Wow.
Eric
Saturday, 17 March 2007
Friday, 16 March 2007
Bachelorhood
The body, the mind and expectations do change as we grow old. A scary part of growing old is adjusting to the absence of things.
For me, being single has been the status quo for a long time. When I was younger, I keenly felt the loneliness, the gap in my life where there should be a "significant other", a life partner. I used to joke to my friends about being a bachelor, but there's a big difference between being merely single and being a bachelor. When you're merely single, a relationship is part of the life plan and you're always ready to readjust your life to include the "one" who you've been waiting for to change your life. When you're merely single, the single guy's life is grudgingly accepted as an expedient arrangement imposed by temporary circumstance.
When you become a bachelor, that means you've stopped waiting for your love story. It's not a conscious decision, it's more like something in your mind, where you keep your youthful hopes and dreams, has gone silent, perhaps even died. That's where I am now. I've become the thing I used to joke about with friends - a bachelor. I feel comfortable being single, even set in my ways, and it's hard for me to imagine having a girlfriend. The intense bursts of loneliness are fewer and farther between, and a relationship no longer feels like a priority. Where I was once passionately ready to radically re-order my life (if Traci hadn't rejected me), a relationship now seems no more than a curious sort of consideration.
I still want a wife and family in a remote sort of way, but it feels like such a dim possibility now. Not ever getting married or having kids seems far more realistic. Bachelorhood is a sad place to be.
Eric
For me, being single has been the status quo for a long time. When I was younger, I keenly felt the loneliness, the gap in my life where there should be a "significant other", a life partner. I used to joke to my friends about being a bachelor, but there's a big difference between being merely single and being a bachelor. When you're merely single, a relationship is part of the life plan and you're always ready to readjust your life to include the "one" who you've been waiting for to change your life. When you're merely single, the single guy's life is grudgingly accepted as an expedient arrangement imposed by temporary circumstance.
When you become a bachelor, that means you've stopped waiting for your love story. It's not a conscious decision, it's more like something in your mind, where you keep your youthful hopes and dreams, has gone silent, perhaps even died. That's where I am now. I've become the thing I used to joke about with friends - a bachelor. I feel comfortable being single, even set in my ways, and it's hard for me to imagine having a girlfriend. The intense bursts of loneliness are fewer and farther between, and a relationship no longer feels like a priority. Where I was once passionately ready to radically re-order my life (if Traci hadn't rejected me), a relationship now seems no more than a curious sort of consideration.
I still want a wife and family in a remote sort of way, but it feels like such a dim possibility now. Not ever getting married or having kids seems far more realistic. Bachelorhood is a sad place to be.
Eric
Wednesday, 14 March 2007
Moulin Rouge: Feeling the Duke
In Baz Luhrmann's Moulin Rouge, the comic villain is the Duke, played with sensitive depth by Richard Roxbury.
The Duke is portrayed as the opposite of the bohemian "dogma" he detests yet sponsors in the form of the show "Spectacular Spectacular" in order to win over the woman he loves, Satine. Ewan MacGregor's warm effortless singing as underdog hero Christian is some of the best I've heard. But of the male characters in this romantic tragedy, I identify more with the hurt betrayal of Roxbury's Duke. The Duke is a desperately lonely, unattractive man who falls in love with a beautiful woman whom he believes is in love with him.
The Duke begins the story guarded by his dignity, but he makes himself vulnerable to be in love. The Duke does the best he can - gives Satine everything he can - to earn her love. Satine cultivates his desire and pretends to care for him, but she only wants his wealth. In return for her false promise of love, the Duke gives Satine his soul.
Except Satine never loves him. Satine's love and devotion that the Duke gives so much for and works so hard to earn, Satine freely gives instead to another man: Christian. All of the Duke's sacrifices for Satine's sake, his social standing, and life achievements amount to nothing.
For most of the movie, the Duke trusts Satine. He is portrayed as a fool whose love blinds him to the affair conducted by the lovers literally in his presence. For a brief, glorious time, the naive Duke believes Satine's love is his, but it never was. Passionate love for a woman, denied, warps from great light into deep darkness. Once awoken to the truth, the Duke's spurned love becomes ugly, and he transforms from laughable cuckold to an electrically dangerous man. Christian isn't above the same emotional swing. When Christian felt betrayed, his love for Satine became dark and ugly as well, until Christian's love is redeemed by Satine as the truth.
In this video clip of Satine's dying performance at the Moulin Rouge, the Duke has a front-row seat to witness Satine confess her real love to the world by calling Christian back with their "secret" song. Watch closely Roxbury's sensitive portrayal of the Duke's dawning realization that his dream is being ripped from him. It is a great love scene for Christian and Satine, but I can't empathize with their joyous reunion. Rather, I can share in the Duke's growing pain of rejection and love denied. It's a crushing feeling.
As Christian and Satine celebrate their love's triumph with their bohemian friends, what happens to the Duke's love? He loved Satine every bit as much as Christian and worked as hard to earn her love. Does the Duke not deserve just as much as Christian for his love to triumph? When Satine cruelly dismisses him and shoves her choice of Christian in the Duke's face, what is there to soften the blow to his soul? The lie of false loyalty was Satine's, not the Duke's. Rather than soar into "freedom, beauty, truth, and love" (Moulin Rouge's bohemian motto), the Duke's love, the soul he gives to Satine and the heart he opens to her, have been perverted into a pitiful parody that can lead only to either a humiliating silent retreat or turn into something ugly and dangerous.
The Duke rightfully protests "Not fair, not fair, not fair!", but in the end, there is no remedy for the Duke. He can only walk away from Satine a stunned, betrayed, hopeless outcast whose deepest dreams have been ripped away and replaced by the sad, lonely, loveless reality of his life . . . Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids.
In their passionate love for Satine, Christian and the Duke are kindred. Neither is the better man, just an ultimate winner of true love and the pathetic loser of a false promise. Kudos to Richard Roxbury for his subtle and empathetic portrayal of a man with a broken heart.
Eric
The Duke is portrayed as the opposite of the bohemian "dogma" he detests yet sponsors in the form of the show "Spectacular Spectacular" in order to win over the woman he loves, Satine. Ewan MacGregor's warm effortless singing as underdog hero Christian is some of the best I've heard. But of the male characters in this romantic tragedy, I identify more with the hurt betrayal of Roxbury's Duke. The Duke is a desperately lonely, unattractive man who falls in love with a beautiful woman whom he believes is in love with him.
The Duke begins the story guarded by his dignity, but he makes himself vulnerable to be in love. The Duke does the best he can - gives Satine everything he can - to earn her love. Satine cultivates his desire and pretends to care for him, but she only wants his wealth. In return for her false promise of love, the Duke gives Satine his soul.
Except Satine never loves him. Satine's love and devotion that the Duke gives so much for and works so hard to earn, Satine freely gives instead to another man: Christian. All of the Duke's sacrifices for Satine's sake, his social standing, and life achievements amount to nothing.
For most of the movie, the Duke trusts Satine. He is portrayed as a fool whose love blinds him to the affair conducted by the lovers literally in his presence. For a brief, glorious time, the naive Duke believes Satine's love is his, but it never was. Passionate love for a woman, denied, warps from great light into deep darkness. Once awoken to the truth, the Duke's spurned love becomes ugly, and he transforms from laughable cuckold to an electrically dangerous man. Christian isn't above the same emotional swing. When Christian felt betrayed, his love for Satine became dark and ugly as well, until Christian's love is redeemed by Satine as the truth.
In this video clip of Satine's dying performance at the Moulin Rouge, the Duke has a front-row seat to witness Satine confess her real love to the world by calling Christian back with their "secret" song. Watch closely Roxbury's sensitive portrayal of the Duke's dawning realization that his dream is being ripped from him. It is a great love scene for Christian and Satine, but I can't empathize with their joyous reunion. Rather, I can share in the Duke's growing pain of rejection and love denied. It's a crushing feeling.
As Christian and Satine celebrate their love's triumph with their bohemian friends, what happens to the Duke's love? He loved Satine every bit as much as Christian and worked as hard to earn her love. Does the Duke not deserve just as much as Christian for his love to triumph? When Satine cruelly dismisses him and shoves her choice of Christian in the Duke's face, what is there to soften the blow to his soul? The lie of false loyalty was Satine's, not the Duke's. Rather than soar into "freedom, beauty, truth, and love" (Moulin Rouge's bohemian motto), the Duke's love, the soul he gives to Satine and the heart he opens to her, have been perverted into a pitiful parody that can lead only to either a humiliating silent retreat or turn into something ugly and dangerous.
The Duke rightfully protests "Not fair, not fair, not fair!", but in the end, there is no remedy for the Duke. He can only walk away from Satine a stunned, betrayed, hopeless outcast whose deepest dreams have been ripped away and replaced by the sad, lonely, loveless reality of his life . . . Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids.
In their passionate love for Satine, Christian and the Duke are kindred. Neither is the better man, just an ultimate winner of true love and the pathetic loser of a false promise. Kudos to Richard Roxbury for his subtle and empathetic portrayal of a man with a broken heart.
Eric
Monday, 12 March 2007
Cecilia Chen
The tragic, haunted, dreadful eyes of Cecilia Chen.
AMNY story on Cecilia: Woman gets 10 years for attempting to kill ex's pregnant wife
The news story is preserved on a racist website (As far as the website itself, I'm personally offended by it, but it's educational): Monmouth County NJ: another psycho mud woman stabbing case
She's going to jail for 10 years. Her website.
Although the situations were not the same, there are two obvious parallels between Cecilia and Lisa Nowak the astronaut. One, they were both exceptionally high-achieving and successful women in the military. I couldn't match Cecilia's resume in a life-time. Two, they reacted to romantic rejection by pursuing and attempting to do harm, perhaps even murder, the "other woman". Worse, there's also an unborn child in Cecilia's case.
I don't have an explanation, just a reaction: What the hell? I don't get it.
May 31, 2007 additions:
Two facets of Cecilia Chen's story stand out for me, beyond the model success track disrupted by an incredible criminal act.
First, Cecilia's chosen medical branch (psychiatry) may be an indicator that she has been aware of her own mental pathology. (If that's the case, then the pressure of expectations and living up to her own success wouldn't have helped her with her problems.)
Second, when she turned to the on-line world for social interaction after her arrest, Cecilia told people she had cancer - see timeline below. She may have lied to cover for any absences (trial, incarceration, etc.) due to her real-life problems. However, while she was lying, she also was extraordinarily open about her real-world identity - she advertised her personal website - when she could have avoided any need to lie by maintaining her anonymity, as most people do in on-line forums and fan sites. Shouldn't she have known that by revealing her real-world identity to them, her on-line friends would discover her lie? It's sad. She must have known the persona she presented on-line was already more fiction than reality and the truth would come out. Perhaps, it wasn't a rational calculation and Cecilia was just in denial, unwilling to give up her hard-earned elite identity even as she thought to hide her shame. Perhaps abandoned by her friends in the real world, she turned to the internet to buy more time, however artificial and short-lived, she could escape and pretend to be normal. It's revealing of her mindset that after she was separated from the Army, she opted to wear her no-longer-authorized Army dress uniform to her trial, and then, during the sentencing, she presented her resume to appeal for leniency. I guess Cecilia was determined to hold onto her old public persona, even the illusion of it, for just a little while longer until it was completely, inevitably wiped away.
Cecilia's Friendster.com profile.
TIMELINE:
Jan 23, 2005: After a fight with her then-boyfriend, Cecilia calls John Kim (5 year previous ex-boyfriend) and finds out he's married and his wife Helen is pregnant.
Jan 26, 2005: Cecilia travels from Silver Spring, MD and attacks Helen Kim in the Kims' Ocean Township, NJ home.
Oct 28, 2005: Detective Michael Clancy signs complaint warrants against Cecilia for attempted murder, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for unlawful purposes and unlawful possession of a weapon.
Nov 1, 2005: Cecilia is arrested by detectives from the Montgomery County Police Department in Maryland, incarcerated at the Montgomery County Detention Center, awaiting extradition to New Jersey.
Feb 21, 2006: Cecilia begins posting as PandoraX on the lost-tv forum fansite.
Mar 16, 2006: Cecilia posts on lost-tv forum that she has Hodgkin's Disease, a type of lymphoma.
Mar 24, 2006: Cecilia begins posting as Pandora on the Sledgeweb Lost forum.
Dec 7, 2006: Cecilia, posting as Pandora in the Sledgeweb Lost forum, claims she has lymphoma.
Dec 14, 2006: Cecilia is convicted in Freehold, NJ.
Mar 9, 2007: Cecilia is sentenced to 10 years in prison.
February 9, 2008 addition: See Justice for Cecilia, an advocacy website for Cecilia Chen.
October 3, 2009 update: Supreme Court to decide victim-witness credibility Sum: Chen's attorney appealed the conviction based on the identification of Chen by Kim. Last year, an appellate court decided that the trial court needed a new pre-trial hearing to determine the admissibility of the identification and, therefore, whether a new trial is necessary. People has appealed the appellate court decision and is seeking to uphold the conviction in NJ Supreme Court.
April 24, 2010 addition: The Jul 31, 2008 appellate court opinion for remand.
27OCT12 update: January 2012 story says Helen Kim's witness identification was ruled admissible by the Superior (trial) Court, so conviction upheld. However, this July 2012 story implies that the NJ Supreme Court reversed and ruled Kim's witness identification is inadmissible. Is she still convicted or not?
Eric
Thursday, 8 March 2007
Matt Sanchez
Below is my e-mail to Michelle Malkin in response to her message of support to Matt. Below that is a slightly different version I e-mailed to "Joe" of Joe.My.God. Of course, Austin Byrd, a Columbia College freshman and one of our brightest hopes for the future of the campus military community, thought to write Malkin and defend Matt a lot sooner than I did.
The gleefully venomous and vitriolic posts about Matt flooding the blogosphere piss me off. Mission first, Soldiers always - Matt is one of ours.
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:22:50 -0500
From: Eric ****
To: writemalkin@gmail.com
Subject: Thank you for standing by Matt.
Hi Michelle,
As a member of the military community at Columbia University, I
would like to express my appreciation for your support of Matt
while he deals with the astoundingly vicious and gleeful hate that
is being directed at him.
I was Vice-President of the U.S. Military Veterans of Columbia
University (www.columbia.edu/cu/usmilvetscu), or MilVets, when the
attack by the International Socialist Organization took place at
our university-wide club fair on the first week of the fall 2005
semester. Matt wasn't the only target. With him were an Army
captain attending Columbia to earn her masters degree and an
undergraduate Marine officer candidate who is now at the Basic
School in Quantico, Virginia. Matt just happened to stop by the
booth to chat with friends when the ISO launched their surprise
attack. They were full of venomous anger, and racist and
anti-military hate. Their goal clearly was to intimidate Columbia
military students from representing our interests at Columbia.
Following that incident, it would have been easy to appease the ISO
enforcers by blaming ourselves and accepting the role of the victim
enabler. Unfortunately, in a time when shrinking the civil-military
gap in our society is critical, too many student-veterans, ROTC
cadets and officer candidates choose to avoid representing our
interests in the academic community out of fear of the kind of
backlash unleashed by the ISO.
Matt just happened to be there when the incident occurred. He didn't
set out to invite scrutiny, but neither was he willing to accept the
role of victim enabler. Afterwards, he merely sought fair treatment
from the university administration to address a wrong committed by
Columbia students against Columbia students at a university-wide
event meant to showcase the diversity of student activities at
Columbia. If the university had just done the right thing at the
outset, Matt wouldn't be famous today.
As a leader of the Columbia military community, I was thankful for
Matt's willingness to stand up not only for himself, but also for
our members who were attacked alongside him. Later, when MilVets
officially petitioned Columbia to reform the university
discrimination policy
(http://milvetslibrary.blogspot.com/2006/02/press-release-anti-military.html),
we were following Matt's initiative.
Now, Matt isn't the only Columbia military student working to close
the civil-military gap at our beloved university, but Matt stands
out for his sheer will to challenge an unacceptable status quo,
despite the risks to himself. Perhaps, his life experiences help
explain why he steps forward when others retreat. In closing,
Michelle, I want to affirm that we in the Columbia military
community know Matt for who he is, and we continue to stand with
him as one of our own. Thank you again for your support.
Sincerely,
Eric ****
GS '07
US Army '97-'01
--
"Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform. The whole
history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions
yet made to her august claims, have been born of earnest struggle.
The conflict has been exciting, agitating, all-absorbing, and for
the time being, putting all other tumults to silence. It must do
this or it does nothing. If there is no struggle there is no
progress."
- Frederick Douglass
Here's a slightly different version I e-mailed to "Joe" at Joe.My.God., who seems to get the bulk of the credit for breaking the story.
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 21:31:59 -0500
From: Eric ****
To: JoeMyGod@gmail.com
Subject: Matt Sanchez
Hi Joe,
As a member of the military community at Columbia University who has
known Matt for about 2 years now, I would like to shed some light on
key events that started us to where we are today.
I was Vice-President of the U.S. Military Veterans of Columbia
University (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/usmilvetscu), or MilVets,
when the attack by the International Socialist Organization took
place at the university-wide club fair on the first week of the
fall 2005 semester. Matt wasn't the only target. With him were an
Army captain attending Columbia to earn her masters degree and an
undergraduate Marine officer candidate who is now at the Basic
School in Quantico, Virginia. Matt wasn't even manning the booth. He
just happened to stop by the booth to chat with friends when the ISO
launched their surprise attack. The ISOers were full of venomous
anger, not unlike what I've been reading on the blogs, and racist
and anti-military hate. Their goal clearly was to intimidate
Columbia military students from representing our interests at
Columbia.
Following that incident, it would have been easy to appease the ISO
enforcers by blaming ourselves and accepting the role of the victim
enabler. Unfortunately, in a time when shrinking the civil-military
gap in our society is critical, too many student-veterans, ROTC
cadets and officer candidates choose to avoid representing our
interests in the academic community out of fear of the kind of
backlash unleashed by the ISO.
Again, Matt just happened to be there when the incident occurred. He
didn't set out to invite scrutiny, but neither was he willing to
accept the role of victim enabler. Afterwards, he merely sought
fair treatment from the university administration to address a
wrong committed by Columbia students against Columbia students at a
university-wide event meant to showcase the diversity of student
activities at Columbia. The fact is, if the university had simply
done the right thing at the outset, Matt wouldn't be famous today.
As a leader of the Columbia military community, I was thankful for
Matt's willingness to stand up not only for himself, but also for
our members who were attacked alongside him. Later, when MilVets
successfully petitioned Columbia to amend the university
discrimination policy to include "military status"
(http://milvetslibrary.blogspot.com/2006/02/press-release-anti-military.html),
we were following Matt's initiative.
Now, he isn't the only Columbia military student working to close
the civil-military gap at our beloved university, but Matt stands
out for his sheer will to change an unacceptable status quo. The
recent negative exposure only casts his efforts in a more admirable
light given the uncommon personal risk. Perhaps, his life
experiences help explain why he steps forward when others retreat.
In closing, Joe, I want to affirm that we in the Columbia military
community know Matt for who he is, and we continue to stand with
him as one of our own.
If it helps, I am neither a conservative nor a Republican.
Sincerely,
Eric ****
--
"Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform. The whole
history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions
yet made to her august claims, have been born of earnest struggle.
The conflict has been exciting, agitating, all-absorbing, and for
the time being, putting all other tumults to silence. It must do
this or it does nothing. If there is no struggle there is no
progress."
- Frederick Douglass
Eric
The gleefully venomous and vitriolic posts about Matt flooding the blogosphere piss me off. Mission first, Soldiers always - Matt is one of ours.
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:22:50 -0500
From: Eric ****
To: writemalkin@gmail.com
Subject: Thank you for standing by Matt.
Hi Michelle,
As a member of the military community at Columbia University, I
would like to express my appreciation for your support of Matt
while he deals with the astoundingly vicious and gleeful hate that
is being directed at him.
I was Vice-President of the U.S. Military Veterans of Columbia
University (www.columbia.edu/cu/usmilvetscu), or MilVets, when the
attack by the International Socialist Organization took place at
our university-wide club fair on the first week of the fall 2005
semester. Matt wasn't the only target. With him were an Army
captain attending Columbia to earn her masters degree and an
undergraduate Marine officer candidate who is now at the Basic
School in Quantico, Virginia. Matt just happened to stop by the
booth to chat with friends when the ISO launched their surprise
attack. They were full of venomous anger, and racist and
anti-military hate. Their goal clearly was to intimidate Columbia
military students from representing our interests at Columbia.
Following that incident, it would have been easy to appease the ISO
enforcers by blaming ourselves and accepting the role of the victim
enabler. Unfortunately, in a time when shrinking the civil-military
gap in our society is critical, too many student-veterans, ROTC
cadets and officer candidates choose to avoid representing our
interests in the academic community out of fear of the kind of
backlash unleashed by the ISO.
Matt just happened to be there when the incident occurred. He didn't
set out to invite scrutiny, but neither was he willing to accept the
role of victim enabler. Afterwards, he merely sought fair treatment
from the university administration to address a wrong committed by
Columbia students against Columbia students at a university-wide
event meant to showcase the diversity of student activities at
Columbia. If the university had just done the right thing at the
outset, Matt wouldn't be famous today.
As a leader of the Columbia military community, I was thankful for
Matt's willingness to stand up not only for himself, but also for
our members who were attacked alongside him. Later, when MilVets
officially petitioned Columbia to reform the university
discrimination policy
(http://milvetslibrary.blogspot.com/2006/02/press-release-anti-military.html),
we were following Matt's initiative.
Now, Matt isn't the only Columbia military student working to close
the civil-military gap at our beloved university, but Matt stands
out for his sheer will to challenge an unacceptable status quo,
despite the risks to himself. Perhaps, his life experiences help
explain why he steps forward when others retreat. In closing,
Michelle, I want to affirm that we in the Columbia military
community know Matt for who he is, and we continue to stand with
him as one of our own. Thank you again for your support.
Sincerely,
Eric ****
GS '07
US Army '97-'01
--
"Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform. The whole
history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions
yet made to her august claims, have been born of earnest struggle.
The conflict has been exciting, agitating, all-absorbing, and for
the time being, putting all other tumults to silence. It must do
this or it does nothing. If there is no struggle there is no
progress."
- Frederick Douglass
Here's a slightly different version I e-mailed to "Joe" at Joe.My.God., who seems to get the bulk of the credit for breaking the story.
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 21:31:59 -0500
From: Eric ****
To: JoeMyGod@gmail.com
Subject: Matt Sanchez
Hi Joe,
As a member of the military community at Columbia University who has
known Matt for about 2 years now, I would like to shed some light on
key events that started us to where we are today.
I was Vice-President of the U.S. Military Veterans of Columbia
University (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/usmilvetscu), or MilVets,
when the attack by the International Socialist Organization took
place at the university-wide club fair on the first week of the
fall 2005 semester. Matt wasn't the only target. With him were an
Army captain attending Columbia to earn her masters degree and an
undergraduate Marine officer candidate who is now at the Basic
School in Quantico, Virginia. Matt wasn't even manning the booth. He
just happened to stop by the booth to chat with friends when the ISO
launched their surprise attack. The ISOers were full of venomous
anger, not unlike what I've been reading on the blogs, and racist
and anti-military hate. Their goal clearly was to intimidate
Columbia military students from representing our interests at
Columbia.
Following that incident, it would have been easy to appease the ISO
enforcers by blaming ourselves and accepting the role of the victim
enabler. Unfortunately, in a time when shrinking the civil-military
gap in our society is critical, too many student-veterans, ROTC
cadets and officer candidates choose to avoid representing our
interests in the academic community out of fear of the kind of
backlash unleashed by the ISO.
Again, Matt just happened to be there when the incident occurred. He
didn't set out to invite scrutiny, but neither was he willing to
accept the role of victim enabler. Afterwards, he merely sought
fair treatment from the university administration to address a
wrong committed by Columbia students against Columbia students at a
university-wide event meant to showcase the diversity of student
activities at Columbia. The fact is, if the university had simply
done the right thing at the outset, Matt wouldn't be famous today.
As a leader of the Columbia military community, I was thankful for
Matt's willingness to stand up not only for himself, but also for
our members who were attacked alongside him. Later, when MilVets
successfully petitioned Columbia to amend the university
discrimination policy to include "military status"
(http://milvetslibrary.blogspot.com/2006/02/press-release-anti-military.html),
we were following Matt's initiative.
Now, he isn't the only Columbia military student working to close
the civil-military gap at our beloved university, but Matt stands
out for his sheer will to change an unacceptable status quo. The
recent negative exposure only casts his efforts in a more admirable
light given the uncommon personal risk. Perhaps, his life
experiences help explain why he steps forward when others retreat.
In closing, Joe, I want to affirm that we in the Columbia military
community know Matt for who he is, and we continue to stand with
him as one of our own.
If it helps, I am neither a conservative nor a Republican.
Sincerely,
Eric ****
--
"Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform. The whole
history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions
yet made to her august claims, have been born of earnest struggle.
The conflict has been exciting, agitating, all-absorbing, and for
the time being, putting all other tumults to silence. It must do
this or it does nothing. If there is no struggle there is no
progress."
- Frederick Douglass
Eric
Monday, 5 March 2007
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach: Should We Be Happy with the Death of Zarqawi?
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach is the host of the TLC show, "Shalom in the Home", which basically involves him traveling around the country in an RV to counsel couples and families. He keeps a blog on his website and wrote this blog-post about the moral bankruptcy of accepting evil rather than hating and fighting evil. It makes a lot of sense to me, and it's a belief that pushes me to continue my activism in those moments I feel repelled by the selfish cost/benefit analysis of my activism.
Read Rabbi Shmuley Boteach - Sunday, 11 June, 2006 (Should We Be Happy with the Death of Zarqawi?):
Eric
Read Rabbi Shmuley Boteach - Sunday, 11 June, 2006 (Should We Be Happy with the Death of Zarqawi?):
The United States has finally killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a cold blooded terrorist killer who reveled in slicing off Nick Berg’s head. I was a radio host when Nick Berg was murdered in so gruesome a fashion. I was shocked that anyone claiming to be religious like al-Zarqawi could kill without so much as a trace of humanity or the slightest hint of compassion.
King Solomon warned us that ‘When your enemy falls do not rejoice.’ (Proverbs 24:17). So I will not celebrate al-Zarqawi’s death. I will not jump for joy, but I will give thanks to G-d that a man who so erased the image of God from his own countenance, who has so brutally killed G-d’s children, has been neutralized from doing further harm. I am surprised that friends of mine called me to tell me that on CNN they saw that some priests and some Christian ministers who were saying that it was a terrible thing that people were happy that Al-Zarqawi was dead, that violence breeds more violence, and that it is still murder because you are taking a human life. I disagree. Al-Zarqawi was not human. He was a monster. He completely erased the image of G-d from his countenance. With his brutality he severed all bonds, all ties of kin, to the human family. He was a man whose dark heart took delight in seeing others suffer.
It would be better if there were no evil in the world, of course. But when there is, we are obligated to hate evil. We should have no qualms of conscience whatsoever when we are forced to neutralize the truly wicked from preying further on innocent victims.
I believe in repentance, and most, of course, can better their ways. But mass-murderers like Zarqawi are beyond repentance. They have crossed a line from which it is impossible to come back. It is time we start to truly hate evil and to love the victims. We cannot love the victims without truly despising those who cruelly crush them. They must be stopped.
King Solomon also famously wrote, "For everything there is a season and a time for every matter under heaven? a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace." Ecclesiastes 3
How many times have we heard that the problem with the world today is that there isn't enough love, when precisely the opposite is true? Evil currently stalks the earth because there isn't enough hate. Moral people, afraid of being poisoned by hate, are becoming indifferent to evil.
The history of the modern world is a history of genocide and the indiscriminate slaughter of innocents. Historian Paul Johnson estimates that at least 100 million civilians were murdered in the 20th century alone by despotic and murderous tyrants. All too many of the murderers, like Pol Pot and Idi Amin, died comfortably in their sleep rather than at the end of a gallows. The world simply could not summon enough hatred of these individuals or their actions to stop them and bring them to justice.
I have heard all the arguments repudiating hate. Hatred is evil. It is the cause of all wars. It consumes the soul of he or she who hates. Silly arguments all. Hatred is only evil when it is directed at the good and at the innocent. It is positively Godly when it is directed at cold-blooded killers, motivating us to fight and eradicate them before more people die.
Hatred does not cause wars, it ends them. Because Churchill truly hated Hitler, he inspired a nation to put an end to his blitzkrieg conquests. The French, who did not hate Hitler, collaborated with him, instead. It is indifference to evil, rather than its hatred, that sends a message to the tyrants that they pick on anyone they like for the world will be silent.
He who does not hate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi a monster who shouts "God is great" while sawing off the heads of innocent human beings is barely human themselves. Can a man love innocent victims without hating their tormentors? Loving victims might generate compassion for their suffering. But hating the perpetrators will generate action to stop their orgy of murder.
Exhortations to hate all manner of evil abound in the Bible. The book of Proverbs declares, "The fear of the Lord is to hate evil." Likewise, King David declares regarding the wicked, "I have hated them with a deep loathing. They are as enemies to me." Hatred is the moral response to those who have gone beyond the pale of decency by committing acts which unweave the basic fabric of civilized living. To encounter evil is to come under the injunction of never showing even a morsel of sympathy lest we weaken our determination to destroy it.
Eric
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)