Since Sandy Hook: Gun Laws Stagnate in the Wake of More Mass Shootings

Police officers secure the area after Wednesday's mass shooting at a social services agency in San Bernardino, California, Dec. 2, 2015.

It's been three years since 20 year-old Adam Lanza shot and killed 26 people (including 20 children) inside an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut with a high-capacity magazine assault rifle before killing himself with a handgun. Immediately following these events, the White House laid out ambitious new proposals towards gun control and the general public demanded more action be taken. In all, 23 executive orders were issued by the president in the wake of the shooting, all promising tighter control on guns and more preventative measures towards future mass shootings. It has been three years. There have been 894 mass shootings since Sandy Hook. Nothing has changed.

The gun lobbies in the Republican Party and the NRA have a lot to do with this. In a developed nation with such an abnormally high gun death rate, you would think an issue that effects the entire country on such a universal scale in such a negative way would gain precedence. But still nothing gets passed. The only piece of gun control legislation Congress has passed since Sandy Hook is to renew an expiring ban on plastic fire arms that can easily avoid detection at airport security terminals and other security checkpoints. So that is all well and good except that shooters don't need to buy plastic guns to commit mass murder; we have seen time and again how easy it is for people to purchase assault weapons, walk into a public place and slaughter innocents indiscriminately.

I'm not arguing for a ban on guns. I think that is unnecessary for a number of reasons and impractical for others. Guns are an intrinsic part of American culture. People should have the right to own a firearm for hunting, for sport, or even for protection. But when it comes to something as dangerous as a firearm, that is when our safety protocols need to be the most stringent. The fact that absolutely no significant gun control legislation has been passed in three years even though there have been over 800 mass shootings with thousands of innocent victims dead or injured, is simply an insult to the American public.

The fact is, the NRA has been relentlessly pursuing the notion that the government is after the gun rights of the average American citizen even though the track record of Congress shows otherwise. If anything it is the Conservative right that has a stranglehold on gun legislation in Washington. But where our leaders in D.C. have failed us, state governments have taken up the mantle of responsibility to protect their respective citizenry. Over the last three years, 39 states have passed upwards of 117 new pieces of legislation on gun control, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

Ultimately, it is up to the American public to demand reforms on gun control. There will always be a segment of the American right that espouses the doctrine that all gun rights are to be held sacred by the Constitution, and are thus inviolable. But the reality of modern America is that guns are killing our people and we need to take measures to ensure the safety of innocent civilians. People should not have to fear going to school, work, the movies, a restaurant. Guns have become too prolific in American life. There is no need for so many firearms to be so readily available in our communities. A mental change in attitude towards guns is long overdue. We are no longer a nation of homesteaders on the open range, or paranoid colonials defending our coasts from the British. We are the richest, most powerful nation on Earth and we have the means to protect ourselves without unrestricted access to firearms.

DNC stands for "Don't Nominate Clinton"

If Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic Party’s nomination for president, then I am out!  I will cease to be a registered Democrat.  If the candidate with a multi-billion dollar political franchise wins the Democratic nomination, then our political process has truly failed us; both parties are then the parties of greedy, quid pro quo, status quo, disingenuous, establishment, business-as-usual politics.

In my mind, there is only one candidate who can truly represent not only the message that Democrats have been pushing for years, but the message in which most Americans actually believe.  That candidate is Bernie Sanders.

Come 2016, the only cheddar I want DNC to smell is that sharp Vermont gold, not the gold spilling out of Hillary’s pockets.  If Democrats are serious about the biggest issues of our time such as global warming and income inequality, they will not nominate someone who is paid by Wall Street execs to make speeches about the country’s economy; they will not elect someone with a Super PAC that takes advantage of the campaign finance loopholes Bernie Sanders intends to close.

The only real concern that I have heard regarding Sanders’s broader appeal is his connectivity with African-American voters.  Hillary’s record is no doubt stronger in terms of engagement and involvement with the black community.  However, should Bernie win the nomination, I have a hard time believing that a demographic that historically votes Democrat 90 percent of the time will feel so snubbed as to let Trump, or Cruz, or Rubio walk into the White House unchallenged.

Bernie’s message is the message.  His campaign is the campaign.  His candidacy is the candidacy.  There is no other, and it is time for the Democratic Party to put its money where its mouth is…and then chew…and then swallow.

Republicans are Stacking the Deck: The Politics of Pointlessness

This is a map of the United States.  As you can see, the Bible Belt and Deep South Regions of the country have populations of African Americans (represented by purple spots) greater than the national average:

This is another map of the U.S. that highlights our country’s most impoverished regions.  Again, the Bible Belt and Deep South appear to be the clear winners:

For my third map, I present the most gerrymandered districts in America.  (That is, districts whose boundaries have been redrawn over and over again, usually to ensure political incumbency.  The very liberal city of Austin, for example, belongs to seven separate districts in Texas and is represented by conservatives year after year.)  Noticing a trend here?

This is a map showing States with Democrat (blue) governors and Republican (red) governors. It has yet to be updated to include Kentucky's newly elected Republican governor:

The fifth and final map (although there are more that could help prove my point) is actually a two-pronged map, if you will.  One shows the state by state breakup of the 2012 election, and the other shows a district by district breakup of the 2012 election:

                                                                                        

So, what did you see?  Did you see the nation’s poorest minorities living in districts gerrymandered to suppress Democratic votes and shoe-in candidates who act against the best interests of their constituents?  So did I.  Otherwise, it wouldn’t make any sense that in election cycle after election cycle, the poorest Americans continue to vote for the party that tells them they’re lazy; the non-white Americans vote for the all-white party that makes them feel unwelcome; and the liberal bastions in the contested Deep South consistently elect shady, cowardly, no-good Republicans.

Green vs. Greed: Tackling Our Nation's Biggest Problems If The Price Is Right

Global Climate Change has been rightfully labeled the most pressing issue of our time.  Its effects are already showing up in places like the Middle East and South Asia.  It is a sign of hope too that, as of recent, 57% of Americans now say that climate change is caused by human beings.   Hallelujah, America is majorly in favor of action regarding the most pressing global issue of our time!  Something is bound to get done in terms of reversing the harmful effects of this already unfolding ecological, economic, and political disaster. Right? Wrong.  Remember after Sandy Hook when 90% of America supported common sense gun control measures and Congress didn’t pass a thing?  Well, this is kind of like that.  Americans could be 90% in support of action against climate change, and Congress still would not pass one single piece of legislation to help stop it.

The reason for this is that fossil fuel companies and big polluter industries have monstrous lobbying power in the U.S. government that dwarfs the NRA’s influence.  If anything is to be done about climate change, something must first be done about the corrupting influence of money in politics that has characterized the American political process for centuries.  If politicians can be made to see the actual consequences of hugely important issues affecting millions of Americans by looking past the fat cat holding a giant bag of dough, then we might yet be O.K.

And guess what? There is hope.  This presidential election is, in many ways, radically and fundamentally different from the way campaigns have turned out in the past.  For example, Jeb Bush raised an intimidating $100 million early in his campaign thanks in large part to a network of wealthy donors he inherited from his father, but he has struggled to get above 5 percent in the polls..  Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have raised tens of millions on primarily small donations from average voters, not millionaires and billionaires.

On the Republican side, the infamous climate change-denying Koch brothers have pledged almost 1 billion dollars in support of conservative, fellow climate-denying 2016 presidential candidates.  In the face of vast, intimidating political action networks and committees like the one orchestrated by the Koch’s, action on climate change will surely flop.  That is, unless Americans a) vote in 2016 and b) vote according to their conscience in 2016.  Upon first glance at the presidential field, it should be quite clear to American voters - especially the 57% of them who think climate change is an issue - which party is more interested in the American people and which party is more interested in itself.

A mind-boggling 14 candidates now make up the Republican field.  None of them believe that climate change is man-made.  None of them think we should be doing anything to stop it.  That number, compared to the 3 people running on the Democratic side, should speak volumes as to the amount of politically corrupt money sloshing around on each side.  This is not to say that Democrats are entirely incorruptible by political money.  It does mean that Republicans lined up one by one to recite their lines, collect their checks from fat cats and polluters, and fool the American public into thinking they really care.  Common sense would have it that 14 and 3 are not indicators of each party's caring and enthusiastic urge to help Americans; they are measurements of each party’s greed.

All Is Fair in Love and War Crimes

Aftermath of a CIA drone-strike that killed 16 year old Tariq Aziz and 12 year old Waheed Khan. Waziristan, Pakistan.

Warfare has changed much in the decades following the carnage of the Second World War, and the brutal wholesale destruction of the A-bomb has been replaced by the lethal practicality of the unmanned drone. On one hand the effectiveness of drone strikes is clear. According to a New York Times article published in May of 2009 entitled "Death From Above, Outrage Down Below":

"The appeal of drone attacks for policy makers is clear. For one thing, their effects are measurable. Military commanders and intelligence officials point out that drone attacks have disrupted terrorist networks in Pakistan, killing key leaders and hampering operations. Drone attacks create a sense of insecurity among militants and constrain their interactions with suspected informers. And, because they kill remotely, drone strikes avoid American casualties." - David Kilcullen & Andrew Mcdonald Exum

But as the article continues to clarify, drone-strikes do more damage to the countries they are supposed to be freeing from tyranny than they do good; all at the expense of American prestige in the region. Drones simply kill too many civilians. whenever drones are used to destroy military targets abroad, it only increases the popularity of the militant extremists they are meant to target. People are more fearful of a faceless enemy that kills wantonly from hundreds of miles away than they are afraid of the extremists occupying their own communities.

Drone strikes kill vastly more civilians than they do actual terror suspects and terrorist leaders. According to human rights group Reprieve, that number comes out to 41 men targeted and 1,147 killed. That is a success rate of 3.5%, hardly accurate although accuracy is the very label these strikes have been sold under to the American public since even before the Bush administration. And these results are not partisan. Unmanned drone strikes have continued to overwhelmingly kill civilians under Obama's administration as the US continues its misguided military presence in the Levant.

What really should make the average citizen angry about these strikes is that the US government is never made to answer for these crimes the same way that despots and dictators in the Middle East and elsewhere are. If Assad is the one firing the missiles then he is a criminal, if it is the Pentagon ordering the strikes then it can just be chalked up to tactical error. But these are not error percentages on a computer screen, (or even more colloquially disdainful, 'bugsplats') these are innocent human lives being forfeited for the sake of preserving an American idea of peace in the communities in which they are trying to make a living. 

The United States will likely never have to answer for the lives of civilians taken in places like Pakistan or Iraq. When a Western power is at war, it seems only the country on the receiving end can be to blame. Even in the case of civilians. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't condemn these actions for what they are: acts of terror. An act of terror should not be labelled differently depending on who is the initiator and who is the recipient. 

East vs. West: The Superpower Squeeze of Sovereignty in Ukraine

Armed men in front of a tank. Donbas region.

There is a war raging in eastern Ukraine that threatens the stability of the entirety of Europe and possibly the world. It does not equal the Syrian Civil War in terms of casualties or refugees, but it reflects deeper underlying problems in the region that could lead to further bloodshed between Western powers and the Russian Federation.

In the winter of 2013-2014, Ukrainian nationalists in the Maidan revolution ousted pro-Russian Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych and put pro-EU candidate Petro Poroshenko in power. Shortly after, Vladimir Putin seized control of the Crimea, a semi-autonomous region in the south of Ukraine which encouraged pro-Russian separatists in the east of Ukraine to then declare independence in a region known as Donbas. In the year and a half since then, the war has continued to rage in Donbas between the Ukrainian military and the rebel forces supported by Putin.

The United States has so far supported the new Ukrainian government because they are pro-Western and wish to be granted entry in the EU. Russia supports the secession of Donbas and defends their claims on Crimea because it is Putin's goal to create a Eurasian sphere of influence for Russia to once again reassert itself as a global power. When the Ukrainian people rejected his offer of inclusion in his newly formed Eurasian Union, in favor of the European Union, it was a great blow to Russian economic plans in Eastern Europe. Putin has also shown great initiative in the Middle East as an ally of Assad's fight against Daesh and other rebel groups in Syria; no matter the political implications. The Russian military is out-showing their rivals in NATO in that region. And so it is in Ukraine where it seems that despite crippling economic sanctions, Russia is unwilling to back down on their stance in the country.

Unlike the United States, the Russians also have a deep cultural impetus to gaining more control in Ukraine. The land that comprises Ukraine  forms the heartland of the ancient homeland of the Rus and some of the oldest Russian cities can be found there, including Kiev which is arguably even more historically significant to the Russian people than Moscow. The West is willing to offer paltry support to the Ukrainian government, but we do not feel the same deep connection to the land that the Russians do. That being said, neither the Russian government nor the Ukrainian government should be allowed to decide what determines the sovereignty of any particularly region of the country.

We need to care about what is happening in Ukraine. Not because we should wish to be the ones dominating the Ukrainian sphere of economics and politics rather than the Russians, but because both the Russians and the West are allowing this country to fall apart all for the sake of more power. It is this hunger for power that is truly reprehensible, that is causing a rift to form in Ukraine. Instead of competing for influence over a country that is too weak to be able to reform on its own, we should be joining together to figure out a solution to the issues in Ukraine so that all of its citizens may strive for a better and freer life.

Voting: The Cornerstone of American Democracy

A county-by-county map of the 2012 presidential election. Red =Romney, Blue = Obama.

With the upcoming presidential election even now looming over our heads; I feel like its important to take a break from the violence that has pervaded recent news to talk about the importance of voting. We are lucky enough to live in a time and a place that affords a great percentage of our population the ability to vote. However, our democracy is participatory. The people who actually do go out and vote tend to be wealthier, older, and whiter. These statistics do not accurately reflect the true demographic make-up of this country. Voting determines who is allowed to make decisions in our society; so why isn't everyone voting?

One major reason a lot of 'rare voters' (people who rarely, if ever, make it to the polls) cite is that they don't feel they know enough about the candidates to have an opinion. This is a major deal seeing as a quarter of registered voters are currently labelled as being 'rare' according to the Pew Research Center. Is it the responsibility of our candidates to more effectively get their message across? Or is it the responsibility of our citizenry to educate themselves on matters of government and politics in our republic? I would argue a little bit of both. Americans need transparency from our elected officials. Without the guarantee of honesty, many people just feel they cannot trust who they are voting for. But it is also the responsibility of the voters to educate themselves about what issues need to be focused on in our society and which candidates have the most feasible responses to these dilemmas.

Voting is also generational. That is to say that if people in your family have traditionally been involved in politics, (and further extending to include your neighborhood/town/city) then you yourself are more likely to at least know the importance of voting or be more informed about elections. Candidates statistically do not campaign in communities with low voter turnout. Millions of Americans are effectively being glossed over because they are, i.e. too uneducated, too poor, or simply not white enough. Because America is an elective democracy, the people who vote get to determine what kind of candidate best represents them; and what kind of policies they want to see preserved or acted upon. Think about the tyranny that was the Jim Crow South. Even in states like Mississippi or Alabama with large black populations, because black people either didn't have the means to vote or were intimidated into not voting, racial Apartheid was upheld and white voters were able to secure more social control and effectively power in their government.

What we see in modern America is an economic/ethnic divide in voter coverage that mirrors the racial politics of the segregated South. An apathetic underclass allows a more socially mobile and socially aware upper and upper middle class to dominate elections and retain control over political interests that favor their continued prosperity. If we want to see real progress for the vast underclass in America, there needs to be a renewed interest in the voting process. Real change starts from the grassroots level up. It's not only important to vote in the big presidential and senatorial elections, but in the elections that effect us in our own backyards. Don't scoff at the polls, they are the driving force of our society and who we elect also ultimately determines the character of that society.

I would like to leave you with a quote from George Takei;

"This is supposed to be a participatory democracy and if we're not in there participating then the people that will manipulate and exploit the system will step in there."

The Face of Terror is Fear: How the GOP's Response to Paris Highlights the Deep Hypocrisy of the United States

Donald Trump.

Donald Trump is causing a stir once again for rather inflammatory remarks towards Muslim Americans that are frankly sickening. In a recent interview with Yahoo News, he said he was 'open to the idea' of having Muslims register in a database and/or carry ID cards professing their faith. As if this wasn't enough to make Adolf Hitler smile from beyond the grave, he also stated he was open to indiscriminate surveillance of Muslims Americans and warrantless searches of mosques. Where does the hatred end? And the terrifying part of all this is a startling percentage of people, almost entirely Conservative Americans, either commend these measures or merely shrug their shoulders. What's next, hauling Muslims off to internment camps? Extermination camps? These are not the sort of steps a freedom-loving democracy should take in the face of a global terror epidemic.

Which Governors oppose new Syrian refugees?

And it's not just 'the Trump' who's fanning the flames of hate. More than half of the country's governors have stated that they are not interested in taking in Syrian refugees following Daesh's attacks in Paris. Parallels have apparently been drawn between Muslim Americans and the growing threat of terror in the Middle East. Not only are refugees suspect of being potential terrorists but our very own American citizens are as well. Following the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor that sparked U.S. entry into WWII, Japanese-Americans were summarily rounded up and deposited in internment camps on the suspicion of being Japanese spies. What is this repetition of history going to teach Muslim Americans and refugees about the United States? Despite our vows of being welcoming of all creeds, colors, and faiths, do we really find Islam to be so un-American?

What's so dangerous about this way of thinking is that it breeds the mentality that Muslims are inherently different and inferior to (what is unspokenly implied) Christian Americans; and even more unspokenly white Americans. That is the rhetoric that this hate-breeding generates, and it is exactly what groups like Daesh want in response to their attacks. The disgusting notion is that these politicians are quick to call for airstrikes in the Middle East, and disregard the killing of civilians over there, and at the same time hide behind their prejudice in the name of protecting our own citizens. Only what they imagine to be the ideal American citizen will never wear a burqa or hijab, or carry the name Fatima or Abdullah.

I cannot think of a more un-American idea than to refuse refugees. At least in the America I envision, we do not wage war thousands of miles from our borders, only to refuse aid to the displaced civilians whose homes we've destroyed. Daesh is an outgrowth of the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, and if people in Syria and Iraq are fleeing Daesh we should not turn our backs to them. The truly unforgivable notion in my eyes is to look upon Arab people as being suspect of terror simply because of their faith and ethnicity, when white Americans have used both for just that purpose for hundreds of years. If Conservatives are so worried about terrorism, then where are the Republican governors denouncing the rise in white supremacist groups in their states? When white Americans are the number one terror threat in the country statistically, why is there so much focus on Muslims being potential terror suspects? Aren't they suffering at the hands of Islamic militants in their own countries enough? Or have we conveniently forgotten that Daesh primarily target Muslim civilians? I guess we can let the neo-Nazis slide since they apparently represent the ideals of this country more accurately.

Map of active hate groups in the United States as of 2013: from the Southern Poverty Law Center.

What new hatred will the fear-mongering right instill in the hearts of our own citizens? The map above is already enough to make me cringe. The fact is, there is already a terror epidemic in this country and it is home-grown. It has spread from the blood-soaked soil of the slave South to rear it's ugly head once again in this time of critical international peril when American compassion is needed most. We cannot succumb to hate. The world needs us to lead by example. To uphold the ideals that make our country a beacon of hope for the refugees we are told to fear.

Why aren’t more Americans paying attention to Anonymous?

The anonymous online hacking group known as…you guessed it… Anonymous has vowed to shut down ISIS connected internet feeds in the wake of the Paris suicide-bombings. Their activities, while perhaps illegal, are an inspired and downright cool response to terrorism.  Yet, this surprising and truly odd development out the chaos of last week brings up some many puzzling albeit interesting and productive questions in this new age of the War On Terror.

The U.S. government has often received criticism for the NSA’s systematic cyber-spying on the American people.  The central question at the crux of that debate has long been “What, if any, freedoms should we as a people sacrifice in order to ensure safety.  What Anonymous is showing us is that the answer to that question might be less than we think.

Why hasn’t the U.S. employed its multi-billion dollar security and intelligence force towards hacking the bad guys’ computers instead of the one I’m blogging with?  Chinese and Russian hackers have robbed Americans silly over the past five years; where’s the NSA’s response to them?  Almost adding to drones, ICBM’s, and bio-chemical weapons,  Anonymous and other hacking-oriented individuals could emerge as the new face of the highly interpersonal wars we post-modern societies are engaged in.  Think about it: from your man-cellar or your bunker, with a mommy-made sandwich by your side, you can either take out scores of terrorists and their families or you can wipe out their ability to recruit, buy weapons, sell drugs, etc.

If the U.S. government were smart, they’d start employing people like this.  We should invest in the types of education and work programs that teach people these computer sciences and put them to work protecting the most unforeseeably unpredictable frontier out there: the wild, wild web.  We could keep Americans safe without bringing up nude photos and sexy text messages up for the whole workplace to see and laugh at, but that would require a smart U.S. government, as I said before.

Why we can’t have a Republican president, until the party starts behaving.

America and much of the world is on high alert due to recent terrorist attacks and plots, a stable but fragile world economy, and a hotbed of other political issues driving wedges between Americans and making for an uncertain future.  Adding to much of the hostility, anger, and fear of this political climate has been Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump.  His comments regarding Mexicans, Muslims and women have offended many but changed the minds of very few Republican voters.  At a rally in Worcester, MA, a Black Lives Matter protestor was assaulted and Donald Trump later defended the actions of those who were kicking and choking a man speaking his mind.  How can this behavior possibly be tolerated let alone accepted by not only the brass of the GOP but by the entire conservative voting public?  It has to stop.

Meanwhile, the runner-up to Trump in the national polls, Ben Carson has repeatedly lied about his own life and personal story leading many to wonder whether anything he says is true.  Now, it might be said of the two candidates exceeding everyone’s expectations that “Hey, Mr. Trump and Mr. Carson are just stunt men in this for publicity” or “Their reign at the top of polls and news headlines is bound to end once rational Republican voters start to examine their policies.”  Well, the time for this prophesied slip by the men widely believed amongst the political community to be the least qualified has, I believe, come and gone.  Primary season is fast-approaching, but I get the feeling that come February, candidates like Carson and Trump won’t cool down.

Currently, 27 percent of all eligible Republican voters think that Donald Trump should be the next POTUS, and 20 percent think it should be Ben Carson.  That means that a near majority of Republican voters are considering a vote for a candidate with no political experience, no integrity when it comes to telling the truth or examining facts, and no respect for the concerns or opinions of their opponents who are mostly minority groups like African-Americans and Latinos, but also Muslims and women.
 
The polls, the behavior of voters like those at the Trump rally in Worcester, and the candidates’ policies and opinions all indicate that this is indeed what the conservatives in this country want.  Let's give voters some credit.  They pay attention and are informed, to a degree, and this race has drawn some heavy viewership in part because of the times themselves.  I mean for God's sakes 25 million people tuned in for the first Republican presidential debate on CNN.  That's totally unprecedented in American politics.  So, there is no reason to think Republican voters are sheep or slaves to their basest emotions and blindly following the loud frontrunner with the flashy suit and shiny gold everything.  They are not being fooled or tricked into thinking they are supporting a good-but-secretly-corrupt candidate.  They are paying attention to the issues at hand and know they are being fed the very sincere personality of a very disingenuous man, and gobbling it up just in time for Thanksgiving.

To say that Trump is an outcast or an outsider to the Republican field is also, I think, inaccurate.  The GOP has been a divided, broken, incompetent, and insensitive Party since the rise of its extreme right-wing faction the Tea Party in the 2010 midterm elections.  For candidates or political experts to claim that the very divisive, destructive, inexperienced, and bigoted Mr. Trump or Mr. Carson do not represent the Republican Party as a whole is downright false.  The opposite could not be truer.  Americans ought to take the complete inability for Republicans to govern effectively and peaceably over the country or even their own nomination process into account when the voting starts a year from now, whether or not you like Hillary Clinton's policy.

The Cult of the Other

x

A member loyal to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) waves an ISIS flag in Raqqa.(Reuters / Stringer)

Americans are outraged in the wake of another indiscriminate mass shooting. The Friday terrorist attacks conducted by members of ISIS, which I will unaffectionately refer to by the Arabic term ‘Daesh’, sent shockwaves across the world as Western nations mourned the loss of over 130 people and condemned the depravity of the attackers. But while the attacks on Paris have already generated immense discourse and empathy almost immediately after their occurrence, Americans all but ignored terrorist attacks in Baghdad and Beirut within a couple days of the attacks on Paris. It is easier for Americans to empathize with French people than with Middle Easterners because we share a similar cultural heritage. This selective empathy defines our societal attitude towards terror and Islam, and highlights our fear of the unfamiliar as well as our contempt for the other.

There is an ethno-cultural gap between America and the Middle East that has only grown wider in the decade and a half since 9/11. In fact, this ‘war on terror’ has little to do with religious ideology at all. This is not the Dark Ages or the Crusades, but religious dogma is still playing the same role in the Christian West’s eternal conflict with the Muslim East in 2015. It is important to remember that religion was used in the West to justify colonialism just as it is used in the Middle East to justify anti-colonialism. We already have a self-proclaimed Caliphate in this struggle, only substitute the crusaders with NATO and Christendom with the ‘Free World’ and you may understand how history can repeat itself.

It is appropriate to express solidarity with the French people in their time of grief. But it is one thing to grieve and another to substitute a moment of consolation with the kairotic moment of a war-mongering political agenda. By lashing out against the Muslim world in the wake of the Paris attacks, Americans are succumbing to the very hate-breeding that Bin Laden predicted would promulgate the growth of radical Islam. The fact is that Daesh does not exist in a vacuum. It is a direct result of the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, an invasion that many people still consider to be illegal.

Most, if not all, of the leaders of Daesh are former officers of Saddam Hussein’s military brass. The war between the Sunni minority and the US-approved Shiite government under Nour al-Maliki allowed for a new generation of disenfranchised Sunni youth to mature in a war-torn nation that seemingly had no use for them. Ashamed of their heritage, despising the US and Shiite soldiers who killed their fathers and uncles, many turned to Daesh as a means of escape and a way to reclaim the ‘dignity’ they felt had been stripped from them. This is not to say the actions of Daesh are justified, but it is to say that without the United States pulling the puppet strings in Iraq, they may never have existed in the first place.

The United States dominates the post-colonial world. While globe-spanning European empires no longer lord over their ‘uncivilized’ colonial possessions directly, we still can see vestiges of that bygone era in how we as a society react to terror. Post-colonialism means Americans care more for French lives than we do for Syrian lives. Or Iraqi lives. Nigerian, Kenyan, or Somali lives. Terror has nothing to do with Islam, but it has everything to do with colonialism. Acts of barbarism are simultaneously praised and condemned depending on who is the recipient. And in a post-colonial world, the tired old ‘us vs. them’ mantra is still being slung back and forth between the haves and the have-nots.

Western Wake-up Call: How to Process the Paris Attacks?                                   

Once more, the soundbites and images come flooding through the television screen.  Once more, the words “dead” and “injured” appear side-by-side in the rolling headline below the pundit’s bust.  Suicide bombers, eight of them, took over a hundred Parisian lives this Friday evening.  The same type of attack killed dozens in Lebanon earlier this week.  Horror and fear are permeating French communities to the extent not seen since World War II.  The Middle East is withstanding war and crisis on a catastrophic level.  The West's War on Terror has certainly entered a new chapter.

Journalists hesitate towards speculation on this latest attack, but we know the facts already.  We know what caused this attack and what has caused attacks like this one on Western cities in the past: a policy of "exporting democracy" to Middle Eastern countries.  Decades of military occupations, regime changes, financial aid to groups who "share our interests," total devastation of Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and we wonder what might motivate terrorists to commit heinous acts like those that have just taken place in Paris.  Granted, the actions of Islamic extremists are irrational, carnal, and murderous, but there is a direct correlation between the desire to commit or incite violence against the West and the West’s ongoing and unwanted involvement in the Middle East.

It is arrogant, and has been since the days of the Bush foreign policy doctrine, to assume that America is morally obligated to export its democratic values and philosophies to a region of the world with its own separate history, culture, political process, religion, economy, geography, etc.  Barring the individual motivations for a few radicalized human beings to commit such violence as has been endured in France, the real reasons the West has seen such attacks is the West’s own fault.  The headlines truthfully categorize the violence as the worst that’s taken place in France since World War II, but will anyone honestly discuss how Europe has otherwise failed to protect its people and maintain democracy since World War II?  When will we Westerners, who proclaim to be more civilized and righteous, actually start acting like it and stop bombing, invading, and meddling with an already crippled region?

In the United States, a country whose ties with France extend back to the founding of our own nation, a debate is currently raging amongst the Republicans running for president over how to combat ISIL.  The front-runner Ben Carson has lied about his sources, who he claims informed him of “China’s involvement” in Syria; Donald Trump, at a rally, promised to "bomb the sh*t" out of ISIL if elected; Lindsay Graham promises 10,000 ground troops in Iraq.  These are the would-be so-called diplomats and commanders-in-chief of our country?  They don’t have a clue as how to solve the problem.

Furthermore, they only seem interested in continuations of Bush foreign policy which are senseless, cost-ineffective, immoral, neo-conservative policies that have only angered and emboldened terrorists since they have been implemented post-9/11.  These kinds of men, their policies and ideas of "exporting democracy and Western values" have not kept and will not keep us safe. So, instead of "punishing" ISIL as President Hollande of France has vowed to do, why doesn't he divert his efforts towards making France a more diplomatic, tolerant community, instead of an aggressive, militaristic, conflict-exacerbating  state like the one the U.S. has become?

Stop Calling Iraq War Vets Heroes

 Veteran’s Day is upon us, so here is something to think about?  Why do we call our veterans "heroes" when they return from deployment?  If our definition of a hero is someone who sacrificed so much for the good of so many, then the term perhaps applies to veterans of World War II, maybe Korea.  This is not to say that the sacrifices of Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan Veterans should not be acknowledged daily and honored consistently by our government and our society, but their sacrifices worked counter to the interests of the countries both in and for which they fought.  Vietnam is still a communist country; Iraqis and Afghans have seen their homes destroyed, their family members killed, and their land depleted of natural resources.  Veterans themselves are homeless and killing themselves at a rate of 22 per day.  The country in which their sacrifices largely go unnoticed or unappreciated is bankrupt and crippled economically, due to the War each vet has gone through in his or her own way.

In other words, calling Iraq War veterans "heroes" is not only something they don’t want, but it is also something which makes the mission seem more heroic than in reality.  This is a very dangerous thing.  If Americans are allowed to believe Iraq War Veterans are heroes, they might just start to believe that the Iraq War was a heroic effort by the American military that produced a great number of heroes, even though it was a most definitely a tragic effort from the start.  Even still, the mission of any soldier is never the mission of the president or his generals.  Those missions are almost always political.  An ordinary soldier’s mission is their brother-in-arms first and themselves second.  It is survival or, if they aren’t in combat, the mission is hard work and dedication to their job of cooking or cleaning or operating a radio, etc.

So, instead of treating vets as "heroes," we should be treating them as "survivors" – survivors of this American political process.  Vets are survivors of the American idiocy, ignorance, greed, arrogance, hypocrisy, and violence that landed them in brutal combat and then ignored their needs and the needs of their families.  They are not heroes of some political cause or global effort towards peace.  Heroes ought to exist in movies and comic books only.  When we call vets "heroes," we run the risk of thinking they can handle any stressful situation.  The instinctual tendency to call a veteran a "hero" is, therefore, most certainly linked to the absence of healthcare and mental healthcare for returning vets.  After all, why does Superman need a doctor?  Often our social problems in America are deeply rooted an ideological error in Americans’ heads regarding the issue.  Let’s try really hard to fix this one on Veteran’s Day, 2015, and every day after that.

Black and Blue America: A Bruised Nation

As a country of immigrants, some voluntary and others involuntary, there are many divides in the United States of America. Race is one of the biggest and deadliest; much of our history can be defined by how we as a nation have viewed race.

The origins of the Black Lives Matter movement may seem incomprehensible to any white person living behind the comfortable proverbial walls of suburban America. And its true that as white people its not our right or our job to attempt to understand what its like to be black in this country. We don't get to decide that. But we do get to decide how we listen to and how we choose to respond to the black community as they take a vocal stance against problems in this country intrinsic to the black experience. 

That is what the Black Lives Matter movement is all about. It is a protest against the wanton and uncharged police killings of unarmed black people in this country that have persisted for decades. The incident that sparked such a movement was the killing of unarmed teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson, MI in the summer of 2014. His crime? Jaywalking.

Of course, there will always be people in this country who will defend to the death the actions of a police officer no matter what those actions may be. Following the use of the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter on social media, a separate hashtag #BlueLivesMatter began to appear in response. Now when black people protest police killings in their own communities, they also have to contend with counter protests from people who want to reaffirm... what exactly? I guess they want to make sure the families who lost their loved ones to police brutality know that those cops are people too. Why is it negative for people to counter protest in this way?

Unlike #BlackLivesMatter, #BlueLivesMatter did not spring up from some unprecedented surge in police deaths. Rather, #BlueLivesMatter and other variants started appearing in response to the recent resurgence in the black liberation movement which has rallied behind the slogan 'Black Lives Matter' for well over a year now. Even the name is a parody of the protest movement. Why do these people feel the need to defend police officers at a time when high profile police killings of unarmed black people are becoming routine? Shouldn't we as a society condemn the unjust murder of our fellow citizens by the state?

There is a time and a place to pay tribute to police officers. The Boston police officers who displayed bravery in the wake of the 2013 Marathon bombings certainly deserve recognition. But the only purpose a hashtag like #BlueLivesMatter serves is to silence the voices of black people. When a group of people is consistently targeted by the police despite being unarmed, the response any American should have is to be outraged. 

The fact is, black lives already matter just in the basic fact that black people are human beings. A statement like 'Black Lives Matter' should not be controversial. When people say 'Blue Lives Matter' it is a justification of police brutality against black lives. It is okay to hold your community's police officers up to a moral code, it is okay to scrutinize and protest their actions. Being a good cop is something that takes dedication and hard work, because being a good cop is something that has to be learned. There is no training academy for being black in America. Black people should not have to justify their inherent humanity. Unfortunately, there will always be people who wish to deny them that.

Are You Addicted to War?  Then Why Is Your Country?

What happens when you buy a laptop, a shirt, a new car, a tennis racket?  You want to get the most use out of it as you can, don’t you?  You want to wear, drive or swing whatever it is you have spent your hard earned dollars on as much as you possibly can before you have to get rid of it or upgrade.  In other words, when people invest money into something, they have an “interest” in that particular something.  They feel obligated to take care of it, and find it hard to depart with a product without getting the full use or satisfaction out of that particular product.

The same principle of human psychology applies when, on a national scale, we commit ourselves to war.  War costs money and the United States of America spent a lot of it when we sustained (and continue to sustain) our 14-year-long, and counting, military involvement in the Middle East.  The difference in price between the U.S.’s war(s) in the Middle East and the price of a tennis racket is equal to the difference between how difficult it would be to part with a tennis racket, and how difficult it would be to part with something on which you spent 4 trillion dollars.

Politicians, media pundits, fellow bloggers, and others will say that we remain entrenched in our battle stances because of our “interests” in the region.  Well, the longer we stay there, the more money we spend, the more lives we lose in that forsaken desert, and the more our “interests” will grow.  Looking back, for example, to the moment Isis overtook Ramadi in May of this year, how ridiculous does it now seem to hear pundits and politicians pontificate about how “American lives were lost" to take a particular city during the Iraq War and Iraq insurgency,? 

There appeared to be this need to keep Ramadi because of the blood, money and oil we poured into it.  What more people, especially those in charge of our military, our finances and our political system need to understand is that the urgency for action in the Middle East comes not from its inherent problems as an unstable region, but from what the U.S. has already committed economically, militarily, and emotionally.  In many ways, our expensive wars are less like a casual shopping spree and more like a terrible gambling addiction.  Know when to fold ‘em America.

Is Gun Worship Bad for Our Law Enforcement?

In the United States, it’s difficult to go even a day without hearing about some form of gun violence whether accidental or intentional. We have a long history of gun ownership going as far back to our sacred Constitution. However, it seems to me, guns are becoming an increasing factor in our lives.

Over the course of the last couple decades, incidents of mass slaughter by means of a firearm have increased exponentially. Now it’s as though we are taking our own lives in our hands just to go to the movies. And the response that we’ve made, out of fear, is to give our law enforcement more free reign to use deadly force in order to deal with this threat. But is that really the best course of action?

Instead of trying to fix the problem as it is occurring, we should be focusing on nipping it in the bud before it can even happen.  The United States needs tighter restrictions on guns, and our police should not be resorting to lethal tactics just to maintain order.

We need to look at the reason these shootings happen in the first place, focus on the mental welfare of our nation instead of tightening our security out of fear and denying the real problem. Otherwise, we breed a whole new set of problems by over-militarizing our police. There are plenty of unarmed victims of police gunfire to justify raising these questions.

The first response a police officer makes in a confrontational situation should not be to draw their weapon and fire. Our police need to be a positive influence in our society; after all they should be here to protect the freedom and rights of the common people.

Guns and violence go hand in hand. By giving people the means to destroy one another we are inevitably opening up a proverbial ‘Pandora’s Box’ of grisly outcomes. True change must start from within, and that requires us to answer this question; do we want to be safe at the cost of our liberties or do we want to be sane and work out a permanent solution to gun violence in this country?