The eventful history of the United States has taught lessons to many of its people. As a result we live in the time where the conscientiousness of citizens in light of political matters has increased. Aided by the upsurge of internet accessibility and many technological advances, communication and collations across borders, boundaries, and essentially the whole world has been promoted. The Presidential election 2008 received an unprecedented amount of media coverage, and so has the war on Iraq and Afghanistan. Politicians at times could be considered, professional promisers, and the overarching promise that President Obama made during his campaigning was a promise of “change”. Now, as the President of the United States, Obama is on center stage and the nation has front row seats to the unveiling of this promise.

Since the beginning of his term, President Obama has introduced changes to policies and has been the feature of many newspapers and magazines across the globe for some of his choices. Some people scrutinize his every decision, awaiting an opportunity to berate him and his ability to lead, and others put on foggy goggles to prevent them from seeing any potential mishaps. Though these descriptions may be befitting of the extremists in support and opposition of President Obama, this latest decision to deploy 30,000 more U.S. Troops to Afghanistan and the $30 billion dollar price tag of this new approach has seemingly also piqued the interest of those who stand near the middle ground of indifference.

When dealing with healthcare, those who are indifferent tend to continue their walk. However, when news of terrorism, war, redeployment of troops, and billions being spent to achieve certain war related goals become a topic of discussion or a call for decisions making concerning the matter is pending, the walk of the indifferent and the extremists come to a standstill. This is what occurred when rumors of redeployment hit the media a few months ago and now after the Obama has given his speech on December 1^st 2009 concerning Afghanistan. It is evident that this standstill does not occur for long because shortly thereafter, the opinions of many are plastered all over the internet, in responses to blogs, news articles and even YouTube videos to name a few.

A commonality in these responses is the expression of alarm at President Obama’s decision to send more troops to Afghanistan. A strong sense of betrayal is conveyed through these various posts, betrayal that stems from the belief that Obama was reneging on promises made during his campaign for President. With research, it becomes evident that throughout his campaign, President Obama made his intentions clear concerning the matter of war. He was in opposition of the Iraq War, and would make every effort to put it to an end when in office. Though he promised to end the war, he did not promise not to send more troops to Afghanistan.

Another sentiment expressed was that the Iraq War is like that of the Vietnam War. This was address by the president directly in his speech.

“First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we are better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. I believe this argument depends upon a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now — and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance — would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.”

There is a concerned about the $30 billion cost of this new approach in Afghanistan. According to CostofWar.com, around $940 billion has been spent over the past eight years on the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War collectively. This breaks down to around $9.8 billion a month over the past eight years. Should an 18 month strategy have been implemented at the start of the war, it would have cost around $176 billion dollars, almost six times the proposed cost of bringing an end to the war under the leadership of President Obama. Should the war be continued without change, $30 billion dollars would no longer be the cause of concern for citizens, but at least a $100 billion more.

War is disastrous. It would be hard to conceptualize the notion of a sane minded person wanting to perpetuate war. Unlike wars of the past, the draft process did not have to take place as a measure of acquiring troops to fight on our behalf. Brave men, women and intersexes have made and continue to make the choice to go abroad and lay their lives down for their country. They fight for people whom they may never know or meet. They fight for their loved ones and families. They fight to maintain the freedom for the people of these United States of America. They fight against injustices that not only affect others who look to us for help but affect us. This war has gone on long enough. Too many lives have been lost, and too much money used in this time of economical crisis. The sorrow of seeing the redeployment of troops may endure for a night, but the joy of an America, an Afghanistan, a Pakistan, a London, an Amman and a Bali, without the threat of massive terrorist attacks hovering, will come in the morning.

 The transcript of President Obama’s speech has been attached to this article. Please read, and re-read. You might miss a lot of details by hearing it or watching the video, but by reading it, you increase your chances of attaining a better understanding of what is being said.  

Transcript

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

No God

So I just set up my Twitter account (twitter.com/jaybastien),  so excited, I could link it to my blog etc.. I then look at the current trend topics, and notice that the number one trend topic is…drum roll…….”No God.”

I am a follower of Jesus Christ. Not by any means the best that ever lived, when compared to the apostles that were martyred in his name,  those who gave up everything “material” to follow him etc..  I am just a sinner who was saved, not by my own accord, but through accepting Jesus as my Lord and Savior, and being baptized for the remission of my sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

I do not profess to be a well studied theologian, or the best apologetic by any means. I stumble just like the next brother/sister, but I get back up, and try my best to walk the walk of repentance.

Now, I see that there are people on Twitter, who are outraged by this trend of “No God” and there are those who are rejoicing. Both those who are outraged and those who are rejoicing are typing the words “No God” in their responses, over and over again. Well, based on the software that Twitter uses to pick up on trends, well, that behavior is only going to keep the term as a number one trend.

Be all that, as it may, I noticed something else going on with the new tweets concerning the topic. I noticed that those who were in opposition of the term being on the Twitter trends list, were bashing the others that were rejoicing. That, is what aroused my interest and contributed to the urge for me to write this post.

With the internet comes openness. Openness to information. Information about almost everything fathomable (I say everything just to say it, I cannot think of one topic that is left out of the reach of the internet). This makes speading of the gospel of Jesus Christ extremely easy. Now, someone who is interested could Google the word Jesus, and find a plethera of information. This is why my attitude to those who do not believe in God has changed.

If someone is able to set up a Twitter account, and post some Twits here and there, then this person in my belief has at least a basic knowledge of internet usage. With that being the case, I will be inclined to belief that if, said person wants to know about Jesus or the existence of God, they know exactly where to find this information out.

I am not intersted in begging people to believe in God. I am not interested in having arguments with those who know better. The beautiful thing about God, is that He gave every single person, “free will”. Who am I to take away another man’s God given gift? If someone wants to believe that there is “No God”, so be it.

EVERYONE has to give an account for THEMSELVES.

If someone is interested in learning more about Christ from me, I will more than share my life with them. If not, then not. I will not beat a dead horse, I will not force anything down anyone’s throat. The blessing and curse of the internet is that information is readily available, but now, billions of users, have no excuse.

No God, well from where I stand, I see Him clearly, and my prayer is that I may never loose my footing.

The “nappy hair” part, I believe is unique to those who have ties with the “black” race. My use of the term “black” is not localized. It comprises of people of various ethnicity, (i.e. Hispanic, Guatemalan, African American, South African etc.) and is based on the appearance as opposed to specific ethnicity.

This topic piqued my interest to the point of writing this blog when I saw a recent episode of the Tyra Banks Show, that discussed the subject matter. Tyra seemed annoyed at the terms “nappy” and “bad hair”. Granted saying that one has “bad hair” seems harsh, but I find that this term is not used without good reason.

“Good” hair within the “black” community may be viewed as hair that is easy to manage. Of course it could be said that one person has more manageable hair or less manageable hair than the next, but this could be quite a mouthful, especially when it is quite easy to get the same point across using the term “bad.” Even within the non-black community there is such a thing as having “good” hair and “bad” hair. The difference lies in the definition.

“Good” hair to one, in comparison to another,  may be that hair is full of body, healthy, or able to grow quickly. In contrast, “bad hair” would be void of those things.

Though both “blacks” and “non-blacks” have “bad” hair, the term “nappy” is more widely associated with “bad” “black” hair. Why is that?

Well, here is my understanding of it:

To start, I present the appropriate definition of the word “nap.”

: a hairy or downy surface (as on a fabric)

Webster’s Online Dictionary

Yes, this definition is in reference to textile, but I presume that there is a deeper meaning in relation to this subject matter.

Nap in reference to fabric, in my opinion is not a widely known definition. Therefore when the word “nappy” is spoken of, the root word “nap” in terms of fabric is not necessarily the first thing that is thought of.

In various languages, many metaphors are used. Some are developed during certain time periods, and lose meaning as time progresses. This is not a phenomenon, instead it happens quite often, though one rarely takes the time to recognize it.

I believe that “nappy” has met the same fate.

For example:
There have been a multitude of accounts of African slaves and their description of the people who came in vessels to transport them from Africa. Many of them described the people as being “ghostly”, “pale”, “sickly looking”, with “stringy hair.” It is my belief that the slaves used these terms to describe their masters because they were the best words that the slaves could come up with to explain something (in this case peoples) whom they had never seen before.

Likewise, it is my belief that when those without a prior introduction to tightly coiled hair became introduced to it, they likened this hair to naps in fabric. Therefore, by calling this hair nappy, they would be able to describe the hair to someone with no knowledge of it and paint a better picture to them.

Now, nappy then started to be viewed in a negative light, because it became the descriptive term for the type of hair that black people have. Not due to the likeness of naps and tightly coiled hair, but because it was related to black people.

I will not act as if America is not littered with a past of racism, and will continue writing with this knowledge being held as truth.

The conflict of good hair and bad hair is not the same as the conflict of good hair and nappy hair. Good hair and bad hair is not limited to ethnicity/race/culture. However, in my opinion, the terms “good hair” and “nappy hair,” with “nappy hair” being viewed in a negative light, carry out the prevalent undertone that “all things non-black are good” while “all things black are bad.”

To take it further, the “more non-black” your hair is, the “more good” your hair/you are. The “more black” or “nappy” your hair is, the “more bad” your hair/you are.

In summation, I believe that some people could have more manageable or healthier hair than others. However, when I hear discussions and disputes, especially within minorities, concerning “goodness” and “nappiness,” I do not see a discussion about hair, but a more subtle form of the cancer of racism, still reeking havoc among unsuspecting hosts.

Image from FreeDigitalPhotos.com

I will not cover specific subject matters, quite contrarily, I suspect that most of my blogging will be random and done via my iPhone. So, the occasional typo might slip through. I will edit those when I catch them.

Otherwise,

Welcome to my world, life (well part of it), and my views. I welcome all opposing, or consenting thoughts.

-Jay