Slashdot Mirror


Where Does America's Fear Come From?

An anonymous reader writes "While far from a dictatorship, the United States has employed a number of paranoid tactics that delegitimize its democracy. And the motivation for doing so is — fear. That seems to be a long way from 'So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself: nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and of vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. And I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.' Where is the U.S. heading?"

10 of 926 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Control... by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Informative

    Nothing has changed because basic human nature is the same. This is the way it will always be. So you get to choose whether you want to be part of the herd near the edge looking for the wolves, or oblivious somewhere the middle, or if you want to be a wolf. Being near the edge isn't a problem because you see the danger coming, so you get a head start. Being in the middle, you don't even realize the danger is there until the whole herd is moving.. And of course being a wolf has its own unique advantages: you get to eat mutton and you get to watch the whole herd fear you. But you have no herd for protection and in trying times, the other wolves don't mind eating wolf, too.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  2. Re:totally normal by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sure it is, it's just not happening where it used to happen. Been to Latin America lately? Hell of a boom down here. We're not that poor anymore.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  3. Re:America is a dictatorship alright... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Informative

    From a European perspective, America doesn't have 'left' and 'right' wings. They have the 'right' and 'extreme right' wing.

  4. Re:Fear and Paranoia... by anyanka · · Score: 5, Informative

    My family visited Europe this Fall and were surprised at the level of civility experienced there.

    I just visited the US last week, and was surprised at the level of civility I experienced there.

    Seriously, whenever I meet USians (even in the wild), they're generally friendly, sensible people. Which makes it perhaps even more depressing that the country as a whole is run by sociopathic assholes. Unfortunately, European leaders (both political and corporate) are learning quickly.

  5. Re:A century ago, Progressives by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Informative

    #4 is largely incorrect. There was a big burst of inflation in the 1970's that basically halved the value of money in 9 years, and that's the kind of thing you fear. But since then, it's been closer to a rate that halves the value of money in over 20 years, which is neither unusual nor particularly harmful. And all you need to do to beat inflation is to hold assets that aren't cash, such as stocks, bonds, a home, land, or commodities.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  6. Re: Control... by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Informative

    In Europe? It's common to speak 3 or more languages.
    In the USA our education system is so bad most can not speak the native English very well.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  7. Re:Control... by realityimpaired · · Score: 5, Informative

    AD = CE. CE expands as Common Era, and is generally more accepted in a global context, because it doesn't reference a god you may not believe in or adhere to. More than half the world's population does not follow an Abrahamic religion. The dates are exactly the same, just a different name.

    You did know that AD means "Anno Domini", right? In English, that's "the year of our Lord". If you want to claim adherence to the Christain God, that's fine. You have that right. But don't expect me to pay lip service to a God that, to me, comes off as a petty, cliquish and vindictive sort, according to your own holy books.

  8. Re:A century ago, Progressives by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Informative

    "with basically no inflation"

    You are an utter fool if you believe that.

    There has been almost double digit inflation during this years long period of low employment. My $1.00 buys only $0.70 today than what it did only 3 years ago.

    It's the bulshit made up numbers that the Government releases that people listen to... "we have 7% unemployment!" if you don't count the unemployed that are not getting Unemployment insurance. Actual is near 20% unemployment. under Employment is higher than that, and then what I call the "bullshit employment" People that have skills but are working Mcdonalds,Walmart,etc instead of their skilled labor job the numbers hit near 40%
    The cost of living which is the real inflation, has steadily increased. Loaf of the cheapest crap white bread was $0.90 just 4 years ago. Today it is $1.19 That is so close to a 30% increase it's scary. Meat, etc... all up about the same amount. People that actually track their expenses will all see about a 30% increase in costs over the past 3-4 years. And a 0 to -10% change in their income.

    Some places can see an almost 50% increase in cost of living over that same time period.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  9. Re:The path, not the position by Entropius · · Score: 5, Informative

    Giffords wasn't shot by a "patsy", and her shooting had nothing to do with her political views. She was shot by a crazy guy who had no coherent agenda at all. The only connection between the way she practiced politics and her getting shot was that she was holding a "talk to the voters" event in a supermarket parking lot when it happened.

  10. Re:A century ago, Progressives by whoever57 · · Score: 5, Informative

    This has got to be the thousandth time I've read an analysis of debt from a Progressive that fails to account for the fact that government is only a redistributor of income. Any decrease in spending is an increase in the amount that taxpayers can keep for themselves.

    This is a simplistic and hence inaccurate view. Government spending on things like large infrastructure projects can contribute to increasing the overall wealth of the nation. In this case, reduing spending can result in reducing the wealth of the nation.

    Furthermore, providing a safety net for people (welfare) can allow people to take more risks, so the population can be more mobile, more entrepreneurial, etc.. Such risk taking can result in new businesses and increased GDP.

    If you think otherwise, let me suggest that you move to Somalia. I expect tax rates are very low there.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!