If anything is missing in this society, it is the willingness to accept responsibility. Currently, former President Bill Clinton is organizing a campaign against the Bush administration regarding who did more to capture Osama bin Laden. At this point, I have to ask, who cares who did more than who? bin Laden is still at large, and that's the problem we need to focus on. Or at least one among many. What many people forget is that, while at times it is necessary to apportion blame in order to teach and correct, we cannot change the past. We cannot, by blaming others--even if that blame is justified--make the present situation vanish. We can only start from now and work forward.
What President Clinton needs to do is simply say, "I did not catch bin Laden, so he's still at large and we need to go after him. End of story." If there's trust at stake here, then that trust has already been lost by failing to capture bin Laden. If trust needs to be regained, then all President Clinton can do now is work to rebuild that trust. Instead we see him playing a blame game with President Bush (who also has had plenty of failings, don't get me wrong), and the only reason to do something like that is the childish "well, what I did wasn't as bad as what Joey did", trying to make one's fault less by comparing it with someone else's fault.
Here's the point. If I steal a hundred dollars from someone, and then point at all the bank robbers and car thieves who steal by far more than I did, I am still culpable for stealing a hundred dollars. The comparison with other crimes does not alleviate my guilt. Granted, I should not be punished as though I committed grand theft auto, but I am still deserving of punishment. President Clinton needs to stop playing these games with public opinion, stop trying to pull "less corrupt than thou", and move on.
And while he's considering that, we also need to move on. So he didn't catch bin Laden. So what? Tarring and feathering him on Fox News is not miraculously going to catch bin Laden. If we feel that President Clinton's failure is grave fault for a United States president, then all we can do now is put the pressure on President Bush to fix the problems that prevented bin Laden's capture and make good on his promise to fight the War on Terror.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Disinformation
In theory we have the media to present us with the facts of today's complex world. We have television broadcasts with breaking news reports, radio shows, newspapers, and the internet to keep us abreast of what is occurring in the world. And yet, with all these forms of communication, the world seems as foggy as it was before any of these devices of mass communication. Today there are conflicts both abroad and at home that must be distorted by at least some of the news outlets. Consider such topics as evolution, global warming, political scandals, the war in Iraq, and even 9/11. All of these have conflicting messeges in the news. Scientists who publish in scholarly journals claim that almost every scientific discovery supports the theory of evolution (and those that don't just do not relate) while mountains of literature have been published in the mainstream to debunk evolution and forward some form of intelligent design. Al Gore makes a movie, "An Inconvenient Truth", about the imminent danger of global warming, and environmentalists are up in arms about the damage done to the atmosphere by carbon dioxide and other chemicals that cause global warming, while skeptics claim that there is little proof to substantiate the claim that humans have any effect at all on the warming global climate. Karl Rove and Libby Scooter endured years of investigation for a leak that was no leak, all the while one side claiming they are guilty of outing a covert agent and perjury while on the other side their innocence is shouted to the high heavens. And let us not forget such matters as the reasons we went into Iraq, or what really happened on 9/11!
The problem is that there is too much information for any one person to swallow. In computer science, even, there are too many fields one person to know all of them intimately (though one can made a decent stab at keeping abreast of all new papers and keeping new findings under tabs). In theory, when one is confronted with two conflicting reports--i.e. mankind is causing global warming, mankind is not causing global warming--one will look into the matter and find where the facts lay. However, for most people this is a daunting task, especially given the sheer number of conflicting claims we see. But it is not even a collective laziness that allows these conflicts to perpetuate.
Many matters in which we see conflict these days are high risk issues. Consider how important the topics of Iraq and education are to people. Some believe that our survival as a nation is tied up in the Iraq war, in that if we fail there, our very nation wil be endlessly besieged by terrorists. Others believe that the terrorists are only active because of our overt aggression in Iraq, and that we would not have to worry about terrorist attacks or loss of troops if we withdrew. Protected by oceans and by our global power, we would not have anything to worry about. These two fundamentally conflicting beliefs lead people to conclude fundamentally different outlooks on the exact same situation. Moreover, these beliefs lead people to accept claims based more upon their previously held beliefs than on actual fact. That is not to say that there is no fact to justify their beliefs, but rather that fact is not as important as similarity to those previously held beliefs. Simply put, people will believe what they want to believe, and the stronger they want to believe something, the more they will justify that belief to themselves.
But why the conflict in information? If news is supposed to be simply reporting the facts, why are there conflicting messages in the media itself? This happens in part because facts themselves can mean little in a void. Suppose I said person A shot and killed person B. That one fact, especially as stated, would make person A a perpetrator. But suppose I phrased it differently, or sprinkled in a few details. Suppose I said Person A was awakened in the middle of the night by person B, who had broken into person A's home, and person A grabbed his gun. In the ensuing struggle, person A shot person B. The police arrived shortly after that, and person B was carted off to the hospital, where he died from the bullet wound. Now, the story is quite a bit different, isn't it? Now suppose I report that person A was person B's boss, and worked person B murderously. Person B was an excellent employee and, despite the work overload, completed all of his tasks on time and well-performed, but he never received any recognition for his work, while all his coworkers received much higher starting pay, enjoyed numerous raises, and even substantial bonuses. Person B had a wife and six children, and they could not make ends meet. The children were poorly clothed and suffering from malnutrition. Person B would try to talk with person A about his situation and how he felt he deserved more money, but person A claimed he never had time to meet him, and at least, in desperation, person B broke into person A's home at night with the intentions of forcing person A to deal with him. Now we are sympathetic with person B. But now suppose I continue by revealing that person B was an illegal alien and convicted felon, having dealt with drugs and sexually abused a neighbor's daughter, and he when he broke in person A's home, he was high on crank and bearing a large knife? Each time we reveal more of the facts, we put the situation further into context, and the meaning of those facts develop.
People discovered a long time ago that by putting facts into the proper context, they could present an issue in whatever light they chose. By carefully selecting facts, people can make a bold, brilliant idea that would help millions of people look like a crass attempt at personal gain at the expense of those very same millions. These are half-truths. They are facts utilized to present something falsely. But people will present these half-truths for personal gain, and especially to further a political agenda. The extensive resources at hand to investigate these half-truths only make it easier, not more difficult, for the half-truths to spread and take hold. When anyone can publish on the internet any idea, be it insightful or daft, when any page can be filled with words supposedly quoted from experts, the picture only becomes murkier.
The problem is that there is too much information for any one person to swallow. In computer science, even, there are too many fields one person to know all of them intimately (though one can made a decent stab at keeping abreast of all new papers and keeping new findings under tabs). In theory, when one is confronted with two conflicting reports--i.e. mankind is causing global warming, mankind is not causing global warming--one will look into the matter and find where the facts lay. However, for most people this is a daunting task, especially given the sheer number of conflicting claims we see. But it is not even a collective laziness that allows these conflicts to perpetuate.
Many matters in which we see conflict these days are high risk issues. Consider how important the topics of Iraq and education are to people. Some believe that our survival as a nation is tied up in the Iraq war, in that if we fail there, our very nation wil be endlessly besieged by terrorists. Others believe that the terrorists are only active because of our overt aggression in Iraq, and that we would not have to worry about terrorist attacks or loss of troops if we withdrew. Protected by oceans and by our global power, we would not have anything to worry about. These two fundamentally conflicting beliefs lead people to conclude fundamentally different outlooks on the exact same situation. Moreover, these beliefs lead people to accept claims based more upon their previously held beliefs than on actual fact. That is not to say that there is no fact to justify their beliefs, but rather that fact is not as important as similarity to those previously held beliefs. Simply put, people will believe what they want to believe, and the stronger they want to believe something, the more they will justify that belief to themselves.
But why the conflict in information? If news is supposed to be simply reporting the facts, why are there conflicting messages in the media itself? This happens in part because facts themselves can mean little in a void. Suppose I said person A shot and killed person B. That one fact, especially as stated, would make person A a perpetrator. But suppose I phrased it differently, or sprinkled in a few details. Suppose I said Person A was awakened in the middle of the night by person B, who had broken into person A's home, and person A grabbed his gun. In the ensuing struggle, person A shot person B. The police arrived shortly after that, and person B was carted off to the hospital, where he died from the bullet wound. Now, the story is quite a bit different, isn't it? Now suppose I report that person A was person B's boss, and worked person B murderously. Person B was an excellent employee and, despite the work overload, completed all of his tasks on time and well-performed, but he never received any recognition for his work, while all his coworkers received much higher starting pay, enjoyed numerous raises, and even substantial bonuses. Person B had a wife and six children, and they could not make ends meet. The children were poorly clothed and suffering from malnutrition. Person B would try to talk with person A about his situation and how he felt he deserved more money, but person A claimed he never had time to meet him, and at least, in desperation, person B broke into person A's home at night with the intentions of forcing person A to deal with him. Now we are sympathetic with person B. But now suppose I continue by revealing that person B was an illegal alien and convicted felon, having dealt with drugs and sexually abused a neighbor's daughter, and he when he broke in person A's home, he was high on crank and bearing a large knife? Each time we reveal more of the facts, we put the situation further into context, and the meaning of those facts develop.
People discovered a long time ago that by putting facts into the proper context, they could present an issue in whatever light they chose. By carefully selecting facts, people can make a bold, brilliant idea that would help millions of people look like a crass attempt at personal gain at the expense of those very same millions. These are half-truths. They are facts utilized to present something falsely. But people will present these half-truths for personal gain, and especially to further a political agenda. The extensive resources at hand to investigate these half-truths only make it easier, not more difficult, for the half-truths to spread and take hold. When anyone can publish on the internet any idea, be it insightful or daft, when any page can be filled with words supposedly quoted from experts, the picture only becomes murkier.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Logic
Consider the implication (A&B=>R)=>(A=>R | B=>R). If we were to assign statements to these variables (as most Discrete Structures teachers will do to try to make logic more intuitive), we might be inclined to disagree that this statement is valid (i.e. a tautology). After all, if we let statement A be "over 18" and statement B be "male" and R be "draftable", it says that "over 18" and "male" together are what makes a person draftable, but not either of those alone.
If we look at the proof, though, or even just a truth table, we find that the statement above is valid. What does this mean? It means that if A&B is sufficient evidence for R, then either A alone or B alone is sufficient evidence for R, but we cannot really tell which it is. Note that the converse does not hold.
So how does this work? Suppose we have evidence for A&B=>R (if we do not, then the statement is vacuously true anyway). Then suppose we have no evidence for A&B. Then we have no evidence for one of A or B, and that means one of A=>R, B=>R is vacuously true. Note that at this point, we encounter the problem of not knowing which of A or B fails, just that one does. Then suppose we have evidence for A&B. Since we have evidence for A&B=>R and for A&B, modus ponens tells us we can conclude R.
Here's the tricky part, where intuition breaks down. Since we have evidence for A&B, we must have evidence for both A and B separately. Our statement says knowing this evidence for both A and B separately is sufficent to conclude that R is a necessary conclusion from just one. Or does it?
This statement might just be the result of the non-discrimitive classical form of implies, which is logically equivalent to not A | B. Taking this into account, the antecedent (A&B=>R) is a limitation on the relation between A, B, and R. If A and B are true but R is false, the whole statement is vacuously true. If one of A or B is false, the whole statement is vacuously true. Thus the only information this statement has is when A, B, and R are true. But then the implications hold by grace of T=>T is T. What this makes is more of a relation than a strict necessary/sufficient pairing, a coincidence of construction rather than a statement with actual meaning.
If we look at the proof, though, or even just a truth table, we find that the statement above is valid. What does this mean? It means that if A&B is sufficient evidence for R, then either A alone or B alone is sufficient evidence for R, but we cannot really tell which it is. Note that the converse does not hold.
So how does this work? Suppose we have evidence for A&B=>R (if we do not, then the statement is vacuously true anyway). Then suppose we have no evidence for A&B. Then we have no evidence for one of A or B, and that means one of A=>R, B=>R is vacuously true. Note that at this point, we encounter the problem of not knowing which of A or B fails, just that one does. Then suppose we have evidence for A&B. Since we have evidence for A&B=>R and for A&B, modus ponens tells us we can conclude R.
Here's the tricky part, where intuition breaks down. Since we have evidence for A&B, we must have evidence for both A and B separately. Our statement says knowing this evidence for both A and B separately is sufficent to conclude that R is a necessary conclusion from just one. Or does it?
This statement might just be the result of the non-discrimitive classical form of implies, which is logically equivalent to not A | B. Taking this into account, the antecedent (A&B=>R) is a limitation on the relation between A, B, and R. If A and B are true but R is false, the whole statement is vacuously true. If one of A or B is false, the whole statement is vacuously true. Thus the only information this statement has is when A, B, and R are true. But then the implications hold by grace of T=>T is T. What this makes is more of a relation than a strict necessary/sufficient pairing, a coincidence of construction rather than a statement with actual meaning.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Salvation
Being a not-so-devout Catholic, I am familiar nonetheless with a few of the tenets of the Christian faith. Love thy God. Love thy neighbor. Turn the other cheek. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Despite the thousands of religious observances, this is really the core of the Christian faith. Do these things, we are told, and we will attain the rewards of Heaven. Fail, and we will burn in Hell.
I do not care much for reward-based systems. Part of that is a skepticism ingrained in public schools, where the reward rarely had anything to do with behavior invovled. Bullys were rewarded for having their way; the bullied were punished if they dared to lift a hand to fight back. Those who expended exorbitant amounts of effort maybe succeeded, but many who barely bothered to try passed with flying colors. I'm not saying I have any idea of how to fix that, or if it should be fixed. But the end result is that the rewards given in the system do not motivate me very much. In schools, particularly the University of Wyoming, what motivates me is a love of learning and a desire to know, not necessarily the grades I receive, the degree I'll earn, or the job I'll hypothetically get later on.
The doing good and making others happy should be the reward of doing good, not the promise of eternal rewards. Otherwise, we can justify our own selfishness, our own unwillingness to act, by claiming "we are damaging our immortal souls" by doing what needs to be done.
One of the classic ethical questions is the following: Suppose there is some maniac who has captured you and tells you either to kill one innocent person or he'll kill a thousand innocent people. Some will say to refuse to kill, for then it will be the manic killing, not you. Some will argue that you should kill the one innocent, for then only one dies, instead of a thousand. There is no good answer here. Either you kill the one, and are guilty of killing one innocent person (and furthermore acceding to the demands of a terrorist) or you refuse, and you have doomed a thousand people. So which is it?
In the War on Terror, we are facing a very similar issue. None of these are: which is the moral path? Instead, which is the path that is least wrong? Because, just as in the ethical dilemma above, there is no true moral way out. Either we refuse to fight the terrorists, and doom thousands to their brutal methods, or we fight the terrorists, and doom thousands of soldiers and civilians to violent death.
Some argue that not fighting is taking the moral high ground. This is because we are not dirtying ourselves, and thus being rewarded with approbation of the other nations in the world as well as saving our souls for Heaven. But would we really achieve Heaven by refusing to do what needs to be done to ensure the safety of millions of people?
I do not care much for reward-based systems. Part of that is a skepticism ingrained in public schools, where the reward rarely had anything to do with behavior invovled. Bullys were rewarded for having their way; the bullied were punished if they dared to lift a hand to fight back. Those who expended exorbitant amounts of effort maybe succeeded, but many who barely bothered to try passed with flying colors. I'm not saying I have any idea of how to fix that, or if it should be fixed. But the end result is that the rewards given in the system do not motivate me very much. In schools, particularly the University of Wyoming, what motivates me is a love of learning and a desire to know, not necessarily the grades I receive, the degree I'll earn, or the job I'll hypothetically get later on.
The doing good and making others happy should be the reward of doing good, not the promise of eternal rewards. Otherwise, we can justify our own selfishness, our own unwillingness to act, by claiming "we are damaging our immortal souls" by doing what needs to be done.
One of the classic ethical questions is the following: Suppose there is some maniac who has captured you and tells you either to kill one innocent person or he'll kill a thousand innocent people. Some will say to refuse to kill, for then it will be the manic killing, not you. Some will argue that you should kill the one innocent, for then only one dies, instead of a thousand. There is no good answer here. Either you kill the one, and are guilty of killing one innocent person (and furthermore acceding to the demands of a terrorist) or you refuse, and you have doomed a thousand people. So which is it?
In the War on Terror, we are facing a very similar issue. None of these are: which is the moral path? Instead, which is the path that is least wrong? Because, just as in the ethical dilemma above, there is no true moral way out. Either we refuse to fight the terrorists, and doom thousands to their brutal methods, or we fight the terrorists, and doom thousands of soldiers and civilians to violent death.
Some argue that not fighting is taking the moral high ground. This is because we are not dirtying ourselves, and thus being rewarded with approbation of the other nations in the world as well as saving our souls for Heaven. But would we really achieve Heaven by refusing to do what needs to be done to ensure the safety of millions of people?
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Unresonable
To clarify on yesterday's post, I should no way imply that those who are 9/11 conspiracists are the only ones who want to live in a comfortable, luxurious lifestyle. Most of us do. What I failed to clarify is that theirs is a viewpoint radically different from what the real world is presenting us. They believe that the terrorists are not an overt threat and can be dealt with. As I said, they do not want to believe otherwise, because that would interfere with their ideal life. I, too, want to continue living my ideal life, but my outlook on the world is far different from theirs. I look at the world and I see people who cannot be reasoned with. The thing that bothers me is that no one should be suprised by the existence of people that cannot be reasoned with!
I say this because just about any debate in which one or more parties feels strongly on opposing points of the issue should illustrate this. Consider the ID/evolution debate. ID purports to have evidence that debunks evolution, and no one who adheres to that ideology will be convinced otherwise. For those like me, anything ID supporters say is just misinterpretation or deliberate manhandling of facts to twist things around to a meaning the facts never pointed to. They are never going to convince me otherwise; I am never going to convince them otherwise. Granted, we can have a debate in sane, rational manner, but my point should be clear.
Now, when you have a party that is totally convinced you are an infidel and are causing no small amount of corruption in the world, and there is no way to convince them otherwise, what do we have? Most people don't view us in the United States that way, but the sect of Islam that is waging jihad against us does see us as a great evil in this world. That doesn't make us evil, but it boils down to the question:
Who do you fear most? The 250 lb weight-lifter who is trying to steal your loaf of bread, but knows he's doing wrong, or the 125 lb woman who believes, wrongly but with all her heart, that you have kidnapped her child?
Because the terrorists believe with strong conviction that the United States must be destroyed, there can be no compromises with them. Any compromise reached will either be one-sided submissal on our part, or reneged on their part. That is the reality of the situation.
Some will say that it is not the Christian thing to do to take the fight to the terrorists, hunt them down and kill them or imprison them. These people will say we should turn the other cheek, as Jesus taught us, and forgive our enemies. But that is not taking his lesson to heart. When Jesus said to turn the other cheek, he meant that we should not lash out in revenge. Forgiveness means we do not act punitively. We can still defend ourselves for just causes, as long as we are not seeking vengeance or acting with hatred in our hearts. We can still punish a crime, as long as we are seeking to dissuade and correct, not simply hurt and grind under our heels.
I say this because just about any debate in which one or more parties feels strongly on opposing points of the issue should illustrate this. Consider the ID/evolution debate. ID purports to have evidence that debunks evolution, and no one who adheres to that ideology will be convinced otherwise. For those like me, anything ID supporters say is just misinterpretation or deliberate manhandling of facts to twist things around to a meaning the facts never pointed to. They are never going to convince me otherwise; I am never going to convince them otherwise. Granted, we can have a debate in sane, rational manner, but my point should be clear.
Now, when you have a party that is totally convinced you are an infidel and are causing no small amount of corruption in the world, and there is no way to convince them otherwise, what do we have? Most people don't view us in the United States that way, but the sect of Islam that is waging jihad against us does see us as a great evil in this world. That doesn't make us evil, but it boils down to the question:
Who do you fear most? The 250 lb weight-lifter who is trying to steal your loaf of bread, but knows he's doing wrong, or the 125 lb woman who believes, wrongly but with all her heart, that you have kidnapped her child?
Because the terrorists believe with strong conviction that the United States must be destroyed, there can be no compromises with them. Any compromise reached will either be one-sided submissal on our part, or reneged on their part. That is the reality of the situation.
Some will say that it is not the Christian thing to do to take the fight to the terrorists, hunt them down and kill them or imprison them. These people will say we should turn the other cheek, as Jesus taught us, and forgive our enemies. But that is not taking his lesson to heart. When Jesus said to turn the other cheek, he meant that we should not lash out in revenge. Forgiveness means we do not act punitively. We can still defend ourselves for just causes, as long as we are not seeking vengeance or acting with hatred in our hearts. We can still punish a crime, as long as we are seeking to dissuade and correct, not simply hurt and grind under our heels.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
9/11 Conspiracies
Of all the things about 9/11 I've seen, the worst is the people who continually belive that 9/11 was an inside job, that the Bush administration actually wanted the World Trade center hit so that it would propel the United States into war. To what purpose would Bush do such a thing? I have heard any number of crazy theories, but the one that stands out most in my mind was that Bush engaged in war to eventually strike at Iraq and "finish what Daddy started" or "get revenge for Daddy."
I first heard this at the Matthew Shephard Symposium in 2002. One of our guest speakers, a prominent member of LGBT movement, spoke in harshly critical tones of Bush's war in Afghanistan, Bush's pushing for war in Iraq, and even Bush's tax cuts. In this talk, I heard the speaker say that Bush was pushing for tax cuts to "do what Daddy failed to do, no matter how it will hurt the economy", and that Bush was pushing for war in Iraq to "finish what Daddy started." I left the symposium feeling utterly disgusted. I felt sorry for Matthew Shephard, a nice person who's murder is now being used to fuel a movement fraught with people who would pull down Bush at any cost.
I suppose, though, that to truly overcome my outrage at people who believe that 9/11 is an inside job, I must first try to understand these people. To a large extent, these people see Bush as the devil incarnate. This I don't necessarily understand right away, since I'm exactly sure when all this fervent hatred began. Certainly there was plenty of vitriol concerning the 2000 election, and all the claims that "Bush stole the election."
All right, I've examined the 2000 elections, and with every recount of votes in Florida, Bush won. The recounting would have continued indefinitely had it been allowed, for Gore would not have backed down, and he never would have reached the number of votes needed to win. The very fact that the Supreme Court had to step in and halt the recount nonsense should be a great sense of shame to all Americans, not just Floridians, but certainly for the Democratic party. I understand the outrage--to the Democrats, Bush's victory must feel like a bad penalty called with 0:06 left in the fourth quarter that costs the home team a chance at victory. I understand that very well--Wyoming lost several close games under similary circumstances.
Since many people feel the presidency is tied up with all the changes in the nation (instead of blaming the real culprits in Congress), I suppose it is understandable that they would feel strongly about who is in the presidency. For some, I suppose it is the distinction between a life of ease and a life grueling labor. But honestly, Congress still has more power than the president, and they're the ones who pass bills. Bush just signs them into law. Just look at how Bush practically begged Congress to pass some bills to aid in the War on Terror--because he cannot pass them himself. For all people's talk about a monarchy, Bush still has to go to Congress to get things done.
9/11 galvanized the nation, at least for a span of a few days. And yet it did not take long for people to start muttering about Bush's warmongering. And by the time the Iraq war was a year old, people were talking about American Imperialism, how we shouldn't be in Iraq, and so on. The common factor among all these complaints is: we don't want to have to expend the effort. And these people proffer the following excuse: our soldiers are dying in the truckloads; we need international approval; who are we to say that we should impose democracy on other nations; this is just Bush's religious war against Islam.
I'm not going to delve into social commentary--I'll save that for some other day. But needless to say, it seems to me that those who are social relativists--the ones who continually suggest we need to talk with the terrorists--are so infuriated by Bush because Bush pulls them out of their little, insulated worlds into the real world. These people do not want to acknoweldge the terrorists as a threat because that would mean actually doing something about it at personal risk. That includes the loss of finances, the loss of opportunities, and even the loss of family, friends, or self.
Ultimately, the fervent hatred of Bush stems from this. Bush is not willing to make concessions to the enemy so that the people of the United States can remain insulated from the dangers of the real world a few days more. Bush realizes that freedom must ever and always be fought for. His critics do not. They believe that freedom was won long ago, and now we just get to reap the benefits without ever lifting another finger. When Bush says that we still have to work for our freedom, the outrage ensues.
I first heard this at the Matthew Shephard Symposium in 2002. One of our guest speakers, a prominent member of LGBT movement, spoke in harshly critical tones of Bush's war in Afghanistan, Bush's pushing for war in Iraq, and even Bush's tax cuts. In this talk, I heard the speaker say that Bush was pushing for tax cuts to "do what Daddy failed to do, no matter how it will hurt the economy", and that Bush was pushing for war in Iraq to "finish what Daddy started." I left the symposium feeling utterly disgusted. I felt sorry for Matthew Shephard, a nice person who's murder is now being used to fuel a movement fraught with people who would pull down Bush at any cost.
I suppose, though, that to truly overcome my outrage at people who believe that 9/11 is an inside job, I must first try to understand these people. To a large extent, these people see Bush as the devil incarnate. This I don't necessarily understand right away, since I'm exactly sure when all this fervent hatred began. Certainly there was plenty of vitriol concerning the 2000 election, and all the claims that "Bush stole the election."
All right, I've examined the 2000 elections, and with every recount of votes in Florida, Bush won. The recounting would have continued indefinitely had it been allowed, for Gore would not have backed down, and he never would have reached the number of votes needed to win. The very fact that the Supreme Court had to step in and halt the recount nonsense should be a great sense of shame to all Americans, not just Floridians, but certainly for the Democratic party. I understand the outrage--to the Democrats, Bush's victory must feel like a bad penalty called with 0:06 left in the fourth quarter that costs the home team a chance at victory. I understand that very well--Wyoming lost several close games under similary circumstances.
Since many people feel the presidency is tied up with all the changes in the nation (instead of blaming the real culprits in Congress), I suppose it is understandable that they would feel strongly about who is in the presidency. For some, I suppose it is the distinction between a life of ease and a life grueling labor. But honestly, Congress still has more power than the president, and they're the ones who pass bills. Bush just signs them into law. Just look at how Bush practically begged Congress to pass some bills to aid in the War on Terror--because he cannot pass them himself. For all people's talk about a monarchy, Bush still has to go to Congress to get things done.
9/11 galvanized the nation, at least for a span of a few days. And yet it did not take long for people to start muttering about Bush's warmongering. And by the time the Iraq war was a year old, people were talking about American Imperialism, how we shouldn't be in Iraq, and so on. The common factor among all these complaints is: we don't want to have to expend the effort. And these people proffer the following excuse: our soldiers are dying in the truckloads; we need international approval; who are we to say that we should impose democracy on other nations; this is just Bush's religious war against Islam.
I'm not going to delve into social commentary--I'll save that for some other day. But needless to say, it seems to me that those who are social relativists--the ones who continually suggest we need to talk with the terrorists--are so infuriated by Bush because Bush pulls them out of their little, insulated worlds into the real world. These people do not want to acknoweldge the terrorists as a threat because that would mean actually doing something about it at personal risk. That includes the loss of finances, the loss of opportunities, and even the loss of family, friends, or self.
Ultimately, the fervent hatred of Bush stems from this. Bush is not willing to make concessions to the enemy so that the people of the United States can remain insulated from the dangers of the real world a few days more. Bush realizes that freedom must ever and always be fought for. His critics do not. They believe that freedom was won long ago, and now we just get to reap the benefits without ever lifting another finger. When Bush says that we still have to work for our freedom, the outrage ensues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)