They hate us for our freedom

I've heard a great many absurd yarns and conspiracy theories from "truthers" in the decade since the terrible tragedy that was 9/11. Such explanations for the event aren’t surprising. It did, after all, appear to have happened out of the blue.

Random. Unexpected. Inexplicable.

But while the dust was still settling at the site of what used to be the World Trade Center, a nearly instantaneous explanation arose. A general consensus, held by the commander in chief, the mass media, your grandparents, perhaps even you.

"They hate us for our freedom".

The rallying cry that caused a new wave of recruits to join the U.S. armed forces. A phrase which served to steel the resolve of policy makers and voters alike to “make the hard choices” of overriding constitutional principles in favor of protective measures. To ramrod new legislation like the PATRIOT Act through the process of being signed into law. To re-think our stance on due process and indefinite detention, when and if it might save american lives.

We wanted to be safe, for the nightmare to be over.

But this is not a nightmare that began in 2001. The prelude to this dream begins in 1951 with the democratically elected prime minister of Iran, Mohammed Mossadegh. While Mossadegh pursued social reform policy that would find general support in modern western civilization (unemployment compensation, mandatory employment benefits, and wealth redistribution into community projects), he made the ultimately fatal mistake of denying the British state control over Iran’s oil production.

What followed was a plot to depose Mossadegh, drafted and carried out by both the British and American governments in 1953 (Operation Boot and Project TP-AJAX, respectively). Iran was again placed under the dictatorial rule of the shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who continued his reign (with the help money and arms from the American government) for more than 25 years when he was finally exiled during the Iranian Revolution of 1979 and eventually replaced by Ayatollah Khomeini.

25 years of brutality and corruption. Years that many Iranians would neither forgive nor forget.
In 1954 the CIA released a classified report [1] concerning the Iranian coup d'état which stated that “Possibilities of blowback against the United States should always be in the back of the minds of all CIA officers involved in this type of operation. Few, if any, operations are as explosive as this type.”

“Blowback”, often misinterpreted to simply mean “consequences”, is a term that describes the perception of victims when experiencing the unintended consequences of covert foreign operations. A complete lack of context as to why a particular event has happened leads to unavoidably erroneous conclusions.

9/11 was blowback. “They hate us for our freedom”, the erroneous conclusion.

I suppose that’s my long-winded way of saying that I can’t really blame “truthers” for many of their suspicions and conclusions. In many ways, 9/11 WAS an inside job and a massive cover-up. And it was undoubtedly an event our own government had a hand in causing.

If we truly wish to honor the victims of 9/11, I believe we should attempt to understand why they died, who was responsible, and how we can prevent such a terrible history from repeating itself.

There’s always a chance that I’m misguided, brain-washed, and much of what I’ve said here is false. Maybe the unholy alliance of western powers was, and is, justified in playing God in the middle-east. Perhaps we really are embroiled in a war primarily driven by religion and ideology, suffering attacks from those who find freedom too repulsive to allow its existence.

If that is the case and the flame of our foreign enemies’ hatred burns only to destroy and eradicate freedom, our freedom, then fear not: there’s only a little fuel left.

[1] http://altbib.com/bak/dox/3681.html Declassified CIA Document (CLANDESTINE SERVICE HISTORY - OVERTHROW OF PREMIER MOSSADEQ OF IRAN - November 1952-August 195)

"This stop is over" or, why public "servants" aren't.

Perhaps my experiences are colored by my voluntaryist worldview but every day I see myriad examples of spontaneous order and mutual interaction all around me. It amazes me that people can stand in line at the grocery store, at the gas pump, or even drive on the highway at breakneck speed surrounded by other motorists and never recognize the relatively spontaneous order.

I was at the YMCA today with my wife and daughter and as I headed for the pool an employee there said, “we ask that you don’t chew gum while using the pool”. My cheerful (I was quite looking forward to the swim) response was “no problem”. I was, as it turned out, breaking a rule I had no idea even existed. Now it may have been included in the wall of small print I signed my name to when I joined the “Y”, though I doubt it, but regardless it was a reasonable request which I was happy to comply with.

Now allow me to contrast this experience with that I had on the fourth with a public “servant”. I had offered to drive a friend’s car home (we were headed there anyways) because the vehicle lacked a working air conditioner and, mine being the less fair sex, chivalry dictated my transit be the sweatier of the two.

As it turned out, my friend’s vehicle was not in compliance with a law that requires most vehicles to display a front license plate (a law which numerous vehicles have no easy way of complying with due to the lack of a front mounting surface). As luck would have it, a police officer caught the scent of my (unknowing) failure to comply with said law and pulled me over. As a general rule I wear my seatbelt and, out of interest for their well-being, suggest others should do likewise. It affords a modicum of safety to the generally dangerous activity of driving and is typically of little inconvenience. On this particular occasion, however, I was altogether too hot to be forced into the usual back-to-seat position and, since I was going a short distance at a slow speed, decided not to fasten my seatbelt (a situation I quickly remedied when I saw the officer).

As I passed him I noted two things: first, he was waiting to turn in an area where you cannot legally stop (as a bonus, half of his vehicle was also in traffic, forcing cars to dip into the next lane to get past him) and, secondly, he did not properly signal when he decided to get back into traffic.

To make a long story short, the officer “let me off” of the license plate charge (which is why he pulled me over) but cited me for not wearing my seat belt (which I was wearing even before he pulled me over). After he handed me the ticket book to sign (only to indicate receipt and not guilt, as I made certain), I asked him if he would mind answering a couple of questions. He said that would be fine. I then informed him that I would be videotaping the exchange with my cell phone.

His demeanor changed.

“Why do you need to film me and what are your questions?”, he said with the hint of a snarl. “The questions are short and simple and the video is for your protection as well as mine”, I replied.

“This stop is over”, he said as he quickly retreated to his patrol car.

If you ever begin to put stock in the “they work for us” twaddle bandied about by Average Joe Citizen, remember these three simple words: No. They. Don’t.

Did the officer have a right to walk away from me when I asked to question him? Of course. Every individual has the right of self determination. But WHY did he walk away (and at such a hurried pace to boot)? The answer, of course, is that our exchange was far from voluntary and mutual. At no time did I threaten him with force or use any other method of coercion. On the reverse however, had I decided to simply drive away when he wanted to question me, he would have given chase, pursued me till I had no other choice but to stop, perhaps even used physical means to subdue me.

All this because I decided that, in this particular scenario, not wearing a seatbelt was the most sensible choice.

Allow me to share with you the questions I would have asked the officer, had he turned out to be a “public servant” or perhaps anything other than a coward.

First, since the only legitimate role of law is to protect the inalienable rights of individuals, in what way was I infringing on said rights by not wearing my seatbelt?

Secondly, by what authority do you detain and serve me with a penalty for not wearing said seatbelt?

I can imagine he would have pointed to the law as his source of authority. But where does the law get its authority? Perhaps “government” would have been his response. And from where does the government gain authority to draft such laws? Why the people, of course. So then my ultimate question: which person, specifically, individually has the authority to force me under penalty of fine and/or arrest to wear a seatbelt?

As I make no claims as a wizard or seer I can only guess what his response would be. However, it would not surprise me in the least if my hypothetical conversation were to end in a way which coincided with that of reality:

“This stop is over.”

Kelly Thomas must be ignored

"Get your tissues ready, it's going to be brutal for you."

These are the words of a grieving father describing a newly released video of his son being brutally murdered. A video which records his son’s last intelligible words, crying for his father to save him. A video which clearly shows at least seven cops directly responsible for the murder of a mentally disabled, unstable, homeless man.

“Dad, they're killing me. Dad...dad!”

What caused this deadly confrontation? Surely this unstable man must have posed an imminent threat to some poor, frightened individual. Perhaps he was holding a defenseless old woman hostage, knife pressed to her throat poised to extract her life, an evil grin played upon his lips and a deranged gleam in his eye.

Nothing so conscience salving. Rather, it was a hesitation by Kelly Thomas to comply with an order to put his legs forward and his hands on his knees that led to his premature demise. Whether because he was unwilling to obey or confused by this order is unclear. However, the motivation and character of Officer Manuel Ramos in response to this “grave offense” leaves little to the imagination.

“See my fists? They’re getting ready to f*** you up if you don’t start f***ing listening to me”

What followed was a series of escalated abuse. As each new uniform arrived to the scene, the danger to Kelly Thomas increased while his chances of survival declined. Eventually enough brave soldiers in blue had appeared to share in the festivities and Kelly’s fate was sealed.

Critical mass. The event horizon. No going back.

Here’s an example of one of many disgusting post-assault conversations:

Cop 1: “You alright dude? Cut yourself? Is that you or him?”

Cop 2: “Probably him. We ran out of options so I got the end of my taser...and smashed his face to he**.”

At this point most of us rational, moral human beings are asking ourselves if perhaps all of this could have been avoided. Maybe if Kelly had simply complied, we think, maybe then he might have survived. Maybe if he hadn’t been so mentally challenged or defiant. Maybe then.

And as reality sinks in we realize, If this could happen to Kelly Thomas, perhaps it could happen to me. And if I should be so unfortunate, what can I do to avoid Kelly’s fate?

Relax. That was the solution prescribed by one of the cops involved.

Whatever you do, don't flinch from the blows. That’s resisting.

Don’t involuntarily spasm from the 50,000 volts of electricity coursing through your body. That's resisting.

Be certain not to inadvertently make contact with a taser, gun or baton with your head amidst the chaos of being brutally assaulted. That’s resisting too.

Or, better yet, you could crack this all up to a statistical anomaly.

Go back to your perceived reality of peaceful streets patrolled by hosts of Andy Taylors.

Willingly comply with any and all requests, demands and assaults upon your person and rationalize them as being necessary for the safety of us all.

Give in to the sweet comfort of knowing that, no matter how much danger you may face, there is a uniformed public servant, alert and waiting nearby to save you.

Be complicit as agents of coercion attempt to form the authoritarian society of tomorrow, without conscience, without qualm, and without incident.

But above all, ignore Kelly Thomas and all those like him, for they dare to say, “No. Not without incident”.

The Trolley Problem

An engineer is piloting a runaway trolley which he can only steer from one narrow track on to another; five men are working on one track and one man on the other; anyone on the track he enters is bound to be killed. Since he cannot stop the trolley, he must either choose to steer to the track with five men on it or the track with one.

In another scenario, a judge is faced with a mob which demands that the perpetrator a certain crime be found and executed. If their demands aren't met within twenty-four hours, they threaten to execute five hostages. The real culprit being unknown, the judge has an opportunity to prevent the murder of the five by framing an innocent person and having him executed. 

What is the correct course of action in each scenario and why?

In which the blog is rebooted

I haven't touched this blog in about five years but I've decided to start over and use it as a place to log my thoughts that will be a bit more concrete than facebook's frenetic, update-a-second format.

Writing on a blog feels a bit like travelling to the past but I'm very much looking forward to sharing some of the thoughts that my mind is currently brimming with. I'm hoping that at least a few people may be interested enough to read and comment. Not because I care to have an audience, but because dissent is incredibly important.

dis·sent

verb (used without object)

1.

to differ in sentiment or opinion, especially from the majority;
withhold assent; disagree;

On that note: here's to challenging thoughts (especially my own) and discovering truth!