Hang 'em High
We have now come to this. In Connecticut this week, a homeowner was coerced to taking down a Halloween decoration. After a two hour meeting in City Hall, with the mayor and chief of police present, along with several community activists, this homeowner drove home followed by the mayor and the police chief and removed a figure that looked like a bady decomposed Freddy Kruger from the tree outside her home. It seems that "Freddy" was hanging from the tree. A noose was around his neck.
Ever since the Jena case hit the national headlines, the noose issue has been on the front burner all over the country.
In Indianapolis, a sanitation worker was suspended for having a noose in his truck. The driver said it was a Halloween decoration. The truck was festooned with other assorted ghoulish items.
The Connecticut homeowner said that every Halloween she tries to outdo the previous year's ghoulishness. Photos of the house show dark and scary figures, knives sticking out of heads, skulls and other decorations. The assorted public officials arrived at the home, assembled by the tree and watched as the homeowner removed the offending figure. She then took this decoration and sticking a long pole down its back, stuck it in a pot with some sticks and fake flames and announced to the crowd, "how about burning at the stake. Is that okay?" The church clergy assembled responded with "sure, that's ok. I don't have a problem with that."
Well, I do.
Are we, as a community, only going to respond when an outraged leader, or group, threatens us? Sometime during the two hour meeting in City Hall, one of the community activist leaders threatened the homeowner that unless she remove the hanging decoration, he would have picketers outside her home until it comes down.
It's a Halloween decoration. It is not a black man being hanged for being black.
The Department of Justice recently said, "A noose is a powerful symbol of hate and racially-motivated violence, and it can, in certain circumstances, constitute the basis for a prosecution under federal criminal civil rights law." (foxnews.com - Oct. 19, 2007)
Shouldn't we learn how to discern the difference between a holiday decoration and a racial epithet?
Shouldn't we prosecute those who, whether for publicity or 'just because I can," engage in violence against others, either through physical assault or intimidation?
Shouldn't we be mindful that we don't lose track of the forest for the trees? When we begin to saythat any depiction of a rope made to look like a noose is a racial statement, aren't we lessening ourselves as a society, giving in to mass hysteria, or worse, being bullied by those who overreact to every little thing?
I'd like us to be.
But I'm not sure we can.
Yet.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
The debate rages over Iraq. The President says the American people won't stand for a reduction of support forthe troops. The Congress, reflecting the will of the people in the last election, has spoken their mind and determined that it is time to end the fiasco. Does the fact that both the American people and the Congress have said that enough is enough influence our President?
Four years ago, using faulty at the least, and false at the worse, data, our President, along with his top aides, said that Iraq posed a clear and present danger to the United States. Iraq was responsible for the attack in New York and had the capability (or soon would) to deliver nuclear weapons to a target of their choosing.
The UN and many in the world, including some in our Congress and in our military, expressed caution. Indeed, knowledgeable people in government ascertained that the materials needed to prepare nuclear weapons were not "heading for Iraq" from other nations, as indicated by our President and his top aides. This last item didn't make it to the people until a spy was "outed" as retribution for the report. Nonetheless, with the faulty data, our Congress voted to attack, even though the "coaltion of the willing" nations did not even come close to being representative of the world body.
It was America's war. We brought England along for the ride, as well as several nations that held no real influence in global political circles.
Quickly, the American people realized that the Iraq war was not about world protection, nor was it about the war on terror (remember, almost all the suspects in 9/11 were Saudis, and were in the US on bona-fide visas and passports).
So, what was the response of our President? As many legislators began to realize the error of beginning this war, many began to come out in opposition to continuing this war. No apologies were needed, the legislators made their decision based on the information that their government gave them. On the left and right, Republicans and Democrats alike publicly asked hard questions about the initiation of the war, the need to establish a peace, the response of the civilian populations to the invading army. The answers were chillingly clear.
The military said from the outset that more troops were needed to go in, invade, and establish the peace. Institutions were sacked by gangs of roving thugs, militias sprouted immediately, loyalists to various sides coalesced in the vacuum created by the minimal force provided by the invading army. There was no strategy to win the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqi civilians. There was only an invasion, an occupying force, and military exercises aimed at short term targets.
This President and his top aides have read the American people well. We don't want to appear to be in opposition to such a great idea - supporting our troops in a time of war. The word-smithers have crafted the language well. To be for a pullout puts our troops in harm's way; it gives comfort to our enemy, it is un-American. You are either with us or against us.
Words are so powerful in our society. Let's look at other words.
I submit that this President has done enough damage. Over 3,000 good men and women in the US Armed Forces and countless others have died because this President believes that he alone has the right to determine the course of this country. We live in a democracy. Or I used to think so.
Four years ago, using faulty at the least, and false at the worse, data, our President, along with his top aides, said that Iraq posed a clear and present danger to the United States. Iraq was responsible for the attack in New York and had the capability (or soon would) to deliver nuclear weapons to a target of their choosing.
The UN and many in the world, including some in our Congress and in our military, expressed caution. Indeed, knowledgeable people in government ascertained that the materials needed to prepare nuclear weapons were not "heading for Iraq" from other nations, as indicated by our President and his top aides. This last item didn't make it to the people until a spy was "outed" as retribution for the report. Nonetheless, with the faulty data, our Congress voted to attack, even though the "coaltion of the willing" nations did not even come close to being representative of the world body.
It was America's war. We brought England along for the ride, as well as several nations that held no real influence in global political circles.
Quickly, the American people realized that the Iraq war was not about world protection, nor was it about the war on terror (remember, almost all the suspects in 9/11 were Saudis, and were in the US on bona-fide visas and passports).
So, what was the response of our President? As many legislators began to realize the error of beginning this war, many began to come out in opposition to continuing this war. No apologies were needed, the legislators made their decision based on the information that their government gave them. On the left and right, Republicans and Democrats alike publicly asked hard questions about the initiation of the war, the need to establish a peace, the response of the civilian populations to the invading army. The answers were chillingly clear.
The military said from the outset that more troops were needed to go in, invade, and establish the peace. Institutions were sacked by gangs of roving thugs, militias sprouted immediately, loyalists to various sides coalesced in the vacuum created by the minimal force provided by the invading army. There was no strategy to win the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqi civilians. There was only an invasion, an occupying force, and military exercises aimed at short term targets.
This President and his top aides have read the American people well. We don't want to appear to be in opposition to such a great idea - supporting our troops in a time of war. The word-smithers have crafted the language well. To be for a pullout puts our troops in harm's way; it gives comfort to our enemy, it is un-American. You are either with us or against us.
Words are so powerful in our society. Let's look at other words.
- Lying to the American people.
- Falsifying intelligence data and covering it up.
- Punishing top diplomats for finding truth that contradicts the "lie" by placing family members at risk.
- Hiding accurate funding costs in special appropriations bills so the real cost of the war is more difficult to determine.
- Providing antiquated equipment and personal safety systems to the soldiers in the field.
I submit that this President has done enough damage. Over 3,000 good men and women in the US Armed Forces and countless others have died because this President believes that he alone has the right to determine the course of this country. We live in a democracy. Or I used to think so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
