Abraham Lincoln on the Death of Osama bin Laden

My fellow Americans, a great stride has been made in War on Terror.  Justice has been done, and bin Laden's shadow across our great country no longer exists.  There are calls to stop the fighting, to bring our soldiers home from overseas.  In light of these, we must remember that one death does not do justice to the thousands of American lives lost during 9/11 nor those lost fighting our wars.  Each life is a blow to America, and the death of Osama bin Laden does not remove the threat to American lives.  The wounds done to our country by the events of 9/11 are far from healing; for some, they never shall.  It is with this in mind that our country as a whole must dedicate ourselves even more fully to eradicating the threat to our country, to ensure that such attacks by Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups never occur again upon American soil.  We must, as American citizens, ensure that these deaths are not in vain.

Not My Words

I'm posting the following because it shocked me unlike anything I've read in recent memory.  I found it completely offensive, inappropriate, and in just pure bad taste.  If anyone who reads the following disagrees, I would whole-heartedly love to have a rational discussion with you.

On May 1, 2011 Pres. Barack Obama appeared on national television with the

spontaneous announcement that Osama bin Laden, the purported organizer of

the tragic events of September 11th 2001, was killed by military forces in

Pakistan.

Within moments, a media blitz ran across virtually all television networks

in what could only be described as a grotesque celebratory display,

reflective of a level of emotional immaturity that borders on cultural

psychosis. Depictions of people running through the streets of New York and

Washington chanting jingoistic American slogans, waving their flags like

the members of some cult, praising the death of another human being,

reveals yet another layer of this sickness we call modern society.

It is not the scope of this response to address the political usage of such

an event or to illuminate the staged orchestration of how public perception

was to be controlled by the mainstream media and the United States

Government. Rather the point of this article is to express the gross

irrationality apparent and how our culture becomes so easily fixed and

emotionally charged with respect to surface symbology, rather than true

root problems, solutions or rational considerations of circumstance.

The first and most obvious point is that the death of Osama bin Laden means

nothing when it comes to the problem of international terrorism. His death

simply serves as a catharsis for a culture that has a neurotic fixation on

revenge and retribution. The very fact that the Government which, from a

psychological standpoint, has always served as a paternal figure for it

citizens, reinforces the idea that murdering people is a solution to

anything should be enough for most of us to take pause and consider the

quality of the values coming out of the zeitgeist itself.

However, beyond the emotional distortions and tragic, vindictive pattern of

rewarding the continuation of human division and violence comes a more

practical consideration regarding what the problem really is and the

importance of that problem with respect to priority.

The death of any human being is of an immeasurable consequence in society.

It is never just the death of the individual. It is the death of

relationships, companionship, support and the integrity of familial and

communal environments. The unnecessary deaths of 3000 people on September

11, 2001 is no more or no less important than the deaths of those during

the World Wars, via cancer and disease, accidents or anything else.

As a society, it is safe to say that we seek a world that strategically

limits all such unnecessary consequences through social approaches that

allow for the greatest safety our ingenuity can create. It is in this

context that the neurotic obsession with the events of September 11th, 2001

become gravely insulting and detrimental to progress. An environment has

now been created where outrageous amounts of money, resources and energy is

spent seeking and destroying very small subcultures of human beings that

pose ideological differences and act on those differences through violence.

Yet, in the United States alone each year, roughly 30,000 people die from

automobile accidents, the majority of which could be stopped by very simple

structural changes. That's ten 9/11's each year... yet no one seems to pine

over this epidemic. Likewise, over 1 million Americans die from heart

disease and cancer annually - causes of which are now easily linked to

environmental influences in the majority. Yet, regardless of the over 330

9/11's occurring each year in this context, the governmental budget

allocations for research on these illnesses is only a small fraction of the

money spent on “anti-terrorism” operations.

Such a list could go on and on with regard to the perversion of priority

when it comes to what it means to truly save and protect human life and I

hope many out there can recognize the severe imbalance we have at hand with

respect to our values.

So, coming back to the point of revenge and retribution, I will conclude

this response with a quote from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., likely the most

brilliant intuitive mind when it came to conflict and the power of

non-violence. On September 15, 1963 a Birmingham Alabama church was bombed,

killing four little girls attending Sunday school.

In a public address, Dr. King stated:

“What murdered these four girls? Look around. You will see that many

people that you never thought about participated in this evil act. So

tonight all of us must leave here with a new determination to struggle. God

has a job for us to do. Maybe our mission is to save the soul of America.

We can't save the soul of this nation throwing bricks. We can't save the

soul of this nation getting our ammunitions and going out shooting physical

weapons. We must know that we have something much more powerful. Just take

up the ammunition of love.”

- Dr. Martin Luther King, 1963 -

Written by Peter Joseph

What comes next?

Today, the American people are celebrating the demise of the largest symbol of terrorism of my generation.  It was one of those moments I think I'll remember forever.  It joins the list of events seared into my mind forever; first hearing about 9/11 as my mother talked with my fourth grade teacher after making an uncharacteristic decision to pick my brother and I up from school that day being the first on that list.  Osama bin Laden has been my generations symbol of evil, and I hope he remains the only one we will have the misfortune of dealing with in our life time.

His death gives a sense of closure to a nation still mourning the loss of thousands of people on that infamous September day.  All over Facebook, people were sounding off the majority expressing relief and happiness that bin Laden had been stopped from causing anymore pain and death to the world.  There were those that expressed disappointment and disgust at the "celebration of death" as some put it.  To them, I have this to say:  The pain, both physical and emotional, caused by bin Laden will never be healed.  Give us a sentence or two on Facebook to declare our relief in the power to finally turn a dark, bloody page in our nation's history.  That being said, his death does not  end the war on terror.  Al Qaeda now has a martyr for their cause, and, if we are to believe the pundits on cable news, attacks will most likely increase as radical Islamists release their fury at losing their symbolic leader.

Questions remain about bin Laden's involvement in the day-to-day operations of the organization.  It seems he had become less integral to the structure and more of a figurehead.  The biggest questions, in my opinion, go past bin Laden and are directed towards the country he was killed in, Pakistan.

Pakistan and the U.S. have had a tenuous relationship, sure to grow as more information comes to light as to just how long bin Laden had been hiding in his compound in the city of Abbottabad, a city that had a large military population.  Needless to say, lots of suspicion is directed towards the Pakistani government as to how much information they had on bin Laden and whether they were reluctant in providing it to the U.S. government.

This is a momentous success for the United States and the world.  This unifying event will lift our nation's spirits for sometime.  But, it must be remembered that there are still those out there that seek to do us harm and we must remain vigilante to their threat.

Black Elk and Nature

I've always admired the Native American's close ties to nature.  The connection they have and the way the speak of it is simply beautiful.  While reading "Black Elk Speaks" the admiration the Native American's have for nature is upon nearly every page.  Their names and descriptions are gorgeous, and sometimes I felt myself yearning to be called Fire Thunder instead of Jake, which is just boring in comparison.  The month of August would seem so much better if we referred to it as Moon When the Cherries Turn Black instead of simply August.

It makes me sad to think Americans were hell-bent on wiping out this beautiful culture simply for land.  It was obvious that the Native Americans were the ones who cared for it and worshipped it.  We simply charged in with industry and Christianity, and found them more than adequate to replace what had been there before.

It's a shame, really.

What do you say?

I've had two heart-breaking conversations in the past couple of days.  They're the worst, especially with two people you really care about.  These conversations were, in their own ways, critiques on the society we live in today.

Both of my conversations were with girl friends of mine who happen to be lesbian.  They don't know each other, and yet their stories are so similar that one would think that two people experiencing such things would somehow find each other.  Instead, they share me, a simple link that doesn't really do either of them any good, except having me to help them out as best I can.  In my opinion, I always come up short.

Both of my girl friends are lesbians.  Both have girlfriends.  And both are experiencing their first same-sex relationships.  It should be liberating.  It should be exciting.  Above all, it should feel right.  But because of the way society has reacted towards homosexuality, they feel everything but.

The first one I talked to was asking me how to hold her girlfriend's hand in public and ignore the stares.  She was scared her girlfriend wouldn't understand why she might be a little uncomfortable doing such a simple action right away.  It was so unfair.  I remember the first time I held a boy's hand in public; it was scary but exhilarating.  We were at a movie, which was kinda cheating, because it was in the dark.  But, all the same, it happened and it felt great.  To imagine such a simple act scaring my friend nearly to tears isn't right.

My second conversation fell upon the topic of marriage.  My second friend has been in talks with her girlfriend about it, and it's looking likely.  But because they live in Wisconsin, where it isn't LEGAL, they can't.  They can't enter into the bond of love because a state government says no.  How can this be? It breaks my heart every time I think about it.  To constantly live with the overwhelming sense that what you're doing isn't allowed is exhausting.  To see your friends go through it breaks your heart.

The culture wars can continue.  Morals can be challenged, the Bible can be referenced, and anger and fear can dominate the conversation.  But what will you say when a GLBT youth comes up to you and asks why they can't be who they are, can't do what feels right?

What do you say?

 

Yikes

I found Louisa May Alcott's "Transcendental Wild Oats" relatively upsetting.  She was making light of the movement slightly, correct?  If not, I'm deeply disturbed.  That anyone can read that and believe that the lifestyle laid out is agreeable is sorely mistaken.  It seemed liked extreme-Veganism (not that Veganism in itself isn't radical as is,) with its dedication to not using animals in any way, shape, or form.  I have a difficult time understanding the rational behind this belief, and an even more difficult time understanding how a parent can put their child through such a lifestyle, when there are essential vitamins and nutrients necessary for healthy growth that are only available through the consumption of meat.  Rather upsetting, if you ask me.

Beyond that, isn't it just too hard to constantly live a life of virtue?

Henry and I: Two Peas in a Pod

Oh, Hank.  I feel like I can call him that because we met way back; Interim in fact, in my Problem of War class.  He and I met one cloudy afternoon after I had collected him from the printer and had him join me for a cup of coffee. I found him engaging, funny, and pragmatic (all things I admire.)  He did most of the talking, lots of libertarian-esque ideas I agreed with and underlined with my own affirmations (i.e. YES!) and a couple disagreements here and there (Voting important here- I disagree with his view that voting is feeble,) but on the whole, we got along just fine.  A relationship flourished.

So, perhaps my meeting with him was a bit romanticized.  But his work in "Civil Disobedience" struck a chord with me.  Here he was, unhappy with America's role in the Mexican-American war, and he refused to let his taxes go towards such an endeavor, so he did not pay them.  Illegal, yes, but such an inspiration!  To not pay one's taxes in protest is such a perfect tactic: Though just a finite amount of money in the grand scheme of things, as a taxpayer you are holding the government by the money bags.  It's something I would love to use once Congress starts using taxpayer funds to protect the Defense of Marriage Act as Speaker Boehner wants to do, but the legal ramifications are. . .daunting.

I think De Tocqueville would be a little put-off by Hank's ideas.  His obvious distaste for the State would have probably conflicted with De Tocqueville trying to sell such a thing to his French pals.  I have the distinct feeling that since Hank and I get along, and De Tocqueville and I don't, they wouldn't fair well either.  But, De Tocqueville's loss.

Hank and I are two peas in a pod.  And to follow, my favorite plant quote by Hank:

"If a plant cannot live according to nature, it dies; and so a man."

Couldn't have said it better myself.