On Martin Luther King, Jr. Day here in the United States, I offer the slain civil rights leader's greatest speech. It is his "I Have A Dream" speech, delivered on August 28, 1963 at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.
Terry
Monday, January 19, 2015
Thursday, January 15, 2015
Phrase of the Day: THEY DO AND THEY DON'T
Last week, the attack on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo (Charlie Weekly) was widely publicized. Twelve employees of the magazine and one policeman were murdered, along with four murdered at a kosher market during a simultaneous hostage situation. The attack on Charlie Hebdo was in response to cartoon renderings of the Prophet Muhammad; no depiction of Allah or Muhammad is allowed in Islam. Last Wednesday's attack was not the first for the magazine; it was attacked in 2011 for the same reason.
In November of 2011, the magazine's offices were firebombed and its website was hacked. It is believed the attacks were in response to an edition that was renamed Charia Hebdo (Sharia Hebdo), as in Sharia Law, with the Prophet Muhammad listed as that issue's editor.
Last week's attack was the first to involve murder in relation to the magazine. It sent shockwaves through the publishing community, as well as all of Paris, all of France, and, indeed, the entire world. As with all terrorist attacks, the aim was not the alleged avenging of the name of Muhammad, but to scare people into a different way of living. Clearly, people operate differently in a state of fear than a state of calm. At its most basic level, it is a bully tactic.
The expected cowering, however, did not take place. The phrase Je suis Charlie ("I am Charlie") has become a rallying cry for freedom of press and freedom of expression.
It was announced by French President Franรงois Hollande that a mass march would take place in support of freedom of expression and the press. This past Sunday, instead of cowering, here is what the citizens of France and more than forty world leaders did...
Yesterday's first post-attack edition of the magazine printed 3,000,000 copies in multiple languages, instead of its usual circulation of around 30,000-60,000 copies. All copies were sold. Below is the cover of yesterday's edition, which includes a depiction of the Prophet Muhammad...
How's that for cowering?
With such a massive turnout at Sunday's march, one can only hope that the more than forty world leaders in attendance, including some that find no problem with censorship to the point of prison, will find a way to combat, or change their policy on, this form of censorship and bullying.
Regarding these and other terrorists, one question that has been asked is what they represent. The easy answers are fear and whatever terrorist group claims responsibility at the time. To say they are just thugs is not entirely incorrect, but it goes deeper than that. The deeper answers are as much political as they are societal as they are religious.
Politically, these terrorists want governments to do what they say, to function in the way they deem, and to create theocracies around the world, such as the installation of Sharia Law. Do they represent a system of government? I believe they believe so, but I disagree. In creating a theocratic state, they would set up how people should behave on both small and broad scales in society. A theocracy under Sharia Law would include:
Death for criticism or denial of any part of the Quran, of Muhammad as prophet, and of Allah as god;
Cutting off the hand of someone who commits theft;
Mutilation of girls' clitorises, under the guise of circumcision for men and women;
Women can have only one husband and must ask the husband's permission to divorce, while men can have up to four wives and can divorce their wives whenever they want;
Girls can be married when they are an infant and consummation of the marriage can take place when she is nine years old.
In short, it would be a fundamentalist theocracy.
All of these ideas come from the Quran and other Islamic teachings, but what does that say about Islam as a whole? That it's across-the-board violent? Or that it includes violent teachings? I would argue the latter, as the sacred texts of all three major world religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) have violence in one for or another in them. Islam is no different. To use that argument in a wide swath would mean all three of these world religions are violent instead of their including violent teachings. Thus, while there are violent teachings present, the question of how much those violent teachings of centuries past figure into the teachings and actualizations of today is one that looms large.
The wars between Israel and Palestine, the murders of abortion doctors, the murders of cartoonists and satirists, are not fully representative of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The violent teachings are a part of the entirety of all three of those religions, not the totality. How can the fact that the vast majority of Jews, Christians, and Muslims do not commit violent acts in the name of their respective religions be answered? It is a result of those vast majorities deeming centuries ago-acceptable violence as modern day-unacceptable violence. Does that mean that those same vast majorities are wrong and out of alignment with their religion? An affirmative response to that question can be attained only if violence in the name of religion is included.
While it has happened time and time again, including some of the worst wars in human history being fought in the name of religion, there are those who feel violence in the name of religion must be continued. It boils down to a matter of choice. Anyone who promotes and carries out violence in the name of religion is just plain wrong. Period.
Bombing strikes by Israel defines Judaism no more than a Christian killing an abortion doctor defines Christianity. The killings of people in the name of Allah does not define Islam. None of them are representative of their respective religions as a whole.
And yet, they do represent these religions in an unfortunate de facto sort of way. The good works of synagogues and temples, churches, and mosques around the world are rarely highlighted, except perhaps in local publications and websites. The idea of bad news sells better than good news (i.e. "If it bleeds, it leads") seems to remain a reality. Those folks doing good works represent their religions well. While some believe that violence is part and parcel with devotion, and has convinced too many people that such is the case, they could not be further from the truth.
More uprisings, like what we saw in France last weekend, of leaders and members of political and secular interests in favor of peace and freedom must take place. Among those marching throughout France, there were Muslims (holding signs of "Not in my name"), Christians, and Jews alike, along with others. Members of a particular religion, both clergy and non-clergy alike, must rise up against those who abuse their religion as justification for violence. Politicians and clergy must work in their relative forums to decry violence always. It must be openly decreed that centuries-old actions cannot be lived out in the modern world.
It is time for people to rise up and state loudly, publicly, and unequivocally that acts of violence in the name of religion are nothing but acts in the name of hatred ... that any such claims are invalid and an insult to their religion, and, by default, to religion in general. Hopefully, the massive rally in France will be a launching point.
It is time to solidify that those who, de facto, do represent whatever religion with violence, do not represent religion at all. Period.
Terry
In November of 2011, the magazine's offices were firebombed and its website was hacked. It is believed the attacks were in response to an edition that was renamed Charia Hebdo (Sharia Hebdo), as in Sharia Law, with the Prophet Muhammad listed as that issue's editor.
Quote: 100 Lashes If You Don't Die of Laughter
Last week's attack was the first to involve murder in relation to the magazine. It sent shockwaves through the publishing community, as well as all of Paris, all of France, and, indeed, the entire world. As with all terrorist attacks, the aim was not the alleged avenging of the name of Muhammad, but to scare people into a different way of living. Clearly, people operate differently in a state of fear than a state of calm. At its most basic level, it is a bully tactic.
The expected cowering, however, did not take place. The phrase Je suis Charlie ("I am Charlie") has become a rallying cry for freedom of press and freedom of expression.
It was announced by French President Franรงois Hollande that a mass march would take place in support of freedom of expression and the press. This past Sunday, instead of cowering, here is what the citizens of France and more than forty world leaders did...
© Euronews
Yesterday's first post-attack edition of the magazine printed 3,000,000 copies in multiple languages, instead of its usual circulation of around 30,000-60,000 copies. All copies were sold. Below is the cover of yesterday's edition, which includes a depiction of the Prophet Muhammad...
Caption at Top: ALL IS FORGIVEN
How's that for cowering?
With such a massive turnout at Sunday's march, one can only hope that the more than forty world leaders in attendance, including some that find no problem with censorship to the point of prison, will find a way to combat, or change their policy on, this form of censorship and bullying.
Regarding these and other terrorists, one question that has been asked is what they represent. The easy answers are fear and whatever terrorist group claims responsibility at the time. To say they are just thugs is not entirely incorrect, but it goes deeper than that. The deeper answers are as much political as they are societal as they are religious.
Politically, these terrorists want governments to do what they say, to function in the way they deem, and to create theocracies around the world, such as the installation of Sharia Law. Do they represent a system of government? I believe they believe so, but I disagree. In creating a theocratic state, they would set up how people should behave on both small and broad scales in society. A theocracy under Sharia Law would include:
Death for criticism or denial of any part of the Quran, of Muhammad as prophet, and of Allah as god;
Cutting off the hand of someone who commits theft;
Mutilation of girls' clitorises, under the guise of circumcision for men and women;
Women can have only one husband and must ask the husband's permission to divorce, while men can have up to four wives and can divorce their wives whenever they want;
Girls can be married when they are an infant and consummation of the marriage can take place when she is nine years old.
In short, it would be a fundamentalist theocracy.
All of these ideas come from the Quran and other Islamic teachings, but what does that say about Islam as a whole? That it's across-the-board violent? Or that it includes violent teachings? I would argue the latter, as the sacred texts of all three major world religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) have violence in one for or another in them. Islam is no different. To use that argument in a wide swath would mean all three of these world religions are violent instead of their including violent teachings. Thus, while there are violent teachings present, the question of how much those violent teachings of centuries past figure into the teachings and actualizations of today is one that looms large.
The wars between Israel and Palestine, the murders of abortion doctors, the murders of cartoonists and satirists, are not fully representative of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The violent teachings are a part of the entirety of all three of those religions, not the totality. How can the fact that the vast majority of Jews, Christians, and Muslims do not commit violent acts in the name of their respective religions be answered? It is a result of those vast majorities deeming centuries ago-acceptable violence as modern day-unacceptable violence. Does that mean that those same vast majorities are wrong and out of alignment with their religion? An affirmative response to that question can be attained only if violence in the name of religion is included.
While it has happened time and time again, including some of the worst wars in human history being fought in the name of religion, there are those who feel violence in the name of religion must be continued. It boils down to a matter of choice. Anyone who promotes and carries out violence in the name of religion is just plain wrong. Period.
Bombing strikes by Israel defines Judaism no more than a Christian killing an abortion doctor defines Christianity. The killings of people in the name of Allah does not define Islam. None of them are representative of their respective religions as a whole.
And yet, they do represent these religions in an unfortunate de facto sort of way. The good works of synagogues and temples, churches, and mosques around the world are rarely highlighted, except perhaps in local publications and websites. The idea of bad news sells better than good news (i.e. "If it bleeds, it leads") seems to remain a reality. Those folks doing good works represent their religions well. While some believe that violence is part and parcel with devotion, and has convinced too many people that such is the case, they could not be further from the truth.
More uprisings, like what we saw in France last weekend, of leaders and members of political and secular interests in favor of peace and freedom must take place. Among those marching throughout France, there were Muslims (holding signs of "Not in my name"), Christians, and Jews alike, along with others. Members of a particular religion, both clergy and non-clergy alike, must rise up against those who abuse their religion as justification for violence. Politicians and clergy must work in their relative forums to decry violence always. It must be openly decreed that centuries-old actions cannot be lived out in the modern world.
It is time for people to rise up and state loudly, publicly, and unequivocally that acts of violence in the name of religion are nothing but acts in the name of hatred ... that any such claims are invalid and an insult to their religion, and, by default, to religion in general. Hopefully, the massive rally in France will be a launching point.
It is time to solidify that those who, de facto, do represent whatever religion with violence, do not represent religion at all. Period.
Terry
Sunday, January 11, 2015
Phrase of the Day: NOUS SOMMES CHARLIE (WE ARE CHARLIE)
Here are some powerful images from today's Unity Rally in France, with hundreds of thousands (possibly one million) of marchers in several locations.
Terry
Banner with image of Charlie Hebdo editor-in-chief, Stephane Charbonnier
Muslim marchers
(Yellow sign on left: I AM MUSLIM, I AM NOT A TERRORIST, NOT IN MY NAME)
(Red-framed sign near center: FOR PEACE AND AGAINST TERRORISM)
(Yellow sign on left: I AM MUSLIM, I AM NOT A TERRORIST, NOT IN MY NAME)
(Red-framed sign near center: FOR PEACE AND AGAINST TERRORISM)
(Sign on left: (Sign on right:
I AM CHARLIE I AM CHARLIE
I AM CHARLIE I AM CHARLIE
I AM JEWISH I AM MONTROUGE
I AM POLICE I AM VINCENNES
I AM UNITED I AM FRENCH
[In box: I AM NOT AFRAID])
I AM UNITED I AM FRENCH
[In box: I AM NOT AFRAID])
Terry
Thursday, January 8, 2015
Phrase of the Day: JE SUIS CHARLIE (I AM CHARLIE)
These are some of the responses by cartoonists from around the world to the massacre at Charlie Hebdo headquarters in Paris, France, yesterday. (Translations and cartoonists' names above each picture.) All images are acquired from BuzzFeed.com.
Terry
Neelabh Banerjee
Rafael Mantesso
Ann Telnaes
Nono
“Died for the freedom of expression.”
BuzzFeed (Nathan W. Pyle, Loryn Brantz, Will Varner)
Tomi Ungerer
“No Freedom without freedom of press.”
Martin Vidberg
“Today, I am a press cartoonist. Today, I am a journalist.
Today, I draw for Charlie Hebdo.”
Today, I draw for Charlie Hebdo.”
Francisco J. Olea
“Grab your weapons, companions!”
Lucille Clerc
Bernardo Erlich
“The world has become so serious
that humor is a risky profession.”
Jean Jullien
“I am Charlie.”
Loรฏc Sรฉcheresse
7 January 2015
Terry
Wednesday, January 7, 2015
Thursday, January 1, 2015
Phrase of the Day: A GOOD YEAR
We have seen another year come and go. We bid farewell to the year 2014 and bid greetings to the year 2015. I hope however you celebrated the arrival of the new year that you were safe and sound. As for me, as has been the case for several years, at home in front of the television watching celebrations around the world was my manner of marking the new year.
Reflection is often associated with New Year's Day, and so I would like to share some reflections of the year gone by.
The year for me was mostly marked by breaking my elbow in early July. It happened by dodging a falling old tree and running the wrong way to avoid it, tripping over a pile of cinder blocks. (Yes, I zigged when I should have zagged.) I have had bones knocked out of joint, which healed that way, but have not caused me any other major issues. This year marked the first time in my life that I broke a bone, a few actually, and only the second time to have surgery. (The first being having my tonsils removed when I was four years old.)
After several delays in getting it treated, including my not seeing any doctors for the first week because I thought it was a severe bruise, my operation was in early August. (I was told it lasted three hours.) Once the splint was removed -- what a joy that was! -- and the two dozen stitches were taken out, it was physical therapy time. While my elbow is far better than it was, my physical therapy continues into this year and there is the possibility of a second operation to gain full range of motion again.
It was a setback, but I somehow managed to keep a relatively positive outlook throughout.
The latter part of the year was difficult financially. I had to humble myself and ask, very uncomfortably, for help from friends. It was very embarrassing for me to ask for help, as I am usually the helper in one way or another, but I did so. What I discovered was that a number of my friends were ready, willing, and able to help. I ended up with more offers that what was really needed. One person who helped hadn't seen me in over a year, although we stay in touch via social media, and we usually don't see each other but once a year.
With more than a couple of tears shed by me, the blessings that are my friends came through loud and clear this year. I truly cannot thank them enough.
Along with my overall health, broken elbow aside, being pretty good (although I can still stand to drop
This past summer, I wrote about a young man, Anthony Howell, a member of the Army National Guard stationed out in the U.S. Midwest, who had gone missing. The son of a long-time friend of mine, I heard about his missing from her posts on social media. I decided to blog about him here and provided as much information as possible. Within ten days of my post about Anthony, he was found. His mother, Bridget, said that it was my posts on this blog that really sped up the process in the search for him. In fact, she wrote me yesterday, in response to a looking-back posting of mine on social media, saying, "You also officially can be credited with saving the life of one of our country's finest." She added, "Not too shabby!!!"
I am just glad that Anthony is okay and that I was able to help the son of a dear friend. I will have an update on him later this month.
Finally, I suppose this has been for my benefit, if not the benefit of any of my readers also, and perhaps I have veered into rambling more than remembrance. What I wanted to offer you is this: While there are those who were better off than I, and worse off than I, during this past year, the ups and downs of one's life are not intended to be measured against those of others. We all do that, anyway, but they are really to be measured against our own past years. My greatest year may be better than someone else's, or even worse than another's, but it will have included both good and bad, and would be "my greatest year" in comparison to myself, however I would define it.
What I am saying is this: If you rise above setbacks and adversities, if you can at least try to keep away a negative perspective, if you can and do help when the opportunities present themselves to you, then you have had, at the very least, a good year. Maybe not a great year, granted, but a good year nonetheless. That can never be taken away from you. No, this has not been my greatest year, but it was a good year in other ways.
After all, it could have been far worse.
Let me close our my first post of the new year with a video from the Scottish alternative band Dead Man Fall. The song is 'Bang Your Drum', and think the lyrics are meaningful, especially looking ahead to a brand new year. (The lyrics are below the video window.)
LYRICS:
I've been thinking about the things that are stuck inside in my head
and I can’t get them out.
And I've been waking, at four in the morning;
I don’t know why I can’t get back to sleep again tonight.
Keep Banging On
Banging on your drum
Keep Banging On
And your day will come
Keep Banging On
Banging on your drum
And they will hear you
I am wishing, that I was making
a list of all the good things that I've ever done with my life
And everybody thinks I have wasted,
wasted every chance I ever had to be somebody.
Keep Banging On
Banging on your drum
Keep Banging On
And your day will come
Keep Banging On
Banging on your drum
And they will hear you
No one lives forever
Business here I've got to finish
You won’t make your mind up
You won’t make your mind up for me
No one lives forever
There's business here you've got to finish
You won’t make your mind up
You won’t make your mind up for me
Hang out of your window
Shout it down to the people below.
Everyone will hear you.
They are going to hear you.
Keep Banging On
Banging on your drum
Keep Banging On
And your day will come
Keep Banging On
Banging on your drum
And they will hear you
OH OH OH OH.....
Keep Banging On
Banging on your drum
Keep Banging On
And your day will come
Keep Banging On
Banging on your drum
And they will hear you
©2014, Dead Man Fall
I hope you keep banging on your drum this year. Happy New Year to all of you!
Terry
Saturday, December 20, 2014
Phrase of the Week: TO PROTECT AND TO SERVE [Part 7 of 7]
Today, I conclude my seven-part series
commenting on events in
Ferguson, MO, Cleveland, OH, and New York City, N.Y.
EPILOGUE
All this week, I have been looking at the individual cases in the deaths of Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, and Eric Garner. All three cases have similarities, the most obvious of which are the officers involved were white and the victims were black. There are, however, similarities that go deeper than that. In wrapping up this week-long exploration, I would like to address those deeper similarities.
THE CHANGING NATURE OF POLICE
There has been a pattern emerging across the country, and in some instances around the world, of the nature of what it means to be a police officer going through huge changes. Likely, the first example in the past five years that I can cite is police departments' reaction to the Occupy movement. This is not to say that all protests went smoothly and without incident, clearly not, but a dramatic shift took place ... one that is continuing today.
Lest being labeled a generalist, I affirm that the majority of those serving in law enforcement do their jobs and do the right thing day in and day out. Just as I mentioned yesterday in terms of protestors, I do not say all officers are bad. They are not. Period.
One must go beyond that reality, though, and see what that shift is. More and more, we see police officers using an increasing number of strong arm tactics in their duties. Many times, the three cases mentioned in this series as examples, the result is fatal. Many times, we hear higher officials (i.e. Chiefs, Captains, Policemen's Union representatives) say that such tactics are not taught to officers during their training and not encouraging while being on the force. If that is true, then why do they use those tactics? Do not misunderstand me, I believe police officers need to be strong individuals who will be forceful if necessary in the doing of their jobs. The question remains: How do they think these tactics are okay?
How do you not shoot an individual allegedly charging at you with a non-fatal shot? And (as witnesses have claimed) how do you not stop shooting once that individual is down?
How do you pull up on someone and fatally shoot them at nearly point blank range, putting yourself also in danger? How do you not fully disclose to another police department all information about that officer?
While there are, indeed, many individuals who claim they cannot breathe or that they are being hurt, when such is not true, in order to fight some more or to escape, do we simply chalk one up as nothing more than an exception to the rule ... using a banned move ... and claiming you never used it?
Then the question of the militarization of our police arises. Why do local police departments need tanks and reinforced vehicles to do their jobs? How many thieves walk around with grenades? How many pimps have a flamethrower at their disposal? How many IED's (Improvised Exploding Devices) have been planted in our streets? When is the last time you saw a drug dealer hauling around a surface-to-air missile launcher?
The presence of firepower by lawbreakers is real, but the response is hugely out of proportion. It has become an environment where some law-abiding citizens have to at least be concerned of what might happen to them at the hands of a police officer. It should not be that way! Is there some sort of intelligence the government has about the U.S. population it's not telling us? Perhaps the the U.S. military not being allowed to fight on American soil is the reason. Would they be used, instead, if it was allowed?
Overzealous bullies and military weaponry have no place in police work. Period.
RACE
Even with the obvious similarities mentioned in the opening paragraph, it would be easy to say this is simply a black vs. white issue and leave it at that. It is not as simple as that. It is a part of that, but the state of affairs is not so simplistic.
I mentioned in the last section about law-abiding citizens being concerned about what might happen to them. The black community in the U.S. knows that all to well. Just look at the state of the country and see who is, as a whole, more concerned about the presence of police in their neighborhoods; I would offer blacks are. Is that because blacks are more likely to commit crimes than whites? According to 2012 records held by the FBI, which cover a long list of various crimes, whites committed more crimes than blacks ... by a more than a two-to-one margin. So, where does the feeling that some have that blacks are more likely to commit crimes, if it is not substantiated by facts? Fear. Fear that gets bolstered by many means, the media being the leader.
The signs being held up at protests that read BLACK LIVES MATTER are 100% correct. This is not to say it should be an absolute hands-off policy when it comes to black individuals who are committing crimes simply because they are black. There have been far too many killings of blacks by police and that confirms the notion of blacks being killed more and more by police.
WHO SAYS?
Another issue that adds to the cloud over all of this is the presentation of statistics. Yesterday, I presented two videos: one from 'The O'Reilly Report' and one from a piece of coverage by CNN of Ferguson protests. O'Reilly cites statistics that came from one source. The two anchors at the center of the CNN clip are diametrically opposed in their perceptions of what happened the night before.
Two-and-a-half weeks ago, reporter Eric Bradner posted a story on CNN.com on the reporting of statistics. It is a fascinating article in which Bradner highlights "[t]wo dramatically different statistics -- and they could both be right". Light is shed on what could be yet another key problem in all of this -- the manner of reporting police shootings by the police. It is vitally important to keep in mind that the source of statistics is likely to have an agenda, even if the agenda is literally simply reporting what's there. In preparing this final installment, I found statistics that say police shootings of blacks are down and up.
Who you ask matters as much, if not more, than what you ask.
SUMMARY
The idea that black lives matter is a correct one. I would further that to say ALL lives matter. Even some of the deceased's families are saying it was not a race issue. I still believe there is a level of race perception intertwined, but the valuing of all lives needs to be brought back into police practice. Not a stereotypical "bleeding heart liberal" concept of leave the minorities alone to the point where only whites are arrested for crimes. I reject that! It should be anyone breaking the law should be arrested and treated as fairly as allowed -- the absolute, indisputable necessity of appropriate force still used -- and let justice take its course.
The militarization of police departments across the country, including Ferguson, MO -- not exactly a major metropolis, now, is it? -- needs to stop. Tools and weaponry designed for the battlefield have absolutely no place on our streets in the hands of anyone. They belong on the battlefield, not main street. The possibility of the presence of war weaponry with police officers who step over the line is a lethal combination ... lethal for every man, woman, and child. Additionally, fair and thorough reporting of police shootings needs to take place.
We need not only ask questions about race, police operations, etc. (provided we don't stop there), but we need to ask why the population of the U.S. is being systematically treated as guilty before innocent. Why are some police officers acting like criminals and, for the most part, getting away with it? Why are other officers not keeping tabs on their fellow officers and speaking up? Why is "the code" more important than justice and human lives? Why are police departments being militarized? Why should people be concerned when they should not have to, and did not years ago?
How long do we, both citizens and law enforcement alike, allow this to continue?
Terry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)