Every once in a while I’m sitting here, enjoying my day, minding my own business when suddenly, out of nowhere, I get slapped in the face with a huge heaping pile of idiocy.

It saddens me, really, that this is the state of our world. That people like this can call themselves Christian. Now, I make no claims to be a Christian, but through my exposure I’ve been lead to believe it’s a religion about non-violence, peace, and forgiveness. Or, wait, was that Islam? I can’t seem to keep track, they’re so damned similar to each other. At least they have the decency to be based in different parts of the… wait, no, the opinion of Evangelists aside, Christianity isn’t “centered” on the United States and in fact grew out of the same cradle as Islam and Judaism. Well, damn, what’s a reasonably educated person to do then to tell them apart?

I know! Why don’t we just all become Buddhist? I don’t believe I’ve ever heard of Buddhists leading crusades into foreign lands to plunder resources, or using explosives to prove their point. The occasional self-immolation, sure, but when’s the last time that had collateral damage?

I’ve been trying to think of what I should say about this, some profound comment to add, but really, they’ve got it covered.

Yesterday, my wife found that the grocery store near our house had a sale on Dungeness crab. This made for an absolutely wonderful dinner which we ate while watching some programs on the Travel Channel talking about various islands in the tropics. As I was sitting there enjoying an absolutely fantastic meal of crab, watching programs detailing some of the most beautiful places in the world, the places that always make me think “Why aren’t I there right now,” my mind was brought to one thing – cigarettes.

Yes, I know they’re bad for you, but hear me out before you begin the mantras about how horrible they are. I thought about cigarettes and thought to myself “When’s the last time I actually *enjoyed* one?” It’s been quite a while. I reflected on this while enjoying my tasty meal, and the consideration expanded. In our fast-moving culture, how often do we take time to really sit down and enjoy such simple pleasures as food? The majority of this nation’s meals are of the fast food variety; to hell with how it tastes, I just want it fast. What’s that gotten us? A nation who’s primary health concern is *obesity?* Think about all the meals you’ve sat down and really, truly enjoyed – bet you that they were far healthier ones that your normal daily fare.

How many other things do we do in our daily lives that we used to enjoy but now do more out of habit than anything else? Like my smoking habit I keep telling myself I’m trying to kick. When I end up breaking down and smoking again, I always tell myself it’s my devotion to hedonism that prevents me from actually quitting. Yet even still, it’s been a very long time since I actually enjoyed a cigarette for being anything more than an alleviation of withdraw symptoms. If you don’t like the incredibly unhealthy example, take this cup of coffee I’m enjoying while writing this. I’m taking the time to enjoy the flavor of the coffee (and realizing it really isn’t that great of coffee, but the point is the same,) the way it plays off the palate, the warmth washing over my throat, the feeling of the caffeine taking hold so that I can “properly” start my day. I’m taking the time to actually enjoy this, and you know what? Despite it not being that great of coffee, it’s still a far better cup than I’ve had in a long time.

Think about it in your own lives, though. How many things did you start to do because you enjoyed them that you now don’t take the time to properly enjoy? When’s the last time you took pleasure in the little things?

Y’all think about it. Me, I have a cigarette to go enjoy.

As much as I tried to avoid admitting to having a personal life, much less what things I may be involved in during such, something came up through one of my hobbies recently that left me musing a bit of social commentary. I’m involved in an international role-playing game group, with games in Canada, Brazil, the US, and even Jerusalem.

The Jerusalem game is relatively new to this organization, but shortly after they joined they decided it would be a wonderful idea to try to organize a large event-game to be held in Jerusalem, to include a week long tour of Israel. They set it for two years from their first announcement so that people could have a chance to get ready, and in an effort to keep interest in the event as well as provide a degree of cultural education, the person running the Jerusalem game sends out a monthly email to the various email lists associated with this organization. The topics of these emails vary, covering such things like what the general climate of Israel is, what type of cuisine could be expected, the general styles of dress of your standard Israeli, questions regarding language barriers, and a variety of other topics mostly meant to dispel the myth that these “strange” people on the other side of the world are really all that different than any of the rest of us who are involved in this global gaming group.

This month, she chose to address a subject that was no doubt a concern for those who would choose to travel for this event she’s working so hard to make go well; the issue of security. Given the recent international headlines Israel’s been receiving, she chose to ease her way into the subject with a bit of humor. She linked a YouTube video that she tells us was complied by a group of Israeli news editors in response to the current media coverage of the flotilla fiasco. She followed this by explaining that despite the image the rest of the world has, born entirely of news coverage, with a bit of common sense, it is indeed safe to travel to and in Israel. She cited statistics (without sources) stating that you were more likely to be killed in a Chicago mugging than to be killed in a Hamas rocket attack.

There was immediate backlash to her email, calling the post tasteless and inappropriate. She responded by clarifying that she was trying to advertise her event and alleviate concerns she feels the players may have. This was followed by a long series of response emails telling her that the individual sender was indignant that she would post that video.

I’ll admit, a discussion forum relating to out-of-character discussions surrounding a role-playing game is probably not the best place to post politically-charged material, even if your intention is to provide a bit of satire about a situation. That was only asking for trouble. But really? You have to send in an email response to it to say that you’re offended? What *exactly* does that accomplish? Furthermore, why is that any more offensive than *any* political commentary out there? The content of her clarifying email made it clear that her intention was to illustrate that there are two sides to every story, that you shouldn’t take what you see in the media to heart.

I responded to that email, doing a quick Google news search to illustrate my point. I didn’t read the articles; I’ve read far more than enough about the situation. What I was looking for was headlines. The Google news search page brought up its first ten listings at the time. Nine of them condemned Israel for its actions, one refused to take a side and was simply relaying the statement made by the Israeli Defense Force. I pointed this out in my response to illustrate how the situation is clearly biased and that a video like this is but a response to that overwhelming international bias. I argued that there are at least two sides to any given story, often many more. I argued that the video wasn’t tasteless due to its political nature and thanked the original sender for attempting to provide a sense of levity to a tense subject, for trying to address the elephant in the room that has been security concerns regarding this trip.

For some reason, I expected rational, civil discourse. The response I got was a passive aggressive post that claimed I couldn’t possibly have an intelligent opinion on the subject if I had to Google it before posting, and included this little gem: When you have friends and acquaintances dying or putting themselves in harms way, and someone calls them con-artists in an attempt to “educate” perhaps you’ll get offended, too – maybe not.  *shrug*

I’m still not sure what part of that bothers me more; the absolute disregard for anything approaching audience analysis, the passive-aggressive “name-calling,” or, as xarexerax put it, “the rampant stupidity and deviation from reasoned thought.”

I might not have met the qualifications necessary to complete my term, but I enlisted in the Army a while back. I was sent to the Army Language School to study Korean so I could work in forward radio intercept. I made many friends from every branch of service during my 2 years at the language school… and there’s very few of them I can confirm presently are still alive. I was chaptered out because I wasn’t able to keep myself in good enough shape (for a variety of reasons) and they were almost all sent along to go serve in the Middle East.

I have marched in parades designed to build community relations though crowds of protesters screaming far worse at me than “con-artist.” Read through non-western newspapers sometime and you’ll find the US Military trashed on a plethora of points. I have friends and family who weather this with a smile, who fight and die for a cause they believe in, much how the Palestinian’s being mocked here are fighting and dying for a cause they believe in.

He couldn’t, of course, have known any of that when he passive-aggressively made his comments about whether or not I would care. So he made a blanket assumption about his entire audience, figuring that those who disagree with him on a point must fall into a certain stereotypical block. He disregarded anything relevant to civil discourse or intelligent debate.

I was irritated at this and ranted to a few friends, who while agreeing with me, pointed out “Well, it is the Internet. What do you expect?” That’s true, with the way debate on internet forums has generally developed, there’s a strong stereotype that the only responses you can possibly get are from “trolls” who have no purpose but to aggravate the situation.

Forgive me for holding out the hope that there could be reasonable discussion on a topic through an internet medium. What was I thinking?

I’ll be the first to admit, when news stories surrounding a controversial new immigration law in Arizona started popping up, I didn’t pay any attention to it. As they shifted to stories of the large protests against the apparently Naziesque law, I still didn’t look much into it, but my interest began to spike a bit; clearly if something is evil enough to move thousands into their streets to cry foul, then it’s something worth noticing. So, when a news program on Sunday morning started explaining some of the details, I sat by and listened in relative disbelief about the events surrounding this much-maligned law.

Not, though, the surprise I expected to feel.

I expected to be shocked by the contents of the law. I expected to be repulsed by their racist doctrine, to be bowled over by the insane goings-on in a state not too far from my own. The reality, though? I was shocked — more than shocked, really, but I haven’t got a good word for it — that people are upset about this new law. The body of the law seems to focus on a few points: firstly, the verification of citizenship when arrested for unrelated violations; second, the right to (with “probable cause”) demand proof of citizenship; and last, the seemingly benign edict against hiring from, or out of, any vehicle which impedes the flow of traffic. Now, I’ll be frank — that middle one definitely carries the stink of potential racial abuse, but looking past that …

Federal law mandates that these documents exist, and that citizens should, within reason, have access to them at any given time. A state ID, a Social Security card, driver’s license, and so on. These are already standing laws of our country. Nothing new there. All that the new Arizona law has done in that regard is create a state law which helps to back up and enforce the existing national standard. In short, it makes it illegal to be here illegally; what really surprised me about this uproar is this — I never knew that wasn’t already being done. Why would we have the term “illegal immigrant” if something isn’t actually illegal, and enforced as such? Why haven’t police in every state, every city across the country, been verifying the identity and citizenship of every single arrest? It sounds to me like this offers a safeguard against putting illegal immigrants into the American prison system — an already-stressed system, to be sure — which would, in effect, reduce the amount of tax dollars being thrown at the “problem” (that is, if they’re in our system, we’re paying their food and lodging bill).

The crux of the debate, though, is in the middle section I mentioned above; the “probable cause” statute allowing police to require proof of citizenship / immigrant status from anyone for whatever reason they see fit. The problem with this isn’t so much the idea behind it, but the ambiguity and the parts of the process left up to the individual judgment of the police officer(s) in question. Obviously, this has a strong potential for abuse along racial lines — I don’t think we’re about to see AZ state troopers pulling over cars full of suspected Canadians, for instance, to inquire about the legality of their visit to the good ol’ U.S. of A. That said, the law itself is not (in my ever-so-humble opinion) inherently racist; it’s just ambiguous. To call it racist is, I think, a lack of faith in the men and women serving our justice system which may be wholly justified, but that’s a problem with our countrymen, not with the law.

I believe the first part of the law — verifying citizenship/immigrant status of individuals arrested or suspected in unrelated incidents — should become the national standard if we, as a country, are going to take any kind of stand against the influx of illegal immigrants from any side. The second portion, though, needs some thorough review and some general “common sense” bylines to prevent abuse, but again, I don’t think it’s something comparable to the Nazi regime’s treatment of the Jewish community. There’s a difference between demanding proof of legal status within a country and the mistreatment of citizens of that country, and unless this branches out into shoving legal Mexican immigrants into prefabricated “ghettos” along with their border-jumping former countrymen, I think it’s a ridiculous comparison to make. Are there similarities? Sure, but I can draw a lot of similarities between nearly any piece of legislature and the practices or beliefs of Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini — the list goes on, but you get the idea.

I think that as a nation, we’ve become so accustomed to stories of abuse of the justice system, along with our endemic culture of paranoia, that we jump on the chance to demonize our political enemies by sorting them with the great beasts of the world’s past. The information age has made it easier for everyone to spread their own brand of fear or hate, and for similarly-minded people to band together in organized events nationwide, making the impact seem stronger than it would otherwise. We’ve grown our own brand of self-suspicion, always operating under the assumption that any law passed, any word spoken, any accomplishment in the public eye is simply a mask for some darker purpose, that some agenda (contrary to our own) lies just beneath the surface waiting to be exploited by the evil perpetrators of these wicked acts.

Hell, just look at me. I’m ranting against a bunch of people ranting against something that I don’t see nearly as much wrong with. And this rant, in turn, will inspire people to rant against me, to tell me that I’m just being blind to Big Brother’s scheme to kill anyone that’s not a white Christian conservative. Or that I’m buying into the lies sewn by the radical left, radical right, or maybe even the radical middle-of-the-road, if that can exist.

So. Am I reading the law incorrectly? Is everyone else? I’d love to have debate on this one.