5.05.2006

May Day

Several days have passed and I have taken the time to reflect on events of the past week while trying to avoid emotional, non-rational reactions.

The first event is Boycott America on May 1. The media did a superb job of labeling it A Day Without Immigrants. This misnomer is probably more detrimental to the US than the event itself. It certainly was not a day without immigrants; the purpose was A Day Without Illegal Immigrants. A very different connotation, and resulting emotions and opinions must be considered in light of what they actually reflect, not what the media conjurs up in order to advance its own opinions.

Companies closed, people marched, children stayed home from school, and many of our
"representatives" expressed their support of those who boycotted.

We The People had less representation than we have already become accustomed to having, and as usual, we went about the business of living our lives, going to work, and making an attempt to provide for our families. We simply had too much to do to involve ourselves in counter-protests. After all, we pay the taxes that enable our representatives to support those who enter illegally, while we continue to be legal citizens.

There is something bizarre and unreal to this. Who is to blame? Is it the immigrants themselves? Of course, yes, in the sense that they have flaunted themselves in the face of our laws, simply by disobeying them in coming here.

Our big and small businesses, who relish in the joys of cheap labor and the ability to conduct their business without paying withholding taxes, social security, and the other taxes that legitimate businesspeople pay. Our non-representatives, who simply forgot those
who elected them and support them.

The immigrants are most likely the least blameworthy. For the most part, those people who come here operate under the same work ethic, moral codes, personal values that many citizens already have. It is their original methods of entry that we oppose, not their presence per se. But once they are here, we are left to confront the problems that ensue, and we all know what they are; they need not be elaborated here.

The real issue is government. I am not certain what has happened to it. Reading about our
Forefathers, I feel certain that they would staunchly disapprove of all of this. I rather like imagining sitting in a room with Jefferson and Madison, who strongly disagreed with one another, perhaps Ben Franklin joining the group, and of course, George Washington. I imagine presenting May 1 as a fictitious scenario and ask them for their reaction. I can only imagine disbelief on all of them. The same disbelief that I feel right now.

The second issue is the sentencing of Zacarias Moussaoui. I have been thinking about that as well. It is certain that the remainder of his days will be, to say the least, very boring. Perhaps to the extent of driving him insane. Is he perhaps insane already?

Here is where those who advocate the understanding and acceptance of cultural differences have not only dropped the ball, but smashed it into smithereens.

Moussaoui's defense attorneys presented his mental and psychological states as mitigating conditions for his complicity in 911. But, they presented these arguments using OUR standards of what is mentally healthy and unhealthy. The presumption that Moussaoui emerges from a culture in which the slaughter of 3000 people is considered insane completely disregards the significant cultural differences that in fact exist. Moussaoui is a product of a philosophy that is at the same time fanatical to us and exhalted to them. How, then, can our psychological standards be set upon him? Why impose them at all?

It has been said that the US has demonstrated to the world its strong sense of justice and fairness, regardless of who has committed actions against us. That is a true statement. We have done just that.

However, I have not seen such statements made by the world community, whatever that might
actually be. The world community is quietly going about its business, seemingly indifferent to American fairness and justice.

We have sent another, equally strong message to the world community. That message is this: You can participate in the design and planning of the slaughter of thousands of Americans, and you will not be capitally punished. This message is loud and clear for those who believe that the beheading of those who oppose them is well within their moral right.

I agree with Moussaoui. He won. USA lost.

As has been the case in the past few years, it appears to be We The People who are no longer considered in any situation. All that we do provide the funding.

Terrific.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Some people seem to be disappointed that a man who killed three thousand people wasn't himself put to death in retribution. When reminded that it turns out Moussaoui was in jail when three thousand people were killed, they point out that he was still involved in the overall plan.

How was he involved? As far as I can tell, Moussaoui said, "Get me on a plane, I'll hijack it and fly it into a building." Then Al-Qaeda said, "Go away; you're a failure." He wasn't able to pass even the preliminary levels of flight training. He was removed and replaced with somebody else by the real planners of the attack. The jury members who dissented against the death penalty did so because they felt his role was minor (if he had any at all), and that his knowledge of the exact nature of the plot was minimal.

My personal belief is that his sentence was sufficient.

You agree with Moussaoui - "He won. US lost."

Which battle has he won? I didn't really follow (or, in fact, pay much attention to) his asinine rantings.

Zacaraias Moussaoui is an ignoramus. He was too incompetent to hijack and fly a plane, so they left him out of the plan. America wanted to foist all the blame on him because we couldn't capture the people who really made a difference.

I don't think Osama bin Laden is laughing. I think he's too busy plotting to kill us, to waste time paying attention to the empty-headed PR games we're playing over here.

You know who's laughing? Ayn Rand. I bet she'd find it ironic that the bad guy is the only one who's open about his purpose. Moussaoui? Please. He is a person who, had we not made a celebrity out of him, would have been a complete nobody. And those who prosecuted him... what purpose could they really have had? I'll tell you: they were unable to get the one person everybody wanted to see executed; Moussaoui was the best they could do.

In case you're not sure that the whole thing is a farce, put on to appease angry Americans: on March 1, 2003, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed -- the alleged mastermind of the attacks -- was captured in Pakistan by a joint U.S.-Pakistani raid. The Pakistanis say he was immediately transferred to the U.S., but we seem to have... well, misplaced him.

Why isn't he on trial? If he were really in Pakistani custody, I'm sure America is capable of leaning on them until they agree to extradite him. So either we're not asking for him back, or the rumours that he's being quitely tucked away in some prison in Jordan are true.

So here's my thoughts on Zacharaias Moussaoui: pay no attention to him. He's meaningless. Let's not delude ourselves that he is the important person he pretends to be in the courtroom.

-Adam