I have never had tears of joys upon hearing upon any persons death. I can actually say that never have I experienced any pleasure at the death of another. I can no longer say that. Upon waking up and being informed by my mom that Bin Ladin was finally assassinated by Navy SEALS, joy welled up within me as I hugged her and tears came to my eyes.
I will never forget this day. I am so very proud of my country, very proud of the troops who serve and risk their lives to protect this country, proud of my president, proud of former President Bush... let's face it, I'm bursting with pride.
All these emotions due to the death of a man, caused directly by my country. Indeed, a historical day and one which will hopefully turn the tide back towards peace.
Hope for a new day... pride in who we fundamentally are...
I hope this feeling lasts.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
So yeah, Egypt....
One can't miss the news stories... Egypt is in revolt.
It seems to me that the commonality that the protesters have is a desire for freedom. There are concerns that the religious zealots will use this opportunity to seize power. Concerns are understandable and natural. However, is it not possible that if the US is seen as being too concerned with Muslim leadership that this may be interpreted by the Egyptian people as infringement of what they are demanding, i.e. reform that gives actual freedom. Almost all religions I can think of off of the top of my head have extremists that I wouldn't want running any country (heck, I would not want a religious extremist running anything that affected my life in any way). While I respect those with a deep abiding belief in their religion, when any aspect of that religion is forced upon me, my freedom has been abridged. This doesn't really happen in the United States, luckily enough. For example, although Catholics cannot use birth control nor can they get abortions (according to Church doctrine), both are legal in the US. Regardless of my opinion on the subject, the Catholics do not get to choose what is legal in this country.
I've seen some articles warning about the US not doing enough to ensure that the Muslim Brotherhood does not obtain power during this crisis with comparisons to the Iraq revolution in '79. While there are some surface similarities, there are striking differences. While both movements were started by the youth of the country, the US was actively backing the Shah leading to anti-US sentiment backlash which evidenced itself during the hostage taking. The hostages held in Iraq lead me to the second difference; peaceful demonstrations (for the most part) and naturally, no hostages from any country are being held (except for the native Egyptians and apparently now journalists). The obvious difference in who is being "detained" tells a great deal about the sentiment to the United States. Journalists from the US are being released and telling their stories.
I honestly don't know where this is heading, but I do believe that the pundits and talking heads really are just as clueless. This is not Tienanmen Square (thank goodness) and it is not the Islamic Revolution. This is Egypt, trying to have the same freedoms we have here in the US. How it all turns out, in part, depends on how the United States is perceived. Are we for the Egyptian people, trusting them in their desire for freedom? Or are we so short-sighted in trying to preserve our own interests that we meddle and create just the opening the extremists are looking for? Who knows.
As always, these are just the ramblings of one really Bad Kitty. Time for sun and sleep... the cat's life is the best!
It seems to me that the commonality that the protesters have is a desire for freedom. There are concerns that the religious zealots will use this opportunity to seize power. Concerns are understandable and natural. However, is it not possible that if the US is seen as being too concerned with Muslim leadership that this may be interpreted by the Egyptian people as infringement of what they are demanding, i.e. reform that gives actual freedom. Almost all religions I can think of off of the top of my head have extremists that I wouldn't want running any country (heck, I would not want a religious extremist running anything that affected my life in any way). While I respect those with a deep abiding belief in their religion, when any aspect of that religion is forced upon me, my freedom has been abridged. This doesn't really happen in the United States, luckily enough. For example, although Catholics cannot use birth control nor can they get abortions (according to Church doctrine), both are legal in the US. Regardless of my opinion on the subject, the Catholics do not get to choose what is legal in this country.
I've seen some articles warning about the US not doing enough to ensure that the Muslim Brotherhood does not obtain power during this crisis with comparisons to the Iraq revolution in '79. While there are some surface similarities, there are striking differences. While both movements were started by the youth of the country, the US was actively backing the Shah leading to anti-US sentiment backlash which evidenced itself during the hostage taking. The hostages held in Iraq lead me to the second difference; peaceful demonstrations (for the most part) and naturally, no hostages from any country are being held (except for the native Egyptians and apparently now journalists). The obvious difference in who is being "detained" tells a great deal about the sentiment to the United States. Journalists from the US are being released and telling their stories.
I honestly don't know where this is heading, but I do believe that the pundits and talking heads really are just as clueless. This is not Tienanmen Square (thank goodness) and it is not the Islamic Revolution. This is Egypt, trying to have the same freedoms we have here in the US. How it all turns out, in part, depends on how the United States is perceived. Are we for the Egyptian people, trusting them in their desire for freedom? Or are we so short-sighted in trying to preserve our own interests that we meddle and create just the opening the extremists are looking for? Who knows.
As always, these are just the ramblings of one really Bad Kitty. Time for sun and sleep... the cat's life is the best!
Thursday, January 13, 2011
2011 is Here
The year begins with a tragedy. Among other victims, a 9-year-old killed; an elderly man killed as he throws his body over his wife, shielding her from the deadly hail of bullets and a 30-year-old Congressional staffer dead from a gunman shooting randomly into the crowd. These are just three of the six murdered that deadly day. Why am I talking about this when so many people are talking about this as well? Because I do not see the focus that will stop this heinous type of action from occurring again.
Beneath the talk of the role of "vitriol" in politics (which I do not deny exists) - is the undercurrent of one of the main issues that needs to be addressed, and that is the role of mental illness. Hand in glove with this is the ability of people who are clearly psychotic to be able to purchase guns. We may not be able to involuntarily commit people for mental health issues (unless they present a clear danger to themselves and/or others), but we should be able to stop these folks from getting a weapon such as a gun.
Both the Virginia Tech shooter and the Arizona shooter (I refuse to continue to use their names; they are unworthy of being remembered as anything but murderers) had clear mental issues which were observed and reported. Despite this, both people were able to obtain guns. Does this not show a clear problem in our society? I am not attempting to say that people should not be allowed to own guns. Not only is there a gun in the home I live in, but I know many people who exercise their right to bear arms in a responsible way; some collect very interesting guns. The distinguishable variable between those who use guns in a responsible way and those who commit mass murder is obviously psychosis.
Psychosis is not that difficult to detect. As I often state, psychotic people simply do not "share reality" with the rest of humankind. The reality of a psychotic person is nothing like the reality the rest of us "share." For example, a non-psychotic person knowing that the president was on television last night understands that he was in Arizona to honor the victims, the survivors and the heroes. However, a psychotic individual may believe that the president was in Arizona to further his ability to use his mind control; that the president produced the snow storm that hit the east coast; that the president is attempting to control the airwaves using subliminal messages urging the opposite of what he is saying.
The reader of this blog may ask, "And just how do YOU know what a psychotic person thinks?" This is understandable. While I only have Bachelor's of Science in the field of psychology, I have some personal experience with psychotic individuals. When you do not share reality with another person it can truly be an unsettling experience.
Knowing as I do the problems that can occur when psychotic individuals simply live their lives, when you add a weapon that has the potential for mass killings, you are adding gasoline to an already bright fire.
What are we, as a society, going to do about this? Who the heck do we turn to when we see an individual acting in a way that goes way over the line? Do we call the police? The local asylum? The National Association for the Mentally Ill? Perhaps we need to establish some type of triage system so that these mentally ill people are entered into a national registry to ensure that they cannot obtain firearms if they are deemed psychotic/paranoid/schizophrenic - any person who does not "share reality."
These are just the thoughts of one Bad Kitty.
Wishing all my readers (what is there, like one?) a beautiful new year.
Beneath the talk of the role of "vitriol" in politics (which I do not deny exists) - is the undercurrent of one of the main issues that needs to be addressed, and that is the role of mental illness. Hand in glove with this is the ability of people who are clearly psychotic to be able to purchase guns. We may not be able to involuntarily commit people for mental health issues (unless they present a clear danger to themselves and/or others), but we should be able to stop these folks from getting a weapon such as a gun.
Both the Virginia Tech shooter and the Arizona shooter (I refuse to continue to use their names; they are unworthy of being remembered as anything but murderers) had clear mental issues which were observed and reported. Despite this, both people were able to obtain guns. Does this not show a clear problem in our society? I am not attempting to say that people should not be allowed to own guns. Not only is there a gun in the home I live in, but I know many people who exercise their right to bear arms in a responsible way; some collect very interesting guns. The distinguishable variable between those who use guns in a responsible way and those who commit mass murder is obviously psychosis.
Psychosis is not that difficult to detect. As I often state, psychotic people simply do not "share reality" with the rest of humankind. The reality of a psychotic person is nothing like the reality the rest of us "share." For example, a non-psychotic person knowing that the president was on television last night understands that he was in Arizona to honor the victims, the survivors and the heroes. However, a psychotic individual may believe that the president was in Arizona to further his ability to use his mind control; that the president produced the snow storm that hit the east coast; that the president is attempting to control the airwaves using subliminal messages urging the opposite of what he is saying.
The reader of this blog may ask, "And just how do YOU know what a psychotic person thinks?" This is understandable. While I only have Bachelor's of Science in the field of psychology, I have some personal experience with psychotic individuals. When you do not share reality with another person it can truly be an unsettling experience.
Knowing as I do the problems that can occur when psychotic individuals simply live their lives, when you add a weapon that has the potential for mass killings, you are adding gasoline to an already bright fire.
What are we, as a society, going to do about this? Who the heck do we turn to when we see an individual acting in a way that goes way over the line? Do we call the police? The local asylum? The National Association for the Mentally Ill? Perhaps we need to establish some type of triage system so that these mentally ill people are entered into a national registry to ensure that they cannot obtain firearms if they are deemed psychotic/paranoid/schizophrenic - any person who does not "share reality."
These are just the thoughts of one Bad Kitty.
Wishing all my readers (what is there, like one?) a beautiful new year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
