Groupthink and Bin Laden 'Death' Coverage

For many reasons, I remain very skeptical about anything the government says.

Courtesy: jeremytodd.wordpress.com

(SALEM, Ore.) - Anyone familiar with the word understands that it is a misnomer, as there really isn't very much thought involved.

Sunday night, as I sat at home, I decided to turn on the news, where I witnessed groupthink in its purest form. Since it's largely been my experience that really none of the domestic news sources available through the lobotomy boxes here in this country are really anything more than info-tainment that exist only for the purpose of maintaining their own existence, I tuned into Al Jazeera English.

For the record, I am not a terrorist, nor am I a traitor, I am simply someone who cares more for the real news of the world more than I care what color underwear Britney might be wearing today, or what the names are of Tiger's umpteen mistresses. As such, I tend to try to obtain my news from sources outside of this country, since for some unknown reason, they think life and death is more important than idol worship.

As I watched Al Jazeera's coverage of the supposed death of Osama bin Laden, I was skeptical, to say the least. I'd always believed that he died late in 2001, as reported in at least a few newspapers back around that time. That he was buried in an unmarked grave, somewhere in the mountains of Afghanistan, attended by around 30 or so of his followers.

So the news that a SEAL team had gone in and killed him around now, in the spring of 2011, came as somewhat of a surprise to me.

For many reasons, I remain very skeptical about anything the government says. Among these reasons are inconsistencies with the events of September 11 that still to this day force me to choose between the immutable laws of physics, or the very changeable levels of integrity shown by the government that most of us believe runs this country.

Forgive me if I stick with the physics here, but I rather like things that don't change based on the political whims of the day; most if not all of my survival skills are based upon the former being unchangeable, yet I often find that I need to hone those same skills because of the untrustworthiness of the latter.

As the coverage of the event wore on, they went to their Washington D.C. correspondent, who was at the celebration taking place in our nation's capitol over the announcement of OBL's death. There were literally thousands of people, cheering, waving flags, dancing in the streets, the party atmosphere was more akin to a Super Bowl celebration, not the death of, whether we like it or not, a fellow human being, with no trial, no due process, nothing.

One who, by the way, was number one on the FBI's ten most wanted list, but strangely wasn't wanted by the FBI for the events of 9/11. Strange. So did these people have proof that this nasty boogeyman was finally gone? Did they have anything more than "Well, I saw it reported on TV, so it must be true?"

No. No one had it at that point, because the body was still on its way here from Pakistan. Surely, we'll have the proof then, right? Oh wait, they buried him at sea.

"Trust us though, it was him, we tested his DNA, and we're 99.9% sure that this was him." Great. How convenient, eh? I wonder how well something like this would work for you and me? Consider that you or I were suspected of being involved in a serious crime, and the only real alibi we had was our own words, due to the evidence having been destroyed?

We had no corroborating witnesses, no physical evidence to place us somewhere other than at the crime scene, except for perhaps a video tape from another location with the time and date stamp on it that showed conclusively that we couldn't have possibly committed the crime in question. Now consider that just at the crucial time in the investigation, we suddenly disclose that we somehow destroyed the tape that could have exonerated us, but that we did watch the tape and were able to verify that it accurately showed us at that other location.

Does anyone think that this type of an explanation would be enough to solidify and confirm our alibi, and clear any suspicion regarding our involvement in the crime in question? Then why do we extend this privilege to a government that has clearly demonstrated, time after time, it's untrustworthiness?

Are we so lacking in hope? Are we so brainwashed that we have no ability to think critically?

Are we so connected through social media, where we struggle for relevancy among the masses who have no meaning in their lives except for what their Facebook and Twitter followers think of them?

Have we so quickly forgotten how corrupt our government seems to be?

Where is our humanity, of which our intellect is so great a part of who and what we are? Where is our courage to stand up and ask the questions that need to be asked? To keep a government accountable, when it is exactly the unaccountability of the government that is taking from us not only the right to question it, but has largely removed the ability to do so, and only shows signs of more of the same to come.

When will we as a nation, as a people wake up? People get the government they deserve. --Alexis de Toqueville

I could pray that this isn't true, but at some point I will finish my prayer and have to open my eyes to the reality around me. Maybe enough people noticed this time, and maybe this time Osama will stay dead. Time will tell, but will we remember to be watching?

Rick Ames is a former native Californian, who found his way north to Oregon about ten years ago. During his life, he has been, or currently is a student, a musician, mechanic, cashier, IT professional, car stereo installer, U.S. Marine, sailor, hobbyist machinist, occasional welder, general tinkerer, metal caster and fabricator, amateur rock hound, amateur astronomer, guitarist, singer, writer, speaker. His most important roles, however, are those of a husband of almost 20 years to a most wonderful and intelligent woman, and father to two very special children.