Also, most poor people are too busy just trying to survive to plot and plan a terrorist attack. A store holdup, maybe. Isolated violence against individuals, sure. A mass terror attack, not so much. But the children of privilege, who have all their material needs met, and are well-educated, often have a lot of time on their hands. Couple that idleness with intelligence, the money to travel, and the general ennui that can't be satiated with material things, and you're looking at a breeding ground for radicalization in an Islamic society. Sure, the poor can hold extreme religious views, but they're pretty much powerless to act on them to any great extent.

9/11 had such a profound impact on the U.S. because it was spectacular, it was unprecedented, and it happened here. And, thanks to the 24/7 cable news cycle, we watched it unfolding, live, from our living rooms.

Anytime you have a large number of fatalities occurring from a single spectacular event, it will have a stronger emotional impact than a much higher cumulative tally of deaths over time. That's why airliner crashes, for example, are newsworthy and annual statistics are not -- those 100, 200, 300 deaths may be statistically a drop in the bucket compared to the annual deaths from car crashes, cancer, or whatever, but they occurred in a single, dramatic event.

The notion of using airplanes, and civilian airliners at that, as flying bombs was also not a possibility that was in the popular consciousness, not even as a plot element in an action movie. (How many people commented, on 9/11 and in the days following, that it all seemed unreal, like watching a movie and not reality?) And crash those planes into three of the most well-known, high-profile buildings in the world (the two WTC towers and the Pentagon), with a fourth crash into the White House or the Capitol (depending on who you believe) prematurely thwarted, and you have the ingredients for a real-life spectacular that will have a profound impact, regardless of how the numbers stack up statistically.

And it happened on U.S. soil. Prior to 9/11, with the possible exception of the OKC bombing, large scale terrorist attacks were something that happened in those "other" countries around the world. And with the perpetrators being "foreigners" (as opposed to a domestic malcontent like McVeigh and whatever conspirators he may or may not have had, depending on what you believe), and it's not hard to fathom the almost immediate adoption of the "America is under attack" and "we are at war" memes that were so adroitly exploited by the government.

Finally, the smug xenophobia and self-centeredness of Americans played a role. Why do you think a domestic plane crash, even a smaller commuter plane with fewer than 100 souls on board, gets hours of constant, live coverage on CNN while a jumbo jet with hundreds aboard crashing halfway around the world merits but a sentence or two at the hourly update? Think of the impact Hurricane Katrina had while killing fewer than 2000, compared to the Asian tsunami that killed 250,000 five years ago. Now consider how much attention, concern, and TV time were devoted to both. Sure, the Pacific tsunami did get some screen time, especially now that the ubiquitous presence of video cameras in average people's hands gave us some shaky, dramatic, horrifying footage to see. (Though I strongly suspect that if there had been no video at all, the event would have been even more marginalized on U.S. media.) But with the exception of a handful of Western tourists caught up in the disaster, those quarter million souls are "other" people..."fer'iners"...you know, them people that dress weird and talk funny and don't look like us. On the scale of emotional involvement, a couple thousand American lives merits an "OMG, this is horrible, something must be done" while 250,000 Indonesians, Sri Lankans, Thais, et. al. elicits an almost Seinfeldesque "Ah, that's a shame....wonder what's on HBO right now..."

So, it's not sheer numbers that determine what impact death has on a culture; it's all about context. Who got killed, where, how and why.

Your last sentence gives the reason why your first sentence is undesired from a privacy standpoint. Cash still provides an almost traceless means of exchange. When everything becomes an electronic transfer, anyone who wants to poke into your financial affairs and monitor your purchases can do so.

As for checks, people still like to use them primarily because you if you're technically broke but facing an imminent need to buy something, you can still write a check Tuesday, knowing it won't be cleared until Thursday when the money will be in your account. This doesn't work at larger retailers now, since they do electronically run it through to verify if sufficient funds exist, but at smaller stores or for private exchange between two individuals, this is still an option.

There are still some valid reasons to use checks in certain situations. Rather than eliminating them entirely, let companies, retailers, and individuals decide for themselves whether or not they will continue to accept checks as policy, and let everyone else that wants to accept them, accept them. But let's keep the option. (Choice is good.)

What planet do you live on? Facts don't dissuade people from doing what they want to do. A lot of it in this case is self-overestimation: people will continue to cell/text/IM while they drive because in spite of the evidence, they are all convinced that they are an exception to the rule and can do these things and still drive safely. In their minds, those studies and laws apply to all those other people, not me. It's very reminiscent of "well, most people probably shouldn't drive after drinking, but I can do it just fine."

How about teaching little Lisa to keep both hands on the wheel, both eyes on the road, and her mind focused on driving? How about teaching her that that phone call or text can wait until she gets where she's going? How about teaching her that the world won't come to an end if she's not constantly in touch with her little friends 24/7?

Every time I hear the "Well, if you have nothing to hide..." canard, I want to scream. I have everything to hide -- my LIFE. To me, it doesn't matter if my life is perfect, "normal," and utterly free of sin, excess, and debauchery -- it's still MY life, and no one else's business. I am currently (AFAIK) committing no crimes or acts of moral turpitude, yet that still doesn't mean I want my conversations, my financial transactions, my e-mail and browsing history, the books I read or music I listen to, etc. open to scrutiny, public, private, or governmental. It's still MY life, and my personal business, and I'll be damned if you or anyone else have a right to poke into it without my expressed consent.

Because this poor sap is one of the best examples of "low hanging fruit." They're going after him because it's a hell of a lot easier than trying to trace the original source of the images and nail the bastards who truly harmed the kids in the first place. They rack up another CP conviction, moralists are satisfied that another pedo has been nailed, and the general public cheers that the good guys are thinking of the children and fighting the scourge. Makes everyone feel warm and fuzzy (except, alas, the poor dude now serving hard time with "Rollo, the Amateur Proctologist" for a cellmate) and pure and smug in spite of the fact that the conviction does nothing -- repeat, NOTHING -- to actually put even the smallest dent in the problem of kiddie porn. He's just like those tens of thousands of small-time casual drug users doing jail time while the big cartels go merrily on.

"Yes." Next question?

Because we're more and more living in a "zero tolerance" society now. Everything must be black-and-white, either/or, no grey areas, no need to use reason or common sense to look at things like context, intent, actual impact/damage, etc. Easier that way: you don't have to think (nasty habit, that) or take responsibility for making decisions.

You could always use the old Three Stooges line: "When were you born?" "I don't remember -- I was pretty young at the time..."

Naturally. (*wink-wink* *nudge-nudge* say no more...)

Much better is the real-life example once related in an article I read. A machine in a factory had broken down, and when this guy asked the repairman what was wrong with it, he just sighed, "Fuckin' fucker's fucked."

Do speed limits stop most drivers from speeding? No. Do drug laws thwart most users of illegal substances? No. It is a matter of (a) a large mass of citizens who disagree with the law, and (b) insufficient resources to punish anywhere near all who break it.

We have an enormous younger generation that has grown up with digital music and video, and see nothing wrong with sharing what's on their electronic gizmos with others. Those RIAA lawsuits that are discussed ad infinitum here affect just a tiny percentage of those who have downloaded/uploaded/shared/partaken of "pirated" material. The RIAA does not have the resources to systematically go after every file sharer, and neither does the government have the resources to prosecute them all, either, any more than they have the ability to ticket every speeder or lock up every casual toker. People who want to freely share their digital data will continue to do so. The alleged, mysterious treaty alluded to may make it easier to some extent for major infringers to be targeted, but there aren't enough prosecutors, judges, and jails in the world to nail everyone who has a few songs or movies that they didn't pay for on their hard drives or portable devices.

Possessing pot has been illegal for a long time, yet millions of people still regularly light up, and most of them have never done jail time. More draconian laws regarding copyright infringement won't make much difference, either.

Now that is a concept I could embrace, if it serves to keep those young idjits with the mega-bass boom boxes on wheels from cruising my neighborhood and disturbing my peace.

(Insert obligatory "now get off my lawn" meme here...)

Revolution -- hell, yeah, I'm all for that! Count me in!!

Er...that is unless it conflicts with any of my TV shows. And, um...there's not going to be any violence like, say, shooting or anything, right? This is not going to, like, get me in trouble or anything like that, is it?

Oh, hell...on second thought, is there just somewhere I can send a check or something? But, hey, you need someone to post to Internet forums or call some talk shows, I'm your man!

Sincerely,
Mr. Typical American