Sacrifice

I was recently listening to the Laura Ingraham show on a local talk radio station. I started listening not because I think she is an intelligent pundit, but rather out of sheer curiosity. What is the other side of the spectrum thinking?  I should have known better. After only five minutes I was fuming, beating my fists against the steering wheel and begging her to stop spreading fallacies as fact. She has a knack for laying out fallacious arguments as if they are common knowledge, misleading her supporters and offending people who are trained to think critically (not that the two are mutually exclusive...but...I'll let you decide).


On this particular occasion, she was discussing the idea of sacrifice.She began her argument by attacking the Obama administration for a number of things. For example, she criticized his efforts to create green jobs by saying he was "throwing money down a rat hole in Washington" trying to create these jobs that cost so much money and don't effectively impact unemployment. She may be right in saying that it is an ineffective way of battling joblessness, however, she spits it with such venom you would think that these "green job" also force people to torture small animals. Anyway, that's beside the point. In her discussion of sacrifice she chose three main examples to highlight her definition of sacrifice: 1) the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, 2) the sacrifices her mother made while raising herself and her siblings and 3) and the men and women fighting for our country in Iraq. Right away these appear to me as appeals to emotion. Not many would disagree with those examples of sacrifice, including myself. What is dangerous about the way she continued to present this discussion on is how she seamlessly made it appear that Obama would disagree with her, becuase his definition of sacrifice is one in which the "American people" have to give up their freedoms, their comfort and their income (i.e. higher taxes).


The issue at play here is the carelessness of the media. This woman is spreading her opinions about our president as if they are indisputable truths and she has an audience who does not question her motives. Why hate our president? What good does that do? Especially when he is just a player in a much bigger political scene and is essentially powerless when it comes to make real "change". Obama is just a dude. OR, more precisely, he is an inevitability. Someone had to take over after Bush was done pandering to the corporations and the rest of America's wealthiest 1% and if it hadn't been Obama it would have been some other poor schlub's head on the chopping block. I'm not saying I'm necessarily pleased with they way Obama has handled things thus far, but what I have realized over the past few years is that it's going to take more than just our president to bring real change to this nation.


I digress, because the topic of this blog is supposed to be sacrifice. So let's talk about it. I asked a handful of my friends to share with me their beliefs about the notion of sacrifice. I received some great feedback. One of my best friends wrote: "sacrifice is giving up something that costs you in order to obtain something beyond you or greater than you. There is no sacrifice without cost." Another friend shared with a quote from a popular book:


"Sacrfice," the captain said. "You made one. I made one. We all made them. But you were angry over yours. You kept thinking about what you lost. You didn't get it.Sacrifice is a part of life. It's supposed to be. It's not something to regret. It's something to aspire to." 
— Mitch Albom (The Five People You Meet in Heaven)


Others posted these comments on my FB wall:

• Sacrifice is putting others before yourself; enduring the hard times to accomplish what is best for others/everyone in the long-run/big picture.
• There's no greater sacrifice than to give your life for a friend :) ultimately it's preferring others above yourself
• Putting yourself on the line to help a greater cause even if you don't know the outcome
• Sacrifice means doing without. Sacrifice means having a goal and working toward it. It means putting others ahead of yourself. It is the willingness to do for others what they can not do for themselves
• Sacrifice is exemplified to me by our grandparents generation. It means doing what needs to be done for yourself or others and not complaining about how hard it is. When things become difficult you work as hard as you need to in order to come through it without bemoaning your station.

 I greatly appreciate my friends' comments. They show that the "American people" do understand the true meaning of sacrifice and that pundits like Ingraham are way off base when the assume we aren't willing to think about the meaning of words like that in a deep way. She may be able to spout rhetoric and parade her opinions in a way that make the sacrifice Obama is calling for look like the kind the ancient Mayan's asked of their people, but WE (the people) know better. The next time you hear that word I urge you to really think about what it means and then compare that to what is being asked of you. Are you being asked give your life, or merely your lifestyle? In light of these economic times it seems necessary for everyone to take a moment to consider the concept of sacrifce. What would you be willing to give up to really promote the greater good? Would you stop shopping at Wal Mart so that poor families could have reliable transportation? Would you give up your second car so that millions of species could survive? These are the realities of our life style. We take and take and take and take and hardly ever stop to think about giving back. REALLY giving back. We don't want to be inconvenienced. We want things done FOR us and we sit back and criticize those who try to make things right.


Don't just sit on the sidelines and throw rocks at the people trying to make change.


Go out and be the change you want to see in the world. You might be happily surprised with the results.


~~~Be excellent to each other.~~~

Who are the Terrorists?

Our current War on Terror is one of many wars the United States is currently waging against a faceless opponent. We have our War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, etc. What makes the War on Terror so disconcerting is that in actually fighting with a faceless enemy there are two important consequences: 1) it will be impossible to tell when the war is over/won, and 2) terrorists can be anybody, e.g. a group of religious zealots, a political party, a nation or even an American citizen. I will not bother discussing consequence #1 because I do not believe this war is being conducted to be won. Indeed if it had it would not have been called the War on Terror. Our leaders knew exactly what calling it a War on Terror would mean in terms of hope for a real victory. The fight against terrorism should be left to a competent justice system, i.e. a World Police. America has no right to proclaim itself as such.

No, I'd rather discuss consequence #2. This it seems is a much more dangerous consequence in that it allows the powers that be (i.e. the ones with the most money and best weapons) to decide who qualifies as a "terrorist". It was easily agreed upon immediately after 9/11 that what happened at the Word Trade Center and the Pentagon were acts of terrorism. So many of us, both within the US and abroad, were so shocked and emotionally tied to this event that there was really no other way to look at it. We felt attacked and other nations felt that if we could be attacked so could they. It was the perfect situation to declare unending war on an ambiguous enemy.

It is easy to portray an individual like Osama Bin Laden as a terrorist. He clearly used terror, i.e. violent tactics that aroused terror in his enemies, to promote his cause. The entire al Qaeda network is a pretty good target for the label "terrorists". What I see happening now is similar to what happened during the Red Scare, the term "terrorism" or the label "terrorist" is being tossed around by the media and private individuals carelessly and thoughtlessly. If you think I'm wrong please offer me a counter point. Make an argument that reveals the fundamental difference between McCarthyism and our ever-increasing need to label opposing forces as "terrorists". I argue that there isn't one. At this point in history just about every "civilized" nation has funded, supported or carried out some sort of terrorist act and the United States is definitely no exception. The next time you shake your head in sorrow or in anger after watching mainstream media coverage of the latest terrorist act take a moment to reflect on what was presented to you. Who were they after? Why did they do it? What point were they trying to prove? No group, not even al Qaeda, has only terror as its main objective. My belief is that terrorism is simply the use of terror (i.e. inflicting fear of death, pain and/or suffering) on a group of people in order to control, manipulate or change the way they behave. There is nothing humanitarian about going to war on terror. It is fighting fire with fire, which in my experience only produces a much larger fire. I'm not saying that America should never go to war and that all war is bad. War is often necessary. Defeating Nazi Germany, for example, was necessary. They had to be stopped because they were beyond the point of reason. That is what I argue is absent among our world leaders: reason, pure and simple.

Let's take a look at an example of a current situation in which a reasonable outcome is unlikely to occur. My husband posted an article on his Facebook page today about some recent developments in the Freedom Flotilla 2 saga. For those of you who don't know anything about the Freedom Flotilla 2, or didn't realize there was a Freedom Flotilla 1, I'll do my best to give you a brief run down. Since June of 2007 there has been an Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip. The UN declared the blockade illegal according to the Geneva Conventions. The International Committee of the Red Cross has also expressed public concern over the blockade. Israel's excuse is that the blockade must continue in order to reduce the threat of Palestinian rocket attacks and other acts of terrorism on their people. Meanwhile, thousands of civilians are dying of starvation in Gaza. The first Freedom Flotilla was formed by an Irish couple after an American woman, Rachel Corrie, was crushed by an Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) bulldozer while acting as a human shield to prevent the demolition of Palestinian homes. A flotilla of cargo and passenger ships manned by citizens from several nations, including the US, was formed with the intent to break the siege of Gaza. The flotilla was stopped by Israeli forces and several of the activists were killed and/or brutalized in the process. Now a second flotilla has been formed and has made its intentions of non-violent humanitarian aid clear to the public. Israel is preparing to stop the flotilla with more force than was used against the first one. What is our government's response to this Israeli threat to the peaceful endeavors of the flotilla? Well here is one example, this is the article Erich posted today: US Senator Wants US-Isreali Op Against Flotilla

After you read the article consider these additional points of interest to the matter:

1) Read the statement to the UN Human Rights Council given by the Freedom Flotilla Coalition: statement to UN Human Rights Council

2) Watch the statement given by Hillary Clinton after the murders aboard the Freedom Flotilla 1. In this statement she says, "The situation in Gaza is unsustainable and unacceptable . Israel's legitimate security needs must be met as well as the Palestinian's legitimate needs for sustained humanitarian assistance and regular access for reconstruction materials must also be assured." (for the video clip click this link). The Freedom Flotilla is such an effort of humanitarian assistance, however, in a more recent publication this was said:
 Hilary Clinton, a staunch supporter of the Tel Aviv regime, was quoted as saying “ We do not believe that the flotilla is a necessary or useful effort to try to assist the people of Gaza,”.“And we think that it’s not helpful for there to be flotillas that try to provoke actions by entering into Israeli waters and creating a situation in which the Israeli’s have the right to defend themselves,” she added. (link to article)

Consider what she’s saying and research the truth behind it. Is the flotilla trying to provoke Israel? What earnest efforts has Israel made to allow for humanitarian aid in Gaza since the last flotilla?

3) Finally, think about what the George W. Bush administration declared as one of their objectives in the War on Terror. Below are the objectives in question and I’ve highlighted the points I think are relevant. Whose interests are being served if we openly allow Israel to kill citizens who are conducting peaceful acts in international waters?

Defend US citizens and interests at home and abroad
1.    Implement the National Strategy for Homeland Security
2.    Attain domain awareness
3.    Enhance measures to ensure the integrity, reliability, and availability of critical physical and   information-based infrastructures at home and abroad
4.    Integrate measures to protect US citizens abroad
5.    Ensure an integrated incident management capability


How does your definition of terrorism fit into this issue? Are the people aboard the Audacity of Hope the problem? The Israeli blockade could be considered acts of terrorism, especially if you are a Palestinian. Why are we (as a nation) on Israel’s side? Why does our government not consider this an issue in which they should "integrate measures to protect US citizens abroad" ? Is what's being done in Gaza at the hands of one of our "allies" not in our interests? As a citizen of the US who do you support? Do you feel your interests are represented by the words of Hilary Clinton? If so, can you support them with fairness and reason?

The ultimate point I'd like to make is that in the Freedom Flotilla 2, and aboard the ship named the Audacity of Hope, we have American citizens who are making a statement about humanity. They may in fact be provoking Israel, but why shouldn't a country which is actively committing atrocities be provoked? Is a history of governmental agreements behind closed doors enough to let these acts not be considered terrorism? Is starving civilians really the way we want to encourage our friends to ensure their own national security? Why would it be so terrible for the US to support the efforts of the Flotilla? If your response to any of these questions focuses on economics and politics more than it does on basic human decency and what is truly good for humanity then maybe you have some more thinking to do, because I won't be convinced.

As always, be excellent to each other.