Words of the Day: INDIVIDUAL & COMMUNAL

Wednesday this week, Nathan Deal, the Governor of the state of Georgia, signed a bill into law.  It was known in Georgia's state legislature as House Bill 60, or the Safe Carry Protection Act of 2014.  Opponents of the bill nicknamed it the "Guns Everywhere Bill".  An organization called GeorgiaCarry heavily lobbied Georgia's legislature, resulting in the bill passing 112-58 in the House and 37-18 in the Senate, sending the bill to Governor Deal's desk.

The bill defines where individuals may carry concealed weapons, provided they have a concealed weapons permit.  In the United States, people have the right to own firearms.  In some states, carrying a concealed weapon is allowed, even in public, again, provided the gun owner has a state-issued concealed carry permit.  That, in and of itself, may or may not register high on your societal radar.  What makes this law so shocking are the places that are included where one may carry a concealed weapon.

The law allows for weapons to be brought into such places as airports (although only in certain sections), bars, churches, government buildings, and school zones.  Not every single one of those in the state of Georgia, but all of those types of locations are now fair game for weapons.

Let us look at each of those types of locations briefly:
Airports -- You cannot bring firearms past TSA checkpoints, but all the way up to a TSA checkpoint is apparently legal.  The law allows guns at airport areas like drives, parking lots, walkways, and various other areas outside of the screening section.  Hey, no problems can arise by allowing firearms in those areas ... right?
Bars -- Haven't there been too many shooting incidents at bars and other alcohol-serving locations?  Now, it will be legally okay for firearms to be brought into some locations where people go to get impaired.
Churches -- This one probably befuddles me the most.  While there have already been shooting incidents at churches, what kind of theology says it is just fine to bring a firearm to worship and other church function?  What kind of God are you worshiping?  I understand that the law is a legal function, not a religious one, but the two previous questions are applicable to those who bring firearms to church.
Government buildings -- While some might say they would like to go into government buildings to get government working properly via a scare tactic involving a firerarm, merely expressing their frustration, how many shooting incidents  have there been in Georgia's legislative body's buildings and other government buildings?  Is it that high of a number?  Even more specifically the law allows for weapons in government buildings that have no security personnel operating on alert (i.e. screening or preventing access).  Do those government employees, "non-essential government personnel", feel safer now?
School zones -- All of the hub-bub about having guns in schools since the Sandy Hook shooting a year-and-a-half ago was used as a catalyst by the NRA has been completely out of proportion.  This seems to be an NRA-reasoned motivation.  However, my question is what does the state of Georgia consider as a school zone?  Doesn't a school zone include high schools?  Since you have to be at least eighteen years of age to own a firearm in the state of Georgia, would a high school senior who is eighteen still remain in compliance with the law if he/she brought a firearm to school?  It, then, would be illegal to kill students and faculty, but legal to bring the weapon used into the school in the first place.

I am reminded of the following quotations.  One from the biblical texts, namely the gospel of Matthew, and the other two other ways of expressing the same idea.  (The last one is attributed to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.)

"Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword."

"He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword."
"Violence begets violence."

What does all of this "more guns" rhetoric and action say about us?  Is it that we are being proactive to the ills of society, specifically gun violence?  Is it that people are standing up for freedom?  Or is it something else?

Since it seems as though the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution is kicked around like a soccer ball, but it is, after all, germane to this issue, let us look at the amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Let me say right up front that I have no problem with responsible individuals who are not mentally challenged to own a gun or a rifle.  I am a pacifist and I would prefer no one had guns, but I respect a person's right to own a firearm and to protect him/herself.  I would also add hunting for food, not for mere sport.

Does protecting yourself require or mandate owning a firearm?  Absolutely not.  That is just one way to do so.  There are ways to go excessive, such as using semi-automatic/automatic firearms or chemicals (i.e. saran gas, acid), or continuing to harm someone once you have stopped them. 

Getting back to the second amendment, does it, in and of itself, deal solely with the right to own firearms?  Well, yes and no.  It clearly includes the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".  That means individuals, doesn't it.  Yes.  Where the "no" comes in is why.  What was the reasoning for the inclusion of this amendment by the founders of the country and the wording used?  That leads to a division regarding the why.  

To consider the reason behind the amendment, it is necessary to consider the reasons behind our forebearers coming to this country.  In short, very short, they were oppressed in their native lands: religious intolerance (As the King goes, so goes the kingdom), inequitable and unreasoned taxation, imprisonment, and violence, among other things.  King George III was no ball of laughs, on European and North American soil.  I would venture to say that our forebearers knew from experience that uprising against their government when it is being unfair or oppressive to its people was not only good, but necessary for a truly free State.  If they were unable to defend themselves as a people in the land where they had been brought up, then they were certainly going to establish being able to do so in the country they were forming from scratch.

That leads us into the intent behind the amendment.  I would suggest that our forebearers did not feel the mere possession of firearms was a singular done-deal in the pursuit of forming "a more perfect union".  Look at England, for one example, today.  Their gun violence is incredibly lower than ours and its citizens are not marching in the streets, taking to the Internet, or trying to overrun Parliament for the right to bear arms ... or to have more firearms among the population.  A mere coincidence?  I do not believe so.

While "the right of people to bear arms" is highlighted over and over again when citing the the second amendment in gun debates, the phrase "A well regulated Militia" tends to get grossly overlooked.  I see the amendment as an affirmation of the right to bear arms in response, if it goes that far, to an oppressive government.  We have a passive passing of the torch from the loser to the winner with every political election, but our forebearers felt this new country's citizens had the right to rise up against its government, which they felt they did not before.  

"A well regulated Militia" is not the same as every individual, or as many individuals as possible, owning firearms.  Thus, it is also not the expanding of how many people have firearms, or where firearms can be allowed.  

And that leads us -- there's a lot of leading us today, isn't there? -- to what the amendment covers.  It is the division that, quite honestly, doesn't get a lot of attention.  Does the second amendment cover solely individual rights (the mere possession of a firearm) or does it cover society at large (used for the greater good)?  While I believe in the individual's right to protect him/herself or to hunt for sustenance, I do not believe the second amendment is the fully appropriate ground on which to base gun debates.  I have heard no one publicly claim, clearly and succinctly, that the second amendment relates solely to the greater good.  What I hear is it's all about individual rights.  If, for example, every individual in a city owned a firearm, then that is not a well regulated militia.  It is simply a bunch of individuals who own weapons.  Nothing more, nothing less.

In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the amendment was about individuals' rights, although it said specifically that it was to protect "a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home."  In 2010, it affirmed that state and local governments do not have the right to supersede or impinge on its earlier ruling.  

I am yet to be convinced how the right to own a firearm to protect yourself is the same thing as the right to overthrow an oppressive government.

Terry

Term of the Day: MANUFACTURED OPPOSITION

If you have been paying attention to the news for the past ... oh, say ... few decades, perhaps you have heard the arguments on both sides, pro and con, good and bad, etc., that fall under the umbrella of the "science versus religion" debate.  In the past few decades that debate has really heated up.  An example of the latest fanning of the flames is the Fox Television miniseries Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey, hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson, which is a reboot of the 1980 miniseries Cosmos: A Personal Voyage, which was hosted by Carl Sagan. 

In both miniseries, the science that explains our humanity, its place in the cosmic space/time continuum, and the cosmos itself take center stage.  Sagan's elucidation thirty-four years ago spawned a renewed interest in the scientific world.  Of course, it is too soon to see what effect Tyson's rebooting will have.  However, to hear the chorus of voices on the religion side of the religion vs. science argument, you would think the mere presence of this program on television is detrimental to all of society.  Apparently, the power of the channel-changer and "Off" buttons still eludes some folks' comprehension.  (Do those same folks label that same power as myth?)

On the website debate.org, the following question was posed: Can science and religion coexist?  A number of comments were about one being better than the other, some to the point of putdowns and even condemnation of the other.  Obviously, such divisive comments are unhelpful.  However, here is what I found so interesting (and amusing): it was split down the middle -- 50% saying yes and 50% saying no.

To be fair, in understanding the human condition, it is both easy and normative to side with one side of an argument, especially if that side appeals to you on some level (i.e. makes more sense to you, holds more credence).  That doesn't seem so unusual, does it?  After all, that is the nature of the debate.  There are also times when neither side of an argument is one with which someone can agree or align ... because neither side holds a lot of weight or because both sides hold equal weight.  Additionally, there are those who say they have no interest in the debate itself.  (Sometimes, this is expressed in an American idiom: I have no dog in that fight.)

I would describe myself as having an interest in both sides of the debate, science and religion, but not in the debate itself.  I will explain later.

I mentioned that the science vs. religion debate has been heating up in the past few decades.  While true, it has been going far, far longer.  One example, for starters, reaches back more than eighty years.  Bishop Fulton J. Sheen was a Roman Catholic priest and a master communicator.  In 1930, he began hosting a radio program titled The Catholic Hour, which ran for two decades and had an estimated audience as high as four million listeners.  Most of his talks centered around two World Wars, the evils of communism, and turning away from God.

In 1951, Bishop Sheen began a weekly program on a new medium called "television" called Life is Worth Living, which ran for six years.  Bishop Sheen returned to television in a syndicated series The Fulton Sheen Program, which ran for seven years from 1961 to 1968. Bishop Sheen was conservative in his religious views -- keep in mind that is "conservative" 50's and 60's style -- but he was popular with a mass viewership. 

In fact, one of television's first and biggest stars was Milton Berle, who hosted Texaco Star Theater on NBC, and was known by two nicknames "Mr. Television" and "Uncle Miltie".  When Bishop Sheen's program, did far better in the same time slot as Texaco Star Theater, Berle was noted as saying that, if he would be edged out of top spot in the ratings, "it's better that I lose to the One for whom Bishop Sheen is speaking."  Bishop Sheen responded by saying that perhaps people should start calling him "Uncle Fultie".  Upon receiving an Emmy Award, Sheen quipped, "I feel it is time I pay tribute to my four writers -- Matthew, Mark, Luke and John."

He was prolific, with works on television, on audio, and in nearly eighty books.  His second book, Religion Without God, originally published in 1928, included the following quote:

Wow! A radical interpretation, indeed, considering it was more than eighty-five years ago! Would many twenty-first century conservatives say, or agree with, that?

For decades, I have heard this science-versus-religion debate and I have been confused by it time and time again; I truly do not get it.  The question that has come to mind time and time again is What's the point?

Does there need to be a paradigm of opposition between the two?  Is it really a matter of right versus wrong?  Can there truly be an absolute to be found in a one-is-better-than-the-other inquiry?

Let me take another recent example: Higgs boson, or "The God Particle".  I won't go into all of the details here, mostly because much of it is above my understanding, but it is, in the simplest (but not fully descriptive) terms I can find, the presence of creating something from nothing (mass from non-mass).  Imagine that, something from nothing.  In the biblical text, the same idea is expressed: 

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

And the earth was without form, and void;and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
(Book of Genesis 1:1-2a)

A book that was written back in the fifteenth century B.C. expresses the idea of creating something out of nothing.  Fantasy, you say?  Religious babble, you argue?  Just a lucky guess?  (That one is easy to say in hindsight.)  Okay then, let us assume that position for a moment.  The Higgs boson, which was first theorized in the mid-1960's, was discovered to be real last year, roughly three-and-a-half millennia after the book of Genesis was written. A silly little one-liner could be: "Hey, science, what took you so long?" or "It's about time!"  

On a serious note, however, a deeper look, using a science-versus-religion template, could reveal the following scientifically-leaning responses:
"Science actually did what was claimed to have been done by God."
"It is not real if it cannot be done or proven using science."
"Science is God."

Some in the religious community were actually up in arms about this pursuit and eventual discovery.  Religiously-leaning responses could be:
"Humanity trying to prove it can do what only God can do."
"Humanity trying to be God."

These types of responses, and others similar to them, stem from both scientific and religious absolutism.  The scientifically-leaning responses mentioned above likely come from a place inside that is governed by a "no proof, no good" sensibility.  The religiously-leaning responses likely stem from a sense of feeling authoritatively threatened.  There is literally nothing wrong with putting a high value on science or on religion, or even for both to be held in high regard by the same person.  However, when one is purported to be better than the other in the absolute, and that absolutism is purported to be right for everyone, then that stems from arrogance.

Religion will sometimes speak of awe and wonder.  Many times, stories in the Bible of people experiencing those things are examples for the religiously faithful.  Many times, it is extolling the power of experiencing the world itself and experiencing those things that take place.  

Science has awe and wonder, too.  Imagine the scientist or scientific team making an unexpected discovery or forming a new branch of science.  Imagine those of us who see the fruits of scientific labor (i.e. slowing or stopping the progression of disease) and, if not filled with awe are, at the very least, filled with wonder.  When my mother was in the hospital last year, the attending nurse took her temperature by rolling a device that resembled a pen across her forehead.  (I believe the same device is available publicly.)  I just stood there in awe.  The nurse was young and when I commented on that thermometer, she said she, too, was amazed at "what's out there".  I responded by saying she will likely be taken aback at what's out there in another twenty years.

I have felt awe and wonder in religious settings and I feel awe and wonder, like my example above, at what science can do and how far it has come.  Am I "wrong" or "odd" for feeling that?  Am I just making that up?  I can only tell you from experience, and my answer to both of those questions is no.  

It has been said that religion "fills in the gaps", albeit without quantifiably filling them, of things we don't understand ... and religion views what is unknown, most often linked or attributed to God, as being sometimes okay to not be known.  It teaches how to live not just with awe and wonder, and not even just respect and reverence, but also how to live with mystery.  Science attempts to seek answers and to fill in the gaps with quantifiable answers.  Science is okay with not having answers, but it will seek the answers.  Thus, while also having awe and wonder, science is not comfortable with mystery.

Typically, religious responses to scientific questions or pursuits are not always welcomed by the scientific community or by scientifically-leaning individuals.  The same can be said about scientific responses to religious questions and pursuits within the religious community.  Two questions come to mind, one is only slightly sarcastic and the other is more serious: "So what?" and "How often do the answers from different disciplines match up exactly or very closely, anyway?"

The answer to all of this, in short, is that one community commenting on another is fine, but it is imperative to keep in mind that different communities, cited here as the religious and the scientific communities, are not meant to fully address the actions of the other.  In addition to that, it needs to be kept in the forefront of our minds that different disciplines are meant to have different answers. Their various answers are just that -- their various answers.  There is no one-size-fits-all ... never has been, is not, and never will be.

Religion, if it is done right, provides a sense of community and togetherness to its adherents, and its pursuits must be to benefit not only themselves, but the world at large.  Science's togetherness is more among those in the scientific community, while its pursuits, if done right, benefit both those in and outside of the scientific community.  Notice any similarity?  Two different means, one similar end.

Both religion and science are human creations with their own sets of pursuits and truths.  For me, it can be equally argued that God gave us the ability to create and to pursue because that it what we are meant to do, and we are simply using those innate abilities. One type of argument resonates with some people and the other argument resonates with other people. That is just fine.  If done right, both religion and science, even if not compatible in some aspects, need not be at odds with one another.

And that leads me back to my original premise.  The argument is null ... the debate is non-existent ... the opposition is manufactured.  The debate is nothing more than a way to label, limit, and divide us.

And what's the point of that?

Terry

Word of the Day: UPRISING [Part 3 of 3]

Uganda is my focus today.  The uprising there is of a different kind than Venezuela and Ukraine, and can be summed up as manufactured homophobic hysteria.

The issue at hand in Uganda is gay rights. One week ago, on February 24, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni signed into law the Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Act of 2014, which makes all same-sex relationships illegal in the country, and even allows for extradition of Ugandan citizens for committing homosexual acts abroad.  Persons, entities, corporations, or those in the media who are aware of someone being homosexual can even be punished for not reporting those individuals.

Two key terms are included in the law's wording.  One is "the offense of homosexuality", which is defined as someone engaging in anal and/or oral sex with someone of the same sex, using anything to arouse another person's sexual organ, or touching another person (where does not matter) with the intention of sexual acts.  The other term is "aggravated homosexuality", which is defined as someone engaging in homosexual acts with someone who is under age (under 18), someone who is HIV positive, a parent or guardian engaging in homosexual acts with someone under age, an authority figure of the victim, someone engaging in homosexual acts with a disabled person, a serial offender under this law, or someone who uses means (drugs or drink) to disable someone in order to make homosexual advances easier. Conviction for either one can result in life imprisonment.

The law was originally nicknamed the "Kill the Gays Bill" because the potential life imprisonment sentences were originally written to be death penalty sentences.

Let's take a few steps back...
In 2007, The Red Pepper, a Ugandan newspaper, published the names of men who were believed to be gay -- not known to be gay, just believed to be gay -- and those men were subsequently harassed throughout Ugandan society.  The initial bill that would eventually result in the Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Act of 2014 was introduced in the Ugandan government in 2009.

In the Fall of 2010, another Ugandan newspaper, Rolling Stone, had the following as its front page:

This time, the story included the names and addresses and photographs of 100 homosexuals.  The story also claimed homosexual were trying to recruit young children into homosexuality.

A banner next to the pictures read: "Hang Them".

In January of 2011, David Kato, a teacher who worked for Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG), an activist group fighting for LGBT rights in Uganda, was murdered.  His name was one of the 100 listed in Rolling Stone newspaper just months earlier. 

Further action on the bill was delayed as global opposition to it grew stronger.  However, the bill resurfaced and passed in the Ugandan legislature on December 20th of last year.  As I mentioned earlier, President Museveni signed it into law one week ago today.  One day after signing the bill The Red Pepper newspaper published the names of the "200 top" homosexuals in Uganda.

In the days since signing the bill into law, various countries have voted to stop aid to the East African country.  Just three days ago, the World Bank said an upcoming loan in the amount of $90 million would be withheld.

A point necessary to be made is that of Christian evangelicals who have been going to Uganda for years and raising public condemnation of homosexuality to a fever pitch.  Before going any further, let me be clear.  I am not making this point to bash the entirety of Christianity.  I am only speaking of the actions of certain Christian evangelicals who, in my opinion, have decided to preach a gospel of hatred rather than love.

Their interest in the country goes back thirty-five years to the fall of former Ugandan dictator Idi Amin.

The influence of Christian evangelicals, such as Lou Engle and his International House of Prayer, is brought to light in a powerful 2013 documentary titled God Loves Uganda by filmmaker Roger Ross Williams.

The film is in limited theatrical release throughout the United States (with dates being added) and Europe (at the time of this posting, in the Czech Republic and Switzerland).  Here in the United States the documentary can be seen on Public Television stations on Monday evening, May 19th, and a DVD release of the documentary is due at that time.

It is clear that the levels to which the societal condemnation of homosexuals in Uganda has risen, to the point of basically outlawing homosexuality, is troubling at least, horrific at most. It is one thing to disagree with something based on religious principles.  That, in and of itself, is fine.  However, when those disagreements turn into acts of inciting violence against other human beings, then those acts need to be stopped.  That includes getting others to do your killing, imprisoning, and vilifying for you.

Terry

Word of the Day: UPRISING [Part 2 of 3]

My focus today is on the Ukraine, a country deeply divided and possibly on the brink of war.

Perhaps many of you watched the Winter Olympics from Sochi, Russia.  There were numerous stories in the weeks and months leading up to the Games regarding serious security concerns.  Here in the United States, there were plans in place to get athletes out of the country should the need arise.  There were news reports of several American Olympians telling their parents to stay home.

On February 7, the 2014 Winter Olympics began with much pomp and circumstance.  Russia president Vladimir Putin was, no doubt, basking in the glory of the Olympics Games taking place in his country.  Regarding security concerns, it would seem that Russian authorities were able of handling security for the Games quite well, despite concerns in the U.S. and abroad to the contrary.

Although not at any sites in or near the Olympic Village, twelve days into the Games, protests erupted in Ukraine's capital city of Kiev.

No doubt, President Putin was not feeling so proud, as he was with the Sochi Olympics, with this news.

The whole issue within the Ukraine can be described as having as much to do with national identity as it does with political and economic alliance.  Ukraine has ties to both Russia, on their east, and the European Union, on their west.  Ukraine became its own sovereign state in the summer of 1991 when it broke from the Soviet Union.  Its ties with Russia include ten-year gas supply and transit contracts negotiated in the beginning of 2009 and a gas import contract which continued Russia's lease of Ukraine's naval base in Crimea.  The initial 2009 gas and transit contract with Russia, however, contained so many restrictions that Ukraine's national gas company, Naftohaz, which was already struggling, was strapped even further.

The national economy of Ukraine decreased by fifteen percent in 2009.

Ukraine's ties to the European Union (EU) began back in 1998, seven years after becoming a sovereign state, with the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the two entities.  The EU negotiated the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (DCFTA) with the Ukraine as well.  The DCFTA would replace the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement.  Both the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement, as it's come to be known, and the DCFTA were initialized within four months of each other in 2012.

The EU has maintained that it wants to sign and ratify both the DCFTA and the Association Agreement.  At the last minute, however, Ukraine President Viktor Yanukovych decided to not sign on, opting instead for a $15 billion bailout (approximately €10.85 billion) from Russia, one week before the Agreement signing was to take place in November of last year. Yanukovych's refusal to sign the agreement resulted in the beginning of protests in his country, which came to a fever-pitch level near the end of the Olympics.

About a week ago, Yanukovych went missing, believed to have left the country, and was charged with murder in relation to the deaths of protestors last month by the still-standing Ukraine government.  He was officially dismissed of his presidency by the government.

Several days ago, Russian military forces were sent to the Russia-Ukraine border for what were called military exercises.  Yesterday, Russian military forces entered Crimea using unmarked helicopters and unidentified soldiers on board.  In fact, it has been reported that some of these troops, while unloading an unmarked payload, told Ukraine customs officials that they had "no need of their services".

In the past twenty-four hours of the time of this posting, several very significant events have taken place:
>  Yanukovych resurfaced at a news conference at the Vertol Expo Center in the Russian city of Rostov-on-Don, saying he was not deposed, but left for his own safety, blaming the EU and the West. 
>  The unmarked Russian military has taken over major airports in Crimea. 
>  The Kremlin unanimously voted in favor of Russian military forces going into Crimea, a Ukraine peninsula.  In effect, a takeover of Crimea appears imminent, which would be not only a power grab by Vladimir Putin, but could prove to be a strategic geographical military advantage. 
>  President Obama opposed the moves by Russia, stating that the U.S. stands with Ukraine, and that "there will be costs for any military intervention" there.  (What those "costs" could be is unknown.)
>  The City Council of Donetsk, a town on the eastern end of Ukraine, voted to refuse recognition of the government in Kiev, Ukraine's capital, and raised the Russian flag after lowering and removing the Ukranian flag.
>  Ukraine Prime Minister Arseny Yatsenyuk said Russian military intervention would result in not only ending all ties with Moscow, but also war.
>  Acting Ukraine President Oleksander Turchynov has put the country's troops on high alert.
>  An emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council has been convened. 
>  NATO has invoked Article 4 of the North American Treaty, only the fourth time in its history, at the behest of Lithuania and Latvia, which results in an emergency council meeting on these issues.
>  Reuters News has reported that two Russian war ships have been spotted near Sevastopol, a city on the Black Sea coast of Crimea, in direct violation of naval base agreement between Russia and Ukraine.
>  Both pro-Russia and pro-Ukraine protests have taken place, and continue to take place, in various parts of Ukraine.
>  U.S. President Obama and Russia President Putin spoke on the phone regarding what has been happening in the region.

It is clear, at least to me, that this is an invasion by Russia, close to an attempted coup.  No doubt, all signs in this region are pointing to war.  Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail ... fast!

Terry

TOMORROW:  UGANDA

Word of the Day: UPRISING [Part 1 of 3]

This post is the beginning of a three-part series about uprisings that are currently going on in the world.  There are similarities and differences among the three of them, and they all deserve attention.  My attention today is on the country of Venezuela, since it has received the least amount of attention, at least here in the United States.

Following the death of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez on March 5 of last year, a special election was held on April 19.  Venezuela's vice-president Nicholás Maduro was voted in as President, a position he has held for a little more than ten months.

Maduro and his policies have not been popular among Venezuelans.  In fact, opposition to Maduro stems back to opposition to Hugo Chavez.  At the beginning of this month, Leopoldo Lopez, a leader of the opposition against Hugo Chavez, called on students for a peaceful protest against serious shortages of goods and instability in the country.  The initial protest, at the Catholic University of Táchira, was met with an extreme response, including beatings and detentions.  As a result, the protests spread across the country.  Students made up the entirety of original protestors, but many who are not students have now joined their ranks.

High levels of crime, including murder, have been plaguing the country for some time.  (It has been estimated as many of 25,000 murders last year alone.)  Other issues, which are included in the protests, are national food and goods shortages, a faltering economy, strict government price controls, high inflation (a staggering 56%), and claims of police brutality.

We live in a digital age, so just as social media has been key in previous protests (i.e. Arab Spring), there has been an app that has been crucial in these protests.  The app is Zello, and it features live voice chat and a walkie-talkie like feature.  Last week, Zello's CEO Bill Moore said that the Venezuelan state-run telecommunications company blocked access to the app.  Zello immediately pursued other online routes to allow Venezuelans access again; they were successful within a day.

Below are some images of the protests in Venezuela:

The goals of the protestors are the ouster of President Maduro and a new election.  It is likely that Maduro knows his chances to win may not be so strong, since he won the 2013 election by a margin of less than two percent.  Perhaps the increased violence and worldwide attention in his country are getting to Maduro.  He believes the U.S. is trying to overthrow his government via the U.S. media.  Six days ago, he demanded that the worldwide news service CNN leave Venezuela.  (He retracted the demand the following day, stating he wants all news agencies to report in a "balanced" manner.)

Back on February 18, opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez turned himself in to authorities to face charges of murder and terrorism that allegedly occurred during the protests.  No doubt, it is a move to try and silence Lopez and lessen his authority among the opposition.

Below, you will find a two-part video of a program that recently aired on France 24 English.  It features reporting on, and a discussion of, events in Venezuela.  (Total time of both videos: approximately 37 minutes.)

Clearly, the uprising in Venezuela is of a people wanting to change their current situation and to control its future.  There have been deaths and damage so far.  The crisis needs to end soon.  Otherwise, Venezuela may fall into collapse.

Terry

TOMORROW: UKRAINE

Term of the Day: INNER BULLY

A good friend of mine has recently published two books and I would like to tell you about them.  First, allow me to tell you a little about my friend.

My friend is Dr. Sidney Rosen, Ph.D.  He is a psychologist who has been in private practice for thirty years, who works in Cherry Hill, New Jersey.  He sees his work with his patients in terms of building up (i.e. courage, self-worth), cutting down (i.e. self-sabotaging behaviors), and fulfillment (i.e. giving yourself permission to feel good, self-forgiveness).  He says the stereotypical view of seeing a psychiatrist, of being a weak or abnormal person, should be seen as what he calls "self-respecting hard work".

YOUR SELF-SABOTAGING INNER BULLY: STANDING UP TO IT ONCE AND FOR ALL!

In this book, Sidney deals with the issue referred to as the "inner bully" -- what is inside of you that makes you sabotage almost anything positive (i.e. positive thoughts, pursuing and attaining goals, healthy relationships).  This inner bully is a series of self-sabotaging thoughts, not just a one-time visit.  Please click on and listen to the audio clip below in which Sidney talks about this book.
Sidney recently appeared on the Power Your Life television program hosted by Dr. Jo Anne White to discuss his book:

INNER BLOCKS TO LOSING WEIGHT: WHY YOU LOSE THE BATTLE MORE THAN THE WEIGHT! 

In this book, Sidney deals with what can be called a weight loss inner bully.  He delves into ways we find ourselves keeping ourselves from reaching the goal of losing weight.  He notes that the book is not written to be a distinct, incorporated weight loss plan.  Rather, it is more of a textual supplement to any existing diet program you may be currently using or considering using.  The audio clip below is Sidney introducing his book to you.


Dr. Sidney Rosen knows his stuff, and I highly recommend his books.  The books may be ordered through Amazon.com by clicking on the titles of the books above the pictures of their covers.  Sidney's website will give you more information about him and his practice.

Terry

Term of the Day: HYDRAULIC FRACTURING **ADDENDUM

[The following is an addendum to my previous posting titled "Term of the Day: HYDRAULING FRACTURING"]

Last night, on the U.S. cable television program 'The Rachel Maddow Show', a report was given on the effects of fracking, as noted in a report and a documentary titled 'Fracking the Eagle Ford Shale: Big Oil & Bad Air on the Texas Prairie'. Here are the two segments related to this report.

The link below will take you to the page of the report Rachel Maddow highlights. There is a lot there: video, reports, click-on graphics, etc. You will find it highly informative.

Fracking the Eagle Ford Shale:
Big Oil & Bad Air on the Texas Prairie

Terry