"You're sitting at Starbucks one day, sipping your grande non-fat double shot mocha latte, reading the Huffington Post on your iPad and idly checking Twitter on your white iPhone 4S.
And that's when it happens.
A push notification from Drones+: Another drone strike in Pakistan kills 17 suspected militants.
You turn to your friend, but he's already looking at you (he also has a white iPhone 4S). "They've done it again", you say. "I know, it's absolutely terrible isn't it? We live in such a terrible oppressive country", he says.
You take another sip of your grande non-fat double shot mocha latte and nod in solemn agreement with your friend. Having completed the ritual, mutually acknowledging each others enlightened sense of worldliness, you return to reading the Huffington Post and checking Twitter.
"Thanks Drones+!", you say silently to yourself."
-- Someones comment before deletion. To great for deletion.
On one hand I think this comment makes a fair point that this isn't a very useful app. The app's creator himself admits that. He didn't expect it to be downloaded much.
On the other hand, I think this comment and Apple's rejection have both made the app creator's point very well. Not only do people want to ignore drone strikes, they actually resent the idea that other people would want to know about them. In Apple's case they state that customers would find it "objectionable." In this comment's case, the only conceivable reason anyone would want to know about drone strikes is so they could feign interest in order to feel enlightened or worldly.
This is fascinating to me. If we'd had a referendum at some point about whether to grant the U.S. military the power to kill anyone, anytime, anywhere with no checks & balances, no oversight, and no due process, according to it's judgement about what best serves the interest of national security, who do you think would've voted for it? I can't think of any significant political coalition that would've thought that was a good idea. Yet now that it is a reality, you're crazy or a traitor or insincere if you want to make it an issue.
I feel that it's related to peoples' perceived inability to do anything about it. If somebody powerful does something bad, blame the messenger for troubling your mind with it, since there is nothing you can do about somebody powerful.
"I feel that it's related to peoples' perceived inability to do anything about it. If somebody powerful does something bad, blame the messenger for troubling your mind with it, since there is nothing you can do about somebody powerful."
When a politician or a political party does something very bad, the main problem is almost always one of awareness. Before anything, people need to know what he actually did. I bet 99% of people don't know about all the drone strikes going on.
And that's when it happens.
A push notification from Drones+: Another drone strike in Pakistan kills 17 suspected militants.
You turn to your friend, but he's already looking at you (he also has a white iPhone 4S). "They've done it again", you say. "I know, it's absolutely terrible isn't it? We live in such a terrible oppressive country", he says.
You take another sip of your grande non-fat double shot mocha latte and nod in solemn agreement with your friend. Having completed the ritual, mutually acknowledging each others enlightened sense of worldliness, you return to reading the Huffington Post and checking Twitter.
"Thanks Drones+!", you say silently to yourself." -- Someones comment before deletion. To great for deletion.