Memories of 9/11, Reactions to bin Laden's Death

My memories of 9/11 are dim, as I was only eight years old at the time and had no loved ones in New York. I was home schooled that year, so I was in my living room. We still had an antenna on our TV back then, and I think I remember a news story with images of the Twin Towers on the TV in the corner. I lay on my stomach on the carpeted living room floor as I wrote about it in the spiral notebook journal I had for school, and drew pictures of the Twin Towers. I knew that it was a great tragedy, that many people died, and that it was because of some bad guys (did I even know the word "terrorist"?). At that age, I didn't quite grasp the importance of the World Trade Center and probably only thought of the Pentagon as a shape. I definitely couldn't fully grasp the tragic and political impact of the attack. At that age, I didn't need to.

I can’t remember what if feels like not to be waging a war against terror. 9/11 is my first memory of international awareness outside of ancient history, so as far as I’m concerned, I may as well have never lived in a time of peace. As a child, I figured out that I live at a very safe distance from any important targets terrorists may find, and then, for the most part, I left such things to the adults to mull over. War has become normal. My family doesn't get the news or a national newspaper, and none of my loved ones have enlisted. And so, as sad as it is to admit, war became background noise to me. It came to the surface in fifth grade when they found Saddam Hussein and my teacher showed us part of a news story about it. It surfaced again when I read stories in Readers Digest or heard about a teacher’s son serving in Iraq or Afghanistan.

I might have been alive before 9/11, but I’d never heard of (or probably even seen pictures of) the Twin Towers. The terrorist attacks that day almost feels like another tragedy listed in my history books, and the fiction inspired by it feel like Historical fiction. Almost, but not quite. After all, as young and naïve as I was that day, I still had some awareness. I clearly remember thinking through where I lived and whether Washington DC and anywhere else important were a safe distance away. I understood the security checks at the airports when I next flew. No matter the hassle of going through security, I was thankful for it – and I hoped it was enough. I’ve always been aware of my brave fellow Americans over in the Middle East, and always thankful for their sacrifices, always wishing the sacrifices would be kept to nothing more than leaving their families and sweltering in the heat. I’ve grown up aware of the threat from terrorists, though it wasn’t until the past few years that I understood that the threat was coming from more than one organization. Ever since I was old enough to form political opinions, I thought, “Keep up national defense. Don’t trust the terrorists. Be alert, federal government. Be alert, airport officials. May the Lord protect our country.”

By the time I began reading adult fiction (mostly Christian adult fiction) five or six years ago, there were plenty of books relating to the war on terrorism. I’ve read books about Navy SEALs, CIA agents, and many other characters based on real life heroes. I’ve read books that weave conspiracy series and apocalyptic tales with real life terrorist organizations. It’s almost like historical fiction… except I know we still have soldiers, intelligence agencies, and an entire country sacrificing, searching, and praying. I know that the threats novelists use as a basis for fantastic fiction are still very real.

So when I looked on Twitter and saw the news about Osama bin Laden, I immediately clicked the news story linked in the tweet. A small part of me had forgotten that bin Laden had still been alive – in my mind, he was a legendary threat, and legends are usually dead people. Moreover, despite my resolution to start following politics a good amount of time before my first election day, it’s only after hearing about bin Laden’s death that I’m actually following through. And thus, because of my ignorance, bin Laden felt to me like just a name, just a face, albeit an important one, for the overall threat.

My immediate reaction to the news went: “he was still alive? Oh right. I knew that. Wow this is big. Is it really true? Is he really dead? The president wouldn’t say so unless he knew for sure… right?” As I began to believe that yes, bin Laden is dead, I felt some relief. Not a ton – even with my limited knowledge of international affairs, I realized that the terrorist threat is very much alive, and that our soldiers are still overseas. I didn’t feel the jubilee that some expressed all over Facebook and Twitter. Yes, justice prevailed, but I knew it would eventually – didn’t God promise that? In my mind, the authorities did their job (though we all wish they’d been able to do it sooner), and if they’d failed, then God would have still doled out justice. Bin Laden deserved to die. He deserved it, and it’s nice to have another bulwark of terrorism removed. But I’m not necessarily joyful about it. Watching the celebration explode across the internet, I wondered if it was naivety that kept me from taking pleasure in my enemy’s death. Then I spotted one of the verses a friend had posted on Facebook in response to all this. She quoted Proverbs 24:17, which reads:

“Do not gloat when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles.”

She also quoted verses about justice and triumph: Romans 13:4 and Psalm 31:23. Then today she quoted Martin Luther King Jr.:

“I will mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy.”

That quote from King sounds quite similar to my thoughts right now. I mourn the loss of so many lives. But I cannot rejoice in bin Laden’s death. I believe that justice was done. I believe it was a victory, and I am glad for that. However, I cannot join in the celebration just because bin Laden was killed.

That’s not all. The fact is, the threat of terrorism is just as present as ever. I’ll wait to party until they say the War on Terror is officially won, however much longer that may take. Meanwhile, I’ll rejoice in the smaller things – each soldier home and reunited with his or her family, for instance. Now there’s something I can celebrate.

Fed Up With Immature "Discussion"

I don't mind discussing, debating, or even arguing politics. In fact, I love it! And rallying, joining together with like-minded people is great. However, some people take it too far. On Facebook, I became a fan of "Being Conservative." With Reagan for a profile picture, you'd think the group made distinguished posts and warrant good discussion. Unfortunately, that's not usually the case.

A recent post by the "Being Conservative" group stated, "Dear Obama: take 2011 off and don't come to work. 'Like' if this is one of your New Years wishes." This post turned into an outlet for my fellow discontented conservatives to voice their... disapproval of our president. I understand the need for an outlet, but got fed up with the seeming lack of thoughtful, issue-related comments. So, I thought I'd post my comment here as well to share my annoyance.

Look, I don't like President Obama either, but my friends and I have more mature discussions about him and other politics... and we're teenagers! If I were a liberal, I'd look at these comments and think, "What argumentative, insulting, broken records these conservatives are!"
Obama is liberal, and the most pro-choice president we've ever had. But he's still the president, and comments like these help no one. The American people woke up a little during the last Congress election, and we're not helpless. Let's use our passion towards something useful - like research, writing, intelligent discussion/debate, protests, letter writing... something more productive than showing a nasty face to our fellow facebook users.
I know I'm younger than most of you, and I'm sorry for the lecture. I just get frustrated when I see a bunch of unproductive, immature comments on political issues. I get even more frustrated when the comments are coming from my fellow conservatives, since they hinder our cause more than help.
Oh, and this comment doesn't apply to those of you who are just happy to imagine a world without the negatives of Obama and aren't supplying useless immature comments. There's a difference between rallying and spouting unintelligible words. Sometimes that difference is a fine line.

Maybe I'm taking it all too seriously, but I think most of the other people who commented weren't thinking enough.

Comments on de Tocqueville's Democracy in America

Before I begin, I must address my facebook friends who see these random notes appear on their homepages: I've made it so my blog posts automatically transfer to facebook notes. Very few of you know about my blog, and none of you read it, so I'm forced to make my posts into facebook notes if I want anyone to read them.

Now, onto the real post...

In my initial studies for the We the People competition, both my textbook and outside articles repeatedly referenced Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America, published in 1835. I dutifully acquired the book, read the preface and introduction, and skipped to the chapter relevant to our competition. To my surprise, de Tocqueville drew me in, and I turned back to read from the beginning. A few chapters into this great work, I can understand why so many scholars reference it.

De Tocqueville states that the ideas and conduct of men and nations are best understood when studied from their earliest days. This idea motivates him to begin, after the introduction, by setting the scene with America's geography. He starts with the whole of North America and moves into the details of New England's trees, until I can see the leaves move with the breeze, their shadows rippling across the life-giving decay on the forest floor. With the ease of a novelist, de Tocqueville tours his readers around the States and introduces us to the Natives. In due time, he transitions us into the lives of the colonists, explaining the basic motives and politics of different groups of Anglo-Americans. I am well into the second chapter (or perhaps beginning the third), where de Tocqueville explains much of the principles and governance of the pilgrims and the Puritan societies they formed in New England. The progression of Democracy in America through each explanation feels natural.

My original goal, to prepare for the We the People competition, forced me to skip to the chapter on political associations before I even read the chapters described above. In this chapter, de Tocqueville treats me to his delightful insight regarding my country. I need to learn about voluntary associations in America, and de Tocqueville fulfills that need, broadening my understanding of these associations and the heritage behind them.

"In no country in the world," de Tocqueville claims, "has the principle of association been more successfully used, or more unsparingly applied to a multitude of different objects, than in America. Besides the associations which are established by law," such as townships, "a vast number of others are formed and maintained by the agency of private individuals." De Tocqueville, a foreigner twice to me due to the age and nation he belonged to, describes these associations with a fascination which alerts me that their composition is not universal and not to be taken for granted. I have grown up in a world of voluntary associations, from the larger and politically active groups like Oregon Right to Life or the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) to the community minded groups such as Key club and our local FAN (Family Access Network). In contrast, de Tocqueville considers such associations novel, more replete than those in Europe*.

And what drives the American people to form associations to confront questions and problems around them? De Tocqueville might argue that it is our heritage. "The citizen of the United States," he writes, "is taught from his earliest infancy to rely upon his own exertion in order to resist the evils and the difficulties of life; he looks upon social authority with an eye of mistrust and anxiety, and he only claims its assistance when he is quite unable to shift without it." It is this spirit, Tocqueville believes, which leads citizens to solve problems in their community themselves. De Tocqueville notes that, worldwide, "Societies are formed to resist enemies which are exclusively of a moral nature, and to diminish the vice of intemperance: in the United States associations are established to promote public order, commerce, industry, morality, and religion." We are, according to de Tocqueville, driven to join our exertions in association with an American sense of independence and ingenuity. Reading this, I wonder if, 175 years later, de Tocqueville would observe the same traits of independence from government. I believe his observations would be more mixed. I think that many citizens in the modern United States expect the government to solve more problems than they expected in de Tocqueville's day, and view "Uncle Sam" with less mistrust. At the same time, many maintain the same spirit of independence described in de Tocqueville's work. At the very least, Americans as a whole recognize that our nation is one founded by the people. Should we be dissatisfied with anything in our country, we take for granted the use of freedom of association and freedom of speech.

There I go, rambling again. I shall stop now, and let the reader (if any one does read my blog) experience Democracy in America on their own and thus begin their own reflection on America's constitution, past and present.

*He spends most of the chapter on American political associations, and his comparison of them to their European equivilants are quite interesting. I shall not address this aspect of his work here, as it is a topic best fitted to another post.