<snip>
Are we safe, safer, safest, yet? What is safe enough? If we won't live in fear, don't we have to live with fear?
This is a country that is, by every actuarial table, extremely safe. But it's also a country where toothpaste comes with a warning label and a mad cow can set off a vegetarian stampede.
Our reactions to the current orange alert ranged across a bell curve of fear. A shoebox on library steps in New York caused an evacuation of 5,000 people. It held a stuffed snowman. A mayor told an NPR reporter that his city was "on the front line of the war on terrorism." His city was Peoria, Ariz.
At the same time, Americans went home for the holidays. And in D.C. a colleague blithely brushed away the alert by saying "orange is the new yellow" as if it were a fashion statement.
Part of the problem is that safety is not just relative, it's mobile. If we protect against anthrax, does the terrorist move to smallpox? If we hire air guards to beware of terrorists infiltrating the flight deck, will terrorists infiltrate the air guards? Or hop a freight?
In safety, as in thermodynamics, you cannot get to absolute zero. Or as Paul Simon sings, the nearer the destination the more you keep sliding away.
The biggest struggle with the "sense" of vulnerability is where to put our dollars and our worries. As a member of the duck-and-cover generation, my worst case scenarios are nuclear, and, as John Edwards has said most strongly, I do not rest assured. At the same time, I feel more manipulated than comforted by the way we launched a war against fear. The arrest of Saddam makes me feel delighted but not safer.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/01/04/so_is_orange_the_new_color_of_safety/