Public mood is largely a product of what the media forms it to be. Look at how Boston was covered. How many days did they blather on and on about 3 deaths? If it had been three Boston people dying in a car crash it wouldn't even had made local news.

Of course some say the media is just showing people what they want to see but that is naive. The two are intertwined. Further, if no news agencies were allowed to report on terrorist attacks (as they are not supposed to report on self immolation) then the public wouldn't care because most people wouldn't even know about it.

>It so happens that law enforcement officials and national security officials and politicians do not think that the voters will accept 3 to 6 Boston bombings per year, without their careers being destroyed.

Take away the security apparatus and many of their jobs are gone whether there is an attack or not.

For some. But most of the loudest voices are higher up the food chain, and do not directly benefit from the security apparatus. Most of those on the payroll as part of the apparatus must maintain some semblance of calm competence, thus they cannot participate directly into feeding the hysteria.

Implying mercenary intent absolves the voters of any responsibility.

The presidency is one of those jobs.

off topic. I came across this post from you https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3170221

Would you still be interested in that service?

tom at blendah.com