(no subject)

There are masks we wear, to attempt to guide external personality to the way we'd like to be seen. Many disasters remove this mask to display, briefly perhaps, the true nature of our selves. Crisis triggers an evolutionary, mindless idness; there are 280 million Americans who will not be personally in danger, though the fight/flee response is still triggered. This danger reflex jettisons all props when survival becomes more important than facade.

In the press and the world (and even LJ), it is interesting to take a step back and see a glimpse of the true personality of some Americans, from the selfless hero to the selfish complainer. It has been more than 24 hours now since the act, and the masks are beginning to be raised again. I, for one, have been much more heartened than disgusted at the state of the average American.

On a personal political note, (MHO), this also makes me glad that we have a representative democracy. In the immortal words of Tommy Lee Jones (in Men in Black): "A person is smart, people are stupid." This isn't a time for mob rule, it's a time for people we have elected to ponder our course rationally. As is the Presidential trend lately, George W. was elected by less than 50% of the votes (as were both Clinton presidencies, and as Bush Sr.'s second term and Gore's presidency would have been), but the House and Senate elections were almost all majority-decided and they will bring some weight to the deliberations. If you have a political opinion, call or email your Senators and especially your Representative.

True Story

From a friend of the family:

"[...] has a daughter in the first bldg - she says after the first 'explosion' (they thought it was a bomb) they all began to run down the stairs - in the dark as the power was out, and it was going very slowly, and one of the men yelled to the women to take off their shoes, as they all had high-heels, business shoes. So they all tossed their shoes and ran down, and when they got outdoors, one of the nearby shoe stores was out there passing out tennis shoes to everyone, as they saw that the women were all coming out shoeless and the debris was everywhere."

My turn to fan the flames and interject my humble opinion

Retaliation...this seems to be the word of the day as much as 'Horror' was the word of yesterday. Given the time after the act, and the sport of free speech in America, I'm going to jump in and give my opinion as well, but with this preface:

One of the pitfalls of speculation without information is the "What if" whirlpool. Obviously, this is occurring quite a bit lately. "What if" can be a valuable intellectual tool for reasoning out the web of possibilities and probabilities -- it is a tool for the exploration of multiple scenarios with fine levels of distinction. "What if" becomes a dangerous trap if used for the justification of a single position. It is a losing exercise in sophistry; a pattern of reasoning that can justify anything and refute anything. The world can not be run solely by cold, heartless facts, but neither can it be run solely through the experimental lab of idealism and intellectual exercise.

I'm going to violate my own pedanticism because of two strikes against me: I'm human, and I'm American. I'm admitting that all of this is speculation on lousy information, and perhaps wrong information. I will almost certainly regret this in the morning when the cold light of new fact will make my opinion yet another exercise of hot air contributing, in its own microscopic way, to global warming. It's a good thing I have no political power.

I'm going to ignore whether this was a criminal act or an act of war for the reason that this is a unique situation. There is no precedent in human history for this act, and in all probability, this will become precedent for similar heinous acts that no doubt lay in the future of the world.

Assuming solid information (and everything is predicated on that assumption) I favor a military destruction of the very small group of perpetrators, and military action against those who militarily hinder us against our narrow goal. Capture, trial, and imprisonment may allow us to sleep at night, smugly assuming we have done the right thing by sparing a life, removing its freedom, and forcing it into virtual or active slavery. Temporary imprisonment may be the least of all moral evils for petty crime in our current social evolution, but for crimes of this magnitude, it is perhaps equally cruel on a moral level to enslave the architects for life than the military reaction between volunteers that seems to be asked for. The tragic question becomes one of innocent deaths. To a certain extent, the sovereignty of nations must be respected -- if a nation puts innocents in harms way, it is the responsibility (and the shame) of that nation. We cannot completely turn our backs to this however, we cannot defer moralism. Our current avoidance mechanisms are good when we're not trying to rationalize the fate of an American military volunteer over the bombing of civilian trains and embassies. But, in reality, there is no answer, easy or difficult, to weigh the fate of innocents. It's a societal paradox that damns us in either direction.

MHO (we all have 'em) to opinions batted about in the country and world at large:

*No, a narrow military retaliation does not put us on their moral level. We are not morally pure, but we are not on the same level. We kill in answer to, we don't initiate killing. We kill to prevent this from happening again even once, through elimination or deterrence, we don't kill to conquer and rule. Inflamatory rhetoric aside, we kill with regret, not glee; we resent having to kill, we don't gloat; we feel guilty after killing, we don't look forward to it. We would gladly never kill again, we don’t look for more targets. If history is a guide, especially recent history, we will stop short of doing enough because our conscience will not let us do what, perhaps, we must.

*No, a narrow military retaliation will not lead to World War III. There are no balances of power, no alliances, no military buildups, no political rhetoric, no economic skirmishes, and no propaganda volleys that approach the state of the world in previous World Wars or the Cold War. Almost every country in the world, including ones that righteously hate our collective guts, has condemned this act.

*This is, as sure as is humanly discernable, a non-nuclear action. If there were nuclear weapons involved, they would already have been used. Other than NATO, there seem to be no nuclear powers actively involved, and none ready to jump to the defense.