Samantha Bell, Joe Stack’s daughter in Norway, made a comment to Good Morning America stating that she considered her dad a hero because he acted out in a way to make others stand and take notice of a problem with our government that causes a state of exasperation to so many. She also sent out her condolences to the family of the one death victim and the others injured, stating that she didn’t condone her dad’s method. Sources:Huffington Post and abcnews.com

I wonder how we would treat George Washington, Patrick Henry, Paul Revere, Samuel Adams and other founding figures under the same situation. After all, they promoted the same types of attack at the Boston Tea Party – and afterwords, the British exercised a stronger government against the colonies. Those directly involved with these violent acts of insurrection were called cowards, traitors, rebels, among other choice words of their time.

You can read the cliff-notes version at the Boston Tea Party Timeline website but long story short, these people who fought and won the liberties and freedoms we enjoy today were nothing short of terrorists and wing-nuts by today’s definition. Most of their battle was through talks and negotiations, but when it came down to a government that didn’t care to listen to the people it was supposed to be protecting, revolutionary war became the final answer.

The main difference between then and now is that the Government in dispute is local where we can walk into a congressman’s office and have some hope of representation. Where I think most grievance lies is in the non-representation that the generations before us allowed. The six pages that made up the Constitution – the framework of our nation – has been usurped by thousands of pages of trite dog-eared laws that benefit certain individuals over the general citizens. There is also a great unrest and clash between cultures within the borders where liberal vs. conservative morals are the issues at heart rather than expansive vs. localized political powers. These differences make it difficult to both justify and to condemn the nature of injustice in the actions of Joe and the government he was at odds with.

Most people who defend Joe explain that Joe Stack isn’t any different from a Colonist in the 18th century who, enraged at the taxation, coercive acts and unjust courts decided that rather than subject himself to another year of anguish would take his meager unsubstantial life and make a smoke signal to others with it.

Most people who condemn Joe have the same western mentality that anyone who deliberately crashes a plane into a building is a nut-case and a coward. I guess they haven’t studied Eastern culture – particularly of Samurais – nor of the mentality of kamikaze pilots in WWII. Maybe they slept through the lecture on Pearl Harbor – who knows. But a single drastic event makes a louder statement, and a spokesman, no matter how depraved before, becomes instantly recognized.

I’m getting very tired of hearing people call him a coward merely on the basis that he committed suicide or that he incidentally killed someone else in the process. His final act of unrest had a motive beyond escapism which leads me to believe he died for something he believed in. It doesn’t matter what your faith is, if you die for something you believe, even if it’s the wrong thing to believe in, it isn’t mere cowardice – it’s something else. Nobody seems to call the nearly 1000 “kool-aid” suicides under the watch of Rev. James Warren Jones acts of cowardice. Of course, that doesn’t make any of it right.

I’ll add, however, that as affective the immediate results were, Joe’s airplane crash into the IRS was neither creative nor productive and his message has gotten lost amongst the thousands of retweets that dismiss his motives entirely (as a coward). He would have served America much better in prison next to Irwin Schiff, in a twist of irony that would have him living off of the same tax dollars he so despised paying.

For what it’s worth, Irwin Schiff is in prison for denying Uncle Sam the satisfaction of taxing him. He’s sentenced to 12.5 years for this federal crime while the average sentence for a repeat child rapist is only 7. This is the type of injustice that drove Joe Stack crazy.

I’ve noticed that the month of May has flown by quickly. No television was my goal. We watched a few movies – about one every other week. Since I’ve dropped TV, I picked up drawing, photography, photoshopping, flickr networking, more blogging and getting closer to my wife and kids.

Tonight I go to a pizza place that can best be described as something like Dave and Busters, but more family oriented. I hope to have fun with photography there and meet a couple of new people. With more activity in life, it feels more like an adventure. Other than the occasional movie, I’m ready to give up the screen altogether.

By the way, the movies watched were: The last few shorts from the Ray Bradbury Theater, Planet of the Apes (with Charlton Heston) and Les Miserables with Liam Neeson and Uma Thurman. Ray Bradbury Theater was a real disappointment. I remember him being more creative instead of taking ideas from other writers and putting mild twists on them. Planet of the Apes was interesting. Charlton Heston has a way with overstating the obvious. Les Miserables was fantastic. This version in particular shows the devastation of a man’s soul when he demands justice without grace and mercy.

Years ago a headline in the Life section of the Austin American Statesman said something to the tune of “It’s forbidden, it’s taboo, it’s a sin, it’s exciting – it’s adultery”. I don’t remember the exact wording, but that’s close enough for you to get the point.

The point being made was that the same act has different connotations depending on the words used to describe it. Saying words like “fling” or “affair” minimizes the mental effect.

I’ve noticed, however, that in the same way euphemisms are being used to practically reduce crime into acts of kindness, cacophemisms are cropping up to make acts of integrity appear as scourge. The media begins its merry mudslinging at the conservative party in such a way as to try to make wholesome words like “abstinence” equate to failure.

While it’s evident the liberal democratic party began campaigning for “change”, there are certain base foundations, like moral conduct, that should remain steadfast and unchanged. By the way they attack the high ideals of righteousness and moral creed their hidden agenda isn’t so hidden anymore.