Archive
Drone Strikes Continue Killing US Citizens, the Hyperbole
From 2012 to 2016, eight-hundred and eighty-four (884) United States citizens have been killed by Chinese drone strikes aimed at Japanese terrorists. Over one-hundred (100) of the US citizens killed have been little children. Many have been “first-responders” with a “double-strike” technique.
While the US admits that some Japanese terrorist have been hiding in the continental territories, the government is stern in saying it is not with permission. The President of the United States firmly states: “These Japanese terrorists have sneaked into the borders via Mexico and the United States should not be subject to Chinese bombing runs. The Chinese should work with the United States to apprehend the terrorists instead of bombing with drones”.
While the drone strikes from the Chinese have been effective in killing several known Japanese terrorists, they have also killed innocent US citizens. The especially disgusting “double-strike” technique is bragged about in China as being extremely effective. For those whom do not know, a double strike is when a drone drops a bomb then awaits first responders to come to the rescue. Once the first responders arrive to provide aide to injured or dead citizens, the drone drops another bomb killing those intending to provide aide. (The police, fireman, and innocent neighbors become victims).
The Chinese government continues to inform its citizens that there strikes are done with precision and no to limited US casualties are suffered. One Chinese citizen was informed in an interview that the numbers are more often innocent citizens. The Chinese native then stated: “Well… Then those citizens should not be hanging around areas where known terrorists hide…” The Chinese native refused to acknowledge an attack decimated a child day care center.
American citizens interviewed recently said they live under constant fear. “The drones are always up there flying around… You never know when a bomb will fall… you never know if you or your child will be next… I cannot sleep and constantly cry in fear for my family’s safety…” Said Mrs. Jones on Tuesday.
(End Twisted Satire)
What would we do if the above were true? I am certain it would be a call to war. I promise that if my child was part of a drone strike casualty, I would seek vengeance and as cruelly as possible. None of the United States citizens would accept this type of attack.
However, we seem to accept it when we are the ones performing the attacks. Political party aside; we should not accept this as human beings. Either the media or the White House seems to be sugar coating the information provided to the American people.
The above was written with hyperbole and twisted satire. Yet, the numbers are scary when true. The United States has killed over 884 Pakistani citizens according to GlobalPost. Some of the claims upon the web-site estimate a shocking ninety-eight percent (98%) of the bombing victims are not senior terrorist commanders.
There is a commentary from Cenk Uygur concerning these strikes. Within that commentary, he cites several sources of useful information worth investigating. Six minutes of time to view his commentary is not too much to ask when it concerns such an important topic. The topic which accuses the United States of killing 884 Pakistani citizens of which 176 were Pakistani children should be the number one story.
Imagine half of your home disappearing in an explosion of noise. Within that devastation, lay the mangled corpse of your child. Imagine that has happened to you, because some terrorist snuck into your country’s borders. Would you now be the enemy of the country who dropped a bomb on your child? I would.
I would not blame any Pakistani for hating the US when we continue to drop bombs upon them. We need to remove the power of assassination from the President to prevent this type of scenario.
Alternative Energy Solutions Cost Too Much, But Excuses Cost Much More
There seems to be a select group of people in the world not willing to admit that global warming is real. They purposefully find misleading information and cite a loop of inaccurate sources of information. This delusional denial of science is dangerous not only to the world, but to the psychological well-being of the individuals living with this denial. Additionally, their children are going to grow up embarrassing themselves by spewing forth the delusion in peer to peer conversations. Imagine how embarrassing it is to form an argument based upon learned knowledge from parental teachings, only to discover those teachers were false. While it would be fascinating to only discuss global warming, it has become necessary to discuss sociological problems congruently with pollution in general.
Most of the population is willing to accept the science proving that there is a correlation between CO2 rise and global temperature rise. The climate temperature change historically rises and falls with an increase and decrease in CO2 atmospheric parts per million, (ppm), respectively. A 30 ppm increase over 1000 years was one of the fastest increases recorded within ice core samples. Ice core samples covering the last 800,000 years were tested showing the historic temperature and CO2 trending. The last 30 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 has occurred in only 17 years. (1) The particular worrying factor of that latter source of information is that it was from 2006. To context that rate growth to a closer date we need only to look back to August of 1988 when CO2 ppm was 350.66. (2) The rise from 350.66 ppm in 1988 to 392.41 ppm in August of 2012 equates to 41.75 ppm within 24 years. (2) This should be considered inarguably too rapid and also terrifying. However, there are those individuals willing to argue that this is even true. When faced with the facts, those same individuals often “side track” the facts with misleading information.
Are those individuals psychotic? (Not likely). Often times they were taught sociologically through a political party affiliation. Much of the culture of the United States becomes divided through hard line politics. That social culture then becomes easy to manipulate. Whereby, instead of using facts of science to learn, we use subjective stances taught to us by pundits. It makes us feel better to be around like minded individuals. It’s easier to “hear” words which we want to believe and to deny words which scare the hell out of us. Thereby, one person learns that the CO2 rise is caused 100% by humans and the other person learns that humans contribute only 3.6% of total CO2. One person has science on their side, but so does the other person. One person knows that it is imperative that we change our ways immediately to save the environment. The other person believes that such an insignificant contribution as 3.6% cannot be worth panic. They have both been provided facts; however, neither has the entire truth.
Human industries like Fossil Fuel burning and Cement construction convert 33.4 billion metric tons of products into CO2. Changing land use by clearing forests and other means convert an additional 3.3 billion metric tons. Unfortunately, approximately 50% of our converted CO2 is in excess of what the planet can naturally recycle. (2) There are sources of information which attempt to make the argument that human produced CO2 from industrialization contribute approximately 4% onto the carbon cycle. The argument is worthy unless you have more of the information. The natural global cycle from land produces approximately 439 billion metric tons of CO2 and from the oceans approximately 332 billion metric tons. If we take a conservative figure of 29 billion metric tons of CO2 produced by humans instead of the 33.4 billion metric tons listed above we get 800 billion metric tons. That is only 3.6% of human intervention. However, the natural earth cycle also handles itself pretty well. The oceans safely take back approximately 338 billion metric tons of CO2 and the land converts approximately 450 billion metric tons while safely maintaining balance. Therefore, the natural cycle can handle 788 billion metric tons of CO2 and it’s our excess which causes 100% of the imbalance. (3) The imbalance with nature is the only real concern. If we used discretion to globally maintain fewer than 17 billion metric tons of CO2 conversion, we would be in tune with nature. However, we are in an emergency situation and need to reduce some damage. It is imperative that we substantially lower emissions. We specifically need to be responsible for less than 6 billion metric tons of human caused CO2 production. It is not only a matter of producing less than the natural cycle, we need to be under the more important ocean CO2 natural recycling.
Learning that our 3.6% CO2 contribution to the atmosphere is what causes 100% of the excess CO2 is an important factor. Exceeding the ocean’s CO2 sink ability is another important factor to protecting the environment. The way in which CO2 is filtered within the oceans takes hundreds of thousands of years. Once dissolved the carbon atoms stay there more than five-hundred years. (4) Ocean acidification is a term which can be researched at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration which is also referred to as NOAA. To attempt to explain ocean acidification in elementary terms we have to imagine the atmosphere continuously “rubbing” against the ocean surface. As the CO2 levels increase in the atmosphere, more is “rubbed” into the oceans’ surfaces. As the atmospheric CO2 levels increase, the warmer the planet becomes. The warmer the planet becomes, the larger the oceans’ surfaces become. As all of it compounds, more CO2 from the atmosphere is absorbed into the increasing ocean surface. The entire process changes the chemistry of the water. (5)
This oceanic chemical change is very important to humans as well as 500,000 other species. (6) Coral reef species estimates are nearly impossible to fathom. Ocean acidification weakens the shells of many sea creatures as well as destroys coral and plankton. The plankton destruction should be important to humans as it provides nearly half of the world’s oxygen level. Sea turtles survived the mass extinction event sixty-five-million years ago. Six of the seven species of sea turtles are now endangered. (7) Human CO2 production could and likely will be responsible for another mass extinction event. The latter statement will only be true if we consider half of one-million species as a “mass”. Even with these scary numbers presented by science, some deny it as an issue. After all, the only way in which evolution is believed to occur is with stress or need for adaptation efficiency. Therefore, many believe that other species will evolve or be created to fill the void. While that could ineptly be argued, there are more concerns. The morality of destroying hundreds of thousands of species should be enough. The fact that evolution by adaptation can be suspended due to extinction caused by rapid changes should negate argument. The rate at which we seem to be destroying coral reefs is one every other day. With only ten-thousand reefs remaining in existence, the current rate destroys all of them in under fifty-five years. (7) The current elementary student aged population of humans upon this world could likely see the mass extinction caused by their parents and grandparents. The half-million species will have no time to evolve.
Another social argument is often presented as a diversion to accepting the knowledge of CO2 level destruction. Even though, CO2 levels do have negative impacts upon marine life as we know it today, other facts can divert our attention. For instance: The seriousness of water vapor as a greenhouse warming gas is often ignored from quarrels. When it is brought forth as a dispute, it is often to disprove that CO2 levels are dangerous. Humans contribute an even smaller percentage amount of water vapor into the natural cycle. Nuclear plants emit water vapor directly into the atmosphere. Burning any fossil fuel emits water vapor directly into the atmosphere. The latter two examples hardly compare to the amount of evaporation from surface water. (8) If we look back to a previous example, we begin to understand our involvement. It is not always accurate to compare the infinitesimal percentage which we contribute. We must understand that it is our contribution which causes 100% of the excess to the natural cycle. Once an excess is contributed, a “rolling snowball” affect begins. The warmer our world becomes, the more contributing factors begin to compile. The compilation increases the warming trend, which again supplements more contributing factors.
The arguments about global warming are mute. If you do not believe we contribute to it, you are delusional and others around you should treat you as though you are ill. Believing that it is real is also insignificant. We are still polluting the world. Pollution is not an argument. We are polluting the air, the waters, and the lands of this world. To make semantic arguments over one-half of a ton of pollution when we are comparing billions of metric tons, is only a diversion tactic. Most sane people with an elementary education understand that pollution is unscrupulous as well as dangerous.
Often, better practices which could reduce our CO2 emissions and other pollutions are ignored or debated inaptly. Arguments to the use of wind and solar power are often presented because of costs. This makes very little sense. Increasing use of those solutions would decrease cost of the same. Magnetically driven solutions are not as efficient as fossil fuel combustion in regards to input vs. output. While the latter is true, it is senseless because magnetics are environmentally friendlier. The United States provides $21 billion in subsidies annually to an industry which has been setting record profits while contributing to the majority of world pollution. Therefore, finding little inapt arguments to divert the absolute necessity of change is malicious and immoral. We need to act. We need to move forward into new technology.
That does not mean we should accept any technology. The argument for natural gas is disturbing. Natural gas emits 43 percent less CO2 compared to coal and 30 percent less compared to oil. While that reads as if it is a great solution, there are other considerations. The burning of any fossil fuel not only creates atmospheric CO2; but also combusts O2. (Depletes atmospheric Oxygen). Combustion ratios of O2 are greater when burning Natural Gas because of greater hydrogen contents. For each CO2 molecule which accumulates in the air via this process we lose nearly three O2 molecules. (9) Assuming that ratio is higher with natural gas than other fossil fuels we are trading one problem for another. We should be willing to trade one problem for another when the newly created problem is not as much of an emergency. That is a step in the proper direction. However, there are other considerations with natural gas. Mining it through drilling and “Fracking” is causing serious pollution to ground water. Hydraulic fracturing to extract natural gas has also caused earth quakes in Ohio. (10) Therefore, natural gas use has caused earth quakes, frequently pollutes ground water, depletes oxygen faster than other fossil fuels, and continues to increase atmospheric CO2 albeit at a lower rate. Once the understanding of natural gas use becomes common knowledge, it will be as much of a joke as the oxymoron “clean coal”.
To solve the CO2 emergency, (and it is an emergency), we need to invest in technology. Wind, solar, and magnetic renewables are only the beginning. It will be expensive to make the internal combustion motor obsolete. However, not advancing our technology will cost us so much more. The threat of an extinction level event is very genuine.
The humiliation of knowing that we leave this muddle to our children is profane.
Works Cited
1. Amos, Jonathan. BBC News. Deep ice tells long climate story. [Online] BBC News, September 4th, 2006. [Cited: September 16th, 2012.] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm.
2. CO2Now.org. What the world needs to watch. Earth’s CO2 Home Page. [Online] CO2 Now.org, September 5th, 2012. [Cited: September 16th, 2012.] http://co2now.org/.
3. Cook, John. Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism. Skeptical Science. [Online] [Cited: September 16th, 2012.] http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm.
4. Harvard Magazine. The Ocen Carbon Cycle. Harvard Magazine. [Online] November 2002. [Cited: September 16th, 2012.] http://harvardmagazine.com/2002/11/the-ocean-carbon-cycle.html.
5. NOAA. PMEL Carbon Program. [Online] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration . [Cited: September 21st, 2012.] http://pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification.
6. Missouri Botanical Garden. Tropical Oceans. Tropical Ocean Topics. [Online] [Cited: September 21st, 2012.] http://www.mbgnet.net/salt/coral/main.htm.
7. Ocean Ark Alliance. Ocean Acidification – The other CO2 challenge. Ocean Acidification. [Online] [Cited: September 21, 2012.] http://www.oceanacidification.net/docs/OAA_Factsheet.pdf.
8. Hieb, Monte. Water Vapor Rule the Greenhouse System. Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers. [Online] March 2nd, 2007. [Cited: September 16th, 2012.] http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html.
9. Johnson, Mike. Atmospheric Oxygen Levels Fall As Carbon Dioxide Rises. Sci/Tech. [Online] December 14, 2007. [Cited: September 21st, 2012.] http://blogcritics.org/scitech/article/atmospheric-oxygen-levels-fall-as-carbon/.
10. Goodman, Amy. Natural gas fracking fires protests over pollution fears. The Guardian. [Online] September 20th, 2012. [Cited: September 21st, 2012.] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/20/natural-gas-fracking-fires-protest?newsfeed=true.
11. (Governmental) Evironmental Protection Agency . Climate Change . EPA United States Evironmental Protection Agency. [Online] September 14th, 2012. [Cited: September 16, 2012.] http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/.
12. Climate Central. Surging Seas. Climate Central . [Online] Climate Central . [Cited: September 16th, 2012.] http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/.
13. National Geographic. Critical issues sea level rise. National Geographic. [Online] Nation Geographic. [Cited: September 16th, 2012.] http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/.
14. University of Colorado . State of the Cryosphere. National Snow and Ice Data Center. [Online] University of Colorado . [Cited: September 16th, 2012.] http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_level.html.
Politicians, Supporting Class Warfare, Generation Warfare, or just WAR?
Do you remember the “class warfare” hype or when it began? Have you been bombarded by that propaganda too much to realize how recent it actually was? While the argument may have been slightly mentioned in politics in the past, it has grown recently. Democrats have always tried to portray a class difference of unfairness between the wealthy and poor. However, it reached new heights in 2011. Around the middle of August, 2011 Warren Buffett caused an eruption within the FOX pundits (disguised as a news channel). He had announced to the world that it would be fair for the extremely wealthy to pay more taxes. The danger of this spreading around the United States and causing any type of unity between Republican and Democratic voters could not be tolerated by FOX. They immediately began a campaign of slander against Mr. Buffett which including calling him a “socialist”. Eric Bolling of FOX Business did so on August 15, 2011 (accessed September 04, 2012 at: (http://mediamatters.org/video/2011/08/15/foxs-eric-bolling-asks-if-warren-buffett-is-com/182062).
Both sides of the political spectrum began to be aghast by the fact that somebody so wealthy paid a lower effective tax rate than a middle class worker. It only took several days to retrain the Republican voters to think for FOX and the GOP base, not for themselves. By forcing propaganda campaigns upon them, the term “class warfare” became a commonly spoken phrase amongst Republican Voters. The voters even ignored other respected and wealthy individuals such as Alan Greenburg and Bill Gates. Cenk Uygur, with The Young Turks, did a news piece on this subject on August 16, 2011 (accessed September 04, 2012 at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOEPidoc6uA).
The ridiculousness of the events above is only overshadowed by the fact that both democratic sheep and republican lambs played into the fake class war. Democrats babbled like gobbling turkeys around an automatic livestock feeder about how the rich didn’t deserve all of the breaks and benefits accompanying wealth. Republicans gathered a line of defense by puffing out their chests and claiming that every worker, who was not them, was intent on stealing from their tax dollars. Both collections of voters were too blind to realize that they were ALL part of the same system and subject to a hate smearing campaign. It was class warfare, and the money was teaching (and still is) both sides how to think and how to hate. While Democrats need to stop scorning people solely on the basis of wealth, Republicans need to admit there is a huge disparaging and unfair difference. The top 1% of the wealth holders have had income rates rise while the bottom 80% have had income rates fall over the past decade. The Democrats need to realize that they need wealthy people in a capitalist system in order to invest in business. The Republicans need to admit that wealthy people NEED the working masses to be prosperous in order to maintain a democracy instead of an oligarchy. The Republicans also need to admit that it has been money in politics causing most, if not all, of the corruption.
There was a surplus deficit when former President Bush took office for the twenty-first century. While this did not mean our debt was totally paid, it did mean that it was about to be. We had a plan and a path to recovery from the previous economic disaster. (Cold War Spending). The surplus seemed to be burning the pockets of Republican politicians. This clearly cannot be blamed on both sides. The Democrats failed in their fight against Republicans for fiscal responsibility. Taxes were cut and a War was started. (Republicans cannot blame terrorism on this war… we attacked Iraq… NOT the terrorists from 9/11). Democrats cannot be fault free as they may like to claim. Most of the party permitted 9/11 to cloud their minds from the reality of the War in Iraq and authorized then President Bush to invade. Additionally, Democratic voters seemed to cower and not back the democratic politicians in their fight against the tax cuts. Even democratic voters felt they would reap the benefits of a tax cut on the middle class. While the tax cuts on the extremely rich were very rewarding to the upper 1% of the population, the bottom 80% faired some good reductions too. With information gathered from: (http://taxfoundation.org:81/blog/comparing-income-taxes-under-bill-clinton-and-george-bush) on September 03, 2012, one can chart the middle class benefit.
President Bush definitely lowered the taxes upon the middle class. However, once you gather more information on the middle class, you begin to see no benefit. Please go to “Dailykos” accessed on September 02, 2012 at: (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/12/17/928894/-Clinton-vs-Reagan-and-Bush-Just-the-numbers). There you would find a wage comparison which discusses income growth during different administrations.
As you can see, the tax cuts are not savings. In all of the middle income brackets wages fell. (And Yes – the dollars are adjusted for inflation so don’t try to fake argue). The amount portrays an actual income loss on the middle class workers in the US. Sure if you were lucky to be in your job for more than twelve years, you may not have noticed this. However, the core of the middle class workers has switched employers at least once in that time period.
Deficit spending by our government has caused economic collapse. Additionally, major tax breaks on the wealthy seem to match (if not cause) lay-offs of American workers, as history through the Regan era to present has proven. While the evidence to argue that the tax breaks are the cause of lay-offs is slim, the matching trend is apparent. The superior assumption would be due to lack of investment in the US economic betterment. Why invest in the US economy when its government is deficit spending? Why would a bank invest in your hypothetical business if your business plan was to spend more money than you make?
While I definitely do not feel a county’s government should be run like a business, the value compares the same on monetary notes. To explain the latter we use semantics to call it money. The value of our US dollar fell nearly 40% during the Bush era economy. Our value is less because we spend more than we receive. We spend $Billions more than we tax. An article written by Kimberly Amadeo, warning of a dollar collapse explains creditor fears. (Accessed September 02, 2012 at: http://useconomy.about.com/od/inflation/i/dollar_decline.htm)
Using the inflation calculator from the US Department of Labor (http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm) we discover that the $1.00 in 2002 has the same buying power as $1.25 in 2008. It continues to worsen to $1.33 in 2012 (as of September 03, 2012 when accessed). This could mean that a $1.00 can of beans now costs you $1.33 and we, as consumers, know this by shopping. This type of inflation is based completely upon the consumer price index. Therefore, the price is based on averaging the cost increase of all goods normally consumed by households. We do consider that some items may have increased less and some far more. For instance, we are deficit spending the US treasury resources. This has caused our dollar value to decrease approximately forty percent (40%) in the world economy as compared to Europe over the same years listed above. This has caused us to pay more for foreign goods and services. (In this case “services” is the loans we are getting to cover our national debt). China and Japan, holding large portions of our debt, are wise to be weary of our falling dollar value and to charge greater interest rates to our debt notes. If our dollar value remains low they earn less or nothing from our recovery. (If we recover at all). This world value increase against us can be more impactful on low income families. Those who make almost all of their purchases from chains such as Walmart may have paid a greater effective inflation rate. That rate would be caused by almost all goods purchased being from another country. You are using a weaker dollar to purchase imported goods. This is where the forty percent (40%) weaker dollar really hits the lower middle class consumer. That imported shirt that was $15.99 in 2002 could now be costing you $22.39 in 2012. Consumer price Indexing applies less to a consumer purchasing all goods from overseas. Consumers making such purchases do not get the balance of the index, but rather the brunt of it.
Once you know the facts previously listed herein, you can see the disparaging sufferance of the middle class and poor. While we pit fault against each other or point to the “other guy” as a source of blame, we lose our unity. Obviously the wealthy want to keep the current system. Obviously it does not work for the mass majority of the US populace. The middle and lower income receivers continue to suffer and our politicians continue to sell our government as a commodity to the wealthy.
If you perpetuated the feigned insults of “class warfare”, you may have ignored a more important war. You may have even participated in the recently coined “generation warfare”. I don’t know who to thank for that latter term of hyperbole. However, there could be no more fitting term to use in describing the actions of the complete populace of the United States today. Greater than any other American dream, for the majority of people, is the success of our children. We have failed as parents and citizens of the United States of America. Democrats have failed our children by worrying equally about the rest of the world as they have their own citizens. Republicans have failed our children by placing all of our debts upon them and leaving them with a burnt and broken environment. This is definitely “generation warfare”. We have done nearly nothing to improve our failing and fading infrastructure. We have created a massive deficit and refuse to raise our own taxes to pay for it. (F*** it… When we are dead and gone the next generation can worry about it). The Democrats want to raise taxes on the wealthy to make them pay their “fair share” of the cost. The Republicans want to cut spending even more and destroy any progress as a species. It is as if we believe the next generation having a better life than we did is a bad thing.
Republicans – stop lying so badly about your financial policies. You are not fooling anybody but you seem to have started to believe that your policies have ever worked. They don’t. Get over it. Spending cuts on the military is necessary. Spending cuts on other programs is not welcome by the majority of the PEOPLE of the United States. Tax increases are necessary for our country to prosper and pay the debt which you (Republicans) are solely responsible for. (Not shared – you did this to the country).
Democrats – stop trying to raise taxes only upon the most wealthy. You have made your case and you were right. It currently is unfair. However, less than two decades ago we all prospered under the tax laws. The Congressional Budget Office projections show that it will be necessary to return to Clinton Era tax laws and also cut spending. Admit to the fact that we need to pull out of Afghanistan before 2014 to help our economy. Admit to the fact that we need to cut our defense budget and increase taxes on everybody, not just the wealthiest.
Both major political parties need to build our country. We, the majority of the People, want to work on nation building. We want to leave a better country for the next generation. Protecting big business is not going to do that. Do you think rich corporations will leave America if we don’t bow and kiss their feet? Do you believe wealthy people are suddenly going to invest in nation building on their own? Does anybody really believe that? If so, then your political ignorance will be passed onto your children in the form of financial servitude.
We may be a great and patriotic country, but we are refusing to advance our culture into the twenty-first century. Why? Maybe we are addicted to complacency. Maybe we are addicted to misery. Maybe we are addicted to conflict. Whatever root cause or multiple causes we choose to blame our situation upon; it is the children of our children who will suffer our decisions today. That is most certainly “generation warfare” as much as it is invective to say so.
Maybe the United States of America cannot survive without war. It may be bred into us like hip dysplasia in a weak boned bitch. We fought hard and paid dearly for the right to be a free country. We occupied an already occupied country leaving a wake of American Indian blood upon the soil. We decided that fighting others was not enough and decided to lose to ourselves by making Civil War. It seems we cannot go long periods without deadly war and conflict. In a country that cannot go more than four decades without spilling our soldiers’ blood, it is no surprise we are full of political hate. We are all, as citizens, proud to be American. However, we seem to have a stigma that in order to be patriotic we must support war. Many Americans can hear a news broadcast about a soldier’s death in the background of their daily routine and be complacent with it. If you feel that describes “somebody else” and insults you, then say how many soldiers have died in Afghanistan this instant and out-loud without looking the information up on google. Many Americans have lost the ability to differentiate between supporting troops and supporting war.
That latter problem may augment an abysmal psychological or sociological problem where war is associated with patriotism. Whereby, peace cannot be patriotic. Whereby, the side of the conflict one person is on, in their mind, must be the patriotic side. This, in my opinion, is problematic to solving “class warfare”, “generation warfare”, “the war on religion”, “the war on women”, and the war in Afghanistan. If we cannot have a conversation where both parties know (and more importantly feel) that the opposing opinion comes from a fellow patriot, then we can solve none of our problems.
We must remove ourselves from war. We must re-become we.
Verity Nation 