Oh, come on. It's the whole bread and circuses thing. We've always liked watching gore.

Same with NASCAR.

The bully's "hero" Dad is a strangely inapt analogy for the no-sacrifice America decried by the piece. It taps into another unspoken aspect of our national bloothirstiness: That in all the wars since WWII we have picked fights with adversaries who were not powerful enough to actually defeat us, by which I mean powerful enough to invade and conquer the U.S. Yet even with our careful bully's choice of opponents to beat up on, we've been fought to a draw once (Korea) and beaten once, and possibly going on twice (Vietnam, Iraq). Our belligerance without wanting to take any consequences is in part the wounded pride of the bully who turns out not to be the superpower he thought he was.

I watched the movie 'Gladiator' again several weeks ago. At a certain point, two senators are talking about the spectacle of 150 days of games. The Derek Jacobi character says that Comidus was brighter than he (Jacobi) initially thought. Comidus understands that the heart and soul of the Roman people lies in the Coliseum. The people can be distracted from the woes of life if they're provided with entertainment.

And so it goes. After all, things turned out well for the Roman Empire, right?

Isn't the real danger becoming like many historical Empires, where the "aristocracy" was disconnected from the common sacrifice it takes to make a culture successful? e.g. Rome, Byzantium, various Chinese Dynasties?

Not having to go to war oneself, or sending your child off to battle makes a war an easier thing to fight, in my opinion. I don't think the "entertainment" value is the primary issue here.

Why do you think states are all turning to lotteries and gambling for revenues.

A dollar and a dream. You can use the dreams and aspirations of the throngs to fund the government and they don't even realize it. Just like the Roman masses didn't realize they were being drugged into passivity by bread and circus'. The only reason lotteries are successful and appealing to government is because they know people are weak. They hurt more people of modest means than they help.

It's as if we in America get some vicarious thrill watching two (or more) people get into an altercation of some kind, especially if one or more are graphically injured or killed while we watch.

I wish I had more time to respond to this provocative thesis, but I'm off to the cockfights!

It's kind of like porn.

You can take the person out of nature but you can't take nature out of the person.

Monk,

You make a very good point...but I think it is important to remember that the soldiers are not drafted. They bravely sign-up on a volunteer basis. If we had compulsary military service (Which by the way, I think would be good for us), then I feel your excellent point would have more bite becasuse you can bet that 99% of the House and Senate would find a way to exempt their child.

Bigdog,
I agree with you that the people do sign up, however much of the recruiting (though certianly not all) does not take place in upper crust schools, or hangouts. Instead it takes place in areas where people need a job and a way out(for which I am grateful the Military supplies).

I just don't see very many children of the Biff/Tiffany set with huge SUV's and W stickers out on the front lines. This causes me some concern.

I wholeheartedly concur on that draft comment, you can bet the elites would provide cover for their own children.

Lord have mercy.

monk,

I was in the service, and without it, my life would be completely different. I understand your point about the "elite" not signing up or even the lack of recruiting that occurs in those areas. But the service does provide a great opportunity for people that otherwise would not have certain opportunites. (i.e. Great job training from mechanics to welding, to flight training.)

It is an excellent opportunity for a lot of young men and women to get themselves out of downtrodden areas and into a career, and a better life.