On a Charge of Anti-Semitism in a Text Book

I am convinced that in today's colleges, universities, and even high schools, radicalism is certainly alive and well, being openly taught by teachers or text books that promote not just the ideas behind the radical, but also encourage these to be practiced to the extreme. These ideas are at times caught by students who make the schools aware of the dangerous views endorsed. In other circumstances, parents may be made aware of these outrageous teachings and alert those in charge or share their concerns. In rare instances, these concerns can actually get out to the media and become the antagonist for debate and discussion. There are a number of ways this radicalism can be shared, but the most often ones are, editorials by the author of a text book, leading questions, which suggest a radical answer, in class lectures, and of course, grading. The foremost two and last have been experienced by yours truly.


In any case, currently there is one such text book in Tennessee that has come under fire and there are those who want it pulled from the curriculum. Their argument states that a particular question in, "The Cultural Landscape: An Introduction to Human Geography," by James M. Rubenstein, a book used for advanced placement, is "blatantly" anti-Semitic. If true obviously it would reflect poorly, not only on the author and publisher, Prentice Hall, but anyone who employs the use of the book in any way. Though certainly not a large issue when we consider current events and the news media at large, there's been a little net hubbub concerning it, which I will now add to. The question that's raising some eyebrows reads:

“If a Palestinian suicide bomber kills several dozen Israeli teenagers in a Jerusalem restaurant, is that an act of terrorism or wartime retaliation against Israeli government policies and army actions?”

Now the question that has arose is if this question is, as stated by Laurie Cardoza-Moore, the head of a pro-Israel group, "blatantly anti-Semitic?" Mrs. Cardoza-Moore is indeed the very same person who expressed her concerns about the text and apparently feels the question is leading in that it takes a pro-Palestinian position. Yet, does it really?

To clear up a few things, I myself am far from being anti-Semitic, quite the contrary. I would classify myself as being completely pro-Israel and believe Palestine uses detestable means to spread terror in the Holy Land (I wrote about this more extensively when addressing Hamas. See my article, and please note the sarcasm: "On The Genius of Hamas"). This being the case, I feel I would be discerning concerning any anti-Semitism this text would contain, if any at all. However, I respectfully disagree with Mrs. Cardoza-Moore, and those who have raised issue with the question across the net or media. My conclusion is that the question has no anti-Semitism and the inclusion of the question in the text book serves another purpose altogether, which may objectively benefit the student, rather than serve to degrade a whole people.


Rather than provide just a brief opinion, I will attempt to show exactly why the initial text is free from anti-Semitism. At least according to my reasoning. First off, let us consider the first word of the text, that is, "if." Whenever and wherever one sees this word, they can be reasonably sure they're being introduced to a hypothetical situation. The hypothetical situation being introduced here, which certainly isn't out of the realm of possibility, is the suicide bombing of a restaurant, in which several teens are killed. Then, we're asked to ponder a question of terrorism or wartime retaliation, and the motives behind the attack. Let's look at it in a more simplistic logical view. We will label the the suicide bombing as, "S," for sake of argument. In addition, we will label the possibility of the terrorist act as "T," and the prospect of it being a wartime retaliation we will simplify as, "R."

Thus, we get to the heart of the question, which can be formulated as:

S ) T v R

The precursor to the ) symbol represents the hypothetical or, "if/then," and the "v" symbol, or wedge, represents a disjunctive syllogism, that is an either/or. After this quick simplification, in a grammatical sense, not in a logistical one, we get rid of all extraneous particulars, rather present or imagined, which may distract from the text. It can be read as thus:

"If a suicide bomber kills several teens in a Jerusalem restaurant, then it is either a terrorist act or one of wartime retaliation."

I don't include the Israeli government or army actions in my simplification of the question, because I believe those are implicitly implied by the word, "wartime." I go into a little more detail on my article, "On The Tragedy in Boston, Media, and a Terrorism Definition." Enough intrusions and shameless plugs though (for now). With the simplification we see that this either/or element is pretty evenly distributed, and the rest of the pondering and discussion is on the part of the student, rather than stated in the text.


The point of such questions isn't to lead students to a inevitable conclusion, like some profess this one does, and I couldn't disagree with more, it's to encourage critical thinking or analytical skills. Unfortunately in today's world not all issues are as "simple" as math, that is that only one steadfast conclusion can be reached. Thus, though I certainly would strongly disagree with those who took the wartime stance, the point is to have students reason for themselves and in an effective, objective manner, along with analyzing all different aspects of a issue.


The author or publishers must've foresaw the difficulty that such a question presents in the mind of many. Indeed, it is a very divisional topic and people have their own conclusions on this topic before many others, excluding their own countries, well being, etc, etc. The "controversy" this issue provides and the questions that arise may very well have been the reasoning for putting the question in the text book in the first place. I would like to think that we would want students who were able to think for themselves in an objective fashion.


So why is this such an issue? It's nothing new, it has always been a large source of controversy, even preceding our current age. However, I feel concerning this particular subject of the text book, there is a bit of ultra-sensitivity happening, which is somewhat understandable considering what is happening in the world. With the threats, whether they be valid or dangerous enough, of nukes from North Korea, or our own threats of terrorism at home, we've been able to start identifying with life in the Holy Land, that a daily outing might turn and end in violence. We see people doing innocent normal everyday activities in Israel, and suddenly becoming a target. It's getting to be like that in our own neighborhoods. As we've seen, many people have went to work, to enjoy leisure activities, or run in a world wide celebrated race, and never came back. If they do, they never come back the same. Thereby some of these folks, understandably, become hypersensitive and we find issues like this popping up, where people's fear dictates their perceptions, observations, and ideas.


Another aspect of the question that we shouldn't ignore is that it provides a challenge to students to define what war and terrorism are, which is an interesting question. The terrorism definition I reached in "On The Tragedy in Boston, Media, and a Terrorism," I believe holds true. I believe there is a difference and its these differences that are alluded to by the text. This is obviously another great source of debate, which I have no problem with students pondering such questions. Isn't that one of the main purposes of schooling in the first place, to produce qualified graduates who can think for themselves, observe data effectively, objectively and arise at a conclusion?


If one were to draw such a conclusion from the text, that it is leading in someway, then I feel one would have to reach the opposite answer. That is, the unjust act on the part of the suicide bomber. This is due to a few things:

A: The Israeli teenagers age suggests an innocence attributed with youth.
B: A restaurant, suggesting a peaceful, neutral, or innocent atmosphere.
C: The bombers complete disregard for human life including his own.

With the implications these components suggest, one could argue that the question was blatantly on the side of Israel. Yet, again, I don't think that was the point of the text, nor the whole exercise. It was to encourage debate and internal dialogue concerning the nature of war, terrorism, and even when, where, or by what means, such actions are or are not warranted. In concluding, all this hubbub is simply due to a hypersensitivity, which I dislike saying saying because it alludes to the fact the term "hypersensitivity" can denote fault or an unreasonable reaction. I don't feel it is unreasonable, nor do I feel it's silly. We are beginning and have already begun to see terrorism and threats of war on our very doorstep. Thereby, it is no wonder some keep on guard concerning radicalism, terrorism, and the controversies that arise from it.


Yet, finally, if there is any doubt concerning my conclusions from the cited text, perhaps we can look at it in context by taking the whole paragraph into account. I think its clearer and puts this whole argument to bed. In my mind anyway.

“Distinguishing terrorism from other acts of political violence can be difficult. For example, if a Palestinian suicide bomber kills several dozen Israeli teenagers in a Jerusalem restaurant, is that an act of terrorism or wartime retaliation against Israeli government policies and army actions? Competing arguments are made: Israel’s sympathizers denounce the act as a terrorist threat to the country’s existence, whereas advocates of the Palestinian cause argue that long-standing injustices and Israeli army attacks on ordinary Palestinian civilians provoked the act.”

To their credit the director of schools has looked into the issue and has found that no other complaints were filed prior to Mrs. Cardoza-Moore's.

On The Atari Government, Violence and Grass

Again, in case anyone missed it, I am currently in Alaska, and this being the case it can be rather difficult to keep up on the news, though I get brief updates. However, I did listen to the news a bit today thanks to our XM radio. Of course, much of the news is still centered upon the bombing in Boston, and more specifically the backgrounds of those who are responsible. Chechnya is just north of the Caucasus and has a violent history. In the 90's, Chechnya, as I gather, tried to separate itself from its mother Russia, with violent results. Apparently Russia attacked, decimating the capital city of Chechnya. When Chechnya was finally granted independence this wasn't enough to stop the violence, and essentially two governments were formed, leading to more violence. As we have seen all over the world at various times and places, when a country is in such a divided state, factions can arise that may use terrorist tactics to wreak havoc on the public and those in power alike. It seems to be a common theme among separatist states. Such tactics aren't usually successful. In addition to being completely misguided, they can, in fact, backfire, causing these terrorists to become the villains themselves, even though they might seek to be heroes, patriots or revolutionaries in the public eye. This is obviously due to their complete disregard for human life. Indeed, the line of the innocent and whom they regard as guilty parties, or the enemy, becomes so blurred that it doesn't matter. Their cause is one that is sought by complete anarchy. There are many names such people or groups go by, like rebels, or separatists. In the case of the Boston bombers they have been labeled, "Islamic Separatists," a blend of both religious philosophy and political idealism. Such separatism is generally localized, where it is thought it will have the greatest effect. This violent faction doesn't go outside its boarders or apart from whom they have conflict with, and don't concern themselves with countries or people far removed internationally. Yet, there is another faction that seems to believe their cause has greater impact or chance of success when taken on a global scale, as might be the case with the Boston bombers. So even in cases of, "Islamic Separatists," you may very well have at least two different factions, one focused on immediate territory, while another is focused on the international community.In addition to all this it should be mentioned that after the 90's conflict, Chechnya became somewhat of a hub for Islam. Advisor Stephen Yates, said on Fox News, they had an influx of Islam and extremism after Russia's initial smothering of Chechnya's move to break off. I recall his words from memory, so my facts or quotes might be subject to a little error, but regardless it is interesting that such places in the world, those that are immersed in turmoil, often become centers for extremism. I find that it may be the case that such influx of extremism can be equated or illustrated in a smaller scale, like those of riots, or demonstrations which erupt into anarchy.In many of these, there are those individuals that use such gatherings as an excuse for violence, they themselves being prone to it. In fact, there are those when questioned about their motives during a hostile demonstration which have no idea what the underlying cause or motivations are, only that they can use it to enact and indulge in their own violent desires, while still being covered in the veil of some greater cause.This being said, and this obviously is just a hypothesis, perhaps these countries of turmoil attract such extremists, just in the same way demonstrations do, because it offers an excuse to display acts of violence, which they secretly desire. Thereby, instead of being a lone nutcase at least they can be seen by their cohorts as martyrs or hero's of the ideal with the violent acts they profess, carry out, and make evident in death or destruction.There is another distinction that I would like to make concerning those extremists who employ these acts of destruction and terror overseas. The reason why will become apparent. You've got ones who are lone, whom plan and carry out these acts of their own accord or volition, convinced that in some way progress is being made in the name of the cause. Then you have those who remain in contact with their leaders and planners who may fund and help organize an assault. According to the intelligence community within the government, many of these latter extremists communicate via the Internet.Yates stated that the internet has great power and is, "sovereign," and hinted at the dangers it poses to national security. Such talk I've learned to be weary of and in my mind it sets up a red flag, one which may precede a government "power grab." When we look at what the government is doing today, and has been doing, we see that they've been slowly taking away our rights as granted by our constitution. In fact, if our freedoms were represented by yellow pills, the government would be as Pac Man. All I hear lately when politicians speak is, "waga-waga-waga-waga-waga."Our rights have already been infringed upon post 9/11, and indeed before. Our privacy has been trespassed by our leaders who "represent" us, as well has our right to bear arms, and these have all been taken by means of utilizing fear and outrage the public justly feels after a terrible event. I am far from saying, of course, that a conspiracy is taking place, or that the government has a hand in all these disasters, I am only stating that the government uses these events as the means to their end, to gain more power over the people. This seems to be the case on both the right and the left and is not limited to just the USA.By Yates saying such things, I began to see a future a message out of Washington D.C., that they must monitor our Internet use for the sake of our protection. Many might respond to this with, "As long as we're safer," or, "I have nothing to hide." That may be so and I hope it is the case, but this would undermine what this fabulous country was founded upon, the right to be free. I would feel my freedoms slipping away even more then I already can, if my e-mail was read by a Washington think tank, or if they tracked my movements to such a degree they knew every little outfit I purchase for my cat, "Chief Tuckapaw." It's unfortunate but such concessions of freely handing our rights away is equitable to handing away our very country. On this point, let me just say that concerning these terrible events, I am very sorrowful and feel great compassion towards the victims and those who have lost loved ones. Furthermore, I in no way intend this entry to be a condemnation of people who are sympathetic and have heart felt emotions concerning such things and are willing to do anything to see that they don't happen again. I can both understand and relate to it. Yet, I pose the question, why should we let violent morons who don't give a damn about people's rights, even the most basic human right, the right to live, be the very reason we give up our rights? Why is it always seem to be the case that the victims and innocent have their rights revoked while they are passed on abundantly to the guilty? Maybe it's true. Maybe we have buckled under these sadistic losers and in the end gave them a power that even they couldn't have scarcely imagined.Such violent people(s) are of course not always backed by or take up some cause or goal, some just commit random acts of violence, which have no rhyme or reason, as most violence doesn't. It is only in the self delusion that violence leads to some goal, but again, there are those that need none. Two days ago on 4/20, the pot smokers holiday, there was a gathering in Colorado to celebrate. This gathering was estimated as possibly being attended by as many as 80,000 people. I don't know what the finally talley was, but this is beside the point. During sometime in the evening someone opened fire, shooting off a handgun. Nobody was hit, but panic soon erupted among the crowd. The suspect was allegedly caught on camera and the Colorado police are now searching for the perpetrator. Now I'm not a pot smoker and haven't been for a long, long time. Personally, I just don't like the feeling it gives me and I stay away from it. Yet, when it comes to pot legalization, I am for it. I am sick of my tax payer dollars going to incarcerating, in the grand scheme of things, small time "criminals," who just happened to be caught with a dime bag. Also, having done it myself, I feel it's not that bad, and there is a contradiction between allowing alcohol to be legal and making pot illegal. To me it doesn't make sense, but I will quickly state I'm not for drug legalization across the board. At any rate, this moron, instead of partaking in a celebration, which must have included plenty of candy, chips, ice cream, and soda, decided to ruin everyone's hazy gleeful time, by shooting a gun off. The backlash could be that the voters of Colorado might regret their decision. Assuming that this person smokes grass, weed, pot, herb, whatever, he is perhaps the biggest idiot in all the state of Colorado. Moron! What was the purpose, to see people panic? What if people were crushed in a horrible stampede? It takes a sick mind to get off on such things, and he should be nabbed immediately and investigated, for such minds are not usually content with one riotous act, and he may have committed crimes in his past. Of course, this will probably be on the news making it an argument for gun control as well as the revoking of the legalization of marijuana cigarettes and all forms it can take. Who would've though pot smokers could be so violent when you have shows like "Archer," to occupy their time.Another fascinating thing on the news is the charge that the FBI and law enforcement took too long in tracking down the Boston bombers. Here we go again with misdirected blame. You've got to wonder why people still get involved in law enforcement for they're more frequently blamed than the criminals, especially when it comes to high publicity, atrocious crimes like what happened in Boston. Even inanimate objects come into blame, like guns, or video games. It seems as though both the public and media has a need for the blame to be equivalent to the tragedy. That is, in short, the outrage at what occurred in Boston is too massive to project upon one individual, or a couple as the case may be, and in addition someone else needs to answer for the abomination. Many point to the fact that at least one of the brothers was investigated in 2011, and here it is nearly two years removed and people are pondering why anything wasn't done then, despite it being way prior to the actual bombing. In actuality, I can kind of understand it, but we forget that law enforcement is entangled in bureaucracy. This is why those people who commit the most heinous of crimes, at times, get off on a measly technicality, which is outrageous. This is a further example of how rights are taken from the victim or innocent and given unto the guilty. Thereby, it is no wonder that in such investigations no actions can be taken, especially when no crime has been committed. What kind of country would we live in when people are arrested just because they're suspected of being capable of some future crime, the nature of which would have to be theorized?I, in fact, applaud not only the people of Boston, but also law enforcement who was able to track these horrible people down in a matter of a few days. They even went as far as to shut down a whole city to get the perps, and the character and diligence of the people of Boston helped lead to the apprehension, especially concerning the individual who was observant enough to discover where the remaining suspect was hiding out. Since they don't hear it enough, I say good job Boston, and a great job to FBI and law enforcement. Despite all the critics and yes, there have been mistakes in the past, the law enforcement community did an amazing job in Boston, followed all leads, and communicated efficiently with the public and media to track the suspects. An example of how things need be handled indeed. Way to go. With the kind of people they apparently have in Boston, I just may need to move there or at the very least visit.

On a Quote by Cynthia Nixon

It's interesting, but as I explore the net I often find things that piqué my interest or curiosity. Of course, this isn't necessarily interesting in and of itself, but what makes it so is the fact that it may concern a certain topic or subject matter that in other circumstances don't nearly interest me in such a fashion, but in other situations I feel the almost unbearable need to respond. I experienced this rather recently when I ran across a quote from self proclaimed lesbian Cynthia Nixon:

'Gay people who want to marry have no desire to redefine marriage in any way. When women got the vote, they did not redefine voting. When African-Americans got the right to sit at a lunch counter alongside white people, they did not redefine eating out. They were simply invited to the table.’

Again, perhaps just another celebrity who holds to the delusion and deceives themselves, in the end serving their pride, in thinking that they're a ring leader or central component in the movement of social "progress." We see a lot of this in today's culture, and in reality it isn't that surprising, for a lot of times these snippets of false wisdom are prompted by mediums, whose own bias already foresees the reaction.


Before I go much further though, let me give credit to Cynthia, or her ghost writer, or her publicist, or her handlers, or her assistants, because her quote is actually more well constructed than most I find by celebrities. Not in a logical way, but because its construction is designed in a manner that it is almost like a trap set to spring when anyone may disagree with her. I admittingly don't know much about Mrs. Nixon apart from her role on, "Sex and The City," the fact that she is a lesbian, and, in fact, is herself married. Thereby, her level of arrogance concerning the quote and this issue are in question, for some celebrities are more arrogant than others. So it occurs to me that my introduction may be a little harsh considering my lack of knowledge concerning the character of Mrs. Nixon, and I will retract a bit on those particulars, offer apologies if applicable, and just confine myself diligently to the quote rather than Mrs. Nixon herself.


When we look at this quote we find its construction to be on very shaky ground and unstable as it turns out. First off, I would like to point out the three main components of Mrs. Nixon's argument. She starts by saying that those who are gay or lesbian have no desire to redefine marriage. We, for the sake of argument, will call this premise, "A." Second, or premise "B," she addresses women's suffrage, adding that they did not redefine voting. Third, or premise, "C," she addresses the civil rights movement, the emancipation of African-Americans, their being recognized as equal or being granted equal rights with whites, including every right to dine in any establishment white people were privy to. Thus, to recap:

A: Gays do not want to redefine marriage in any way.
B: Women did not redefine voting by being granted the right.
C: Civil Rights and the movement towards the equality of African-Americans in society, and that their inclusion to be able to eat alongside whites didn't redefine eating out.

Mrs. Nixon attempts to interlink all these examples and almost uses premises B and C to equate to A. Thereby:

1. B
2. C Therefore, A.


It is a very poorly constructed argument in general terms, but it does succeed in that it suggests that if you disagree with premise A, then you MUST disagree with premises B and C. Thereby, you are against women having the right to vote, and racist. In fact, it could be said you are both racist and sexist. This is the trap that springs if you are to disagree with Mrs. Nixon and those who are opposed to gay marriage might feel a tinge of guilt and or shame when reading over her statement. Furthermore, what is illustrated is that you may even be a enemy to equality in general.


This could just be called an argument from guilt, but at the same time this guilt and disagreements with gay marriage must be reconciled in some fashion beyond just Nixon's argument. Unfortunately for Mrs. Nixon, there is another reason her argument is a poor one, for the "trap" essentially backfires. It contains the implication that change or redefinition is a bad thing, which is counterintuitive to what she wants to state in her quote. Let us briefly ask ourselves what is entailed when something is, "redefined?" The ramifications of a redefinition are that something in the original understanding of the idea or context has shifted or changed.


For example, not to be sardonic, but let us consider the word, "gay." This is a word that has been changed over the years. The word was once used to imply jovial merriment, but now it has changed, or been redefined, to refer to the homosexual. This is rather a simplistic example but it still rings true in the more complex. When we define something, we not only define what it is, but also define what it's not. Allow me to give another illustration. Artists are trained not only to define form by emphasizing their subject in a figure that is either linear or impressionistic (though there are vast varieties and mediums which can define form, such as colorism, and indeed sculpture, but I've only chosen two for our purpose), but a prudent artist is encouraged to recognize what is called, "negative space." That which is outside or apart from the subject, untouched but utilized to give the object the desired form. Thereby, if one had the time, in theory, a positive definition could be reached just by excluding the negative or by elimination.


Thus, to be happy is not to be angry, is not to be mad, is not to be depressed, etc, etc, etc . . . The definition of something marks its boundaries and limits, and the redefinition stretches them or moves them, creating a new definition out of the conception. Furthermore, to define is to give something identity, and you cannot change something and give it a new identity, and call it the same, any more than you can call a circle a square. They both have unique characteristics which defines and identifies them from other concepts.


Thereby, she is wrong about the redefining of marriage, for marriage has long since prior been the union between a male and female. Pushing these boundaries gives it a whole new identity and definition. We see in B or C however that change or redefinition is not by necessity a bad thing. Due to her application of premises concerning equality, we see that this is really the motive behind her statement, a complete equality despite the existence of predetermined definition. Yet, to allow gay marriage, and to treat gay couples, as hetero couples by marriage is to turn that definition into something which it was not intended to be. So, of course it becomes redefined, it's form has changed.


Even so, we can be even more simplistic to argue Nixon's point. When we ponder or reflect upon gay marriage, it becomes apparent that we add the attribution or particular of, "gay," to "marriage," in order that we can differentiate the concept of gay marriage from marriage proper. If marriage wasn't redefined, then we'd have no reason, nor even the perception, that there was a redefinition occurring, thereby no additional attribution would be needed. Due to the fact that both these terms exist gives evidence that there is a change and redefinition of the marriage institution.


Another part of the issue resides in the fact there is another fallacy in Mrs. Nixon's quote, which is as controversial as the gay marriage proposals. This deals with ethics and morality. It is a necessary condition that by accepting Nixon's remark, you must also believe that homosexuality is a trait born in human beings, and so vital a part of their make up, as to be equal unto race and gender. That is what is suggested anyway. Yet, if you don't believe this and believe sexuality is a choice, then her argument further falls apart.


In my view homosexuality is a choice, as is manifest in general nature, and suggested by the cagtagorical imperative, a secular theory proposed by Immanuel Kant that attempts to explain the existence and values of morality. Briefly, it states that we reason, whether consciously or not, and apply all actions as an absolute world wide. So, murder is immoral because man would quickly become extinct if all men murdered, had the freedom to murder, and were murdered. Therefore, according to the categorical imperative we conclude that murder is morally bad. B and/or C are certainly not choices for they cannot be redefined. Indeed, if one attempts to do so, they fall under a different definition or classification, like transgender. Therefore, it is unjustified that Nixon makes the juxtaposition she does. For what your race is and what gender you are is endowed onto you, and you have no way of shifting back or forth, nor experimenting, as is evident in the homosexual community. A predisposition doesn't equate to being, "born that way," nor does it affect ethical values. Premises B and C are steadfast and, apart from dramatic surgery, are unchangeable. It was this that prompted society to justly make laws and civil protections for both parties that Nixon mentions. Hearts and minds needed to be changed concerning civil rights, and that was on the side of society, not on the side of women or African-Americans, for they cannot be changed or redefined, it was the redefinition of social practices, for lack of better terminology, that established equality.


Lastly, before I end this entry, let me say that though I disagree with gay marriage, or that being homosexual is a state one is born into, I don't hate homosexuals. That is I don't condone any act of violence, outward hatred or the spewing of slurs, and alike conduct. I believe in civility and treating each other respectfully, despite our differences. I suspect if we acted in such a detestable way to everyone we disagreed with, then we would shy away from all human contact whatsoever, and this isn't realistic or reasonable. Even concerning our best friends, family, and acquaintances we share different ideas. People have a hard time understanding that you can disagree with someone and be civil all at the same time. Though, honestly, we do tend to surround ourselves with people we have common interests with.


This being said, I am sure many of you found yourself angry at this entry and that wasn't my intention, though it is inevitable, only to respond to the quote and express my thoughts concerning gay marriage. Yet, if you are angry and made it this far, I thank you at least for reading and following through, for most I suspect would stop half way and write me a nasty response full of colorful vulgarities. Due to the division and emotion this topic breeds, I await such e-mails. However, I thank you again, and I pray that this country and the world could start being civil even in light of disagreements and with that I bid you a fond farewell.

On The General Fallacy of Blaming Ideology

After listening to the media coverage of the horrible events that occurred in Boston on XM radio, my only source for news on a boat in Alaska, of which I get bits and pieces almost equivalent to headlines or bylines, I find that just as quick and shocking as those were, the media’s attempt to place blame before any facts were or are known, and indeed before any compassion for the victims was made evident, provided an element of shock to me. Various ideological labels were thrown about by various news organizations in an effort to assign a blame. My main question concerning this is whether or not it is reasonable to A, make such quick judgements and B, if assigning blame towards suspected associations is both legit and accurate. I regard question A to be a much easier question to answer than the latter.

The desire to hold someone accountable for such an atrocity is certainly reasonable and should be part of our inherent nature. Yet, there have been those times, and those circumstances, where such judgements are rushed, or globalized, leading not to justice, but rather injustice. This includes, but certainly is not limited to, the examples of the opinion of the general public, law enforcement, and media.

Yet, though I write this after the incidents in Boston, I do believe law enforcement, “got their men.” In a particularly rare twist the media and the public helped out law enforcement, by giving them the clues to track the perps down. This is a rarity in that the interactions between all these groups are sometimes muddled and frequently lead to outrage and discontent whether it be justified or not. Obviously I cannot address every example, for they are numerous, but it seems the law enforcement “tool” of the public and media, can be both a blessing and a curse.

This is due to media drawing its own conclusions, though occasionally using the word, “alleged,” have obviously already made up their own minds on the guilty and culprits, most the time independent of evidence. It is interesting, but in media this responsible party is generally a reflection on those whom they consider villains. What this does in the ring of popular opinion is cause strife between ideologies. For instance, immediately after the bombing, Chris Matthews blamed it on a right-wing culprit due to its lack of sophistication. He even had a guest on his show who echoed his conclusion. This can rile up the emotions of disagreeing philosophies and bring about conflict.

Thus, before a culprit was even named, an ideology was blamed responsible, a total askew and backward way of thinking on Matthews’ part. It truthfully shows us more about Mr. Matthews than the actual events and the protagonists behind them. What about in cases of profiling? We know that in certain groups can commit atrocities, or too just singular individuals can commit crimes and subscribe to a particular ideology, which can be manifest in their crimes and actions. There are those specialists who are versed in identifying these horrible ideals which lead to the despicable nature of their crimes. When this is known, or suspected, it provides a profile law enforcement can use to apprehend the guilty. Even so, this is not always accurate.

What is apparent is that those in media are hardly educated enough to point out a perpetrator and/or the philosophies he/she may subscribe to. In fact, in such media outbursts as such Matthews is guilty of. Furthermore, despite the presence of profilers in law enforcement, these men and women are not always instrumental in the capture of a criminal. At times, as is the case with the Boston suspects, the criminal is first apprehended and then their motives and idealism become clear. As of today, in fact, a day after the arrest of the second brother, his motives are still not clear, and Obama told the public wisely, “Not to jump to any conclusions.” Chris Matthews would be wise to listen to the president whose voice sends a tingle up his leg, those I guess it beats a trickle down his leg. Just sayin’. Perhaps the President too knows that the more rash the conclusion, the least likely it is to be true. Rash conclusions reflect more on those concluding than what is the case in reality.

Certainly we can see the danger in rushing to judgement, but what about the judging of ideals or a persons inherent beliefs? At what time, if any, is this warranted and at what time is it not? This is of course is a somewhat difficult question to answer, for there are those ideals which contain a violent aspect and these are ones that may need to be addressed independent of the general rules.

I find it might be helpful to start off this portion of my essay with an illustration. Let us say you belong to a local YMCA, and one of the members goes on a shooting rampage, killing innocent people in the process. Now, should your whole local organization become suspect for such atrocities? This is rather a silly example, but I choose it for a purpose, because its sometimes what we do, which is equally silly. There are plenty of ideologies, philosophies, dogmas, creeds, denominations, and categories, for almost every general belief structure out there. Each one, in addition, has its own subsections, divisions and partitions.

Let us suppose Chris Matthews was right for a change (speaking of making generalities, nudge, nudge) and there was a right-wing culprit responsible for the attacks in Boston. Should that reflect on all those who subscribe to the right-wing ideology? Certainly there are those that would believe this to be the case, but mainly only because they already have a predisposition, feelings of anger, discontent, or paranoia concerning those who belong to the right-wing of American society. Yet, it isn’t a reasonable conclusion, for it disregards those right-wing individuals who are as outraged and sympathetic concerning such attacks. It is an unjust globalization of an ideology. This remains true if one were to attribute the bombing to the left-wing faction of society, or even Americans in general, it would be equally unreasonable.

So when does it become justified? Simply, we need to narrow our scope of focus, and apply and observe applicable conditions. For instance, there are groups that exist within the world where their philosophies encourage violent behavior, and are a integral component of it. Thus, it being an essential part of their dogma, a conclusion that these groups possess violent tendencies, would be a reasonable one to make. Yet, there needs to be specificity, for these groups may take on the guise of another or be adjunct from a greater, deserving of its own classification. The more general and wide the scope we draw conclusions from, the more these conclusions are alike with racism or sexism, which is dangerous indeed.

On The Tragedy in Boston, Media, and a Terrorism Definition

Today there was a terrible bombing in Boston, which injured over a hundred and killed at least three people. These are dangerous times we are living in, and who knows, one day living in this country may be akin to living in the Arab nations where violence surrounds and abounds.



Again the media and government seems almost split and contradictory it its collective personality. While they in the media within the immediate aftermath had no problem speculating between the political affiliations of the perpetrator, or perpetrators, i.e. left-wing or right-wing, any possibility of an organized terrorist connection, they seemed hesitant to address. Yet, again, at the same time, the imagined political ideals that such a person might have, were discussed. This frighteningly suggests and shows, not only a strong partisan divide in this country, but the extent of the hate or anger that one side feels towards another. I fear this divide and strife will only get worse, and indeed we have already seen civility and tolerance, which everyone demands but nobody practices, begin dissipating into a thing of the past. This is in both media and the general public, though there are those examples to the contrary. Lastly, I would like to point out this is based on the short coverage I did see and wasn’t in front of a TV or radio all day getting continual reports, so therefore any disagreement may be well founded for all I know.



Now I would like to address this word, “terrorism.” I find it a little odd, yet still a bit understandable, as to why the President and/or White House would be so hesitant to say the word or any variation thereof. Furthermore, after a brief Google search I found many definitions of terrorism, but not one concise meaning, which I found curious. One website explains this by suggesting that terrorism is a very relative term and is dependent on whom is using it. Also, one says it need be done especially as a means of coercion. However, I would like to humbly suggest a definition myself, that occurred to me when reflecting on all these acts as they occur all over the globe.



I was driving in my car a number years back, and I found myself stuck at a light behind a car which had a bumper sticker that read, “War is Terrorism.” Well, that kind of got this whole thought process going and I began to ponder the nature of war, and of terrorism, and how they might differ, if indeed they did. I have come to the conclusion that they do. My definition of terrorism would be, “Any act of violence, or attempted violence, designed to cause harm to a innocent person’s being, life, or property.” In short, terrorism is an act which targets the innocent. In addition, these acts usually testify to some cause and/or group. Furthermore, the terrorist seeks for his act to be infamous in the public eye as a spectacle, so he may use outlandish means or claim as many lives as they can in order to spread panic and fear among the innocent, which pleases the perpetrator through the chaos it brings down.



Alright, so maybe my definition isn’t as simple as I set out for it to be, but terror and the terrorist have these like traits when an act is labeled as one of, “terror.” Thus, at President Obama’s press conference, I was surprised at the absence of the word. He may have came out and said that it was by all means an act of terror, for there were innocent, unaware people targeted, but at the same time, perhaps he didn’t want to confuse people by making them think he was referring to, “organized terrorism.” That is a group like Al Qaida or Hamas without absolute proof first. Perhaps it’s time we change our definition of what terrorism is, when those not involved in any conflict and are thereby innocent, are targeted, hurt, or killed, by those employing warlike means.

I thank you all for your time and my prayers and thoughts go out to all those affected by today’s tragic events.

Love you Boston!