The Normalcy Bias: When Normality Becomes Dangerous

  As noted in Wikipedia, “the normalcy bias, or normality bias, refers to a mental state people enter when facing a disaster.  It causes people to underestimate both the possibility of a disaster occurring and its possible effects”.  People think just because something has never happened before that it can’t happen or it won’t be that bad.  I would like to reference two events in history as examples. 

  Let’s start with Hurricane Katrina.  Thousands of New Orleans residents refused to leave the city, and city officials didn’t attempt to force an evacuation.  With a recipe of an inadequate government, unprepared citizens and denial that the levees would fail the end course left over two thousand people dead.

  Now let’s go further back in history to the Holocaust.  Have you ever wondered why so many Jews continued to live in Germany, even after they were forced to wear the identifying Star of David and discriminatory laws were passed against them?  Jews who could’ve easily afforded to move out of the country stayed, and perished.  Life had been so good for so long that they thought, surely, things would get better.  Do you see where I’m going with this?

Please watch the video below.

  Their are so many different accounts that I could list when it comes to talking about this bias.  It really all boils down to the fact that no matter what, some people are going to be blind to their surroundings.  To say the least, most people's situational awareness "sucks".

Can We Still Call Our Country "The Land of The Free"?

  

  One of Barack Obama’s campaign promises was not to use signing statements and executive orders to circumnavigate legislation signed into law.  However, on New Year’s Eve, Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act into law while vacationing with his family in Hawaii.  Below is a portion of the President’s statement released by the White House regarding the matter[1]. 

“Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counter-terrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counter-terrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.”

–     President Barack Obama

  Now there are a few things that bother me when I read Obama’s statement.  Am I the only one that has a problem with the fact that the man in charge of running this country signed a bill that he doesn’t entirely agree with?  He said himself that he has “serious reservations”. I’m so puzzled that the Senate rejected an amendment to the Act that would have forbidden the indefinite detention of American citizens without trial.  Sections 1021 and 1022 clearly go against our constitutional rights and the values that our forefathers built this country upon.  Although, upon further research, I learned that Obama threatened to veto this bill unless it was revised that the office of presidency would have the right to detain U.S. citizens.

  A lot of people are completely clueless when it comes to the NDAA.  Many don’t know what it is at all and some that know don’t realize the affect it could have on our society.  As for the rest, they either don’t care or their voices fall upon deaf ears.  Two months ago, I had no idea what the NDAA was until I did my research.  I was absolutely astonished that I hadn’t heard more about it in the media, as well as on social networks. 

  Whenever I have brought up the topic on Twitter, the response from my followers is always mixed.  One follower, in particular, really surprised me.  She called my tweets talking about the NDAA and Obama “rants” and had the audacity to write that I shouldn’t worry about things that don’t affect me.  How does this bill not affect me and every other citizen in this country?  The bottom line of this all is that the government can imprison anyone suspected of or even associated with terrorism.  This power is open to a range of interpretation and could certainly be abused.  See this is where the normalcy bias comes into play, which I will delve into in my next blog post.

  Please watch both of the videos below.

  I wouldn't be surprised if we actually become locked into another four year term with our current president.  He's starting to remind me a lot of our prior.  God bless our souls.

[1] To read the President’s entire statement, click on the link below.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540