Note: The link is a reference story about a hoax perpetrated on the world press.
Martyrdom versus Fanaticism
Often times, especially in the popular media, there is a peculiar lack of editorial accountability for the use of the English language, particularly where a definition or term is applied in a story where it absolutely does not fit. One of the regular verbalisms of note is the use of the term "martyr" as a description for an act of intentional terrorism by political extremists who violently enter eternity in a billion bits, having taken a number of unwilling victims along with them through a suicide bombing.
There is (or at least there should be) a clear distinction drawn between a martyr and a religious (or political) fanatic. Unfortunately, when a repetitive term or phrase appears in print and continues to be used without challenge or correction, it tends to be become accepted as fact. A grammatical faux pas among the world press was brought to light on May 11, 2009, by an Irish college student who had slipped an erroneous quote into the Internet dictionary called Wikipedia, which he attributed to a deceased French composer. Several respected news agencies around the world took the quote without verifying its veracity and attributed it to the dead composer. Hence the sage warning, "don't believe everything you read."
Martyrdom is an extremely difficult and costly personal sacrifice (sacrifice being the crucial term) of oneself based upon deeply held religious beliefs. Fanaticism, on the other hand, is a behavior-based response which generally expresses itself in uncritical devotion to a person, thing, or (most often) a deity. In the most basic understanding of each term, a martyr suffers for the exercise of faith at the hands of others, while others suffer at the hands of a fanatic (in the exercise of faith.)
The first martyr of the early Christian Church is found in the New Testament Book of Acts, Chapter 7. There we find a religious man, Stephen, sharing his new found faith before a group of other religious men (the Jewish Sanhedrin.) The record reflects a distinction between the response of Stephen and the reaction of the Sanhedrin, clearly demonstrating a martyr (Stephen) and a group of fanatics (the Sanhedrin.) In Acts 7:51-60 (NIV), we observe the following:
'"You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit! Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him— you who have received the law that was put into effect through angels but have not obeyed it."
When they heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.
"Look," he said, "I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."
At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul.
While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." Then he fell on his knees and cried out, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." When he had said this, he fell asleep.'
In the New Testament account of Stephen, he is put to death by an angry mob (religious fanatics) for espousing his personal religious beliefs. In a ground swell of indignant anger and protest, the religious men of the Sanhedrin grab Stephen and violently put him to death through a fanatical demonstration and exercise of their religious beliefs. Notice that Stephen did not do anything to hasten his death other than to express his faith before others. However, the Sanhedrin lashed out in violence and persecuted Stephen through fanatical adherence to their religious beliefs.
In the Middle East, especially in Iraq, press accounts often (and erroneously) refer to suicide-bombers as "martyrs." One must question whether or not willfully entering a bus with a bomb strapped to one's body and detonating the same resembles martyrdom or fanaticism. Certainly, one would be hard pressed to argue anyone aboard the exploded bus (other than the bomber) was a willing participant in the exercise of faith. In the same way, when a news account from the same region tells a story of a missionary being singled out and murdered by angry followers of a different religion, it begs the question why the press almost never refers to the the murdered missionary as a martyr.
It may seem like a trivial matter in a world full of information flying from thousands of sources through the convention of the press. But the truth matters if words are to mean anything. Much like a spoken promise, such a promise is only as good as the one who utters and honors the same. Otherwise, the promise is worthless and the words upon which it was conveyed are trivialized. The pursuit of truth should never be trivialized for the sake of expediency. Perhaps our politicians would choose their words more carefully, if we were actually listening to what words they used.
(copyright 2009, Gregory Allen Doyle)
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Trivial Pursuits
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Further Info. Re. Scott Kernan
It appears that a lot of people, including me, may have been operating on bogus information here. I have been informed by more than one person that the standard penalty for DUI in a state car is you get canned. However, that may not be true.
Some kind soul just forwarded me a copy of a DOM subsection, all 136 pages, concerning personnel actions. According to page 250, division H 3, OFF DUTY INCIDENTS, off-duty DUI with no further complications, i.e. property damage or injury, is a penalty of 1,2, or 3 depending, with 2 being the standard. According to 33030.16 (page 245), a division 1 is an official reprimand, a division 2 is 1-2 work days on the beach, a division 3 is 5% for 3-12 months or suspension w/o pay for 3-12 work days, which is about the same financial penalty. It doesn't say anything I can find anywhere about state car or not state car being an aggravation or mitigation factor. Doesn't mean it isn't there, just means I can't find it.
As it sits it now looks to me, based on new info, that maybe-probably Kernan got an appropriate kick in the butt rather than a near-freebie. As I have no inside track since my retirement it is sometimes hard for me to get 100% kosher info. I am glad when people send me updates and am happy to correct myself if needs be.
THEN AGAIN, MAYBE I/WE WERE RIGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE. I didn't find it, J-Cat did. Page 248, section 23, "Operating the employee's personal vehicle, state vehicle, or state equipment for state business while under the influence of alcohol of illegal prescription drugs." Penalty is 4,5,6,7,8,or 9 with 9 being the indicated punishment unless mitigation is present. 9 is dismissal. So, if he was operating the vehicle for state business, he should be sacked. If he was operating the state vehicle on PERSONAL business, he should be sacked for doing that. Looks like it's possible they deliberately undercharged him. Until-unless somebody actually goes public with the charges and specifications nobody will know.
One thing for sure, if I was one of those other people who got handed his hat for the same thing, I would be talking to a lawyer next week.
Thanks a lot J-Cat. I shouldn't have missed that. My eyes must be getting old.
Happy Birthday U.S.A.
I feel privileged to live here. I know the U.S. is not a perfect place. The President, however, is much more skilled than I am at pointing out our faults and apologizing for them, he does it often enough and in enough places around the world. I will therefore dwell on some of the more positive aspects of life here.
We have provided opportunity for a great many people from a great many places in the world. Our sons (and now daughters) have fought and died around the world in places where we had no strategic interest (i.e. Kosovo) but were only interested in doing the right thing.
Our private citizens gave more money to the relief of the Christmas Tsunami in S. E. Asia than did the governments who talk smack about the U.S. and it's people.
We are the most tolerant, open, caring and forgiving bunch of people on the face of the planet. For that, we are attacked by social and religious fanatics who hate us for our tolerance and openness.
America isn't perfect, but ask yourself this. How many people risk their lives trying to sneak into North Korea, or Iraq, or France, or Canada, or Mexico? (Pretty much none.) How many people in the world would consider living in poverty in this country to be an unthinkable improvement on their current status? (Tens of millions.)
Our system of government, Representative Democracy, works pretty well. The franchise has expanded greatly over our history, almost everybody gets a say in how things are run (sometimes to our detriment I think). We have had a few rogues and charlatans in power, but we have survived them and continued on, the stronger for it. We have recognized and acknowledged our faults, maybe slowly, but we have done so. We have been forgiving and even generous to our enemies (i.e. the Marshall Plan) and loyal to our friends.
All things considered, I can't think of anyplace I would rather live. I am proud to say I am an AMERICAN. The colors are flying outside my house today. How about yours?
Gun Of The Week
Bob's Armory, Chapter 8.
(This originally ran June 8, 2008.)
Chapter 8. Customizing a firearm.
Once upon a time if you had to actually use a gun on somebody the law didn't much care if it was a .32 auto or a machine gun. If the shooting was good, it was good and if it wasn't, it wasn't. The law still doesn't care, but juries do (and sometimes DAs).
Some alterations to a gun are fine, some are questionable, some are legally dangerous. Putting different grips on a gun in order to make it fit your hand better are no problem, especially if you use commercially made items. One size fits all really doesn't. Different sights are OK too. I know my eyes are not as good as they used to be and I can see the sights on my .45 much better with the high-visibility sights on it currently than I could with the factory ones. Night sights have their place, and having a light on your house gun is not an unreasonable idea.
Other things get questionable. Trigger jobs for instance. Smoothing out a trigger is one thing, making it lighter is another, making it very light (the proverbial hair-trigger) is dangerous both actually and legally. Removing, disabling or otherwise diddling with safety mechanisms is legally dangerous. S&W puts a magazine safety in all it's semi-autos for civilian sale, though they will leave it out of department guns. If you send your personal gun into S&W for service, and it does not have the magazine safety in it, they will reinstall it. Taking it could be legally dangerous, even though having it in may not having anything to do with an actual shooting incident.
At one time pinning down the grip safety on a GI .45 was a common alteration, most gunsmiths won't do it any more. Putting a grip safety on with a pad on it to make the engagement more positive has a lot less risk attached to it. At one time a LONG time ago cutting away the front of the trigger guard was a common alteration to serious self defense concealed carry revolvers. You would now have a hard time finding a gunsmith who would do it.
All makers have a set of factory specifications that a gun has to met in order to leave the factory. Say for instance your revolver has a factory spec of 3-5 # single action and 7-11 # double action. Lowering the force required to fire the weapon below those specs in dangerous legally. If you are ever in a position where you have to use the weapon you can be sure the lawyer on the other side (and there will almost certainly be one) will be happy to try to make you out to be a dangerous psycho carrying a "hair-trigger gun". That is why a lot of LAPD and NYPD revolvers back in their revolver days were either altered or purchased originally so they would only fire double action. S&W still offers this as a factory option on many of their revolvers.
The same can be said for auto-pistols. It is possible to take the single action trigger pull on a GI .45 down to 1#, I have seen it done, and it was reliable. I would not carry a gun so set-up, but it can be done. Besides the possibility of inadvertent discharge there is the possibility for a semi-automatic to go full auto if the trigger is set too light, or if the trigger job is done badly.
Have any work done by a reputable, experienced person and do not have a carry gun altered beyond factory specifications. It is the sensible thing to do.
As stated previously, the above thoughts are mine personally and not Paco's, CCPOA's CDCR's, or anybody else. If you have a complaint blame me, not them.
Next week; Best gun, best load.
Friday, July 03, 2009
Scott Kernan Skates, Sort Of...
About two weeks ago I was informed that Scott Kernan would be kept on in his position as Undersecretary and that his punishment would be 5% for 3 months and loss of ability to drive a state car. I got it from one source, who got it second hand. I didn't do anything with it because it seemed too far-fetched.
Today it was announced that Kernan was intending to plead Guilty (which does not surprise me, I am told by those who know him that he is a reasonably stand-up guy) AND that he is being allowed to stay with the department. I don't know if that means he is being busted back to AW or is staying on as Undersecretary. The item wasn't exactly clear on that. He is loosing 6 weeks pay, equivalent to about 13% of his yearly salary. Or about what the R&F are losing on furloughs right now. The important thing is he WASN'T sacked. I am informed that the matrix says that if you get busted driving a state car while you are drunk, you are toast. I am informed that the last 9 people caught up in this situation were sacked. I am also informed that this little tap dance means that those others who were sacked now have a pretty decent get-back at the department.
Without regard to the merits of this individual case, or any other for that matter, the whole idea behind the matrix is that individual appointing powers could not be trusted to do the right thing so the right thing had to be force-fed to them. It looks, however, like we are back to the same-old same-old. If you are in the right car, you are protected. If you are not, you are roadkill. And that just ain't right.
Clicking on the title will link to a KOVR channel 13 story on this subject.
Furlough Plans Illegal.....In Hawaii.
A circuit court judge has ruled that the Governor's furlough orders are unconstitutional, in Hawaii. Their Governor has stated that she will have to lay off people if the furloughs are not allowed to go through. The unions assert that the layoffs produce almost no immediate cost savings, and in fact in the short term cost the state money.
As far as I can tell this ruling has no bearing on the California case. Clicking on the title will link to a San Francisco Chronicle (S. F. Gate) story on this subject.
Link To Unemployement Form For Furlough Loss.
If I have done it right clicking on the title will link to the form you need to fill out to file for unemployment benfits due to a reduction in salary. Thanks to Bill for the info on this. The below link go to other information relating to this subject.
www.edd.ca.gov/pdf_pub_ctr/de4209.pdf
www.edd.ca.gov/Unemployment/work_sharing_
By The Way......
There is some good, RECENT information about the current situation on the CCPOA union website.
Go to the below link to check it out.
CCPOA.org
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Grist Hot From The Rumor Mill.
I have been told by a reliable source with reason to know that Robert Ambroselli, from HQ at DAPO, has just sent out some really strange instructions to ALL unit supervisors in Region III and Region IV. It appears that these unit supervisors are being flat-out told that ALL RTC cases (returned to custody) in both state and county custody with less than 60 days left on them are to be released from custody.
If true, it would seem that DAPO is much more interested in reducing their numbers than public safety despite what Matt Cate and the Governor keep saying in public.
