Someone who cares...NOT

"If you are going to have psychiatric problems at least do it around someone who gives a shit."  I witnessed this understandable, if callous reaction to someone who has gone through 5 years of hell. The person reacting that way was somehow related to a Congressman who lived in that neighborhood. She was riding a bicycle towing a little trailer with a child in it also in a bicycle helmet so I couldn't tell who she was. Her bitchiness was obviously directed at my friend since there was no one close enough for her statement to be directed at anyone else. My friend understands her lack of compassion, she has felt that way about HERSELF. In fact, she states quite often that no one can be harder on her than she is herself.

For the past year she had been receiving excellent care from Easter Seals. Her life had stabilized and was told she didn't need individual therapy any longer. She has  not been quite in agreement with that but agreed that the worst appeared to be over. The problem is that she has begun having new symptoms: inability to put more than one sentence together that makes any sense. It has her quite frightened. She has some others alarming symptoms too. Then last week she received a letter from the DHS that SNAP and Medicaid were closing her case. The questions abound: Why close it now? Is there any connection to the date of October 1st which is also the day the Marketplace starts accepting applications?  Whatever the case, she has some serious physical illness as well as the Bi-Polar, PTSD and major depression.  She is now even more frightened that she was a year ago. When she gets frightened her Bi-Polar kicks in. Yesterday she had a barium swallow test and they showed her the x-ray - quite clearly there was fluid of some type above her stomach.  It is NOT supposed to be there. She also has trouble swallowing.  So she is afraid of being ill without health insurance until.
January1st. 

The reason the case was closed on her was, it turned out was because her SSDI was also being closed out. She has to go to a hearing and to apply again. She already had a meeting with her case worker's boss and he talked so fast her head was spinning. She was told to sign a report and never gave her the chance to read it before signing. She suspects that it was a waiver of the full hearing. It just seems wrong.  If the hearing DOES take place she will be at a distinct disadvantage given her problem with her speech AND not knowing  anyone who could be her advocate. 

So she is afraid again. We are both afraid what will happen with her SSDI. Even on SSDI and on Medicaid she will be below the poverty line and unable to get the medical care she needs. Nor will she be able to afford to get her 12 medications which comes to a LOT of money without Medicaid. Her fears are very real. And neither of us knows what will happen.  

Maybe she doesn't give a ** either.

MI Dems

One of the problems with the Democratic Party in Michigan is that it is cliquish. Case in point: The convention is brutal to novices. The convention is just a place where elected delegates go to be ignored.  People with disabilities get platitudes not inclusiveness. I was at this past convention and attended the disabilities caucus. Everywhere else the candidates for the head of the state party made big entrances to rally the votes. In the disability caucus they barely made an appearance. The party goes all out in support of the other caucuses but the disability caucus  is left on the outside looking in. I don't think the party needs to give up anything except the overwhelming condescension to new delegates and the disabled. I believe that this is the basic problem - a lack of true inclusiveness.  I know, for instance, that I will be shunned for even expressing this (of course it doesn't matter too much since the Party has never heard any thing I say). It SHOULD be possible to disagree without being shunned as a troublemaker.. The Democratic party in Michigan OUGHT to welcome different voices and points of view. The differences can make the the party stronger. Groups of any persuasion need to have unity in the midst of diversity.The diversity is the breath of fresh air required when a group or movement becomes too stodgy and set in it's ways. The trick is how to revive not revile.We will know that has happened when we can talk about differences and transform the sticking points into walking points.

Testimony for Public Hearing

Mr. Calley, Honorable State Senators and Representatives, ladies and gentlemen. I am glad for this opportunity to speak about my experiences with the mental health system in the State of Michigan.

I could easily spend my allotted time talking about the lack of health insurance since it was a large part of my struggle. However, that is for another hearing on another day. Suffice it to say, the lack of insurance took its toll. I had other stresses like being unemployed, the end of unemployment benefits, my inability to find a job, to name just a few.

My journey started when I fell ill during a Forth of July parade.  I had been walking on behalf of a politician who will remain nameless. I was taken to the hospital for heat exhaustion, This was an added stress because I worried about how I was going to pay the hospital bill. The worry led to many panic attacks but after about a month I learned  that the hospital bill was paid for as well as the ambulance .

My best guess about what started my descent into the darkness  is that the weight of the previous three years: unemployment, no health insurance, our home mortgage being "underwater," and bill collectors calling several times a day all led me to feeling overwhelmed. I could not see a way out of my mess. I became very depressed and suicidal. I found myself acting impulsively one minute,up and full of energy but the next down the slippery slope of depression. A friend suggested I check out #211. I found a miracle. I am alive today because I made that telephone call to Common Ground which referred me to Easter Seals. They started the process of getting me a  diagnosis and into individual therapy. In the meantime, however, I still had suicidal impulses. It wasn't until I applied for and was granted Social Security and Medicaid that I felt less afraid and secure. It was a great relief.

Medicaid, Social Security, SNAP,  Easter Seals and Common Ground have been my lifeline and I know they are there for many others. Finally I had a little hope, just knowing that I wasn't alone and that there was light at the tunnel. I became aware of why and how I got to the point of ultimate desperation, that it was a toxic combination of Bi-Polar, PTSD and Asperger's Syndrome and  anxiety. For the first time  I began to make sense of the factors that got me in trouble in every work place. I also came to understand that I have a lot of work to do yet with help from a number of medications which work but only if I take them which I have been doing..

The hardest part of dealing with chronic long-term mental illness is the fear that the help will get cut creates more anxiety.Also difficult was accepting help. which was a step in the right direction. I was fortunate the assistance was there and not cut to the bone. If the funding isn't there how many people will fall through the cracks? Even one person is too many.

I have to say that while the mental health system could be better in some respects, it nevertheless made a great difference in my life. Please do not cut the funding that helps so many with treatment for those  of us who were and still are needing assistance . Without treatment, heaven only knows what will happen to us.

Testifying here is a risk for me, I don't often speak about last year because there is still a great deal of stigma attached to mental illness. One thing that needs to done to improve the mental health system would be working to lessen that stigma. It took me a lot to reach out for help and I'd hate to see any more people  who are like me in every respect except they don't find the help they need.  Please do not make it even more difficult for the desperate. Thank you.

Syria

President Obama is currently contemplating taking military measures against the Syrian government due to the horrifying chemical attacks on its own people. While I am sure that he is taking his time to consult  his military staff I can't help wondering is the President is also considering the ethical grounds for lobbing missiles into Syria. 

Military action is liable to kill many innocent bystanders. The only ethical defense for military action would be just war and it does not meet the major principle of proportionality: Is there likely less harm to innocents than doing nothing? Given the bloody history of American intervention, our good intentions usually end badly and with all the problems made considerably worse. American intervention comes across as being imperialistic and makes all sides hate us.

 Kant's Categorical Imperative asks us, "Could we will this course of action universally. in all like situations? If the answer is."No" then don't engage militarily.  If the answer is "Yes" then the next question is this: What is the real reason for military intervention? Is it truly for the the benefit of the Syrian people or is it some other, less noble reason, like oil or to help Israel's regional domination? If it is these latter reasons then more questions need answers: Can we really support Israel's hard line on all it's neighbors? Do we close our eyes and let Israel dictate our actions in the region? Those are but two of the many questions which need answers before we even THINK of taking military action in Syria. I believe that military action is rarely justified and for that reason, I oppose hurling missiles at Syria. 

* I realize that this short essay is very incomplete. My intent was not  do a complete ethical analysis but was meant to raise some of the questions which should be asked before taking the big leap into the abyss of  "helpful destruction". 

No Fast Track for TPP

Sen. Elizabeth Warren   

For three years, a group of some 600 multinational corporations and trade associations have been quietly negotiating a trade pact IN SECRET that could void American laws that protect workers, jobs, health, and the environment. During negotiations here last summer, news leaked of some of the provisions U.S. trade officials were prepared to approve, and a public outcry derailed the talks. Trade Representative Ron Kirk resigned. Now that Michael Froman has been confirmed as the new U.S. Trade Representative he is pushing to renew "fast track" authority so President Obama can sign the agreement first, and then force a quick vote in Congress without any public scrutiny, floor debate, or revisions. 

Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, one of just four U.S. Senators who voted against Froman's confirmation, said of TPP, “I have heard the argument that transparency would undermine the Trade Representative’s policy to complete the trade agreement because public opposition would be significant.” Warren explained, “In other words, if people knew what was going on, they would stop it. This argument is exactly backwards. If transparency would lead to widespread public opposition to a trade agreement, then that trade agreement should not be the policy of the United States.” 

The only TPP language made public was leaked in 2012 and shared by Public Citizen. Since then trade officials have kept a tight lid on the negotiations, only recently allowing members of Congress to view (not copy) the text, which remains "classified." Among the most disturbing revelations in last year's leaked TPP language, that seems to be mirrored in the Atlantic version as well: Foreign companies would have "preferred status" – granting them greater rights within our borders than our own companies enjoy. U.S. companies would have more incentives to offshore jobs, and foreign companies would not be bound by the minimum wage and could sue the U.S. if our health, safety, or environmental regulations interfered with their profits. Jurisdiction over such suits would rest not in the hands of elected officials or judges, but with an international business tribunal. Their decisions, which would be binding upon all member nations, would supersede our own laws – including our Constitution. 


That's why I signed a petition to The United States House of Representatives and The United States Senate, which says:

"The White House and the U.S. Trade Representative are urging Congress to abdicate some of its power over approval of trade agreements by renewing "fast track" authority. Fast track would allow the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership to leapfrog customary legislative protocol and be put to a rapid "up or down" vote without a public hearing, floor debate, or amendments. Forcing Congress to vote on an agreement this complex without adequate time for open hearings, review, and public scrutiny, sets a dangerous precedent. Congress, we urge you: just say NO to fast track!" 

Will you sign the petition too? Click here to add your name: 

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/congress-dont-renew-fast?source=s.fwd&r_by=519408 


(From email sent from Senator Elizabeth Warren via MoveOn.org)

Just say, "NO" to the TPP

Right now, on the Asian side of the Pacific ocean, a trade deal is being negotiated. It is called the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a deal between nations that border the Pacific ocean. By and large, this deal is being negotiated in secret. In fact, my congressman has been in Asia, supposedly to discuss the treatment of workers as well as working conditions. While this may be true, as far as it goes, it would seem that there is more to it. It is highly unlikely that working conditions is the only item on the congressman's agenda. More likely is that he is in the region to attend and participate in talks surrounding the TPP.

The mainstream media has been totally silent about this agreement which may "...undermine our own laws and increase the opportunity for corporate takeovers of public resources in the United States and abroad." (Wenonah Hauter, "The Un-American Way: On the Anti-Democratic 'Trans-Pacific Partnership'" in Common Dreams,org, August 22,2013)

The agreement would do many things, few of which would help most people in the United States nor in the other 10 countries. It would increase the export of natural gas and increase food imports. In the process, fracking will most assuredly increase. (ibid.)

It would also set up a framework whereby "...corporations would acquire an equal status to countries, allowing them to take legal action against governments both at the national and local levels." (ibid.) Laws protecting the public and to protect the environment could be stripped bare or even overturned completely. Laws governing the import of seafood, for example, could be rewritten or overturned. This would open the floodgates to seafood from overseas, from countries without the high standards our government currently requires. (ibid)
"The TPP would potentially give companies the power to sue local governments, granting them their own permission to exploit natural resources and undermine local laws. Treaties like the TPP undermine important efforts by grassroots movements and governments to protect people and the environment against the dangers of infecting our food system with increased use of antibiotics and hormones or the risks associated with fracking for natural gas." (ibid.)
There is, obviously, much more to this so-called "Partnership", but
our history with other trade agreements makes it almost certain that American jobs will be affected in a negative fashion, ala NAFTA.

Given the secretive nature of TPP I have to say that I am more than a little distressed that my own congressman sees fit to mislead his constituents about the nature of his journey to Asia. Why all the secrecy? Could it be because the respective governments and trade partners (corporations) want it that way in order to prevent the people of the United States to become vocal in opposition?  If so, too bad because we absolutely need to be very vocal in our contact with our legislators and the White House. As Ms. Hauter points out, "Undermining laws that U.S. citizens voted to put in place isn’t the American way." (ibid)  I wish Rep. Levin would realize that fact.

Just say "No!" to TPP.

The Dangers of Acting Ethically

Army Pfc. Bradley Manning

When I was a child I was told to "do what's right" and to tell the truth. Though I have developed a somewhat more sophisticated system of ethics and sense of morality, these two exhortations remain moral mainstays. Granted, doing what's right isn't always crystal clear and telling the truth sometimes steps on people's toes. The tasks are thus to determine what is the morally right action and how best to tell the truth.

I imagine these considerations, or something like them, raged in Army Pfc. Bradley Manning's mind when he saw what was happening in the U.S. military. Rape, torture, indiscriminate killing of civilians (to name but a few) were all there to see in his role in the US Army. He was expected to see it and keep his "mouth shut". The question must have surfaced in his mind,
"At what point is following orders outweighed by higher moral principle?"

Evidently, his decision was that doing the right thing involved telling the truth about what was happening inside the US military. The higher good was exposing wrongdoing so that it could be corrected. The higher good was truth telling. But the military doesn't see it this way. To them, following orders is the ultimate "right thing". Apparently, it does not matter that the orders are morally wrong in most minds. It just matters that the orders were given.

Bradley Manning knew what he was doing and probably knew the consequences but elected to release the details of military wrong doing anyway. His mistake was in expecting that anything would really change inside the military which has stayed busy trying to cover the left and right flank. Wrong was done but their only response was to portray Manning as a traitor to his country. Instead of investigating the torture, the killings and other misdeeds the mainstream media in this country followed the lead of military command like cows being led around by the nose. The media have fallen for the classic misdirect. While what Manning released demonstrated terrible misdeeds by the military, the military command tried (somewhat successfully) to distract by making Manning the evildoer. In fact, Bradley Manning simply told the truth or, more accurately, let the truth tell itself.

We are in deep trouble as a society. Telling the truth about evil should be expected not punished. The military, major corporations and politicians all want the truth to go away when, as it often is, inconvenient for them. They will make sure it goes away one way or another. Bradley Manning's fate was sealed the moment he made the moral decision. In this world, acting ethically is a very dangerous thing to do. We need more like Bradley Manning.

As Irrelevant as the Unemployed

Four and a half years ago, I was laid off from a major drug store chain where I had been employed for almost six years; first as a cashier  then as a shift supervisor and assistant store manager. The reason for the dismissal of many salaried assistant managers had more to do with the chain's financial difficulties than it did with the quality of work we produced. Indeed, many of us were steady, middle aged employees. The problem had to do with the company buying another drug store chain. The stock went from $7 per share prior to the transaction to less than .25 per share. The company found itself 6 BILLION dollars in debt. Suddenly, they chose to take salaried positions and make them hourly. This meant fewer employees to do more work with fewer hours and for less money and fewer benefits. Older workers were especially targeted, hence, I was laid off.

Unfortunately for me, this was 2009 and the height of the Great Recession. I never had much difficulty finding another job in the past so I wasn't overly worried until six months had passed with few interviews and no employment. The months dragged on into a year and unemployment benefits ran out. I had long since lost health insurance coverage. I couldn't figure out what was wrong with me that I couldn't find a job. I had been working since I was in high school so it wasn't a case where I had little or no working experience. It took some time but I started running across articles which pointed to age discrimination AND discrimination against the unemployed as chief factors in the long term unemployment of older job applicants. Finally, I knew I was not alone but that did not help my situation much. I became very depressed and found myself needing professional psychological help because of how serious the depression had become. In my case, the illness was my salvation. I received the help I needed but was classified disabled because of my diagnoses of Bi-Polar Disorder, Autism and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. This was enough for me to be able to tap into my earned Social Security benefits and Medicaid. Without the severe financial stress, my life became more stable but still without employment.

Once again, I discovered that I am far from alone. Though the recession is supposedly behind us, many, many long-term unemployed remain. According to Dean Baker and Kevin Hassett  ( "The Human Disaster", New York Times, May 13, 2012):

In 2007, before the Great Recession, people who were looking for work for more than six months — the definition of long-term unemployment — accounted for just 0.8 percent of the labor force. The recession has radically changed this picture. In 2010, the long-term unemployed accounted for 4.2 percent of the work force. That figure would be 50 percent higher if we added the people who gave up looking for work.

A disproportionate of the long-term unemployed are older workers (over 50) and the prospects for employment are fairly dismal.

A worker between ages 50 and 61 who has been unemployed for 17 months has only about a 9 percent chance of finding a new job in the next three months. A worker who is 62 or older and in the same situation has only about a 6 percent chance. As unemployment increases in duration, these slim chances drop steadily (ibid).

With dimming job prospects, the long-term unemployed face increased emotional, financial and even health crises. While the emotional and financial crises may be somewhat predictable, if awful, the effects of unemployment on a persons health is less self-evident. According to Baker and Hassett, however, the life expectancy for a male long-term unemployed person drops by a year and a half. Reasons for this include suicide:

 A recent study found that a 10 percent increase in the unemployment rate (say from 8 to 8.8 percent) would increase the suicide rate for males by 1.47 percent. This is not a small effect. Assuming a link of that scale, the increase in unemployment would lead to an additional 128 suicides per month in the United States. The picture for the long-term unemployed is especially disturbing. The duration of unemployment is the dominant force in the relationship between joblessness and the risk of suicide (ibid).

This fact alone is reason for the government to intervene to create jobs but there is more. There are causal links between long-term unemployment and cancer, heart disease and psychiatric problems. There are also negative effects on the immediate family. Divorce is much more likely as is negative achievement of children in school (ibid). What this demonstrates is that unemployment of six months or longer is a crisis, not only for the worker but for family and for society as a whole. This crisis ought to have been addressed long ago but it has largely gone unnoticed by the governmental bodies able to assist. Congress has done nothing. The White House has ignored us with no mention of the long-term unemployed in months, if not years. It is as if we no longer exist. We are invisible. We are, seemingly, irrelevant.

Dear GOP

What do you want of me? I am poor and unemployed and disabled. I have been unemployed since 2009, have been unable to find a job and the stress from this, my finances, my mother's health and the loss of my own access to health care finally took their toll. I crashed emotionally and became very depressed and suicidal.  I did not have insurance so I was afraid to seek help but I did anyway. I was referred to Easter Seals where I received help applying for Social Security and Medicaid/SNAP. When these were approved, I had my diagnoses and appropriate treatment begun, my life started to even out. I now know that I am Bi-Polar, suffer from major-depression and have a mild form of autism. It was the autism which caused my problems in work environments but I didn't know that for most of my life. Now that I do, my life makes far more sense and I know what I can and cannot do. Most work settings are NOT appropriate for me.

Just as I got my life in order, I started hearing things like, "GOP seeks to cut Social Security", "GOP seeks cuts to SNAP" "Michigan GOP blocks Medicaid Expansion".  Exactly what do you want from people like me? You have no problem continuing tax breaks for the wealthiest 1% but people like me are expected to fall through the now tattered and torn social "safety net." While the wealthy live high on the hog, the poor, the elderly and the disabled are expected to just go away.  Each and every day you make it more difficult for us to get help. You seem to prefer if 1 out of every 6 people in this country go hungry. Somehow you think it wrong that the unemployed receive the benefits we need to survive. You seem to prefer if 45 million Americans go without health insurance. It is better, in your minds, that the poor, elderly and disabled face hunger, hopelessness and homelessness than the wealthy be asked to pay one more cent in taxes. The logic and morality of that stance eludes me. It certainly isn't consistent with the preaching and life of the Jesus you all seem fond of in the abstract. Jesus healed the sick and fed the hungry. He overturned the tables of the moneychangers in the temple. He told the rich young man to give away everything in order to be able to follow him. The Jesus of the Bible doesn't seem to be the Jesus of the GOP or Tea Party.

None of what you say or do about those in need makes any sense to me. If the unemployed receive what we need to survive then money would go back into the economy and more jobs would be created. If the poor receive SNAP, once again, not only do we eat (and therefore do not get sick and create pressure on the health system) but we also buy food and help to create jobs and help the economy. If  45 million Americans have health insurance then we will not need to use the more expensive emergency rooms for routine illnesses. These alternatives make far more sense but who am I to question your ability or motives?

I am a citizen who votes, one who participates in the electoral process. I am not like your corporate handlers who buy their way to power. But your wealthy friends and you do not represent America.  The United States is better than your limited vision.  America can stretch further than you can see. We can take care of one another and we will, in spite of you and without your narrow point of view.

USA: Police State

photo by Abby Martin, Disinformation

The mainstream media has done a good job of not making this known but the United States is rapidly becoming a police state. They have NOT covered the NYC policy of Stop-and-Frisk, where police officers are actually ordered to stop and cite citizens on the basis of racial profiling. The video listed here - "The Hunted and the Hated"  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rWtDMPaRD8 -  is one the most disturbing I have ever seen but proves, without doubt, the existence of the POLICY. It is not just a few rogue cops - it is standard behavior for the entire police force. It is true that the US Appeals Court has determined that the policy is unconstitutional but the likelihood is that it will wind it's way to the US Supreme Court. Once there, given the make-up of the high court, the policy could well be upheld.

Also troubling has been the response by police departments across the nation to the Occupy movement which is almost entirely peaceful in it's protests. In spite of such peaceful expression of First Amendment rights, police departments in NYC, Oakland, California and elsewhere have responded by hounding, corralling, arresting and savagely beating protestors. Pictures abound of bloodied protestors who have done nothing more than march and chant. Pictures proliferate of police in riot gear, in formation, suppressing such peaceful marches. These are highly militarized police departments who have the weapons of war at their disposal for putting down legitimate and peaceful expression of dissent. The people of this country are already finding ourselves suppressed and oppressed by the 1% who issue the orders to the mayors and police departments. It is only getting worse and with the support of the Department of Homeland Security (itself a name straight from the bowels of Apartheid and the pages of 1984).

The latest is the "revelation" by Eric Snowden that the NSA has the capability to collect and store the private information of millions of Americans electronic communications. Not only that, they regularly monitor said communications. While not a total surprise to many of us, it is beyond disturbing that they do not seem to be apologetic in the least. The only response by the United States government has been to press for the arrest of the one responsible for telling the truth: Eric Snowden. This has become a profoundly disturbing pattern: arresting and prosecuting whistle blowers, those who have pointed out illegal and immoral behavior. People trying to do the right thing are called treasonous when it is the military or the NSA and other agencies who are guilty of unconscionable and unconstitutional behavior. No wonder Eric Snowden elected to flee: the truth is no longer welcome in the United States. Certainly the mainstream media no longer tries to broadcast or print anything the least bit critical of the 1% or the government. It is up to us to keep standing up to tell the truth because the United States IS a police state.

The NSA v. Liberty

I am concerned and angry that the NSA has gone far beyond constitutional limits in gathering and storing information about American citizens. The NDAA and FISA and the Patriot Act itself have allowed the government to intrude on citizens privacy supposedly in the name of security. As has been pointed out in a quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin, "Those who sacrifice essential liberty for a little security deserve neither."

More and more we are learning the extent to which our right to privacy has been violated by the very government which is entrusted to uphold our civil rights. It is not only ethically wrong it is also wrong-headed to assume that the little security gained justifies this expensive and expansive intrusion into the lives of American citizens. At this point, the government  becomes no better than the terrorists we so fear. Or of the countries we condemn for their security state mentality.

It is often argued that if you do nothing wrong that you have nothing to fear. This misses the point that the collection of personal and private information is unconstitutional (as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in multiple cases such as Pierce v. Society of Sisters, Roe v Wade, etc). The High Court has repeatedly found that there is an inherent right to privacy as has Article 12 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Those who have done nothing wrong ought to be offended most gravely. If I have done nothing wrong then the collection of my private information is a form of stealing. Even if I HAVE done something wrong my information can only be taken via a warrant.

The current methods of the NSA violate the Constitution, the UN Declaration of Human Rights and commonly held morality. All such agencies should be under regular scrutiny by Congress to ensure the propriety of their actions and policies. The NSA, FBI, CIA and other alphabet agencies MUST be held accountable.  Congress should promptly investigate the actions of the NSA and exercise oversight.

Blind Trust

When I was a Freshman in college, I went on a retreat with a Christian group called Wesley Fellowship. Like most retreats there were plenty of ice breaking and team building exercises. One of them had me blindfolded and led around by an older student. The point of the exercise was the need to learn trust in one another. At one point, the other student put something in my hand. Not being able to see, I went with other senses. I immediately tried to taste it but it was a branch off a tree. This elicited much laughter from those who were observing. I learned not so much how to trust others but when NOT to trust blindly.

Democratic constituents and voters need to learn the same thing. We are told we  must follow the party line in order to elect more Democrats; it is for the greater good. It IS true that electing Republicans has resulted in nothing getting done in Washington D.C. and that much mischief is being done on state and local levels. Election laws are being overturned that were designed to protect our right to vote. Gerrymandering creates districts that will heavily favor Republicans. Laws are being passed to eliminate a woman's right to make choices about her reproductive health. Republicans are passing laws written in part or wholly by outside organizations at the behest of moneyed special interests like the Koch Brothers and the oil industry or corporate agriculture or the financial services industry to name just a few. Democracy, as we know it, is being undermined by these special interests who are able, increasingly, to channel contributions to lawmakers in a positions to help them. This is not, however, limited to the Republicans. For instance, Senator Debbie Stabenow, Democrat from Michigan, overwhelmingly receives her funding from major agricultural interests because she is a senior member of the Committee on Agriculture. Representative Gary Peters (MI-12th) sits on the Committee which provides oversight of the Financial Services industry. Hence, his campaign contributions come from, you guess it, the bankers.

Yet we are told to blindly vote for these folks because it is in our best interests. It is true that the Democrats are not overtly attempting to destroy Democracy for political reason. They appear to be protecting the poor, women, students and the elderly. However, that is not always the case as the examples of Stabenow and Peters demonstrate. Debbie Stabenow regularly votes in favor of Bills pushed by "Big Ag". She even voted for a Farm Bill that would have cut SNAP (food stamps) for millions of Americans, many of whom are her constituents. Gary Peters, even though he calls himself a Democrat, supports the Keystone XL Pipeline which would carry the very dirty tar sands oil over environmentally sensitive farmlands. He also supports a Trans-Pacific trade agreement that is pretty well secret in nature. It will, however, greatly aid American investors as well as investors overseas. Again, where does Rep. Peters' campaign funding come from? Largely from the financial services sector. Our leaders in the Democratic party have their own conflicts of interest and we need to be skeptical. Democrats frequently take positions contrary to what major sectors of their constituents believe. And it happens enough to make me question the party line. Not every Democrat deserves our support equally.

What American citizens need to do is learn the lesson of the branch: Do not blindly trust that our leaders are acting in OUR interests, We must learn to make up our own minds, given the facts as we can best determine. We have a voice and we need to use it wisely. We may well still support people like Rep. Peters and Senator Stabenow but it will be because we have weighed the facts not because we are told to do so.

No Justice, No Peace

George Zimmerman was found not guilty by a 6 person jury yesterday, in spite of the fact that no one disputed that he took the life of Trayvon Martin, a 17 year old who did nothing more than walk down the public street. Mr. Zimmerman left his vehicle after the 911 dispatcher told him not to do so. He engaged Trayvon and shot him. Those facts are not in dispute. A young black youth is dead at the hands of a self-styled vigilante and yet he was allowed to go free. 

What if it had been the other way around? What if the black youth had taken the life of George Zimmerman? Does anyone really think there would have been a not guilty verdict? No, because we all KNOW that young black males are profiled and judged before the evidence is presented. There IS no justice if you are young and black. Many think there is no justice, period. 

The banks destroy the economy with their predatory lending practices, foreclose on millions and put them out on the streets. Though we all condemn the behavior of the banks, not one person is convicted of a crime, except some who try to keep their homes. Not one bank official. Not one.

Oil companies devastate the environment and  there are small penalties, if any. Spill after spill and still they continue to act with impunity. The people of the Gulf Coast still pay for their negligence as does the ecosystem of the Gulf itself. There is no justice here either.

Millions of Americans were forced onto S.N.A.P. (Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program), better known as Food Stamps. Some 42 million now receive benefits because they make so little money. Some 48 millions are nutritionally vulnerable,i.e. hungry. And now the Republicans in the House of Representatives want to gut or eliminate the program that is the lifeline for these people. Where is the justice?

These are but examples of the situation as it stands in the United States. Justice is hard to come by especially if you're poor, elderly, unemployed, a woman or a minority. The Republicans have turned their backs and care only for the powerful and rich. Everything they do seems intended to make make the lives of ordinary Americans more difficult.

But there are consequences for this immoral behavior. And the Bible is clear that where there is no justice, there can be no peace in the eyes of the Lord. The prophet Amos lays it out succinctly in these snippets (Amos 6:7-24, NIV):

⁷ There are those who turn justice into bitterness
    and cast righteousness to the ground....

⁹ ...With a blinding flash he destroys the stronghold
    and brings the fortified city to ruin.
 

¹⁰ There are those who hate the one who upholds justice in court
    and detest the one who tells the truth.

¹¹ You levy a straw tax on the poor
    and impose a tax on their grain.
Therefore, though you have built stone mansions,
    you will not live in them;
though you have planted lush vineyards,
    you will not drink their wine.
¹² For I know how many are your offenses
    and how great your sins.

There are those who oppress the innocent and take bribes
    and deprive the poor of justice in the courts.
¹³ Therefore the prudent keep quiet in such times,
    for the times are evil.

¹⁴ Seek good, not evil,
    that you may live.
Then the Lord God Almighty will be with you,
    just as you say he is.
¹⁵ Hate evil, love good;
    maintain justice in the courts.
Perhaps the Lord God Almighty will have mercy
    on the remnant of Joseph.

¹⁶ Therefore this is what the Lord, the Lord God Almighty, says:

“There will be wailing in all the streets
    and cries of anguish in every public square...

 ²¹ “I hate, I despise your religious festivals;
    your assemblies are a stench to me.
²² Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings,
    I will not accept them.
Though you bring choice fellowship offerings,
    I will have no regard for them.
²³ Away with the noise of your songs!
    I will not listen to the music of your harps.
²⁴ But let justice roll on like a river,
    righteousness like a never-failing stream!

This is the language of the Bible, the consequences of sin in the eyes of God,  but it is also a fundamental truth: there are consequences for every action. In physics the language is this:for every action there is and equal and opposite reaction. Whatever the way you say it, injustice has it's consequences for the oppressor. There may not be justice now for Trayvon today or for those who lost their homes, or for the hungry but IT WILL COME. It always has and it always will. It is a universal truth and those who oppress should repent now (repent simply means, "To turn around").
Turn from their evil ways and right their wrongs where they can. Otherwise, in the words of a current saying, "Karma can be a  _itch."  If there is no justice, there will be no peace.

Hunger USA

I read an article in the Detroit News (1) today about the fact that the U.S. House of Representatives voted for a Farm Bill which did not include funding for S.N.A.P. (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program i.e, food stamps). This action was taken after the defeat of a measure that "only" cut S.N.A.P. for millions of Americans. The Republicans regrouped and came back with an even worse bill, at least from the perspective of the 42 million Americans who receive S.N.A.P. benefits. They dropped it from the Farm Bill altogether which leaves even more Americans at risk for going hungry in the richest nation in the world.

What appalls me even more, however, is the response of so many Americans who think S.N.A.P. OUGHT to be discontinued because it is not needed and is abused. I am quite sure many of these people think they are Christians. They forget that Jesus fed the hungry (Feeding of the 5000). I wonder if they would say that Jesus shouldn't have fed those people because one or two people ate twice, because it only encouraged those people to come back for more, etc. It is even possible that some of the disciples thought the same thing, or close to it. Maybe Judas, who thought Jesus needed to take on the Roman Empire and the Jewish establishment. "Jesus, you're wasting time with this miracle. You'd do better in Jerusalem where the action is. These people can go home and eat."  Or maybe Matthew, the Tax Collector: "Jesus, this is not very cost effective. You are distributing scarce resources among people who will not appreciate it and who can do nothing for you." But Jesus went on doing the Will of the Father as expressed in the Book of Isiah:

Isaiah 58:6-10

⁶ “Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen:
to loose the chains of injustice
    and untie the cords of the yoke,
to set the oppressed free
    and break every yoke?
⁷ Is it not to share your food with the hungry
    and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter—
when you see the naked, to clothe them,
    and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?
⁸ Then your light will break forth like the dawn,
    and your healing will quickly appear;
then your righteousness will go before you,
    and the glory of the Lord will be your rear guard.
⁹ Then you will call, and the Lord will answer;
    you will cry for help, and he will say: Here am I.

“If you do away with the yoke of oppression,
    with the pointing finger and malicious talk,
¹⁰ and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry
    and satisfy the needs of the oppressed,
then your light will rise in the darkness,    and your night will become like the noonday. (NIV)

Jesus, unlike his disciples at times, knew what God required of Him (and of us as His followers). It is "To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God" (Micah 6:, NIV)

Why, on earth do we never learn? Why do we still point fingers and oppress the poor and the suffering?  Why all the trash talk about the poor and hungry being unworthy and cheaters? Those of us who call ourselves Christian need to learn what it really takes to follow Jesus. Faith is all well and good but not if it results in doing nothing in this world. Faith which separates us from the world God so loved is no faith at all. It is a cop out. We need to open our eyes and see the facts and let them convict us. 

The FACT is that some 48 million Americans are subject to food insecurity each and every day. That is over 14% of Americans and includes some 16 million children. (2) More than 1:5 children are at risk for hunger. (3)

The facts go on and on.  Nearly half of all children will receive S.N.A.P. benefits at some time before they turn 20.  One in seven people in the US are enrolled in S.N.A.P.. One in seven Americans live below the poverty line (which is $22,000 for a family of four). More that 90% of S.N.A.P. benefits are used up by the 3rd week of the month (4).

"Low-income households already spend a greater share of their income on food. Food accounts for 16.4 percent of spending for households making less than $10,000 per year compared to the U.S. average of 12.7 percent." (5)
 
Many people go hungry or are at extreme risk in this, the richest country in the world, and there is no good reason for it. We should be able to feed everyone. And we could if there was the will. We need both the will and the way. Most of all, Americans who have enough to eat need to develop their compassion. 

ENDNOTES

1.  Marisa Schultz,"Food Stamps At Risk for 1.7 Million In Michigan." Detroit News, http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130713/METRO08/307130027/ , 13 July 2013.

2.  Household Food Security in the United States, 2010. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, September 2011. (Table 1A, Table 1B. Quoted from http://www.bread.org/hunger/us/facts.html). 

3.  Household Food Security in the United States, 2010. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, September 2011. (Table 1B, Table 3), Ibid).

4. Quoted from http://www.bread.org/hunger/us/facts.html).

5.   Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey, 2006  Quoted from http://www.bread.org/hunger/us/facts.html).

The Republican Terrorists

Today, the U.S. House of Representatives is voting on a Farm Bill, which traditionally gets passed without much hoopla. It is different this year because House Republicans (Tea Party) seek to cut SNAP (The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), ie., food stamps. In the first go around they simply tried to cut SOME hungry people off the program. That met with resistance so now they came back with a version that totally fails to mention SNAP, which effectively defunds food assistance for some 42 million Americans. They are doing a very good job of scaring  a LOT of people with this Bill. 

As of July 1st, the House also failed to stop a scheduled increase in the interest rates paid by students who have government loans. The increase doubled the interest rate for students while banks and other major corporations pay half as much. This occurred because the House of Representatives simply failed to take action even though the Senate already had passed relief legislation.  Thirty-Seven million American students will be affected.

Between those two outrageous actions, the United States House Republicans (who control the House) have put 79 million Americans behind the proverbial eight ball. The Republican House has effectively terrorized all these people. They have deliberately sought to intimidate and coerce a significant part of the population of these United States and have done so for purely political purposes. The definition of Terrorism , according to the World English Dictionary is, " the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal."  Not all violence is physical. Indeed, the worst part of terrorism is precisely the fear and panic it causes.  The Tea Party Republicans have done precisely that - caused fear and attempted to force the American People and the Democratic Party to accede to their will. They cannot win elections without threats, cheating and intimidation so this is what they have become. The no longer govern  (" to exercise restraint over; regulate or direct", Free Online Dictionary), instead they impose a reign of terror.  It is Robespierre all over again. One only hopes they do not manage to send 79 million people to the guillotine. 

Fear and Fundamentalism

I was reading about the fall of the Roman empire yesterday and came upon an interesting tidbit. Apparently some folks in St. Augustine's time were blaming the attack on Rome by the Visigoths on the abandonment of traditional pagan religions in favor of Christianity ("Augustine on the Fall of America, uh, Rome", The God Project. Net, March 17, 2011).  I found that intriguing because so many among the Tea Party/Religious Right in the United States blame the "Fall of America" on straying from Christian values. It seems that in both cases the religion(s) of  the traditional majority blamed the decay of empire on straying from religion. The pagans in the time of the Fall of Rome blamed the Christians and now the "Christians" in this era blame heathens. The more things change the more they stay the same.

There is, however, another comparison. The Religious Right (Tea Party) is similar in many ways to another radical and extremist group:

"I am going to ask a series of statements. See if you can determine which group each statement applies to.
1). This group wants to dominate women and tell them how to act. Taliban? Or Religious Right?
2). This group wants there to be a national religion, barring other religions from the country. Taliban? Or Religious Right?
3). This group wants prayer to be a prominent part of education. Taliban? Or Religious Right?
4). This group wants to dictate their morals to the rest of the population, with severe penalties for non-compliance. Taliban? Or Religious Right?
5). This group is not interested in freedom of speech. Taliban? Or Religious Right?
6). This group is not interested in freedom of religion. Taliban? Or Religious Right?
7). This group wants their “law” to be the law of the land, regardless of what the people might want. Taliban? Or Religious Right?
8). This group wants to convert the entire world into their way of thinking. Taliban? Or Religious Right?
9). This group thinks homosexuality is an abomination and should be eradicated from the face of the Earth. Taliban? Or Religious Right?
If you answered both to every one of these statements, then you are correct. As you can see, other than the country they are operating in, there is little, if any, difference between the two groups" (by outofstepper, "Taliban or Religious Right?" in The Daily Kos, September 21, 2010).

It is no accident that the comparison can be made. There are psychological reasons both groups exist. At their core, both the Religious Right and the Taliban are afraid of and therefore hate the ambiguities and uncertainties  of contemporary existence (Walter A. Davis, "The Psychology of Christian Fundamentalism" in Counterpunch, January 8-10, 2005). That fear based hatred seems to express itself everywhere, from the fear of women which expresses itself in attacks on contraception and abortion to the fear of those who are different, as in Muslims. The Taliban exhibit the same fear and hatred. The irony and danger, of course, lies in letting the two forms of extremism interact with one another. Fear and hatred on both sides leads to war and worse, to holy war. We are in our current predicament with fear of being attacked by terrorists precisely because of  xenophobia and the only way out of the mess that has been created is to let go of fear. When the other is feared nothing can be seen or heard clearly. The only way out is to go through the process of really listening and seeing. The question remains as to whether that is even possible.

The PRISM of Power

There was a tweet on Twitter earlier that asked, "Sandy Levin, why do you support spying on Americans?"  I realized that it's a very good question. My congressman is a lifelong Democrat and a fairly liberal one at that. So why would he support NSA surveillance on American citizens along with N.D.A.A, the Patriot Act and F.I.S.A.?  Part of the answer may lie in his very close relationship with his brother Carl, who is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Undoubtedly he is privy to more sensitive information than the average congressman. It may partially be the case that Rep. Sander Levin has information that would seem to justify the government's actions infringing upon individual liberties and privacy. I do not know what  could  justify these policies but they presumably do have reasons. Perhaps not good reasons but reasons nonetheless. 

The best justification I can think of is that these policies are needed to prevent another 9/11 style attack on this country. In fact, when Eric Snowden broke the news that the NSA has been spying on American citizens, the agency defended itself by saying that dozens of attacks had been thwarted by their use of PRISM (the data mining program that stores billions of electronic messages from email to cell phones and beyond). However, they do not provide concrete instances as evidence so we are essentially being told to take them at their word. Since they have been lying to the American people from the get go trust is not very likely.  

Neither are their reasons likely to hold water. There was plenty of evidence of an impending attack on this country prior to 9/11 but no one was able to put the pieces together. What we have in PRISM is a gigantic collector of information. Why on earth would it be any better at pulling out relevant information than human agents? All they have succeeded in doing is adding another layer of bureaucracy with a lot more capability to invade citizens privacy and to violate basic constitutional rights. So, why would my congressman be interested in supporting such massive spying on citizens regardless of guilt or innocence? 

It may, upon reflection, be a product of his support for Israel. Information gathered here could easily be used to aid Israel in protecting itself from attack (with the same problems in logic as the American focus on Americans). Nevertheless, Israel does not have the best track record when it comes to preserving basic civil rights (especially if you happen to be Palestinian). I doubt they would have much problem with using the NSA data collection system when it suits their interest. And I am inclined to believe that they have supporters in Congress who would not have problems either. 

Lastly, I have to wonder if our representatives and senators have some other reasons for supporting such surveillance. This all depends, however, on how the information gathered is actually used. Do they gather information for political reasons? If so (like the IRS) this information can easily be misused by the government as well as politicians. Imagine a politician wanting information about an opponent...or about an ex-spouse and so on. Or what about corporations? They would have a field day with this huge collection of data records. The possibilities are endless and our representatives and senators are influenced by many outside interests. Heaven only knows what the truth may be. I just know that it is inevitable that this super-surveillance will be misused. As famously said by Lord Acton, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." 

Liberty For All?

My congressman asked what Independence Day means to us. I immediately thought of the Declaration of Independence and the list of grievances the Colonists laid out against the King of England. And I thought of the present day situation in these United States. I wondered what Thomas Jefferson would have made of the Patriot Act, of the National Security Agency spying on our own citizens. I know what Benjamin Franklin would have said because he did: "He who gives up essential liberty for a little security deserves neither."

The founders gave their all for liberty and I know it would have appalled them to see us throwing it away in the name of short term safety. Safety is never assured even if all citizens voluntarily give up their freedoms for that purpose. In that moment when we cede our liberties we have betrayed the spirit of the American Revolution. 

The rise of the power of corporations in this country (and worldwide) is also quite alarming. Power concentrated in fewer and fewer hands creates a situation much like the one that confronted the American colonists. With the East India Company monopolizing trade rights, the colonists faced excessive taxation and the inability to purchase needed items from anyone else. The burdens these policies caused led directly to revolution.

Today, we have corporations wielding growing power in Congress and the Courts (especially the US Supreme Court) and to some extent in the Executive branch as well. The greater the power of corporations the less power the proletariat (or the 99%) have.

The Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court was a perfect illustration. The Court ruled that corporations have the right to express themselves through essentially unlimited financial contributions to political campaigns. The idea that corporations are people makes a mockery of the First Amendment but the divided Court saw it differently. Corporations now have unlimited power to influence and direct political campaigns. The ordinary American citizen is thus left essentially voiceless in comparison.

The state of the Union this Independence Day is quite questionable. We lose our freedoms by the inch. We seem to be headed down the slippery slope towards totalitarianism and the complete undermining of the Constitution. The only thing that can reverse this trend is the united action of the People. We must rise up and be heard before it is too late.

A Place At The Table

A few evenings ago I had the opportunity to attend a screening of the film, "A Place At The Table", starring Jeff Bridges. It was a very thought provoking and emotional film about hunger in America. I highly recommend it as a way to elicit conversation and discussion about the very real crisis. There are many facts about hunger in the film, elucidated by various experts but the experiences of a number of people (primarily of single mothers!) were what stuck out to me. Much is said about hunger in this country but we do not often stop to think about the individuals who are affected. Numbers and statistics are dry and it is tempting to focus on them rather than people because, as this film points out, people are harder to ignore; they are harder to forget. 

It is impossible for me to forget the little girl who lived in squalor and went to school hungry most days. The devastating effect hunger has on children was most disturbingly demonstrated by her situation. She could not concentrate or focus on school work when her stomach was growling. For me, this situation hit all too close to home. As I watched Rosie, I saw myself as a child. 

When I was in first grade, one of the teachers who knew my father (she had been his teacher as well) took me aside and talked to me about breakfast and then talked to my parents. I was always being sent to the corner because I was tired and couldn't concentrate. I never made the connection between that and not having eaten in the morning. This film became very  personal. I remember my family had government issued canned peanut butter and also cheese. I never paid much attention, I guess I figured everyone had the same. 

Hungry children are nothing new in the country but the epidemic certainly is, at least since the 1960's when president after president issued wars on hunger. The school lunch program and, later, the school breakfast program cut childhood hunger drastically. What changed? Why are 1:6 children in this country suffering from food insecurity? Watch the film and you will find out. 

To discover more about the issue you can visit: http://www.takepart.com/place-at-the-table/film.

Grasping the Unreasonable

In trying to make some sense of what happened at the Boston Marathon last week, I have been struggling to understand terrorism. So I turned to the etymology of the word.

The word "terrorist" actually comes from the French word terrorisme  which comes from the Latin for great fear, dread, terror. The Latin verb terrere means "to frighten". (2) The French Revolution gave us the first modern use of the word:

 " The period 1793–94 is referred to as La Terreur (Reign of Terror). Maximilien Robespierre, a leader in the French revolution proclaimed in 1794 that "Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible." (3)
The Committee of Public Safety agents that enforced the policies of "The Terror" were referred to as "Terrorists"   (4) The word "terrorism" was first recorded in English-language dictionaries in 1798 as meaning 'systematic use of terror as a policy'." (5) 

Undoubtedly terrorism as an act has existed much before the French Revolution but received it's contemporary name at that time. The Reign of Terror, by the way, demonstrates a truth of modern terrorism, namely, that terrorists invariably see themselves as instruments of righteousness. They convince themselves that the crime is really justified by the ends they seek. "Terrorists are generally people who feel alienated from society and have a grievance or regard themselves as victims of an injustice."(6) They also believe that the people being terrorized are NOT innocents but rather guilty instruments of evil. What we see as terrorism, they see as justice. This is a perverted view of reality on their part, of course, but it is what allows them to live with themselves and to carry out their "mission."

I next tried to find one single good definition for what terrorism is. It turns out that there is little consensus about this.  Not known for its comprehensive nature, Wikipedia's article  "Definitions of Terrorism" mentions about 50 different points of view. (1) Undoubtedly there are hundreds, if not thousands, more.

One of the many definitions that caught my attention is from the United States Patriot Act:

 "The USA PATRIOT Act defines domestic terrorism activities as "activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S." (7)

This definition interests me because of how broad it seems to be. Violence or the threat of it does not necessarily have to be present in order for an act to be considered terrorism. While it must be an act that is "dangerous to human life," there is a large amount of leeway. Danger to human life could, for example, include acts against technology as opposed to direct violence. Also it must APPEAR to be intended. The United States government could, presumably, call something a terrorist act if they even THINK it is intentional. This differs from almost every other definition many of which include some commonalities:  1) A threat of and/or act of violence 2) against innocent people 3) in pursuit of  political and or religious aims 4) designed to create fear and terror.  Many of the definitions of terrorism contain all or most of these characteristics but do not seem to specify the APPEARANCE of intent nor the broadening of acts of or threat of violence to include danger to human beings. The Patriot Act appears to be so vague as to allow for things to be defined as terrorism that might not be considered in most other definitions.

One of the reasons it is almost almost impossible to pinpoint a single description of terrorism is because there are as many forms of terrorism as there are acts of terror.

 " Excepting the most ruthless dictatorships, terrorist organizations have emerged in virtually every kind of society: democratic and authoritarian, developed and developing, ethnically or racially diverse and homogeneous societies. The diversity of social and cultural environments of terrorism has, so far anyway, defeated efforts to explain terrorism by pointing to class, racial, or other social inequalities; economic exploitation or decline; political oppression; demographic imbalances; or other social structural factors." (8)

Each of these terrible acts are as unique as the historical moment and setting in which they take place. It is difficult to define something which changes in each and every incarnation. Nevertheless, we seem to be able to recognize it when it occurs, whether it is the 9/11/2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or the Boston Marathon bombing of this past week. 

Looking at many of the common elements of terrorism (see above) I began to wonder about bullying and if it is related to terrorism. There seems to be some similarities.
To threaten or imply violence in a way designed to create fear makes me wonder at what point is terrorism a form of bullying? Or maybe it is the most extreme version. Bullying is:

"Repeated, persistent and aggressive behaviour intended to cause fear, distress, or harm to another person's body, emotions, self-esteem or reputation." (9)

In both terrorism and bullying, the intent is to cause harm in order to induce fear. Granted, bullying is most often directed at an individual but it can also be bullying by a group of another group. The difference lies in the intent and the severity and the number of people affected. Terrorism is usually engaged in for political or religious reasons while this is not necessarily true of bullies (though it may be). Terrorism is designed to inflict the most pain on the most innocent people and to create the most terror. Essentially, it seems that terrorists are extreme bullies and it makes me wonder if terrorists were bullies first.  Dr. Sergey Zagraevsky put it well when he characterized terrorism as "...the dirtiest weapon of the weak against the strong". (10). On an individual level, this might also apply to bullying. Both terrorists and bullies operate from the position of weakness - to intimidate those who are perceived threats to them.  That it doesn't appear this way to the bullied is one of the facets of the unreasonableness of the behavior.

By its very nature, terrorism involves unreasonable acts and, as such, eludes understanding. Is it impossible to get our minds around? Terrorism has been around as long as humanity and as yet has not been resolved.  How can we comprehend terrorism? Perhaps we can't and never will. Maybe we shouldn't try.

ENDNOTES

1.    "Definitions of Terrorism", Wikipedia.org  http://bit.ly/109U2ZC , accessed 22 April 2013.

2.     Burgess, Mark. A Brief History of Terrorism, Center for Defense Information.Quoted in     Wikipedia, "Definitions of Terrorism.

3.    Ibid.

4.   "Early History of Terrorism, http:// Terrorism-Research.com, quoted in Wikipedia " Def. of Terr"

5   Harper, Douglas. "Terrorism", Dictionary.com Online Etymology Dictionary.:accessed:        August 10, 2007 in Wikipedia: Definitions.

6.   Hudson, Rex A. ed. by Marilyn Majeska, "The Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why. (Federal Research Division, Library of Congress: Washington, D.C., 1999)  Accessed 23 April 2013 www.loc.gov/…d/pdf-files/Soc_Psych_of_Terrorism.pdf .

7.   http://www.nctc.gov/witsbanner/docs/2010_report_on_terrorism.pd Quoted from: Wikipedia, Definitions, accessed 22April 2013.

8.  Turk, Austin T. "Terrorism" in Encyclopedia.com  http://bit.ly/dLlnY2 : Accessed 23 April 2013.

9.    From Duhaime.org, Legal Dictionary, http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary
 /B/Bullying.aspx : 22 April 2013.)

10.    Zagraevsky, Dr. Sergey, "365 Reflections on a Human  and Humanity," http://zagraevsky.com/365_engl.htm in Wikipedia, "Definitions of Terrorism"