What defines a terrorist? In the wake of the Boston tragedy.

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. ~ Martin Luther King Jr

 

So I’ve been disturbed in the last few days, another horrific crime has occurred in America, another senseless act of violence.  Once again someone has made the decision to kill innocent people.  That is disturbing enough, but what has disturbed and confused me more is the reaction to this particular event.

The conversation has revolved around whether or not a “terrorist” who is a US citizen, should be allowed to have his constitutional rights.  I would remind people that the ideas of liberty and freedom are messy.  A system that presumes innocence will sometimes let a guilty man go free and convict an innocent man.  But it is to try to provide the utmost protection possible to the wrongly accused man that these rights were created in the first place.  Not an avenue to exonerate monsters, but a system that strives to and will hopefully exonerate you should you erroneously be accused of being a monster.

Let’s take a recent act of horrific violence, the Aurora, CO theater shootings.  On July 20, 2012 James Eagan Holmes is alleged to have killed 12 people and injured 58 in a mass shooting during a midnight showing of the movie The Dark Knight.  Basically, a young Caucasian male used firearms to kill a large number of people and planted booby-trapped explosives in his apartment that he luckily confessed about saving further carnage.  People were upset, they wanted to string him up but I didn’t hear the word terrorism thrown around, nor did I hear anyone upset that Mr. Holmes was being afforded his constitutionally guaranteed rights as a US citizen.

Fast forward to last week and the horrific violence in Boston, MA.  Two brothers set off pressure cooker bombs at the Boston Marathon killing 3 people and wounding nearly 150 others.  They were well armed and were reported have thrown explosives at and to have fired repeatedly on law enforcement personnel.   People are of course upset , they want to string the surviving brother up but this time, the suspect is labeled a “terrorist” and many people want to deny him his constitutionally guaranteed rights as a US citizen.

So what has been eating at me is what is the difference between these two acts that makes one terrorism and the other a crime.  First what is similar, both men used firearms and explosives to inflict injury and terror on Americans.  Both men were young Caucasian American citizens.

 

So what is different between these two men:

 

1.  One used guns as a primary form of killing the other used bombs, but both were prepared to use both.

 

2.  One was born a US Citizen, one was a naturalized citizen.

 

3.  One was not a Muslim, one was a Muslim.

 

So which of these differences makes one a terrorist and not the other, is terrorism defined by your weapon of choice?  I doubt many people would make that distinction and quite frankly I never heard anyone screaming terrorist at Eric Rudolph or demanding his rights be removed.

 

Does being born a US citizen make you immune to being called a terrorist?

 

Does being a Muslim make you a terrorist?

 

When you look at the objective facts I think what determines your view that one of these men is a terrorist and the other isn’t, if you share that view, might be a bit disturbing.  I know, most of you who hold that view will dismiss this as some liberal rant, but let’s remember I’m defending the idea that both of these men should be given all of their legal rights guaranteed under the constitution to all US citizens.  Up until this week that was the rallying cry of conservatives, they supposedly believed in liberty, freedom and were the defenders of the constitution.  But not this week, why?

I think the most hypocritical idea is this.  When the shootings in Sandy Hook occurred, conservatives rallied around the idea that as much of a tragedy as the shooting was, a single tragedy shouldn’t allow the government to infringe on any American’s constitutional rights.  Now however, conservatives are rallying around the idea that a single tragedy, because it has been labeled terrorism, should be used to deny an America citizen his constitutional rights.

The funny thing is that conservatives are arguing that President Obama sucks because he will give this “terrorist” his rights.  So thought about another way, conservatives are arguing that what they want is for President Obama and his administration to have the power to name someone an enemy combatant and deny them their rights even if they are US citizens living in America.   Really, is that what conservatives want?  Do they really want the guy they call names and threaten in comment sections to have the power to snatch them up and make them disappear?  The same folks who call him a fascist, want him to have fascist powers, at least when it’s convenient, in the news and when white people are being killed by someone who prays to Allah instead of Jesus Christ and that is one of the least Christian ideas I’ve ever encountered.

 

Helping “Conservatives” understand Science

Recently in a conversation with a self-proclaimed conservative about global climate change I was told that numbers can say anything, that there is no consensus on global climate change and its connection to man’s activities.  It was explained to me that numbers can be audited to get at the truth of things.  So I asked to be pointed to one audit in a credible scientific journal that proved that global climate change was the hoax he and other conservatives claim it to be.  The reply I got back was the typical whoa, you mean an audit in those liberal environmental whacko sources.

This of course made no sense, there is a well established process by which science works and is published through peer-reviewed journals.  You basically could say science gets “audited” before it is even published.  Of course no audit system is perfect and occasionally we find errors in this process.  The way these errors are caught is that science demands that experimental data be replicable.  An example, if you publish a paper and claim you have a process for producing energy via cold fusion, your data may look good enough to get you published.  However, when no one, following the process you outlined, can replicate your results you quickly get doubted and then discredited in the scientific community.

So why did I get such a disjointed reply?  I was confused for a bit then it dawned on me, conservatives don’t understand science or the scientific method because it is so foreign to the way they have been indoctrinated to think.   So I thought I would take a minute tonight to help them out, you know, the sort of thing I learned we should do under the philosophy of compassionate conservatism espoused by a former conservative president.

Science is a system of inquiry by which people ask questions about the world around them.   You look at some phenomena and you take an educated guess about what’s going on.  Under the scientific method  you then construct an experiment to gather data, and then analyze the data to see what rational conclusions you can draw from that data.  So far I think all of you on the right are with me, but hang on, this is where the right turn comes.   You do all of this without having pre-determined the answer, you actually look at the data objectively as opposed to looking at it to make sure it fits the requirements of a particular, let’s say as an example conservative ideology.

Many times the conclusions we draw from experiments in science provide us results in directions we never even expected in the first place and that’s when science gets exciting for us, because it provides so many more questions.   For this very reason much of science is funded by public institutions and governments.  Why is that?  Well the fact is when private companies do research they have limited acceptable answers.  For example, if you’re a tobacco company and doing experiments to see if smoking causes lung cancer and your results suggest it does, then you can’t use that work because it goes against your dominant paradigm that suggests smoking is not harmful.  This is considered very bad science by cigarette companies, but a good conservative capitalistic process.

Conservatives have been taught to “think” by the leaders of their movement like Limbaugh, Bush, Cheney, Fox News and Rove that answers that don’t fit their dominant paradigm, conservatism, cannot possibly be correct so those conclusions must be based on faulty data or conclusions.  Not surprisingly, if the same process produced answers in support of the dominant paradigm, the data, analysis and conclusions are of course beyond reproach.  It’s a hypocritical position without a logical foundation but that is a fundamental characteristic of all “isms.”

You see conservatism isn’t alone in this flaw; it applies to liberalism, capitalism, socialism, environmentalism, etc…  It also applies to any extreme position in any belief system or religion.  It is this type of thinking that led to decades of denial that smoking was harmful, to wars like Vietnam or the invasion of Iraq.

I’m not advocating that science should be our sole philosophy or that scientists should run the world.  However I believe we’d be in much better shape if our government, the public, our political talking heads and media would take the time to develop a better understanding of the scientific method and critical thinking in general, it’s a dream I have.

Conservative Principles Support Marriage Equality

So I wonder why so many conservatives are against marriage equality?  The single most common thing I hear from conservatives, particularly Tea Party conservatives, is that they are the defenders of liberty, freedom and the constitution.  Given those criteria the freedom of someone to have the liberty to marry the person of their choice should be right in their wheel house.  Conservatives love to quote the founding fathers, so let’s start there.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,  that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

A quote I’m sure you recognize from the Declaration of Independence, written and signed by the aforementioned founding fathers of our country.  Of course, it can easily be said these men were being hypocrites, the idea is nice but the practice that followed was that all white men were created equal, women and non-whites to the back of the bus please.  However I like to think that maybe the founding fathers were idealist who hoped that someday our country would rise to the level of these lofty ideals.

In fact, in many ways we have, we’ve come very far from the 1700’s, women and non-whites can vote, they enjoy generally equal rights in our society.  This is not to say sexism and racism don’t exist or have an impact, but certainly we have progressed in the last two hundred plus years.

The Constitution itself is silent on any discussion of marriage, but the document, particularly through the first ten amendments, seems to lay down a pretty consistent idea with the Declaration of Independence and that idea is that people are equal and should be treated fairly.  As such they should be free to express their ideas and religion they follow, be free from an oppressive government, excessive punishments and bailments.  My favorite amendment has always been the ninth amendment, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” 

So as defenders of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the principles of the founding fathers, conservatives should support an issue that at its heart is an expression of freedom and equality!

I could stop this piece here but I know inevitably I will hear the argument, disingenuous as it is that conservatism and Christian religious belief are tied together as America is a Christian nation.  Even though the documents referenced above clearly state you are free to practice any religion you would like, hardly a Christian ideal as doing so would condemn you to hell.   Here is an interesting piece on the subject, Why the US is not and has never been a Christian Nation.

The reason I can so easily dismiss this remark on the issue of marriage equality is simply that conservatives have never viewed marriage as a Christian or even a religious idea for that matter.  Oh sure it’s been great rhetoric in recent years and Bush the second even tried to get a one man, one woman amendment supported, but in fact the actions of both Christians and Conservatives clearly show marriage is not the Christian religious issue they pretend it is.  How can I say this, well if they thought it was a Christian issue then why haven’t they opposed Jewish, Hindu, or Muslim marriage? Ok, so maybe it’s just a religious issue, not a Christian thing.  If so, why haven’t conservatives and Christians been out there fighting vehemently against the right for Atheists to be married?  Have you ever heard of a single state where there was significant political opposition to Atheists getting married?  Of course you haven’t, because at the end of the day marriage equality is not a political or religious issue, its bigotry.

It completely parallels the opposition to interracial marriage also an issue of bigotry.  I have heard since I was a child that God is love, almost always from highly religious Christians, yet I don’t see a whole lot of Christian love on this issue.  So given that the idea of marriage equality follows conservative principles and is so clearly not a Christian or religious issue, I have to ask the following question.

Where are my conservative brothers and sisters, why isn’t the Tea Party out in full defense of the idea of marriage equality waving rainbow-colored flags of support?  Hey you can even paint the background of your Obama is a Socialist signs in rainbow colors and kill two birds with one stone! ~ ZD Blue

Fun Friday: Bad Reflections

To quote George Takei, Oh my!

This one will play with your mind for a bit

Newspaper fail

 

Not as badass as he thought when the mirror gets involved

 

 

I love this image, not exactly a reflection, but awesome

 

 

 

 

Fun Friday: Hello Officer

 

A little law enforcement humor for your enjoyment ~ ZD Blue

 

 

Cop learns about gun rights  https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=271078519691519

 

Ok, this might be the most patient cop on Earth, the very end might be the funniest part  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq_RvJ7CtOw

 

Great car chase, but stop once they get her, the rest is an ad  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j49abwZqjj4

 

Clip from a prank show, very funny  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZr3eJLpa5k

 

Not sure I believe this is real but hey it’s Fun Friday  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXIPJSXocis

 

 

 

Fun Friday: Totally Fun Food

 

A bunch of fun Easter food and my favorite Christmas item I mean hey why leave Santa out. ~ ZD Blue

 

Bunny Bread for Easter

 

Here’s a link to a blog about how to make bunny rolls

 

and a Youtube video instruction  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOXF9kg_xL8

 

And here is a bunny loaf

 

 

Filled Carrot Crescent Rolls

 

Personally ham salad makes more sense to me but whatever you like  http://www.hungryhappenings.com/2011/04/fun-idea-for-easter-brunch-carrot.html

 

 

Chicken Egg Family

 

This is awesome – a Chicken Egg Family

 

 

Chicken Heart Skewers

 

For those of you more talented in the kitchen, chicken heart skewers

 

 

Strawberry Santa’s for Christmas

 

Ok this guys cooking show is nuts, 3 minute video  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcbIqZhWkeY

I’ve done these so a few tips, first use frosting instead of cream, pare out the strawberry a bit so you can fill them more and finally little chocolate sprinkles make great eyes.  Also, if you don’t have fancy equipment (pastry bag) put the cream or frosting in a Ziploc and clip a small edge off the corner.

 

Fun Friday: Animal Weirdness

 

First, Goats Yelling Like Humans

 

Not to be confused with imitators, the original Senile Yelling Cat, and no I have no idea why it is named that

 

Ok this dog is the thing nightmares are made of

 

Here is 10 minutes of insane cats, my favorites at the 1:46 and 2:06 marks

 

The weirdest animal in this one is the human