Archive for July, 2008

The American Family

Monday, July 28th, 2008

     The great divide in politics and overall civility in America, fueled by the incendiary properties of instant communications, i.e., the Internet, would have many conclude that our society is on the brink of collapse. It is an argument that, to be certain, is difficult to refute. Click on any given message board and witness the viciousness with which people tear one another apart, and you’ll see what I mean. Yes, I have engaged in this practice personally. So what does it all mean? Are we ready to flee as the walls collapse behind us? I think not, and here’s why… 

  

     For one thing, the attacks of September 11th, 2001 were a shining example of what our people are made of when we are pushed to our limits. Despite our in-fighting and constant accusations of racism against one another, we pulled together that day and saw nothing but a fellow human in need and helped that person without reservation. There were no ulterior motives and no preferences, we just helped one another. I have also seen words of encouragement and consolation in difficult times shared between sworn enemies on those same message boards. Humanity, at least in western culture, is alive and well.

     What of the Middle East and our Muslim counterparts, then? We’re all well aware of their worst moments, but what about their best moments? To be fair, we have not been treated to too many of those. We have not seen massive, press-covered rallies by “moderate” Muslims denouncing the violence perpetrated in their names. We have been deprived of anything remotely resembling a sound condemnation of the tactics employed by those who share the religion. Are these moderates too intimidated to exercise their authority over the crazies to speak out publicly? My theory says no. Be prepared…

     I had sincere reservations over publicizing these thoughts, but I ultimately decided that they were better for society if exposed to the light of day. Let me know if you agree.

     I have always been perplexed at the absence of suicide bombings in places like New York City and other large cities. Logistically, such attacks are virtually impossible to stop. Why then have they not happened? We know that jihadists would love to inflict such terror on our populace and yet, they have as yet to even attempt it. Certainly any member of a group that would gleefully kill themselves in the hopes of taking out as many Americans as possible would not be deterred by law-enforcement. What would be the fear if the perpetrator was dead after the act?

     Family. See, these cells come here and must develop relationships in order to blend in with society, and even a bomber leaves people behind. Couple that with the fact that many moderate Muslims living in America like their new home (even if they view the new place as a hot bed of decadence), and what we have is a recipe for deterrence. But again, what could deter a bomber from…bombing?

     Here is my theory in a nutshell: One thing about Americans that is widely presumed (and to a lesser degree, KNOWN first-hand) is that we are wild and crazy. Sure, we exercised incredible restraint after 9/11, but does anyone doubt the reaction of your garden variety country boy if we had delis and pizzerias across the country being subjected to daily bombings and carnage? There would be signs posted everywhere declaring open season on Daffy al-Duck.

     So I maintain that our moderate Muslim population, while not being as outspoken as I’d prefer regarding terrorist attacks, has been instrumental in thwarting the insane notions of anyone who may have been harboring thoughts of granduer by jihad. Have they been doing so for selfish reasons? I suppose, but don’t we all perform in the same manner? Nevertheless, I’m not concerned with motive in this regard, just results. Perhaps as the frightened among the moderates get more acclimated to the American way, they will begin to dilute the pool to a point that they actually learn to love America. I know I do.

-Woody

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Confounding Rhetoric

Monday, July 28th, 2008

     It has become increasingly difficult for the average person to discern any semblance of rationality emanating from both politicians and scholars these days. The things they say in the interests of themselves leave one scratching one’s head with increasing frequency. Perhaps most irritating is the notion that they obviously think us so dimwitted that we cannot see the hypocritical dialogue for ourselves.     For example, our politicians began setting aside large portions of land for “preservation” a few decades ago because the environmentalists wanted to protect the flora and fauna from man’s destructive ways. Oddly enough, these same people didn’t seem to give a fig about the indigenous species of say, Saudi Arabia. Apparently it was just a-OK to destroy the Saudi’s environment so long as we could still drive and heat our homes without rankling a few caribou.

     When the Arab Oil Embargo hit, Congress’ knee-jerk reaction was to release oil from our reserves to lower the rapidly increasing cost per barrel. Today, certain members of congress are making the same pleas, even while they deny that the spiraling costs have anything to do with supply. The question is, then; how will increasing supply ease the cost if supply and demand has no bearing, as they claim? And why won’t harvesting our own oil do the same, if we can flood the market with crude?     Moving on, we also have members of the left claiming that in order to save ourselves from Global Warming, we have to implement radical and painful changes in the way we live, as well as to our economy. When they are confronted with conflicting evidence, they claim that virually everything is because of Global Warming. Cooling, warming, more rain, less rain, fewer storms, more storms, etc. The position is, how shall I say, very convenient.

     So now, with his European tryst with the worldwide media mercifully over, we have a man who wants to be president of the United States making statements that clash directly with previous statements and positions he has made and held. His certitude a year ago that the surge had no chance for success notwithstanding, it’s his reason for believing so is what’s pertinent. He said, unequivocally, that sending in 20 to 30 thousand more troops would only increase the level of violence in Iraq and that the only option was for us to leave, and leave quickly. He was dead wrong.

     Now, back from the love affair abroad, he tells the people that things are looking pretty good in Iraq but that Afghanistan needs help. How does he propose that we make that situation better? You guessed it; more troops!     Color me confused. And confounded…

-Woody

Posted in Simply Political | No Comments »

America Is Still Melting In The Pot…Or Is It?

Friday, July 18th, 2008

     The great American experiment has been chugging along for over 200 years and it has, for the most part, been a successful endeavor. The Great Melting Pot has produced some amazing people in its relatively brief history. Sometimes, however, when too many ingredients are poured in too rapidly, the fire beneath becomes overburdened.

      Through most of the 20th century immigrants to America eagerly leapt into the pot and willfully allowed themselves to become part of the mix, revelling in their new-found home and enthusiastically embracing its culture. Then something changed near the end of the century; new additions began to cling to the side of the pot in an attempt to retain some of their original composition by not submerging themselves fully into what I call the stew. This corresponds to the emergence of hyphenated nationality labels. “Whatyouwill-Americans”, e.g.

     The stew began to change with these new ingredients being added, even more so than it should have. The flavor was always in flux, true, but the basic composition of the stew was always about a mixture of components. I am at a loss in explaining this change.

     Yes, the flavor changes with the ingredients of a stew, but the stew remains relatively unchanged in appearance. This is because everyone cooks down to a common broth. There is change, but the change is so gradual as to be nearly imperceptible. That is, so long as one of the ingredients doesn’t thrash about, wailing, as it loses its core identity at the boiling point. One must agree that such an occurrence would be most noticeable to the cook.

     Up until the latter part of the 20th century there were no reluctant ingredients being poured into the pot. Sure, they still hit the plate as either orange carrots or white potatoes, but they all shared the plate without quarrel. It was a stew from the “pot”, and all were equally consumed without prejudice (3-year-old-racist-picky-eaters notwithstanding). Now we have the ingredients demanding special privileges and prominence on the plate.

     To really throw a wrench into the mix, pomegranate has insisted on not only being added to the stew (something which, to my knowledge at least, is unprecedented), but has demanded even further that it be highlighted on the menu. Outrage, I say.

     I think the cook needs to turn up the heat and use the ladle to clear the sides of the pot, stirring frequently. We need a common identity once again in order to survive.

-Woody

Posted in Society | No Comments »