bookmark_borderKorean & Vietnam War statue unveiling in Malden

On May 31, 2021 (Memorial Day), two new statues were unveiled in my hometown of Malden, Massachusetts. The statues, located in Forest Dale Cemetery, represent the veterans of the Korean War and Vietnam War, specifically the soldiers from Malden who lost their lives in these two wars. The ceremony included a concert by the Quantico Marine Corps Band and speeches by Mayor Gary Christenson, various city officials, and Retired U.S. Navy Captain Earl Kishida, a veteran of the Vietnam War. Descendants and relatives of the soldiers physically removed the red and blue coverings, revealing the bronze statues underneath.

Given all of the horrific happenings in the world, it was cool to see new statues come into existence. Below are some photos from the ceremony:

Korean War Memorial statue
Vietnam War Memorial statue
The Quantico Marine Corps Band put on a concert before the ceremony.
Capt. Earl Kishida spoke at the ceremony.
Descendants of the soldiers removed the tarps covering the statues.
After the ceremony, members of the public were able to admire and photograph the statues.

DSC03096.JPG

bookmark_borderState Senator’s preposterous statement on Confederate flag

At a Memorial Day ceremony in Natick, Massachusetts, one brave member of the public decided to hold up a Confederate flag. Presumably, he was motivated by an entirely understandable and noble desire to honor the Confederate soldiers who lost their lives fighting for independence, and perhaps also an equally understandable and noble desire to make a statement against our society’s vicious, full-scale assault on everything related to the Confederacy. Infuriatingly but unsurprisingly given said vicious assault, a frenzy of intolerant, hurtful, and idiotic comments ensued.

For example: State Senator Becca Rausch and Natick Select Board chair Karen Adelman-Foster made the following statement:

This statement is deeply wrong for numerous reasons:

  1. I don’t understand how someone could be shocked, dismayed, or horrified by the fact that a person held up a Confederate flag. A Confederate flag is a beautiful thing, and it is heartening, wonderful, and awesome that someone in Massachusetts had the thoughtfulness and courage to honor the brave Confederate veterans who died fighting for freedom. It is Rausch’s and Adelman-Foster’s statement that is truly shocking, dismaying, and horrifying. 
  2. Displaying a Confederate flag does not “desecrate” anything. This is an utterly preposterous statement, and also a completely hypocritical one given that (as far as I know) neither Rausch nor Adelman-Foster has ever condemned any of the hundreds of brutal and heartless acts of actual desecration that have been committed against statues and monuments over the past year. Displaying a Confederate flag honors the Confederate veterans who gave their lives fighting for freedom, which is exactly what Memorial Day is supposed to be about. Plus, the cause for which they fought – the right to form an independent country – is actually more honorable than the cause of the Union soldiers who are commemorated by the Grand Army monument in Natick. If anyone is desecrating something in this situation, it is Rausch and Adelman-Foster for using Memorial Day as an excuse to cruelly and mindlessly attack an unpopular minority.
  3. Displaying a Confederate flag certainly does not desecrate the memory of people who have fallen in defense of equality and freedom, as the Confederate soldiers were the people who were actually fighting for equality and freedom. It is Rausch and Adelman-Foster who are desecrating the memory of people who have fallen in defense of equality and freedom, because they are using Memorial Day as an excuse to attack these exact values. 
  4. People who display and support the Confederate flag are the people who are actually fighting for diversity and inclusion.
  5. I don’t understand how someone could be hurt or harmed by the fact that a person held up a Confederate flag. In addition to being beautiful, the Confederate flag stands for equality, freedom, diversity, and inclusion. Anyone who is hurt or harmed by the display of this flag is a bully, an authoritarian, and a bigot.
  6. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to condemn the display of a Confederate flag, for the reasons mentioned above. Anyone who condemns the Confederate flag is a bully, an authoritarian, and a bigot. 
  7. Rausch and Adelman-Foster obviously do not have a steadfast commitment, or any commitment for that matter, to justice, equity, or freedom. In fact, their bigoted and intolerant statement demonstrates that they are actively advocating against these ideas.

In conclusion, it is difficult to imagine a public statement more hypocritical or illogical than the one put forth by Rausch and Adelman-Foster. They are literally condemning a flag that stands for freedom at the same time as they claim to be steadfastly committed to freedom. They are condemning an unpopular minority’s flag at the same time as they claim to support the ideas of diversity and inclusion. And they are claiming that the display of a flag that stands for freedom desecrates the memory of people who have fallen in defense of freedom. 

It is this statement, as well as the intolerant, mean-spirited attitudes that motivate it, that is truly hurtful and harmful, and it is this statement that deserves to be condemned. Instead of apologizing for the fact that a Confederate flag was displayed, Rausch and Adelman-Foster should apologize to the brave Confederate veterans whom they insulted, as well as to all the people who have been hurt and harmed by their heartless, mindless, and thoughtless words.

bookmark_borderRidiculous statement on Cecil Rhodes statue

In a small victory for people who are opposed to destroying everything good in the world, Oriel College, part of the University of Oxford, decided not to take down its statue of Cecil Rhodes.

In response, Rhodes Must Fall, the organization pushing for the statue’s destruction, issued a truly messed-up statement. “We send our own clear message to Oriel College and the University of Oxford: the resistance of Rhodes Must Fall in Oxford will not be ignored,” they tweeted. The rest of the statement is as follows:

There’s a lot of ridiculousness to rebut, but here goes:

  1. Organizations like Rhodes Must Fall are not practicing “resistance,” but the exact opposite. They are advocating that all cultures other than their own be obliterated from the earth. They are bullies and bigots who have no tolerance for anyone different from themselves. Therefore, they are the authoritarians and their opponents are the resistance.
  2. The reference to “rich, conservative white men” is sexist and racist.
  3. Monuments to Cecil Rhodes are not “physical images which glorify white supremacy.” They are physical images which glorify Cecil Rhodes. A person is not the same thing as white supremacy.
  4. The phrase “violent refusal” makes no sense. By definition, refusing to do something cannot be violent; only actively doing something can be violent. Removing a statue is violent; deciding against removing a statue is not.
  5. The “fire of decolonisation that is spreading through the planet” is Rhodes Must Fall’s way of describing the brutal and senseless effort to destroy everything that makes life worth living. This movement is bigoted and intolerant, and its goal is to completely ruin the lives of people who love art and history. It deserves to be criminalized, and it absolutely must be contained if the world is going to retain any trace of goodness or beauty in the years to come.
  6. The “culture war” that the statement references was not instigated by the the conservative party, as the statement implies, and it most certainly is not “a genocide driven by white supremacy.” This war was instigated by Rhodes Must Fall and the organizations that share its ideology, as they are the ones who are attempting to obliterate from the world all cultures other than their own. Rhodes Must Fall is actually correct in characterizing this conflict as a genocide, but in a way that is the opposite of what they intended. By attempting (successfully, in the vast majority of cases) to obliterate other cultures’ heritage and art, their side is perpetrating a genocide.
  7. The statue of Rhodes is not “harmful iconography,” and there is no “ongoing harm” from “generating and maintaining coloniality around the world,” whatever the heck that means.
  8. The anti-colonial movement is not based on liberation, as the statement claims. It is based on obliterating other cultures, which is the opposite of liberation.
  9. I’m not sure exactly what the reference to “reparations” means, but Rhodes Must Fall seems to be implying that Oriel College should compensate them for some alleged harm. This is disturbing, as Rhodes Must Fall and similar organizations are the ones inflicting harm on others. They are the ones who should pay reparations to those who they have harmed, not the other way around.
  10. The statement complains about the “refusal to listen” to the voices of those who have called for the removal of the statue. But those who love statues and want them to stay are the ones whose voices have truly been ignored. For the past year, anti-statue voices are literally the only ones that have been listened to, while pro-statue perspectives have consistently been ridiculed, dismissed, and completely disregarded.
  11. “We will continue to fight for the fall of the statue and everything it represents.” So you will continue to fight for everything that makes life worth living to be destroyed and all cultures other than your own to be obliterated from the earth. Great.

Needless to say, the decision to keep the Rhodes statue was the correct one, and Rhodes Must Fall has absolutely no right to demand its reversal. The members of this organization, and all those who share their ideology, are bullies who are trampling on the rights of everyone else, yet preposterously, they claim to be the “resistance.” They accuse their victims of genocide, while they are the ones who are truly guilty of this. These intolerant bigots have gotten their way for far too long, and it’s about time they got a taste of well-deserved defeat.

bookmark_borderHockey and freedom

There are few things more beautiful in the eyes of a hockey fan than hats raining down onto the ice. Last night’s Bruins win was significant not only because we’re off to a 1-0 advantage over the Islanders in the series, and not only because David Pastrnak scored his second career playoff hat trick, but also because it was the first day since the Covid-19 pandemic that sports were allowed to be played before full-capacity crowds in Boston. Even though I only watched the game on TV, I could feel the jubilant energy of the fans emanating through my TV screen, and my heart was warmed by the sight of the ice crew diligently scooping up the dozens upon dozens of hats that fans had thrown onto the ice in Pasta’s honor.

Another thing that is beautiful in my eyes as a supporter of individual rights and liberty is the fact that TD Garden does not require Covid-19 vaccination or testing in order to attend games. The joy from seeing the approximately 18,000 fans would have been tainted and hollow if accompanied by the knowledge that they had been required to undergo a medical procedure in order to be there. No one should be required to have any medical procedure in order to live his or her life, and attending sports is part of that. Yes, going to a game in an arena packed with yelling, cheering fans presents some risk of catching the virus, but that is a risk that people have the right to take if they wish. Yes, some people would feel more comfortable attending games if they knew that their fellow fans had been vaccinated and/or tested, and might choose not to attend absent these requirements, but that is exactly the way that it should be. People should do the activities they are comfortable doing, and avoid the activities they are not comfortable doing, as opposed to demanding that other people’s bodily integrity be violated in order to make themselves feel safer.

A win for both the Bruins and individual liberty is a beautiful thing indeed.

bookmark_borderOn “politicizing” the response to Covid

I often hear the claim that the response to the Covid-19 pandemic is being “politicized.” Almost always, this claim has been made by those who support authoritarian restrictions on people’s freedom to slow the spread of the virus. And now this claim is being made by those who support the authoritarian position of pressuring, requiring, mandating, and/or forcing people to get the Covid-19 vaccine.

According to Dictionary.com, political means “of, relating to, or involving the state or its government.”

Therefore, it seems to me that the question of what policies the government should adopt with regards to the virus (or any topic for that matter) is inherently a political question. Which rights people have, to what extent (if any) freedom should be sacrificed for safety, and what types of restrictions the government has the right to enact, are all political topics. When those who argue (correctly, in my opinion) that restrictions violate individual rights are told to “stop politicizing the virus,” they are essentially being told that the concept of individual rights should be ignored. Authoritarian-leaning people urge governments to adopt whatever policies are likely to produce the best public health outcomes, while ignoring the fact that the decision to prioritize public health outcomes over individual liberty is itself a political judgment. 

Accusing your opponents of politicizing an issue is a form of presuming the truth of what you are trying to prove. To equate caring about liberty and individual rights with “politicizing” an issue is to presume that liberty and individual rights do not matter. This is arrogant and intellectually dishonest, not to mention deeply wrong.

For the government to impose authoritarian measures such as stay-at-home orders, mask mandates, and vaccination requirements is inherently a political act. Given the definition of “political” that I cited above, one could actually argue that the people urging coercive state or governmental actions are those who are truly politicizing the virus. If either side is treating the virus as a non-political issue, it is the side that is advocating for the state to stay out and allow people to make their own decisions.

bookmark_borderThe distinction between action and omission

In the seemingly never-ending debate about Covid-19 and which regulations (if any) are appropriate to combat it, many people make the mistake of erasing the distinction between action and omission. Far too often, I see tweets, comments, and editorials that equate refraining from taking a helpful action with actively taking a harmful action. 

For example, I have seen numerous people equating the decision not to receive a vaccine with “spreading disease,” and derisively characterizing the right not to get a vaccine as “the right to spread germs.” I have read editorials accusing a hypothetical person who gets on a bus while having an asymptomatic case of the virus of “killing” a hypothetical elderly person who subsequently gets on the bus and contracts the virus. I have seen tweets accusing governors of “killing” their states’ residents by lifting restrictions. 

Statements like these are based on a fundamental error in logic. People are not morally obligated to take any action; they are morally obligated only to refrain from harming others. In other words, as long as someone’s actions are not actively and directly harming others, they are doing nothing wrong. Failing to take an action that would benefit others, failing to actively help one’s community, these things are perfectly okay. People have the right to do their own thing and pursue their own goals; they are not required to contribute to the greater good.

Therefore, refraining from getting a vaccine is not the same thing as spreading disease. Nor, for that matter, is refraining from taking other risk-mitigation measures such as staying home or wearing masks. Spreading disease means deliberately infecting others with germs, on purpose. Failing to actively stop the spread is not the same as actively spreading. Diseases spread from person to person. People are not to blame for the transmission of a virus; the virus itself is.

It’s even more ridiculous to accuse leaders of killing people when they lift restrictions. Doing so presumes that restrictions are morally required, which is as far from the truth as it is possible to get. Taking away people’s freedoms for the sake of fighting a virus is morally impermissible, and therefore the restrictions never should have been enacted in the first place. To equate respect for fundamental rights with “killing” is preposterous. 

It’s understandable that proponents of mandatory vaccination, mandatory wearing of masks, and mandatory staying at home would conflate the failure to take these actions with taking a harmful action. It’s a lot easier to argue that a harmful action should be banned than it is to argue that people should be compelled to do something. Banning the spreading of disease and the killing of people sounds a lot more reasonable than banning minding one’s own business. But these attempts to justify totalitarianism are based on faulty logic. They erase the fundamental moral distinction between action and omission.

bookmark_borderMemorializing the memorials

I recently came across an article about the removal of a Confederate monument in Isle of Wight, Virginia. Shortly after the monument was taken away from its location outside the county courthouse, someone left Confederate flags at the site, presumably to honor the monument and to express opposition to the removal. 

This idea of memorializing memorials is something I fully support, although it is sad that such a thing is even necessary because the whole point of a statue or monument is that it is supposed to be permanent. 

This reminds me of something similar that I did earlier this year. I paid a visit to the empty pedestal near the waterfront where a statue of Christopher Columbus once stood, before he was brutally beheaded and then heartlessly removed by the city of Boston. I left flowers and a note on top of the pedestal in memory of Columbus and the statue that was unjustly taken away.

I left these flowers on the empty pedestal of the Christopher Columbus statue in Boston.

Returning to the topic of the Confederate monument and the flags left in its place: naturally, government officials and black supremacist activists had criticism for even this small, modest gesture of dissent. 

County Supervisor Rudolph Jefferson said: “The flags were removed because they showed a negative point of view of the county.”

The comments of Isle of Wight NAACP President Valerie Butler were even more objectionable: “It disturbs me very much but I’m not surprised. Our only intention was to remove the monument from the courthouse. What was the purpose of putting the flags there? We hope the removal is a new beginning for the community to come together and have an open dialogue.”

As is frequently the case, these comments demonstrate a complete lack of empathy. After deliberately taking an action that inflicted harm and pain on innocent people, Jefferson will not even allow the people he harmed to express their pain or mourn their loss. And Butler, in addition to being unable to comprehend the idea that people might hold opinions that differ from hers, also contradicts herself. She expresses her hope that people will have an open dialogue at the same time as she calls it disturbing that someone had the audacity to express a dissenting point of view.

Just like with all statues, the removal of this monument is indeed a new beginning: the beginning of a world with nothing beautiful, nothing good, and nothing that makes life worth living. Why anyone would consider this a positive thing is the true mystery here.

bookmark_borderJoe Biden, authoritarian dictator

This past week, President Joe Biden published a series of tweets about the Covid-19 vaccine that are despicable and reprehensible for a variety of reasons:

First of all, as anyone who believes in the non-aggression principle knows, people have a fundamental right to make their own decisions about their own bodies. Each person has the right to either get the vaccine or not, and each person has the right to either wear a mask or not, regardless of vaccination status. Biden therefore has absolutely no right to tell people to do what he is telling people to do in these tweets. To provide advice or recommendations is fine. To provide information about the relative safety of various activities is fine. And indeed this is what the CDC did when it issued its recent guidance stating that vaccinated people can safely go mask-less indoors and outdoors, which prompted Biden’s tweets. But Biden is phrasing this guidance as a rule, which is fascist and violates everyone’s rights.

It’s also noteworthy that Biden does not even acknowledge the possibility that a person might choose not to get the vaccine. He uses the word “yet” and uses the word “until” as opposed to “unless,” which presumes that every person will eventually get the vaccine. This demonstrates a complete disregard for people’s right to make their own medical decisions. People have every right to opt not to get the vaccine, and Biden needs to use language that acknowledges this.

Another disturbing thing about these tweets is that Biden is not characterizing masks as a tool that people can use to protect themselves, but instead as a punishment for people who do not get the vaccine. It would be one thing to say something to the effect of, “If you choose not to get the vaccine, we recommend wearing a mask to protect yourself.” But Biden is essentially saying, “If you don’t get the vaccine, you have to wear a mask everywhere you go for the rest of you life as a punishment.” Using a respectful tone would have made a world of difference, but instead of being respectful, Biden chose to be mean-spirited and punitive towards people who are doing absolutely nothing wrong.

Additionally, Biden’s unilaterally announced “rule” not only makes requirements less strict for people who’ve gotten the vaccine but simultaneously makes requirements more strict than they previously were for people who haven’t gotten the vaccine. Before this week’s guidance, the CDC had issued guidance a few weeks earlier stating that people can safely go mask-less while outside by themselves regardless of vaccination status. The CDC also said that a person who hasn’t gotten the vaccine can safely get together mask-less in a small group with people who have. But now Biden is telling vaccine-less people that they are not allowed to do either of these things. He is telling them that they need to wear a mask at all times, which is stricter than the CDC’s recommendations. Again, he is being punitive towards people who have done nothing to deserve punishment. 

And not only is Biden punishing people for opting not to get a medical procedure, he is imposing a punishment that is publicly visible and therefore stigmatizing. He is imposing a punishment that visually differentiates those who have gotten the vaccine from those who haven’t. This reminds me of the red “A” that Hester Prynne had to wear on her dress in “The Scarlet Letter” or the yellow stars that Jews were required to wear in Nazi Germany. 

In conclusion, throughout his campaign and in his inaugural address, Joe Biden has repeatedly characterized himself as embodying decency, civility, and unity. He promised to listen to the voices of those who disagree with him and to be a president for all Americans. Yet he is now using Twitter to bully, coerce, and browbeat people into undergoing a medical procedure and insulting them if they do not. I fully expected Biden to be a terrible president, but these tweets are disappointing. This unprofessional and un-presidential behavior falls short of even my very low expectations. Biden has demonstrated that he is a bully with no decency, no civility, no respect for people who are different from him, and no regard for individual rights, freedom, liberty, or bodily autonomy. I am ashamed to be American and embarrassed to have Biden as my president.

bookmark_borderCAIR’s hypocrisy on vandalism

The Massachusetts chapter of CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) recently issued a press release condemning acts of vandalism against two predominantly African-American churches. While these actions – one involving spraying black paint on a sign outside the Canaan Baptist Church of Christ in Springfield, MA and the other involving ripping a cross from the ground outside the Zion Baptist Church in Everett, MA – certainly deserve condemnation, I take issue with CAIR’s decision to condemn some acts of vandalism while ignoring others. 

In a separate press release, CAIR also condemned the vandalism of a Native American petroglyph called “The Birthing Scene” in Utah. But after glancing around CAIR’s website, I saw no mention whatsoever of any of the horrific acts of vandalism that have been perpetrated against European cultures’ statues, monuments, memorials, art works, buildings, or historic sites. No mention of the dozens of Christopher Columbus statues that have been torn down, smashed to pieces, burned, kicked, beheaded, or strangled. No mention of any of the acts of vandalism committed against statues of Junipero Serra or Juan Ponce de Leon. No mention of the Confederate monument in Portsmouth, Virginia that was smashed to pieces with sledgehammers by a vicious mob. No mention of the lynching of a Confederate soldier statue in Raleigh, North Carolina. No mention of the firebombing of the headquarters of the United Daughters of the Confederacy in Richmond, Virginia or the obliteration of Confederate statues from that same city. No mention of any of the dozens (hundreds?) of beautiful, historic statues that have been brutally attacked and destroyed over the past year due to hatred of the cultures that they represent. 

“The American Muslim community and CAIR are standing in solidarity with all those challenging anti-Black racism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, white supremacy, and all other forms of bigotry,” the organization notes in each press release. It is interesting that the organization chose to specifically mention “anti-Black racism,” as opposed to just listing “racism.” Why is anti-black racism more worthy of challenging than anti-white racism? And why is white supremacy worse than the attitudes of black supremacy, anti-Italian bigotry, and authoritarianism that have motivated the brutal and heartless campaign of statue destruction of the past year? If CAIR truly stood in solidarity with all those challenging bigotry, they would condemn the vandalism of works of art honoring Italian, Spanish, and southern heroes just as strongly as they condemn vandalism of Native American works of art and predominantly black churches. 

In conclusion, it is inconsistent and discriminatory for CAIR to single out certain acts of vandalism for criticism and condemnation while completely ignoring others that are equally heinous, if not more so. To CAIR, acts of hate against some cultures are appalling and deserving of condemnation, while acts of hate against other cultures are perfectly fine. 

bookmark_borderThe statue genocide in Minnesota

Last June, among the hundreds of despicable acts of brutality inflicted upon statues, a particularly reprehensible act took place in St. Paul, Minnesota. A group of mindless, vicious excuses for human beings cruelly tore down the statue of Christopher Columbus that had been erected at the State Capitol building by the Italian-American community in 1931. Members of this mob tied a rope around Christopher’s neck, pulled him to the ground, repeatedly kicked him, stomped on him, and then danced in celebration. Making matters worse, police officers cravenly stood by, doing nothing to prevent this sickening assault, to stop the sadistic celebrations, or to punish the perpetrators. The photo gallery at the top of this Star Tribune article shows the disgusting actions, and the captions provide the identities of some of the perpetrators, including: Mike Forcia, Gabriel Black Elk, Shelby Black Elk, Ricky Jones, Hehaka Pejuta, and Genether Thornton.

I can think of nothing more morally wrong than what was done to this statue of Columbus. To see a man that I love, admire, and consider a hero being treated this way makes my blood boil, makes my stomach sick, and makes my heart feel like it is being ripped out of my chest. Since I first saw these pictures a few weeks ago, I have had nightmares, had difficulty sleeping, and had difficulty concentrating on anything other than these horrible actions. In addition to inflicting indescribable and unbearable suffering on me personally, these actions are despicable because they are an attack on the Italian-American community and on Columbus himself. To perpetrate such a vicious assault against a beautiful statue that was doing absolutely nothing to hurt anyone, and a heroic man who can no longer do anything to defend himself, is cruel, mean-spirited, brutal, vicious, bigoted, intolerant, hateful, and sadistic. It is appalling that someone would have such intolerance and hatred of other cultures that they would deliberately inflict this type of brutality on another culture’s hero.

The actions of a despicable excuse for a human being named Genether Thornton merit special mention. A particularly disturbing image in the Star Tribune’s gallery depicts Thornton proudly posing for photos with her knee on the fallen statue’s neck, just as Officer Chauvin infamously did to George Floyd. This action, and its symbolism, are completely reprehensible. Many people, of course, think that what Chauvin did to Floyd was wrong, and I probably agree with them. But how could someone think that the appropriate response to this situation is to do the exact same thing to another individual who had nothing to do with Floyd’s death? Because Floyd was suffocated to death, Thornton chose to symbolically suffocate to death both Columbus and the entire Italian-American community. In other words, to protest against perceived injustices inflicted on black people, Thornton chose to stomp on and symbolically murder an Italian person. This is deeply wrong and disgusting beyond words. Just as George Floyd was a human being who did not deserve what happened to him, Christopher Columbus was a human being who does not deserve to be repeatedly kicked, smashed to pieces, burned, stomped on, strangled, and brutalized. If you believe that what Chauvin did to Floyd was wrong, you must also believe that what Thornton did to Columbus was equally wrong (if not more so, because Thornton does not have the excuse of being in a stressful situation with a suspect who had the potential to be dangerous). Thornton is a bigot and a bully, and her cruel, hateful, and sadistic actions need to be condemned by all people in the strongest of terms.

In my opinion, each and every soulless lump of flesh and bone (the word “person” is not appropriate) involved in this vicious assault on Columbus deserves nothing less than the death penalty. Unfortunately, this is not what happened. Mike Forcia, who led the bigoted attack, was charged with criminal damage to property. However, instead of holding him accountable for his disgusting actions, the district attorney’s office abdicated its responsibilities and “opted for a restorative justice process that involved convening three traditional Peacemaking Talking Circles,” according to the Associated Press.

Peacemaking is not an appropriate response to this situation. By sadistically torturing and murdering Christopher Columbus, these vicious excuses for human beings have declared war on me, on the Italian-American community, and on every person with any sense of decency. Peacemaking is not the appropriate response to those who are deliberately inflicting excruciating pain, attempting to eradicate all cultures other than their own, and destroying everything in the world that makes life worth living. These bullies must be punished, they must be held accountable, and they must be made to pay for the needless and undeserved suffering that they have inflicted.

An additional note on this horrible situation: those who destroy beautiful statues frequently make the argument that they are victims of “oppression” and that the statues somehow represent “oppressors.” This argument is, to use a very technical philosophical term, baloney. Nothing demonstrates this more clearly than the images of the despicable mob kicking and strangling the Columbus statue. If you choose to pose for photos while kneeling on someone’s neck, you forfeit all right (if you even had such a right to begin with, which is very questionable) to claim that you are oppressed and that the person upon whose neck you are kneeling is somehow your oppressor. This despicable attack on Columbus, as well as the hundreds of similar attacks that have taken place around the country and world, prove that indigenous organizations and the BLM movement are the real oppressors, while Christopher Columbus and the Italian-American community are the ones who are actually oppressed. Someone who kneels on the neck of another culture’s hero is an oppressor, not the other way around.