Save Baby Aaliyah - Scam or Reality? Topic: News, politics and Activism
Baby Aaliyah - Fact or Fiction?
Baby Aaliyah - Update
..
Although I do believe that the mother (Connie Bedwell) and her family are genuinely convinced that Aaliyah is being abused, I do not feel comfortable of placing any judgment of the guilt or innocence on the father at this time. There is simply not enough information/evidence available to the casual observer through online resources (from my point of view) to form an educated opinion about this case, as of yet.
I will provide the links of the resources that I have both read and listened to, so that the reader can decide for his/herself.
Articles by Simon and Jan Barrett of BNN (First to current):
ISU Student Found... Topic: News, politics and Activism
Indiana State University student, Gerald Smith, was found at around 7:00 pm. His body had travelled roughly 57 miles down the Wabash river from Terre Haute Indiana to Vincennes Indiana.
His parents were notified at around 9:00 pm.
Police are still investigating this case, and are still looking for the man and woman who spoke to Smith and their gold Toyota Camry or similar vehicle.
Because I have a son who is soon to be attending his first year of college in the fall, this case caught my attention from the very beginning.
I saw a news interview with Gerald Smith's mother, Robin Hill, on the internet, and my heart just broke for her.
She was scheduled to accept his diploma in his honor tonight at the ISU commencement ceremony at the campus, the day before Mother's Day. However, in wake of this unfortunate tragedy, The university will award Smith his diploma posthumously.
Gerald Smith, 22, was an insurance and risk management major from Avon Indiana.
Gerald Smith has been Found.
WTHI TV News 10 - Gerald Smith Found
The family of Gerald Smith is in our hearts and thoughts this Mother's Day weekend.
ISU student missing - Gerald Smith Jr. Topic: News, politics and Activism
Gerald Smith Jr., a Senior at Indiana State University in Terre Haute Indiana, went missing last Friday (05/01/09).
Gerald is 22 years old, 5 feet 7 inches tall, approximately 160 pounds, light to medium brown hair - cut short, brown eyes and has a light shadowed beard.
He was seen at a local bar called "Ballyhoo", and was escorted out that establishment around midnight by a bouncer.
A witness has come forward to say that they had seen a man fitting Gerald's description talking with a couple (a man and a woman) who were in a gold Toyota Camry or similar vehicle after he left Ballyhoo, and that after a brief conversation they all went their separate ways.
University Police are continuing their search for the couple, the vehicle and searching the Wabash river as photos on the web seem to indicate that he was seen near a bridge at the river's location.
If you have any information or tips that would help in this case, I urge you to contact ISU Public Safety@812-237-5555 or Crimestoppers@812-238-STOP.
Donations to the reward fund by the ISU Foundation can be made by calling: 812-237-3732
Ken and I have always been political minded people, and though we agree on most issues, occasionally we do find ourselves on different sides. Unfortunately for Ken, we often find ourselves debating when he would rather be sleeping because he has work the next morning, but I'll take whatever edge I can get (grins evilly).
Last night, Ken and I watched a video on "YouTube" from the RutherfordInstitute's Channel on the lack of free speech for young people in the school system. Here is the video:
Because Ken and I feel very strongly about constitutional rights, I was surprised to find how different our point of views were on this topic.
Before beginning to share my opinion about the stance Mr. Whitehead takes on the first amendment, I want to talk briefly about proselytizing.
All of us have, at one time or another, found ourselves at the other end of a conversation that usually starts with something akin to "Have you accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal savior?" and eventually leads to "burning in hell". I admit, that as a Pagan, my teeth are on edge when I find myself in this situation as I have no desire or motivation to turn my back on what I believe in, no matter what scare tactics are used against me. Depending on my mood or their attitude, I am either polite in expressing this, or down right rude.
Christians and those who follow similar religious beliefs have a right to tell me their opinion about their God, his associates, and his book because they have the right to free speech. A right that is guaranteed and protected by the Constitution. On the other side of the coin, I too have the right of free speech and can tell them my opinion about their religion and the evident pompous hypocrisy that I feel exists within their churches.
Now back to the video.
Where Ken and I found we had a difference of opinion was at around 2:47 seconds in the video where Mr. Whitehead discusses an incident that happened at a school sponsored public assembly, more specifically at a commencement ceremony, involving a student named Britney McColm in which her school asked her to give a speech about what was important to her to her fellow classmates.
Before the planned event, students who were to address the assembly were asked to submit their speech to the education board. When they saw the word "the Lord" and other spirituality based dialogue, they edited out those portions and she was told that she could not discuss her religious beliefs in her speech.
Aware of her first amendment rights, she ignored the education board the night of commencement and the moment she uttered the words "the Lord" her microphone was immediately shut off by one of the school faculty members and she was not allowed to continue.
Ken, much like I imagine many Pagans and Heathens, has the opinion that the school had a right and should have censored Ms. McColm. He believes that religious ideals have no place at a school sponsored event, most especially in regards to public schools which are considered government institutions. The word "government" being the key in that sentence since the first amendment also guarantees that government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" (see also the "Establishment Clause"). Hence the reason that religion is neither endorsed nor taught in public schools.
However, the way things have been rewritten in history, this portion of the first amendment has become muddied in my opinion and can fall into a sort of grey area. Most evidentally in the re-wording of the "Pledge of Allegiance" in the 1950s to include "under God" after "one nation" and the addition of "In God we trust" on our national monies and now on license plates here in the state of Indiana.
How can government claim that it prohibits the creation of a national religion through the first amendment and yet let Christian religions have such strong influences in national policies created by government officials, our national pledge, and monies circulated the the government body of the United States Treasury? I'm sure political intimidation and sizable monetary donations/endorsements had a great deal to do with it. It doesn't take a genius to figure out. But, I'm rambling, so let's get back to the topic of Ms. McColm's commencement speech.
My position is this: So long as the speech was about how her spirituality has influenced her personally in the choices she's made in what direction to follow in regards to her education and not a sermon to her fellow students proselytizing that they should give themselves over to the God that she believes in, I don't see a need for censorship.
So what if she believes that the God she follows guided her to make the right choices for her in her life? Don't we Pagans feel that our many deities have watched out for us in times of adversity?
I find it amazing sometimes that most of us who fall under the category of "Pagan" have no difficulty accepting and embracing our own spiritual differences in beliefs, deities, or culture (I mean, let's face it, no two Pagans/Heathens are completely alike), and yet become so adversarial when it comes to Christians and there sets of beliefs. Whatever happened to the concept of "Namaste" which loosely means that "the divine in me, recognizes the divine in you"?
Yes, it is monumentally annoying to be preached at by a Fundamentalist/Evangelical Christian about God, Jesus Christ and their often over dramatic concern of the damnation of my mortal soul and the assumption that I am ignorant of the teachings of the bible. Believe me, there are much more productive uses of my time. But where is the harm? What does it hurt, besides maybe my ears, figuratively speaking?
We have become so lost in the sea of "political correctness" that we now risk drowning, in my opinion.
Hearing the words "God", "Lord", "Jesus Christ", "Bible", "Devil", and "Hell" will not shatter anyone into a million pieces. They're just words. They don't have that power. I don't condemn these words or fear that they will seductively influence me to change the course of my life either spiritually or intellectually. No word, verse or individual has the power to change what I believe. The only one with the power to change what I believe, is me.
Any Pagan or Heathen that has a fear that anyone proclaiming to be Christian has the power to influence what they personally believe when they proselytize, doesn't have faith in or an emotional connection to their chosen path or spirituality to begin with.
I don't believe that there is anything wrong in any individual expressing to those around him/her what has personally influenced them to stay straight and true to themselves; be it religion, spirituality, a deity, a person, a motto, a book, a movie, or even a song. If it has positively effected their lives and made them happier people for it, why shouldn't they share it or talk about it with others? I can celebrate that they have found a path that gives their life a sense of fulfillment and peace, and can do so even if their path is different from my own, without feeling threatened.
Yes, yes, I know. I'm a hippy. I probably always will be. I make no apologies.
Finally, I want to discuss the constitutionality of the speech Ms. McColm was denied in giving at a school sponsored event, since that is what is really at the heart of things.
Although she attended a public high school which is a governmental institution or entity and the commencement ceremony falls into the realm of a school sponsored event, Ms. McColm's first amendment right of free speech was unequivocally violated.
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was put into place to prevent our government from recognizing any one religion as our country's national religion. The clause is as follows:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
James Madison's early draft of the amendment addresses the issue further in saying, quote:
"The Civil Rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, nor on any pretext infringed. No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases."
Due to the fact that public schools are governmental entities, the Supreme Court in 1962 (Engel v. Vitale) supported banning prayer in classrooms, and prohibiting the teaching of religious beliefs as it constituted governmental endorsement of religion.
A presiding judge, Hugo black, who supported the ban wrote:
“… the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government."
To put it bluntly; public school teachers and faculty are considered representatives of a governmental institution. As such, they cannot lead students in prayer, or teach the beliefs or ideals of a specific religion.
However, neither the Supreme Court's 1962 decision nor the Establishment Clause can be attached to students attending public schools as they are not governmental representatives/employees.
Therefore, when Ms. McColm attempted to give her speech in which she uttered the words "the Lord" at her commencement, she was not violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and had every right to execute her right of free speech guaranteed by that same amendment.
So then it becomes a matter of what is or isn't "appropriate". I hate subjective arguments.
Had the microphone been turned off after some kind vulgar obscenity like perhaps an "f-bomb", after a personal attack against an individual or group (religious or non-religious) motivated by racism, homophobia, hatred or ignorance, or after some other type of hate mongering/divisive espoused opinion, I wouldn't protest the school's decision. That kind of speech is unarguably inappropriate for a commencement speech.
However, that's not what happened here. She was censored because she said two words that revealed that there were Christian overtones to her speech that might possibly offend someone who doesn't share the same philosophy or ideology as the Christian church.
Was this inappropriate for me personally, as a Pagan? Hell no. Unless the words "may you smite down the non-believers into the bowels of hell to burn forever!" came after the words "my Lord", would I give a damn, to be brutally honest.
If Ms. McColm had proselytized her beliefs during her speech and I had been in attendance, you can be damn sure I would have expressed my disagreement to her personally once the ceremony was concluded. After all, I too have the right of free speech. I have absolutely no problem in telling a bible-thumper why I have no interest in his God or his religion and I have no problem in turning my back and walking away from someone that asks me "Have you been saved?". I have that right, and he has the right to speak freely. If you take away that right, however, then I have a problem.
This is sure to be an unpopular view, given that I am a Pagan defending the rights of a young Christian. But, I stand by my opinion and the rights guaranteed to all under the Constitution.
Octo-Media Whore & The Ryan Moats Tragedy. Topic: News, politics and Activism I will try to make this as short and to the point as possible as my blog entries seem to run a little long, but no promises.
Octo-Mom and her Brood: I have avoided talking about this as there is entirely too much exposure to this insane woman's story as it is, but the latest news about the "Angel's in Waiting" fiasco has finally figuratively poked me enough that I finally had to give my opinion on this ridiculous situation.
1) Nadya Suleman has claimed that she never intended to get pregnant with eight babies.... and yet, she and her fertility doctor implanted an unethical number of embryos in her womb knowing that she had six children (two of them "special needs" children, and two of them young twins) already, no job/source of income, and living in a inadequately small home provided by her father.
That's not a mistake, that's a plan.
Ms. Suleman herself has admitted via one of the MANY video interviews she's done that before she got pregnant the disability she had been living off of (She had also been living off food stamps from the state of California and receiving benefits from Med-Cal) was about the expire in few short months. How do you support six children, two of them "special needs" children when there is no money coming in anymore? A gamble of having multiple births to gain the attention of the world and, more importantly, the world media doesn't seem like a bad plan when deals involving serious money will undoubtedly come rolling in.
2) Nadya Suleman claims that she is not depending on tax payer money to support herself or her children and that she is supporting her children completely on her own and added "I don't want to depend on tax payer's money". (Source: RadarOnline.com, Nadya Suleman's Video Diaries, Entry - Exclusive: Octo-Mom Defends "Angels" Firing: "They Were Toxic" at http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2009/03/exclusive-octo-mom-defends-angels-firing-they-were-toxic)
And yet.... there is still an active website (sanctioned by Nadya Suleman herself) at http://www.thenadyasulemanfamily.com that requests donations of money and items for the family. It even provides a paypal link so that you can donate directly.
So, if she is perfectly capable of providing for her children on her own, than why is she and those under her direction still asking for money and donations? Why are friends and associates of Dr. Phil furnishing her house and the nursery? Why are non-profit nursing organizations providing care instead of paid by the hour nannies?
Either she is a liar or a con artist... perhaps even both.
3) Nadya Suleman fired the "Angels in Waiting" (An non-profit group of nannies and nurses headed by Gloria Allred) who was providing round the clock care for her premature babies. In the wake, Nadya has callled them "toxic" and they have made allegations of neglect and tuberculosis exposure.
Wow.... who do you side with on that one? On one side you have Nadya Suleman, and on the other Gloria Allred? I mean, both are pretty much media whores with their eyes mostly on the prize of dollar signs than the ideals of right and wrong. So I choose not to have an opinion either way until a more respected/reliable person or agency can thoroughly investigate the matter.
In conclusion, you can't have your cake and eat it too. For her to cry crocodile tears and say she wishes and remains hopeful that the media frenzy will die down and her life will return to normal (whatever that once was) and yet regularly appear in a video diary of her life on RadarOnline.Com (which I am sure she is getting paid handsomely for) is hypocritical at best, detrimental and permanently damaging to her children at worst, and that's the real crime in all of this mess.
The effect that all of this publicity, all this "transparency" (which seems to be the latest buzz word) is going to have on the future of all of her children, not just the babies, is going to reap devastating results that will have their therapist's ears ringing for years. I guess taxpayers will foot the bill for that one too.
Ryan Moats Detained While Mother-In-Law Died In Hospital: For those of you who don't care for sports, Ryan Moats is a back-up running back for the Houston Texans (NFL). Even some sports fans, because he is not a "starter", are probably unfamiliar with him aside from those following the recent news this month.
While en route to a hospital, in which Moats was speeding and ran a stop sign and a blinking red stop light while exhibiting his flashing hazard lights, Officer Robert Powell pursued Moats until he came to a stop and parked in the hospital parking lot.
Four people exited the vehicle; Ryan Moats, his wife, and two relatives, at which time Officer Powell allegedly drew his sidearm and commanded them to stop. Moats' wife then said "My mother is dying" and she and another female relative ignored a repeated command to stop and entered the hospital leaving Moats and a male relative of her's behind to deal with the situation.
Ryan Moats continually tried to explain to Officer Robert Powell that his mother-in-law was dying, who seemingly seemed indifferent to his situation and in fact talked over Moats several times. Over 16 minutes, of commands to "shut up", lectures, a discussion with a Plano police officer of past pursuits and nonsense not related to Moats being pulled over, more lectures he was finally allowed to enter the hospital at the added behest of a nurse who informed Powell that Moats mother-in-law had "coded" (Code Blue, patient dying) three times. She had, sadly, died before Moats was allowed to leave the parking lot. - Source: YouTube, Robert Powell Ryan Moats Dash Cam Video 1 & 2; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQFGzaYZV2A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syF2w0u5Bos
There are, without a doubt, going to be two distinct camps on this issue. Those that believe that Officer Powell was overzealous and lorded his power unnecessarily when he detained Ryan Moats, and those that believe that Officer Powell acted accordingly within the boundaries of police procedure.
I find myself kind of in the middle on this one, with my foot firmly planted on the side of Ryan Moats.
Lets start with Officer Robert Powell. He is parked off road somewhere watching for speeders/automobile law violators. A dark colored SUV with its hazard lights flashing comes speeding past, running two stops in the process. He pulls out in pursuit with sirens active.
Rather than stopping immediately, the vehicle continues on course. So Powell's adrenaline starts to pump as a result of emotions from both anger and fear. The question of "Is he going to run?" obviously had to have popped in his brain as he is a police officer and this kind of scenario is taught in the academy. So adrenaline and mind racing, he follows the vehicle into the parking lot where it comes to a stop, and four people immediately exit rather than remaining in the vehicle (which we are all taught to do). He too exits his vehicle, allegedly with weapon drawn and commands everyone to stop.
Now given that we see officers everyday who are shot and killed while during traffic stops, everything Officer Powell does to this point makes sense to me. The vehicle failed to pull over to the side and stop immediately when Officer Powell initiated his sirens, and when it finally did stop, four people immediately exited the vehicle. So there had to be some question in the officer's mind on what potential danger he was walking into.
This is where the logic ends however.
As soon as Ryan Moats, his wife, and two relatives exit the vehicle Mrs. Moats says very clearly, "My mother is dying" and it is obvious, well at least to me, that the emotions of all four seemed to verify this.
At that point, in my opinion, a light bulb should have gone off in Officer Powell's head (Flashing hazard lights, speeding towards a hospital parking lot... hmm this must be some kind of emergency). But, rather than pausing and taking in what Mrs. Moats was saying and looking around at where they all were standing, he dismisses her and in fact continues on in ranting about the "red and blues" (sirens).
This officer was so caught up in himself and his own emotions of anger that he didn't feel the pain and emotion of Moats or his family who had a loved one that lay dying, and he had over 16 minutes to calm down and figure that out once it was clear that there was no threat or danger.
Now for some arguments of comments I have seen posted all over the internet: 1) Powell should have realized it was an emergency when he saw the flashing hazard lights.
Flashing hazard lights do not mean "I am on the way to the hospital, please ignore my traffic violations" they simply are a warning to other drivers/vehicles to exercise caution when approaching. I seriously doubt Powell has ESP. There is no way he could know what the situation was. Moats was still speeding and, to the officer's perspective, driving recklessly since he had ignored stops. This was more than enough due cause for Powell to pull over Moats.
2) Moats and his family should not have immediately exited their vehicle.
This is true as far as procedure goes, however procedure rightfully takes a back seat when the clock is ticking and your main concern is to just get to the bedside of a loved one who is dying in order to share a few precious moments in just saying goodbye. If it had been me, I too would have jumped out of that SUV and been running for the hospital door, I think anyone would.
One more thing, and then I swear I'm done... no, really.
While browsing Google News about the Ryan Moats story I happened across and op-ed piece on the Bleacher Report website by "BHL" (Whoever that is, nice to know he stands behind his opinion enough to use his full name).
The title of the piece is called "Ryan Moats Saga an Unfortunate Reality: Police Are Guilty Until Proven Innocent" (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/146534-ryan-moats-saga-an-unfortunate-reality-police-are-guilty-until-proven-innocent)
In it he sort of moderately decries the public for accusations of brutality and generally condemning the actions of police officers. Sort of an attempt to shame those refusing "to see through things through the officer's eyes before passing judgment" yadada yadada. Feel free to check out the address above if you want to read the full piece.
It's his opinion, he has a right to have it (( shrugs)).
There was only a portion of it, that I really took issue with. Upon recalling a police chase he and co-workers watched on television in which officers threw two suspects to the ground at the end he said the following (his words):
"My jaw dropped. These two dirt bags just drove through traffic at over 90 miles per hour, nearly took the lives of many innocent bystanders all while disrespecting the authority of police in leading them on what seemed like an endless chase.
And the police should be "nice" and "gentle" to these jerks? Are you kidding me?
I'd be all for the officer pummeling someone in this scenario, and even shooting them. If you're willing to drive your vehicle at over 90 miles per hour, running away from the police, through public, you do not deserve to breathe another minute, let alone be treated "nicely" by the police."
Wow... nice to know that after figuratively waving his fist in the air about the lack of perspective in looking through the eyes of someone else, he has absolutely no problem judging the suspects to the point of sentencing them to death. Classic hypocrisy.
It is the job of the police officer to "protect and serve" the public (you me, and even the suspect) and to enforce the law, not to execute the law. It they had that power, we would exist in a "Police State" (a country that maintains repressive control over the people by means of police or secret police. See also Authoritarianism.) similar to Nazi Germany and the SS, rendering the judicial court system, the right to legal defense, and due process null and void.
We are guaranteed certain rights by the Constitution, one of the most important being the sixth amendment - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecution. It reads as follows:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
As one of our founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin, once said, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
The Amazon: Dangerous Misconceptions. Topic: News, politics and Activism
WARNING: The video below is a excerpt from a documentary styled movie depicting a tribe in the Amazon and contains full or partial nudity. Viewer discretion is advised.
I first read about this story this morning on Yahoo! News, and when I learned of the details surrounding this movie, I was more than a little appalled.
For those of you not familiar with the story, I will provide brief quotes and links to the articles.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090320/od_nm/us_indians [RIO DE JANEIRO (Reuters) – A video made with the help of U.S. missionaries and depicting Amazon Indians burying children alive is "faked" and inciting racial hatred, a group campaigning for tribal rights said Thursday.
It depicts scenes of Indians in an isolated forest village digging graves and burying several live children in them. The "Hakani" campaign also has a website and a group on networking site Facebook with more than 13,000 members.
London-based Survival International said in a statement the film is "faked, that the earth covering the children's faces is actually chocolate cake, and that the film's claim that infanticide among Brazilian Indians is widespread is false."
"People are being taught to hate Indians, even wish them dead," said Survival's director, Stephen Corry.
The video was made by the son of the founder of an American missionary organization called Youth with a Mission, which has a branch in Brazil known as Jocum.
Youth with a Mission is an interdenominational Christian group based in Hawaii which focuses on involving young people in evangelism in 149 countries, its website says.
Infanticide is practiced by some tribes in the Amazon region, sometimes on disabled children, often based on the belief that children who take their last breath above land will come back to haunt a community. But Survival says it is rare and becoming rarer as healthcare access improves.
Brazil's Indian affairs department has tried to bar the film, which it says was financed by Jocum, saying it denigrates the image of the more than 220 ethnicities that live in Brazil.
Neither the video, the "Hakani" campaign website nor the Facebook group include any mention of the missionary group or any contact details. Corry said the group was trying to play down its role in the film.
The video is a "powerful docudrama" and urges people to donate money and write letters in support of a proposed Brazilian law, known as Muwaji's Law, which would abolish infanticide by indigenous groups.
Survival says the law, by requiring Brazilians to report to authorities anything seen as a "harmful traditional" practice, would foster "witch hunts" against indigenous people.
"I think the missionaries are stirring up hatred against the Indians, who they profess to be concerned about," said Fiona Watson, a Brazil campaigner for Survival.
"The infanticide is not being explained; it's being taken out of context."]
I would go further in saying that Muwaji's Law would be an open door for "lawful" removal of children from their culture and families for the sake of "legal adoption".
In a country already dealing with criminal logging and the removal and murder of indigenous people by unscrupulous ranchers in effort to clear more land for cattle, this is not a distraction the Amazon can afford.
[If (the infanticide) happened as portrayed, it’s an extraordinary isolated case. After decades of working in Amazonia, we know of no Indian peoples where parents are told to kill their children. It just doesn’t happen.
It’s propaganda to bolster the evangelical campaign for a very dangerous principle, the so-called Muwaji law, which has been presented to the Brazilian Congress.
The Muwaji law focuses on what it calls ‘traditional practices’ and says what the state and citizens must do about them. It says that if anyone thinks there is a risk of ‘harmful traditional practices’, they must report it. If they don’t, they are liable to imprisonment. The authorities must intervene and remove the children and/or their parents. All this because someone, anyone, a missionary for example, claims there is some risk.]
I would advise anyone interested in the plight of the tribes of Amazonia to thoroughly tour Survival International's website. It gives an unbiased account of the country's political and enviromental situation, and gives information on how to get involved.
So this blog is completely rounded below is a link and information from the Hakani Organization. Funded by the evangelical group "Youth with a Mission".
[Buried alive because her tribe thought she had no soul. Plucked from the grave at the last moment by her brother. Then forced to live as a social outcast for three long years until sickness and neglect brought her once again to the doorway of death... (Remember, however, this story cannot be verified by Hakani's adoptive American parents, the Brazillian Government or by the tribe they claim she was rescued from)
This is the story of Hakani – whose name means "smile" – one of hundreds of children who are targeted for death each year amongst Brazil's 200 plus indigenous tribes. Physical or mental handicaps, being born a twin or triplet or being born out of wedlock – all are considered valid reasons for taking a child's life.]
All these cases of infants and children being buried alive, and yet only this evangelical christian organization has ever reported the issue when there are hundreds of charity based organizations who provide medical and educational support in Amazonia and have never brought this to the world's attention? Doubtful.
Stephan Corry of Survival International says, "The film and its message are harmful. They focus on what they claim happens routinely in Indian communities, but it doesn’t. It incites feelings of hatred against Indians. Look at the comments on the YouTube site, things like, ‘So get rid of these native tribes. They suck’, and, ‘Those amazon mother f—-ers burrying (sic) little kids, kill them all’. The filmmakers should be ashamed of all the harm this film is doing to the people they are trying to help."
[For the missionaries, "this is part of a strategy to justify their presence on indigenous lands," (Antenor) Vaz (Department of Indian Affairs) says.
He and activists such as (Fiona) Watson (Survival International) are offended by the Hakani movie, which they call racist. "Community actions are taken out of the cultural context and portray the Indians as savages, barbarians," he says.
Evangelical missionaries have emerged as perhaps the greatest threat to the Indians' survival. "I think they are doing a huge amount of harm," Watson says. "They are destroying people's beliefs."
Watson says erasing Indians' traditional faiths destroys their cultures, which have remained self-sufficient for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. "I have seen that," she says, "where a once proud people end up subdued, dependent upon people, because they have lost their beliefs."
Vaz recently completed an investigation into Youth With A Mission. His report accuses the group of "hiding their intent to evangelize" and bribing tribe members with tools and medicine to get them to listen to the Gospel.
The report, without elaboration, accuses the missionaries of slavery, illegally taking blood samples from Indians and illegally removing Indian children.
The missionaries deny that they are using infanticide as a smokescreen for efforts to convert Indians. YWAM members, including Marcia and Edson Suzuki (the adoptive parents of 'Hanaki'), often live with tribes for decades, learning their ancient languages and providing health care and education. Despite their religious orientation, Ribeira says, they do not proselytize. "Our main mission," she says, "is to provide access to means of survival."
(And yet...)
At one site where YWAM works, deep in the jungle near Porto Velho, an Indian girl wears a Jesus T-shirt.
Francisca Irving, one of the missionaries working there, admits preaching the gospel to Indians. "Yes, we teach Jesus," she says. "I would lie if I told you we didn't talk about Jesus."
The legislative push against infanticide is gaining steam in the Brazilian legislature. One house of the Brazilian legislature has passed a bill that would allow children whose lives are "at risk due to cultural practices" to be removed from their homes.
Vaz says the Department of Indian Affairs is developing a policy.
"Infanticide is a serious issue, which needs to be discussed," he says. But "this is not a discussion that must only be seen through the Christian perspective."]
What has me bothered most by this legislation of 'Muwaji's Law' is the rush of it over a more educational approach. Why this demand for a law of a practice that is rare and, in fact, fading in tradition? Is it impossible to communicate and educate in the language of these tribes that killing infants or children is unnecessary and cruel? Is there an assumption that because of cultural traditions or perhaps their primitive conditions that education is an impossibility?
Personally, I believe, if such an assumption exists, that these people have more to teach us than we them. These are individuals who have lived hundreds (arguably thousands) of years in a tumultuous environment following the same cultural traditions as their ancestors, and despite all odds and adversity have thrived without modern economical advancements such as grocery stores or modern technological advancements such as television, computers, or automobiles. Inventions that most of us can't imagine existing without.
Yet, aside from much needed medical and scholastic education intervention, the modern world feels compelled to force its religious ideology and dogmas on these unique people in an effort to replace their cultural beliefs. The very beliefs that make them who they are.
In conclusion, as this is turning into one of my notorious, long winded rants. How much of cultural, social, and religious history has to be annihilated (See; The Ancient Celts or Native Americans) before we destroy this idea that the entire world must fall in line with one belief system/religion at the cost of all others? The endless proselytizing of what we all should believe, that seems to always drop the names of 'God' and 'Jesus' concluding only with the word 'Hell'... I am so SICK of it. I am sick of Christianity, and now, thanks to the Pope's obscene misinformation about condoms aiding in the AIDS epidemic in Africa , I am sick of Catholicism.
"One Nation, under God" sounds more like the accolades of a religious war by crusaders than the patriotic dogma it portrays. We are not, in fact, one Nation under God, but rather one Nation under Gods, Goddesses and varying belief systems not necessarily of religious roots. But I suppose that is too wordy for a national motto.
The Future of the Amazon. Topic: News, politics and Activism
Between August of 2007 to July 2008 Brazil has reported an alarming 11,968 square kilometers of deforestation of the Amazon. To put it in perspective, nearly 1,250 square miles of canopy was chopped down in the last five months of 2007, an area roughly the size of Rhode Island.
Brazil is the fourth largest greenhouse gas emitter and deforestation and forest fires combined are responsible for 75% of the country's total greenhouse gas emissions. The reverberations, of which, can be felt worldwide in both its effect on pollution and on weather and climate conditions globally.
The Amazon is the world's largest absorber of Carbon Dioxide, holding nearly 86 cubic tons. This is the reason there is an environmental race to preserve the Amazon and end the deforestation of it's canopy.
I've posted the above video to this blog so that the reader can really appreciate how beautiful both the land and the people are in the Amazon.
Whaling, Animal Rights, and Violence. Topic: News, politics and Activism Admittedly, when it comes to my personal views, whether it be regarding politics, religion, or even my very strong opinions about nature and the enviroment I am usually reluctant to discuss it as these are topics that inspire thousands of different opinions because people generally are individual and come from different social backgrounds, different areas of our country even the world, and there are just so many factors that determine what views each one of us has on the enviroment around us.
That being said I found myself having mixed emotions about the video you see above in this blog [Video was deleted for terms of service violation by YouTube].
Okay, a little history is probably needed here. I am a former member of Greenpeace. From back when Greenpeace used a bit harder handed tactics to get their message across. The man, Paul Watson, that you see on the popular television series "Whale Wars" on Animal Planet who is in charge of Sea Shepard (The ship the 'Steve Irwin' as dipicted in the above video is a fleet vessel for the Sea Shepard) was one of the leaders of Greenpeace when I was still a member.
My views on animal cruelty and most especially the whaling industries in Japan and Norway have not changed. However, as I have grown older (hopefully at least a little wiser) my views on what is necessary to improve the situation has changed.
When I was younger, admittedly, I had more of an "anything it takes" mentality. If that meant throwing bottles of butyric acid at a whaling ship, spray painting "whale killer" on a processing ship, or even ramming them so be it. So long as it was saving the life of a whale, I believed that the ends justified the means.
But, as the years passed, even after the moratorium on whaling in 1986, whales were still dying just under the guise of research instead of food and I was tired of the violence that seemed to solve nothing so I left. Greenpeace too seemed to grow weary of it and Paul Watson was asked to leave which as many of you know birthed the Sea Shepard.
Since then, the two groups Greenpeace and the Sea Shepard politely agree to disagree when it comes to protesting against whaling. I still admire Paul Watson, just not the resources he uses to send the message that animal cruelty and whaling are an injustice to creatures who cannot speak for themselves.
I don't believe in violence as a means of protest. If you have to use violence you have failed before you have even begun. The line between Activism and Terrorism is dangerously marginal and the latter is just one act of violence away.
Here are the hard truths:
Blue Whales (the largest whale of the species) once numbered in the tens of thousands, because of earlier centuries of whaling, now there are so few that there have actually been cases of hybrids of Blues and Fin Whales because there isn't enough of the species to breed. It is still very possible that the beautiful 'Big Blue' could vanish into extinction.
It takes at least 30 minutes (and that is if all goes as planned) for a whale to die once it has been shot with a harpoon tipped with an explosive which detonates inside the whales body. During that time it tries to dive down (in vain) to fight against the harpoon that is lodged deep in its body and tethered to the ship. Unable to dive, it then thrashes against the bow of the ship bleeding profusely from its wounds in great pain while crew members use rifles to shoot at it. Some whales have taken hours to die. In fact, crews on processing ships often cut into the animal while it is still alive. It is cruel, it is agonizing and most of all it is senseless.
Every year, Japan kills 1000 whales in the Antarctic Ocean in the name of research, mostly the Minke Whale. Which although not a threatened species, biologists still do not have enough information on how often the Minke breeds in competing against the drop in numbers of whaling. Japan uses a loophole in the IWC (International Whaling Commission) laws that state that whales killed for the sake of research must be processed and distributed so that nothing goes to waste. This gives them the leeway to kill whales, process them, and package the meat for Japanese markets.
Further they are now actively campaigning for the lift of the moratorium on commercial whaling and even gone as far as trying to buy the votes of underprivileged countries with promises of financial aid.
In my opinion, whaling is barbaric and needs to be outlawed permanently. The words 'cultural differences' and 'ancestral traditions' are just an excuse to continue killing whales. How would the world react if our country one day just said, "I think we should be able to own slaves because it is part of our ancestral heritage!"? Just because it is part of some archaic tradition of culture doesn't mean it should continue.
(Steps off her soapbox)
For the one or two people who read this who would like more information on you can become more active in putting an end to the practice of whaling in the name of research here are some links to get you started:
