The US This Week: Tsarnaev's Trial

Almost two years ago, a duo of Islamic extremists planted homemade bombs at the finish line of the Boston Marathon. Two explosives went off, one after the other, as the runners started to pour through. The first was to cause an initial wave of devastation. The second was to kill the rescuers. Three spectators were killed, and hundreds more were injured. The two extremists fled, killing a police officer with a handgun in the days after the attack, before the law caught up with them.

The suspects, as we all know, were two brothers - Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. They were born in the Soviet Union (former Soviet Union, in Dzhokhar's case) and raised in the nation's Muslim regions. Their family moved to the United States in 2002. But two things set the Tsarnaev brothers apart from many other Islamic Extremists. First off, they were not raised in a house that condoned religious extremism. The Tsarnaev brothers grew up in a moderate, traditional Muslim home. Secondly, and much more importantly, they were homegrown terrorists. Dzhokhar was a popular, well-liked kid who liked hip hop music, volunteered to help students with special needs, and wanted to be a dentist. His brother Tamerlan seems to have been the source of the radical ideology that destroyed both of their lives - by all reports, Dzhokhar idolized his older brother. It didn't end well for the two of them - Tamerlan was gunned down in a shootout in police, while Dzhokhar lay bleeding from wounds in a boat all the next day. He scrawled a note, saying that the attacks were retribution for American actions against Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. The evidence points to Tamerlan having been responsible for introducing his brother to the radical ideology.

Fast-forward almost two years: Dzhokhar's trial is set to begin in the upcoming weeks, having been delayed. A spokesperson for the US District Court asserted that the initial date for the trial's commencement, this past week, was unrealistic. The defense team is trying to get the case moved out of Boston - and, indeed, out of the state of Massachusetts - on the grounds that the local feelings towards the bombers will deny Tsarnaev of his constitutional right to a fair trial. To be quite honest, though, I don't think that will help their case much. Tsarnaev and his brother are certainly guilty of a number of crimes, among them four murders, a carjacking, and resisting arrest. He's also guilty of an breaking an unwritten law, that may very well be his doom - he attacked the United States. He attacked innocent Americans in cold blood. His own moral justification for the events doesn't quite sit with the vast majority of Americans. The vast majority of Americans are calling for his head. Nothing unifies us like an attack on our country. These times of trouble are really the only times when liberals and conservatives will even consider working together. Politicians didn't bury the hatchet in the aftermath of the bombings, but many across the nation - particularly in the Boston area - stood strong after the attack, and forgot their trivial partisan separations. And in launching his brutal assault on American citizens in their own country, Tsarnaev may have ensured that he winds up as his brother did - dead, and not from natural causes.

There's no question of the fact that Tsarnaev is guilty. He did plead not guilty in 2013, but we all know that's complete crap. The chance that Bin Laden wasn't really behind the attack on the World Trade Center is greater than the chance that Tsarnaev is innocent. The real focus of this trial - we all know it - is whether or not Tsarnaev will get the death penalty for his actions. And it seems likely that he will. If the judge denies the defense's request to transfer the trial to another state, Dzhokhar will almost certainly be put to death. The defense isn't wrong - odds are, a Boston jury will be calling for blood. The interesting thing about this whole case is that America has spared men responsible for many more deaths than Tsarnaev is. Take the Taliban men President Obama exchanged for (perhaps willingly) imprisoned Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl. They may not have injured more Americans directly, but their crimes are above and beyond Tsarnaev's (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/

06/02/bowe-bergdahl-was-traded-for-5-taliban-commanders-heres-who-they-are/). But their crimes aren't personal to any potential Boston jurors. The bombing of the marathon, on the other hand...that's very personal. 

Is the death penalty appropriate in this case? I'm certainly not an authority on the subject. I don't live in Boston, for one thing. Also, I've never heard Tsarnaev's side of the story. At the very least, he does have the right to a trial. Ironic, though, that that right is protected by the very nation he attacked on that day in 2013. The nation he called home for most of his life. This entire case is a mess of home-grown domestic terrorism, the morality of the death penalty, and American nationalism, and is far too complicated for me to communicate in a single post. We'll just have to wait and see how the trial unfolds. And we may have to wait a while. 

Movie Review: American Sniper

I saw the film last night with a few friends. At first, I'd planned to write this post upon arriving back home. However, the film required a bit more processing than that. And so, here I am, twenty-four hours later, finally ready to talk about what I saw. And, though this goes without saying, spoiler alert.

American Sniper chronicles the life of Chris Kyle, one of the most lethal snipers in world history. Kyle, a Texan, joined the Navy in 1999 and became a SEAL. An expert marksman, he often acted as a sniper, providing cover on missions. All told, he served four tours of duty in Iraq and racked up at 160 confirmed kills. Upon leaving the Navy, he ran a training company for law enforcement and wrote two books on his experiences before his death in 2013 (more on that later). In the film, Kyle is portrayed by a nearly-unrecognizeable Bradley Cooper. Cooper gained forty pounds for the role, of course. But that isn't what puts this performance in a league of its own. The laid-back funnyman I've grown accustomed to seeing Cooper play is long gone. His mannerisms, his facial expressions, even his hairstyle...everything is completely different. Cooper's Texan drawl is spot-on - noticeable, but not forced. There's an unmistakeable tensity throughout the film, just from the way Cooper plays Kyle. The character changes drastically after his first experience in combat, and seems to exhibit symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. He is distant from his family, with that thousand-yard stare, and is prone to fits of anger - in one harrowing scene, he whips his dog for playing too roughly with his son. It's also implied that he associates certain everyday sounds with the war, another symptom of PTSD.

The film does an excellent job of keeping true to Kyle's story, as I understand it. Some parts are embellished, of course, for the sake of the film. Having never read Kyle's autobiography, I can't say for certain which scenes deviate from his description of the events, but I assume that the total is greater than those I'm listing here. Director Clint Eastwood and writer Jason Hall did deviate for the sake of action, or for the sake of depth. To get the classic "good guy, bad guy" element going in the film, the writers created a rivalry between Kyle and an insurgent sniper. At the climax of the film, Kyle kills this sniper with a 2100-yard shot. This isn't what happened in real life, to my understanding - Kyle didn't kill a rival sniper who'd killed some of his friends with a 2100-yard shot. He did, however, take out an insurgent armed with a rocket-propelled-grenade (in layman's terms, a bazooka) from such a distance. And in spite of this rivalry, the film draws interesting parallels between Kyle and the insurgent sniper - they are both fathers, they both have wives, and they are both fighting for their homes and their countrymen. From interviews I've seen featuring the real Chris Kyle, I would venture a guess that Cooper played his PTSD symptoms up a bit for the sake of the film. I may be wrong - Kyle may have put on a brave face for the cameras. And the transition from military life to civilian life certainly took a toll on him - he attested to that in multiple interviews. But on camera, he seemed perfectly at ease with his situation - cool as you please and laid back.

Since this is a film relating to the war in Iraq and directed by Clint Eastwood, you would expect it to either condemn or justify the actions our country undertook in Iraq. But if that's what you're searching for in this film, you'll be sorely disappointed. Sniper neither condones nor condemns the war, in that it does both to roughly the same extent. The psychological toll the war takes on Kyle and other veterans is the central theme in the film. In several extremely intense scenes, Kyle has women and small children in his crosshairs (that's all you're getting out of me), and these instances clearly shake him. Many of Kyle's good friends from the SEALs are lost in combat in violent fashion - some of them grow disillusioned with the cause altogether. You hear all that, and you'd expect it to be an anti-war flick, right? Well, that's because I haven't mentioned one scene where an Iraqi father and son are tortured and killed with an unconventional weapon, and another where the bloody, mutilated corpses of American soldiers are strung up like butchered animal carcasses, and another where a seemingly hospitable man turns out to be a heavily-armed insurgent. When Bradley's Kyle calls his foes "savages," you don't disagree with him. There are definitely partisan undertones in the film, though. Cooper's Kyle comes across as a stereotypical nationalist-patriot. The film's version of Kyle is definitely a lot more reserved in this respect. The real Chris Kyle was unabashedly conservative with an aversion to political correctness who may or may not have punched out former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura at some point. He had no qualms about killing insurgents, who he viewed as savages. But Cooper and Eastwood brought that point across in the film as well: both Kyles regretted the American lives they couldn't save more than they regretted the enemy lives they took. Some of the other SEALs provide a more liberal view on the conflict, as does Kyle's wife, Taya. Granted, their "partisan" views are motivated by the fact that they want the war, which has an enormous impact on their immediate lives, to come to an end rather than by politics, but the message still gets across.

It's history, so this isn't really a spoiler: Chris Kyle and another veteran were killed on February 2, 2013, by an ex-marine with severe PTSD they were trying to help counsel. Eastwood and Cooper showed a scene of a recovered Kyle to add to the meaning of what had happened. The film ended with actual footage and photographs from Kyle's memorial service at AT&T Stadium (home of the Dallas Cowboys) in Arlington, Texas, the funeral procession from Midlothian to Texas State Cemetery in Austin, and the burial itself. I don't often cry during films. And by "I don't usually," I mean "I hardly ever." My eyes have been bone dry for the vast majority of pictures I've seen. The ending of Return of the King got me the first time around, and It's A Wonderful Life tends to hit close to home, but aside from that, very little. But I did tear up at the end. The way the final scene with the actors was structured emphasized the cruel irony of Chris Kyle's death - after he survived combat and rebuilt his relationship with his family, he was gunned down by a man he was trying to help. And perhaps the best indicator of the ending's power lies in the audience's reaction. When the screen went dark and the credits started scrolling, every single person in that theater walked out in complete silence.

American Sniper may not be the best film I've ever seen. But it is, beyond all doubt, the greatest film I've ever seen in theaters in my seventeen years. I'd recommend it for anyone with a strong enough stomach - some of the images are pretty graphic. It's a gritty, no-holds-barred, brutally honest film that showcases the arguments for and against the conflict in the Middle East while focusing on the life of a very human soldier. It was definitely worth the money for the ticket, and it definitely deserved those six Oscar nominations. Go check it out when you have the time.

The World This Week: Charlie Hebdo

It's happened again.

A peaceful setting shattered. Innocents cut down. At least sixteen French civilians dead, along with three radical Muslim assailants. But that isn't the worst part.

No, the worst part is the fact that I'm no longer surprised.

I could talk about the attack itself, but that would be pointless. That two-line second paragraph tells you all you need to know about the events of the attack. What I need to discuss is what motivated the assailants, and just how disturbing it is that these sorts of events have become commonplace.

The French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, published cartoons satirizing all sorts of things, including the major religions of the world. Christianity, Catholicism in particular, was jabbed, as was Judaism. Islam, of course, also was mocked by the publication. I've seen some of the cartoons. And they're hardly sensitive. In fact, as a Catholic, I would describe their portrayal of my faith as downright offensive, and I could definitely see any Muslim feeling the same way about the portrayal of theirs. Was I irritated by what I saw? Yes. Did I have any desire to make the writers and cartoonists pay with their own blood? No. Because it's satire. It's meant to make a point, but not to be taken too seriously. When someone makes a joke about Christianity, I let it go. I may get offended, but I still let it go. I occasionally want to punch Bill Maher in the mouth, but I still think he's entitled to his own views. If you think religion is garbage, well, I strongly disagree with you, but you have every right to believe that. And many Christians, Jews and Muslims across the world are of a similar opinion. Many Muslims across the world, from the United States to the heart of the Middle East, slammed the shootings as utter barbarism. Millions of people from around the globe have expressed solidarity with the satirists and raised their voices in support of free speech. Jon Stewart summed it up perfectly in a recent episode (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OWD9aP7O6o) - in our society, we tend to take free speech for granted. And without free speech, it's only a matter of time before the world we know is replaced with an Orwellian dystopia. And hundreds of thousands of people are in France tonight, in support of free speech -and indeed, freedom from fear. 

There's something else at play, though, that is highly disturbing. In the aftermath of this horrible attack, the desire for political correctness is absolutely mind-boggling. French officials are refusing to label the acts as Islamic terrorism. And that's absolutely ridiculous. Bill Maher, the guy I sometimes want to punch in the mouth, hit the key point in the aftermath of the shooting: it's pathetic that people are refusing to call these acts what they are for fear of offending people. The acts were obviously committed by Islamic extremists in the wake of a negative portrayal of their faith. To suggest that all Muslims are of similar ilk is utter garbage. But to suggest that the assailants' Islamic faith played no role in motivating the attack is just as unbelievable. Going back to Bill Maher: if some radical Catholic group stormed his studio and shot him and his writers down because of their views, I would be first on line to call that terrorism. The Pope probably would as well. And I don't think it's presumptuous to assume that the vast majority of Muslims in France, the United States, and across the western world view the shooting at Charlie Hebdo in a similar light. To not call the attacks what they are because you may offend extremist Muslims who loathe you in the first place, and perhaps a few non-extreme Muslims as well...that's unfathomably incompetent. I can't put it into words how much this disgusts me. The Charlie Hebdo writers were killed because they offended Islam. To refuse to risk offending Islam in the aftermath of the attack...well, the French government would be giving the terrorists what they sought. And that sort of attitude only fosters more terrorism, because the terrorists see that their tactics are working.

That brings me to the point that I'm no longer surprised by news of acts of terrorism by Islamic jihadists.   To be honest, why should this be surprising? When I was growing up, the news was full of Taliban car bombs and Bin Laden's famous suicide vests. And even in the last few years, when the west has backed its armies away from radical jihadists, the attacks have continued. And they've spread. There was Times Square back in 2010 - attempted bombing. And, of course, there was the Boston Marathon in 2013 - successful bombing. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's trial will unfold in the upcoming weeks - but that's a discussion for another day. ISIS's bloody rise to power in the Middle East, which now looks toward Saudi Arabia - again, a discussion for another day. Hundreds of shootings and murders across the globe, in the years before and since 9/11. And who could forget that café in Sydney, not even a month ago? Terrorism is something that westernized countries (I use the term to include Israel) have grown accustomed to. Israel was always accustomed to it, of course, but we've joined in its ranks. My first thought when I heard about the shooting was, "Another one?" I've said it before, but it's a vicious cycle. The only way to stop Muslim extremists is through brute force. But that brute force only encourages some Muslims to adopt the radicalized, twisted version of their faith promoted by terrorists and take up the fight themselves. This is what we've seen in the Middle East in the last fourteen years. What is the end to this deadly circle of terrorism? Who can say?

One thing's for sure, though - Charlie Hebdo wasn't the first attack of its kind. And it certainly won't be the last.

Holiday Movie Review (Part One?)

I have done several things worth mentioning over break thus far: first and foremost, I've caught up on my sleep. Second of all, I finished my final college applications. Fourteen schools, twenty-something essays, and quite a few hours of my life, and it's done! Now the waiting game begins. And I've spent some of those waiting hours at the movie theater, which is out-of-character for me. Movie theaters make me nervous for some reason. That aside, I've seen two films over the break: the third installment in Peter Jackson's Tolkien-inspired The Hobbit trilogy, and a Mark Wahlberg flick called The Gambler. And, though this goes without saying, spoiler alert.

First of all, I need to discuss The Hobbit. Those of you who have read my blog in the past know that I'm a huge Tolkien fan. And if you think the Harry Potter series is better than Tolkien's work, then this is my reply: you're entitled to your own (completely and totally wrong) opinion. Virtually every character and plot device in Harry Potter is a cheap Tolkien ripoff in one way or another, from the main protagonists to the various monsters to the strong female lead to the concept of Horcruxes...but I'm getting sidetracked. And don't rush to assumptions from my harsh words. I love Harry Potter - it was an enormous part of my childhood. But comparing it to The Lord of the Rings is like comparing LBJ to Lincoln. That aside, Peter Jackson's interpretation of The Lord of the Rings is, without a doubt, among the best film adaptations of a work of literature the world has ever seen. And as such, it's impossible to watch The Hobbit without comparing it to Jackson's previous trilogy. For the film adaptation of a book, it does an excellent job. But it pales in comparison to The Lord of the Rings. Part of that is hardly Jackson's fault - the studio initially signed him for a trilogy that started with The Hobbit (Tolkien wrote The Hobbit decades before he wrote The Lord of the Rings), but things changed and only LOTR was produced. When Jackson went back to produce The Hobbit, he had no choice but to do so as a prequel trilogy. You really can't blame him for deviating much more from the book in The Hobbit. And his interpretation of the events that happened while the book of The Hobbit takes place is spot-on. Gandalf's imprisonment and the confrontation with Sauron in Dol Guldur are heavily implied to have taken place by the grey wizard's lengthy tales in the early chapters of The Fellowship of the Ring. Anyhow, let's talk about the film itself...it was okay. It definitely deviates from the book, but it was all right. The performances weren't forced in the least. Sir Ian McKellen was excellent, of course, as Gandalf. Martin Freeman wasn't too shabby himself, in the big hairy shoes of Bilbo Baggins. And Richard Armitage captured the madness and redemption of Thorin Oakenshield - again, things that were implied in Tolkien's universe - perfectly. I expected the film to be one continuous battle sequence, but it wasn't. The Battle of the Five Armies didn't actually start for the first hour and a half of the film. Jackson spent a great deal of time developing the characters and underlining the sources of tension between the different factions. It was, all in all, a decent flick. I'd recommend it to all my fellow Tolkien fans.

Now for The Gambler. I wasn't expecting much out of this film. Mark Wahlberg hasn't been the best actor in the past. Heck, he hasn't even been a good actor in some films. But I was pleasantly surprised here. The film follows a literature professor (Wahlberg) who owes several hundred thousand dollars to a crime lord, thanks to his gambling addiction. The story is a very human one that perfectly captures the essence of addiction. Wahlberg's character gets a sort of a high off his gambling victories and pushes his limits accordingly, which lands him in debt. When he bets everything he has on a roulette game at the climax of the film, in the hopes that he'll win and come away with enough money to pay back the crime bosses he's in debt to, the strain and panic within the character is tangible. And even though (spoiler alert) he wins the bet, I was expecting him to lose. That's my favorite thing about the film. It shows the entropy of this man's life - how random everything is in his line of "work." And I say "this man" because as the film goes on, you start to forget that it's Mark Wahlberg up on the screen. This is, without a doubt, the best acting I've ever seen Wahlberg do. The side characters are excellent as well. John Goodman is excellent as one of the crime lords Wahlberg's character is indebted to. He's anything but typecast in this film - the jolly, somewhat nervous character he usually plays is gone, replaced by a cold, calculating, often cruel man. There weren't very many big names in the film, aside from Wahlberg and Goodman. And personally, I feel that this choice really helped the film. The characters were genuine and very human. Even the worst of the characters had redeeming qualities or moments, and that made the film what it was. It was a good movie - nothing exceptional, but certainly not a bad film.

There are still a few films left on my wish list. I definitely want to catch Unbroken before the conclusion of break. I have the book, but I've never had the time to read it. And beyond that, I'm waiting for American Sniper to be released across the nation come January. I've heard nothing but positive reviews for the film, which is what I've come to expect from Clint Eastwood. We'll just have to wait and see for ourselves.

The US This Week: The Interview (and North Korea)

You can't go on the internet these days without seeing a picture of James Franco and/or Seth Rogen. Ever since the North Koreans hacked into Sony and threatened retaliation if theaters showed The Interview, the film has sparked controversy across the nation. It's worth pointing out that North Korea denies any role in the hacking, but then again, why would we believe anything they say? North Korea took issue with The Interview several months ago, when details of the film were released to the public. In the film, two bumbling journalists (Rogen and Franco) are tasked with assassinating North Korea's portly basketball-loving Supreme Leader, Kim Jong Un. Kim Jong Un doesn't seem to appreciate Franco and Rogen's sense of humor. To some extent, many of us can relate to that. On the other hand, most of us wouldn't threaten to kill people who find the pair amusing. North Korea (or, in the highly unlikely event that some other group hacked Sony, that group) has no such qualms. Sony's decision to pull the film from theaters was criticized across the board. President Obama lambasted the decision as a huge mistake. For once, Congress was on the same page. Some congressmen even called for the movie to be screened on Capitol Hill. Sony has loosened its stance in the recent days: the film is set to be released tomorrow for a limited run, and there's even been some talk of the film going on YouTube. But this is hardly relevant. What is relevant is our not-quite-good relationship with the tiny Communist dictatorship occupying the northern half of the Korean peninsula.

In the speech where he criticized Sony's response to the threats, President Obama vowed to retaliate appropriately to North Korea's actions. Soon afterwards, the internet in the small nation was cut off. It's possible that this is a mere coincidence, but given the temporal proximity to Obama's statement, the chance of that is low at best. With the exception of the one Texan who recently fled behind the dictatorship's closed borders, most Americans probably want this to be the case. It would certainly give President Obama a helping hand, after one of the roughest years of his presidency. Screwing with North Korea's infrastructure and technology is something we can get behind as a nation. The Tea Party and the far, far left will undoubtedly take issue with whatever Obama does, but that applies to everything Obama does. If the FBI or the CIA is involved in the collapse of North Korea's internet, the vast majority of Democrats, Republicans and Independents will be happy. Kim Jong Un could use a taste of his own medicine for once. Even if he didn't launch or order the Sony hack, we can all agree he deserves it.

North Korea, we can all agree, is hardly a humanitarian nation. The notorious line of Kims - stretching from Jong Un through Jong Il to Il Sung - has quite a bit of blood on its hands. George Bush's "Axis of Evil" comment actually applies to the Democratic People's Republic. The Kims spend huge sums of money on luxurious foreign food while their people starve. If it wasn't for the international aid it occasionally receives, North Korea's population would be miniscule. That's the harsh reality of the situation - one third of North Koreans are critically malnourished. You can be jailed for posessing a bible or having the wrong haircut or owning a car. Two hundred thousand civilians live behind the walls of prison camps. If you break a law, your grandparents, parents and children will be severely punished as well. Secret police and informants, reminiscent of the Soviet Union's early days, are everywhere in the nation. And yet marijuana is legal. It's no wonder the rivalry between North and South Korea is so intense. It's worth remembering that South Korea only exists because "UN" forces (I use quotation marks because we all know which member of the UN the bulk of the fighting) chased them out. It's also worth mentioning that North Korea only exists because the bulk of the Chinese Army chased the Americans and South Koreans back towards the current border.

When will the conflict end? When North Korea goes too far. When China decides it wants no more to do with Kim Jong Un, and the rest of the world decides it's had enough of North Korea's garbage. That day will inevitably come. But it won't come because of a James Franco movie. We'll just have to wait and see what happens with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

The US This Week: Torture

Torture. Enhanced interrogation techniques. Human rights abuse. Necessary security measures. Unconstitutional brutality. Unpleasant logic. Call it what you like and think what you will, but there's no denying that the declassified, five-hundred-twenty-five page report on CIA torture during the Bush Administration is going to make heads roll.

In the event that you have an incredible amount of time to kill and are interested, here's the full text of the Senate's report on the subject:
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/12/politics/torture-report/

Since the vast majority of you have neither the time nor the patience to peruse five hundred pages of report, I'll sum it up - the CIA's use of torture, it seems, has been a lot broader and a lot more varied than we previously believed. In addition to the classic method of water boarding, which simulates the sensation of drowning (I would provide a link to a video, but I can't access YouTube from the Herricks WiFi), the CIA has been engaging in rectal feeding and hydration, to say nothing of death threats and other fun things. Already, this has sparked considerable debate in the political world. Former Vice President Dick Cheney lambasted the attacks and defended the CIA, saying that "[he] would do it again in a minute." Naturally, the majority of Republicans are backing the CIA in this case. They claim that the report is heavily partisan and a political move on the part of the Democrats to discredit the Bush administration. Other Republicans - and indeed, several Democrats - hold that this move will only weaken America on the whole. The Democrat-led committee's motive for releasing the report is unclear at best, which gives the right a bit of credibility here. To me, it doesn't add up. Maybe releasing the report for all the world to see is the right thing to do, but it certainly isn't the smart thing to do. In fact, I'd call it an extremely stupid thing to do.

At the end of the day, I have to side with the Republicans on this one. 9/11 is one of my earliest memories, and it's made me a bit hawkish when it comes to foreign policy. My parents lost some of their best friends, and half my mom's family was in the city, involved in the rescue efforts. Security policy is one of my favorite subjects, and one doesn't need a bachelor's degree to see that releasing the report is counterintuitive to our nation's standing. Our efforts to come away from the attack looking strong didn't work very well, given the lengthy conflicts we entangled ourselves in in the Middle East. So why weaken our position any further? Our reputation took a heavy blow in the last decade, and our actions are the butt of jokes across the world. What's the purpose of giving Vlad Putin more ammunition to use against the United States? Sure, we're being honest by releasing the report, but the rest of the world couldn't care less about that. ISIS will view this as proof that they're right about America, kill a few innocents, and ramp up their recruiting campaign. Perhaps the recent terror attack in Sydney's close chronological proximity to the report's release wasn't a coincidence. Iran will decry the actions, and North Korea will start spouting their usual anti-American, anti-western, anti-democratic hash. And at the end of the day, the report really overplays the role of torture - let's be honest and call it what it is - in the CIA's interrogation tactics. The five hundred twenty-five pages of the report represent only a handful of the thousands of instances of CIA interrogation over the past thirteen years. Torture tactics, cruel as they are, have proved themselves to be effective, for obvious reasons. The CIA's "Enhanced Interrogation Tactics" supplied them with information that lead to the death of Osama Bin Laden, mere months before terrorist attacks he'd planned against the US and its leaders were set to take place.

The point I'm driving at is that this isn't a black and white issue. There's gray, and a lot of it. Torture is undeniably cruel, and infringes upon human rights. And there are those instances when the individuals tortured were innocent, or had no answers to the questions they were asked. But at the same time, there are those instances when torture provided the CIA with game-changing knowledge and vital information, and they used that information to defend the United States and the American people. All of this was done in an effort to make sure we - the civilian body of the US - could, and can, lead safe and secure lives, free from worry of foreign attacks on our soil. This is one of those instances when Dick Cheney is right. Because if I were running the country and had the option to use torture on a few individuals to potentially save the lives of thousands of people, I'd do it in a minute.

Beginning

Life is a whole series of procrastinations and overcoming procrastinations. You start by putting off your middle school essays for later, because you can always do them later. Then you put off studying for the SAT, because you can always do it later, and you can always retake the test. And then you put off writing some of your supplemental essays for college applications, because they aren't due for another month. And then you put off writing the PiG paper, and then you put off writing your thesis paper, and then you put off studying for your medical school tests, and you're a brain surgeon with no idea how to operate on the human brain and everything is a mess thanks to procrastination! So here's the trick: how do you break out of the cycle of procrastination?

I'm definitely guilty of procrastinating. I started this post yesterday (Friday, December 12th), but decided to wait for a time when I was actually procrastinating to write the rest of this post and interrupt the flow. That time came...well, I suppose ti came about an hour and a half ago. I went up to the attic/my room to finish my last two supplemental essays, and found Google Maps open on my computer. Naturally, I screwed around on Google Maps for a few minutes, using the Street View feature to explore Cape Town. After that, I checked Facebook with a John Oliver bit in the background. I read the photography article for STAC and then pulled up YouTube, put on a documentary, and started playing a round of my favorite board game, Risk-solitaire. And even now, I'm tempted to put off my focus on this post to explain what Risk-solitaire is. The fact is, there are always things that we'd all rather be doing than what we are doing. I'd rather be watching Last Week Tonight than doing my supplementals. I'm sure you'd all much rather be on the beach or at a museum somewhere instead of cooped up in front of your computer. And with the Internet, it's easy to distract ourselves with any number of things. And these procrastinations and distractions are what keep me from starting things like supplemental essays or blog posts or PiG paper drafts or any number of things.

So, how do I deal with this? The first thing I do is I eliminate all distractions. I'll close out of any internet pages I have up, get any books I may be reading up on the shelves, and hide all non-work related objects from my line of sight. After that, I force myself to work. That sounds a bit more extreme than it actually is - I tell myself, "Okay, Brian, this has to get done. Get it done." And I do. I've found that that mindset helps me overcome a variety of things, particularly procrastination. Even when I'm working, I'm often tempted to distract myself by opening up Facebook or checking my email. "After I'm done," is always my mindset while I'm working. I can open up Google Maps later on, and conquer Russia in Risk-solitaire after my essays are all done. Every time I start working, I tell myself that I have to get this done. I don't give myself the option. Because given the option, there are very few people who wouldn't choose to distract themselves. After I'm finished with this post, I'll tell myself that I have to finish my supplemental essays. After that, I'll tell myself that I have to edit my PiG paper. After that, I'll tell myself to finish the English essay I have due later in the week, and then to continue editing my film, and then to study for Calculus and Physics, and so on and so forth. And at the end of the day (or perhaps the end of the weekend), I'll get it done.