Alias Grace

Imagine, if you will, that you are a woman and your position in life is already compromised. Your body indicated for servitude both for vocation and male sexual desire. Your voice is silent before you speak. If you dare speak you are hysterical, or worse a whore not worth given credence. Your mind is easily susceptible to bad spirits and incomprehensible thoughts simply because you are born of a sex religiously deemed devious.

alias

That is Grace Marks, a woman determined so by natural devices, at the age of 15 or 16 years old. An Irish immigrant already expected poverty. Already, so early she is to be told by society what her body is good and useful for and that is servitude.

Every order given to her is expected of utmost obedience. Every action by her own is acted as innocence.

If she ever denies any order she is suddenly ‘filthy’, a ‘whore’, or ‘untrustworthy’.

What stood out to me in this miniseries is the ‘doctor of the mind’. A psychiatrist named Simon, given permission to have sessions with Grace in order to stir her memory of the events again. Then again, what memories are there to stir if the events of murder were never seen or properly recollected? Regardless he was curious, always on the edge, sleepless even to know more about Grace and her story. Simon had supposed that Grace was either somewhere along the lines of insanity or a woman who had found a means to break away from the suppression of her body.

She had become clever, he thought even. To express what one may think is rage against what was done to her and any other woman; or to express her anger of suppression. Suppression- that is to clean and to care at so young of an age. Suppression- that also means to give her body to any man’s will with a command for her consent. She had then created an audience with her hysterics. An audience composed of wealthy gossipers and then potential romantic partners, including Simon. He then supposed that that was her intention, even one that cost nearly her life.

It’s definitely a curious subject here. If you were a woman of that time period-and had to witness what that meant exactly, would you become a fiend to speak on it?

Advertisements

Bullied

Another yesterday news described the sudden death of a 10 year old. Under the constant agony of children too limited to understand that words in fact hurt, the young child had committed suicide.

Some of the first defense by adults is to blame the victim. The victim was not tough enough. The victim should have been taught to fight back. The victim should have been taught to meet violence with violence, and to equal harsh words with their own. Why the need to ‘toughen’ the victim with this idiocy-a world where we are expected to be cruel and nasty? Why? It’s with this understanding that the world isn’t nice and life isn’t fair, therefore only the ‘weak minded’ may slip away as the ‘strong willed’ succeed. This is life and this is the first lesson.

What, just why should there be a need to defend at all? Not just a child, as this issue extends well into adulthood- and we wonder how young bullies are shaped and made. We are always taught to, or even expected to allow the bully to win over our minds and confidence by engaging them in their own struggle. If we lose, yet live we proved our worth still, even if it may escalate the bully’s intentions. If we win, we proved our worth, may even expose the cowardice of the bully. If we fail to meet the pointless challenge to the bully’s ego it is then society that hounds us for not defending our worth. And it is pointless to engage as with this understanding we allow the bully to control the situations of either a life scarred or of sudden death. We then make it seem as if the bully is in the ‘right’, while all others unable to or not willing to engage are in the ‘wrong’.

I mean I understand the pointless matter of this challenge all too well. Growing up not understanding why I, quiet and only concerned with myself, would find harsh words lashed at me. Or to hear of false assumptions about my character used as a weapon. Or in some cases, being physically ridiculed in front of witnesses to test my patience. I had only lost my patience once. This extends from memories of an 8 year old to that of 21 year old in college, in a communal situation. For the life of me I could not understand why I was tested, essentially. Comments made about my appearance, lack of engagement in social settings, etc, etc. I had to be told that it’s a game we play to disturb the peace of an individual so that their worth is proved. Again, only once did I engage. He kicked me and laughed so I kicked him back, madly. All that I learned is that I was furious that my peace was disturbed and I didn’t feel any better being just as equally cruel and nasty. He had won me over, and I played his game. All other altercations I ignored with my face quenched or to show that I was slightly annoyed but no longer listening. At some point I had allowed them to talk, to laugh and to point at me until this became ‘boring’ to them. Left alone only for a moment, for another person or group to test me yet again. Until now no longer.

I was never driven to suicide or self harm, but depression did take a hold of me during these times. Not that their words and actions hurt me, just that I was more so hurt that this is how they were towards someone seemingly different. And hurt by that I must endure this treatment to be taught a lesson, or to be told ‘this is simply how people are so get on board and play along or become left.’ For others like myself we may move along and endure, others play, and some others ‘fail to defend’.

We shouldn’t have to allow our world to be met and decided by that of a bully. We should not have to defend, to allow the peace of an individual to be disturbed. This too should be taught and engrained into our children so that they may forever silence the adult bully. We should not have to do anything other than to counsel the bully, to source the root of their unwillingness to live peacefully-as the problem lies and first begin with that person.

Mud Bound

Movie story lines usually leave the story that I find more interesting. Here in MudBound (2017) the story about the woman leaves me interested for more.

The story begins with a woman describing the mud surrounding the home, really a shack-like place on a farm. The year is near the end of World War II. Men are being sent back home to where they no longer belong; one other sent to their grave. It’s another story about familiarity and the effects of a changing environment. You know where you have gone out to experience that there is more than the world you first knew at any age. So you’ll find any means to escape, or to find someone else to relate. In the end you may or may not find that place where you belong, but in this film the men will do.

The woman.

She is already nearing her middle ages and not yet married. A woman from a family middle class meets a man assumed to be similar in social status. By no means is she a farmer, nor does he mention his background to her. But as women are expected to be told at a later time, whenever it’ll suite him to reveal that there is a farm he wants to plow and a nice farmhouse he wants his family to reside in. ‘You’ll like, you’ll see’. She must hush her initial fuss about this news of moving on from what and where she is familiar.

Through some scheme and false transaction, the dream home for his family is just that-imagined. Instead he moves them to the shack, among the ‘blacks’ but we know in this time another word was stated. At this point, she looks about a house with a leaking roof, mud all around ruining one of her best dress heels. She can only tolerate so much, and so she tells him she can only tolerate so much up to this point.

mudbound

Outside of her element she did learn a few things. She knows her way around a shotgun. She’s not too squeamish about the initial acts of providing protein for her children. She even became accustomed to not bathing for most days of the week. However, once the children became sick her ability to care for both her children and home became too overwhelming. In fact, help turned into ‘I can’t do this (alone)’. In the slightest, the black tenant farmer on down the road somewhere must lend his wife for paid assistance.

At first the woman is strong, allowing her new environment to teach her a lesson about survival. However, in an instance does she give away her power ‘to know’ to someone who knows more by traditional upbringing.  I want to know more about her story, as it turns to love instead. I want to know how did she manage to cope once the black tenants packed and moved away.

How did she come to find where she belongs?

Well some people are fortunate to find where they belong, soon as the men do. However, not the woman. In any indication where her story ends her life is that of a farmer’s (sharecropper) wife, still outside of her element. Inside her home is a piano and books, fine China and whatever else the white tenants down the road somewhere are not familiar. In any other case she proves to be unfaithful, once again to marry the first man that saw her. But now no longer sheltered she knows her desires, still she assumes a voice whenever in objection to her husband. Where does she go or does she simply comply in slight misery til death?

In those times, back then I’ll assume she remains in slight misery.

Allegations

Coming out from a decade ago to incidents that have occurred recently, both women and men are coming forward with stories of sexual assault, harassment and abuse. The fingers are pointed at our upper class-the celebrities and businessmen, as well as our politicians.

As I can only assume that most of our population in the U.S. understand and accept the  sincerity of the accusers of all ages and positions; however, there are still those skeptical. These aren’t simply men who fail to comprehend the truthfulness of the victims statements-despite their age, there are women too that make similar comments. As in,

Why now? (Why not when the incident of abuse or assault occurred did these women or then girls did not come forward to the authorities?)

Here we go again. (These women are simply buying attention from the media.)

Why does it matter now? (As in I believe these women, however fail to understand the purpose of their accusations now as they proved themselves successful or beneficiaries in their careers.)

These are simply allegations, no charges have been made and the media/social media is not a courtroom. (We do not know for sure if these situations are truthful or not. In any case we have a court and rule of law that should properly investigate, judge then rule on these incidences. A trial by media causing the lost of jobs is unjustified.)

With these common statements and questions by both, some, men and women is an admission to the overall question, really a statement: Why now?

Any ‘now’ or moment in time takes courage to speak of. As I have had women confess to me about their brother, their pastor, father, uncle, neighbor, friend or teacher. The time is irrelevant, what matter is the act and how it deeply silences the victim. As one woman confessed to me that her brother had molested her for years, but she did not want to alarm her dad. Her dad, a single father providing financial necessities as he worked all hours of the day and often leaving the children home alone. However, she said after some years when she finally confessed what had happened to her, her father believed her. Her brother then later confessed, confessed of other children he had silenced and sought help.

I witnessed poetry spoken by women who were raped by their fathers and how she still deals with the emotional aspect. Still she is haunted by memories. A few came forward right after the act, others had come forward years later. The point again not being about time it is about courage. And in stating ‘courage’ is not to belittle the people that have faced abuse of some kind, yet have not come forward. You know this isn’t about comparison of who has the guts to say something its simply that it takes courage to do so.

In asking that question, too, is a form of silencing. As I remember in my studies about accusations of rape and assault in high school, I remember a statement made by either a teacher or by the textbook. It was somewhere along the lines of how our society become especially protective of men as women began to come forward about their assault, abuse and the like. Yes some were proven to be false, as our media reporting on these claims have found a couple to be false. However it shouldn’t negate the truthfulness of all other women, but it does some times. So we, as in our society, automatically assume the innocence of the man before the woman because of the need to protect, the need to silence from harm of knowing. Why now? Well the victims are not only breaking the silence of the act, they have to break the silence placed by our society.

For example, a male is victim of sexual harassment by women. The first question by the immature is, well is he gay, a homosexual? Why would a man reject attention from a woman? I mean that is desired in a heterosexual male, regardless of age. However it is not. And to deny the unwanted advances of a woman is no indication of his sexuality, only his ownership of his body. However, the immature understands this point only if the male victim is sexually harassed by men. Therefore, he is free to speak without scrutiny, but the first question asked again is did the male victim evoke violence towards him? If not, again well is he gay? A way to shun men based on homophobia, a repulsion of feminism, is another form of silencing a victim. A silence placed by our society of how men are ‘suppose’ to act and react to such situations.

By this question, ‘Why now?’, the skeptics are admitting to the fault of the accused and as well admitting to their own encouragement of silencing the victims. Though without this desire to self reflect on their comments made is also admitting the need to silence harm from knowing.

 

 

Trump America

Around this time of the year of last year I was in great disbelief. Donald Trump was running to become president of the United States of America, to run as a Republican. My skepticism concerned his sincerity first, or perhaps his personality as a celebrity business man proved to be to much of a joke. This sentiment remained true for all others I spoke to whenever the subject arise. IS he a serious presidential candidate?

Well the people, meaning my rural hometown largely Christian and conservative loved him. As I live in the suburbs of Atlanta, certainly the middle class Christian and conservatives loved him and still do. As I move further to the mountains of my state I see the giant Trump flags and billboards raised proudly alongside crosses and confederate flags on private property. Certainly he is loved and my state by a large margin thought he was, still is, serious about the presidency. T America

Alright, then he is something new, something different and not bound by rules of etiquette as our country has witnessed in the past. I will honestly admit this is why I doubted his sincerity. But, he is our president now and more so this year I have become silent on the political debates and divide under his name. I wanted to read the reactions to his decisions, how he made decisions. I wanted to hear his reactions to common issues that divide and rebuild U.S. America’s trust and compassion for one another. You know, to sit back and to observe without further judgement or concern to how well he leads a country rather than a business.

That’s why he was a highly considered. I remember the chimes of conservatives demanding a business man, a man like themselves to finally become their voice. There they have it, a man given access to wealth through privileged means. He went on to turn a million dollars into the unnumbered fortune he owns now. A successful business man in the real estate industry and as well known for his show ‘The Apprentice’. However, he had stated that his presidency will not become about him and how well the government controls people. Instead, he promised a country ran by and for the citizens of the United States.

Today’s ceremony, however, has a very special meaning because today we are not merely transferring power from one administration to another or from one party to another, but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C., and giving it back to you, the people.

For too long, a small group in our nation’s capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have bore the cost. Washington flourished, but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered but the jobs left and the factories closed.

The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories. Their triumphs have not been your triumphs. And while they celebrated in our nation’s capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.

That all changes starting right here and right now, because this moment is your moment.

It belongs to you.

2017, Inauguration Speech of President Donald J. Trump

This statement made by our current president has been my greatest concern. How is he addressing the concerns of citizens? How is building the transference of power from government and politicians to the citizens? In those two questions, how well is he ensuring a pathway to a government for and by the people?

A few of our major concerns include: Healthcare, Jobs, and Student Loans.

Healthcare: There are disagreements on how individuals should or should not pay. However, the goal on such a divided issue should be to find a compromise. And to that to listen to the people, and address accordingly. So far the goals to ‘Repeal and Replace Obamacare’ has been bent and focused to upend a previous administration proposal and act. Not at all about addressing which provisions of the Affordable Health Care Act worked well and what others should be revised or thrown out altogether. And as comments on conservative talk radio and additional comments made during the voting process of the new failed proposal, the people simply wish for a  bipartisan compromise.

Jobs: Our nation has become increasingly a service based economy. This means that jobs prospects for people are typically in the service industry as the manufacturing jobs are shipped over seas, outsourced. This change in the economy has affected those like my father that depended on manufacturing jobs for decades. As well this change in the economy as made it difficult for young males that were typically the workers of these industries. As it shows more young males are being out paced by young females in terms of education and job prospect. As well, an effect on towns and cities that depended on manufacturing as the center thriving point of their respective economies have declined.  Based on President Donald Trump’s tax reform, he aims to reduce corporate taxes as a means to allow manufacturers back into the States again. The “biggest winners will be the everyday American workers,” he added. In this quest include the conversation about wages as not only taxes are of major concern by corporations. There are regulations, wages, insurance, etc. that are major business concerns in providing U.S. citizens with viable jobs. Therefore, if President Trump aims to provide jobs for U.S. citizens, to bring back the old economy, he is admitting to benefit the businesses first before the people.

Student Loans: Our nation is shackled by an increasing debt of young college students and graduates who are to become the future of the middle class U.S. America. Already unable to find employment in their respective fields or even remotely similar, they rely heavily on the service industry. In doing so, jobs that pay barely minimum wage make for paying off thousands dollar amount in debt difficult and really impossible in the near future. For those that do pay struggle to spend money more freely and to purchase rather than to rent- or to live for free with relatives. So far the solutions are about reductions to payment based on income, though the concern still remains.

In order for power to be transferred, first the concerns of the people must be addressed, placed into action and met. It’s only been nearly a year and he has so far addressed these few major concerns at least. Therefore, based on his first year performance he has not achieved the approval rating high enough to indicate that the people are witnessing a pathway to change.

His supporters and voters certainly approve of him, congratulating him on achievements made. As it seems, most citizens are asking, what is there to congratulate him for exactly? His supporters will say that he his making a pathway with his proposals, and orders. On the contrary, he has not.

However, this is only nearly a year and in the next year to the fourth one may we better compare and judge for election time.

Diotima

“Love is a divinely implanted impulse that subconsciously impels people to pursue immortality through having children, creating  enduring works of art, and making lasting contributions to society”

Ladder of Love, The Philosophy Book 

I’m writing a book about the purpose of our existence. This includes works in religion, religious thought and other religious philosophy that served as a precursor to human preoccupation of self.  In the mean time of reading and writing  I’ll come across a thought that should be shared. In this instance, the notion of immortality. Or actually how we as human beings place a greater importance onto and about our existence. One greater example is that of love. 

Love as an emotion, a desire that we may either feel or create first for ourself. Self-centered creaures that assume the world was meant for the individual. So we make a mark, an impression onto someone or something. In this age of social media, instant gratification and selfies I find that we take pictures of ourself out of self love and appreciation. Another reason to make a mark that ‘I, too, exist’ and feel important. Another way to make an impression that will last until the individual deletes or the media site has declined in popularity. 

Generations older are critics of this form of self love. Though this is no different than the story of Achilles and others like him taught that death is glorious when in battle. Especially one who has survived many battles and have the scars to prove-ancient Greek gratification. Older generations have had their means of doing so as well-something so minor as appearing before a crowded scene well dressed and rehearsed. 

Then we have media to showcase an act of kindness. Something that U.S. citizens as a whole are skeptical of the act of kindness. Whoever reveals with camera on ‘record’ of a life saved is instantly praised, hearted and liked. Liked and loved by the thousands actually-the person has gone viral. How rare it is to find someone that will forget their time? Sometimes forget their self even to rescue, to hug, to provide free services and access and to build a connection. 

There are critics to for all. ‘Why did a camera have to place a major role in this person helping another person?’ Then as a rebuttal ‘we need to be able to share acts of kindness to remind ourselves of humanity’ is essentially the back and forth summary of hundreds to thousands of comments on one news article. What happened? A depressed teenager found herself in a hair salon with her hair left unkempt. The hairdresser then decides to give her a makeover with a picture to share on social media. There is a comment further down asking, though typed as a statement, ‘why is this newsworthy?’ We are here to make a lasting, important impression that people matter and that we notice that someone is need of that reminder.

Even when in decline to love oneself, or depression, we find that we still place a greater importance of ourself. Whenever in this state one may say that they do not matter to the world, to society, immediate associates and family members. In this assumption still lies the need to feel important, a reminder in someone’s mind. In love lost one may assume a former partner to still love and require a reminder of that suppressed feeling. In some way the individual will make themselves important or wanting to make a lasting impression. 

And I think it is important enough to mention that this quote was told to have been stated by a woman. A woman whose existence is in question, though a name is given. Existing in a period of time in a Greek society that regarded women as inferior silent creatures, to read a female’s voice on a thought not written by her own hand. Instead restated by a man that claimed of her existence, a woman that gave him a lasting impression on the teachings of love. 

Censorship of ‘Freedom of Speech’

In Summary

In light of recent events, the question of  free speech in public spaces that are not tolerated by the greater public-speech indicating intolerance of certain groups of people- is in question for review. Already the ACLU has considered to change its policies regarding protecting the rights of those rallying, protesting, or marching with the active presences of firearm weapons. There are those within the greater public asking whether hate speech should be given a platform. Again, already there are companies censoring known hate groups and their various media sources. However, there are concerns about what groups will be censored and why. As the civil rights groups and companies are taking action to ban the platforms of documented white supremacist and nationalist, are they to censor just those well known hate groups or all others as well? The concerns of the public include the presence of Black Lives Matter movement participants and supporters, as well as Antifa gaining traction in the media as of lately. The association and concern being that black supremacist and the militant nature of the latter group are cause for censorship and public condemning as well. There is even a petition going to consider Antifa a terrorist organization. In light of this President Donald Trump has condemned both sides as racist and as thugs, though in only naming the white supremacist and nationalist groups. He labeled the non-white racists and thugs as ‘other hate groups’.

Here the questions are begged: Is hate speech free speech, or should it be considered for equal protection under the U.S. Constitutional law? Then what about the ‘other hate groups’ not traditionally known or condemned as regularly alongside white hate groups. Should they be censored as well?


In Regards to the Free Speech Clause

As it has been interpreted and determined, free speech is protected speech regardless if the speech is accepted by the public-minor or by the majority. Free speech is a protected right, so long as violence is not incited. This has already been decided by key court cases as follows:

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444. A KKK clansman during a public rally in Ohio made a speech to determine a goal or action toward groups of people not specified. The court ruled that it is protected free speech so long as a call for violence is not mentioned, though not prohibited if such speech is likely to incite violence.

Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397. Gregory Johnson protest against former President Reagan by desecrating the U.S. American flag. The court ruled that it is protected free speech to express opinions that are in disagreement with the public-minor or by the majority. And that the public taking offense is not a ground to either limit or to prohibit such speech.


Hate Groups

White Supremacist and nationalist organizations/groups are well known U.S. American hate groups. However, there exist ‘other hate groups’ not at all named specifically as they are unknown majorly. Here are some of the following white and black supremacist and nationalist groups that are considered hate groups:

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center there are nearly 1,000 active hate groups within the United States. The hate map provided in this link will reveal their location and, as well, providing the option to filter through all of those mentioned.

  • Alternative Right (Alt-Right)
  • KKK
  • Neo-Nazis
  • Nation of Islam
  • New Black Panther Party for Self Defense
  • War on The Horizon
  • Neo-Confederate

New Questions on Hatred

Hate speech will remain as protected speech, so long as violence is not cited or spoken by the representatives of the group. This right to speak is given to all, including those aforementioned ‘other’ hate groups listed. This means, so long as direct violence is not spoken or incited there exist no violation against U.S. Constitution and state laws.

However, the public is concerned about whether the presence of firearms, or other materials that may cause to incite violence- should be considered as protected speech still. Or as seen in Charlottesville, white supremacist and nationalist carrying firearms in their protest rally, while the Antifa groups carried bats and other materials in their counter-protest.

The debate among the public becomes petty as one differentiates the presences of a firearm being more so threatening than a person carrying a bat. The greater point being on either side of the debate is that violence was still incited with the mere presence of something militant, something hateful.ap_17222529170751

The question asked, then, should the mere presence that causes offense, which then may cause to incite violence should be permitted and protected by law?

As some others may state in the interpretation of Second Amendment rights- that the mere presence of a firearm (may include bats) is not a cause to incite violence. However, as the various laws may state about the presence of a firearm-that the person with the right to open carry, or to conceal and carry must be aware of the perception that they pose.

In addition, the public is concerned about corporate censorship in light of recent events. For instance, Facebook taking down some white nationalist pages. Or Pandora censoring hate music, usually white power music is cited and labeled as hate music. Or Google, taking down hate websites and blog sites. The reason supported by some of the public, being that it is not right to give such people a platform whereby they are to influence and to gather followers of the impressionable.

The question begs why are corporations, in this case tech industries in the business of online media, allowed to censor one form of content, yet not another similar? Then why are corporations allowed to censor at all?

As this article seems to suggest that censorship is relative to the political concerns of the state or individuals that filter and petition for the ban. As it seems that business as well have their own terms and conditions regarding freedom of expression, and so determines what is or is not allowed. Another example, Facebook censoring breast feeding mothers-classification of nudity.

Public or state petition to censor some content can be justified according to the respective state and federal laws. However, in light of recent events, as the petition in this case, to censor one form of known hatred over another is not just. A censorship of all hate group’s media sources should be the course of action. Though not to include the freedom of information to know of and to learn about them.

Too Little, Too Late

President Donald Trump’s approval rating has reached an all time low-at 34% as of August 2017. The poll conducted by Gallup was a survey of 1,500 people- before the recent racial controversy present in the news.

After the recent news I can only read the following introduction of every other sentence and/or paragraph of a comment “too little, too late”. The criticism about his response is that it was too late that he has condemned white supremacist and other white nationalist. It was a major criticism during the 2016 presidential elections that the racism espoused by some of his followers was never dealt with properly. As well, the criticism comes after his seemingly late response, since he has time to watch popular television shows then to comment thereafter in the characterized display of his behaviors as the President. ‘It is a little too late’, the common consensus I have gathered.

Is this a fair criticism of his response, in time, considering that he recently made a response about the evil nature of racism? The event occurred a couple of days ago, he is only to comment now, days later. In comparison to former President Obamas’ speeches on similar incidents of controversy, I say the criticism are similar about timing. Both are criticized by those that oppose them for similar or equal prejudice perceptions of ‘doing a good job of representing our nation’. Some others, though they may despise President Trump, state ‘well at least he said something to not condone the thoughts, behaviors by racist’.

In reference to ‘too little’. President Trump did not say ‘too little’. In what he had stated was written down, displayed on a teleprompter, and seemingly rehearsed. ‘It did not seem like him’ according to those that oppose him outright. Once a president has loss the trust and perhaps a feel of being genuine, there goes the support. The public are in critic in how timely, the public is in criticism of what is stated.

Again, in comparison, are the comments fair? Once again, in comparison to former President Obama speeches, I will state that the comments are still similar or the same.


How does a president of the United States actually unite the nation? As I am too young to have experienced many former presidents. Though I was aware of former President Bush and his criticism as a child, then President Obama’s criticism as a teenager and young adult. I have yet to witness a president that dispels the division, unites the nation in times of dire circumstances and controversy.

How does one unite the nation? When the people who vote and voice their opinion are so divided that their criticism of one another, in opposition, are petty? That their criticism of a president is bound by party devotion, almost like a children’s club. In a time that it is needed most to bridge the gap, not to polarize, none are able to do so…

Thus the sentiment is reflected in their approval ratings. How then can the public judge any president that they have so elected, well a matter of discussion of how we elect them, as being a poor performer?

Nuked

Waging war to achieve a mark upon history as the greatest nation ever to kill the most people ever, over an issue that no one would have ever thought was in need of a lesson.

You’ll See. Fire and Fury.

The call to wage war is still so primitive in nature. A cause to lose lives, both innocent or guilty; and those that are willing or involuntary participating in the act to fire at will to become forever scarred. For what purpose exactly, other than to avenge honor?

The Bush, The Clinton and The Obama allowed [them] to get away with everything.

All of this call to arms, the bigger the better. The strongest, most deadliest bomb one could master to achieve built and built again, as if one was not already damaging enough by simply existing. The matter now is only time and to call a bluff. The matter now is to call attention from the greater enemy determined by Commander and Chief long before the election date.

We will teach them a lesson.

And what lesson may the be in particular? That our leaders may willingly take away our lives to prove honor and blind patriotism. And no we are not the fortunate one’s-that song again about Vietnam. We may never see your sons and daughters enter battle over something senseless and inconsiderate. Hopefully the greater voting public may not be tricked into praising such dishonorable tactic to shift focus and attention from what matters in a peaceful, working society.

We are in need of affordable health care, however it may be compromised one day.

We are in need of affordable and quality housing. We are need of healthy solutions to our food alternatives; in need of better water supply; in need of a fair and just system; in need of a fairer wage; in need of funds for education not student loans; in need of relief of all other stresses causing a faction within our nation. Not bombs; a Korean… a Chinese person has never corrupted our system and caused stress onto our livelihoods.

We are in need of construction and unification-not dismay, rations, or a cause to keep the country on edge.

Public Bigotry and The Outraged

Concerning recent news of crime of another country or city, or the crimes committed by an individual of another culture or demographic- why must the public assume ‘all’ are at fault? Whether the media is to discuss India and its rape victims, Chicago and its murder rates; or Muslim men found guilty of sex trafficking, white person found to be racially insensitive in a debate, etc.. The presumption is always ‘all’, not a few and those individuals that have committed the crimes as individuals. No it is always, almost always, public bigotry and outrage attributing the cause to a collective rather than to the individual(s) or the perpetrators.

If a white person exhibits racial insensitivity then it is confirmation that all white people are racist. Or that this individual is a representation of their group-that being white America (a monolithic phrase attributed).

If a Muslim extremist decides a path to a rewarding heaven is by destruction of the livelihoods of others it is then Muslims as a whole that are barbaric in nature. Never the individual easily impressionable, and easily forgetful in the worth of self and humanity.

If there is a man obsessed with power, or one that expresses his insecurities and sickness aggressively on the innocent not consenting, the public assumes that it is men generally. Men are not to be trusted as they are all potential rapist, abusers or a danger waiting to happen.

These few examples are of major complaints that are read and heard throughout the news today, yesterday and tomorrow. To assume that ‘all’ are the case for danger, a reason for distrust rather than to aim at those that commit their crimes.

The underlying thought here is the obsession with assuming a collective understanding of how humans function in society. With the presumption that we all exist in our respective monolith, rather than as individuals first. The sudden urge to accuse the singular characteristic as the definition of all others similar-without consideration of the diversity that exist in what is thought to be sameness.

I am referring to terms such as ‘white America’. A collective, a monolith-that actually exist with distinctive identities and cultures. Though I’m referring to that white kid in class being assessed by the bitter, yet equally ignorant classmate. This kids heritage is assumed to be that of slave owners, though he may not have had any. This kid’s background of poverty is not related to the oppression or subjugation of others. A finger is pointed at him by the equally bitter and ignorant as the reason for the greater crimes committed by individuals, again, not related to him. However, since this white kid uttered something racially insensitive in class the argument then is about the racism, like his own, persisting in white America. An issue that harms the rest.

I’m referring to that comment made by Margaret and the other following made further down by John. A news story about men who appear not quite white and not quite black, yet they appear nothing like a Christian either. “A group of Muslim men”, they both snort and sneer. The news headlining that all men in the photo provided were charged with raping and kidnapping several young girls and women. It’s a common story of sex trafficking gaining interest among the media reporting something ‘new’ and forgotten. No one else may convince Margaret or John that all Muslim men are not deviant barbarians. No one may convince them-whether calmly in a thoughtful retort; or a call to shame through either mocking or carrying on back and forth in anger. Their thoughts are indeed ignorant and problematic, yet the comment thread has not gained a single light of awakening. “It is my opinion and I have a right to it”, as each reply or will eventually state. What do they say, then, when the Christian rapes and destroys the livelihood of others? Their thought is one of deflection. That  is an act of someone in-Christ like and that person exist as an individual; therefore not Christian. As to assume so would include both as having probability of committing a similar crime.

Lastly, I’m referring to those that believe a culture exist where men are free to rape without consequences. And that rape is a monopoly, held primarily among men-all men with the potential and intention to rape. “Not all men” is a phrase to specify the issue as an individual crime, whether grouped or not. The rebuttal then is that this phrase is offensive as it allows men thinking of self, to not consider the greater cause by the commonality of the victims perpetrators. Include ‘race’ and ‘religion’ to see how this topic becomes complicated. Talk about rape culture and black men and see raised concerns over the constant acquisition of young black men historically and presently accused of such a crime. It is then individual if one is black, to avoid racial insensitivities.

Why is it ‘all’ rather than a few or those individuals that have committed the crime in particular? Not much has changed with these continuing discussions of the same news, though with different details. Those that point a finger are set within their opinions, a wall built of continued anger and distrust. Nothing has been accomplished in argument assuming crime is associated to the groups most distrusted. No common understanding has been formed as such people wish to point and categorize.