Why is the Amazon burning?

Posted on August 24, 2019 by Speakfaithfully

HT_AmazonWildfires.png

To understand why the Amazon has been set on fire by arsonists hoping to make more money, we need to talk about the election of Jair Bolsonaro.

There are many reasons not to like Bolsonaro. A former member of the military, he is an apologist for the brutal military rule in Brazil that killed, imprisoned or tortured over 45,000 people according to Brazil Amnesty Commission established in 2001. In a radio interview in 2016 Bolsonaro suggested the mistake of the military regime was torturing opponents when they should have simply killed them. When he voted to oust former president Dilma Rousseff, he dedicated his vote to the military leader who presided over the facilities in which she herself was tortured during the military regime. He lamented the Indigenous people of Brazil were not previously killed off completely. He has a long record of homophobia, racism, xenophobia and misogyny. While campaigning as an anti-corruption crusader, his own family has been accused of having connects to very serious criminal groups. He is not supported by the majority of Brazil and would likely have lost to Lulu if Operation Car Wash had not targeted Lulu.

More to the point, Bolsonaro ran on campaign promises that included reducing protections for the Amazon, reducing tribal rights in the Amazon, and opening up the rainforest for economic exploitation. Recent leaks have also revealed the Bolsonaro government has planned to use Bolsonaro’s hate speech to stir up public sentiment against indigneous tribes living in the Amazon, build highways through the Amazon and fully exploit the region economically. Once in power Bolsonaro has followed through on these promises legislatively.

So how did he win?

There are perhaps many reasons why Bolsonaro won, including the support of people who genuinely were attracted to his platform and message. However, a number of dubious factors contributed to his win and should be discussed. First, in Brazil many phone contracts in Brazil allow people to use WhatsApp free of charge. WhatsApp became a hotbed of rumors and disinformation where 65% Brazilian voters inform themselves politically and 47% believed those items. One study found that half of the images circulated on WhatsApp were false and targeted the PT party, Bolsonaro’s opposition. Second, Brazil’s homicide rate is increasing and Bolsonaro ran on a campaign of cracking down on crime and corruption, which he was effectively blame on the PT party, perhaps in part due to misinformation. Third, YouTube’s algorithms contributed to sowing fear and misinformation in Brazil, their second largest market, and even the radicalization of many Brazilian citizens. The “Up Next” feature often led people to conspiracy theories and extremist content that aided Bolsonaro’s rise.

Fourth and most importantly, the most famous and popular politician in Brazil, Lulu da Silva, who was polling ahead of Bolsonaro by 20 points in political polls, was imprisoned for corruption in a clearly calculated political move before the election. His prosecution for corruption charges meant the party had to run a less popular candidate. Leaked documents reported on by the Intercept prove this was a politically motivated move and involved the collusion of the judge presiding over the case, Sergio Moro, and the prosecutors. Moro went onto become the justice minister of Brazil after Bolsonaro’s election.

How did his election lead to the Amazon being set on fire?

Capitalists, large and small, have taken advantage of Bolsonaro’s political and rhetorical push to exploit the Amazon. This has included illegal miners and loggers launching large scale invasions of indigenous tribal land in the Amazon, killing and/or displacing these tribal groups to exploit their land. This also strongly appears to have led to capitalists with interests in ranching, agriculture, logging and mining to set the Amazon on fire. The Amazon is a rain forest and does not typically catch fire easily. These fires coincide with the ideal time to clear the forest in the dry season and open it up for use later in the year. While arson attacks against the Amazon have happened in previous years, fires in the Amazon have increased by 88% compared to the same time in a previous year, coinciding with Bolsonaro’s election and the rollback of protections. For exposing this, the scientist behind this expose,  was fired by Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro has claimed NGO’s have intentionally set these fires, to embarrass him and told other world leaders to stay out of Brazil’s “internal business.”

So what’s the big picture?

Jair Bolsonaro is an incredibly problematic far right politician who won the presidency of Brazil in part due high level corruption that undermined a political opponent who would have likely beaten him, and a variety of factors that allowed for fear, disinformation, and radicalization to take root in Brazil. His administration has attacked the indigenous people of the Amazon and rolled back the environmental protection of the Amazon rain forest so that the Amazon could be exploited economically. Emboldened by Bolsonaro’s administration, capitalists have intentionally set fire to the Amazon to clear it for economic exploitation.

The Amazon is not “burning” it’s under attack.

#AmazonArson

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

#TakeAKnee or #TakeASeat

Posted on October 4, 2017 by Speakfaithfully
kaep
A Reasonable, Non-Violent Protest, Grounded in American Freedoms and Rights
“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder…” “[I will continue my protest until the American flag] represents what it’s supposed to represent.” Colin Kaepernick.
Kaepernick has explicitly said this protest is about ongoing racial injustice, especially a highly visible lack of police accountability when they kill or abuse people of color. He is calling for our society to change to match our espoused values.

His protest is in keeping with the larger arc of what limited social and moral progress we have made as a nation. When our nation was founded, the freedoms and rights many believe set us apart from all other nations were by law or by practice limited to a select group of rich white landowning men. For marginalized groups in the U.S. the very freedoms and rights we are told should be a source of national identity and pride for all citizens have not even applied to us. The moral and social progress we have made in this country has most often come from marginalized groups fighting for these rights and freedoms to extend to them as well. They have essentially asked, “Can we be included in America too?”

Kaepernick’s desires are also neither extreme nor absurd desires. He is expressing a desire for our society to address systemic racial injustice and for police accountability. Is it problematic to call our nation to address persistent injustices? Is there any community in our country that would suggest that the police who patrol their neighborhoods should be above the law?

This protest is non-violent. Kaepernick is not doing violence to anyone, nor is he calling for violence to be done to anyone.

This protest is also not opposed to the freedoms and rights guaranteed to any citizen. In fact, standing firmly in the tradition of those before him, Kaepernick is asking that the very freedoms and rights the flag is supposed to represent be applied to all people. He has not disparaged our ideals, but called us to actually live up to them.

Predictably Unpopular

And just like those before him, this protest is unpopular. Just as the majority of citizens were against Dr. King’s marches and boycotts, so today Kaepernick’s protest is not well received especially among White people.

This is to be expected.  No protest is popular because by their nature it is going to be a group calling attention to something most people are comfortable ignoring.  More to the point, every time that marginalized groups have asked “Can we be included in America too?” there has been a majority of their fellow citizens (especially White, male, Christian, Conservative citizens) who simply and loudly said, “No!”

This isn’t about the flag…

Many of Kaepernick’s detractors have tried to make this protest about something that it is clearly not. They have tried to make it about respecting the flag and the flag code, even when this code doesn’t even apply, the code is violated by the NFL and is ignored routinely in our society. They have tried to make this about the veterans, who have never been on the receiving end of a disparaging remark by Kaepernick and who has actually engaged with and listened to veterans, leading to him kneeling instead of sitting. They have tried to make this about Trump, when it started before him. They have tried to make this about Black wealth, explicitly or implicitly saying that Black people who have money should be grateful for what they have received and silent on social issues.

The use of these and other deflections shows that many in the U.S.A. desperately want to get away from the central claim that Kaepernick is making in his protest: that racial injustice, especially in regards to policing, is an ongoing issue in the USA. But why?

…This is about us.

This claim is not about the moral merits of a flag, a symbol of our nation, our values and of us, it is a claim about the moral merits of us. This claim is saying we live in and abide by a society where systemic forms of racism persist and Black and Brown people are denied equal protection under the law. This claim implicates us. It requires a response from us. It requires that we consider our personal culpability or thoughts around the issues of race, justice, and America. For many, it is far easier to pretend this entire protest is something that it is not, and rabidly consume the words and comments of politicians and media mouthpieces who agree with these deflections, than to contemplate what this protest asks of us.

#TakeAKnee or #TakeASeat

Kaepernick’s claim, that racial injustice and unequal protection under the law exist in our society, invites us to choose a response. Broadly speaking I think there might be four general options people can choose.

We can ignore it: We can choose to ignore this whole situation and try to avoid it so we don’t have to think about it.  However, burying one’s head in the sand like a human ostrich doesn’t seem responsible and is increasingly difficult to do given our national conversation and media attention to this issue.

We can reject it, and attempt to claim he is factually wrong.: One could hear out Kaepernick’s claim, but claim that it is false. However, the arguments against this increasingly well-studied and publicly acknowledged reality, the arguments that we essentially live in a post-racial society, never stand up to scrutiny and are undermined by the wealth of evidence for Kaepernick’s claims. Furthermore, if one really wants to argue this point, they will almost inevitably forced to adopt racist arguments (ex: “Ethnic minorities are over-represented in prisons because they are more prone to commit crime so they get caught for it more; White people are genetically more law-abiding” “Ethnic minorities are poorer because they don’t understand how to generate wealth; White people are genetecially superior when it comes to wealth generation”).

We can accept it, and see it as the way things should be.: An alternative would be to accept Kaepernick’s claim but resist his call to change because we believe that racial injustice and unequal protection under the law are acceptable. However, people generally don’t want to go down this route because overt racism is unfashionable in the U.S.

We can accept it, and agree with his call to change: We can agree with Kaepernick’s claim, the evidence behind it, and agree that we, as a nation, are not living up to our values. This requires that we accept that we, as a society, need to change. This requires we reflect on if we are complicit in the unjust status quo, what we can do to help change it, and what we need to do differently tomorrow.

Which category does your response fall under?

So if your response to Kaepernick’s claims fall broadly within the last option please #TakeAKnee and stand in solidarity with him. If your response to Kaepernick’s protest is one of the first three, at least publicly own the decision so your community knows where you stand and can respond to you appropriately. If you are still trying to distract yourself and other people from Kaepernick’s claim by making this about Trump, the flag, or veterans, please just #TakeASeat until you are ready to deal with the elephant in America’s dining room that is race.

Posted in Culture, Politics, Race, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Obama’s Executive Action on Guns – Follow Up: What can be done to address issues with guns?

Posted on January 13, 2016 by Speakfaithfully

As I said in my previous post, I would like for the mass shootings in the U.S.A. to stop, and I would like for the overall decline in firearms violence in the U.S. to continue, if not accelerate. I would also like to see accidental deaths by firearms, suicide by firearms and other similar problems be addressed by our society. While I am a firearm owner, and I do not want to see civilian firearm ownership banned, I think *one part* of our society’s answer to these challenges can come in the form of sensible gun-legislation.

In my previous post I went through Obama’s Executive Actions on gun in detail and found that it was a mixed bag. The NRA and GOP would have you believe that Obama is coming for your guns to impose martial law, fanning the flames of hysteria to drive record gun sales. The Democrats and gun-control advocates would have you believe these actions will help end gun violence or at the very least be a first step towards it, when in fact some of these actions are vague, insufficient or will do nothing (in my estimation) to address issues with guns.

So what can be done to address issues with guns and what type of sensible gun legislation can be part of our response to issues with firearms?  I will address this question by breaking down the issues with gun into four basic categories: accidental death and injury, suicide, and gun crime.

1. Accidental Death and Injury: Every year there are tragic incidents involving firearms where individuals injury or kill themselves or others with firearms being handled improperly. There are at least two ways we can reduce this issue.

  • Increased firearm handling and storage knowledge for gun-owners: Many of these issues are rooted in people improperly handling firearms.  Gun owners need to take their decision to own a firearm very seriously. I fear we live in a culture where access to firearms goes far beyond those who come from communities and families with that encourage responsible gun culture. The individual must take firearms seriously and ensure sure they and everyone who could possibly access their gun, understands the fundamentals of firearms safety. I say this as someone who had access to firearms before anyone every sat me down and taught me the basics of gun safety. I could have easily injured myself and/or others. Perhaps legislation like California’s requirement that you demonstrate your familiarity with safe firearms handling before purchasing a handgun and similar legislation can be developed in other states.
  • Gun Safety Technology: We need to fund gun safety research. Specifically we need to develop technology that prevents anyone but the authorized user from firing the gun. Obama is pushing for this with DoD, DoJ, and DHS mandates. This has been developed in the past but widespread implementation was blocked by a combination of NRA lobbying efforts and fears about these safety features failing and keeping authorized users from using them in critical situations.  While I do not think we should mandate these safety features on all firearms I agree with Obama that we need to push past both of these barriers and at least make these safety features an option on the market.

2. Suicide: Roughly 2/3 of the firearms related deaths in the United States are from suicides. People struggling with suicidal ideation who have access to firearms are at great risk. Most suicide attempts involving firearms are successful and the decision and result are instant so a person cannot be talked down from it or rescued from it in many circumstances. There are a few things we can do to help reduce the number of suicides by firearms and suicides in general.

  • Increased Mental Health Awareness: Mental health issues, including depression, still carry a stigma. People refrain from talking about it, or refrain from seeking help, because of this issue. Suicide is especially stigmatized as it involves death and the choice to end ones own life which are especially difficult to talk about for a variety of reasons. Legislatively I think we can continue to fund effective outreach programs, especially in hard to reach communities, to help people better understand depression and suicidal ideation. The more people who understand depression and suicidal ideation, the more people who can recognize it in themselves, in their loved ones, and seek or encourage their loved ones to seek, professional help.
  • Legal Ways for Family/Friends to disarm individuals dealing with suicidal ideation: While people may take their own life in many was the specific danger access to firearms presents to those struggling with suicidal ideation can be better addressed. I think that California’s new law where family can go to a judge and seek to temporarily remove a person’s firearms from them to allow for psychological evaluation is a good thing that I hope to see replicated in other states. In a related way, legislation that keeps firearms out the hands of domestic abusers should be in every state as some of the firearms related suicide are actually murder-suicides. (Sidenote: In 2012 I was going through another battle with depression and was the closest I had ever come to committing suicide.  Knowing the specific dangers access to firearms represents, and realizing that I had begun to think about using my rifle to kill myself, I called my parents and had them take my gun and give it to a family member for safe keeping so I would not have access to it.  While I was clear-headed enough to recognize this issue, and certainly part of me still wanted to live not everyone who owns a firearm and is struggling with suicidal ideation will be at this place.  Giving the family a legal mechanism to disarm their loved ones will save lives.)
  • Universal Healthcare: Some people who are struggling with depression are not being treated because they lack access to mental health treatment.  Some people become suicidal because of physical health issues that could have been avoided or more effectively treated if they had regular access to medical care.  Universal healthcare is a solution to both of these issues and it needs to happen in the United States.

3. Crime: We lose roughly 10,000 people a year to homicides involving firearms.  While it should be noted that this is 0.0000314% of our national population, firearms related crimes are in decline, and murder rates are at a historic low, it would still be good to see firearms related crime continue to decrease. So what can be done?

  • Fight Gun Crime By Fighting Poverty And the Wealthy Elite: I am a rather firm believer that a lot of the crime, including gun-crime, in the United States is driven by poverty. There certainly will always be people who choose to do evil, and choose to do evil with firearms, and I do not believe poverty *causes* crime, but for many crime becomes a more viable or compulsory option as their practical options are limited by poverty and related issues. We need to work towards ending the intentional under-resourcing of specific areas and communities and fight back against the stranglehold wealthy individuals, interests, and groups have over our nation and the flow of its resources and prosperity.  Legislation, political action, union organizing and community organizing that can effectively reduce poverty and inequality will have the side benefit of reducing crime and firearms related crime. One major action we could take is close tax loopholes and subsidies for many major corporations and then redistribute that money to the poorest and most crime ridden communities in the U.S. If we invested the money every U.S. based corporation hides in offshore accounts, keeps in tax havens abroad, or dodges through loopholes (created into law by politicians they effectively own) we’d have a lot less poverty in the U.S. or at least would be able to reduce its impact on people.
  • End the Drug War: One particular problem driving up gun violence here (and in other countries) is the Drug War. Prohibiting specific substances creates an illegal economy that supplies a demand which doesn’t disappear when we make specific substances illegal. Many poor marginalized communities see a vicious cycle where “tough on crime laws” mark an individual for life and they have no other choice but to stay involved in this illegal economy they may only have ventured into out of economic necessity or environmental circumstance. Ending the Drug War, clearing all non-violent drug related convictions from people’s records, releasing all inmates currently detained on non-violent drug charges, reinstating the right of felons to vote, shifting towards a mental health perspective of addiction instead of criminalizing it (as Portugal has) and investing in our communities (in ways as mentioned above) will certainly work towards reducing gang violence which accounts for roughly 2,000 homicides a year and often involves firearms and drugs.

These are some of the basic steps and legislative actions we can work towards to help reduce accidental death and injury, suicides and crime involving firearms.  An astute reader would note that only a few of these suggestions involve legislation specific to guns. This is not an oversight on my part.

From the outset I hope I have made it clear that sensible gun-legislation can and should be one part of, but not the totality, of our efforts to reduce issues related to firearms. While the presence or use of firearms in all of these issues requires us to think of sensible gun-legislation as part of the problem, the connection these issues have to larger issues (such as mental health, poverty, crime, etc.) invite us to look beyond making new gun legislation as the only conceivable method to address these issues. So while we need to have more candid and sensible conversations about gun-legislation, that is free from self-serving misrepresented stats, the gross influence of lobbyists, and the emotional reactions fanned by politicians, we also need to have similar sensible conversations about a great many other things impacting our society.

Posted in Politics | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Obama’s Executive Action on Guns: A review by a gun-owner for sensible firearms legislation.

Posted on January 5, 2016 by Speakfaithfully

Introduction:

I would like for the mass shootings in the U.S.A. to stop, and I would like for the overall decline in firearms violence in the U.S. to continue, if not accelerate. I would also like to see accidental deaths by firearms, suicide by firearms and other similar problems be addressed by our society. While I am a firearm owner, and I do not want to see civilian firearm ownership banned, I think *one part* of our society’s answer to these challenges can come in the form of sensible gun-legislation.

But what do I mean by sensible gun-legislation? Currently I think three types of gun legislation:

  • Sensible gun legislation that is law: These are laws that strike the right balance between wanting to curb social problems with firearms (crime, suicide, accidental death, etc.) while respecting the Second Amendment. They force gun culture in the U.S. to be more responsible and I think that’s great. Example: In California you have to show that you know how to properly handle and store a handgun before you purchase it. 
  • Sensible gun legislation that isn’t law: There is sensible gun legislation that is not law. This often the result of NRA/Firearms manufacturers lobbying efforts, the fear of our government become repressive, or politicians pandering to the Right. Example: Why isn’t the above California law Federal/national?
  • Non-sense gun legislation that is law: There are gun laws that make no sense. Often they are the product of public outcry over especially heinous crimes involving firearms, that has been whipped up by media focus and political haymaking. This style of legislation makes us feel like we are “doing something” about firearms violence when we are not. They just inconvenience firearms owners or infringe upon the Second Amendment without justification. Example: In California it is illegal to own a traditionally set up AR-15 rifle. However, a Ruger Mini-14 ranch rifle, which almost identical in function and form but not cosmetically an “assault rifle” is legal. This makes no sense.  Additionally rifles, of any type, are rarely used in crimes. In 2011, only 3.7% of firearms homicides were committed with any sort of long rifle. While firearms crimes in California have fallen, and some attribute this to the tough legislation passed in California, I would suggest this is more just following national trends. 

What Obama is Proposing:

In response to a number of mass shooting and due to the lack of Congressional actions, Obama has announced a series of Executive Actions to Reduce Gun Violence and Make our Communities Safe. I want to summarize what I believe Obama is actually proposing and evaluate what is being proposed.

  1. Background Checks: Obama is requiring any “firearms dealer” regardless of if they conduct sales primarily at a store, a gun show or online to obtain an FFL license. This license would require them to perform background checks for all sales. Dealing in firearms and not having this license carries a jail sentence of five years and a $250,000 fine.While this would theoretically be used to punish people who are operating as firearms dealers without an FFL (and that’s fine by me) the language is worrying and the law redundant.

    In regards to the wording there is no set limit or clear guidelines in regards to who deemed to be “operating as a firearm dealer” provided by the government. It is even stated that people who have made one sale or even one or two guns have been charged in this manner.  To me this ends private firearms sales. Who in their right mind would sell a gun from their collection to a friend or to another person if they could later be charged with acting as a dealer without an FFL? I’m not saying this is necessarily a bad or good thing, I’m just saying this actions has a larger impact than what is technically stated.

    Furthermore legal online gun sales already have to be shipped to a licensed FFL dealer who runs the background check and then you can pick it up for them.  So what loophole is this actually closing?

    Additionally, while the background check system that FFLs are required to use has stopped ~2 millions firearms purchases to people who should not have them, according to the ATF a number of licensed FFL dealers are being used by firearms traffickers or in collusion with them. These firearms end up in the hands of criminals even though the backgrounds checks passed. What would stop new dealers from registering and doing the exact same thing? At least the process would put them under more scrutiny but the problem still remains.Finally, the actions includes putting a stop to a process where citizens apply to legally obtain NFA items by forming a trust or corporation. NFA items cover specific firearms (such as fully-automatic firearms, short barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns) and firearm-related items (such as suppressors). Normally you have to apply for them and get the signature of a Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) in your area and pay a tax stamp.  To avoid some of this hassles some have formed trusts or corporations to work around this or expedite the process.  This action closes that option but it is also notable that the ATF has removed the CLEO signature requirement which was a major impediment to many people and the reason this alternative path was used.  Additionally it should be noted registered NFA items are essentially *never* used in crime. Since 1934 there have been two crimes involving legally owned NFA weapons.  Overall this directive closes an alternative path to NFA ownership that is no longer needed and does not really impact firearms crime, suicide, or accidental discharge.

  2. Streamlining and reinforcing existing systems: A number of the Executive Actions included steps at streamlining and reinforcing current existing systems and laws.First, upgrades will be made to the background check system and an additional 230 FBI agents will be hired to add staffing for it to increase the speed of the background check system and make it available 24/7. Currently a firearms dealer can legally sell an individual a firearm if the background check does not come back in three days so technically an individual who shouldn’t have a firearm could purchase one if the system was too slow. It is unclear how many such purchases this streamlined system may prevent and how many of these purchase lead to firearms related issues.Additionally 200 ATF agents will be hired “to help enforce our gun laws.” This would bring the total number of employees to ~5,000 and the total number of agents to ~2,700. Part of this new added manpower will be used to track illegal online gun sales, including those occurring in the “dark net.”  While I’m not exactly sure how much impact additional agents will have on firearms issues I am glad the ATF is expanding to the “dark net.” This is an area where I think a lot of illegal guns sales could potentially happen in the future.Finally $4 million will be used to enhance the National Integrated Ballistics Information Network. This will centralize a lot of the processing of ballistic evidence from crimes so that a firearm used in previous crimes in different criminal jurisdictions can be connected.
  3. Domestic Violence:  The Attorney General has called for the renewing of domestic violence outreach efforts. Now domestic violence is a factor in firearms crimes, but this point is so vague I cannot even evaluate it. What programs are being renewed? Are the programs that are being renewed working? Who has access to these programs? The only clear part that I would agree with on principle is removing firearms from domestic violence offenders, a law we already have in California when and where a restraining order is in effect, but again, this is only encouraged and I’m not sure what other states have similar laws already on the books.
  4. Mental Health: The third point of Obama’s Executive Actions is centered on mental health, and this point is perhaps the most problematic to me.Before addressing the specific aims, I just have to say the inclusion of mental health in gun control laws appears to imply that the mentally ill are inherently violent and prone to gun violence. This is problematic and reinforces the stigma surrounding mental illness. Almost the exact opposite is actually true: the mentally ill are far more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators of it, a fact the White House even confusing admits to in its own press release. That being said, there are three moves these actions attempt to take.
    First, “The Administration is proposing a new $500 million investment to increase access to mental health care.” While any additional allocation of funds to mental health care in the U.S. is welcome, a one time investment of $500 million (nationally) falls far short of what is actually needed.  Mental health issues are expensive to treat in the current predatory and capitalistic healthcare system we have in the U.S. According to the APA mental health issues, “were one of the five most costly conditions in the United States in 2006 with expenditures at $57.5 billion.”  While a lot of suicides by firearms are the result of depression, it is unclear what other firearms issues these funds are designed to prevent.Second, the Social Security Administration will forward information on, “75,000 people each year who have a documented mental health issue, receive disability benefits, and are unable to manage those benefits because of their mental impairment, or who have been found by a state or federal court to be legally incompetent” to the appropriate authorities that will prevent them for owning firearms. While I agree there are people who should not own firearms, including those who due to mental impairment cannot be responsible gun owners, this is already a law and has been since 1968. This action means that more people will be reported to the background check system than previously, which is overall a good thing, but I cannot think this will have a significant impact on firearm issues.Third, the Administration is seeking to remove barriers created by HIPAA that would prevent mental health professionals from reporting relevant mental health issues to the appropriate authorities. While I agree with this on principle, and it appears the Administration struck a good balance between privacy and public safety on this issue, I again do not see this making a large impact. That’s just my suspicion and I would like to see how many firearms issues would have been prevented if a personal dealing with mental illness, that was in treatment, could have been reported before they legally purchased a firearm and committed their crime or committed suicide.
  5. Gun Safety Technology: The President is directing the DoD, the DoJ, and the DHS to spearhead the research into and adoption of gun-safe technology, “that would reduce the frequency of accidental discharge or unauthorized use of firearms, and improve the tracing of lost or stolen guns.” There are numerous problems this directive is attempting to address and issues I have with this directive.First, there is the issue of accidental discharge. If there was a way to keep guns from going off accidentally I would love to see that developed and implemented. This increases gun safety by hopefully eliminating or significantly reducing death and injury caused by accidental discharge.  That being said no gun will ever be 100% safe so shooter training and proper firearms ownership, storage, and handling can never be stressed enough.Second, there is the issue of stolen guns.  Some firearm crimes involve stolen firearms. If a stolen iPhone can be tracked, why not a stolen firearm?  While tagging every firearm with a unique trackable signature of some type so Law Enforcement could locate a stolen firearm once it is reported as stolen, makes perfect sense it also raise concerns. Giving the Government the ability to know exactly where every firearm is in the United States is a great power and one that could be abused.Third, if there was a way to make sure only an authorized user could use a specific firearm that would be great for law enforcement. Law enforcement officers are occasionally killed with their own firearm, and if their firearm would only work in their hand, this would solve that issue.  The same technology could be used by civilians who are concerned about being disarmed or those with small children.

Conclusion:

Overall I feel like these Executive Actions are a mixed bag but generally leave me underwhelmed.  There are actions that enhance or reinforce existing sensible gun legislation (such as background checks), but there are also non-sense gun legislation that I fear will do little to “Reduce Gun Violence and Make Our Communities Safe” and simply inconvenience or needlessly restrict law abiding citizens (such as closing the NFA “loophole” and investing a token amount into mental health access).

However, it does not appear to me that any of these new actions would have prevented any of the recent mass shootings so I do not expect them to prevent similar ones from happening in the future. Nor do I see anything that I would think would markedly hasten the general decline in firearms violence that already exists.

While I’m not a member or supporter of the NRA it is telling that this assessment was essentially shared by the NRA, for whom one spokesperson quipped, “This is it? This is what they’ve been hyping for how long now? This is the proposal they’ve spent seven years putting together? They’re not really doing anything,” adding that at first glance the proposals appeared to be, “surprisingly thin.”

In my next post I’ll write more about other concrete steps we might take or additional sensible gun-legislation that we could think about to address the issues related to private firearms ownership.

Posted in Politics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Don’t Call White Supremacy a Mental Illness

Posted on June 24, 2015 by Speakfaithfully

MI 1

[Sidenote: This is my first blog post in a very long time.  Sometime after #Ferguson I just stopped writing. I was at a loss for words on the many pressing topics facing the world. To be honest I began to seriously question if we can even make the world a better place at this point, so was it really worth writing about issues that aren’t going to change? For a small number of reasons I’ve started writing again.]

Immediately after the terrorist attack in Charleston, before the shooter was even in custody, people were quick to suggest that shooter was either mentally ill, motivated by white supremacy, or some combination of the two. As the dust settled it became rather abundantly clear that the killer was motivated by white supremacist ideology.

Some joked, as I have in the past, that white supremacy could or should be classified as a mental illness. The inference is that someone must be crazy to believe in white supremacy. While I couldn’t help but smirk at the suggestion, recently I have come to believe that we should not suggest white supremacy could or should be seen as a mental illness as it combines the two concepts and this is very problematic. I say this for two main reasons.

First, combining white supremacy with mental illness, especially in the context of hate crimes and terrorist attacks, adds to the stigma surrounding mental illness.

White supremacy motivates and sustains all kinds of violence,s injustice and evil in the world. Some of these injustices, like the prison industrial complex, enjoy widespread acceptance.  Some of these injustices, such as the terrorist attack in Charleston, are widely condemned. Either way it is a source and force of evil in the world, and one that still operates today.

When we associate mental illness with white supremacy, and some of the more glaring crimes and atrocities it motivates, we encourage the mistaken belief that people dealing with mental illnesses are a crime just waiting to happen. The mentally ill in general become seen as one breakdown away from lashing out, perhaps lethally. This adds to one of the main challenges facing mental health today: the stigma surrounding it.

People are generally very ill informed about mental health and where ignorance exists, assumptions, myth and fears grow like weeds. This all fuels a stigma around mental health issues that adds to the difficulty of addressing them. Because of this stigma people struggling with mental health issues fear seeking professional help because they do not want to be labeled or seen as “crazy.” Because of this stigma people who are dealing with mental health issues in their family do not seek help or knowledge because they wrongfully feel shame or fear community scrutiny and judgment.

While it is true that in some mass shootings and other crimes mental illness has proven to be a factor or even the primary factor in the situation, overall those struggling with mental illness are far more likely to be victims of crimes than perpetrators of crime.

A friend of mine, Kevin Kurian, a PhD candidate in Clinical Psychology, pointed this out recently with some sources for those that are curious:

As you watch the news, please consider the following…
Fact: “Specifically, 3%, 4% and 10% of crimes were related directly to symptoms of depression, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder, respectively.” (Peterson et al., 2014)
Fact: You are almost 3 times more likely to be a victim of a crime if you have schizophrenia. (Khalifeh et al., 2015).

Second, just as importantly, conflating white supremacy with mental illness helps us (by this I mean primarily, but not exclusively, white people) evade our shared responsibility to deal with white supremacy in 2015.

The existence of mental illness is a fact of life. What I mean by this is that as far back as we can look into recorded history it appears humans have experienced and struggled with what we would now identify as mental illness. Likewise, as far as we may look into the foreseeable future, it appears mental illness will impact some people despite our increased understanding of them and our development of treatments for some mental illnesses. We can say with confidence, “Some members of our society do and will experience mental illness” just as surely as we can say “Some members of our society do and will experience physical illness.” While we may mitigate the negative impact of some mental illnesses, effectively treat others, or possibly even cure some, mental illness is not going away.

When we suggest white supremacy is a mental illness, jokingly or not, we put white supremacy in that same category. This is a subtle but deeply problematic shift. When white supremacy is understood in the same way as mental illness is understood, it is seen as a fact of life that we have little influence over. The unjust systems, atrocities and evils white supremacy continues to sustain become seen as an unfortunate but unavoidable tragedies. The mass-murder that took the life of nine Black people in a church is understood to be a tragic event, not unlike death caused by a forest fire, or an outbreak of a lethal illness.

 

Consequently, this shift enables people to evade responsibility for challenging white supremacy. When white supremacy is seen as a fact of life, we cannot really end it, only perhaps mitigate the worst of its consequences. Therefore we ultimately bear little or no responsibility for its ongoing carnage and certainly no responsibility in stopping it. For who can be held responsible for ending something that cannot be ended?

The reality is white supremacy is not an unchangeable fact of life like mental illness. There was a time in history, not to long ago, that white supremacy did not exist. The concept of “white people” did not even exist a few centuries back. The beliefs that make up white supremacy and institutions built around white supremacy were made by humans and can be unmade by humans if we want to really grapple with it.

The mass murder in Charleston was not a tragedy caused a mental illness we could have done little to nothing about.  The mass murder in Charleston was an ideologically motivated terrorist attack that was inspired by a lot of white supremacist narratives that enjoy mainstream support. Understanding this situation rightly is certainly a lot more uncomfortable, and certainly implicates a lot more people than one lone gunman, perhaps even ourselves, but understanding it rightly is necessary if we really want to make any progress when it comes to addressing white supremacy as it exists today.

Posted in Politics, Race | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Episode 8: Cole Dutter and the California Drought and California Agriculture

Posted on October 19, 2014 by Speakfaithfully

On today’s episode we will be discussing the the California drought and its impact on and relationship to California agriculture.

Episode 8 – Episode 8 – Cole Dutter and the California Drought and California Agriculture.

Beyond this podcast I would encourage those concerned about this drought to consider the fact that this is a much smaller part of a global problem regarding the desertification of the world and the increasing scarcity and rarity of potable drinking water.

For more on this topic, check out the documentary film Blue Gold, which is free to watch on Youtube and linked below.

Thanks for listening, I hope you enjoyed today’s episode. Feel free to email me any questions, comments or concerns at speakfaithfully@gmail.com

-SF

Posted in Podcast | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Episode 7: Damian Webster and the Two Row Wampum

Posted on September 28, 2014 by Speakfaithfully

damian webster

 

On today’s episode we will be discussing the Two Row Wampum with Damian Webster.

Episode 7 – Damian Webster and the Two Row

Thanks for listening, I hope you enjoyed today’s episode. Feel free to email me any questions, comments or concerns at speakfaithfully@gmail.com

-SF

Posted in Podcast | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Gaza, Blaming the Victim, and Violent Resistance

Posted on August 11, 2014 by Speakfaithfully
blame_hamas_by_latuff2

Credit: Carlos Latuff

Blaming the Victim

During the most recent bombings and incursion into Gaza, many in Israel and around the world blamed Palestinians, especially and particularly Hamas, for the violence Palestinians have been suffering at the hands of Israel. People quite literally blamed the victim, suggesting Israel’s hand was being forced, and the massive disproportionate violence it unleashed in the last several weeks was something it regrettably had to do in order to stop Hamas. The rationale was that if only Hamas had never fired any rockets, or would cease firing rockets, or would never have built any tunnels, or had never stockpiled weapons, or had never kidnapped and killed the three Israeli teens, there would be no bombings or incursions and the regrettable but unavoidable collateral damage. Naftali Bennett, an Israeli minister, certainly employed this train of thinking when he accused Hamas of “committing mass-self-genocide.” The argument that Hamas intentionally incurs this violence upon themselves in order to drive up civilian casualties and win a public relations victory against Israel is also built upon this notion.

Nevermind the fact that it was admitted (but later retracted) by an Israeli official that Hamas wasn’t responsible for the kidnapping of the Jewish youths that sparked this all off, nevermind the fact that the Israeli government knew the youths were dead but still raided Palestinian communities which inflamed tensions, nevermind the fact that Israel is laying waste to entire neighborhoods, nevermind the fact that the UN Goldstone report found it was Israeli, not Hamas, that used Palestinians as human shields, nevermind the fact that the larger systemic violence, dehumanization and humiliation of Palestinians pre-dates and post-dates Hamas’ existence, (etc. etc. etc.), this line of thinking is illogical and morally abhorrent to me.

Blaming the violence of oppression on violent resistance to oppression exonerates the oppressor, demonizes the victims of oppression and ultimately is a recipe for perpetual conflict and escalation. The ultimate cause of this conflict is settler colonialism; foreigners came into Palestine and asserted themselves as the rightful owners and sovereigns of the land through force, a situation that has had to be maintained through systemic violence and injustice against Palestinians. So, to paraphrase Miko Peled and others: violent Palestinian resistance is in response to much more massive violent Israeli oppression; if Israel wants Palestinian violence to stop, it needs to stop its violence against Palestinians, end the siege of Gaza and establish an inclusive democracy and justice in its nation. Blaming Palestinians or Hamas for the violence of Israel only serves those who want to see the conflict continue and the state of Israel to continue following its present course of increasing right wing extremism.

Lessons from Black Liberation

When various Israeli media outlets, spokespeople, rabbis, and politicians employed this argument, blaming Palestinians for casualties Israel has inflicted, and when various U.S. media outlets, spokespeople, pastors and politicians repeated these arguments, all I could think about was an interview I had seen of Angela Davis. Take a few minutes and watch this interview, part of footage filmed by a Swedish TV crew that was recently discovered and featured in the Black Power Mixtape.

While Davis was speaking from the context of black liberation and resistance to the systemic white supremacy in the United States, I believe this interview touches on a few points that I think are pertinent to any assessment of the use of violence by the Palestinian resistance that’s not hasbara.

First, if violence can be justified whose violence justifiable?

When asked if black liberation might be pursued through violence Davis’ words first point us to consider the underlying merits of the principles and goals that are being pursued by violent or non-violent means. In the grand scheme of things the Palestinians are pursuing a just cause whereas Israel’s overall goals appear to be maintaining a Jewish-Supremacist state built upon ethnic cleansing, land theft and Zionism. If there is any “moral” violence happening within that context it is coming from the Palestinian resistance, not Israel.

Second, if violence is used as a form of self-defense, whose violence is a form of self-defense?

Later, Davis’ words also bring up the concept of violent resistance as a necessary form of self-defense that should be expected when people are suffering from massive systemic violence. Since at least the Nakba, Israel has created and maintained its state through the violence against Palestinians in one form or another, regardless of if the Palestinians were violent or not. In this context it would be absurd to demand or expect no violent resistance from Palestinians.  In this context violent resistance is self defense. Even though violent resistance to a system of oppression like this often takes the form of asymmetrical warfare/guerrilla warfare that occupiers and their allies label as terrorism even the UN has affirmed “the legitimacy of the peoples’ struggle for liberation form colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation by all available means, including armed struggle.” (Emphasis added.)

Third, if all violence is to be condemned and rejected (regardless of context) what violence should be the focus of this criticism and dismantled first?

Some Palestinians and some supporters of Palestine may be uncomfortable or unable to affirm every type or manifestation of violence utilized by Palestinians in their self-defense. Some may see certain types of violence as immoral (regardless of context), counter-productive politically or militarily in the long run, or are committed to non-violent methods for whatever reason. (I am one such person due to my faith and my allegiance to the teachings of Jesus.)

How can such persons work towards Palestinian liberation, affirm the Palestinian right to self-defense, recognize some Palestinians lament the censure of their right to self-defense by their allies, and yet to be true to themselves and their own principles? On this tension I believe Davis’ interview can also be instructive.

In Davis’ day there were white and black people who condemned all violence, saw violence as counter-productive, and/or feared the violence might directly impact them. When the Swedish TV crew asked Davis about the possibility of violence being used within the struggle for black liberation, it was a question born out of this concern regarding the use of violence.  

Davis responded to this question by appropriately situating this question within the context of the extreme forms of violence black people had endured at the hands of the State and the hands of white supremacists.

The message of this response I think was clear. People were wringing their hands about the possibility of violence being used within the struggle for black liberation but had been silent as violence against black people had raged unchecked for centuries. If people were categorically against violence, why were they focusing on the relatively small violence coming from the black resistance, instead of interrogating the much more deadly, much more widespread, and much more unjust violence that was being used by the State and white supremacists?

Put another way, if a person believes all violence is counter-productive or immoral and as such all violence deserves to be critiqued, condemned and dismantled, the source of the greatest and most unjust violence should be their primary concern.

Within the context of Palestine it is clear that the violence of the State of Israel should be the chief and primary concern of anyone categorically against violence. The death toll between Palestinians civilians and Israeli civilians incurred during Protective Edge underscores this point. Even with Iron Dome possibly not working at all, Israeli lost two civilians as Palestine lost 1,504, billions in infrastructure, and a humanitarian crisis that will take years to recover from, even if the siege is lifted.

To wring our hands about violence coming from the Palestinian resistance while diverting attention away from the violence coming from the State of Israel, or even equally focusing our attention, is to fall into a trap that ultimately serves the State of Israel.

While people such as myself may have to utter a word of censure to Hamas’ use of unguided rockets against civilian areas or similar behavior, we should save the lion’s share of our moral outrage and our efforts to dismantle systemic violence for the State of Israel.

Posted in Politics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Second Great Awakening and the Emptiness of Evangelicalism

Posted on July 30, 2014 by Speakfaithfully

Evangelicalism in the United States, and Christianity in the United States in general, has many problems. One only need to compare what is acceptable in Evangelical culture to the teachings of Jesus to see some of the more obvious conflicts. These problems go beyond the failings of individual leaders or the simple fact that human frailty constrains our ability to live out our espoused ideals. To me, Evangelicalism is empty; it is an easily distracted civil religion, led by charismatic leaders who may or may not follow Jesus’ teachings, that is easily co-opted by other agendas and ideologies.  I would argue that a lot of these problems stem from structural, theological and systemic issues at the foundation of Evangelicalism, some of which started during the Second Great Awakening. To explore this issue a bit more, after briefly introducing what the Second Great Awakening was, I want to focus on three problems within Evangelicalism that have come from this time: a focus on theatrics and technique, a focus on charisma, and the proliferation of a shallow Gospel.

What was the Second Great Awakening?

The Second Great Awakening was a second Christian religious revival in the United States that started in the late 18th century and continued into the early 19th century. This Second Great Awakening was actually a number of different revivals that unfolded in many different geographical areas, in many different denominations, but were nonetheless theologically and practically very similar. Revivalists in the cities and the frontiers hosted revival meetings that presented the Gospel to thousands of people at a time. Often these revivals events unfolded over the course of several days before moving onto the next area. During this time millions converted to Evangelical denominations causing a dramatic rise in their membership. Christianity in the U.S. still bears the impact of these movements. Today roughly one fifth of the U.S. identifies as a “born again,” evangelical Christian, direct theological and ideological descendants from this time.

While there are arguably some positive or progressive developments from this era, I want to turn to the three problems I think were initiated in this era and are still with Evangelicalism today.

A Focus on Theatrics and Technique

GSTS69420 VII-3

A depiction of a typical revival camp meeting on the Frontier.

The revivals of the Second Great Awakening were as much theater as they were preaching or teaching. The revivalists of this time recognized the importance of presentation, technique and entertainment to their endeavors and quickly incorporated them into their revivals. Everywhere a revival went, a theater like stage (such as the one depicted in the drawing above) was present. Plays, lighting, music and other methods started being used to cultivate an environment ripe with emotionalism and excitement to foster conversions. This was perhaps especially effective in the frontier revivals, where the remote location meant any large gathering of people would bear the promise of excitement far beyond what the area normally saw.

This begs the question if the revivals were the work of the Spirit or the work of man and emotional manipulation. Even in their day some revivalists worried conversions were being manufactured through the methods revivalists were using, not through a true conversion brought on by a genuine response to hearing the Gospel. The revivalist Nettleton, in worrying over the agency of God in the Second Great Awakening wrote, “Should a revival be desired, the machinery would go into gear and it would be created through sheer willpower and method.”

The practice of using theatrics and technique to cultivate a specific response from the congregation never left Evangelicalism. It can be found at large mass rallies and contemporary revivals but also in your average Sunday service. Walk into any Protestant church in the United States and they will probably have a designated stage with at least a modest lighting and sound system. Some churches have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on lighting and sound systems that rival local theaters and cinemas. This theatrical apparatus is used to foster an environment of entertainment and emotionalism, ripe for religious experience. It is any surprise some hold a consumer attitude towards church attendance, where they attend churches so long as that church can provide the spiritual experience they are looking to consume or enjoy?

A Focus on Charisma

broadway tabernacle 2

The Brooklyn Tabernacle, created for Charles G. Finney, was either the first or the forerunner of the megachurch in the U.S.

The Second Great Awakening also rather quickly became centered around personalities. As the revivals unfolded a handful of specific revivalists became incredibly well known. Soon lecture halls and tents were erected specifically so that these famous revivalists could be heard and enthralled by as many people as possible, hopefully leading to a revival in the area. The creation of the Brooklyn Tabernacle (pictured above), built so that thousands of people could hear Charles G. Finney speak at one time, is one such example of this.

In the environment of the revivals it was charismatic leaders with strong voices, handsome faces, and winsome personalities who won the most converts, received the most attention, and gained the most sizable following. This led to a situation where personal charisma become the most prized trait in a Christian leader. Education, character, or knowledge of and allegiance to the teachings of Jesus, became afterthoughts to a leader’s ability to win and keep a cult-following through personality alone. For example while Nettleton expressed his worried that the revivals were not authentic and were being manufactured, Finney responded by basically saying, “Well it works.” History has shown that the unconcerned Finney is remembered by many while Nettleton is essentially forgotten.

This preference for charisma has never left Evangelicalism. In her piece The Line Between a Heretic and a Prophet is Thin, Suey Park, stated that “What I didn’t realize was how much white evangelical Christians would cherish this skill [the ability to perform and be liked]; the church often values charisma over character.” This Evangelical preference for charisma over character is not something new, and if anything it has heightened. Evangelicalism is today essentially captivate to super-apostles who write books, run mega churches, go on speaking circuits and launch movements, whose success is due more to their personality than any other aspect of their life or faith.

A Shallow Gospel, and Room for Other Ideologies

Most importantly the Second Great Awakening sparked the proliferation of a very shallow Gospel.

The revivalists employed an incredibly simple and short Gospel in their work. It went was something like this:

Humanity is sinful and deserves eternal punishment. To forgive us, God sent his only son Jesus to die for our sins. To get into Heaven and avoid going to Hell, a person has to pray to accept Jesus as their Lord and savior.

I call this Gospel the Evangecube Gospel, or the Heaven’s Gates Hell’s Flames Gospel after some more contemporary methods used to share this same Gospel. When combined with charismatic leaders using theatrics and techniques to stir up emotionalism, it was (and is) wildly successful at winning converts.

The problem is then that these newly minted followers of Jesus had a faith based on a dubious spiritual experience that was grounded in an understanding of the Gospel that is either woefully incomplete or an altogether false representation of the Gospel.

Even if accepted as the Gospel message, it must be admitted the Gospel of the revivalists is a very shallow or narrow Gospel that omits much of the scriptural story. This Gospel is devoid of any connection to or even mention of the history of Israel. This Gospel is devoid of any of Jesus’ teachings that He would have His followers embody and live out. This Gospel cannot be reconciled with the historical and cultural context within which it supposedly originated. While many verse-bites allegedly support this Gospel (*glares at John 3:16*), it cannot be reconciled with a broader reading of scripture. Ultimately this Gospel is about assuring a person of their individual salvation and not much else.

This shallow Gospel leaves a lot of room for other ideologies to creep into the lives of believers. This has produced a situation where people claim to be Christian followers of Jesus, and perhaps even identify their faith as the central aspect of their identity, who live their lives according to other ideologies, many of which conflict with the teachings of Jesus.

As history has progressed other ideologies have indeed taken root within American Evangelicalism, to the point where they eclipse the actual teachings of Jesus. Nationalism has crept in, allowing for followers of Jesus to violate Jesus’ teachings on non-violence without concern. Consumerism, capitalism and materialism has crept in, allowing for followers of Jesus to violate Jesus’ teachings on wealth. The pursuit of the American Dream has crept in, allowing followers of Jesus to pursue the well-being of their family while ignoring the plight of all others, despite Jesus’ teachings on justice and social welfare.

What does this all mean?

The Second Great Awakening set the evolutionary trajectory of Evangelical Christianity for decades to come, if only because of the sheer amount of people these revivals won to the Evangelical movement. A focus on theatrics and technique to craft an emotional/spiritual experience, the focus on charisma, and the proliferation of a shallow Gospel are three main aspects of Evangelical culture and theology that come from this era. Of these, the proliferation of the shallow Gospel is perhaps the most problematic. Because the Evangelical Gospel is so thin, it barely conflicts with other ideologies, so long as these other ideologies do not present an alternative pathway to personal salvation. This created room for other ideologies to creep in and even dominate Evangelical culture and theology, without anyone realizing how inappropriate these ideologies are for followers of Jesus. If this issue is to be addressed, the core definition of the Gospel in Evangelicalism must be addressed. Anything less will probably be as fruitful as polishing the brass on the Titanic.

 

Posted in Christianity | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Episode 6: Christine Apa and the 24 Foundation

Posted on July 22, 2014 by Speakfaithfully

christine apa

On today’s episode we will be discussing the 24 Foundation (www.24foundation.org) and their work to help people heal through art with their founder and CEO, Christine Apa.

Episode 6: Christine Apa and the 24 Foundation

Thanks for listening, I hope you enjoyed today’s episode and feel free to email me any questions, comments or concerns at speakfaithfully@gmail.com

-SF

Posted in Podcast | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment