Normally my feeling is that if you share something on the internet, that you can't get mad when someone else finds it. However, this only applies when those people find it themselves. I just had a friend tell me that someone came up to him and asked if he knew who I was. When he said yes, this person then asked if he knew that I was bisexual. First, this statement in itself is wrong, as I now identify myself as pansexual, but when I first came out I identified as bi, so I'll excuse that. However, just because I am out, does not give you liberty to start outing me to everyone that knows who I am. This friend did not know, but it wasn't because I didn't want him to know, it's just that I haven't told every one of my friends individually. If this had been someone that I wasn't coming out to for fear of some kind of violence or bullying, this would be a completely different story. Because of this, I am not actively seeking this person out, but if I do happen to find out who it was, my relationship with this person will not be the same. I know that this person most likely won't read this, but if you do, try to understand the position that I am in. I'm sure there are certain things that you wouldn't like me telling random people about you, even though they are semi-factual.
I know that I am probably doing exactly what this person wants in having some sort of negative reaction, but I don't care. One of my biggest pet peeves is people who talk about others behind their back in a negative manner. And apparently this person thinks that my non-hetero sexual orientation is a negative thing. Assuming that they read my previous post or my original coming out post, they misunderstood my feelings toward my sexuality. I'm not hurt by my sexuality, I'm more hurt by the fact that someone who I formerly considered a friend thought it was okay to betray my privacy like this. I guess that's what our society has come to, however. Trying to hurt people by spreading gossip behind their back, regardless of their veracity. We now live in a culture where tabloids, which were previously regarded as utter nonsense, now have their own TV show, a la TMZ. Sure sometimes they actually spout some real news, but why is it important? Can't we all live our lives in a manner that we don't care about other people's personal lives? Why should we care who is taking what drugs or who is attracted to whom? If somebody wants to share this information, by all means let them. Don't take it upon yourself to report it to everyone else though. Let them do the work and take the personal approach to make sure that whatever information is spread is correct. Not only are you potentially hurting the person, but in the process you are making yourself look bad.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Bisexuality
Since first coming out as bi/pansexual in October, I haven't really been too open about my sexuality, but I think I might change that. It really makes me angry when people on both sides of the spectrum, heterosexual and homosexual alike, dismiss those of us that don't fit into either of these two categories. So many people say that it's just a phase, that we are just undecided and will eventually choose a side. Or that we are just confused about our sexuality. Quite the contrary is true for myself. Finally coming to terms with my bi/pansexuality has cleared up any confusion about my sexuality I've had in the past. I have found myself attracted to guys for at least the last 5 years, but I was trying to push that away to try to be "normal."
A couple of things catalyzed this post as well as me being more open in general. The first is my anger at the climate towards members of the LGBT community as a whole in this country. The second is learning that Snooki has come out as bisexual. The final catalyst was talking with a friend about this topic.
It seems like we can't go more than a week without there being some anti-LGBT statement being made by public figures. I normally don't get offended by jokes, but this is beyond jokes. This is politicians that might become president basically saying that we are not real people. This is how the person actually feels. This country has a history of trying to find some minority to blame for everything and to deny rights. Unfortunately I'm a member of 3 separate minorities (atheist, bisexual, and Mexican-American) that are the focus of the public right now. I want to be open and hopefully inspire other people that may be closeted still to join me in being open, to prove these people wrong. To show them that we do exist and that we are "normal" members of society that just happen to have a different sexual orientation.
It almost always makes me happy to see celebrities come out because it restores some of my faith in humanity. It reminds me that I'm not the only one that has had to deal with the problems of trying to understand their sexuality. The most recent of these was Todd Glass. I listened to him on WTF with Marc Maron and the entire time I was nodding because I knew almost exactly what he was dealing with. His explanation of why he finally decided to come out as gay was that he wanted to try to reduce the probability of bullying, that hopefully kids will not see being gay as something wrong. However, people like Snooki coming out doesn't help fellow bisexuals. She only reinforces the stereotype some people have of the bisexual community just wanting to hook up with anything with a pulse.
I discussed this point with a friend who was one of the first people I came out to, and decided that if more bisexual celebrities in monogamous relationships came out, it might help eliminate this stereotype. I decided to look for a list of bisexual celebrities and what I found surprised me. People on the list included Angelina Jolie, Drew Barrymore, Billie Joe Armstrong, Sammy Davis Jr., Kurt Cobain, Abraham Lincoln, and many more. Why is it that people like this aren't public representations of the bisexual community? For the most part they are or were mostly monogamous with their partner, and most people wouldn't be able to identify them as bisexual if it weren't for their own comments. The one quote that stood out the most to me was from Billie Joe Armstrong (lead singer of Green Day), who said, “I think I’ve always been bisexual… I mean, it’s something that I’ve always been interested in. I think everybody kind of fantasizes about the same sex. I think people are born bisexual, and it’s just that our parents and society kind of veer us off into this feeling of Oh, I can’t. They say it’s taboo. It’s ingrained in our heads that it’s bad, when it’s not bad at all. It’s a very beautiful thing.”
This really made me think. What if this is actually true? What if we all are actually bisexual, even if it is just a small portion of our sexuality? What if our culture is forcing people to be something they are not, just because it it says in some book written a thousand years ago that having sex with the same sex is morally wrong? (This is of course the same book that says that slavery is fine, people can't wear clothing made of two different fabrics, etc.) Regardless of whether or not this is actually true, I know that I was born bi/pansexual, that it isn't a choice, it isn't some weird phase, and for perhaps the first time in my life, I am proud to admit it, and I don't care what other people think of me.
A couple of things catalyzed this post as well as me being more open in general. The first is my anger at the climate towards members of the LGBT community as a whole in this country. The second is learning that Snooki has come out as bisexual. The final catalyst was talking with a friend about this topic.
It seems like we can't go more than a week without there being some anti-LGBT statement being made by public figures. I normally don't get offended by jokes, but this is beyond jokes. This is politicians that might become president basically saying that we are not real people. This is how the person actually feels. This country has a history of trying to find some minority to blame for everything and to deny rights. Unfortunately I'm a member of 3 separate minorities (atheist, bisexual, and Mexican-American) that are the focus of the public right now. I want to be open and hopefully inspire other people that may be closeted still to join me in being open, to prove these people wrong. To show them that we do exist and that we are "normal" members of society that just happen to have a different sexual orientation.
It almost always makes me happy to see celebrities come out because it restores some of my faith in humanity. It reminds me that I'm not the only one that has had to deal with the problems of trying to understand their sexuality. The most recent of these was Todd Glass. I listened to him on WTF with Marc Maron and the entire time I was nodding because I knew almost exactly what he was dealing with. His explanation of why he finally decided to come out as gay was that he wanted to try to reduce the probability of bullying, that hopefully kids will not see being gay as something wrong. However, people like Snooki coming out doesn't help fellow bisexuals. She only reinforces the stereotype some people have of the bisexual community just wanting to hook up with anything with a pulse.
I discussed this point with a friend who was one of the first people I came out to, and decided that if more bisexual celebrities in monogamous relationships came out, it might help eliminate this stereotype. I decided to look for a list of bisexual celebrities and what I found surprised me. People on the list included Angelina Jolie, Drew Barrymore, Billie Joe Armstrong, Sammy Davis Jr., Kurt Cobain, Abraham Lincoln, and many more. Why is it that people like this aren't public representations of the bisexual community? For the most part they are or were mostly monogamous with their partner, and most people wouldn't be able to identify them as bisexual if it weren't for their own comments. The one quote that stood out the most to me was from Billie Joe Armstrong (lead singer of Green Day), who said, “I think I’ve always been bisexual… I mean, it’s something that I’ve always been interested in. I think everybody kind of fantasizes about the same sex. I think people are born bisexual, and it’s just that our parents and society kind of veer us off into this feeling of Oh, I can’t. They say it’s taboo. It’s ingrained in our heads that it’s bad, when it’s not bad at all. It’s a very beautiful thing.”
This really made me think. What if this is actually true? What if we all are actually bisexual, even if it is just a small portion of our sexuality? What if our culture is forcing people to be something they are not, just because it it says in some book written a thousand years ago that having sex with the same sex is morally wrong? (This is of course the same book that says that slavery is fine, people can't wear clothing made of two different fabrics, etc.) Regardless of whether or not this is actually true, I know that I was born bi/pansexual, that it isn't a choice, it isn't some weird phase, and for perhaps the first time in my life, I am proud to admit it, and I don't care what other people think of me.
Monday, February 13, 2012
2012 Grammy Awards
I guess I should preface this by seeing that I did not watch the Grammy's. All of this is based on various other sources surrounding the show, so if some of the facts are wrong, that would be why.
That being said, the main reason that I didn't watch it is because the Grammy's usually showcase what is wrong with music. The "music" that usually wins most major awards shows almost no musical talent. It is heavily synthesized sound that is paired with vocal tracks that are so auto-tuned that they cannot be performed live because the vocalist cannot mimic the original sound of the recording. This year saw a departure from that, though. For once, someone who actually has musical talent won the most awards. Although I admit, I am getting a bit tired of hearing Adele's "Rolling in the Deep," it is an amazing song. It makes me a bit sad that there are people that are getting angry because [insert hip-hop/R&B artist here] didn't beat her for awards. She is perhaps one of the best pure singer of recent times. Sure she doesn't fit the visual archetype of a pop singer (wafer thin and plastic) and she doesn't have the "performance art" that some other acts use, but this just lets her voice shine through.
What performances I did see cemented one thing in my mind: a truly great musician doesn't need to have some gimmick in order to enhance their performance. This could be seen with Adele; the Foo Fighters; and the closing ensemble of Paul McCartney, Bruce Springsteen, Dave Grohl, Joe Walsh, et al. They stopped on stage without any fancy costumes or huge performance enhancement techniques like stockades, a screen showing what I assume passes through the brain of someone on a mix of LSD and cocaine, or 30 backup dancers. Instead they did what music should actually be about. They played their instruments and sang live and let the music be the focus of their performance. Too many performers (Nicki Minaj, Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, et al) rely on some grand stage show and image in order to gain fans. In the past, acts like Marilyn Manson, Kiss, and Alice Cooper were criticized for this kind of behavior. Why is it now acceptable?
And please, for the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, don't call lip-synching to pre-recorded synthetic noise "live music." You aren't faking any intelligent people out by lip-synching. When your lips are moving and an auto-tuned voice is heard, we know what's actually going on. That goes for Adam Levine, too. I don't hate Maroon 5 necessarily, but Levine being a judge on The Voice and critiquing people for their live singing voice is a bit hypocritical after tonight. He was basically making out with the mic so we couldn't tell whether or not he was synced with his pre-recorded vocals. This just made it look like he never opened his mouth during the entire song.
Also, are the Grammy's trying to appeal to hipsters to get them to watch? Last year it was The Arcade Fire, and this year it's Bon Iver. The best part is that nobody wins when this happens, except for people who like true irony. Non-hipster viewers are mad because they have no idea who the artist is. Hipsters don't watch the Grammy's because they are too cool. The Grammy's lose viewers because the hipsters don't watch, and non-hipsters might stop watching. And the artists lose their audience because now that they are "mainstream," hipsters stop listening.
TL;DR: Fuck the Grammy's.
That being said, the main reason that I didn't watch it is because the Grammy's usually showcase what is wrong with music. The "music" that usually wins most major awards shows almost no musical talent. It is heavily synthesized sound that is paired with vocal tracks that are so auto-tuned that they cannot be performed live because the vocalist cannot mimic the original sound of the recording. This year saw a departure from that, though. For once, someone who actually has musical talent won the most awards. Although I admit, I am getting a bit tired of hearing Adele's "Rolling in the Deep," it is an amazing song. It makes me a bit sad that there are people that are getting angry because [insert hip-hop/R&B artist here] didn't beat her for awards. She is perhaps one of the best pure singer of recent times. Sure she doesn't fit the visual archetype of a pop singer (wafer thin and plastic) and she doesn't have the "performance art" that some other acts use, but this just lets her voice shine through.
What performances I did see cemented one thing in my mind: a truly great musician doesn't need to have some gimmick in order to enhance their performance. This could be seen with Adele; the Foo Fighters; and the closing ensemble of Paul McCartney, Bruce Springsteen, Dave Grohl, Joe Walsh, et al. They stopped on stage without any fancy costumes or huge performance enhancement techniques like stockades, a screen showing what I assume passes through the brain of someone on a mix of LSD and cocaine, or 30 backup dancers. Instead they did what music should actually be about. They played their instruments and sang live and let the music be the focus of their performance. Too many performers (Nicki Minaj, Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, et al) rely on some grand stage show and image in order to gain fans. In the past, acts like Marilyn Manson, Kiss, and Alice Cooper were criticized for this kind of behavior. Why is it now acceptable?
And please, for the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, don't call lip-synching to pre-recorded synthetic noise "live music." You aren't faking any intelligent people out by lip-synching. When your lips are moving and an auto-tuned voice is heard, we know what's actually going on. That goes for Adam Levine, too. I don't hate Maroon 5 necessarily, but Levine being a judge on The Voice and critiquing people for their live singing voice is a bit hypocritical after tonight. He was basically making out with the mic so we couldn't tell whether or not he was synced with his pre-recorded vocals. This just made it look like he never opened his mouth during the entire song.
Also, are the Grammy's trying to appeal to hipsters to get them to watch? Last year it was The Arcade Fire, and this year it's Bon Iver. The best part is that nobody wins when this happens, except for people who like true irony. Non-hipster viewers are mad because they have no idea who the artist is. Hipsters don't watch the Grammy's because they are too cool. The Grammy's lose viewers because the hipsters don't watch, and non-hipsters might stop watching. And the artists lose their audience because now that they are "mainstream," hipsters stop listening.
TL;DR: Fuck the Grammy's.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
IT'S SCIENCE!
As much as I hate to rant unprovoked against religion, I saw a fake Facebook status from Galileo that made me feel like doing so. For those who don't know, I used to identify as an Atheist, but as of late have begun to identify as a Naturalist. Naturalism is "The view that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws (Is Belief in God Good, Bad or Irrelevant?)." Basically, it is what some people may think atheism is, but defined in what their views are, rather than what they are not.
One of the things that people tell me should drive me to religion is "faith." They say that I should have faith in something that I have no evidence for. My thought is that if there were a higher power, wouldn't it be pleased more by somebody that has the mental prowess to think for himself, rather than blindly follow those in power? If I were a robotics engineer, I would feel more accomplished if I had created artificial intelligence more than if I had created a robot that follows a set program.
Also, there are people that argue against evolution because they say it is only a "theory." This argument shows me that they truly do not understand basic science. They think that the words "theory" and "hypothesis" can be used interchangeably. A hypothesis is a possible explanation for a phenomena that does not yet have empirical evidence to support it. On the other hand, a theory does have empirical evidence, and is widely accepted as truth. The difference between the way scientists think and the way outsiders believe scientists think is that scientists can never prove something. Scientists can only disprove things. Scientists can only offer up empirical evidence in order to support a theory. This is why evolution will always be called a theory.
Evolution is probably the scientific theory that divides this country the most, even though the evidence is staring us all in the face. We domesticated dogs from wolves thousands of years ago, we caused MRSA to evolve from Staphylococcus within the last century, I myself have seen small scale evolution in the lab, but yet as recent as 2009, 60% of Americans still do not believe in evolution. They point to gaps in the fossil record, but yet beg for all to have faith in an invisible man up in the sky. They point to all of the mistakes that have been made by scientists as a reason to doubt their work.
Today is a perfect idea to point out why that last argument holds no weight. Five years ago today, the IAU realized that they had made a mistake in the classification of Pluto as a planet, and changed their stance. They accepted that they had been wrong, and pointed out their mistake. Science is always correcting itself when new evidence comes to light. While some people use this as a way to discredit controversial theories, many realize that this actually gives them more credibility. Which is why I do give the Catholic Church some credibility when they came out 5 years ago and said that intelligent design is a fallacy. They at least showed some intelligence when they did that. Even if nobody that attends Catholic services heard about it. Religion has a history of killing all those that go against their beliefs: Pagans, Galileo, et al. So why should we believe that they are right over a group that will do the proper research when presented with an opposing opinion?
One of the things that people tell me should drive me to religion is "faith." They say that I should have faith in something that I have no evidence for. My thought is that if there were a higher power, wouldn't it be pleased more by somebody that has the mental prowess to think for himself, rather than blindly follow those in power? If I were a robotics engineer, I would feel more accomplished if I had created artificial intelligence more than if I had created a robot that follows a set program.
Also, there are people that argue against evolution because they say it is only a "theory." This argument shows me that they truly do not understand basic science. They think that the words "theory" and "hypothesis" can be used interchangeably. A hypothesis is a possible explanation for a phenomena that does not yet have empirical evidence to support it. On the other hand, a theory does have empirical evidence, and is widely accepted as truth. The difference between the way scientists think and the way outsiders believe scientists think is that scientists can never prove something. Scientists can only disprove things. Scientists can only offer up empirical evidence in order to support a theory. This is why evolution will always be called a theory.
Evolution is probably the scientific theory that divides this country the most, even though the evidence is staring us all in the face. We domesticated dogs from wolves thousands of years ago, we caused MRSA to evolve from Staphylococcus within the last century, I myself have seen small scale evolution in the lab, but yet as recent as 2009, 60% of Americans still do not believe in evolution. They point to gaps in the fossil record, but yet beg for all to have faith in an invisible man up in the sky. They point to all of the mistakes that have been made by scientists as a reason to doubt their work.
Today is a perfect idea to point out why that last argument holds no weight. Five years ago today, the IAU realized that they had made a mistake in the classification of Pluto as a planet, and changed their stance. They accepted that they had been wrong, and pointed out their mistake. Science is always correcting itself when new evidence comes to light. While some people use this as a way to discredit controversial theories, many realize that this actually gives them more credibility. Which is why I do give the Catholic Church some credibility when they came out 5 years ago and said that intelligent design is a fallacy. They at least showed some intelligence when they did that. Even if nobody that attends Catholic services heard about it. Religion has a history of killing all those that go against their beliefs: Pagans, Galileo, et al. So why should we believe that they are right over a group that will do the proper research when presented with an opposing opinion?
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Can you take a joke?
Americans are hypocrites. It has never been more obvious than right now. For those who have not heard, Tracy Morgan recently said at one of his shows that his son "better talk to me like a man and not in a gay voice or I'll pull out a knife and stab that little n**ger to death." While I agree that is a bad thing to say, he is a professional comedian! His job is to say ridiculous things in order to be funny. Nobody knows if the Tracy Morgan that we see on stage is even his own personality. He is so outrageous, that I wouldn't be surprised if it is just a character. He could be the same as Larry the Cable Guy, who is a caricature of people from the South and Midwest. It's no different than the offensive things that "Stephen Colbert" says 4 nights a week on national television. There are a few major problems in this story. The first is that there is no tape of this show, and there are many reports that he is misquoted out of context. How do we know exactly what he said? A single person is the one reporting this. The CNN story even says that he "reportedly" said these things because there is no proof. Although we can probably figure it out, as I have heard that he has said almost the exact same joke before on his HBO special. Why didn't anybody have a problem with it then?
Also, why is he being the one singled out for what he said? What about Jo Koy? A man in the audience at his show, only a week after the Tracy Morgan incident, pointed out that his zipper was down, to which he responded "Why are you looking, faggot?" When word got out, he was immediately fired from the Chelsea Handler TV show that is in development. How many people know about that story though? How many people still remember/care about what Kobe Bryant said? Nobody in the media called for him to be fired, even though that is much worse than what either of the other two said. Tracy Morgan and Jo Koy made their remarks in a stand-up comedy show, where they are expected to be offensive, and knew that more than one person was watching. Kobe Bryant said it to demean a person, and thought nobody would see. I think that is much worse and uncalled for. Especially when you look at all three of their apologies. While Koy and Morgan apologized almost immediately, Bryant refused to give an apology, which shows that he found nothing wrong with what he said.
By now you may be wondering what all of this has to do with American hypocrisy. While people were up in arms over Koy's and Morgan's comments, New York Democrats were struggling to pass a bill to legalize same sex marriage. In a country where we have to struggle to give equal rights to people of all sexual orientations, why are we surprised that comedians make "homophobic" jokes? Conservative politicians are much more homophobic than those two. I am fairly certain that Tracy Morgan would not actually stab his son if he was gay. However, if one of Sarah Palin's children was gay, she would instantly disown them, and there would be no chance of her being president. As a bisexual, I am much more offended by the people that say that homosexuality is morally wrong, than I am by Koy's and Morgan's jokes.
So until all members of the LGBTQ community get the same rights as heterosexuals, Americans can't be surprised and enraged by things that comedians say, because they merely are pointing out how terrible it is to not give them these rights.
Also, why is he being the one singled out for what he said? What about Jo Koy? A man in the audience at his show, only a week after the Tracy Morgan incident, pointed out that his zipper was down, to which he responded "Why are you looking, faggot?" When word got out, he was immediately fired from the Chelsea Handler TV show that is in development. How many people know about that story though? How many people still remember/care about what Kobe Bryant said? Nobody in the media called for him to be fired, even though that is much worse than what either of the other two said. Tracy Morgan and Jo Koy made their remarks in a stand-up comedy show, where they are expected to be offensive, and knew that more than one person was watching. Kobe Bryant said it to demean a person, and thought nobody would see. I think that is much worse and uncalled for. Especially when you look at all three of their apologies. While Koy and Morgan apologized almost immediately, Bryant refused to give an apology, which shows that he found nothing wrong with what he said.
By now you may be wondering what all of this has to do with American hypocrisy. While people were up in arms over Koy's and Morgan's comments, New York Democrats were struggling to pass a bill to legalize same sex marriage. In a country where we have to struggle to give equal rights to people of all sexual orientations, why are we surprised that comedians make "homophobic" jokes? Conservative politicians are much more homophobic than those two. I am fairly certain that Tracy Morgan would not actually stab his son if he was gay. However, if one of Sarah Palin's children was gay, she would instantly disown them, and there would be no chance of her being president. As a bisexual, I am much more offended by the people that say that homosexuality is morally wrong, than I am by Koy's and Morgan's jokes.
So until all members of the LGBTQ community get the same rights as heterosexuals, Americans can't be surprised and enraged by things that comedians say, because they merely are pointing out how terrible it is to not give them these rights.
Friday, May 13, 2011
TSA Baby
Not sure who all saw this story, but this week there was outrage as a TSA agent searched a baby's diaper in Kansas City. The reason given was that the baby's stroller tested positive for an explosive substance. So why is there a problem? Sure, the TSA can cross the line at times, but this was not one of those instances. I would be more outraged if they hadn't checked to be safe. It was almost a year and a half ago that the "underwear bomber" incident happened. It is obviously plausible that terrorists would stoop that low to accomplish their goal. We can't just say that there is no way that a baby could have explosives in their diaper. Imagine the outrage if someone had brought explosives on a plane in a baby's diaper. For once we actually may have prevented a new type of attack. We are one step ahead of terrorists now, for the first time that I can remember.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Osama
Hot off the presses! Osama Bin Laden is dead!
We killed an innocent man. That's right, innocent. "Innocent until proven guilty" has been the basis of our government since its inception. So, technically, by that, Osama was an innocent man. We sought out and killed him. We did not try to detain him. The intent was to kill him. Does that not make us as bad as him? Had we tried to capture him, he tried to shoot at our soldiers, and then they killed him, then there would have been no problem as it would have been considered self defense. This is no different than police going in and killing a mass murder unprovoked. Hell, we even gave Saddam Hussein a trial!
The description of what happens just doesn't seem right. There was a firefight, but no Americans were hurt. Who are we fighting, Storm Troopers? How do guys who are protecting the most wanted man in the world such terrible shots?
Just heard someone on CNN saying that this ends the war on terror. So either one of two things needs to happen: either we pull out every single troop out of every other country, or he needs to shut the hell up. Al-Qaeda is not the only terrorist organization in the world. And even if they were, Hitler's death didn't get rid of every Nazi in the world did it? We are probably at more risk now than ever.
The true winners in all this: the Westboro Baptist Church. Americans have become enraged with them protesting funerals of soldiers. The reason they protest is because they believe that these soldiers are rebels in God's eyes. Now, we as a nation are celebrating the death of a rebel. How are we any better than them?
We killed an innocent man. That's right, innocent. "Innocent until proven guilty" has been the basis of our government since its inception. So, technically, by that, Osama was an innocent man. We sought out and killed him. We did not try to detain him. The intent was to kill him. Does that not make us as bad as him? Had we tried to capture him, he tried to shoot at our soldiers, and then they killed him, then there would have been no problem as it would have been considered self defense. This is no different than police going in and killing a mass murder unprovoked. Hell, we even gave Saddam Hussein a trial!
The description of what happens just doesn't seem right. There was a firefight, but no Americans were hurt. Who are we fighting, Storm Troopers? How do guys who are protecting the most wanted man in the world such terrible shots?
Just heard someone on CNN saying that this ends the war on terror. So either one of two things needs to happen: either we pull out every single troop out of every other country, or he needs to shut the hell up. Al-Qaeda is not the only terrorist organization in the world. And even if they were, Hitler's death didn't get rid of every Nazi in the world did it? We are probably at more risk now than ever.
The true winners in all this: the Westboro Baptist Church. Americans have become enraged with them protesting funerals of soldiers. The reason they protest is because they believe that these soldiers are rebels in God's eyes. Now, we as a nation are celebrating the death of a rebel. How are we any better than them?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)