Where's the Logic?

It's college graduation time here in Gunnison.  Seeing all the college students leaving campus last Friday, I was reminded of a story a former employee  told me about a recent grad who received a degree in philosophy.  The philosopher, Brad, ran  into an old high school buddy, Scott,  at the mall.  Brad mentioned that he had just received a degree in philosophy.  "What good is philosophy?" asked Scott.  "Philosophy is the practice of thinking rationally and using questions to come to logical conclusions," said Brad.  "For example, do you own a dog?"  "Yes, I do" answered Scott.  "So, you must live in a house, rather than an apartment," reasoned Brad.  "Yes."  "So, when did you get married?" asked Brad.  Scott was startled.  "How did you know I was married?"  Brad said, "through logic.  It is reasonable to assume that since you have a dog and a dog needs a yard, you must live in a house.  Knowing that you only have a high school education, the only way you could afford a house is with two incomes, so you must be married.  That's the kind of logical reasoning you learn in philosophy classes."  "Well, I guess college isn't worthless after all," thought Scott.

A little later, Scott runs into another friend in the mall.  "Hey Keith, I just talked to Brad, and you'll never believe what he went to college for -- philosophy!"  Keith laughs, "sounds about right, a waste of four years and a lot of money."  Scott says, "no, it's really kind of interesting.  It taught him how to reason out stuff.  For example, do you have a dog?"  "No," says Keith.  A stunned Scott shouts, "Dude, I didn't know you were gay!!!"

I think one of the biggest failings of our education system today is that students aren't taught to think critically.  If they learn at all, it is usually a regurgitation of whatever the teacher tells the class.  That carries over to adult life, where the public is easily led or misled by the media.  Last week Americans received great news.  Usama bin Laden was killed by U.S. soldiers in Pakistan.  The news was greeted with celebration and unquestioning praise for President Obama's decision to take out the terrorist.

Only the most inept administration in American history could turn this accomplishment into the series of logical questions it has become in only a week.  First, it was reported that the president personally changed the plan to take out bin Laden.  The military suggested a bombing of the compound where bin Laden was living in Pakistan.  The president insisted that the American people will want "proof that we killed bin Laden."  So he, in turn, insisted on a raid by the military to capture or kill bin Laden in order to provide the proof America would require.  When a firefight resulted from the raid, it was reported that bin Laden and other terrorists used women as shields to protect them from the Americans.  Usama was killed in the resulting battle.  His body was taken by the Americans to ship where, after a 40 minute Muslim ceremony, he was buried at sea, in compliance with Muslim traditions.  Or so the administration said.  Next, the president decided not to release pictures of bin Laden's because it would inflame Muslim sentiments around the world.

So, let's look at this critically.  First of all, ever since September 12, 2001, we have been told that Muslims were not responsible for the terrorist attacks.  The attacks were carried out by radicals that practiced a perverted version of Islam.  If that is the case, why is the Obama administration concerned first of all about providing a traditional burial for bin Laden?  He perverts Islam to justify his terrorist attacks, right?  So what true Muslim would be offended if his body was brought to the United States?  Next, the president delays the attack on bin Laden's compound from August 2010 until April 2011 in order to plan and approve a ground attack rather than a bombing to provide "proof" of bin Laden's death.  So, the soldiers follow orders and take photographs of bin Laden's body, record the ceremony and burial onboard the ship and dump the body (the only "proof" of his death) overboard in an undisclosed location.  Then the marginal proof provided by the photograph will not be made public, once again to avoid enraging Muslims around the world. Yesterday the White House announced the photographs will only be shown to selected senators in the CIA building.  Logic, anyone?

Next came reports about how bin Laden's hideout was finally located.  It seems that, while being waterboarded,  Khalid Shiek Mohammed gave up the nickname of one of bin Laden's most trusted couriers.  Several years later, another terrorist - captured in Iraq, by the way, connected the courier's nickname to his real name.  By tracking down this courier the CIA was able to find bin Laden.  This information created a dilemma for the Obama administration.  Since day one of Obama's presidency, he and his administration have claimed that the CIA never got useful information from "enhanced interrogation" techniques like waterboarding.   One of the president's first acts was to discontinue the practice.  Then came the inconvenient truth about Iraq's tie to terrorism, one of the "Bush lies" to justify invading Iraq.  Now the great news about killing the most wanted terrorist in the world has turned into a nightmare of spin for the administration. 

Finally the most illogical contradiction of all.  Despite the original stories of the firefight, cowards using their wives as human shields, and Usama bin Laden going down in a twenty minute gunbattle, the story emerged that the most feared terrorist in the world died unarmed.  In fact, the Pakistani government reported that no weapons were found at the compound.  It seems that the assault team's orders were to kill, not capture, bin Laden.  Personally, I think it was the right decision.  But if waterboarding, simulating drowning to gain information to save American lives, goes against our core principles, where is the logic in ordering the killing of an unarmed man?  How is shooting an unarmed, "confused, doddery old man" in the head in line with our core principles, as outlined by Eric Holder and Barack Obama?

I believe these questions will be hushed up, then ridiculed just like the birth certificate issue was.  Just like the president's birth in Hawaii, there is no reasonable doubt that bin Laden was killed in Pakistan.  The problem is that the so-called "most transparent administration" in the nation's history refuses to be transparent again.  I think that eventually the administration will produce the photographs of bin Laden's body as proof of his death.  Just as was the case with the birth certificate, the proof will allow the president and his minions in the media to ridicule those calling for the proof as racist, uneducated, hillbilly, "deathers" who are "clinging to their guns and religion."  Probably just in time for the 2012 elections.   Now there's the logic!!!