Historically Irrelevant

5 days ago, Osama bin Laden was wiped off of the face of the Earth by a US Navy SEAL team. It was touted by many as a turning point in the War on Terror and a crippling blow for al Qaeda. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth. 

First and foremost, al Qaeda died as soon as Mohammed Bouazizi set himself on fire all those months ago in Tunisia. The primary purpose of al Qaeda, contrary to the belief of many in the Western World, was not to destroy the West or the United States. Sure, they did try to, but that was simply a means to an end; mainly, the overthrowing of the many Western backed regiemes that dotted the Middle East. Al Qaeda was tired of the autocratic, corrupt dictatorships in the Middle East and wanted them gone. They went about this by targeting the regiemes’ supporters in the West. The attacks on the United States and other European nations were to cripple them financially so they pulled support for Middle Eastern regiemes. With the Arab Spring, however, the entire purpose of al Qaeda is moot. They operated on the idea that only violence and martyrdom could overthrow the regiemes of the Middle East, not peace and civil disobedience. Clearly, the brave men and women of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, and others have proven that point wrong. They do not want al Qaeda around any more than we do. The entire idea of al Qaeda is dead, and died when Ben Ali was ousted from his country, not when Osama was killed.

Furthermore, bin Laden’s main purpose was already fulfilled by the time of his death. Princeton defines terrorism as: 

the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

Obviously, bin Laden and his agenda fits this definition perfectly. He committed acts of terror to scare the American public so that they wasted away enormous sums of money fighting wars and eventually self destructing, ending the rule of the corrupt dictatorships of the Middle East. Osama stated on a few occasions that his strategy wasn’t to commit hundreds of acts of terror upon the United States. It was to commit only one, and then watch as the nation self destructed. Thanks to one simple act, Osama has caused us to plummet trillions of dollars into debt, get dragged into two separate wars, and destroyed many of our core civil liberties, all for naught. Because Osama never intended to attack the United States again (the new reports that Osama was planning an attack on the train system of the United States on September 11, 2011, are insignificant; surely there are thousands of planned attacks found on those hard drives that never came to fruition, and there is no reason to believe this would have suffered a different fate), the reign of the TSA over airports (and soon trains) is pointless and just a baseless affront on our civil liberties. The United States’ international reputation, so high after the end of the Cold War, was virtually destroyed after our conduct of the Iraq War, thanks to Osama. The plight upon this nation cannot be squarely placed on Osama, of course; one man cannot make that much of a difference; but he is a huge contributing factor. 

Osama bin Laden may be dead, but his legacy lives on. He completed his goal: that is, he dragged America to its own self destruction. He has instilled terror in the American public and destroyed our civil liberties. He watched as the regiemes of the Middle East crumble (of course, Osama played no actual part in this, had no affect on the protests, and was probably very disappointed at their secular nature). And because of this, I can confidently say that Osama died with a smile on his face, content with the knowledge that he helped contribute to the United States’ own self destruction. 

The day is December 17, 2010. In the bustling square of Sidi Bouzid, Tunisia, a simple street vendor by the name of Mohammed Bouazizi set out for another day’s work. For seven years, he had sold vegetables from a street cart, making around 10 dinars a day (the equivalent of around $7) to support his mother, uncle, siblings, and pay for his sister’s university fees. While he was only 26 years of age, Mohammed had been working since he was around 10, and never even graduated high school. His life’s goal, at least for the moment, was to save up enough money to buy a pick-up truck, which would make his work a lot easier. He was loved by most in Sidi Bouzid, for he frequently gave some of his produce to the poorest families in the town totally free of charge. 

Mohammed, and many others in Tunisia, had been tormented by police forces all his life. They would frequently confiscate his cart of produce, citing he held no license to sell from a street card. However, no such license existed; it wasn’t illegal to sell from a street cart. But of course, the corrupt regime that held its iron fist over Tunisia paid of no mind to the constant turmoil it put Mohammed and the rest of Tunisia’s youth through. 

But on December 17th, Mohammed decided that enough was enough. His cart was once again confiscated by the police, but worse still, the officer who confiscated it also decided to slap Mohammed, spit at him, insult his father (who died when Mohammed was only three of a heart attack), and have her aids beat him to the ground. Outraged, Mohammed stormed over to the governor’s building and demanded to meet with him to tell them about the police brutality. They refused to see him. Why would they see him, anyway? He was simply common riffraff, a lowly street vendor. What could he do? Well, he did the only thing he could do in the face of so much injustice on a day to day basis; Mohammed doused himself in gasoline and set himself alight, right in front of the local government office. 

He was quickly taken to the hospital, but his act of defiance did not go unnoticed in Sidi Bouzid. Within hours, the members of the town were protesting against the Tunisian authorities for the unfair treatment of Mohammed. The dictator of Tunisia, Ben Ali, deployed troops to quell the protests (for that is the only thing totalitarian regiemes know how to do) which only helped to fuel the burning fire that had been ready to spark for decades. By the time of Mohammed’s death in the hospital on January 4th, the protests had spread far past just Sidi Bouzid. They had even reached the capital of Tunisia, Tunis. They grew and grew, until eventually Ben Ali was forced to leave the country on January 14th. And rest is, quite literally, history. 

Today, March 29th, Mohammed Bouazizi would have turned 27. Instead, he simultaneously set himself and the torch of freedom alight. His act of self immolation may have ended his life, but it freed the lives of millions of others. Bouazizi is already a symbol amongst the brave revolutionaries in the Arab world, but it’s time we honour him as well. So today, I ask you all to honour the legacy of Mohammed Bouazizi, and remember that no matter how meager you may think you appear, you can still change the world. 

Turn to CNN on your TV. Or MSNBC. Or (if compelled by some demonic force) FoxNews. If you don’t really like watching TV, then check out CNN.com, or any other assorted American media website. What do you see? Japan, Japan, Japan, and then some more Japan. And this happens every single time a large natural disaster strikes. First and foremost, do not think that I’m belittling the massive and heart-wrenching tragedy in Japan. The thousands of lives lost and the millions of lives forever changed for the worst is absolutely awful, and deserves to be said on the news many times over, as it has. The nuclear crisis in Japan, however, has been overplayed by the media who love nuclear meltdowns and excitement for their ratings, but that is besides the point. 

The point I’m trying to make here is that there is more happening in the world that just Japan. I’m not saying the news should stop covering the disaster in Japan; far from it. I am saying that they do need to at least focus on some other stories as well, that are on par with the magnitude of the Japanese earthquake in terms of newsworthiness. And the thing is, as I said just a few sentences ago, this happens each and every time a large natural disaster occurs. It happened with Haiti, it happened with China, and now it’s happening with Japan. (Curiously, it should have happened with the flooding in Pakistan as well, but that is for another time.) The news immediately switches to stories covering the disaster, and only show stories from that disaster. The same stories emerge. Wonderful stories of survival among the catastrophe seem to shine. And it stays like this for a solid two to three weeks. This I cannot stand.

The world is more than just disasters. There is more happening in the world, specifically right now in the month of March, 2011. These past few months have been some of the most significant, if not the most significant, months of the 21st century thus far, and there’s quite a lot happening. Just today, the UN Security Council is going to vote on imposing a no-fly zone in Libya, Bahrain is recovering from a deadly crackdown on protestors by police forces in Pearl Square with hundreds injured or dead. Did I mention that Bahrain also has Saudi Arabian military forces in the country to help try to quell protests? A CIA contracter that killed two women in Pakistan is being released from custody after a blood payment to the families of the two killed. And Yemen is also experiencing mass protests. That’s a hell of a lot of news for one day. Just one of those stories could happen and it’d be considered a big news day. Yet they aren’t even reported, or if they are, they’re mentioned in a passing breath. It’s saddening that American media can only focus on natural disasters when the world has so much more to offer.

And now comes to the point where I beat the so-often played drum these days: that of Al Jazeera. As soon as the protests in Tunisia reached critical mass, I discovered the wonderful reporting of Al Jazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net). Their commitment to excellence and letting all voices be heard, as well as their superbly unbiased writing won me over quite quickly, and they are now my favourite site for consuming the news. As we speak, they’re covering all of the stories previously mentioned, not just Japan. Of course, they do have a liveblog for Japan and have extensive coverage of the crisis, but they have a liveblog of events happening in Libya and Bahrain, too. So if you, like me, desire real, unbiased news, you can be sure to trust Al Jazeera. They have a television channel as well (without commericials!), but it’s currently unavailable in the United States because the TV companies refuse to carry it, due to the news network being based in Qatar. It’s a shame, but you can watch the livestream of the TV network on their site.

So please, I ask the American media to start covering things other than Japan. The world isn’t all about natural disasters, and it certainly isn’t all about Japan. There’s so much happening, and it’s a crime not to report it. 

Before you yell at me, yes I am doing another post about the history of an assorted piece of grammar’s immeasurable arsenal. What can I say? I’m a Grammar Nazi, and this stuff interest me. But that’s besides the point. This time, I won’t be covering the history of contractions (which you can read here, if you so wish), but question marks instead. The question mark is a universally recognised symbol, and yet its origins remain quite mysterious indeed. And these two sets of origin stories are as different as stories can get, but I’ll try and do my best to cover both.

Read More

The French scientist, philosopher, and mathematician Blaise Pascal, other than being famous for Pascal’s triangle and being the namesake of the Pascal, the SI unit of pressure, created a quasi-philosophical proof advocating for belief in God. Pascal’s logic was that it was better to believe in God and be proved wrong than to not believe in God and be proved wrong. The proof stated:

• If somebody believes in God and is correct, they will be rewarded with eternal paradise upon death.
• If somebody believes in God and is wrong, it is inconsequential and they are neither punished nor rewarded upon death.
• If somebody does not believe in God and is correct, it is also inconsequential for they are neither punished or rewarded upon death.
• If somebody does not believe in God and is wrong, upon death they will be handed a life of eternal punishment and damnation.

Therefore, Pascal concluded, it is best to wager to believe in God rather than not, because if you don’t believe in God, then you have nothing to gain and everything to lose whilst those who do believe in God have everything to gain and nothing to lose. Obviously, this line of thinking isn’t going to sway either the highly religious who already believe in God and the highly non-religious (such as myself) who don’t believe in God, but it could provide a sound argument for belief in God for those on the fence. I hope that I can at least quell that argument, for Pascal’s Wager is wrong on many fronts, and fails to take in quite a few measures, some of which I will discuss. So please, join me in dismantling Pascal’s Wager, one piece at a time!

Read More

If somebody was wearing two different types of shoes on their feet, you’d notice, right? Well, a friend and I decided to put that to the test. Today at school, we switched one shoe with each other. The friend, who we’ll just call Ryan, wore two white Nike shoes while I wore two brown Van shoes. We switched one each, and ended up with a white Nike shoe on one foot and a brown Van shoe on the other. (Ryan had a bit of tight squeeze, because while I’m a size 7.5, he was a size 11.) As we paraded around school in our strange combination of shoes, we were surprised to notice that not many people commented. We traded shoes at around 9:20 AM, and kept them on until we traded once again at 2:20 PM, going back to our original shoes. That’s essentially five consecutive hours of wearing two different shoes. During that time, we went through four different periods in school, not including lunch. Ryan and I shared two of those four periods together, so if you assume that around 25 kids were in each class, that’s a total of 150 different people seeing our shoes, not including people that we walked passed in the hallways between classes and during lunch. That’s an astronomical amount of people. And the grand total of people that noticed and commented on our strange shoe set-up? Just eight between the two of us. That’s right, only 8 out of 150 people noticed and commented about the two different shoes we were wearing. Of course, there were quite a few people that noticed but just declined to say anything, but by going on just the people who commented, that’s around 5.3% of people noticing a small but very obvious change like that and actively saying something about it. There’s going to be some margin of era here, and obviously this was not a very controlled experiment at all, but there’s some solid number one can latch on to. 

While these results may seem insignificant at best, what does this say about society, at least in school? Well, for one, people don’t have very good skills of observation. Most people don’t notice the little things, and our brain just brushes over details like two different shoes if they don’t really matter. So people really should stop worrying about how they look. Also, for the people that did notice but simply declined to comment, why? Why refuse to say anything? Is it societal pressures that stress, “If you don’t have anything good to say, don’t say anything at all,” or did you wish to not offend that person? Please, I’d be very interested to know: if you did see either me or Ryan today wearing two separate shoes, why didn’t you comment?

The revolutions in the Middle East have changed history as we know it, and the media is reacting as such. I, for one, will be the first to admit that I’ve gotten a little caught up in the action, as just a few quick glances at this very website can attest to. While the media, specifically Western news sources have touted the revolutions as “Social Networking Revolutions,” they were nothing of the sort. These revolutions were engineered and carried out by the brave people of Tunisia and Egypt and Libya and Bahrain and Algeria and Yemen and all other protests currently happening in the Middle East. With or without the likes of Facebook and Twitter, these revolutions were going to happen. Facebook simply made it easier. And it is this fact that is so amazing. I fail to see why Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg aren’t capitalizing on the fact that his service helped set in motion one of the most influential chain of events in the 21st century (if not the most influential). John McCain, after coming back from a trip touring parts of North Africa and the Middle East, said, “He [Mark Zuckerberg] was the most popular man in Tunisia.” Everybody in Tunisia wanted Zuckerberg to visit so they could thank him. In Egypt, many people are now naming their children “Facebook” after the site for the role it played in the revolutions. While the influence of Facebook may have been overstated, I still fail to see why it has remained silent in the wake of all this praise. Not once has Facebook issued a statement supporting the protestors. In contrast, not only did Twitter write a strong issued statement in support of the protestors across the region, they teamed up with Google to allow people in internet-less areas in the Middle East, such as Egypt at the time, to tweet via calling a number and having their voice transposed into text. Facebook really has to get on the ball on this one, for it could be a huge marketing win for them. Up until now, it has been a wasted opportunity on their part. It’s now or never for Facebook, and hopefully they’ll make the right decision.