Complacency is a state of mind that exists only in retrospective: it has to be shattered before being ascertained - Vladimir Nabokov. 

     I am interested in the overuse of the word complacency in the media in light of the bombings in Boston. I watch too much news; a side effect of being home and receiving treatment for breast cancer. A piece of information for another day. 
     Over and over the question is asked "have we become too complacent?" When I hear that question what I'm thinking is that the person asking thinks that somehow it might be our own fault. The simple act of enjoying life is exactly what may have been the catalyst that tore apart people, young and old, physically and emotionally without prejudice and to their very core. 
     It is really just a simple matter of Math, or Philosophy, whatever floats your boat. Each apply. Remember when you were in school and you learned about logic? Deductive reasoning? The dreaded if p then q... Yes... that... In this instance the logic would read if society is complacent then terrorist attacks will occur. This is fallacious logic. The powers that be tell us over and over again that we are hated around the world and that attacks will come again and again. We can see something and say something. We can contact authorities and text suspicious items and actions. We can thwart as many attacks as possible, but, if we become complacent we won't stop attacks on our people. 
     Nabokov's definition of complacency is spot on. Our society should  be complacent. Trained but complacent. Observant but complacent. Cautious but complacent. Complacent has to be let alone. Are we saying that the people in Boston who were injured or died were complacent? The dictionary says that complacency is "a feeling of contentment especially when coupled with an unawareness of danger". I don't know if we can exist as a community without being complacent.  I want to be content. Don't you? 
     Let's leave alone the citizenry. They are not to blame. On the news I see a picture over and over of a backpack on the sidewalk in front of marathon spectators. By pointing to this bag, by showing these people before and after the blast and by asking if we are too complacent puts the onus of responsibility on those poor souls who stood their happily watching the race; feet away from a device designed to kill. That's unacceptable. Even if those asking the question may not believe they are pointing the finger, they are. I see it from my living room. No one is thinking about the consequence of that question.That is a shame. I'm not surprised, though... it's what we do.
    The beauty of a society is that we can be happy and content and leave some of the diligence up to trained professionals. So, now... what is it we want from them? We want them trained. We want them observant. We want them cautious. Do we want perfection? Yes, we do... but we can't expect perfection. We can't put 100% of the burden on the small fraction of the people we pay to provide us contentment. They can do all we ask and our complacency will still be shattered eventually. If we say our police and reservists might be complacent we are then burdening those poor souls with a lifetime of regret. A lifetime of shame. We expect diligence. They were that.... they swept the area again and again specifically for bombs or other IED's in the area. To call them complacent makes them culpable. They are not. Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, No one can be 100% complacent just like they cannot be 100% diligent. Tragedies happen. Gee, is it too much to ask that we stop asking the people involved if they were complacent and therefore responsible? I would like to retire that word. It is one of the worst words I hear when I watch reporters yammer on for hours and hours about "who is responsible for this attack?" The person who left the bombs, that's who.