9/11 and Cheney’s Redundant War of Redundancy

“Their prevailing mindset, combined with a series of ill-considered actions in the House and Senate over the last several months causes me to wonder whether today’s Democratic leaders fully appreciate the nature of this danger that the country faces in the war on terror — a war that was declared against us by jihadists; a war in which the United States went on offense after 9/11; a war whose central front, in the opinion and actions of the enemy, is Iraq.”

It has become as predictable as it is frustrating, the Cheney mantra, “9/11. War. 9/11. War. 9/11. War.” Every time the motives of the war are called into question, Vice President Cheney pulls out the rhetoric linking 9/11, Al-Qaeda, and Iraq. No where has he, nor anyone else from this administration managed to link the events of September Eleventh, Two-thousand one to Iraq. Instead, we are simply reminded that we went to Iraq to find terrorists.

Wait, didn’t we go there to find “weapons of mass destruction?” I do recall that as our motivation for going, but since none were found it has been a top priority for the Presidential Propaganda Machine to tell us we really went to oust Saddam Hussein and hunt terrorists. I believe the President even at one point called Saddam, “the guy who tried to kill my dad,” in 2002.

Now, I could be wrong about this part too, but I don’t think insurgency counter-attacks count as terrorism. I do understand the grave situation facing our soldiers, the documenters of war (journalists), and the brave, brave US business representatives whose mouths are already watering trying to decide how to carve up the war torn country. I do understand that suicide bombs, car bombs, improvised explosive devices, and AK-47s are deadly and frightening weapons of war. This is why they are called weapons, and not terrorist tools. Mariam Webster defines terrorism as, “the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.” I do not mean to trivialize something as grave as war, but this HAS to be said sooner or later.

Enemies in a war are not terrorists.

I cannot think of any quotes of FDR referring to the Japanese as terrorists despite their use of suicide attacks and semi-religiously driven call to war against the United States.

To continue linking terrorism and Al-Qaeda to the current war in Iraq serves to trivialize 9/11 and continue using it as a political lever. It is used repeatedly to coerce and pry lawmakers and citizens into believing false pretenses and illegitimate motivations for war. It is used to justify a mismanaged war and make those responsible for the mistakes less accountable. Terrorism is a global issue. It is not confined to the war we are fighting against Iraqi insurgents. This mantra of 9/11, Al-Qaeda, Iraq, War needs to end.

Speak up, and don’t accept Cheney’s mantra as an answer. Demand real answers. Demand more than real answers. Demand solutions.

The Cost of War

 

The Senate recently passed a bill approving President Bush’s request for funding to continue the war at a taxpayer cost of $124,000,000,000. There was, however, a stipulation that troop withdrawal would commence in the coming months and all troops would be out by this time next year. The idea is that the President will have to make concessions in regard to removing military presence to be given the money he requested.

It went without saying that he would veto the bill (though, he did have a staffer say he will reject it on principle).

The amount of money being spent on the war is absurd, and to request 124 BILLION dollars additionally is ridiculous. The only way to get that amount of money from us, the taxpayers is to put some stipulations on the remainder of this war, something that we, the people, want. I certainly can’t say this for everyone, but I believe a majority of Americans see the need for change and a different approach. Letting the war become a money, energy, and human life sink is not what we have in mind when we say we want victory.

Needless to say, it is a lot of money, and as such, it should come with strings. Perhaps negotiation is still needed, but it is insane to think that we should willingly hand over such an amount of money knowing that without considerations for the future of the war, we could be signing another appropriations bill 12 months from now for a similar or perhaps grossly higher figure.

Just so you know just how big 124 billion dollars is here are some breakdowns:

• Every person in the US 18 years or older is footing $571.43
• If stretched over an entire year, we would be spending $3,932.01 every. single. second.
  • There is a significant number of Americans who make less than this amount in 6 months of work.
• Instead of spending this money in Iraq, we could give every single person on the planet $18.49
• In one-dollar bills, this amount would weigh 273,373,205 lbs.
  • In $20 amounts, it would weigh 13,668,660 lbs.
  • In $100 amounts, it would weigh (obviously) 2,733,732 lbs.
    • 2.7 million lbs is more than 411 Ford F150 pick-up trucks.
    • If all 124 Billion were stacked in $100 bills, it would be 444,333 feet tall.
      • 444,333 feet is over 84. miles. tall.
      • The Sears tower reigns in at a meager 1,730 feet, less than 0.4% the height of the $100 bills.
• We would be spending 117% the entire GDP of New Zealand in a single piece of legislation.

It is worth thinking about where your money goes.

How Much Judgment is Enough?

There is no question about it, everyone judges. How, about what, and to what degree is it acceptable or even right? It is easy to attach a negative label to judgment; to call someone judgmental is almost instantly regarded as an insult.

But is judgment really that bad?

To judge something is to hold it in some kind of relative position against something else or a set of values. It is impossible to say anything is good, bad, right, wrong, beautiful, emotional, or valuable without judgment. This is what I mean by “everyone judges.” I believe it is impossible to be completely indifferent, detached and rational about all things, or to be completely so about even one thing. To even discuss or ponder anything is to place some form of importance on it and elevate it above something else ponderable.

That said, what is the place of value judgments in our lives? If you are opinionated like myself, you probably have made many value judgments and comparisons if not out-loud, in your mind. To be opinionated is to make strong judgments and to judge your own judgments as important or at the very least, more correct.

Now the question is, how right is it to proclaim such opinions? Does it really matter what you believe compared to what your neighbor believes? I bet you probably think it does matter, and I’m not going to tell you that it doesn’t. Allow me to ask, Why? Why does it matter what you believe, and why does it matter how your opinions relate and are perceived by others?

If you and your neighbor believe different things from one another, is there a point to having an argument, knowing neither of you can or will change each other’s mind? I used to believe, and still do somewhat, that there was a value in debate, as both parties could have a sort of dialectic and come to some sensible middle ground and each discover new territory. Honestly speaking though, besides learning what your counterparts believe, how much does such a discussion change or influence your perceptions and beliefs? When is the last time a discussion with someone who believed something far different from you changed what you believed and made you believe in this sensible middle ground? A Christian and an Atheist aren’t going to come to a mutual understanding that God is suffers from the same precarious predicament as Schrodinger’s Cat.

Besides the futility of boldly making value statements, is it even right to? Is it really in your responsibilities as a person to try to influence others? Reality is subjective, people construct their realities different from each other, and perceptions make all the difference. A person who has lived a completely different life from yours cannot possibly understand even a simple statement about the rightness of any value like compassion in the same way you understand it (again, with the futility). Is it my place to even tell you what to believe about values? I’m not entirely sure. What makes me an expert or even a voice worth hearing? Even if I was some sort of expert on the subject of opinions (laughable), does even that make it right?

This entry isn’t designed to prove some point or convince you, the reader, of what to believe, but perhaps it should serve as some sort of meta-judgment. I am denying the correctness or absoluteness of a judgment normative value about judgments. I question myself right now, as I sit about to hit the “publish” button, should this even be made public? Is it my place to tell you what to believe, justify my opinions, or attempt to influence your own way of thinking? Beyond that, is it even worth it? It really is a futile endeavor. Even if I do turn your world upside down, so to speak, what does that even mean in the big picture?

VT Shootings: The Nation . . . Reacts

I’m assuming everyone who has found this blog has probably heard about the incident at Virginia Tech on Monday, 16 April, 2007. I am not writing about the incident, but that isn’t to say that I am trivializing it. It was a terrible day, but nothing I could say about it could possibly have any meaning to those who have been affected by it. However, I would like to talk about the reaction I have noticed from most of the people I have encountered.

I do believe many people who are talking about the incident are, in fact, trivializing it. Those who were affected by it have very little to say about it. It is personal, it is meaningful, and those affected don’t need to rush out to proclaim loudly that they were affected in some way. It is everyone else who have suddenly become psychology experts that have the most and the least to say.

The first thing I saw on the news when the story broke was a girl describing the killer as emotionless. Since then, I have heard countless people say that the killer must have been some cold-blooded sociopath who felt nothing and lost his humanity long ago. I also hear the same people talking about how his writing was so disturbing and graphic, and only a complete psycho could have written such things. I believe anyone who can write something that can invoke such an instant visceral reaction from readers cannot possibly be emotionless. How can someone who wrote something with such passion as to scare people out of the gourd ALSO be a cold-blooded, unfeeling, inhuman monster?

That isn’t to say he wasn’t a monster, but to draw such conclusions from a witness describing him as such is premature.

I read in a book about war that when people are made to kill, they turn their victims into objects, in order to rationalize and accept the destruction in their minds. If their victims are objects, it is okay to destroy them. I read that that is why you read in German WW2 accounts that the Nazis non-chalantly performed sick and inhumane acts, even laughed while engaged in the genocide. Perhaps their minds had long ago made the switch and turned their targets from humans to objects. This certainly doesn’t make it any less wrong, terrible, or horrifying, but it sheds light on how people can possibly do the things they do.

To touch on the writing for a moment: it is cliché to say that hindsight is 20-20, but its true. Many news stations are having a field day with the killer’s writings – as he was an English major and all. He wrote about violent and hurtful topics: abuse, murder plots, and hatred, among others. People are now saying that we should have caught him earlier, and known that he would do something unspeakable from how telling his writing was about his psyche.

Much more seriously graphic and violent stories are written all the time across the country. It is nothing new for college students, or even high school students to write about violent topics. Violent stories are absolutely nothing new, or else horror movies and slashers would never be produced – who would write the screen plays?

It is easy to say that the writings were telling after the fact, but the truth is that violent stories are nothing new, and I’m positive that English teachers encounter questionable topics in their student’s writings all the time and think little of it. Except now, people will think something of it. I worry about the kind of response this will have in the academic world in the coming months. What kind of censorship is going to take place? How many students will unjustly find themselves forced to sit down with counseling services because they wrote about an abusive stepfather or sketched a crime scene?

I recently spoke with a family member of a friend who told me flat out that the killer should have been locked up long ago. They (he/she) told me the English teacher knew long ago about the extremely violent tendencies of this student, and clearly something had to be done. It is now being reported that somewhere along the line, a psychiatrist claimed the student was a danger to himself and others. This has only fueled the 20-20 hindsight fire further. I would like to see the last time a university sent one of their own tuition-paying, nearly-graduating students to an involuntary psychiatric ward. I would like someone to explain to me how such a thing could possibly have gone down.

Lets say a good school somewhere in the southern US kicked out a student who received good enough grades, was nearing graduation, and had a clean criminal record with no history of violent actions. Lets say the university went further and recommended to police that the student be detained and locked away in a mental institution for being a suspected psychotic, sociopathic potential killer. How would such a course of events been seen as justified or even close to acceptable?

Again, it is a cliché for a reason, but hindsight is 20/20. There is no way anyone could have known or predicted this unless he or she was willing to speculate there are killers all over the country in high schools and colleges based on the same reasons for suspicion as applicable to Seung-hui Cho.

Going a step beyond people pointing fingers, why ARE people in such a hurry to make excuses and excise themselves of responsibility? I don’t think people need to feel responsible; it was indeed his own actions, choices, and motives. However, people shouldn’t be so quick to make excuses. It is not the time to pass the blame or hold your hands up and plead ignorance.

It isn’t the time to rationalize this off into absurdity or compartmentalize it into something so isolated from reality. This was terrible, but it is reality. It is what happens, and it is what can happen again. This isn’t something we can push aside because we don’t think we can deal with it, and it isn’t something we can pass the buck and say it is someone else’s problem. There is mourning, sure, but there can also be inspiration and a newfound understanding of the fragility of life. There are things to be learned, individual lessons that people can take from this.

On another note, something I have noticed is the lack of meaningful respect paid to the victims. I have seen many elaborate banners and images created by students at other schools to pay homage to Virginia Tech. I see the VT letters filled with the flag of another school, and set atop school seals, or flags, or ribbons, which are also set atop seals or flags. I wonder what people who spend their time creating these images hope to achieve. How bad off do you have to be to seek attention by creating the most elaborate VT homage banner?

The First Post

This is a place for my thoughts, musings, opinions, and convictions.

Might be worth a read.

Sometimes.