Violence in Entertainment

So, I went to see the movie Dunkirk http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5013056/ today. I was sickened by all the trailers.  I guess it might be logical to show trailers for violent movies at a movie about war, but that was all that was shown. Dunkirk was not about violence.  It was about a heroic rescue by civilians of military personnel, who suffered due to the violence of war.  The Dunkirk rescue was heroic.  And we do not recognize that enough.  We need to recognize heroism and acknowledge it publicly more often. 

Election Results

I am deeply disturbed by the comments of Donald Trump and his followers have made about their potential reaction if he loses the presidential election as are others in the political community http://www.cbsnews.com/media/how-past-election-losers-are-reacting-to-trumps-rigged-claims/.  One of the hallmarks of the United States government is the peaceful transition as new presidents take power.  This was tested when President Nixon resigned, and the system worked the way it was supposed to work. 

However, Donald Trump has led a campaign of divisive, derogatory rhetoric and has incited violence in some of his campaign appearances.  My concern is that he will foment violent responses if he loses the election.  That would be such a black eye on American.  

Donald Trump's References to Violence

I am very frightened for the United States of America.  During this election year, there has been a lot of negative rhetoric, much coming from Donald Trump.  Today, he made a comment regarding being stuck with justices that Hillary Clinton would appoint, and then he referenced there is always the 2nd Amendment.  http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/09/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-second-amendment/. Was he referring to using violence against Hillary Clinton, or her judge appointees, or was he referencing the voting power of the NRA and other supporters of the right to bear arms? It really does not matter what he was referring to.  If just one person thinks he was saying it was okay, that if Hillary Clinton becomes president, to use violence against her or her judge appointees, and even one person is injured, even if not killed, that is too much violence incited and sanctioned by his comments.

This is not the first time he has used this kind of rhetoric.  Remember when he said that even a murder would not erode his support?  http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/23/politics/donald-trump-nevada-murder/.  This article references other comments that he has made about violence.

We are a nation born of Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution and re-affirmed by a War Between the States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War.

We have fought many other wars, skirmishes, police actions, and whatever you want to call them, so as a nation we are not strangers to violence. We are the only nation to have used atomic weapons during war time. Anniversaries of which occur this month: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki. We are a nation that has seen all sorts of domestic violence.

But we are a nation founded on the rule of law, and the right to due process.  Violence against individuals honors neither.

During the last few years, but starting as far back at 1966, when Charles Whitman shot at innocent people from the tower on the University of Texas campus http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/an-ex-marine-goes-on-a-killing-spree-at-the-university-of-texas, mass violence has been escalating in our country. http://www.gannett-cdn.com/GDContent/mass-killings/index.html#frequency.  Why?  I could speculate but will not.

What I will say is that for leaders in our country to encourage violence or the hint of violence is more than irresponsible. It is criminal.  This is not the first time that I have said that the things Donald Trump says are criminal.  I believe in free speech, and Trump is certainly exercising his right to free speech, but he does not care whom he is inciting to act in a criminal manner based on his speech. And, ultimately, if he incites others to violence, he will not pay the price.  I think this is the ultimate act of cowardice. The ultimate act of a bully. 

Reach Out to France - Updated

We are saddened and shocked at the killings in Paris by ISIS http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/16/us-france-shooting-idUSKCN0T22IU20151116#aUdSsHG2hFY7YAcr.97.  The violence in the world is needless and insane.  That the world can be held at bay, as fear hostages, by ISIS is a little insane.  There have been so many terrorist attacks and to what end? The radicalized Muslims give the real religion of Islam a black eye.  Like "Christian radicals" who belong(ed) to the Klu Klux Klan, these radicals do not represent religion.  They represent bigotry, hate mongering, greed, lust for power, lust for domination over people who are unable to protect themselves.

That the world has not been able to eradicate ISIS demonstrates the weakness of the political position of failure to commit.  I do not believe in violence and war, but I am not sure how else ISIS can be fought.  My wish would be that Western and Middle Eastern Countries alike would unite for their own safety and security, demonstrate a united front and destroy ISIS.

Meanwhile, we must reach out to France. We must let the French people know that we stand with them, support them in their adversity, and support their efforts to take back their lives.  We do this with prayers, vigils, and support of their efforts to help the Syrian refugees and fight ISIS.

We must let the French people know that we will not forget their suffering on 11/13/15, that we will not forget the fatalities, the other victims, the survivors of the acts of terror on this date. Because the French people truly are survivors.

November 20, 2015 on the news, we learned that Parisians were in the streets en masse and at the exact time of the first shots of the disaster, a large noise was made, and lights came on, and the French people told ISIS that they will be STRONG!

Hurrah for the people of Paris!  Hurrah for the people of France!

I Choose Peace June 19, 2015

This is what I posted on my Facebook tonight.  This is from the speech that Martin Luther King, Jr. gave after the murder of 4 black girls at a church in Birmingham, Alabama, September 15, 1963 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_Street_Baptist_Church_bombing. 
**************************************************************************************

I am moved to tears to see the faith and hope of the members of Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, SC, the families of the victims, and the people of this country who have joined in prayer and support. I have no new words to share, but share I must. It is my hope that by adding my voice, I am counted as one who has the courage to say love, and hope and faith shall be our way, and we will conquer hate. I choose peace.



And, this is what President Obama quoted in his speech http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/06/18/full-text-obamas-remarks-on-fatal-shooting-in-charleston-s-c/ about the shooting in Charleston, SC.

Dr. King's words are timeless.  It is so sad we have to revert back to them, so many times. 

Peace is a Choice

We can choose peace you know.  It is up to each and everyone of us how we choose, and what we choose.  We can choose the angry retort or rebuke, the mild disagreement, or the gentle deflection.  We can choose to turn the other cheek, or to take up arms. We can choose the angry fist or the proffered handshake.  We can choose civil disobedience that is non-violent, or we can choose a riotous destructive display of civil disobedience.

We make these choices every day of our lives, in our daily interactions with family, friends, co-workers, business associates and strangers.  Most of us do not think about the fact we are making a choice, but we are.  Every single interaction is a choice. 

And the reality is, the choices that reflect peace make our day and our lives much easier. There is less fallout for choosing peace than there is for choosing anger and contention.  That is part of the problem with peace: the ripples that radiate from our peaceful choices are small and do not attract attention.  The ripples that radiate from our angry and violent reactions are so large that they do attract attention, and usually require a response.  A peaceful choice can easily go unnoticed.  An angry one usually cannot.

So as 2014 comes to a close, and 2015 begins, what is your choice?

Is it the Nature of the Sport?

Why are there so many domestic violence crimes surfacing among the players of the National Football League.  I have an hypothesis.  American football is a violent sport.  How do you separate the violence in your profession from the violence in your personal life.  I am not sure you do.

Years ago, when I started working in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice http://tdcj.state.tx.us/ system, the then many Vietnam War veterans generally said the same thing:  We were taught to kill for our country, and then sent home from the war and not given any other skills, so we continued doing what we knew:  violence.  It makes sense.

Learning from the patients I dealt with in TDCJ, I realized that many of them were raised in environments in which the only answer to conflict was violence. They thought a violent response to an affront was acceptable.  With that mind set, of course violence will wage in people's lives.

And, we are becoming more immersed in violence:  Many of our games and play are violent, especially video and computer games.  Violence in the news media, and in the  entertainment media desensitizes us to violence.  Young people do not see violence as horrible acts against humanity. They see it as temporary entertainment, possibly even something that is not permanent as the players revived in the next episode of play.  I think many young people have the mind set events in real life can be "do overs" as they can be in games, and in the entertainment world.  Like little children, even young adults do not understand that violence is life and death, and there are no second chances.

So, a person whose profession is violent, who past times are violent, whose upbringing may have taught him or her that violence is the acceptable answer to conflict, can be expected to live a personal life of violence, right or wrong. So, is it any wonder that NFL players have violence in their personal lives? 

Sports and Social Responsibility

Most recently, there has been a rash of events of domestic violence in the lives of NFL http://www.nfl.com/ players. I am not going to rehash the stories here.  I am going to write about the role of the professional athlete and their place in public as a role model.

Professional athletes are not perfect, and never have been.  Babe Ruth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babe_Ruth was reportedly a womanizer who drank to much alcohol. Lance Armstrong http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong. tried to beat the drug testing authorities.  Mickey Mantle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_Mantle drank too much, for years. Ted Williams http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Williams was criticized for not being present at the birth of a child. In times past, the press allowed them their transgressions. More or less.

NASCAR has their bad boys.  They have played down the "rum runner" history of Junior Johnson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junior_Johnson.  Currently, Tony Stewart http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/16/us/tony-stewart-grand-jury/index.html, who has a history of anger problems, is under scrutiny for his part in the on track death of Kevin Ward Jr, at Canandaigua Race Track earlier this year.

Michael Vick was castigated, and expelled from the NFL, for his part in dog fighting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Vick.  Michael Vick was "rehabilitated" and welcomed back into the NFL, such was his talent.

Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Phelps has had his share of legal and social problems.

Charles Barkley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Barkley famously said that he is not a role model. Maybe he did not get into professional sports to be a role model, but guess what, when someone becomes a superstar, they are cast as a role model, whether or not they like it.

Pennsylvania State was embroiled in a child abuse scandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_State_child_sex_abuse_scandal from which they could not extricate themselves, and which took down the (formerly) beloved Coach Joe Paterno.

Don Sterling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Sterling former owner of the Los Angeles Clippers was banished from the NBA for his racist comments.  Atlanta Hawks Bruce Levenson http://www.nba.com/2014/news/09/07/hawks-owner-statement-on-team-sale/index.html voluntarily resigned based on years old emails that had racist comments.

So now, the NFL has several players who are being investigated for domestic abuse incidents: http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/15/us/nfl-fallout/index.html Ray Rice, Ray McDonald, Adrian Peterson, and Greg Hardy, if not others.

The NFL authorities keep talking about "getting it right." But what is "getting it right."  I fully support the "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy of our country.  So, I am not sure what the NF response should be.  I think the "deactivate status" works:  a player cannot play, but is still on the payroll.  It is equivalent to some local situations in which school officials have been charged with child abuse, and "suspended with pay."  This keeps them (ostensibly) away from the students, but allows them a livelihood until a verdict is achieved.

But first and foremost, their response should be that they have zero tolerance for domestic violence of any kind.  I am comfortable with the response that they do not know if someone is guilty of domestic violence, but they need to contain the situation and the involvement of the player in their sport until the situation has been resolved.

But really, what is our expectation of professional athletes?  Realistically or not, we expect them to present a positive role model that presents their team and their sport in a positive light.

Is that fair? Is that realistic? Babe Ruth's transgressions were generally downplayed  As were Junior Johnsons, and Michael Phelps. Why do we forgive some athletes, and crucify others?

Years ago, the press was more forgiving of our sports heroes.   But they sure got into the lives of our entertainment stars.  Should the public scrutiny be the same, for sports heroes, entertainment stars and political bigwigs.   I think it should.

People do not accidently find themselves in the role of sports hero, entertainment star or political bigwig.  It is a career path down which they purposefully, and dutifully roll. 

Entertainment stars have long been known for their scandalous behavior. And, many survive the publicity, usually because a newer, juicier story comes along.

Sadly, in this day and age, people do not always get into politics for the common good.  Often, politicians are drawn by greed for wealth and power.  And, our politicians may not start out with wealth and power, but they usually end up with both, at least while in office. Our leaders just are not noble anymore. (If they ever were.)

So, why do we hold our sports stars to such higher standards and ideals?  I am not sure.  But I think it is in part because we pay large sums of money to these athletes so they can continue to play the games we love.  And, because they are playing, it is as if we think they continue to be young innocents. 

I think it is also in part because these athlete perform wonderful feats of strength and daring do, and garner our admiration.  And because they do have our admiration, we endow them with special powers and character traits that make them special.  We want them to be special, good, innocent and right.  We want them to be superheroes, and lift them upon a pedestal of goodness and right.

Is that realistic?  Probably not. 

I think it is amazing that we hold our athletes to codes of conduct that some of their fans violate on a regular basis.  Because we violate those codes, does that mean they should or can without recrimination?  I believe the sports heroes should be subject to the same laws as the rest of us, and should not be given a "bye" because of their fame and fortune.  Granted, there wealth gives them access to better legal representation than most of us could even think to hire.

And, there are always those who will hang on to stars for the secondary gains that association with the wealthy, powerful and famous provides us. 

O J Simpson escaped conviction when accused of killing his ex-wife Nicole Simpson, and waiter Ron Goldman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_the_State_of_California_vs._Orenthal_James_Simpson. 
It was like the jury bought into Simpson's fame and gave him a pass for his involvement or behavior. Not so, years later, when he was arrested for robbery in Nevada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Nevada_v._Orenthal_James_Simpson,_et_al. The American public could not be bought off by his fame twice.

And, since then, sports figures have been held to that higher standard.  Should they be?  I think the law should be applied equally to all, and if domestic violence is not tolerated by sports figures, it should not be tolerated any where in our society.  Child abuse, and sexual exploitation should not be tolerated anywhere in our society, no matter the perpetrator. 

I know that is not going to be the case.  I believe there is currency for prosecutors to go after sports figures when they commit crimes, especially domestic violence crimes. The prosecutors benefit from the publicity.  I wonder how vigorously these same prosecutors are pursuing the others in their jurisdictions accused of the same crimes.

So, should their sports sanction these accused?  Well, as I said, innocent until proven guilty.  But, being accused brings  shame on the sport, and the sport does have the right to sanction players for bringing bad publicity to the sport. (To avoid sin, avoid the near occasion of sin.) We cannot keep our sports pure, but we can insist that the mess their athletes create be cleaned up quickly and thoroughly, but judiciously.

If the accused are found not guilty, they can be given second chances, as would any common citizen. (Do we give people found not guilty of heinous crimes a second chance?  Sometimes.)  Of course, it is not that easy.  But these accused must go on, as we all must, when we make mistakes.  Accept the responsibility, accept the consequences, including punishment or re-integration as the verdict requires or allows.   The Michael Vick case is an example of that, good or bad.