Ignoring the Glaring Issues

If you were to take a walk around my college campus and through the center forum where students advertise their clubs and causes, the largest humanitarian effort you’d find is something like partial-birth abortion awareness.  But that’s on a rare day — what’s more popular is the ever appearing identical flyers brandished with photos of dirty pigs with eyes that plead to stop animal cruelty and lower your meat consumption.  These flyers can either be found in the hands of the thin vegan girl who waves them exasperatedly in your face, or in a larger quantity in the trash can 20 feet beyond her.

And this may sound callous; but as unmerciful and sickening as those problems are, I just don’t understand how humans are expected to be able to work on those issues in a time when we still design devices to kill each other on a massive scale.

Can a man truly understand the nature of the suffering of a farm animal when he will knowingly march into battle to bring pain and suffering to other men?

Does anyone who advocates the U.S. decision to detonate atomic bombs on the civilian populations of Hiroshima or Nagasaki have any right to argue about the morality of partial-birth abortion?

If you can support the killing of born children in one circumstance, no one ought to have any obligation or patience to listen to a word you say beyond that.

Please don’t misunderstand, I am in opposition to all of these issues.  I just think we need to stop killing each other before we can ever hope to understand the plight of those less fortunate and and more defenseless than ourselves.

Over $83 million spent on Prop 8

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28985504/

I’m sure God would approve.  Stopping consenting, loving adults from a chance at marriage is a far more worthy use of money and resources than feeding the hungry and sheltering the homeless.

But hey, if that’s the sort of thing that gets you Christian street cred.

The Paradox of Prayer

Years upon years of asking for help by means of clasping hands together and bowing to the ceiling never yielded the most favorable results for me.  When I was younger, I think the main consolation I prescribed to myself was just that I was being selfish and probably asking for things that weren’t in my best interest “in the long run,” as they say. 

I think most people can agree that under the thumb of a good and powerful deity, one of the most frequently asked questions of all time is “Why do bad things happen to good people?”

And, like all those old moral questions, there really is no definitive answer. 

And of course, sometimes, what we want does happen.  After all, if surviving a surgical operation or dying during it are the only two options, well then one of those options must happen. 

There is nothing wasteful or pointless about hoping for a certain result — this is only natural.  It is perfectly normal as long as you can recognize that your hopes and feelings don’t actually alter the reality of the result. 

But mankind has kept those hands clasped and continues whispering to the ceiling, brandishing their “prayer works!” slogan whenever someone is in need of a kidney, a raise, or any other miracle.   (Make sure you read the fine print: if you have faith…)

So, if we are to accept that God is real (and good) and that prayer works, it is probably safe to assume that a healthy pastor and man of God would not likely become suddenly ill and die a very painful death when literally hundreds if not thousands of people are praying for him to survive.  (This recently happened to a man I knew.)

So what happened here?  I don’t know what excuse you’re used to hearing, but the one I’ve always been told is that God has some sort of master plan and it, for reasons beyond my meager human understanding, is absolutely crucial to include the pointless and painful death of a kind man in God’s service and the resulting depression of his family, friends, and followers. 

Which brings me to the absurdity of prayer and the point of this post:

If God has a plan or “will” that has always existed and is unaffected by anything humans can ask or hope for, then pray tell, WHAT is the point of praying in the first place? 

If you claim that God has a plan for everything and that his will is always done, you are accepting that you are powerless to change it.  And if you claim that prayer works, you are essentially denying that God has any sort of plan, as it is open to your suggestion.

And you thought 700 Billion was bad…

Now they’re discussing over 10 times as much…welcome to the 7.7 TRILLION Bailout plan. 

“The U.S. government is prepared to provide more than $7.76 trillion on behalf of American taxpayers after guaranteeing $306 billion of Citigroup Inc. debt yesterday…”

(See Article Below)

http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=arEE1iClqDrk&refer=home

Don’t you just love that introduction?  The noble government making a hard sacrifice in order to come to the rescue of the nation…by stealing money from the citizen. 

But hey, if it turns out that $700 billion was a colossal waste that miserably failed to solve our problems, it seems to logically follow that using over 10 times as much, (about half of the worth of our entire nation) will surely result in great success.

Sometimes I wonder if Bernanke, Paulson, and Co. are actually trying as hard as possible to hyperaccelerate an economic crash. 

And we’re supposed to hand over mass amounts of our money and let them use it as they see fit, with no oversight?

Division in Personal Relationships

Yes, I am going to briefly discuss the dreaded topic that everyone wants to die out; the massively over-hyped “Prop 8.”

I believe I’ve actually lost a good friend over this sad event.  And it hurts.  I recognize that he is as entrenched in his position as I am in mine — but this has never been a matter where two people can simply dismiss differing opinions and remain good buddies, easily moving on to a different and less conflicting topic. 

I mean, it’s one thing if I were to say that the Saints are the best football team, while someone else might argue that their local team is the greatest football team. That’s a matter of opinion, and easily dismissed because that preference does not have any real impact on my life or yours.

Or, on a more relevant note; to disgree about matters of religion/origin, since I can choose to worship a God while you may choose not to.

But it’s a completely different issue entirely to say:

“You should not be allowed to do X, and I am going to actively work against your right and ability to achieve X.”

while the other person says:

“But I feel like it’s my right as a human to do X, and it’s wrong for you to tell me what I can and can’t do with my life”

That’s not just ‘the elephant in the room,’ that’s a bit more like ‘the atomic bomb in the room.’

…The sad fact of it is that this was even a matter to be voted on in the first place.  Why should one section of the population be given the power to determine the rights of another section?  This sort of concept has no place in a society that claims to prize liberty, tolerance, and justice. 

What if I were to propose to my friend – who admittedly finds homosexuality disgusting and immoral according to his religious beliefs — that I should ban together with other atheists and vote on his right to practice religion in a church, because I might find it equally disgusting and immoral?

Wouldn’t you like to count the horrified gasps elicited from that proposition?

Patriotism

Patriotism is, I believe, very widely misunderstood.  As it is intended to be by those who champion it as a virtue. 

Patriotism is actually one of the greatest forces for evil in existence.  A few powerful men can command hundreds of thousands to stand in line and march to their deaths because that’s what you must do for your country. 

I think we often believe that our country and our government are synonymous with our way of life and the things we love. 

So then, what do we go to war for?  Is it because we want to protect Bush?  Because we worry about the salaries of our representatives on Capitol Hill?

Of course not.  We go to war because we are told that our freedoms, our loved ones, and our way of life are at risk from the enemy. 

Would anyone pick up a rifle and march into a combat zone if they were actually told they were going solely to line the pockets of the profiteers of the Military Industrial Complex and Oil CEOs?  Doubtful at best. 

One of the most useful tools and greatest accomplishments of those in power is that they are able to convince the public that protecting government interests is the same thing as protecting the average citizen’s private interests. 

In fact, more often than not, the citizen’s interests are in direct conflict with his governments.  Your interest in your own survival is overruled and opposed when you are sent off to war. 

So how do people really accept Patriotism?

I think America is probably the best example to be used, as Americans are known for their excessive pride in their nation.

Most Americans are simply born into their country.  So what exactly warrants this overbearing sense of pride?  Is it because there is truly objective proof that your nation is simply the best?  Or is it just adopted because you happened to take your first gasps of air in this country; a biological happenstance?  

Unfortunately, that is exactly it.  As it is the same in any other nation.  If ‘John Doe,’ an average american, had been born into Lebanon instead — he would feel the same ties to that nation.   

You don’t feel a strong moral allegiance to a nation because of any sort of proof, or that you know in fact it is simply “the best,” or “the most (morally) good nation.”  You feel this allegiance simply because it is your nation.  Just as anyone, from any other country, would feel the same about his own nationality. 

And here we come to one of the most pointless concepts on all of Earth; that two men would kill each other for no other reason than that each has an allegiance to his own nation.  Because he just so happened to be born there.

This ‘Prop 8′ Nonsense

I’m sure I don’t need to go do much explaining, as I’m confident the kind of readers my blog might attract don’t need to be told why this is completely stupid.

But honestly, in a time where we are on the verge of economic collapse and we are waging sick, unjust wars on human life in exchange for profit, it’s comforting to know that politicians have our back by defending us from the most crucial threat to America: Gay Marriage

Tall Tale Terrorism

Jihad!  Jihad!

The current administration would have us believe that the entire Islamic population of the Middle East is hell-bent on the death and destruction of the United States and all of its inhabitants.  And why would anyone be so thoroughly driven to hate us?  Obviously because of our freedoms!  Not jealousy, mind you, but they actually literally just hate us because we are free and they don’t like it one bit. 

Sorry, but I’m calling bullshit.

I remember watching one of the early Republican candidate debates and hearing Ron Paul discuss what I thought was a pretty obvious and highly important concept — ‘blowback.’

Which, in reality, is just a term for what happens in Foreign Policy when you don’t follow ‘The Golden Rule’ that you learned in kindergarten. 

But strangely enough, the rest of the candidates shrugged him off, largely ignoring him unless his words affected them directly.  I believe one of them even asked with feigned shock “Are you suggesting that 9/11 was America’s fault?!” 

Depends on how you look at it.  Obviously there is no justification whatsoever for purposely flying planes into buildings with the intention of killing thousands of people.  But pretending that this was an unprecedented or unprovoked attack is just ignorance to the extreme. 

Generally when you examine history, human interactions, and conflict, there is an undeniably existent tendency to reciprocate an action that is done to you. 

If you say something unkind or hurtful to someone, they probably won’t reply favorably.  If you hit someone, you risk the chance that they’ll hit you back.  And if you spend decades practicing a foreign policy that is characterized by invasion, violent occupation, and the heavy political interference of a significant portion of the Middle East, there is the slightest possibility that maybe they won’t like it, and may choose to retaliate. 

Scientists remain baffled at this near impossible anomaly, but it seems that every single member of the Neoconservative party missed out on this simple fundamental lesson that the rest of the world’s population learned before they were five years old. 

Otherwise, maybe they would have realized that, oh, imposing brutal sanctions and knowingly causing the deaths of 567,000 Iraqi children might piss off a few people. 

Which I speak of in a sarcastic manner simply because I cannot even fathom how to express how atrocious such a thing is. 

The confirmed death toll of 9/11 was less than 3,000 people.  And no, I am not in any means downplaying the tragedy that it was, but honestly, we cried to the world like it was the most horrendous act ever committed by humanity, but how many people are even aware of the sort of impact our sanctions had on Iraq?

Imposed by Bush Sr. and carried out by Clinton for the majority of his presidency, we denied food and medicine from Iraqi civilians and set-up no fly zones.  Which resulted in nearly 600,000 children dying from malnutrition and disease.  Here we see that sanctions themselves can be just another form of weapons of mass destruction.  But instead of instant vaporization, you will die a slow death of hunger and sickness until you finally collapse. 

These were enacted in the off-chance that Saddam Hussein would suddenly grow a heart and relinquish his power.

But much to UN surprise, he generally continued to act in much the same way that he always had.

And we can blame those deaths all we want on Saddam for being a ‘brutal dictator,’ but who’s really at fault here?  The man who didn’t stop the murderous sanctions?  Or the man who actively created them in the first place? 

In fact, the US actually punished American humanitarian groups that tried to go into Iraq to deliver medicine and relief to the suffering families. 

And we’re told that we invaded Iraq and ‘liberated’ their people because our heart is just too big.  How absolutely insulting.

Even Osama Bin Laden, during his confession of his role in 9/11, actually listed these sanctions as one of the main reasons for his violent mission against the West. 

But this is only one instance, as the US has had a history of meddling in Middle East affairs.

This would include the 1953 CIA overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, who was replaced by a CIA installed Shah so that they could – Guess what?  Reap over half of Iran’s oil production.  I should mention that the Shah ran quite a ruthless dictatorship which, you know, didn’t bother us. 

When he was replaced by a candidate of the people of Iran, we withdrew support and offered it to Saddam as Iraq and Iran entered war.  We even armed him! 

And if anyone might possibly try to argue that we’ve turned a new leaf and recognized that supporting murderous dictatorial regimes for our own profit is bad, we have only to turn to Saudi Arabia, whose regime was ranked worse than Saddam’s in 2003.  We still support and arm them to this day.

And if you haven’t had enough yet, it always shocks me but many people still aren’t even aware that we CREATED Osama Bin Laden and the Mujahideen!  During the Cold War we trained and funded them to fight against the Soviets — I believe the idea was that the way to bring down a Superpower is to use guerrilla tactics and draw them into your territory, where they will fight you hopelessly until they go bankrupt.

Sound familiar, anyone?

Soldiers, Heroes, and Thieves, Pt. 2

“Common experience shows how much rarer is moral courage than physical bravery. A thousand men will march to the mouth of the cannon where one man will dare espouse an unpopular cause . . . True courage and manhood come from the consciousness of the right attitude toward the world, the faith in one’s purpose, and the sufficiency of one’s own approval as a justification for one’s own acts.”
—Clarence Darrow, Resist Not Evil

So what are our soldiers doing now? What would they even say? Has there been a single American yet who can clearly define what our mission is in Iraq or Afghanistan? Even McCain, the warmonger himself, when asked, could not define a clear goal. However, he knows that whatever it may be, it’ll definitely require upwards of 100 years of American military occupation.

Firstly, we must get rid of this ridiculous notion that anyone is fighting for or protecting ‘our freedoms.’ No one has more stake in your own rights and freedoms than you do. Why would you delegate this right to another body or organization? No one will fight for your freedoms but you!
The fact that we have seen an inverse relationship between our level of freedom and the progression of war should tell you this much.

There is actually a challenge put forth by a Libertarian philosopher named Stefan Molyneux who said “There has never been a war in the history of mankind where a nation went to war to protect its host population, and that host population either gained more freedom or retained their current level of freedom.” He has offered to rescind his entire argument and body of work if anyone can prove this wrong. It simply has not happened.

Many people at this point object with “But how could you forget!? The Revolutionary War of course!”
The Revolutionary War was not waged by an established government that set out to protect its citizens from a foreign enemy. The revolutionary war was simply a breakaway from Britain’s tyranny.

The military is not fighting for you; the military is fighting for the interests of the state.
If the military is truly designed only to protect the public, then where does the need for martial law come from? If you decide that you no longer want protection, can you choose to give it up?

How often do you feel threatened by an Iraqi or Afghan family? Every hour on the hour? Once a day? Twice a week? Couple times a month?

I don’t know about you, but I have never felt threatened by these people. I’m going to assume that you live your life without the constant fear that a ‘terrorist’ is hiding behind every corner, waiting to fly a remote controlled but lethal jet right into you when you come home every day.

But terrorism is a topic for another blog.

Now to return to the idea of the soldier being some noble figure in the highest form of masculinity and greatness…

So I’m told that the military will make me a man. Is a man someone like John McCain, who can’t lift his arms above his head and is so emotionally scarred by war that his only response to a conflict is to reply with overwhelming force? What about the thousands of veterans who commit suicide, go into deep depression, or for the rest of their lives, are destined to jump into defense mode, as programmed, the second they hear a loud and surprising noise while shopping at the local grocery store? Is that a man?

The military is dehumanization. Basic compassion, human qualities, and natural responses are replaced with the sound of obedience to a commanding officer. To be a soldier is to become nothing. It is to become completely subordinate to another man who has at the tip of his tongue, your ability to act, think, and reason for yourself.

And what drives this entranced killing machine?

Patriotism — Often thought of as a good and admirable trait, patriotism is actually simply a synonym of nationalism; or the tool employed by conquerors to achieve their goals.

To authorize and cherish violence against another people or nation simply because you belong to one nation, and they to another, is a sick, sick thing. This is something we champion in the United States.
So these nations, of course, use this tool of patriotism to throw the bodies of their youth at each other in a massive bloodbath. Because seeing who can rack up the most casualties is certainly the best way to prove that your point of view is right.

And so the parents who have so deeply ingrained within them this idea that joining an organization of trained killers to defend a state is an honorable thing, send their child off to die for Bush and friends.
No, these soldiers aren’t dying for your freedoms. And no, they’re not dying to rid the Iraqi people of a brutal dictatorial regime.

They’re dying so that United States Imperialist interests can reap the financial benefits of installing a U.S. friendly replacement that will sell them oil for cheap. They’re dying so that those same Imperialists can establish a foothold on the middle-east for future conquest. They’re dying so that the elite can further enslave the middle class and parasitically drain them of their money, energy, and freedom.

Of course, it is so beyond insensitive to even consider telling parents and family members that their son or daughter has died in vain in a foreign desert. No one can bear to hear that.

So is the soldier a murderer? In a word, yes. Even if unintentionally. However, the absolute bottom of the moral barrel is the blatantly disgusting, evil, sociopathic profiteers who sit back and engineer these wars and crimes against humanity for personal gain. There is not a word I can think of that fully expresses the abhorrent nature of such individuals.

And that is why if you found anything I said to be offensive, insensitive, or disgusting, you should. The fact is that we have lost over 4,000 soldiers because someone told them that they had to kill or be killed. 4,000 + soldiers are dead simply because dying is what the state told them they must do.

We have one life, one short chance at existence, a brief moment in all of history, and we spend it making bombs and guns and sending young men and women to their deaths.

“YOUNG MEN: The lowest aim in your life is to become a soldier. The good soldier never tries to distinguish right from wrong. He never thinks; never reasons; he only obeys. If he is ordered to fire on his fellow citizens, on his friends, on his neighbors, on his relatives, he obeys without hesitation. If he is ordered to fire down a crowded street when the poor are clamoring for bread, he obeys and see the grey hairs of age stained with red and the life tide gushing from the breasts of women, feeling neither remorse nor sympathy. If he is ordered off as a firing squad to execute a hero or benefactor, he fires without hesitation, though he knows the bullet will pierce the noblest heart that ever beat in human breast.

“A good soldier is a blind, heartless, soulless, murderous machine. He is not a man. His is not a brute, for brutes kill only in self defense. All that is human in him, all that is divine in him, all that constitutes the man has been sworn away when he took the enlistment roll. His mind, his conscience, aye, his very soul, are in the keeping of his officer. No man can fall lower than a soldier—it is a depth beneath which we cannot go.”
— Jack London

Soldiers, Heroes, and Thieves

“War paralyzes your courage and deadens the spirit of true manhood. It degrades and stupefies with the sense that you are not responsible, that ’tis not yours to think and reason why, but to do and die,’ like the hundred thousand others doomed like yourself. War means blind obedience, unthinking stupidity, brutish callousness, wanton destruction, and irresponsible murder.”
—Alexander Berkman

Though it’s likely there will be far more people who disagree with me than those who agree, this is something I need to say:

A soldier is not a hero.  A soldier is, in fact, technically a hired killer.  A paid murderer. 

Does a soldier believe this?  Does he salivate at the thought of just slaughtering crowds of foreign men, women, and children?  Does he love the sight of blood?

Of course not.  But this does not change the nature of his actions.

The men and women we so often salute as noble heroes who fight and die “to protect our freedoms”…Well, that might be something worth a closer examination. 

What exactly is the difference between a soldier and a hitman?  One wears a green suit and is funded and created by a state, making him a legitimate killer, seemingly free of moral concern and responsibility for his actions.  The other is funded and created by a mafia, gang, or otherwise ‘criminal’ organization.

To imply that the state is somehow more righteous and legitimate — other than their own professed and defined legitimacy — than these gangs or any other organization that uses the tools such as murder, coersion, and overall brutality to achieve their respective goals is simply morally inconsistent.

This is to say that a moral evil somehow transforms into a moral good simply because a government says it is so.

Therefore, it is good for a soldier to kill on command, but it is bad for a hitman to kill on order from his own boss. 

The same sort of inconsistency can be found in several other areas.  For example, theft and taxation. 

First, we must be clear on the fact that taxation is theft.  If you find this arguable — can you choose not to pay your taxes?  Sure you can.  But what happens?  You end up in jail.  If you resist arrest, you are to be subdued with force and the use of violence if necessary. 

Generally, the fact that you can “choose not to pay your taxes” is the most common argument I’ve heard that states that taxation isn’t theft.  But then again, if you are held at gun-point by some street thug, you can also choose not to give him your wallet and valuables, can’t you?  Though you’ll likely end up with the same result — but likely with more time spent in the gutter rather than jail.  

So I mean, I guess you can call it a choice if you really want to, but it’s a choice in the same sense that asking me if I’d rather eat a bowl of ice cream or a bowl of jagged titanium knives for a snack is a ‘choice.’ 

So then, to continue — It is considered good for politicans to steal money from me by coercive taxation; or the threat of violence for my money.  Yet it is bad — and punishable by those very same politicians — for me to use force to steal money from someone else.

But hey, at least your money is being used to pay for the benefit of yourself and those like you, right?

Well, not always.

Would you say that I have the right to oppose the Iraq war?

I’m going to assume that most people here would say that I do.

But how can I oppose something if I am forced to fund and support it?  Surely this is a ridiculous contradiction.  I can be morally opposed to sending soldiers to kill others in Iraq, yet I must pay for them to do so?  Therefore, I really can’t practice my moral opposition to this.  I become a hypocrite against my will, as I say one thing and in practice, support the opposite. 

The politician steals from the productive citizen and uses that money to fund and support soldiers who fight and kill for the interests of the state. 

Someone is clearly receiving the bad deal here.  Am I the only who finds this disgusting? 

—

So I know I skimmed around a bit and didn’t end up focusing as much on the original topic as I actually intended to, haha, but I’ll continue this and post it within the next day or two.  This is just such an expansive topic to write about.  But please feel free to share any ideas or thoughts you have!