Fan the 4 Flames of FreedomWritten by Paul Siegel
On September 11, 2001, 4 freedom-hating zealots tried to snuff out 4 freedoms that are foundation of, not only U.S., but of all freedom-loving countries around Globe. The terrorists hijacked 4 airplanes and crashed them into 3 of their 4 planned targets: Pentagon and 2 financial towers in New York. This attack shocked U.S. and shocked world. It produced death and destruction, anger and misery, defiance and calls for revenge.
Although some military strikes may be needed, best way to fight terrorism is by stoking and fanning 4 flames of freedom everywhere.
The 4 Freedoms are Attacked
Why was U.S. attacked? Because U.S. is leader of free world. It stands for ideas which are contrary to what radical terrorists believe. They consider U.S. to be devil that must be obliterated. What are ideas U.S. stands for? It stands for, it burns, 4 flames of freedom:
1 - FREEDOM OF SPEECH - The terrorists hate idea of free speech. Free speech implies disrespect for authority. Free speech means you can utter blasphemies. Free speech means you can be subversive.
To freedom-loving countries, however, free speech is our strength. By criticizing authority we reduce corruption. By allowing people to speak freely about religion, we keep our spiritual environment strong. By allowing people to speak their mind, we learn to get along better with each other.
2 - FREEDOM OF RELIGION - The terrorists probably hate this freedom most of all. According to them there is only one religion and everyone in world must agree with them and practice this religion way THEY see it. They do not practice Islam, but a corrupted form of Islam. Islam does not advocate killing people whose beliefs are different from yours. Like other big religions, it favors peaceful communication.
In U.S. and other freedom-loving countries, members of all major religions live together in harmony. Each person practices his or her religion as he or she sees fit. Like freedom of speech, freedom of religion builds true communities.
3 - FREEDOM OF SELF-GOVERNMENT (DEMOCRACY) - Terrorists are unqualifiably against democracy. They believe that "spiritual" leaders deserve a greater voice than others. The average citizen should do as he is told.
We, in free world, relish our democracy. It means that everyone has rights as well as responsibilities. We argue constantly about best way to do things. But, as a result, when we do make a decision, we support it. We realize, especially at a time like this, that we are all in this together. Democracy gives us unity.
4 - FREEDOM OF INDIVIDUAL OPPORTUNITY - Terrorists do not understand this concept. They believe one should subordinate oneself to group and to one's god. Thus they eagerly become martyrs.
Freedom-loving countries, especially U.S., thrive on individual opportunity for all. This concept has led to growth of great corporations and to many rich citizens. Even very poor in freedom-loving count ries live better than many in poor countries that harbor terrorists.
How should U.S. and other freedom-loving countries respond to attack? Many see start of a war. But no country has declared war. A network of terrorists is responsible for atrocity. Some call what happened evil and that we should eliminate evil. This scares me. Who defines what is evil? The terrorists have defined U.S. as evil and look what it has led to.
We are not fighting another country. Some military strikes may be needed to show terrorists we mean business. But this fight will not be won by military means. Neither should we fight evil with another crusade. We are fighting a monstrous attack on our way of life. Therefore, we must:
The Impeachment of the President of the USA - Part IIIWritten by Sam Vaknin
AC : “Dysfunctional partnerships should be dissolved. The President should have divorced prior to indulging his sexual appetite. Sexual exclusivity is an integral – possibly most important – section of marriage contract. The President ignored his vows, dishonoured his word, breached his contract with First Lady.”
DC : “People stay together only if they feel that foundation upon which they based their relationship is still sound. Mr. Clinton and Mrs. Clinton redefined their marriage to exclude sexual exclusivity, an impossibility under circumstances. But they did not exclude companionship and friendship. It is here that President may have sinned, in lying to his best friend, his wife. Adultery is committed only when a party strays out of confines of marital contract. I postulate that President was well within his agreement with Mrs. Clinton when he sought sexual gratification elsewhere.”
AC : “Adultery is a sin not only against partner. The marriage contract is signed by three parties : man, woman and God between them. The President sinned against God. This cannot be ameliorated by any human approval or permission. Whether his wife accepted him as he is and disregarded his actions – is irrelevant. And if you are agnostic or an atheist, still you can replace word ‘God’ by words ‘Social Order’. President Clinton’s behaviour undermines foundations of our social order. The family is basic functional unit and its proper functioning is guaranteed by security of sexual and emotional exclusivity. To be adulterous is to rebel against civilization. It is an act of high social and moral treason.”
DC : “While I may share your nostalgia – I am compelled to inform you that even nostalgia is not what it used to be. There is no such thing as ‘The Family’. There are a few competing models, some of them involving only a single person and his or her offspring. There is nothing to undermine. The social order is in such a flux that it is impossible to follow, let alone define or capture. Adultery is common. This could be a sign of times – or victory of honesty and openness over pretension and hypocrisy. No one can cast a stone at President Clinton in this day and age.”
AC : “But that's precisely it ! The President is not a mirror, a reflection of popular will. Our President is a leader with awesome powers. These powers were given to him to enable him to set example, to bear a standard – to be a standard. I do demand of my President to be morally superior to me – and this is no hypocrisy. This is a job description. To lead, a leader needs to inspire shame and guilt through his model. People must look up to him, wish they were like him, hope, dream, aspire and conspire to be like him. A true leader provokes inner tumult, psychological conflicts, strong emotions – because he demands impossible through instance of his personality. A true leader moves people to sacrifice because he is worthy of their sacrifice, because he deserves it. He definitely does not set an example of moral disintegration, recklessness, short-sightedness and immaturity. The President is given unique power, status and privileges – only because he has been recognized as a unique and powerful and privileged individual. Whether such recognition has been warranted or not is what determines quality of presidency.”
DC : “Not being a leader, or having been misjudged by voters to be one – do not constitute impeachable offences. I reject your view of presidency. It is too fascist for me, it echoes with despicable Fuhrerprinzip. A leader is no different from people that elected him. A leader has strong convictions shared by majority of his compatriots. A leader also has energy to implement solutions that he proposes and willingness to sacrifice certain aspects of his life (like his privacy) to do so. If a leader is a symbol of his people – then he must, in many ways, be like them. He cannot be as alien as you make him out to be. But then, if he is alien by virtue of being superior or by virtue of being possessed of superhuman qualities – how can we, mere mortals, judge him ? This is logical fallacy in your argument : if President is a symbol, then he must be very much similar to us and we should not subject him to a judgement more severe than one meted to ourselves. If President is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, or otherwise, superhuman – then he is above our ability to judge. And if President is a standard against whom we should calibrate our lives and actions – then he must reflect mores of his times, kaleidoscopic nature of society that bred him, flux of norms, conventions, paradigms and doctrines which formed society which chose him. A standard too remote, too alien, too detached – will not do. People will ignore it and revert to other behavioural benchmarks and normative yardsticks. The President should, therefore, be allowed to be “normal”, he should be forgiven. After all forgiveness is as prominent a value as being truthful.