (Easy for me to say from the other side of the pond.)

I wish you all strength and courage.

Rik

[Mbodell]

Yeah, the suddenness and unusualness is part of what makes the Boston attack have more salience and impact than "normal" tragedies. Plus the juxtaposition since Patriots day and the marathon are such terrific things and experiences. I vividly remember cheering folks on along the marathon and lots of friends who ran (both officially and unofficially).

If the attack day was a normal day in the US there were more than 800 violent crimes committed with a gun and more than 83 people killed by guns. There were another 89 or so fatalities by car accidents in a typical day. Somehow knowing the Boston attack was less than 2% of the typical combined gun deaths and traffic deaths doesn't make it seem little or small.

Incidentally Massachusetts is the state with the lowest per capita rate of firearm deaths and the lowest per capita rate of motor vehicle accidents. Unsurprisingly this also leads to the lowest rate of teen deaths and child deaths since those two are such a large cause of death among those populations.

[kenberg]

jjbrr, on 2013-April-16, 21:07, said:

Kenberg, as someone whom I've always respected for seemingly endless life experiences and cherished stories, can you explain why you think a person should be scared of an event that is both astronomically unlikely to occur and completely unreasonable to prevent? I mean, in your experience doesn't the good in life outweigh the bad to such an extent that it's unhealthy to be affected by something like this physically, emotionally, or psychologically?

Would society not benefit from ignoring the doom and gloom BS fed to them by the media and start focusing on how great life is?

What exactly is there to be afraid of, in your opinion, and why do you think it's justified?

The article just struck me as wrong. When something like this happens, I don't want instructions about how I should feel. Pam (Onoway) didn't take it that way, she took it as suggestions about how to act. Maybe so.

Fear, like other emotions, comes and goes. As mentioned, my reaction is mostly revulsion. Even there, my emotions and my actions are two different areas. Emotionally, if they catch the guy and need a volunteer to stick an icepick into his heart, I'm ready. But I won't be called upon to do this so I don't much have to think of what I would really do.Would I run in the Boston Marathon? Sure, except I have never run in a Marathon and don't pan on starting now. But I wouldn't discourage a grandchild from doing so should she choose to.

[cherdano]

I naturally treat one-year-olds more seriously than most. Nevertheless, if you hear what I am saying to my nephew, I probably sound a little condescending.
Bruce Schneier's article is mostly talking to the same politicians and media who endlessly argued whether calling something an attack and an "act of terror" is as good as calling it a "terrorist attack".
Just saying.

[kenberg]

Fair enough.
How, if at all, we should change our approach to life is something that will be discussed, no doubt. Not only do we not wish to monitor everyone all the time, it really is not practical even in an age of advanced technology. David Ignatius, in today's Post, points out that there were surveillance cameras galore in Boston and that every available police officer was on duty.

Certainly it is the case that far more people are killed, by accident or with intent, in other ways. I think part of the reason that it stirs people, or at least it is true of me, is that it seems so utterly impossible that it will benefit anyone. Someone shoots a cabbie and steals his wallet. Awful, and we are horrified by the disparity between the gain and the crime, but the thug is doing it for the money. But with the bombing, there is no discernible purpose. I guess that is why I see it as sub-human. Humans, however immoral and misguided, have a purpose in their actions.

[y66]

I don't know how you say anything right after something like this happens that does not sound stupid or condescending. Cold blooded murder of innocent people is horrifying and impossible to understand or accept. So are stupid overreactions that make things worse.

[jjbrr]

I hope lots of heads rolled at the New York Post. They put on an amazing display of reporting on Monday.

[ggwhiz]

I was once asked by my South African buddy what I thought about Americans as a Canadian and told him that they were often like our loud overbearing cousins and they could say much the same about us (see Pierre Trudeau or Jean Chretien) but at the end of every day we are family.

Your many friends are greiving too and inspired by the response knowing we may have to follow that lead someday.

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2013-April-17, 04:40, said:

The article just struck me as wrong. When something like this happens, I don't want instructions about how I should feel. Pam (Onoway) didn't take it that way, she took it as suggestions about how to act. Maybe so.

I took it that way, too. It's not "big boys don't cry", it's "come on, get back on the horse and try again". Articles like this are intended as a rallying cry, not a reprimand.

[mycroft]

Bruce Schneier is coming from a security perspective, and from having been saying what he said here for at least 12 years. He coined the term "security theatre" (but he misspelled it :-) for the kind of stuff that gets done to *look* like the government is keeping us safe, but doesn't really.

He has had two issues: first the security theatre, because it's expensive and wasteful, but second the fact that there are people whose intent is to make us scared and keep us scared. Some of them are the terrorists; some of them are not. The U.S. put in place a lot of policies that are freedom- and privacy-removing after 2001; and once they're in, they're not coming out even if they "haven't done what they were passed to do", because they're useful to LEO for non-terrorist investigations and "well, it hasn't been needed yet, but it *might* be". All of this; arguably at least one of the invasions; and many other things that tarnish the U.S.'s image worldwide - only possible because they took advantage of people being scared. Arguably, they keep people scared, because it's in the powerful's interest to govern a scared populace; not because it's in the populace's interest to be scared.

So, the article is the same thing. Not "you're not allowed to be scared", but "here's why you shouldn't be scared, even though people are trying to make you (that's terrorism for you)" and an implied "other people will take advantage of this to try to keep you scared, for their benefits; don't allow them (again)". I can see how, without context, it might trigger Ken's response. I don't think that was the intent.

My condolences to all affected by this attack; especially the injured and those that must care of them. Families and friends of casualties ... are also injured.

[Phil]

Does "don't be terrified" mean the same as 'glib'?

[TimG]

kenberg, on 2013-April-16, 19:11, said:

But if someone is scared, I will not be telling him that he should not be.

Fear is often irrational so that telling someone not be be scared is useless. But, it does not seem wrong to me that there should be calm discussion and examples of calm reactions so that people are less likely to succumb to the irrational fear.

My girlfriend's daughter had trouble sleeping Monday night. She was scared, shaking at times. Probably does no good to tell her there is no reason to be scared. But, if she witnesses lots of people reacting calmly to the situation, she may be less affected by such occurrences in the future.

[kenberg]

I certainly favor calmness, and really I, at least sort of, apologize for stirring up an issue here. I didn't, and don't, like the way the article put the matter but it's very possible he, I, and really just about everyone else agree on the general features of a response.

Apparently an arrest has been made. Or, on second thought, maybe not! I simply never will understand how a person could do it. Such injuries and death are awful no matter how they occur, but for it to be in such a pointless tragedy is unspeakable.

We will of course all go on. I have no idea why the author thinks that I, or we, might not. I'll just accept it as well meant comments, not well received by me. Maybe I'm the weird one, it has been suggested before.

[TimG]

Found this in a Boston Globe article this morning:

Quote

At Logan International Airport Tuesday morning, a United Airlines flight to Chicago was brought back to the gate ­after passengers expressed fear over two people speaking a foreign language, said aviation authorities. Passengers and bags were taken off the plane and re-screened, and two people were rebooked on a later flight, said United Airlines spokeswoman Christen David.

This is the sort of fear that, in my opinion, it is entirely appropriate to admonish. This is an embarrassing example of how the terrorists are winning.

[mycroft]

Rereading the article, I think there is, and should be, a difference between "don't be scared" and "don't be terrified" - and the latter, both from a passive perspective ("don't be so scared you change your habits to your detriment 'to be safe' ") and an active one ("non illegitimi carborundum") is what Schneier is trying to say. Oh, and my point above that it's not *just* the terrorists who explode stuff who are trying to terrify you.

[barmar]

This morning they held a public, inter-faith memorial ceremony in Boston, which the Obamas participated in. When I heard about this, I got to worrying that someone might perform an attack like this as the preamble to an assassination attempt -- the President is sure to attend a vigil like this, and it will be prepared hastily.

But maybe I've just watched too many TV crime dramas with convoluted plots.

[kenberg]

I am pretty sure that it was Bobby Kennedy who said something like "We are all playing Russian Roulette here". Presidents, and their families, are at risk every minute. One of the many reasons that I would not want the job. Not that anyone has ever asked me to take it.

[Cyberyeti]

kenberg, on 2013-April-18, 13:33, said:

I am pretty sure that it was Bobby Kennedy who said something like "We are all playing Russian Roulette here". Presidents, and their families, are at risk every minute. One of the many reasons that I would not want the job. Not that anyone has ever asked me to take it.

I liked George Bush Snr's strategy, the fear of two words meant nobody would assassinate him ... President Quayle.

[barmar]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-April-18, 13:48, said:

I liked George Bush Snr's strategy, the fear of two words meant nobody would assassinate him ... President Quayle.

Imagine if McCain-Palin had won. They could have retired his Secret Service detail.

But.. but... what if the assassins want an idiot in the White House? They elected W, didn't they?

[Scarabin]

Congratulations to the authorities, security services and people of Boston on a great operation. No one could ask for anything better.