Amanda Ripley Author of The Unthinkable

Another emergency, another news story about ...(dramatic pause)… regular people behaving exactly as they normally do.

In Cape Cod yesterday, an ambulance got stuck in the snow on its way to help a man who had collapsed outside his home. Out of the haze, an untrained force of neighbors appeared. Five neighbors used snow blowers to clear the road ahead while the others dug out the snow around the ambulance with snow shovels. It took two hours, but the elite squad of regular people and emergency medical technicians eventually got the man out, and he’s doing fine.

I like stories like these, but it is always intriguing how they are portrayed as exceptional. We know by now that the people who do most of the rescuing in big emergencies are regular people. God love ‘em.

When I give talks about my book, people often ask me about how they should prepare for a disaster, what they should have in their “kits,” etc. I tell them: Put batteries in your smoke detector. Exercise. Get good insurance. And if your neighbors invite you over, drop the duct tape and go, man, go.

This year, I’m proud to report, we got invited to three neighborhood holiday parties--all on our block, and we went to all of them. Finally some advice I can follow while drinking wine…

Fascinating piece by Jill Lepore in the New Yorker about why Americans are so much more likely to murder each other than people in other comparable developed nations.

As you might imagine, the answer is: no one knows! But a couple of new books are making provocative new arguments based on actual data, not just conjecture. One thing seems clear: the answer is probably not what you think--or at least not that one thing alone. Not just the prevalence of guns, nor just the violence of our popular culture, etc.

The most startling data point in the piece comes early on, when Lepore reviews the murder rates around the world, over time. It may not surprise you to hear that America’s murder rate is twice that of any other rich democracy. But how to explain the fact that it has always been so--if not worse? In fact, America’s homicide rate has been dramatically higher than comparable nations since, well, the beginning of America.

If there is any solace in the numbers, then it is that the citizens of developed nations (even Americans!) are much less murderous than they were hundreds of years ago. Today, the American murder rate is just over five victims per hundred thousand people per year. (In Europe, the rate has been below two for much of the past century.) But in medieval times, the European rate was closer to 35. It dropped to five by 1700.

Then again, the murder rate has been dramatically lowered in recent decades by the progress of emergency medicine. It’s not simply that people are getting more peaceful, in other words; it’s that a violent assault (like a car accident) is far less likely to end in death. Good news, but not especially heartening.

U.K. Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling is right to impose a 50% tax on banker bonuses, as announced earlier today. I know, I know: It could lead to an exodus of “talent,” as everyone in the financial “talent” industry likes to tell us. (Although that is less likely if more countries sign up for such a tax, reducing the number of alternative options for banks in search of relocation.) And I know that clever banks will find a way to slither out of some of the taxes. I don’t care. Fairness matters. Even if we can’t get fairness, it’s important to make every effort. That’s how the human brain works, something the Obama administration doesn’t seem to understand.

The best explanation I have heard about the brain’s need for punishment came from social psychologist Jennifer Lerner, the head of Harvard University’s Decision Science Laboratory. We spoke last year for a story I was working on. The economy was imploding, and she predicted, right from the very beginning, that voters would not forgive Obama for the bailout unless and until they perceived a sense of justice:

”People often care more about fairness than they do about financial outcomes. Anger and a desire for fairness and punishment [are] very human phenomena. I’ve yet to see a public leader addressing this desire. And there is, in my view, unlikely to be widespread support for these policies unless the anger and punishment is addressed.”

Since we spoke, the U.S. Congress considered a 90 percent tax on bonuses at companies that got more than $5 billion in aid. The measure died in the Senate after President Obama said the U.S. shouldn’t “govern out of anger” and AIG employees promised to repay their bonuses.

What happened instead? Well, Obama appointed Kenneth Feinberg to be the country’s pay czar, a nice idea that hasn’t yet produced any surge in fairness. Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase’s investment bank combined will hand out $29.7 billion in 2009 bonuses, up 60 percent from last year, according to Bloomberg, and since they repaid the government aid they received last year, those banks aren’t subject to Feinberg’s review.

So while Obama refuses to govern out of anger, the anger has not gone away. That’s not how anger works. A recent Washington Post poll suggests that, in the void, anger has found a new target--in Obama:

“Republicans and GOP-leaning independents are overwhelmingly negative about Obama and the Democratic Party more broadly, with nearly all dissatisfied with the administration’s policies and almost half saying they are “angry” about them. About three-quarters have a more basic complaint, saying Obama does not stand for “traditional American values.” More than eight in 10 say there is no chance they would support his reelection.”

Cut back to Prof. Lerner, who saw all this coming a year ago:

“The anger is not likely to go away without some feeling of it being resolved. The angrier people get, the more they will continue to blame. The problem is unlikely to die out on its own....Most policies in the United States are informed by an economic analysis that assumes people behave in order to maximize their monetary outcomes. That assumption is being increasingly eroded from this new field of decision finance....There is no council of psychological advisers in Washington, just a council of economic advisers.”

Granted, angry Republicans are unlikely to be overjoyed by a new tax on rich people. But I think it could be one (of several) steps that would ameliorate the ambient anger with an injection of fairness. There is a sense among many Americans that Washington is allowing its own institutions and certain industries to take risks and spend money without consequences or limit. And there is some truth to it. I say, write a smart tax to hold the bankers accountable and give our brains a sense of fairness--in a civilized, reasoned fashion. (Also, we should totally start up a Council of Psychological Advisers!)

OK, first of all, my apologies for the recent silence. I’ve been deep in the weeds on a story that is now finished--and will come out in January. It was an epic ride, one that I thoroughly enjoyed and am glad is over. But more on that later.

Now seems like a good time to revisit the slow-motion disaster of the year. To be sure, we still don’t know how the swine flu story ends. But we finally know the headline. Beyond all the noise about H1N1, the CDC, pigs and Mexico, this will go down as a story about outdated technology--the kind that we should have been embarrased about a long time ago.

As Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said today:

“We were fighting the 2009 H1N1 flu with vaccine technology from the 1950s. We could race to begin vaccine production, but there was nothing we could do if vaccine grew slowly in eggs. We could make deals with foreign vaccine producers ahead of time, but we still wouldn’t have as much control over the vaccine as if they were based in the U.S....We were working to squeeze every last bit of efficiency and dependability out of a safe but outdated technology. It was like an old car we had tuned up but still didn’t accelerate like we needed it to. And for us, the conclusion was clear: If we wanted to avoid these problems in the future, we needed to make some long-term investments in developing countermeasures that were just as safe and effective, but could be produced faster and more reliably.”

I hope this pandemic has peaked, and I hope there is no third wave. But regardless, this problem ain’t going away. To see what I mean (and make the magical connection between swine flu and terrorism--yes, there really is one! Not just pure fear mongering...!), check out this short H1N1 video from the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism.

Preparing for the release of The Road and 2012, my TIME colleague Rebecca Winters Keegan investigates how to survive the end of the world--Hollywood style. Best tip (from Viggo Mortensen): Resist the urge to eat your children.

Our cinematic fascination with the end of the world is perplexing and somewhat perverse, but not new. According to Wheeler Winston Dixon, a film studies professor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, one of the early sound films was 1931’s “The End of the World,” in which a comet slams in the the Earth. Dixon’s theory for why we love to imagine the destruction of our own civilization, as he recently described it to CNN:

“I think it’s a desire to sort of say ... ‘We won’t have to worry about the future, because there is no future,’ “ he says. “And so therefore, we can do what we want now, and all the debts are put off and all the responsibilities are avoided.” Besides, “the complete destruction of the world has always been attractive, because ... by witnessing that act and staying outside of it, you’ve witnessed the apocalypse,” he says. “It’s much like a horror movie. It allows you to participate without risk.”

Personally, I can’t get into these movies. And I tried to read The Road, but I found it too disturbing. (Though the writing was outstanding.) I don’t know, maybe I’m too literal or too soft. But I find no escapist value in watching atrocious things happen to society. That’s my job, after all, and it’s not particularly hilarious. So when I try to watch these movies, I am no fun… I find myself either walking out--or pointing out all the things that are unrealistic. (Watching the first episode of Lost, I kept muttering under my breath because all the injured airplane passengers were hanging out, treating their wounds, exchanging information--right next to the burning plane. Literally in its shadow! In real life, survivors of plane crashes get the hell away from the plane as soon as they can. Which makes more sense. Sigh.) So if you go to these movies, I hope for your sake that there’s no one like me in the theater.