As I was finally watching the Boston Legal season finale I found myself thinking a many different things.
The main thought of course was on the topic of the episode, which was Concord, Mass. wanting to secede from the Union. The "driving" thought was that those who lived in Concord felt that the U.S. was no longer...well, the U.S. and they wished to secede so that they wouldn't be seen as being a part of a U.S. of which they no longer approved.
The most interesting things said came from a General on the stand. He said something to the effect of the people the U.S. are fighting are not of any "nation," and that they are simply terrorists. Which, I actually agree with. Of course, that is also why I have such a gripe sometimes about how the U.S. actually handles our "war on terror". This is not the first time I've heard this idea that our "enemies" are not from one single place. Yet, we seem to be really good at singling out certain or specific countries in this war we're engaged in.
Then there is also this idea that, "if you're not with us, you're against us." The thing is, how do you apply such a policy to an enemy whose soldiers do not come from one place? Is it really fair to work with such a mindset when we have pretty much admitted that these guys do not come from just one place? Doesn't that mean that the support of our "mission" shouldn't be looked at in regards to countries due to the fact that their citizens could be those that are both against us and with us? Hell, we have had citizens of our own country side with our enemy.
Let say we can only look to the governments of other countries to pledge to be "with" us. That doesn't mean that their citizens are automatically with us, nor should we expect them to be. Also, what if we're dealing with a country that actually listens to its citizens and when the majority of them say, "don't fight"...they don't. It doesn't mean that there are not some people who are in that government that wish to support us, but merely that how they work things doesn't suit our goal.
The really interesting thing was at the end of the episode as things were summed up in the court room, and that was the idea that "liberals" love their country just as much as "conservatives" and that is something I also believe. I think that each side wants the best for the country, it's just that we don't agree on how to get it done. Some of those who believe and support the war think it should be done so to protect our way of life, and on the other side there are some who believe that the methods we are using to protect that way of life are actually destroying that way of life. In attempting to save our way of life are we destroying it? Weirder things have happened in this world. The problem is that I think many of us are aware of this paradox already, but we won't even stop and look at where we, as an individual, are in regards to it.
My last big thought is on the show Boston Legal itself. I've read many an article on how "left wing" or "liberal" it is and that is why some people don't watch it. Personally I think that's the best reason you could watch it. Boston Legal's cases are usually HUGE distortions of cases and concepts going on in our culture, and when you can sit down and deal with that distortion for an hour I really do believe you can walk away with some realistic thoughts on the "real" concepts. Of course, it will only work if you can even start watching the show, which I believe for some is too big of a challenge as they're already biased on the shows social/political views. I guess that's why in the program I help instruct we pose the question, "If someone knows everything today, how likely are they to learn something new tomorrow?"
I would have written more but I'm fighting a cold and this is the most brain power I can muster for now.