Jesus, in anger, had overturned the moneychangers (bankers) tables when they had set up shop in the Temple, a Holy place. The religious leaders had allowed it. They placed money on the same level as God. Jesus’ act angered them and I believe was the reason he was murdered.
Jesus in an electric chair is just another way to depict the crucifixion…but it takes on a more modern air. One could even say that the same mindset of people is still very much alive and Jesus would be put to death again if he were here in the physical form today.
DN! had a piece up yesterday on environmentalists being killed for trying to protect the land, air, and water…for all of us.
147 killed in 2012, compared with 51 in 2002…nearly three times as many.
Jose DeSilva (sp?) says what Joe Kane said in Savages— that some poor person will accept the dinero of the corporations and aid in the destruction of the forest. This is how they divided tribe members in Savages–they picked a few vulnerable ones and split the loyalties. Divide and Conquer in action….
As you listen to the video, it is really shocking how this is going on and not being reported. I mean, how obvious is it that these are deliberate acts…an axe in the head of an environmentalist…Penetra being murdered right after speaking out for the environment…and we never hear of this in the lame media? Yet…they are right there to label environmentalists as nuts and whackos who should be condemned.
That has to have been the mindset behind allowing these two to wear ankle bracelets after they had already cut them off once before. All the victims appear to be prostitutes…and that is why the rapists can get away with it for so long, a la green river killer.
“I picked prostitutes as my victims because I hate most prostitutes and I did not want to pay them for sex,” Ridgway said in his confessional statement. “I also picked prostitutes as victims because they were easy to pick up without being noticed. I knew they would not be reported missing right away and might never be reported missing. I picked prostitutes because I thought I could kill as many of them as I wanted without getting caught.”
At least one-third of Ridgway’s female victims were girls and women of color, and the vast majority were under the age of 22. Ridgway, an extreme incarnation of a brutal misogynist, considered killing female prostitutes a “career.” He felt proud of what he did, and thought he was damn good at it.
~~~~~~~~~~
It is outrageous that the police still treat these women as sub-human…probably even think they deserve what they get.
As the report explores…would Ridgway (Cano/Gordon/others) been able to get away with this if their victims were of a different class? Would Ridgway and the rest have raped these women if they saw them as human beings–probably sexually abused as children..?
But it’s not just prostitutes that get raped and beaten…we’ve got a problem in this culture with still seeing women as second class. We have a culture that embraces rape and violence against women….and the vulnerable….as I said before, we are all vulnerable at some point in our lives…
This is not good. They say it’s not the Russians, but pro-Russian Ukrainians…but I dunno…
Ukrainians are passionate, that’s for sure, but to seize a police station? That says to me if it is Ukrainians, that they felt confident enough with *someone* backing them to pull such a stunt. *Someone* has to be orchestrating all of this behind the scenes…*someone* whom is power hungry and has a lot to gain.
<sigh>
Meanwhile, I hope my Russian reader is doing okay. I worry that your seeking information may have landed you in trouble….praying for you…
A problem that plagues peaceful protestors are those that wish to cause trouble.
The problem is in knowing if they are bad actors looking to stir things up for their own amusement or agent provocateurs–sent in by agencies or the oil companies themselves to give the non-violent activists a bad name. The next problem is banishing them from the movement.
The person calling himself “james Moore” in the piece is typical. Not knowing the writer of the piece, it’s hard to know if this person said those things or whether it is fabricated to make them look bad. Or worse–to put this out there to justify police crackdown.
Like I’ve said before, I won’t support violence and many folks who would otherwise support environmentalists will back away from violent protests.
Setting police vehicles on fire is not violence in that it hurts a human being, but it is destructive…and is counterproductive if you think about all the toxins you’re sending into that very environment you’re trying to protect. You might feel a release of frustration for a moment or two, but in the end, it doesn’t further your cause.
Just how dehumanizing is it to refer to people you kill as “bug splats”?? Good God.
Dehumanizing the “other” is as old as…well, war…I suppose. The “other” are portrayed as dogs, rats, and other things to dehumanize them. It makes it easier to shoot someone if you no longer see them as a human being.
200 innocent children dead. We should hang our heads in shame.
Who would do something so cruel? If you don’t want the cats, then take them to a shelter and let someone who loves cats give them a home. In this day and age, when there are many people ready and willing to help, this is particularly dark and cruel…you can’t say there weren’t any options.
Dispatches from the Underclass has a post up on academic freedom and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
I clicked on the link to the letter, and the part about the union’s collective bargaining agreement stood out:
“institutional discipline or restraint in their discussion of relevant matters in the classroom…” [the CBA prohibits] “explicit or implicit threat of termination or discipline for the purpose of constraining a faculty member in the exercise of his or her rights under such principles of academic freedom.”
~~~~~~~~
“Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject.”
This was clarified later with the following:
“The intent of the 1940 statement is not to discourage what is “controversial”. Controversy is at the heart of the free academic inquiry which the entire statement is designed to foster. The passage serves to underscore the need for teachers to avoid persistently intruding material which has no relation to their subject.”
~~~~
This is one of the reasons that teacher’s unions must be protected–they protect teachers that bring up uncomfortable subjects with passionate debate. The Vietnam War would probably still be going on if it weren’t for the passionate debates of that time. And the Afghan war would have ended long ago. The Iraq War would have never begun had there been passionate debate on the subject of Weapons of Mass Destruction and as I previously posted, the way that Iraq society was presented to us and the reality of their society.
As the letter continues, the use of the word “balance” is questionable (Faux News, anyone?). It’s a vague term that can be interpreted in many ways…it’s a word that anyone in power can use to silence those that present valid complaints. One student made a complaint against the professor. Then Dr. Corey had the student “spy” on the professor and report back on whether it was “balanced” or not. WTH?
I disagree, however, with the letter’s statement that “students don’t possess the training or expertise to challenge a professor”…this is not giving students enough credit. Again, I’m thinking of the 60s and the students questioning professors and all authority. They raised valid questions. It’s not that students don’t have the training or expertise, but that one single student, with biases, should not be allowed to shut down an entire class because he/she does not agree with the way the subject is presented. He/she is a student, and as such, has to take some responsibility towards his/her education, and that means not always agreeing with a professor.
If the student disagrees, then he/she has options: quit the class, or listen and perhaps examine why he/she is opposed to the professor/subject matter….and maybe, just maybe, change one’s mind after evaluating the subject. It’s known that Israel does not present the Palestinian side of things in their schools. I don’t think they speak of the Palestinians at all, but in negative terms. Where’s the balance there?
The assessment of Professor Chehade’s classroom was one of openness. He allowed differing viewpoints…which is what you want in…ahem…a balanced classroom. Other students’ assessments were one of openness.
Something else that nags at me while reading this–did this student purposely take this class in order to get it cancelled? Because a class such as this is probably an elective–one that a student has an option of taking among several in that particular subject matter–so I would question the student’s motives if that were the case. The more I read, the more it sounds like a set-up. And the spineless administration caved at the first “shove”.
Another thing that bothers me is that we don’t live in a vacuum–this is only one class in that student’s career. If the student wants to get at the truth, he/she can take more classes taught by other professors whom will offer a different perspective. The student can also take the initiative and read books on the subject to gain a broader perspective. There is also the community- other students, friends, parents, neighbors, whom also can offer their perspectives. My experience has been that the truth is somewhere in between.
It’s important to note that professors are not given free reign to do as they please in their classrooms–as the letter states–proselytizing (although I can state that some of my professors came close to this, thankfully, it was just a few of many good professionals); and teaching subjects that are not a part of that section.
And just for the record, I would love to attend Professor Chehade’s class.
I found 5 Broken Cameras on youtube:
In the next part of the report, the controversy about free speech about the Palestinian/Israeli conflict at the University of Michigan. Be sure to click on the link where Max Blumenthal writes about the smear campaign. There is a video by Dishell up that speaks volumes.
In the speech, Max is passionate. He is Jewish and yet is speaking out on what he calls apartheid by Israel. The whole idea of Israel being “pure” is so ludicrous. There is no such thing as a “pure” race. We’re all mutts, so to speak. And as Blumenthal illustrates, one couple can’t even be together because of this stupidity. Can you say Romeo and Juliet? Can we ever learn anything from history…?
(This post is on spirituality, so if it’s not your thing….)
Eli Glasman has a heartfelt post up on his struggles with losing faith in God.
The sense of loss he feels is apparent. It’s hard to believe in a Supreme Being when you’ve been taught a certain way and that way conflicts with how you feel inside. It must have been so hard for him to feel that he had to choose between religion and how he felt intrinsically.
As I said in my comment, I understand his sentiments. I went through a period of not believing, but that actually made my faith stronger. Our paths lead us in directions that don’t always make sense at the time, but as we move along, we see how things are connected and how struggle helps us to grow, as in the butterfly that struggles out of the cocoon.
I had to learn to stand up for myself and not let others define who I am. Not letting others define who I am also means not letting others define my connection to God. Spirituality is as personal as it gets. We are unique individuals with our own paths to follow and no one has a right to impose their beliefs upon another.
I don’t think being an atheist automatically means condemnation. If one follows “Do unto others….” –I see that as spiritual, whether the person claims it or not. I think we will be judged more on how we treat others and conduct ourselves here on Earth, rather than if we went to Church every Sunday.
Eagle 
You must be logged in to post a comment.