Pertaining to the artificially generated stampede, is it reasonable to assume that the United States federal government has in place a massive communications kill-switch? And is it plausible to claim that if they do, they also have a top secret, reactive speech in place for the President to address the entire nation in the aftermath of its use? One that explains how the government came to everyone’s rescue just in the nick of time? Then, an additional explanation outlining how they’ve been anticipating the possibility of an artificially generated stampede and will now institute these “awareness” campaigns in the name of public safety. And furthermore, there was a contingency portion of the speech in the event of a dominipede that explained how it was “a necessary evil” to sacrifice innocent lives at one or more select venues in order to preserve the greater, overall public safety. We wanted to tell you, but we couldn’t. We knew it could be bad, but our objective was to make sure it didn’t end up being THAT bad. Does any of this make sense?
Even more bizarre is an assumption that the government has some type of all-encompassing, real-time monitoring and filtration system. Every text message, every e-mail, every phone call, every potential hack. I’ve already touched on this subject many times, the notion that mitigation might serve as a comprehensive strategy to combat the artificially generally stampede. If and when OODA (observe, orient, decide, act) loops are nullified, any response plan would be rendered useless. How could mitigation in a pre-artificially generated stampede society be considered a viable strategy?
Call me naive, but I just don’t see it. I simply don’t buy it. You’d basically have to sell me on the following premise… that the SECOND the stampedes originate, someone in the highest position of ultra-authority, acting on behalf of the U.S. government, yet unaffiliated with the U.S. government, can issue the “kill-switch” order. Once again, call me naive, but this seems conceptually ludicrous. Since I’m the only person (that I know of) to broach the topic of the artificially generated stampede, I consider myself to be a confident spokesperson on the subject. And as a self-professed “expert,” it’s my contention that no such master plan is currently in existence. And even if the telecommunications kill-switch specifically existed to combat the artificially generated stampede, it would be impossible to effectively activate, monitor and properly control a desirable outcome.
I often speak of the need for immediate awareness campaigns. It’s one thing to make that assertion. It’s another thing to explain the actual process. Since we’re talking about a fundamentally transformative topic of immense magnitude, this requires a more thorough explanation.
The artificially generated stampede is far more than a problem requiring the allocation of money. You cannot simply ask the FCC to issue new guidelines and order the construction of warning signs at relevant venues. Due to the nature of the dilemma, it necessitates a vastly bolder approach.
The most practical, superior solution would entail the President of the United States, Barack Obama, stepping up to the plate and demonstrating REAL leadership. In this case, I’d recommend an address to the nation. Perhaps he could relay his concerns in the form of a 21st century Fireside Chat and reference the “only you can prevent forest fires” analogy. Radio was an effective format for Franklin D. Roosevelt. Not only did it help conceal his physical deterioration due to his ongoing battle with polio, it also allowed him to explain the reasoning for social change, both slowly and comprehensively. Maybe Obama could launch this unprecedented announcement via social media, possibly streaming it over the internet. Obama could highlight some of the personal death and injury hoaxes he has endured while in office. He could use these incidents to personalize the issue and sell the American public on the concept of awareness campaigns.
I would also encourage him to issue an open challenge to a one-on-one debate with any high ranking politician that feels this is a poor idea (anyone that virulently opposes awareness campaigns). Considering the anecdotal evidence, the direction of history as well as the mounting urgency, I find it hard to believe that anyone would accept this debate. Even though the artificially generate stampede is a hypothetical, if you are a proponent of deductive reasoning, you should be able to sift through this mess and coherently explain all aspects. Any challenger overtly taking potshots or using propaganda would not fare well, especially if a debate was held in an interactive, town hall format.
I realize this defies convention wisdom, but sometimes you must evolve beyond the confines of the established socio-political structure. With the security of American civilians at stake, this is one of those times. The terms of peril dictate a break from the pattern of business as usual.
I do sympathize because this would open up Obama to vicious, rehearsed attacks from the general opposition. You would certainly hear accusations of fear mongering and the claim that he thinks Americans are too stupid to know the difference between reality and a hoax. He would be portrayed as a condescending elitist and patronizing professor. There would also likely be claims of further government intrusion into our everyday lives. The general public is incapable of protecting themselves. We, the nanny-state government, must do it for you. These narratives are all too predictable.
This is not an easy case to be made. It’s very challenging to issue warnings based upon hypothetical scenarios. Inevitably, there would be political blowback. The only upside is that Obama doesn’t have to worry about running for the presidency as his term will expire in 2016. So the only thing at stake is the reputation of the Commander-in-Chief and the executive branch versus a future scenario where innocent people die. Quite the paradox.
So here’s one option. Do nothing. Just wait for the natural course of events to unfold and hope for the best. Pray that it’s isolated in scope and the death/injury count remains low. Until the American public actually sees an artificially generated stampede transpire, they’ll likely go about their daily drudgery in a collective state of ignorance and/or denial.
Unfortunately, having studied stadium stampedes in other countries and also factoring in the spiral rotunda, excess amenities and the general difficulty in obtaining entry and exit due to ironically enhanced security procedures, I cannot help but think that any hypothetical scenario is a grave one. Factor in a perpetrator’s “progression of malicious intent,” and this substantially increases the potential for an extremely negative outcome (a dominipede).
And here’s the other option. Carpe diem. Seize the moment and confront the issue. Which choice seems wiser? I’m admittedly biased, but I prefer the latter.