Something profound happened this week. It was all over the radio, television and the internet. It was on the front page of every major newspaper. An unforeseen death occurred of an individual who, in the words of Al Sharpton, brought together the children from around the globe. Mourners line the corners of busy LA intersections with bouquets of roses and paper mache crosses. Celebrities are pouring their hearts out on Twitter, Facebook and national news media outlets to express their heartfelt grief and utter devastation over the death of Neda Agha Soltan.
Wait…who? Exactly.
Neda Agha Soltan was a 26-year old Iranian woman who went to the streets of Tehran this past week to protest the corrupt results of their presidential election which poses a threat, if not complete denial, of basic human liberties. She did not get to protest long- she was shot by a member of Iran’s pro-government Basijl militia and died along the curb while protesters pushed ahead, taking the same risk to make their voices heard.
It was not her death discussed at office water coolers around the country, but instead the passing of Michael Jackson. The voices of the Iranian protesters, such as Soltan’s, may not be as theatrical or artistic as the grunts, hoots or hollers that made Jackson an international superstar, but their significance is sadly forgotten in the wake of MJ’s death.
Every major news source this week carried wall-to-wall coverage of the “king of pop” whose legacy is disputable (which won’t be disputed here). What is undisputable, however, is the ridiculous need to focus on a life that brought the world together because of one white glove, as Al Sharpton poignantly explained to MSNBC. “Michael had children all over the world- Africans, Asians, Europeans- imitating his dress style, his dance style.” That’s a lovely picture: a dozen Chinese school children practicing the moonwalk outside of their dilapidated one-room schoolhouse.
If anyone cares, the clothes Neda Agha Soltan was wearing the day she died were covered in blood that poured from her mouth and her chest. I don’t think we will find pictures in USA Today of African school children intimidating her wardrobe choices.
When someone noteworthy dies, the media ingeniously digs up every interesting factoid, quote or reference to create an organic and wholesome representation of the icon. This was certainly the case for Jackson. MSNBC resourcefully provided a two-minute audio clip of the 911 call made from Jackson’s home. Although I tried and tried, I was not able to find the audio clip from the mini-camcorders that provided raw footage of the Iranian protesters who witnessed the death of Soltan. MSNBC must’ve put that on their homepage the day before Jackson died.
The Miami Herald interviewed one of the men who tried to assist Soltan as she lay bleeding to death in the street. “We heard a gunshot. Neda was standing one meter away from me. I turned back and I saw blood gushing out of Neda’s chest. We ran to her and lay her on the ground. I saw the bullet wound just below her neck.” Dr. Arash Hejazi emotionally recounts the last moments of this young woman’s life, risking his own life to publicly speak out about the brutality still taking place throughout the cities of Iran.
I don’t think Diana Ross worried about her safety when she spoke to the media Friday morning, recalling the moments she heard about her friend’s death. “I am in a state of utter despair. I can’t stop crying…I am unable to imagine this.” Yes, Diana, it is difficult to imagine a world where there will be no streets of Neverland Ranch to protest upon.
As celebrities twitter about the heartfelt grief suddenly thrust upon them by the loss of Michael Jackson, Iranian college students ask for prayers and support as they head out for another day of protesting, praying for the opportunity to twitter again upon their safe journey home at day’s end. As our mainstream media passionately covers the up-to-the-minute details from the coroner’s office about the possible painkillers in Jackson’s system at the time of his heart attack, they refuse to question our President as to why he did no more than send a Vermont Teddy Bear to the ruthless dictator Ahmadinejad. And as Hollywood searches for even richer prose to describe their state of utter desolation at losing the king of pop, I have yet to hear the outraged voices of our pretentious elites who plaster “Free Tibet” bumper stickers on the back of their hybrids in support of the men, women and children still fighting for the very freedoms we enjoy every day.
I think it may be time to take a step back from the man in the mirror and see the men and women across the ocean who are willing to fight to the death for what we (still) have here in America. Soltan understood this, as did the man who held her lifeless body. “She was fighting for basic rights…she died on the streets to say something.” Even though it wasn’t through a microphone, she did say something. If only more could hear it.
by Concord
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Robbed of Being a Liberal
It's funny how the definition of the word liberal, when used in the context of describing society, actually has transcended into meaning the exact opposite of what the word means when it is just a word, sitting there, alone and by itself. Liberal, when it is just a word, means (and I just looked this up using my microsoft word): open-minded, broadminded, non-interventionist, free-thinking, moderate, etc, etc. But these terms describe precisely the exact opposite of what many people who call themselves liberals think about issues and the extent that they truly desire a debate. Please bear with me on this it gets better.
Pajamas TV
Let's just talk about words and the effects they have on us. Does liberal mean more fun? Conservative less fun? What do you think?
Think about it, you're five years old, and the little old lady behind the candy counter says, “Hey sonny, let me help you to a liberal helping of gummy worms." You're response: "Hell ya, I'm going to keep coming back to this lady, she gave me an extra .10 pounds of pure pleasure."
In college: You arrive at a friends dorm room and immediately proclaim that "boyz/ladies, we will be consuming liberal amounts of High Life tonight!" After all it is the champagne of beers, so drink up, right? More is better.
Now let's talk about the riveting word conservative. Conversation: "Dude, what ever happened when you were looking at new cars last week?" Response: "Well man, I had to stay conservative and just get that Taurus, it had low miles and some decent options, plus it can fit a lot of stuff in the trunk. I really wanted to go new, I just couldn't afford it.""Hmmm...that sucks bro."
The key point lies in the part about the suck.
The friend inquiring makes a point that "it sucks" to live within one's means. Is this how as a society, many (ie the people who's mortgage payments are now being payed by taxpayers) have come to the conclusion that "it sucks" to be conservative, even though sometimes we have to be? I really don't know for sure. But I do know the results of the last elections, and which candidate better defined himself as a coddler of sorts, the self-proclaimed protector of those who overextended themselves and made poor financial decisions.
No doubt about it, this 'wordology' has an affect on people. And when I say people really I am meaning young people, who amongst their populations a growing number have attached the philosophy of ‘life being better and less hard’ to a word that was originally only intended to describe free thought. Is the ‘here is some free stuff, you should feel like your life is better now’ philosophy working? Again, I don’t know, but what is fairly conclusive is that more stuff period doesn’t necessarily mean happiness, because if cavemen ever had the depression rates of today’s society, you and I wouldn’t be here. The cavemen would have ‘offed’ themselves quite painfully and slowly with their own clubs before they had a chance to breed.
Another quick point, while I’m on a role here, is to notice how some people, not to name names, have ceased using the verb ‘to think’, and replaced it with ‘to feel’ when speaking. About anything. Apparently in otherwise objective issues it IS possible to feel things, let’s say for example, in comparing tulips AND economics and talking about them as if it were all the same. Is it Common Sense (copyright, Thomas Paine) that one topic requires a little more factual concern than the other? Just throwing it out there.
Based on the definition above, I think I might be a damn liberal. I always want to shape my own opinion. Free thought - hell yeah. Sounds awesome. When paired with a good set of morals, who are we kidding - it is awesome! The Founding Fathers thought so - I hope you think so too.
I've hated stupid rules from day one in my life, and my elementary school had a ton of them - I still don't think I'm over many of them to be honest. Too much control, and I honestly remember thinking as a kid that it was overly coddling in some aspects (which I despised), but then overbearing in other ways. Some would say how ironic it is then that I would have gone into the military straight out of high school. Or is it? Was I just searching for leadership that actually made sense?
When Officers allow the Marine Corps NCO to do what he does best, make decisions, America wins wars. This is especially true in the chaos of urban combat. Very simply, to win in combat decisively in a complex environment you need more decision makers out there, and good ones. A good NCO is delegated to, and in turn he will delegate again, and do it well and without delay. The momentum is kept and not lost in that way.
It is the #1 reason Marines have such a distinguished NCO Corps: they are free to think. Depending on the commander, this happens to varying degrees. In military operations ‘espeaka’ what we're talking about here is Commanders Intent; ie "this is the end state that we desire and we know our plan will likely somehow go to shit when the first contact is made. Break from the plan if you must and use it as a rough outline, but no matter what, accomplish this task anyway possible." It is actually a very liberal philosophy. Does that mean the Marine Corps is a liberal organization when it allows the NCO a degree of necessary flexibility in combat? Holy shit, where are we?
Why does it seem to me that the more liberal one gets, in the new hip ‘today’ sense of the word, that there is actually a vastly diminished amount of cherry picking going on (ie choosing yourself what cherries you want to pick from the overall tree)? If a young person comes to the modern liberal party because a particular issue has pushed them in that direction, which is fine, why does it seem to me that the pressure to follow suit with liberals on every other issue becomes so great that they soon yield as if not doing so would mean they were close-minded (if I am pissing you off by continuing to use italics when I use the term liberal / conservative / misc. other terms, it is intended). I know this pressure because I have resisted it in many a college classroom. Just because I had different ideas, I had to hide them from academia because it meant that I was close-minded. Would the liberal Thomas Jefferson approve? What does this say about our future? I don’t know, but I know I’m pissed. I want my term back. I want to be a liberal like I was back in the 4th grade.
To be fair, much of the same can be the case with conservatives, although I think the pressure to conform is significantly less. I can pretty much back that up based on one issue: taxes. Nothing new here, taxes are something I’m sure everyone has had a conversation about with someone else recently. We know the argument well: so-called liberals want to tax the heck outta you and me and decide who to give our money to, and so-called conservatives advocate for some taxes but then allow the individual the freedom to give to charity. Which one has more choice involved? Which is more liberal, in actuality? Do you see what I’m getting at with this wordology? Do you want your term back yet?
Again, to be fair, George Bush ordered several bailouts too, and in this case it appears that he ceded principle for popularity in an attempt to avoid making his party, and John McCain, look like the party of no fun and less gummy worms. To say this move was disappointing is an understatement. But it does prove several billion times over that people don’t wish to be viewed as sucking for being conservative. Ah, so conservatives really do understand the shift in the belief system in this country, and this whole game of wordology. The question is, what are they going to do about it? So far I am not impressed. What does this mean when you talk about which set of values is driving the political landscape in this country? Is it your values, the ones that demand only right to pursue happiness through hard work, or is it the values of the people who have figured out how to vote themselves pure entitlement happiness, delivered to them in attractive modern packaging (Obama 'the brand' ring a bell)?
You may think that any sort of wordology is beside the point, and that I’m nuts and/or wasting my time, your time, or both. I personally think we need to revisit a list of principles and terms thrown around all too casually within our society. Bush’s War on Terror. Inaccurate. Terror(ism) describes a tactic, not a group of people. Obama’s Man Caused Disasters (used to describe what was formerly called terrorism). Inaccurate and disturbingly placid. How about a War against Islamic-Totalitarianism/Fundamentalism/Fascism? Sorry, just trying to be real.
I think we need a new non-party, true liberal thought (once again, it actually did exist at one time), and principled leaders. That way in our group-think we wouldn’t appear to be so stupid. What do you think?
Pajamas TV
Let's just talk about words and the effects they have on us. Does liberal mean more fun? Conservative less fun? What do you think?
Think about it, you're five years old, and the little old lady behind the candy counter says, “Hey sonny, let me help you to a liberal helping of gummy worms." You're response: "Hell ya, I'm going to keep coming back to this lady, she gave me an extra .10 pounds of pure pleasure."
In college: You arrive at a friends dorm room and immediately proclaim that "boyz/ladies, we will be consuming liberal amounts of High Life tonight!" After all it is the champagne of beers, so drink up, right? More is better.
Now let's talk about the riveting word conservative. Conversation: "Dude, what ever happened when you were looking at new cars last week?" Response: "Well man, I had to stay conservative and just get that Taurus, it had low miles and some decent options, plus it can fit a lot of stuff in the trunk. I really wanted to go new, I just couldn't afford it.""Hmmm...that sucks bro."
The key point lies in the part about the suck.
The friend inquiring makes a point that "it sucks" to live within one's means. Is this how as a society, many (ie the people who's mortgage payments are now being payed by taxpayers) have come to the conclusion that "it sucks" to be conservative, even though sometimes we have to be? I really don't know for sure. But I do know the results of the last elections, and which candidate better defined himself as a coddler of sorts, the self-proclaimed protector of those who overextended themselves and made poor financial decisions.
No doubt about it, this 'wordology' has an affect on people. And when I say people really I am meaning young people, who amongst their populations a growing number have attached the philosophy of ‘life being better and less hard’ to a word that was originally only intended to describe free thought. Is the ‘here is some free stuff, you should feel like your life is better now’ philosophy working? Again, I don’t know, but what is fairly conclusive is that more stuff period doesn’t necessarily mean happiness, because if cavemen ever had the depression rates of today’s society, you and I wouldn’t be here. The cavemen would have ‘offed’ themselves quite painfully and slowly with their own clubs before they had a chance to breed.
Another quick point, while I’m on a role here, is to notice how some people, not to name names, have ceased using the verb ‘to think’, and replaced it with ‘to feel’ when speaking. About anything. Apparently in otherwise objective issues it IS possible to feel things, let’s say for example, in comparing tulips AND economics and talking about them as if it were all the same. Is it Common Sense (copyright, Thomas Paine) that one topic requires a little more factual concern than the other? Just throwing it out there.
Based on the definition above, I think I might be a damn liberal. I always want to shape my own opinion. Free thought - hell yeah. Sounds awesome. When paired with a good set of morals, who are we kidding - it is awesome! The Founding Fathers thought so - I hope you think so too.
I've hated stupid rules from day one in my life, and my elementary school had a ton of them - I still don't think I'm over many of them to be honest. Too much control, and I honestly remember thinking as a kid that it was overly coddling in some aspects (which I despised), but then overbearing in other ways. Some would say how ironic it is then that I would have gone into the military straight out of high school. Or is it? Was I just searching for leadership that actually made sense?
When Officers allow the Marine Corps NCO to do what he does best, make decisions, America wins wars. This is especially true in the chaos of urban combat. Very simply, to win in combat decisively in a complex environment you need more decision makers out there, and good ones. A good NCO is delegated to, and in turn he will delegate again, and do it well and without delay. The momentum is kept and not lost in that way.
It is the #1 reason Marines have such a distinguished NCO Corps: they are free to think. Depending on the commander, this happens to varying degrees. In military operations ‘espeaka’ what we're talking about here is Commanders Intent; ie "this is the end state that we desire and we know our plan will likely somehow go to shit when the first contact is made. Break from the plan if you must and use it as a rough outline, but no matter what, accomplish this task anyway possible." It is actually a very liberal philosophy. Does that mean the Marine Corps is a liberal organization when it allows the NCO a degree of necessary flexibility in combat? Holy shit, where are we?
Why does it seem to me that the more liberal one gets, in the new hip ‘today’ sense of the word, that there is actually a vastly diminished amount of cherry picking going on (ie choosing yourself what cherries you want to pick from the overall tree)? If a young person comes to the modern liberal party because a particular issue has pushed them in that direction, which is fine, why does it seem to me that the pressure to follow suit with liberals on every other issue becomes so great that they soon yield as if not doing so would mean they were close-minded (if I am pissing you off by continuing to use italics when I use the term liberal / conservative / misc. other terms, it is intended). I know this pressure because I have resisted it in many a college classroom. Just because I had different ideas, I had to hide them from academia because it meant that I was close-minded. Would the liberal Thomas Jefferson approve? What does this say about our future? I don’t know, but I know I’m pissed. I want my term back. I want to be a liberal like I was back in the 4th grade.
To be fair, much of the same can be the case with conservatives, although I think the pressure to conform is significantly less. I can pretty much back that up based on one issue: taxes. Nothing new here, taxes are something I’m sure everyone has had a conversation about with someone else recently. We know the argument well: so-called liberals want to tax the heck outta you and me and decide who to give our money to, and so-called conservatives advocate for some taxes but then allow the individual the freedom to give to charity. Which one has more choice involved? Which is more liberal, in actuality? Do you see what I’m getting at with this wordology? Do you want your term back yet?
Again, to be fair, George Bush ordered several bailouts too, and in this case it appears that he ceded principle for popularity in an attempt to avoid making his party, and John McCain, look like the party of no fun and less gummy worms. To say this move was disappointing is an understatement. But it does prove several billion times over that people don’t wish to be viewed as sucking for being conservative. Ah, so conservatives really do understand the shift in the belief system in this country, and this whole game of wordology. The question is, what are they going to do about it? So far I am not impressed. What does this mean when you talk about which set of values is driving the political landscape in this country? Is it your values, the ones that demand only right to pursue happiness through hard work, or is it the values of the people who have figured out how to vote themselves pure entitlement happiness, delivered to them in attractive modern packaging (Obama 'the brand' ring a bell)?
You may think that any sort of wordology is beside the point, and that I’m nuts and/or wasting my time, your time, or both. I personally think we need to revisit a list of principles and terms thrown around all too casually within our society. Bush’s War on Terror. Inaccurate. Terror(ism) describes a tactic, not a group of people. Obama’s Man Caused Disasters (used to describe what was formerly called terrorism). Inaccurate and disturbingly placid. How about a War against Islamic-Totalitarianism/Fundamentalism/Fascism? Sorry, just trying to be real.
I think we need a new non-party, true liberal thought (once again, it actually did exist at one time), and principled leaders. That way in our group-think we wouldn’t appear to be so stupid. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)