And I Was Just Like LOL!

Communicate Effectively...Please!

This post is going to be actually fairly short with respect to the length of my other posts, but I feel it necessary to at least touch on this subject and with a whopping 66 percent of my readers requesting shorter posts. This will definitely be a nice change of pace. The topic I want to touch on is modern day language. Of course, as a writer, I hold a certain respect for words that I suppose wouldn't be expected of the average run-of-the-mill person that doesn't write anything more than a grocery list. However, I have a deep-seated distaste, a rather adverse disposition with regards to the pseudo-language that people have so well adapted in communication. For instance, I see how acronyms such as L.O.L. could come in handy and I'll admit I'm one of the numerous culprits that have diffused this into text messaging, email, and many other text communication, BUT it should be left in text communication along with the S.M.H's, L.M.A.O.'s, and whatever other lazy conceptions of textual speech we've come up with over the years. There is absolutely no reason that the new generation should be verbalizing acronyms to express actions! If you Laugh Out Loud, then just fill up your diaphragm and bellow out a deep chuckle or if you decide to Shake Your Head, then just perform the action. Honestly, how ridiculous can we get?  Especially, when we speak roughly 3 to 4 times more quickly than the average person can type! So, while I'm not generally the type to rant about things, I felt it was necessary to share this exhibition of lingual decay that has penetrated our younger generations so deeply. With that, Please just verbalize your thoughts and express your emotions like a normal human being. 

Death Relief

After a week of coverage and debate about the death of Osama Bin Laden, there are a lot of contradictions that I have realized throughout the American media, the American public, and American politics. So, I would find it personally neglectful if I were to fail to address these inconsistencies in the name of rationality and realism. Let me first begin with a short quote by the Voltaire: "Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities." 

Before I begin, let that statement infiltrate your mind and metastasize throughout your thoughts and germinate in the depth of your subconscious. Maybe that request was a little over done, but what does that mean? Do you take it at face value and interpret it as such to mean that one whom is misguided by irrational thoughts will allow themselves to execute heinous acts? And if so, what determines the legitimacy of a thought or the degree of atrocity? Well, this is a subject that can be debated endlessly and has been debated beyond documentation. This quandary becomes relevant in the question of whether the means we used to locate Osama Bin Laden were justified by the ends of killing a terrorist leader. Also, if they are justified then was it also justified for the mass celebration that ensued in light of his death? 

These are the questions that have been swirling around the media and the general public. Is it acceptable that we: (1) used torture as a tactic to gain information about Osama Bin Laden, (2) violated Pakistani sovereignty by executing a mission on their soil without their consent, and (3) erupted into mass celebration with the news of death? Well the answers to these questions may seem quite obvious, but there is always room for debate. The law in the United States protects against inhumane treatment of prisoners, so then torture is wrong. Unless, it is done outside of the United States. For instance, let's say Guantanamo Bay Cuba. Then, it's allowed once no one sees it in the United States? Regardless of the legality of torture, I think it's useful if it led to locating Bin Laden, but did it actually? For a hardcore Islamic extremist, I'm almost positive that torture will embolden the struggle and empower them to withhold information, after all these people are willing to commit suicide. So, in my eyes, torture is a slippery slope to terrorism. 

For the second point, there is no debate here on the issue of whether or not we violated Pakistan's sovereignty because we did. However, is it okay that Pakistan is quite possibly harboring terrorist while playing politics with the United States? The Pakistani Minister of Defense said that if the United States conduct any missions in the pursuit of terrorist on Pakistani soil, then they will have to rethink the foreign relations with the United States. So, what does that say about Pakistan? In my eyes, it's admission of guilt. It's naive to assume that the Pakistani Intelligence were unaware of Osama Bin Laden's compound and with the statements from the Pakistani government, it is unlikely that they aren't involved in providing a safe haven for terrorists. For the future, the United States will probably start viewing Pakistan as a hostile nation as compared to a turbulent beneficiary. 

The third leg of this post is a little more intricate than I think many people realize about the death of Osama Bin Laden. Almost everyone I know was and is over joyed that he is dead because it brings a sigh of relief that reassures national safety. However, I've heard a lot of people talking about if it's right to be happy some is dead because in the eyes of God, they can be forgiven. Now, I understand the reasoning because of the whole religious aspect, but if we had just killed him and then didn't say anything, would it have made it more righteous?  And with that respect isn't it safe to say that war in general is against religious teachings, but somehow the most religious people are the most militant. 

What Now?

It would be appropriate for there to be a post dedicated to Osama Bin Laden, but in my eyes, he doesn't deserve the attention that he has gotten. After all the people he has murdered, suffered and deceived, I am overwhelmingly happy that his reign of terror has been brought to an end. Unfortunately, the death of Bin Laden does not equate to the death of Al Queda or that of terrorism. So, the question that remains what implications does the death of Bin Laden have on the United States of America?

There is mass speculation that there will be some serious repercussions from militant Islamists groups that idolize Osama Bin Laden that the United States will possibly have to face. This is a grave possibility based on the established vengeful nature of these groups. However, I do not believe that the death of Bin Laden will necessarily be the impetus driving these groups. It is more likely that the pro-democracy uprisings and revolutions in the Middle East will be a more feasible foundation for any future aggression. Most of these uprisings have spread through American made social networking sites driven with American political and social ideals. In essence, the death of Bin Laden is a significant event, but the American influenced shift from Islamic dictators to democratic states may prove to be more detrimental.

The other questions that this news brings is that of the re-election of President Obama. A mist the troubled finances, partisan divides, economic instability, Taliban resurgence and all of the other issues affecting the nation; how much weight will the death of Bin Laden place on the President's bid for re-election if these prominent issues are no partially resolved?