CelestialFamily

So last week Victoria was reading aloud a news article about some of the budget cut that the state is implementing for Georgia schools. Some of the cuts I agree with and others I think are really cutting to deep in the wrong areas. Anyway, not to get off track on a political discussion, one of the budget cuts called for cancelling a certain test that is currently required in 2nd grade. I think this is a good thing. I just feel that we have too much testing in order to qualify for federal moneys, etc, and not nearly enough teaching. Apparently the state agrees and felt that this test really wasn’t needed.
Well as Victoria was reading this article to me my 6th grader, upon hearing that her sibling will not have to take this 2nd grade test exclaimed, “That is so unfair!”. Hmm. This got me thinking. Why did she feel this way? So I asked her. Did she think the test was meaningful? No. Did she herself benefit from the test? No. Then why did she think it was unfair? After a little discussion I discovered that she thought the change was actually for the better but she was upset that they hadn’t done it while she was in 2nd grade.
I wonder how many times we have continued a tradition, a ritual, or anything that we didn’t like when we went through it just because we think it would be unfair for us to have to do something that those coming behind us didn’t have to do. How often do we put our kids through things just because that’s the way we had to do it? I wonder how deep this mindset penetrates our society. Last year Victoria read a book that had Chinese foot binding as a major theme. I wonder how many of these women did these to their daughters just because they felt it would be unfair for them to not go through it after they had. I wonder if there were any salve owners in the south who felt that slavery was wrong but that it would be unfair for them to try to work without them. I could go on but I think you get the point.
I’ve given my kids the “walk to school in the snow, uphill both ways” argument several times. When I do it I hope they are taking away from it that I think it’s cool that they have access to cell phones, the internet, and other modern conveniences. They should be thankful that they have all of these things. I sure hope they don’t think that I’m crying foul. Yes, I wish that I’d have had some of the benefits as a kid that they have now. But I would hate for them to think that I’m putting them through something that I disagree with just because I had to do it.

“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” Martin Luther King Jr.

In 1984 Jennifer Thompson was raped. She spent one hour with her rapist’s face just inches from her own. She made a concerted effort to study her rapist’s face and learn every detail about him. If she lived through the night she wanted to be able to lock this guy up forever. And that is exactly what she did. However after being in jail for eleven years DNA proved that the man she had locked up without any physical evidence, just based on her description, did not commit the rape. Picking Cotton is this story

I’ve always been suspect of human memory, particular when it comes to our justice system. I’ve had personal experiences where my own memory did not line up with other facts. I know that how I remember the incident could not have been the case but somehow my recollection of the events has been altered. My experiences are completely trivial when compared to the eleven years that one man, Ronald Cotton, spent in prison for something that he did not do.

Since his release Cotton and Thompson have become very active in educating police systems at how to avoid the mistakes that happened in their case.

Reading this book was not easy. Sections will and should make you very uncomfortable. The serious miscarriage of justice that happened is not to be taken lightly. Cotton and Thompson’s story will have you squirming in your seats the next time you watch a cop show and they lock somebody up just based on witness identification. Or worse, the next time you hear of a death row inmate being denied a stay of execution and his conviction is based on even less than Ronald Cotton’s conviction.

Far from being bitter about the loss of so much of his adult life Cotton recognized that he and Thompson were victims of the same man, the real rapist Bobby Poole. Their story is one of the most heart warming tales of forgiveness that I have ever read. It will have you questioning a lot of your preconceptions about, justice, memory and what it truly means to forgive.

As a family we just finished reading “Ender’s Game” by Orson Scott Card. I was very apprehensive about reading it with the kids because of the quite serious theme, especially near the end. Not surprisingly Rachel has been having a very hard time with it. I remember being disturbed by the book when I first read it in High School. I shared my concerns with my father who encouraged me to continue on and read “Speaker for the Dead”. The sequel does redeem many of the seriously unethical aspects of the first book, but on its own I cannot recommend that anybody read “Ender’s Game”.
Lately I’ve been reading several book s on psychology, decision making, ethics and philosophy. It’s with this extra education that I was even more disgusted by “Ender’s Game”. If you haven’t read the book and don’t want any spoilers, stop reading now.
In the first Chapter the government has intentionally bred a child to be the commander of the next army. They even violated local laws in order to allow the child to be born. Not only did this child have little to no choice about his future, this is just the tip of the iceberg for the ends-justifies-the-means mentality that influences every single action of the government as it pertains to Ender.
At an age when he can still show you how old he is with his fingers Ender is intentionally put into situations where he is forced to defend himself. Eventually he even is forced to kill. He is also praised for not stopping when the threat is simply gone, but to continue until he completely destroys his enemy. In the most brutal scene he continues to attack a fellow student after he is knocked unconscious. As if allowing this wasn’t unethical enough Ender’s handlers told him that his victims were merely transferred and concealed the true horror of his actions from him.
All this was foreshadowing for the last few chapters. There Ender is deceived again, this time into destroying an entire species. Again the full scope of his actions was held from him. He was told that the war he was fighting was just a game. They encouraged him to be unethical and to not play by any rules. By his own admission he cheated. He just wanted to end the game. They weren’t real. He was encouraged to believe that the enemy was teachers and that’s the only game he was trying to win. Had he known the full scope of his actions he likely would have responded differently.
The really disturbing part of the last chapters came when you realize that the war was over before he had attacked. The buggers were trying to apologize for their mistaken invasion but simply didn’t know how to communicate with us. Victoria and I even speculated that the second attack, which was a complete victory for the humans, was even a peace offering to make them feel victorious and not pursue the issue any further. Had they not encouraged totally destruction as the only definition of victory there would have been no further conflict.
So why am I getting so upset about this? It’s only fiction, right? Unfortunately we live in a world where far too many people believe that once you’ve defined and enemy the only thing left is too destroy them. We live in a world were decent people will succumb to situational evil and commit unspeakable atrocities. We’ve sacrificed American values and liberty in the name of victory and didn’t even give diplomacy a fair chance. Our leaders define political opinions as if there were only patriots and terrorists and nothing in between. We post hoc justify all of this as if the actions themselves are proof of their efficacy. Just because we destroyed a counties ability to wage war doesn’t prove that they were planning an attack. We have manipulated congress, the public and the media with false information to support going to war. Etc. etc. etc. The parallels from this book are far too many for me to simply dismiss it as fiction.
Card has had numerous calls from Hollywood to turn this book into a movie. I confess that I think the training at the battle school would make for good action scenes. I am just very concerned that those scenes would be the only take-away and the overwhelming horror of his childhood would be lost.
We’re going to read “Speaker for the Dead” next. It’s a much better book for exactly the opposite reasons that I disliked “Ender’s Game”. Ender is allowed to think. He doesn’t rush to judgment. He has a conscience and diplomacy is encouraged. But most of all he understands what he is doing and why. It makes him a much better leader and a better human being. I think Rachel will be able to sleep a little better once we finish it.

The latest book I've finished reading is Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army by Jeremy Scahill.
In the last decade the U.S. has increasingly been using private contractors to assist in its efforts to wage war. The spin that is given from Washington is that the contractors are just "providing security" and not actually involved in combat. Scahill clearly documents that these "contractors" are indeed involved in combat and in some cases even commanding enlisted members of the U.S. military.
The most disturbing fact about Blackwater is that they believe themselves to be above any law. They are quick to point out that as contractors they are not subject to the military justice system. They symultaniously claim that since the Pentagon counts them among the U.S total force that makes them immune from any civilian prosecution in the counties they operate, including the U.S.. So who do they answer too? They see themselves as above any laws besides their own company policies.
Scahill goes in depth into the leadership and history of Blackwater. The U.S. has officially claimed that the war in Iraq is a war against terrorism and not a religous war. This point seems to have escaped the leadership of Blackwater. Many of them are members of the Knights of Malta who still believe that the crusades are continuing and they claim to be gaurdians of the Christian hold lands in the Middle East.
The book was very scary. I found the book to be very well researched and I agree with most of the conclusions he has reached.
A few criticisms of the book:
Scahill's style is a little polarizing. He uses politically charged buzz words like "neo-con" frequently. That's surely his right, however his bias probably causes some folks who would have otherwise read it to put it down. A few of Scahill's conclusions were based on circumstaial evidence. He discloses this openly, but I question the ethics of including the conclusions at all without direct evidence.
I actually found much of the book to be rather repetative. Scahill seemed to have written several paragraphs to describe certian organizations, like the Knights of Malta and then inserted the same paragraphs all throughout the book whenever those organizations were mentioned. The result was that each chapter read as if they were separate stand alone articles and not one continuous book.
I'd recommend this book to anyone who is concerned about the details of how the U.S. is fighting the war on terror. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the the U.S. presence in Iraq. This book will have you seriously questioning the decision to fight this war with civilian mercinaries.

The latest book I’ve read is How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq by Matthew Alexander and John Bruning.

In the wake of the Abu Ghraib abuses, this story follows the actions of one interrogator in Iraq and his attempts to convert his fellow ‘gators to new methods that use compassion, understanding of their culture and religion to find common ground. Although his methods met with some resistance from the top as well as his peers, ultimately his methods are allowed to speak for themselves. While other other ‘gators are have no success with the traditional “fear and control” methods Alexander is able to build trust and provide valuable leads. He was able to get high level Al Qaeda leaders to sell out their superiors and ultimately Al Zarqawi for little more than an extra blanket and a paperback copy of a Harry Potter book.

This is the first book I’ve read that had large black marks through several paragraphs. Some of the information was sensitive to national security and was deleted by the Department of Defense. Originally the book had substantially more sections deleted by the DoD, but the author successfully sued to have those sections remain since he could show that all that information was also available from public domain sources.

One of the most interesting point to me was how few truly dedicated Al Qaeda leaders he actually found. Most of his peers used the phrase “Kool-Aid drinking Al Qaeda” to describe those who had truly forsaken all other ties including family to join the cause. By assuming that each detainee held these values the other ‘gators created an artificial barrier that they felt they had to tear down before they could get any other information from them. In actually this wall did not exist. Most would provide information to Alexander after he just explained to them that they both just wanted and Iraq where families could live in peace. The only true “Kool-Aid drinker” he found was a cocky 12-year old boy whose arrogance and desire to impress his captors provider valuable information. In the process of name dropping to show how high up he was in the organization he ultimately betrayed them. It’s both sad and comforting that this was the only “Kool-Aid drinker” Alexander found. Comforting because it shows how few are truly convinced that Al Qaeda is right. Sad because it shows how delusional the next generation may become.

One chapter of this book details how Alexander was forced to apologize to a family that was detained accidentally. His methods allow for and even demand that such efforts take place. By not automatically treating them as criminals and sticking to his philosophy of respect he was able to leave these law abiding Iraqis with a hand shack and a thank you. They even thanked and blessed him. Because in spite of the error they knew that he was honestly searching for a peaceful Iraq. If other chapters don’t convince you that we should be treating detainees with respect this one will.

If you believe that the ends justifies the means you won’t enjoy this book. If you think Al Qaeda was in Iraq before 2003 you won’t enjoy this book. If you think that harsh interrogation techniques like stress positions and water-boarding are effective and moral you will not enjoy reading this book. If you think that in order to fight and enemy you have to act like that enemy, and if you believe that dehumanizing your enemy will result in anything positive at all then you should avoid reading this book. Because in How to Break a Terrorist the author effectively demonstrates how simply treating a detainee with respect and building on things that we have in common is moral and effective, especially compared to the fear and control techniques used by others.