"The media is designed to distract us from one immediate crisis to the next. It keeps us in a state of fear."

Yes, I agree, but it is us that choose to follow the lead of the media, or not. It is also us that choose whether to live in a state of fear, or not. In any crisis, remaining calm is vital, just because someone chooses not to run around in a big tizzy of fear and become all emotional, does not mean they do not care, or do not realise the problem, they have simply chosen to be calm about it. IMO, much more usefull than becoming an emotional wreck.

I have seen Obama accused of not being 'emotional enough', and I have seen this tag applied to various others during several crisis that have effected the American people, or countries close by. I ask myself, what do people want?, do they want everyone to go around boohooing, or do they want people to actually do something to help, in a calm and measured manner.

I remember seeing an interview with a red cross worker, after the tsunami disaster in Asia. He was being told of all the prayers that were being said for the people effected. He said, "thank you to all for your kind thoughts, but can you please send tents, water, food and blankets, as we cannot live in, or eat your prayers"

Fear and intimidation only works when individuals are isolated, its not going to work on millions of people, if those people realise what power they do have. This would mean putting aside personal differences to join together and fight a common cause. Sigh, my idealism is showing again :)

spud