Prompt: Who Are You?
My name is Jacob Morrison though everyone that knows me calls me Jake. I’m a 3rd generation active duty military member and I’ve been traveling my whole life. I was born in England, about 20 miles north of London. I don’t remember much because we moved when I was four. We lived in Holland for the next 13 years and my parents say I lost my British accent when I started 8th grade. I don’t really remember ever having one. I’ve seen some of my childhood videos though and it’s weird hearing myself talk.
We moved to Texas when I turned 18 and I was excited to see the U.S. My dad was only there for a short while though before he got reassigned back to the Netherlands. I had already met my wife-to-be in high school there and elected not to return with my family. So, I discovered at an early age just how hard it is to pay rent, hold down a full time job, and try to go to college.
At age 19 I was getting a little burned out of the long days, little pay, and brutal course load. I decided it was time for a change and decided to join the Air Force. The military had always been good to my family and my girlfriend and I wanted to get married. So, in December of 2000 I signed 6 years of my life away and took the oath. I was hoping to receive an assignment in the U.S. but instead was shipped off to Okinawa, Japan 6 months later.
I was there for almost a year before I saved up enough money to come back and get married. We had a terrific wedding. We got married in an old train station in down-town San Antonio and had a lot of friends and family. The food was good, the ceremony was perfect, and two weeks later I had my wife with me in Japan.
We’ve had a blast being married these last 5 years. We’ve traveled all over Europe and done some pretty amazing things. My experience with the Air Force has been good as well. It’s been demanding but rewarding. I’ve worked some long brutal days, but I’ve gained some skills I didn’t possess before. I’ve gotten to travel to so many countries I’ve lost count. I can tell you Australia is beautiful, India is not, and Malaysia is one of the most advanced countries in the pacific theatre. The military asks a lot but it gives you a lot back in return.
I’m one of those people that have too many hobbies and too many interests. I’m almost dive-master certified, I love riding my motorcycle, I play several instruments, and I love computers. I’m decent at a lot of things, but don’t really have a specialty. Sometimes I feel like I should just pick something and learn to excel at that one thing. Instead of being decent at guitar, piano, and drums, maybe I should just drop piano and drums and focus at being really good on guitar. Maybe I just enjoy being a ‘master of none’.
Overall, I’m pretty happy with my life. My wife and I work, make a decent living, and we don’t have any kids. We just moved into our first house and it’s been an extremely stressful experience. There’s so much to do! We’re really happy though and as soon as the moving is over with and we get un-packed I’m sure things will settle down.
Looking towards the future I’ve got some changes coming down the pike. We like this area and we’ve decided we’d like to stay a little longer than the Air Force would like us to. My wife is getting a little tired of me spending 120+ days in the desert and so am I. So, we’ve decided next year will be my last year with the Air Force. I’ve enrolled at Macon State College and my goal now is to focus on school. My passion is computing and it’s one of things that I’ve bothered to master. All I need now is the diploma proving that I’ve got what it takes to land a job in the civilian sector. It’s a pretty major change that we’ve decided on. It’s a little scary and exciting. I don’t know for sure where I’ll be in the next five years but I’m looking forward to the journey.
04 December 2007
27 November 2007
Gator Huntin' Love
Prompt: The Alligator River Story
Sinbad gets a bright, blinking, neon number 5. He loses all respect by taking advantage of a bad situation for his own ill-gotten pleasure. It’s pretty clear that Sinbad isn’t on top of the morale ladder. It takes a special kind of evil to do what he did.
Abigail gets a giant, bold, italicized, and underlined number 4. What a completely despicable character. First off, why doesn’t she have time to drive 50 miles? That’s less than an hour away. Give me a break! If she’s truly in love with Gregory, I’m sure she can juggle her schedule a little before she goes out and sleeps with another guy. Second, the bridge is only going to be out for a few weeks!! The passage says several, so that could be 3 or more. Even if it’s out for 16 weeks, that’s not an unbearable amount of time to be away from the person you truly love. If anything, absence makes the heart grow fonder. Instead of going out and sleeping with a guy she doesn’t even know, maybe she could write a few letters. Third, Abigail completely fails to explore any other alternatives. Is there only one river boat captain? I doubt it. Maybe she should have tried asking a less devious individual to take her across the river. If she truly wanted to stay faithful, she could have gone and got a shotgun and done a little alligator hunting. Maybe she might have called Gregory and asked if he would come and visit her instead. Anything would have been better than the route she chose.
Slug receives a 3. It’s hard to respect a guy who gets involved in business that isn’t really his. Who was he to go out and beat Gregory? It’s just my opinion, but it sounds like he should have probably gone and beaten Sinbad instead.
Ivan gets a 2. You can’t really blame the guy for not wanting to get involved, but at the same time, washing his hands kind of shows what kind of friend he is. Friends turn to friends in their time of need and Ivan should have stepped up.
Gregory is left with the 1. I probably would have given him a two if I could assign the same number, but Ivan is worse in my opinion. Gregory probably shouldn’t have tossed Abigail aside in distain. He could have justifiably broken up with her and explained his reasons, which might have been a better approach. In this segment though, Gregory seems to be more of the victim than anything else. I didn’t really lose any respect for him except that it would have been a lot better if he had won the fight against Slug.
Sinbad gets a bright, blinking, neon number 5. He loses all respect by taking advantage of a bad situation for his own ill-gotten pleasure. It’s pretty clear that Sinbad isn’t on top of the morale ladder. It takes a special kind of evil to do what he did.
Abigail gets a giant, bold, italicized, and underlined number 4. What a completely despicable character. First off, why doesn’t she have time to drive 50 miles? That’s less than an hour away. Give me a break! If she’s truly in love with Gregory, I’m sure she can juggle her schedule a little before she goes out and sleeps with another guy. Second, the bridge is only going to be out for a few weeks!! The passage says several, so that could be 3 or more. Even if it’s out for 16 weeks, that’s not an unbearable amount of time to be away from the person you truly love. If anything, absence makes the heart grow fonder. Instead of going out and sleeping with a guy she doesn’t even know, maybe she could write a few letters. Third, Abigail completely fails to explore any other alternatives. Is there only one river boat captain? I doubt it. Maybe she should have tried asking a less devious individual to take her across the river. If she truly wanted to stay faithful, she could have gone and got a shotgun and done a little alligator hunting. Maybe she might have called Gregory and asked if he would come and visit her instead. Anything would have been better than the route she chose.
Slug receives a 3. It’s hard to respect a guy who gets involved in business that isn’t really his. Who was he to go out and beat Gregory? It’s just my opinion, but it sounds like he should have probably gone and beaten Sinbad instead.
Ivan gets a 2. You can’t really blame the guy for not wanting to get involved, but at the same time, washing his hands kind of shows what kind of friend he is. Friends turn to friends in their time of need and Ivan should have stepped up.
Gregory is left with the 1. I probably would have given him a two if I could assign the same number, but Ivan is worse in my opinion. Gregory probably shouldn’t have tossed Abigail aside in distain. He could have justifiably broken up with her and explained his reasons, which might have been a better approach. In this segment though, Gregory seems to be more of the victim than anything else. I didn’t really lose any respect for him except that it would have been a lot better if he had won the fight against Slug.
07 November 2007
Not Exactly Assumptions
Prompt: Metahysical Assumptions
In grade school, kids are taught about the ancient Greeks and myriad of gods that they worshipped. Today we have science to explain away the Greek myths, but the stories are the perfect way of getting kids interested in and learning about the ancient Greek culture. It’s hard for many of those kids to believe that people actually lived by those stories.
Today, the majority of Americans are Christians. There are many different denominations, but most believe in the same basic story. God sent his only Son to earth to die for our sins. He was crucified and died, was buried, and after three days rose from the dead. As a result, if we repent our sins and live by certain standards, we go to Heaven when we die. If we reject Christ and live a sinful life, we go to Hell. Try explaining that to a kid from another culture and it would probably be as unbelievable as Zeus and co.
But Americans today believe that living a "good" life they will be rewarded by going to Heaven, and they define their lives around this. To some this means church every Sunday, reading the bible everyday, and praying at every meal. To others, it means just being a good person. I am one of the latter. I believe in God, Jesus, Heaven, and Hell, but I think that the rules of most Christian denominations were made up by men who had their own idea how people should live their lives.
There are still questions that haven’t been answered by science. Where do we go when we die? Why do bad things happen to good people? How was the world created? This is where religion comes in and shapes our lives. I don’t live my life in fear that I will one day go to Hell, but with the hope that there is something better than this world. When times are tough, it is calming to believe that there is a reason behind all that happens, that people do not die and suffer randomly or purposelessly. And although the big bang theory is widely accepted, it is hard for me to watch the sun set and not think that there is a greater power responsible.
So those are the kinds of things I use to define what I believe to be the nature of the world so that I may develop a pattern of behavior which is the logical and practical consequence of my beliefs. A more human way of phrasing that would be, "What do you tell yourself in order to get out of bed in the morning?"
In grade school, kids are taught about the ancient Greeks and myriad of gods that they worshipped. Today we have science to explain away the Greek myths, but the stories are the perfect way of getting kids interested in and learning about the ancient Greek culture. It’s hard for many of those kids to believe that people actually lived by those stories.
Today, the majority of Americans are Christians. There are many different denominations, but most believe in the same basic story. God sent his only Son to earth to die for our sins. He was crucified and died, was buried, and after three days rose from the dead. As a result, if we repent our sins and live by certain standards, we go to Heaven when we die. If we reject Christ and live a sinful life, we go to Hell. Try explaining that to a kid from another culture and it would probably be as unbelievable as Zeus and co.
But Americans today believe that living a "good" life they will be rewarded by going to Heaven, and they define their lives around this. To some this means church every Sunday, reading the bible everyday, and praying at every meal. To others, it means just being a good person. I am one of the latter. I believe in God, Jesus, Heaven, and Hell, but I think that the rules of most Christian denominations were made up by men who had their own idea how people should live their lives.
There are still questions that haven’t been answered by science. Where do we go when we die? Why do bad things happen to good people? How was the world created? This is where religion comes in and shapes our lives. I don’t live my life in fear that I will one day go to Hell, but with the hope that there is something better than this world. When times are tough, it is calming to believe that there is a reason behind all that happens, that people do not die and suffer randomly or purposelessly. And although the big bang theory is widely accepted, it is hard for me to watch the sun set and not think that there is a greater power responsible.
So those are the kinds of things I use to define what I believe to be the nature of the world so that I may develop a pattern of behavior which is the logical and practical consequence of my beliefs. A more human way of phrasing that would be, "What do you tell yourself in order to get out of bed in the morning?"
Not From What I've Seen
Prompt: America as Empire?
Mailer believes that we went to Iraq to further increase our military presence in the Middle East with the hopes of one day taking over the rest of the world. I’ve found little evidence in my own life to support that theory. I think his argument is weak at best. We as Americans may have some confusion and doubts about why we are in Iraq, but from what I’ve seen in my life, it’s not because we’re out to conquer the world.
One thing Mailer fails to realize is that we already had a large military presence in the Middle East. We have bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, Qatar, and Israel. These bases were obtained diplomatically with no loss of life, and are easy to resupply, defend, and maintain. I’ve visited several of these base locations and they essentially give us complete control over the region should we ever need to utilize military force. In my time spent in Iraqi bases I can tell you that they are a nightmare to resupply, difficult to defend, and a burden to maintain. In terms of overall region control, invading Iraq has garnered us very little. We already had a secure foothold in that part of the world. Despite what Mailer might believe, from what I’ve seen, Iraq isn’t the magic stepping stone to leap forward and take over the world.
Another curious thing I’ve noticed is that, for the most part, only Americans seem overly concerned that we’re out to take over the world. I’ve had opportunities to meet and speak with people from countries all over the world. As a member of the Armed Forces, the war in Iraq is always a topic of conversation. The impression I get from most Middle Eastern men I’ve spoken with is that they’re glad something is being done in Iraq. >From Saudi Arabia, to Qatar, nobody is concerned about their country being next. Nobody has ever even mentioned the word empire. Lets not forget that I’ve worked alongside a myriad of ally countries. British, Australian, Singapore, Japanese, Dutch, and Estonians to name a few. They’re all in Iraq too. Are they out to take over the world as well? Are their leaders as much of a warmonger as Bush? I don’t think so. None of those people I met thought we were there to take over the world.
We’re not in Iraq with the hope of conquering the world. One thing I’ve heard time and time again from almost every American I know is that we all want to come home. America is only going to conquer the world if we want to conqueror the world. Every single person I’ve ever talked to wishes America would just mind its own business and cut down on foreign involvement.
Blame Bush, blame oil, blame bad intelligence, but we’re not going to expand our empire until that’s what the majority of Americans want to do.
Mailer believes that we went to Iraq to further increase our military presence in the Middle East with the hopes of one day taking over the rest of the world. I’ve found little evidence in my own life to support that theory. I think his argument is weak at best. We as Americans may have some confusion and doubts about why we are in Iraq, but from what I’ve seen in my life, it’s not because we’re out to conquer the world.
One thing Mailer fails to realize is that we already had a large military presence in the Middle East. We have bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, Qatar, and Israel. These bases were obtained diplomatically with no loss of life, and are easy to resupply, defend, and maintain. I’ve visited several of these base locations and they essentially give us complete control over the region should we ever need to utilize military force. In my time spent in Iraqi bases I can tell you that they are a nightmare to resupply, difficult to defend, and a burden to maintain. In terms of overall region control, invading Iraq has garnered us very little. We already had a secure foothold in that part of the world. Despite what Mailer might believe, from what I’ve seen, Iraq isn’t the magic stepping stone to leap forward and take over the world.
Another curious thing I’ve noticed is that, for the most part, only Americans seem overly concerned that we’re out to take over the world. I’ve had opportunities to meet and speak with people from countries all over the world. As a member of the Armed Forces, the war in Iraq is always a topic of conversation. The impression I get from most Middle Eastern men I’ve spoken with is that they’re glad something is being done in Iraq. >From Saudi Arabia, to Qatar, nobody is concerned about their country being next. Nobody has ever even mentioned the word empire. Lets not forget that I’ve worked alongside a myriad of ally countries. British, Australian, Singapore, Japanese, Dutch, and Estonians to name a few. They’re all in Iraq too. Are they out to take over the world as well? Are their leaders as much of a warmonger as Bush? I don’t think so. None of those people I met thought we were there to take over the world.
We’re not in Iraq with the hope of conquering the world. One thing I’ve heard time and time again from almost every American I know is that we all want to come home. America is only going to conquer the world if we want to conqueror the world. Every single person I’ve ever talked to wishes America would just mind its own business and cut down on foreign involvement.
Blame Bush, blame oil, blame bad intelligence, but we’re not going to expand our empire until that’s what the majority of Americans want to do.
05 November 2007
Live Free But Die Hard
Prompt: Why Are We at War Blog
In his book, Why Are We at War? Mailer touches on America’s recent increase in security at the cost of freedom. Mailer believes that some of the security measures implemented in our country have curtailed American freedoms. He blames homeland security for putting the machinery in place. He goes on to say that Americans need to be able to take some terrorist hits without panicking, because freedom is more important than security.
I don’t believe there is an acceptable level of terror. America can’t sit back after hundreds of Americans are killed and do nothing. If we have unlimited freedom and privacy, but suffer numerous attacks without response, I fail to see how that is more free. I can’t imagine how most of us would have felt if America had done nothing after 9/11. Try to imagine Bush coming on the TV explaining that this was something we were going to have to put behind us because increasing security would curtail our freedom. How would New Yorkers feel about that?
People want their cake, and they want to eat it too. They want the government to ensure their protection, but not interfere with their lives. Everyone wants airplanes to be safe, but no one wants to stand in lines at security checkpoints. Americans want the government to track down terrorists in America, but get mad when the government listens to phone calls to try and do just that.
Mailer is correct in that security should not curtail our freedoms, but he’s wrong about just accepting terror for the sake of freedom. That’s too extreme of a response. A middle ground needs to be reached. After 9/11 I think security and freedom have been going through some growing pains. We had a drastic need for increased security, and for a while, it seems as though it was stepping on freedom’s toes. I believe a momentary lapse in freedom is acceptable if it’s for the greater good though.
If the government listens to a personal call with your friend, that is an invasion of your privacy. If later that same night though they intercept a call plotting to blow up a city, and prevent it as a result, was that invasion of privacy worth it? I believe so, assuming that the government ignores the information on your personal call. Therein lies the problem. Who regulates the government? Many people are concerned about this increased government involvement in their lives. Today the government is listening to our calls, tomorrow, they’ll want to come into our homes and look around!
So, again, we need to find a middle ground. I don’t know what that is. I’m not sure anyone does. But we can’t just toss aside security as Mailer would have us do. After all, how much liberty and freedom do you have when you’re dead?
In his book, Why Are We at War? Mailer touches on America’s recent increase in security at the cost of freedom. Mailer believes that some of the security measures implemented in our country have curtailed American freedoms. He blames homeland security for putting the machinery in place. He goes on to say that Americans need to be able to take some terrorist hits without panicking, because freedom is more important than security.
I don’t believe there is an acceptable level of terror. America can’t sit back after hundreds of Americans are killed and do nothing. If we have unlimited freedom and privacy, but suffer numerous attacks without response, I fail to see how that is more free. I can’t imagine how most of us would have felt if America had done nothing after 9/11. Try to imagine Bush coming on the TV explaining that this was something we were going to have to put behind us because increasing security would curtail our freedom. How would New Yorkers feel about that?
People want their cake, and they want to eat it too. They want the government to ensure their protection, but not interfere with their lives. Everyone wants airplanes to be safe, but no one wants to stand in lines at security checkpoints. Americans want the government to track down terrorists in America, but get mad when the government listens to phone calls to try and do just that.
Mailer is correct in that security should not curtail our freedoms, but he’s wrong about just accepting terror for the sake of freedom. That’s too extreme of a response. A middle ground needs to be reached. After 9/11 I think security and freedom have been going through some growing pains. We had a drastic need for increased security, and for a while, it seems as though it was stepping on freedom’s toes. I believe a momentary lapse in freedom is acceptable if it’s for the greater good though.
If the government listens to a personal call with your friend, that is an invasion of your privacy. If later that same night though they intercept a call plotting to blow up a city, and prevent it as a result, was that invasion of privacy worth it? I believe so, assuming that the government ignores the information on your personal call. Therein lies the problem. Who regulates the government? Many people are concerned about this increased government involvement in their lives. Today the government is listening to our calls, tomorrow, they’ll want to come into our homes and look around!
So, again, we need to find a middle ground. I don’t know what that is. I’m not sure anyone does. But we can’t just toss aside security as Mailer would have us do. After all, how much liberty and freedom do you have when you’re dead?
22 September 2007
Conundrum
Prompt: Human Rights v. Majority Rule
There is no easy answer to the Human Rights vs Majority will issue. It’s also a fiercely debated topic on how to handle gays becoming more open in the American public. If there were answers to these issues, they wouldn’t be issues. I for one, am not a political science major, and, at best, am ill-equipped to address such broad and impacting issues. That said, here’s my humble opinion:
Do the majority of Americans have a negative stereotype towards the gay community? Of course. Does that negative stereotype led to forms of discrimination against the gay community? I have no doubt. Why do Americans feel this way? There are several reasons. The biggest of course being religion.
The majority of Americans have some ties with Christian beliefs. Even those individuals that aren’t regular church goers in many ways share some similar ‘right-wrong’ mentalities as serious church goers. The Christian belief is unwavering in its position. Homosexuality is immoral, unnatural, and wrong. Many Americans, even those that don’t have a specific faith, share that belief.
Homosexuality is different. By different I mean that it’s very different from what most people are used to, so they find it difficult to understand. It is normal for a man to be with a woman. Seeing something other than that seems odd to most people, and they act accordingly, whether they realize it or not.
Looking at it from a purely natural perspective, it’s the goal of a species to procreate and produce off-spring so that the species can continue to thrive. If a species fails to procreate, it will cease to exist. If we were all gay, our species would cease to exist. One might hypothesize that since being gay isn’t very natural in an animalistic sense that it’s in our animalistic nature to treat members of our own species differently for straying from the normal course of things.
Regardless of why Americans treat the gay community as an oddity, we do. So, should the gay community tolerate being treated the way they are, or do they have rights just like everyone else? I don’t think people should be treated differently based on race, sex, religion, etc. Everyone has rights. Therein of course lies the issue: Honoring the rights of the gay community while realizing that most Americans (the majority will) want nothing to do with homosexuals.
The majority of the public prefers to turn a blind-eye to homosexuals. ‘What you do in your home is your business’ is the way the most Americans prefer to handle the situation. However, homosexuals work, go to school, and interact with society just like any other American. There have been concerns brought up that have seen a lot of publicity from gays in the military to homosexuals teaching elementary school. I’m not a parent, so I’m not really sure how I would feel if my child’s English teacher were a homosexual. As long as the teacher was doing his/her job and teaching English, I don’t think there would be an issue. But if the teacher is going of on tangents that have nothing to do with English, like how great being a homosexual is, I would probably be more concerned. As a military member I can tell you that I would prefer not to work with a homosexual. We take group showers while deployed, sleep within close proximity of each other, and work within close proximity to each other. It wouldn’t be normal to shower with girls, and sleep with girls while in the desert, so how it having a homosexual in the unit any different?
The military adopted a “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. No one asks your sexual preference, and it’s against the rules to announce your sexual preference. That may not be the best approach in every situation, but I myself haven’t seen a better solution offered. It prevents discrimination and satisfies the will of the majority.
It isn’t very likely that the majority of Americans are going to change the way they feel about homosexuality anytime soon. However, no one is going around persecuting homosexuals. The last time I checked, you weren’t required to list your sexual desires on a resume. To me, homosexuality seems like a personal preference that’s part of your private life. To me, there’s a big difference between being a professional with an alternative sex life and someone who runs up and down the hall yelling “I’m gay and you better not treat me any different.”
There is no easy answer to the Human Rights vs Majority will issue. It’s also a fiercely debated topic on how to handle gays becoming more open in the American public. If there were answers to these issues, they wouldn’t be issues. I for one, am not a political science major, and, at best, am ill-equipped to address such broad and impacting issues. That said, here’s my humble opinion:
Do the majority of Americans have a negative stereotype towards the gay community? Of course. Does that negative stereotype led to forms of discrimination against the gay community? I have no doubt. Why do Americans feel this way? There are several reasons. The biggest of course being religion.
The majority of Americans have some ties with Christian beliefs. Even those individuals that aren’t regular church goers in many ways share some similar ‘right-wrong’ mentalities as serious church goers. The Christian belief is unwavering in its position. Homosexuality is immoral, unnatural, and wrong. Many Americans, even those that don’t have a specific faith, share that belief.
Homosexuality is different. By different I mean that it’s very different from what most people are used to, so they find it difficult to understand. It is normal for a man to be with a woman. Seeing something other than that seems odd to most people, and they act accordingly, whether they realize it or not.
Looking at it from a purely natural perspective, it’s the goal of a species to procreate and produce off-spring so that the species can continue to thrive. If a species fails to procreate, it will cease to exist. If we were all gay, our species would cease to exist. One might hypothesize that since being gay isn’t very natural in an animalistic sense that it’s in our animalistic nature to treat members of our own species differently for straying from the normal course of things.
Regardless of why Americans treat the gay community as an oddity, we do. So, should the gay community tolerate being treated the way they are, or do they have rights just like everyone else? I don’t think people should be treated differently based on race, sex, religion, etc. Everyone has rights. Therein of course lies the issue: Honoring the rights of the gay community while realizing that most Americans (the majority will) want nothing to do with homosexuals.
The majority of the public prefers to turn a blind-eye to homosexuals. ‘What you do in your home is your business’ is the way the most Americans prefer to handle the situation. However, homosexuals work, go to school, and interact with society just like any other American. There have been concerns brought up that have seen a lot of publicity from gays in the military to homosexuals teaching elementary school. I’m not a parent, so I’m not really sure how I would feel if my child’s English teacher were a homosexual. As long as the teacher was doing his/her job and teaching English, I don’t think there would be an issue. But if the teacher is going of on tangents that have nothing to do with English, like how great being a homosexual is, I would probably be more concerned. As a military member I can tell you that I would prefer not to work with a homosexual. We take group showers while deployed, sleep within close proximity of each other, and work within close proximity to each other. It wouldn’t be normal to shower with girls, and sleep with girls while in the desert, so how it having a homosexual in the unit any different?
The military adopted a “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. No one asks your sexual preference, and it’s against the rules to announce your sexual preference. That may not be the best approach in every situation, but I myself haven’t seen a better solution offered. It prevents discrimination and satisfies the will of the majority.
It isn’t very likely that the majority of Americans are going to change the way they feel about homosexuality anytime soon. However, no one is going around persecuting homosexuals. The last time I checked, you weren’t required to list your sexual desires on a resume. To me, homosexuality seems like a personal preference that’s part of your private life. To me, there’s a big difference between being a professional with an alternative sex life and someone who runs up and down the hall yelling “I’m gay and you better not treat me any different.”
21 September 2007
A Decision Already Made
Prompt: Hijack!
We’ve all seen situations on the news where someone has been taken hostage. The United States has a ‘hard-nose’ policy when it comes to dealing with these types of situations. Today these acts are almost always considered an act of terrorism. America’s policy is straight-forward and leaves no room for argument. We will “make no concessions to terrorists and strike no deals…” If I were asked to make a decision on how to deal with a hostage situation, I would follow that policy. It exists for a reason.
Terrorism is committed to achieve a goal. The goal cannot be met through other means perhaps because the people are “too weak to have a conventional army or one large enough to take on the United States.” So, in order to achieve their means, terrorists attempt to strike fear into people so they will bend to their will. Hostage situations in particular not only generate a lot of fear, but also a lot of political pressure. Decision makers are placed in an uncomfortable fast-paced situation where hard decisions have to be made quickly. The potential for embarrassment is high depending on how the situation is handled. This type of pressure can cause individuals to make rash or ill informed decisions. That’s exactly what the terrorists want.
The U.S.’s terrorism policy helps to alleviate that situation. We know what the policy is, and the terrorists know what the policy is. This decreases the likelihood that terrorists will attempt such acts. They know it will garner them nothing. Imagine a government that gave in to demands every time someone got on a plane with a gun. Now imagine how much more often it would happen. Our policy is world-renowned. Many disagree with it stating that it’s too harsh and that a government is supposed to protect its citizens. I believe that’s exactly what it does. If terrorists knew that their demands would most likely be met every time they hijacked a plan, it would begin to occur more frequently. Our policy may be harsh, but it is effective and in the long run, saves more American lives.
If I were placed in a position to determine whether hostages were going to live or die, that would be an extremely soul wrenching decision to make. It would also be one of the easiest, because it is not up to me who lives or dies. It’s up to the terrorists. Our policy is clear and steadfast and is there for a reason. We do not negotiate with terrorists. If my family was on the plane, would I feel differently? Of course I would. But again, we come back to the policy and why it exists. No matter who I am, or what office I hold, no matter the situation, that policy clearly states that there will be no negotiation.
Do these acts of terror occur sometimes from our own doing? I’m sure they do. Take Iran for example. There are several very good reasons why Iran hates us so much. Mostly because we put a person in power in that county during the 1950’s that proceeded to kill thousands of Iranians. Would you be upset if someone came into our country, removed our president, and installed someone who reigned over us with fear and tyranny? Of course you would. So, does that mean we should treat a terrorist act differently in our county if it is committed by Iranians? Absolutely not.
No county is perfect. Each county (read your history) has had its share of mistakes. Ours is no different. However, when a group of people, regardless of the reason, commits a terrorist act on this country, we’ll respond with due process. We can’t pick and choose who we give into. To do that would instill a murmur of hope in other terrorists that they might succeed as well. That’s why this policy is in place. It lays out for every terrorist that they will fail before they’ve even begun.
We’ve all seen situations on the news where someone has been taken hostage. The United States has a ‘hard-nose’ policy when it comes to dealing with these types of situations. Today these acts are almost always considered an act of terrorism. America’s policy is straight-forward and leaves no room for argument. We will “make no concessions to terrorists and strike no deals…” If I were asked to make a decision on how to deal with a hostage situation, I would follow that policy. It exists for a reason.
Terrorism is committed to achieve a goal. The goal cannot be met through other means perhaps because the people are “too weak to have a conventional army or one large enough to take on the United States.” So, in order to achieve their means, terrorists attempt to strike fear into people so they will bend to their will. Hostage situations in particular not only generate a lot of fear, but also a lot of political pressure. Decision makers are placed in an uncomfortable fast-paced situation where hard decisions have to be made quickly. The potential for embarrassment is high depending on how the situation is handled. This type of pressure can cause individuals to make rash or ill informed decisions. That’s exactly what the terrorists want.
The U.S.’s terrorism policy helps to alleviate that situation. We know what the policy is, and the terrorists know what the policy is. This decreases the likelihood that terrorists will attempt such acts. They know it will garner them nothing. Imagine a government that gave in to demands every time someone got on a plane with a gun. Now imagine how much more often it would happen. Our policy is world-renowned. Many disagree with it stating that it’s too harsh and that a government is supposed to protect its citizens. I believe that’s exactly what it does. If terrorists knew that their demands would most likely be met every time they hijacked a plan, it would begin to occur more frequently. Our policy may be harsh, but it is effective and in the long run, saves more American lives.
If I were placed in a position to determine whether hostages were going to live or die, that would be an extremely soul wrenching decision to make. It would also be one of the easiest, because it is not up to me who lives or dies. It’s up to the terrorists. Our policy is clear and steadfast and is there for a reason. We do not negotiate with terrorists. If my family was on the plane, would I feel differently? Of course I would. But again, we come back to the policy and why it exists. No matter who I am, or what office I hold, no matter the situation, that policy clearly states that there will be no negotiation.
Do these acts of terror occur sometimes from our own doing? I’m sure they do. Take Iran for example. There are several very good reasons why Iran hates us so much. Mostly because we put a person in power in that county during the 1950’s that proceeded to kill thousands of Iranians. Would you be upset if someone came into our country, removed our president, and installed someone who reigned over us with fear and tyranny? Of course you would. So, does that mean we should treat a terrorist act differently in our county if it is committed by Iranians? Absolutely not.
No county is perfect. Each county (read your history) has had its share of mistakes. Ours is no different. However, when a group of people, regardless of the reason, commits a terrorist act on this country, we’ll respond with due process. We can’t pick and choose who we give into. To do that would instill a murmur of hope in other terrorists that they might succeed as well. That’s why this policy is in place. It lays out for every terrorist that they will fail before they’ve even begun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
