Andy's Blog

It has now been two weeks since the Virginia Tech shooting (I refuse to call it a massacre like the sensationalized press). I, like every other blogger on the web, of course was tempted to blog about this the second after this happened. But I, unlike every other blogger on the web, decided to wait two weeks. Why? Because what I am about to say was probably too emotionally charged to say the minute after it happened, but now seems a little more realistic (although still probably somewhat extreme). The Virginia Tech shooting is a non-event.

WOAH! You have got to be kidding me. You are nuts. You are so insensitive. You are ridiculous! Are those pretty much your thoughts? Well, give me a second and maybe I will make some sense. If I don't, you are welcome to think I am ridiculous.

Before I go further, I do not want to minimize the pain of those that were personally affected by this event. The families, direct friends, and students deserve our prayers and our sympathy. But the sensationalism the media, and if we are honest, ourselves, had/have turned that event into is almost just as much of a tragedy because it lacks perspective. And why do we lack perspective? Because we are self-centered and we all either are going to college, are in college, went to college, or have kids going to college.

Let's take a look at perspective for a second.

• In 2000 there were 850,293 abortions in the US. That's 2,329 deaths each day, or 77x as many deaths per day as the VTech shootings. Ok, so now you think I am a crazy right-wing nut job. Well hold on.
• In 2006, 2.9 million people died of AIDS, which is 7,900 per day (or 264x that of VTech). 1,041 of those 7,900 deaths per day are innocent children.
• Every year 15 million children die of hunger, or 41,095 per day - that's 1370x that of VTech.
• So just out of those three statistics, we see that 51,324 people die per day that are reasonably treatable and I consider a "tragic death."

Now some of you are probably on the same page with me; others still think I am a nut job. One more thing. I think the American culture proves that VTech is a non-event. Why? Because just two weeks later we have pretty much forgotten about this. It no longer graces the front pages of MSNBC.com, FoxNews.com and CNN.com. In addition to that, how many of us remember the Amish School shooting back in November. Or better yet, that there have been 36 school shootings since 1996. In a month, this will be completely a non-event.

So why is this a non-event? Because we are self-centered. We only care about what we think will happen to us or our family. This is why we don't really care about the alarming statistics of unnecessary death around the world. It is also why at first we appear to care about things like VTech more than anything else, but in the end, we retreat back to our realization that we are really quite safe, our college students are safe, and we've got life pretty good. So since our Darwinian instinct of survival is back in tact, we put these memories into our past as tragic, but essentially incurious.

It's 5:12 am "locally" (locally here is defined as 35,000 feet over Whitehorse, Canada). It is now the second time this day (April 14th) I have experienced 5 am. Traveling over the International Date line is weird. I actually will arrive in Chicago before I took off in Japan. Take that Back to the Future. I am just sitting down after an hour conversation with a Marine named Mark, who apparently is also super claustrophobic on planes like I am and decided to stand back with the flight attendants for an hour.

Mark was reading a book on Philosophy when I first started talking to him, and I later found out he had served in Iraq twice and Afghanistan once. We talked about everything from the historical context of the problems in the Middle East, to traveling the world, to our homes, and what we want to do with the rest of our life. It was a good hour.

One thing I brought up with him was an observation I had made about Japan while there: I wish Europe was more like Japan. I loved Japan. These are words I never thought I'd say. In fact, in all my extreme desire to travel, traveling to the Far East never really interest me. This changed on this trip. I could go many different routes with this, but I am going to stick with one.

About 51 years ago, the USA dropped two Atomic bombs on Japan. They were our enemy, and we were in a bitter, bloody fight and we decided this was the best course of action to save lives. You would think there was some modern day resentment by the Japanese, but there was none. Contrast to Europe, who would all be speaking German right now if it weren't for our help, and they hate our guts. So let me get this straight: here we have a country where we killed innocent men, women, and children, and they were the most friendly, warm, "American" place I have been to (except Israel was more "American, but that's another story).

I just don't get it. Transition to a conversation between Hoey (APU student) and a part-Japanese kid on the trip whose Grandfather fought against America in WW2. He proceeds to tell us that his Grandfather even admits it was good for America to use the A-Bomb as it probably saved Japanese lives. Hoey proceeds to tell him that it was/is never ok for us to do something like this and I step back and think: man this is strange.

We have built so much "white/American guilt" that we hate ourselves more than those we wronged do. Why? Why can't we recognize that if we have been forgiven and the Japanese have moved on, why can't we? Better yet, why can't anyone but the Japanese recognize that America is not perfect, but that we are a good country, trying to do good in the world.

America has done some historically awful stuff. But we have also done some great things (long before Bono & Jolie ever stepped on to the scene). So why are we hated? Why are we ashamed sometimes of our international presence? Why when the countries in which we "affect" are better off then if left alone, do we get accused of imperalization?

Historically speaking, most of what is turbulent in the Middle East is Europe's fault. Whether it was the English drawing country lines without consideration of indigenous people & tribes, or German's forced exile of the Jews back to the Middle East, the problems we are trying to rectify were created by Europe. So it ends now. I've said all along Iraq will be a better place for Iraqis because of our involvement, and I won't feel guilty about that. Let's just hope the Iraqis are more like their Asian counterparts and less like Europe.


You can listen to similar thoughts I shared on our radio show this weekend by pushing the play button above. The entire show can be found at http://www.allenhuntshow.com/Listen/189/

This week has been quite a week for the Dixie Chicks. Their new album is at the top of the charts, and two nights ago they were on Larry King Live talking about the past three years. I have to admit, I am one of the Americans (although we seem to be fleeting) that will probably never buy another Dixie Chicks song. This isn't because I hate them vehemently. They are probably great people and they sure as heck produce great music. But just like Barry Bonds for baseball, the Dixie Chicks will always have a sour taste in my mouth.

If you've read this blog before you know that I am pro-Iraq because ultimately I think life will be better for Iraqis once a stable government takes over. I have been to the Middle East, I have seen first hand the amount of oppression over there, and anything that removes oppressive regimes in my book is a noble feat. (This is not to say that I think this is why Bush went over there, nor do I feel we have been dealt with honestly, but that's another topic).

I also should state here that their is a part of me that truly respects the Dixie Chicks. I admire anyone who stands so strongly to their belief, especially when their careers are on the line. Principle is something America seems to have forgotten. I also respect the Dixie Chicks stance on the war, even if I do not agree with it. I have many friends that are against the war in Iraq, and for good reason. Anyone who can come to an educated, reasonable decision about their opinion of the war is respectable, and the Dixie Chicks appear to have that.

So Andy, gosh, what's the big deal. Why the sour taste. Here's why. I think the Dixie Chicks as their name alludes to are Chickens. The biggest problem I had with their sentiments back in 2003 was not what they said, not how they said it, but where they said it. London!

Now many have made the point that they weren't willing to say this in Dallas or Nashville or even New York, and I disagree with them. I think that they were willing to say it anywhere. However, where they chose to say it for the first time is of great importance. And the point is Dixie Chicks, you might be willing to say it anywhere, but the truth of the matter is you didn't.

I would have had no problem if they said what they said in New York (which would still probably agree with them) and then travel to London and say the same thing. But you don't backhand your country, even if you disagree with it, and even if a lot of people in your country would agree with you, on foreign soil for the first time. It is like a husband who tells all his buddies what he hates about his wife in hopes that somehow it will get back to his wife and his wife will change his ways. You just don't do that. Have the balls to look America in the eye, on American soil, and say, "America we are not right in our stance on the war, and I for one am ashamed that W. comes from Texas." That is a statement and a context that I would respect.

Since the statement made from London, they have apologized for how they said it, but to my recollection, not where they said it. So I hope 500,000 of you enjoy your Dixie Chickens CD, I for one, will not be buying it.

As we speak, I am watching the joint press conference between Bush and Blair. Bush has just made the comment that (and I am paraphrasing) that the insurgents in Iraq don't fight a conventional war and don't play by the rules. It was at this moment I wanted Bush to turn to Blair and say, "just like we did 225 years ago against the British."

Before I get further into this conversation, I need to give the disclaimer that I am a supporter of the Iraq war. I have been to the Middle East, I have seen the injustices done from the aristocracy, and Jesus challenges all of his followers to stick up for the oppressed. Any ruler who kills hundreds of thousands of his own people qualifies as an oppressor in my book and I am proud to be a part of a country who seeks justice in the world. I am not saying I think this is why Bush went, for all I know it was all about oil, but that doesn't change the fact that in the end Iraq will be a better place for Iraqi people, and for that I say the mission will be worth it.

But I digress. While there are many things I find despicable about the Middle East insurgency and terrorism, I can't say their methods are one of them. Why you ask? Becuase as an American, we invented the concept of unconventional warfare. Now I don't like the idea of women, children and civilians being targeted anymore than the next guy. But at the same time, logic will not allow for me to say that it is a barbaric act of war because to do so would mean I would have to admit that the American Revolution was a barbaric act of war. We were the ones who refused to line up on an open field to be slaughtered. We fought dirty by hiding in the woods, and by using our surroundings to our advantage. But ultimately, if it weren't for the American Revolution, the world would be a far different place. And for all of her faults, I believe America has brought 10 times (ok an expression) more good to the world. None of this would happen of course unless the Colonies took on an act of war that was not accepted at the time.

So thus, it isn't the methods of war that I feel make it barbaric - as war by definition is barbaric in all circumstances and in any method (but barbarism is sometimes necessary). Rather, what I feel makes the insurgents beyond barbaric is what they are fighting for. They are fighting for oppression. They would rather be led by a mad-man than an elected (still imperfect) government. It isn't even the rejection of democracy that bothers me, as I know some might find this as a shock, but democracy is not the answer for everybody (sorry W.). However, they are rejecting justice. Have a monarchy. Have a dictatorship. Have whatever works. But above all, have peace, justice, and love!

As CJ cries out "boring" and switches the channel to the NBA game, I find myself going back to a place every time I descend from the clouds after a long flight and touch ground in Frankfurt, Germany, or Amsterdam. It amazes me that 50 years ago, touching down at the exact same place would be the same as touching down in Baghdad today. But in such a short time, so much can change. In the same way, after 225 years, after a horribly bloody and unconventional war, Bush & Blair, America & England, stand united together at two podiums unified in the common cause of pursuing justice and eventual peace. For that I am proud, and for that I hope Iraq will one day be like the British.