My Friend Cory Sziraki

The following is a post I made in a Facebook Group dedicated to my friend who lived  09MAR1986 - 14MAY2012.


Well I finally got the time to post on here about my memories of Cory. I honestly didn't know Cory as well as I knew Andy. That said, I find my Cory Sziraki story to be strangely similar to Aaron Ridebmx Taylor's story. lol. I honestly don't remember what year is was anymore but given that he was in high school also at the time, I'm going to say it was my junior year of high school, but we all were out on Cougar Lane doing the whole Southview football fans thing, and I walked up behind him and jokingly put him in a rear naked choke (although I didn't do it properly or effectively on account of joking around and not knowing what I was doing...then again maybe it was given what happened). He ended up losing consciousness and while trying to bring him to the ground, I lost control and he fell on his face and broke some teeth. Needless to say I ended up suspended and went to court for it (which in hindsight, I would say that was the appropriate consequence...BTW Karen and Steve, thank you for pressing the issue, it ended up being an important life lesson for me. Go figure, even in a situation such as that, the school counselor, whether intentional or not, found a way to teach me a life lesson. But I digress.)

While I eventually smoothed things over with Andy and continued being friends with him, but Cory held a resentment over it for a while, and I can't blame him for that either, but given that I went to school elsewhere the next year and joined the army guard after that and Cory joined the Marines by the time I got done. So we never did get the chance smooth that incident over.

So 10-11 years go by and one random day I get a message on Facebook from Cory telling me how he joined the Marines, grew as a person, that he forgave me for the incident at Cougar Lane and he was over it, and that he wanted to get together the next time I was in town. We then proceeded to bullshit for a while on Facebook and got to talking about tattoos (surprise surprise, Cory Sziraki talking about tattoos), and despite not really having a lot of money to spare, he flat out refused to let me pay for a tattoo if I wanted one simply because I was a veteran.

All of that aside, the memory of Cory that sticks with me the most, and will always stay with me, was the time I spent with Cory when I was in Toledo in April. I was up in Toledo for Passover but I had just found out earlier that day that three men from my old army unit died in Afghanistan 4 days earlier including one that I had known for the better part of a decade. I concluded that I needed to go out and mourn three good men in the proper infantry manner. Given that I hadn't yet seen Cory since he hit me up on Facebook and that he was a fellow infantryman, I gave him a call and let him know what was up. His answer, without hesitation, was, "fuck yeah man, there's nothing else I'd rather do." We pretty much spent the day shooting at the range, had a couple beers and a few shots to remember our fallen brothers and shared a few stories bout our experiences in the military ranging from the good, the bad, and the ugly. Not once did he ever say anything that indicated he had earned two bronze stars for valor. The only impression he ever gave on the topic of being a hero is that if ever asked about it he would say something along the lines of "I'm no hero, but I served with heros". That first day was all I needed in order to know the character of Cory Sziraki, but that aside, at the end of the day I had no place to crash because my parents were out of town, my brother's cats shed something fierce and it caused an allergic reaction, and my sister had no couches at her place; while Cory didn't have any couches where he was staying and with my back injury from the Army, I couldn't rack out in a chair. And to be honest, I wasn't really in the state of mind where I wanted to be alone anyways and I guess Cory figured that out right quick because next thing I know we were rounding up sleeping mats, sleeping bags, and ponchos because we were going to do it up Infantry style. For two days Cory stayed outside in the elements with me so I didn't have to be alone while mourning my friends. Oh yeah, BTW, it warrants mentioning that both nights it was pouring down rain and flooding. But Cory couldn't have given a damn if it was hell and high water. My impression of the thought likely going through his mind was,"this is a friend, a brother in arms, and an Infantry brother and thats all I need to know" and for that I will forever be grateful. He went out shooting with me, and that would've been enough. He went out drinking with me, and that would've been enough. He bought my drinks despite my objection, and that would've been enough. But for him apparently it wasn't enough, and he had nothing to gain by doing what he did, no angle to play. He did what he did for one simple and pure reason; he simply felt it was the right thing to do. And I honestly believe that if I didn't tell this story today, no one would've ever known the details of what he did. 

Karen, Steve, and Andy Sziraki, I took the time to write this out, in this detail for the three of you. I want you to know the details of what happened because, as I've said, my loyalty and respect are not easily earned and the actions of your son/brother pulled off that feat inside of 24 hrs. The three of you raised a great person who was destined for great accomplishments had God not greater plans. To my friend Andy, take it from someone who was the youngest child and had an older brother, an older brother has more effect on the growth and development of their younger brother in ways that the older brother will never truly know. An older brother provides a role model, a friend, a confident, a partner in crime but above all an older brother fills a certain void that parents can never fill because at the end of the day, parents are just that, parents; a brother however provides an example and provides advice to the younger brother and often times neither one knows about the life's lessons that are passively taught as part of the inter-brother relationship, so I can promise you that you should be proud of your brother and your part in Cory becoming the man I described earlier in this post. You're influences are just as influential as your parents and as your friend I just wanted to explain to you the importance of the older brother from the perspective of the younger brother. 

Karen and Steve, your words to me at the showing meant a lot, It gave me peace to know that I had an influence on Cory in his final days and to know I had your forgiveness for what what happened in high school. May the Lord keep your family safe and healthy for many years to come; you've already made your sacrifice to his plans.

The spiritual views of one modern Jew.

     The presence of a god, or not, is irrelevant in my moral decision making. I do not need a God to tell me that helping those in need is good, or that murder and torture of the innocent is bad. Also, if I am to be a strict adherent of judaism and the old testament, Then I would have to support the stoning of homosexuals as it is an abomination and they shall be put to death. I could find several other sections of Leviticus that would be considered absurd by todays standards. Furthermore, if there is an all-powerful and all-benevolent being that is referred to as God, then I seriously have got a few questions to ask. While innocent men, women, and children are getting maimed, slaughtered, dismembered, disfigured, through the actions of both man and nature, where is this benevolence. While I get the necessity of death, I feel that any god I would choose to believe in or follow, would not be so narcissistic as to require my active belief or showing of devotion. That's not to say I don't believe in god, or even that I do, it is simply stating that I feel my time and energies are better spent doing what I can to help the helpless, to treat people equally and with fairness, to defend the defenseless, to bring hope to the hopeless. Because been a Jew and helpless, discriminated against, defenseless and hopeless, I know how it feels, I know what it's like. Having been a Jew and seeing people who are utterly helpless, who have be denigrated and cast aside or killed because they were different, having seen pulled up to places on a map where there was once a town, but now there is nothing but nature because they were massacred and incapable defending themselves, having seen the look of hopelessness in the eyes of veterans and civilians who have hit rock bottom and know of nowhere else to go. I have come to realize that to me, being a Jew is helping the helpless because I have been there and I have seen others, being a Jew is treating people kindly, fairly and with equality because, as a Jew, I've been on the other side of that coin, being a Jew is defending the defenseless because we all as Jews know what it is like to be defenseless, being a Jew is giving hope to those who have none because, as Jews, we have been through the worst the world has had to offer and yet we still survive and we can use that to give hope to others. That is what being a Jew is to me, not abstaining from eating pork or mixing milk and meat, and while there are many traditions and holidays that go along with being Jewish, and yes they are important because it helps us to remember who we are and where we came from, if forced to choose between helping others who need help, defending, or hope, and celebrating holidays, I will choose to help 10 times out of 10. Why will I? Because, more important than my identity as a Jew, and more important than a belief or non-belief in god, is maintaining ones humanity because once that is lost, nothing else matters. And while many times, or actually most times, my identity as a Jew and my maintenance of my humanity go hand in hand. While you or others may place your faiths in an entity known as God, I choose to place mine in the concept known as Humanity, that abstract idea that separates humans from the rest of the animal kingdom. And you know what, who's to say the concepts of God and Humanity aren't one and the same. My point is I do not know, and I really do not care because at the end of the day, regardless of if there is a God or not, I will still do what I can to help people. And that is why this quote is, in fact, factual in my case.

Saudade: An Infantyman's Emotion.

"…The pride of the infantryman comes not from knowing that he’s doing a job that others can’t, but that he’s doing a job that others simply won’t. Many infantrymen haven’t seen a lot of combat. While that may sound ideal to the civilian or non-infantry soldier, it pains the grunt. …" (an excerpt from the attached link. If you have to choose between reading the writing below and the passage that is on the page I've linked, click the link. )

That line hits home the most for me since I got discharged early from my injuries. Although, for me at least, the pain comes from being here while my brothers, the men I've come to know and love, are over there risking their lives and dying and I should be over there with them, watching their backs just as they would watch mine, but instead I have to sit at home and watch the news, and hope that today will not be the day that I get the news of a friend not coming back safe. Most can never, truly, understand why I feel that way. Hell I remember when I was staying back in Ft. Dix, as a result of injury, and everyone else was getting ready to go over to Iraq, some would talk about me malingering or trying to get out of going, all while I fought as hard as I could to get fixed and go over. I distinctly remember overhearing my XO (executive officer) at the time saying something negative about me to the CO (commanding officer) of the medical unit I was with and then hearing the CO go off on him about it because the CO knew how much I was fighting to get back. In their defense, I did fuck off a lot outside of actual training exercises in my younger years, so I can't blame them for thinking that way. I just wanted to have as much fun as I could before getting deployed, because I figured I would have another 20 or so years left in the army and of those years only a few would I not be responsible for others (I guess I hadn't learned the lead by example concept yet). What I did not expect, was that the one thing, outside of my family, that I loved, would be taken away too soon.

Every morning when I wake up, I wake up with a pain greater than the pain from the bones of my knees grinding against one another, greater than the pain in my back from 4 intervertebral discs pushing against my spinal cord, greater than the pain of my clavicle grinding against my acromion; this pain, greatest of all is the aching of my heart that comes from that empty space in my soul that was once filled with the honor of being a United States Infantryman; from having that honor ripped from my hands too soon. It is a pain and a burden that no drink, no drug, no thing can ever completely take away. Sadly, or should I say fortunately, that feeling is something I feel that even many of my fellow infantryman do not, or cannot truly understand, but if there is anyone that could understand it would be my brothers in the Infantry for it is a brotherhood that is second to none.

Now my only real regret, if you can even call it that, is that it took me a medical discharge, 2 years of opiate abuse, burning bridges with most everyone I knew, and then getting clean to finally realize that, among a vast other things, being an Infantryman is not just going out to the training fields to run drills the best you can, waking up early enough to finish PTing until your body collapses with enough time to make it to chow before 0-dark-thirty, or fearlessly charging into the killing fields of combat.The title of United States Infantryman is also about LOYALTY for your brothers, because no matter how much they try to tell you otherwise, their life is more important than your own; DUTY, not just to your unit but to that little boy walking by looking at that blue cord in awe, to the old man who sees that cord and sheds a tear of remembrance, to family members who share the burden of responsibility that comes with the Infantry Blue; RESPECT, not just for your brothers, your uniform and the flag, but for yourself as well because if cannot or do not respect yourself, no one else will either; SELFLESS SERVICE, because no brotherhood can survive if you're only watching your own six; HONOR, worth more than your life, because unlike your life, honor can never be taken, it can only be surrendered, however just as with life, once gone it is nearly impossible to get back; INTEGRITY, because the right thing needs to be done, even if no one is watching; PERSONAL COURAGE, more important than integrity because anyone can do the right thing when no one is watching, we must also be able to do the right thing even when everyone is watching. I often see the picture comparing the US Infantryman to our enemies by having our enemy hiding behind a child aiming their rifle and the American pushing the child behind them, thereby offering cover and protection at their own risk. When I see this picture, or any number of things, I can see each and every one of those values in the simple picture of the American and none of them in the other half that portrays "the terrorist". This why it takes a special person to have the privilege of going through "Sand Hill",  Camp Geiger ITB, or Camp Onofre ITB. The Army maybe say differently about their "7 core values, but that is what "LDRSHIP" means to this infantry veteran and if I could go back and change anything, it would be that I could learn this lesson in time to share it with the men I served with and that it might possibly find its way into the hearts of the next generation of America's bravest men (and women). For those with a blue cord no explanation is necessary; for those without, no explanation is possible. Infantry leads the way, HOOAH!

Sorry bout the length, but I've learned that when shit get's to me, it's best to get it off my chest than to bury it inside.

Anti-Bully: A call to action.

Watch this Video before Reading.


The fact that this video was even necessary makes me sick; the fact that this kid had the courage and wisdom to make it makes me hopeful. To see such a young kid endure through what could only be described as a living tormenting hell on earth, only to face his fears and address the problem head on. It seems as if he is finally finding some meaning or purpose behind his pain, without those experiences he could not make this video and help spread the message. 

To those of you who watch this video, realize that this young broken and beaten child with tears in his eyes has not given up hope and has yet to admit defeat. It is his courage and character that we should strive to emulate. 

Remember, when fighting a battle against ignorance there is only one weapon, one tool that will have any effect; the tool is education. Just as a torch will bring light into a darkened world, so to will education bring enlightenment to the ignorant. So long as there is ignorance, there cannot be universal tolerance because no matter what, people will always be reticent to tolerate that which they do not understand. It doesn't take schools or governments or psychiatrists or social workers to fix this problem. In fact, on their own, they can't fix the issue of bullying and hate and bigotry. If you are wondering then, what might be the solution, who can possibly fix this epic problem, you need only look into a mirror. 

That's right, path to addressing this problem begins with the individual — it is the individual that must take a stand and vow to not house hatred and bigotry as well as educate others so that they to may work towards this goal. You may think that it's not your problem because you're not gay, not black, not handicapped, not nerdy, not ugly, not pretty, not muslim, not jewish, not catholic, not gypsy, not foreign, not different; the problem is that we are all different in some fashion, and yet we are all the same. Martin Niemöeller said it best when he said:

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

But also in the words of yet another great man, a threat justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere; there is no justice to be had by staying silent and allowing this endemic to continue. Speak up and do you're part because at the end of the day, we are in this together.


But, you failed the mention one big part of 'hatred'. You stop bullying and hating others once you have ended the hatred for yourself. "When there are no enemies within; the enemies outside cannot hurt you". Whenever you choose to blatantly hate someone you don't know it is because that person is a symbol of threat to you. It sort of reminds me of the father in American Beauty. He hated homosexuals so blatantly because he himself was a homosexual male. He conditioned himself to hate what represented himself in others. We live in a society that doesn't want you to love yourself because many markets capitalize off of insecurities. Beauty industry tells you that you are ugly to buy make up, yadi yada etc. To not be long winded...loving yourself is the first step but it can be such a painful process it is easier to take your hate of yourself out on someone else - A comment from my friend Johanna. 

Final Paper

The Inherent Rights of Man

Far too often, when a government is presented with an apparent threat to perceived safety they tend to take actions with respect to individual freedoms that some may feel oversteps certain boundaries. The infringement of freedoms are the things that we can come to expect when we allow our actions to be guided by fear for as Voltaire said, “it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.”  There seem to be few words that are more capable of illustrating what seems to be a recurring truth throughout history, most recently displayed with the enacting of the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) newest policies. As is most often the case, the new TSA policies are not an issue of safety, but an issue of whether the government is overstepping its bounds. More people have died as a result of drunk driving than by terrorist hijacking of planes. While the possibility of terrorist attack remains an ever-present concern, there may be more effective ways of protecting ourselves from that threat than turning the U.S. into something approaching a police state. If there are any doubts of a police state being possible, one need only look to the past: The Spanish Inquisition, The Salem Witchcraft Trials, Pre-War Germany (1930s), and 1950s America and the age of McCarthyism. These events illustrate what can happen when ruling parties begin to trample on the inherent and universal rights of man. While certain documents that have outlined the rights provided to man during each of these eras, the United States Constitution is the one most applicable to Americans and seems to go furthest to define these inalienable rights.

 The major point of contention at the moment is the TSA’s new policies on personal screening practices of passengers, which have recently become significantly more aggressive and arguably may infringe upon the fundamental rights of fundamental citizenry. While these actions may be somewhat appalling to many, they should not come as much of a surprise given the recent history of America and humanity as a whole. With a look back through history similarities can be drawn between each of the aforementioned events. In each of them there is the presence of fear, a religious and/or political factor, a target and/or scapegoat, and the suppression civil liberties and freedoms. Each of these events has their own atrocities for which they have become famous. It is both sad and awesome, in the most literal sense of the word, that such atrocities can be committed under the guise of nationalistic pride, patriotism, and in this case security.

The Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition, colloquially and hereafter referred to as the Spanish Inquisition or just the Inquisition, occurred in Spain around the turn of the 16^th century spanning the preceding and subsequent decades. The Inquisition is most well-known for the persecution, expulsion and/or conversion of Jews, Protestants, and Muslims from the borders of the Spanish Kingdom. (Kamen) Throughout this time, these religious minorities were given the option to either convert to Catholicism, or leave. While viewed as drastic, if not obscene, by today’s standards of religious freedom, in those days it was not uncommon and it didn’t seem unreasonable if somebody didn’t want to leave, to just become Christian. However, the problem with the inquisition was, that if someone was a convert and suspected of still practicing “the old ways” they were suspect and therefore subject to questioning that would lead to torture, if not death. Torture aside, the Inquisition is guilty of many other atrocities. Accusations based on conjecture alone were used as sufficient evidence of heresy. For example, if a previously Jewish household that had converted that had converted to Catholicism did not have chimney smoke on a Saturday; it was presumed that they secretly were still practicing Judaism and keeping the Sabbath. Other times all that was needed to condemn one’s fate is the testimony of another.

Other common practices and methods of limiting citizen’s rights and knowledge during the Spanish Inquisition were censorship including book burning.  Of the Spanish Inquisition, the German playwright Heinrich Heine stated, "That was but a prelude; where they burn books, they will ultimately burn people also".(“Book Burning”) Through the loose burden of proof and the common seizure of persons and property throughout the Inquisition, many people fell victim to this violation of basic human rights. However, it soon became evident that these desecrations to the rights of man were not to be unique to the actions of the Spanish crown. 

The Salem Witch Trials were based more on fear and mass hysteria than on religious persecution. The transgressions against civil liberties that took place were so pervasive, so appalling, that the trials themselves are frequently used as rhetoric for those wishing to provide warning to society in current times. These rhetorical uses are not without purpose or warrant either, as the clear lack of due process exhibited by the jurists of the trials extended past the purported halls of justice and into the populace at-large. The end result of which would be that even a simple accusation often resulted in the condemnation of the accused, if not in a court of law, at least in the court of public opinion. The presumption of “innocent until proven guilty” had not yet come about in the colonies, as it was in fact an American idea. What this meant was that the burden of proof fell to the accused to show evidence that they were not in fact a witch. Effectively, they were in “guilty until proven innocent”. This standard presents obvious problems in that it is virtually impossible for one to provide evidence that they do not believe in something.  Because of this, once an accusation has been made and circular logic set in, it seemed that the fate of the accused was sealed before it could even be contested. So was the case of one Giles Cory, who witnessing that the courts to that point had exonerated not even one single accused person, chose instead to protest by not submitting a plea and as a result was subjected to an archaic form of torture and coercion by which heavy stones were stacked upon his chest (peine forte et dure) in an effort to get him to plead guilty. After two days of this punishing treatment, Cory died. (Snyder). It is a wonder how such atrocities could be committed by the very institutions that are sworn to protect those that they victimized.

One of the greatest failings of humanity, throughout history happened in relatively recent times. The rise of the Nazi Party in antebellum Germany brought forth one of the darkest times for human behavior much less human rights. To put it as succinctly as possible, The Nazi’s, with the knowledge acquiescence and even support of the populace,  stripped twelve million people of their lives through methodical, meticulous, and murderous extermination that came to define the worst of humankind for now and the foreseeable future. The following words seemingly describe the actions of the Nazi’s best and are found on the official website of Yad Vashem, (translated to mean Hand of God) the Israeli Holocaust Museum:

There was no escape. The murderers were not content with destroying the communities; they also traced each hidden Jew and hunted down each fugitive. The crime of being a Jew was so great, that every single one had to be put to death – the men, the women, the children; the committed, the disinterested, the apostates; the healthy and creative, the sickly and the lazy – all were meant to suffer and die, with no reprieve, no hope, no possible amnesty, nor chance for alleviation.

Never before had a state government become engrained in such a way in the lives of the citizenry on such a vast scale. Its Gestapo hunted those that were undesirables, be they Jew or Gentile. Anyone who opposed the Nazis was targeted as hostile. In Sept 1935, Germany passed the Nuremburg Laws, stripping the Jews in Germany of all rights. These laws were highly indicative of what was to come in the near future. On 9-10 November 1938, The Nazi regime sponsored what some might refer to as state run terrorism against the Jews of Germany and Austria as Kristallnacht or as “The Night of Broken Glass”. Houses of worship were set afire, buildings destroyed, and many Jewish people taken into the streets and killed. Either way, the actions of the Nazi, in retrospect, seem so abhorrent, and appalling that it leads many to question how anyone could have let this happen.

It is here, in attempting to answer the question of how the actions of 1930s pre-war Germany could happen, that the quote from Voltaire may well reflect on current times.  It started to become dangerous, in Germany, to be right and to do the right thing. Speaking out against the Reich could lead to the loss of status, livelihood, freedom, or life. In the face of these consequences, why would anyone dare to stand up and do what was right?

 Furthermore, one might ask, “How do the actions of the Spanish in the 14-1500s, the colonial Britons, or the Nazis of the Weimar Republic and subsequently the Third Reich relate to the current situation in America or even America in general?” The answer may lie in the actions of the American government in the 1940s and 50s. Some would postulate that the first time a culture of fear started was with the Japanese internment camps during World War II, these camps had such striking similarity to what happened in Germany.  The major issue arose with the coming of the Second Red Scare during the 1950s.  When it comes to the political persecution of supposed communists during this time there are two entities that run integral to these events and the fear that came along with them, the names are: The House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) and Senator Joseph McCarthy.

The name of Senator McCarthy is so ingrained in to this phenomenon that it is used as a pejorative (McCarthyism) to succinctly describe the kind of persecution and witch hunting that he and the HUAC stood for. Like the Nazis, McCarthy and his ilk hunted down anyone who either was or could somehow be linked to communism. Even the slightest hint of communist conduct would be enough to be brought forth to appear for questioning at behest of the committee. The actions of the congressional inquisitors stirred the nation into a patriotic fervor. While patriotism can cause a nation to do great things (such as winning world wars) there is another side to this sword. When people begin to fear for their safety against a seemingly intangible foe they so often start to surrender their rights in an effort to obtain a modicum of safety. However, it seems that when people do give up their freedoms, the citizenry is apt to trade one potential foreign oppressor for a home grown, friendlier one. Then it seems that in an effort to keep the ever watchful eye of the government off of themselves, they point the proverbial finger at each other accusing anyone they can think of, of being a communist. In terms of McCarthyism someone either cooperated with the government, or they were ruined.  Be it de facto, or de jure, the consequences of being a communist, either by admission or omission, were dire. In a world where mere speculation can cause the ruin of a person’s interests and livelihood, words and unsubstantiated accusations can be virulent and dangerous. During the era of McCarthyism, if a person wanted to ruin someone’s life or career, all they needed to do was accuse them of being a communist, thereby allowing people to exploit the court system, settling personal feuds through legal venues. This draws similarities to the Salem Witch Trials in where people just engaged in an accusatory, he said she said finger pointing match. In both instances there was government sponsored fear-mongering and persecution. Fortunately McCarthyism was halted before anyone could be burned at the stake, at least not literally.  People were, however, ostracized and let go from their jobs if they were deemed to even be harboring pro-communist feelings. United States law (50 USC Sec 781-858) went so far as to define what made someone a communist and also criminalized being a communist. Because being communist was, by way of this law, deemed subversive, any citizen who was naturalized could have their citizenship revoked and then be deported if they refused to testify at a congressional hearing or it was determined that a naturalized citizens actions were in fact subversive. What the government did with the creation of this law was to make it punishable to have an unpopular opinion.  How is one to stand up against the state when their very right to do so has been stripped by the laws of the very government tasked with the responsibility of protecting these rights? While it was obviously not possible for the government of the United States of America to restrict the freedom of speech and other enumerated rights present in the First Amendment, they did not have to. All that was required of them was to draw up baseless charges of communism against any given person and they were, in effect, silenced by the government.  The actions of the 1950s and aforementioned eras each illustrate what happens when the government oversteps its bounds and does the unacceptable.

                With threats to the American way of life which have occurred over the past nine years, people’s opinions of what is acceptable in terms of national security has changed and fluctuated in a myriad of ways. From the reactionary to the radical, most people surely have their opinions on this. This is of course the feeling that the safety of the nation reigns supreme above all else. They allow their fears to preside over rationality, carrying them and the rest of society into actions or conduct that they so often later regret.

However, it is not simply the reactionary that can be the cause for problem, but also the radical libertarian who values the personal liberties of the individual above all else. If the rule of law is to be suspended each given the right to do as their hearts desire, then surely anarchy would ensue. In an effort to avoid either of these scenarios, we must, as a nation, be able to find balance between freedoms and national security. In each of the major historical events previously cited, they were the result of the government sounding the horns of danger and stirring the public into fear. These situations bring to mind a passage that is often attributed to Julius Caesar, but whose actual author is unknown, goes as follows:

Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind.

And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so.

How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar.

These alleged words of Caesar describe ever so cautiously the ubiquitous reaction of the masses in response to attack from an outside threat. This is evidenced in many positive, as well as, negative ways. Examples run the gamut from the almost universal flying of American flags throughout the nation following the attacks on 11SEP2001 or the blind passing of laws, rules, and regulations that seem to circumvent the rights put in place by the Constitution of the United States of America.  The most recent furor is as a result of the new millimeter-wave full body scanners or the seemingly over invasive pat-down regulations being implemented in airports across the country by the TSA. There are those that have opined that they are perfectly fine with having people be able to see nearly nude pictures of themselves or to have the hands of a stranger feeling parts of their body that, should anyone else touch the same place, would normally be grounds for criminal assault charges. Others would allow “anything in the name of safety”.  It seems that in the times of fear the laws that protect our rights are compromised and are replaced by laws that would skirt the line, test the line and sometimes cross the line of what ought to be allowable.

                The principle that some people may fail to realize is that the Constitution, which is the presiding guideline of inalienable and immutable rights in America, exists for several reasons; however not among those reasons is the protection of the rights of the majority.  In a democracy where the majority rules, writing protections for the majority would seem to be meaningless. Aside from a variety of procedural and jurisdictional rules, the other primary purpose of the Constitution and more specifically the Bill of Rights/Amendments is to protect the minority from the majority. The reason for this is that in times of national strife, cooler heads will prevail. However, if there are no cool heads, there must be some basic level of safeguards in place to prevent the government from seizing the rights of the people and turning into a police state.  There are those that would state that if this is what is required in order to be safe then so be it because we are at war and safety is of the utmost concern.

While the safety and security of the state is important, it bears mentioning that the unjustified fears of the masses may have done far more damage to the American way of life than any bomber may have. There possibly is a reason they are called terrorists and not bombers or assassins. The terror and fear that is caused by their actions is far more damaging than the loss of life caused. However it seems anymore, that people would gladly send our military off to war to fight and die to protect the liberties and freedoms that many would just as easily turn around and surrender. Should the blood of others be spilled in vain so that ours may stay pumping ever so safely? If we are to sacrifice our freedom, then why should they sacrifice their lives? If the only wish is to be safe, then that is rather easy. Allow the government to herd us all as if we were cattle. Brand us with identification (ID) numbers, require radio frequency ID implants in everyone so that the government can track our every location. Then remove freedom of assembly, the right to bear arms, and most every other right and freedom we have come to enjoy. We will have then surrendered what many have concluded it means to be human and American. But, at least then, we will be safe, neither living nor dying, merely existing.

Allowing the government to strip our civil liberties in the name of state security can be a rather slippery slope. Safety and security is important but, the interest of the nation needs to be balanced with respect to the rights of the individual. The test of this balance should be based on reasonability and rationality. It is imperative to maintain basic human rights if we as a nation are to survive in times of danger and strife. It is not evil we need fear, but the indifference for decency or respect for common sense rights. We as a people cannot stand by idly watching, what we know to be wrong, continue. History teaches us what will happen if we allow these immoralities of man and government to continue unchecked. After all, words of man and government have taken more lives and mended more hearts than any blade in history. It is for this reason that it is most imperative that we be able to choose them both wisely. We as a nation of Americans are responsible for the words we choose, the actions we take, and the weapons we wield. Let us live up to the ideals that have made America what we have come to love and not be afraid to do what we know is right, even if the government is wrong.

Woman with a crow: a painting by Pablo Picasso

“Woman with a Crow”

The panting “Woman with a Crow” Is one of the many works of Pablo Ruiz Picasso. This painting is currently on display at the Toledo Museum of Art and viewed personally on the 25^th of September in Toledo, Ohio.  Picasso’s vision that is shown in the piece is one of the more emotive pieces located in the museum.

                On its face this piece is fairly straightforward in what it represents. The general representation is that of an elderly woman embracing a crow in her arms.  However, what would art be, if it were just that simple? Picasso’s use of contrasting elements provides a bit of depth to the piece. The background of the painting is a rich blue color that could be described as being somewhere between “Dodger” blue and royal blue in terms of its hue. While the color of the woman’s blouse seemed to be that of a dingy and rusty blend of red and orange. Her face is exhibited by a pale hue of a whitish skin tone shade, surrounded by a head of straw colored hair. Conversely, her hands are a darker more of an earth-tone shade of brown and beige. Obviously the crow, being a crow, is black. However, in art black is never black, as nothing in nature is pure black, consequently the same must be true of anything representing nature. Because of this, the crow seems to be shaded in a deep blackish brown combination that offers a dull and depressing tone to the bird. Finally as a point of contrast, Picasso chose to color the table top that the bird and the lady’s elbow were resting upon a drab combination of yellows, greens and browns to create a table the provides a foundation for the picture if you will.

                This application of contrasting colors seems to evoke various different emotions upon viewing. While everyone’s impression of a painting varies to some degree, it would be relatively safe to assume that there are some general feelings felt while viewing this painting. However, this may be wrong. It seems that the use of a profoundly rich backdrop to the painting serves a dual purpose. First, grabbing the viewer’s attention and then directing it to the image that it encapsulates. In this case the image is that of an aged and weathered woman who seems to be lamenting over something. The use of the crow, which is a ubiquitous symbol of loss, sorrow, and death, seems to bring out the feeling of mortality. When the icon of the crow is mixed with the emotions expressed on the face of the woman, it seems to communicate a feeling of saudade¹. A feeling which if ever felt is one that immediately relatable and profound. Even though the overall theme of the painting is seemingly that of nostalgia, sorrow, and loss it seems that maybe there might be a glimmer of hope in it somewhere. Albeit this view might be biased by knowledge of Picasso’s personal history, it seems that the use of two highly emotive color schemes, blue and red, exhibit hope may be coming out of the darkness. The fact that the blue surrounds an area of red supported by a base of yellow seems to provide symbolistic representation of a sunrise and then consequently hope for a new day. These to themes seem to bring a rather humanistic aspect to this painting by bringing a dualistic attribute to the painting. On one had there is a saudadistic view of life, all the while the feeling of hope is still present. The feelings brought by viewing this painting are, by all means, turbulent but, they still bring out a sense of humanity in an expressionistic fashion, thus visually representing an abstract feeling is a physical way.

My second paper for my english course this quarter

The “United” States of America?

                “I am American.” It is a simple phrase really. Yet it seems that it is becoming increasingly rare that someone utters this phrase in such a simplistic fashion. Instead it is ever more popular to qualify ones American heritage. “I am   ____ -American.” A rich American, a poor American; white American, Hispanic American; Christian American, Muslim American. . . which takes precedence, the noun or the adjective? The noun implies unity, while the adjective illustrates difference.  It is these qualifiers that people attach to being American bring us apart and separate us into groups. This separation is causing a growing fear in our country. Specification implies difference, difference implies superiority, and superiority breeds intolerance. American will either fall because of our differences or rise in spite of them. If we are to survive as a nation united it is imperative that we acknowledge our differences for what they are and then focus on what it is that we have in common, so that we may exist united as one indivisible nation.

                Fear is a common aspect of human nature and without a common foreign enemy to unite us; this fear must find a target. For almost fifty years, Americans had an enemy in which to place their fears. But with the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, that enemy vanished and our fear was left without a home. With no place for our nations fears to be directed, Americans began to look at each other as suspect, setting class against class, group against group, person against person. As President Lincoln once stated, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”  When we, as a people, focus on our differences more than our commonalities, groups begin to form. People divide themselves along party lines and a distance is created between them. When something is held at a distance it becomes increasingly vague until it becomes alien and unknown. People fear what they do not understand and what they do not know.  Inversely, when people fear things, they wish to distance themselves from that fear as much as possible. This completes an endlessly perpetual cycle in which we fear that which is distant and strange and pushes away and estranges ourselves from that which we fear.  It is this that makes the use of fear as a political tool unfortunately so effective. 

 When politicians use these differences to polarize their constituencies, it inevitably causes a divide among the populace.  The satirist Lewis Lapham goes so far as to state:

The strategies of division sell newspapers and summon votes, and to the man who would be king (or president or governor) the popular hatred of government matters less than the atmosphere of resentment in which people fear and distrust one another. Democratic politics trades in only two markets ----the market in expectation and the market in blame. A collapse in the former engenders a boom in the latter (Lapham, 231-232).

The politician with an ulterior motive will, given the opportunity, take full advantage of these differences, which we have created between ourselves. Too often the claims they make are based not on evidentiary logic, but on conjecture. These claims seem to be presented in the form of logical fallacies. An appeal to fear seems to have been popular in this last election season (i.e., propaganda). This fear exists, and is exploitable, because people identify themselves as part of a sub-group of American culture first and as an American second; because that person is not a part of our group, we believe they are different and we fear them. Fear, however, is not the only reason for the partitioning of our society.

                People split off into sub-sections of society for a variety of reasons. Blame is another example.  If some aspect of society has failed, people require a scapegoat. Leaders and politicians have taken advantage of this throughout history.  The most horrific example was when Adolf Hitler placed the blame for Germany’s economic squalor on the shoulders of the so-called “undesirables”. The same can be seen, to a lesser extent, in America. Our nation’s economic woes are blamed on any number of groups. Republicans blamed Democrats, Democrats blamed Republicans. The rich placed the blame on the poor for leeching off of society, while the poor blamed the rich for taking advantage of them and their situation. The bottom line though, is that people identify themselves by whichever qualifier they deem appropriate because there is the need to set themselves apart from other groups. This differentiation gives people someone to point their fingers at.

                Fear and blame ---these are easy. It is comfortable to point out how everyone is different. It is not so easy, nor so comfortable, to point out how those “other people” are similar.  John F. Kennedy demonstrated what makes America great when he said:

We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too. 

We must accept our differences and focus on our similarities, not because they are easy, but because, like going to the moon, they are the hard thing to do, the right thing to do.  America is by no means perfect, but there is one thing that makes us who we are. It’s the one thing that the Irish-American, the Jewish-American, the German-American, the gay American, the poor American, and the rich American all have in common; we are Americans.

                The author Anna Quindlen discusses one of America’s greatest qualities when she writes:

. . .the overwhelming majority of those surveyed by the National Opinion Research Center agreed with this statement: “the U.S. is a unique country that stands for something special in the world” One of the things that it stands for is a vexing notion that a great nation can consist entirely of refugees from other nations, that people of different, even warring religions and cultures can live, if not side by side, than on either side of the country’s Chester Avenues (243).

Despite all of America’s diversity and de facto segregation it seems that, as a nation, there is still a large degree of unity. We are akin to a group of siblings. While these siblings may fight against one another on a regular basis, when presented with an outside enemy they will band together to form an alliance that seems to know no rival. It is this duality that both Quindlen and Lapham seem to address in their writings.

                In his writing “Who and What Is American?” Lapham states:

. . . we can speak plainly about our differences only if we know and value what we hold in common. Like the weather and third-rate journalism, bigotry in all its declensions is likely to be with us for a long time . . . , but unless we can draw distinctions and make jokes about our racial or cultural baggage, the work of our shared imagination must vanish in the mist of lies (240-241).

In essence, if we as a country are to ever move forward and progress as a whole, we must come to terms with who we are as individuals. There must be common ground on which we can stand and share our differences.  If America as a nation is to continue we cannot allow, “that the left side of the hyphen ... would overwhelm the right (Qindlen,243).” The black, the Irish, the Jewish, etc.; these qualifiers cannot become more important than the noun that they modify. While, admittedly one’s heritage is important and should never be forgotten, it is ultimately the noun that is the subject and not the adjective. If the United States of America is to remain united, the noun must never become subjugated in the hearts of the American people.

                Some would also question whether or not the Unites States has become a successful country because of all the bigotry and intolerance that exists within its borders. However, as backwards as it may seem, it is what allows for the presence of this bigotry and intolerance that attracts people to this country. Arguably, the most profound reason people come to the U.S. is for freedoms that we as Americans enjoy. Many of the immigrants who have come to America have done so to seek refuge from persecution, be it religious, political, racial, or some other form. They came here to be what they couldn’t be in their home country. The freedoms that allow Americans to freely practice their religion of choice, identify and support the political movement of their choice, and be whomever they choose to be, also allows people to be bigots. America is by no means perfect, but the fact that we can live together as a people, free to express ourselves in whatever  reasonable fashion we choose is what makes America a success (what is deemed “reasonable” is up for debate and is a topic for another venue). We continue to adhere to the values that have brought us this far and make America “something special in the world”(Quindlen, 243).

                There is no doubt that America lives holding on to a very fragile balance between unity and individuality. They are both highly valued ideals among Americans. If we, as Americans, cannot come to terms with our differences, accept each other for who we are, and then find some common ground, then we as a nation are destined to suffer. We must either learn to thrive in spite of our differences or we will fall as a result of them.