Mu-mon-kan

These two Facebook pages (here and here), the former of which has–ironically, perhaps–declared war on the latter, ignited quite a debate. Here’s a list of my initial thoughts before I start analyzing this:

1. I don’t consider soldiers hired thugs.
2. I am aware that some soldiers commit atrocities, which is a reality few people admit. Given the conditioning soldiers endure, coupled with varying levels of power over peers, subordinates, and/or civilians, situations (read: Abu Ghraib) similar to the Stanford Prison Experiment appear inevitable.
3. I consider war an atrocity (though sometimes a necessary evil), but smaller governing bodies shoulder the blame for initiating it, not the soldiers.
4. I am a firm believer in freedom of speech, almost without exception.

The Iraq war is a cauldron of controversy. It started with a retaliation in Afghanistan for the events of 9/11 and, under false pretense, spilled over into Iraq. Though history has yet to ascertain the damage, it may prove to be one of the most costly and unpopular wars, ever. The Iraq war sparked a ideological issue between those that whole-heartedly support the troops versus those who disapprove of supporting the greater cause and preceding events. The “Soldiers are not heroes” profile picture is a silhouette of Satar Jabar, perched on his box, alluding to one of the most politically disastrous events for the military.

The charge against “Soldiers are not heroes” (SANH) by “Petition to REMOVE “Soldiers are not heroes” from Facebook” (PTRS) is they are using “Hate Speech and Defamatory Comments towards Allied Service Members.” Hate speech, even if meant to result in physical harm, is still–with a few exceptions–protected by the First Amendment. Interestingly enough, PTRS mentions that they “[are] not against “Freedom of Speech.” In order to argue their case, PTRS needs to prove SANH’s comments are, either, defamatory or against Facebook conduct guidelines (which I haven’t read as of this post).

SAHN’s page states (discounting wall posts and links since the source may or may not be the views of the creators):

Does the thought of hero worshiping our armed forces make you want to vomit your spleen out?
Are you fed up of being told that soldiers deserve constant gushing praise?
Stand up and show members of the armed forces what you really think of them and their participation in needless bloodshed.

Though meant to be offensive, the above contains nothing that could be interpreted as hate speech. The group requests that its members wear t-shirts with extremely controversial slogans (e.g. ”Proud not to murder civilians for a living,” ”I was raped by soldiers and all I got was this lousy t-shirt,” etc.). Unfortunately, because of the satirical nature and debatable validity of these statements, it, again, would be difficult to prove any of these as defamatory. To clarify the group’s purpose, SANH’s page posted this in its “Recent News” section:

This group is a parody of the group ’support your soldiers in uniform!!!’ 
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=11911667121&ref=share

This group is intended to point out the absurdity of the many groups on facebook that portray all soldiers to be heroes and shower the armed forces with unconditional praise.

Putting on a soldiers uniform and becoming part of a murderous organisation does not make you a hero.

Supporters of the group generally agree that the wars that our armed forces are participating in at the present time and in recent years are unecessary and unjust. Therefore we don’t feel that we should be pressured into offering ’support’ to people fighting and killing innocent people for causes that we don’t believe in.

We recognise that the government are mainly to blame but also think that members of the forces need to take responsiblity for their own actions in choosing to support these causes. Soldiers have free will and the opportunity to not sign/re-sign up if they feel they are being asked to participate in an unjust war, so they also deserve a proportion of the blame if they choose to stay.

We also find it amusing how so many of those who claim to ‘protect our freedoms of speech’ tell us to shut up, or be duffed up.

“Soldiers are not heroes. They can be heroes, they can act heroically, they can do heroic things – but the act of putting on a uniform and agreeing to put your conscience in a lockbox for the next so many years does not make your life more important than others, it does not make your opinions and insights more worthy of respect than others, it does not exempt you from moral judgment. It does not make you a hero.

And we should not fall prey to hero-worship.”
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2008/06/heroics.html

Let’s protest against these group protesting against the protests against the forces ffs!!!

THIS GROUP ISN’T A SOLDIER HATRED GROUP, JUST A GROUP AGAINST THE HERO WORSHIP OF SOLDIERS.

After checking out the “Support your soldiers in uniform!!” (SYSIU) group, I have to agree that it’s a close parody, even down to a quip about the font and color on the t-shirts to keep them “uniform.” The debates on this news piece, especially regarding the soldiers’ free-will, post-enlisting, are fully open.

After a great deal of time and review, I believe PTRS is mistaken in their goal, especially if they believe their own claim to be pro-freedom-of-speech. SANH’s latest claim to be a parody and not a “soldier hatred group” seems believable. Hopefully, this Facebook skirmish stays confined within the Facebook realm and avoids the judicial system, which is always my fear when it comes to matters of freedom–or suppression–of speech.

This is just another brilliant post by The Undecided Blogger.  As usual, it’s thoughtful, accessible, and pertinent to both the coming election and the education system.

Check it out.

For those of us still reeling from the Sarah Palin Interview, check this out.

I wrote this in response to an article on Wired’s website.

As with most fields, teaching is beginning to demand more. I believe that NY now requires elementary school teachers to have a Master’s degree and the starting pay hasn’t moved an inch (a friend of mine teaches at an public elementary school in NY and her co-worker is required to have her Master’s by year end, which is why I’m assuming they are now enforcing it.) Personally, I’m of Steve Jobs’ mindset, a complete overhaul of the current system. However, changing it to match a business model might not be an appropriate solution. He should probably defer to the group of people most effected the change: the teachers. Why not bring the most celebrated teachers into the discussion? Why should a businessman(men) decide what’s right or wrong in the schools? The saddest aspect of this whole story is the focus on the teacher. What role does the administrator play? If a school is full of competent teachers, 2 assistant principals, could a principal coast by doing nothing? Just some food for thought, the average salary for a teacher in NY is ~$50,000 (average, not starting). The average starting salary for an assistant principal in NY is ~$85,000. For a principal, ~$100,000+. I feel the balance of power should be pushed into the center. Allow teachers more leverage to oust an incompetant principal/assistant principal either by yearly surveys or some other metric. Not all the blame should be focused on the teachers. As I see it now, the administration has too much power. Sure, prior to being tenured, the administration can remove a poorly performing teacher and, after being tenured, the administration can make their life miserable. What if the teacher is purely victim of a personality clash and is, in fact, an excellent educator? Is a lifetime of misery the ethical way to remove people from a job? I feel these questions and issues need to be addressed before the discussion can move any further. I would love to hear teachers’ perspectives on their administration, especially people in NY/VT (the only 2 systems on which I have any knowledge.)

Really . . . if you have any thoughts, please comment.

This just depresses me.

Others can draw their own conclusions, but it seems to break scientific integrity to have the government so involved. How do they know how to best handle the information? Are they qualified? I’m guessing, no.

Currently Rocking Out To: Ballad of Nice & Easy – Gomez

This quote by The Guardian writer, Jonathan Freedland, exemplifies my thoughts of any war–this one pertaining to the harsh Israel-Lebanon conflict:

The greater legacy is the human one. Every bomb dropped by Israel will have broken hundreds of Lebanese hearts. Some will have lost loved ones; others will have seen bridges, streets and houses that were painstakingly restored after decades of war smashed into the ground. Those who witnessed it will not forget it, and they will carry a bitterness towards Israel for the rest of their lives, passing it on to their children. The bereaved families of Israeli civilians will feel the same way about their enemy. From all the rational, strategic calculations, this is the factor that is so often missing: the hatred sowed in the human heart. Both sides have ensured this dreadful conflict spreads, not just across borders – but down the generations.

If you want to see the rest of this article, go here.

So, network neutrality . . . heard of it? It’s the Internet’s first amendment. The network in question operates under the three principles of neutrality: non-discrimination, interconnection, and access. In short, no website’s traffic has precedence over any other’s. The sad thing is that that may be changing (thank you, AT&T, et al.) My advice to you is to go here. However, I’d understand if you would like to read more about it, first. You could always try Wikipedia (an excellent resource) or just check for it on Google. I’m always curious to hear others thoughts on this issue.

Next up: Who loves nature?