Maybe we could learn something, ay?

I am sure all these points are contributing factors. However, I would argue, the most important prerequisite for this outcome was the fact that Canadians have a societal-level sense of unity. That is, they recognize the value of their fellow citizens. They realize that by sticking together and ensuring that others do not fall through the cracks, there will be enough for everyone and everyone will do better.

For fifty points, this is in sharp contrast to what country? Here are some hints. 

In this other, once great, country, they have devolved into a self possessed culture where each one feels entitled to grab the most for themselves. They tend to justify this behavior with an outdated, prejudicial, and mean-spirited idea that those who have nothing find themselves in that condition because they are lazy and worth nothing.

In such a society it becomes easy to imagine that millionaires and billionaires achieve that status because they must be way more valuable than other people. Many of the citizens in this society find difficult to believe those wealthy people are merely the ones who thrive in a game primed for greed, narcissism, and money hoarding. In this society, sharing and cooperation for the common good is for chumps. Instead, one is drawn to emulate the behaviors of the greedy. In this way, the me-me-me carousel keeps spinning.

For another fifty points, who can predict the logical outcome of this game? Here are some hints.

 The masses will continue trying to become more like their heroes, the millionaires and billionaires. It will not occur to them that they are late to the party and their chances of reaching their dreams are infinitesimal. And it most certainly will not occur to them that, were they to reach their dreams- they wouldn’t like who they’d become. Meanwhile, each one will be looking at her fellow citizens, who is also scraping up the crumbs left by those who own everything, and thinking, “that guy is the apocryphal frog-in-the-pot”. Such disdain will make each feel briefly superior, but in truth, they are all standing in water that gets warmer by the minute as more wealth is distributed upward.

So, here is one way of seeing the problem, these people are lost because they started out by surrendering the simultaneous pursuit of happiness and well-being for themselves and their fellow citizens. This fact is well understood by those who own and/or control almost everything (the ownership class). It is then a trivial matter to let just enough crumbs fall from their table to keep the illusion of sharing and cooperation alive. Meanwhile the owners consolidated their hold on the dissemination of information (media) to ensure they controlled, to a large degree, the messaging. In short, they made sure they are the people who tell the masses that the system is working for them. And how do these opinion makers ensure most will never question the message? One might imagine they would use sex to sell the message. In fact, they use fear and anger.   

In the end, the masses appear oblivious to the fact that the system they are using to achieve wealth (and become more like their idols) tends to funnel most of the money to the already wealthy. Even if it slowly begins to dawn on them that their dreams were an illusion, how will they get off the treadmill to nowhere? In the framework of the game, anyone who steps off the treadmill is a loser.

One way to look at the conundrum.

Capitalism is arguably the greatest wealth creating system ever devised.

Capitalism set in a system where it is worshipped rather than being employed as a useful and thoughtfully regulated tool leads to this bleak place.

News, terror, and amusement parks

What do amusement parks and news outlets have in common? They are both purveyors of fear. And what is the difference between them? The amusement park looks you dead in the eye and says, “Get on the rollercoaster. You are going to pay us to frighten you and you are going to love it!” I respect that. Sure, it is rapacious and unapologetic capitalism but, the terms are clear and overt. I am not so certain I could say the same about many of our news outlets.

Like many Americans, I recently watched the drama caused by the so-called Austin bomber. I was saddened by the casualties but having lived through the era of the “uni-bomber”, I was relieved that the whole episode was mercifully brief. Kudos to the brave and dedicated law enforcement officers on this front. However, what struck me was how quickly our attention turned to what we now consider to be the most important question. Were these bombings an act of terrorism? Was the perpetrator a terrorist? When the perpetrator was discovered to be a caucasian and an American, our mutual abhorrence with regard to his actions quickly faded. In its place, we found a way to be divided. Lines were drawn based on who was willing to call him a terrorist and who was not? Our news outlets told us we were at war with each other over a labeling issue. It wasn't even a hard sell. We were primed.

Did you ever stop to wonder why there are national discussions on who should be labeled a terrorist? We ask ourselves if we are labeling too many foreigners as terrorists and not enough homegrown Americans. What about the color divide, we collectively muse? Sure, there are lots of brown terrorists (most of us are pretty quick to agree on this) but are caucasian terrorists being undercounted? If it were not so deadly serious, it would be laughable.

Meanwhile, how many are questioning the gruel we are offered? Why are we now more obsessed with tactics (terrorism) than criminal acts (murder and destruction)? If we have a national consciousness, any thoughtful discussions in that realm are now surrendered to fearful fretting, anger, and thoughts of vengeance.

If you suspect the coverage of “terrorists” and “terrorism” is somehow not in line with day-to-day reality, you are not alone. We are all victims of terrorism now. But, perhaps, not by the agents we imagine. The simple fact is, terrorism specifically and fear-mongering generally are big business with many purveyors. A number of our news outlets would certainly qualify. However, like any multi-level marketing scam, there are many other sellers in the chain as well. And who is buying? We are.

A worthwhile link on the topic by actual experts:

Terrorism and the media: A guide for journalists