Archives

My Grief is Bigger than Yours

12208704_931881036903432_2526134102915776262_n

If someone were to say to a group, “I just found out my dad died.” most people would have enough decency to at least offer a condolence, such as “I’m sorry for your loss.”  On the internet things are different.  A person might say, “I just found out my dad died.” and someone could respond with “You father was a privileged white male, who lived in the richest country on the planet, and died with some wealth intact.  He was given the best medical care and lived well beyond his life expectancy.  Why aren’t you concerned about the many children who die in Africa every day of diseases like malaria.  Where’s your grief for them?”

I’m using an extreme example as only a sadistic sociopath would use language like that towards a someone going through a personal loss.  The scenario I just used is highly unlikely to happen.  We all realize a personal loss is tragic regardless of other circumstances.  Losing your father is traumatic for anyone.

Social media is a strange beast.  It tends to reduce everyone to sound bites, encourage profound self-righteousness, and funnel thoughts and ideas into purist ideologies.  One side claims moral superiority over another and there is little compromise.   Whatever traumatic event or grave offense reported and shared on Facebook, a counter argument forms immediately to dissuade the outrage.

The recent terrorist attacks in Paris are a great example of this phenomena.  As soon as the news broke and people expressed grief for what happened, many countered with,

“You only care about Paris while you ignore Beirut.”

I didn’t see any of these people post a single syllable about Beirut on the day the terrorist attacks occurred.  Where were their voices of outrage in the immediate aftermath?  Why did they only comment in relation to another tragedy?

The harsh reality is that very few Americans knew what had happened in Beirut because it wasn’t a top story in the news. despite our 24/7 news cycle.  Paris and Beirut are very different cities.  Lebanese citizens, in the form of Hezbollah, have openly engaged in warfare inside Syria in support of the Al-Assad regime. These fighters are not sanctioned by the Lebanese government, in fact they’ve tried to stop them.  Regardless there are Lebanese boots on the ground directly battling Isis.  Beirut, unlike Paris has seen far more terrorist violence and political unrest. There is so much bloodshed in Lebanon that the topic has been given its own Wikipedia entry titled – List of attacks in Lebanon.  For the year 2014 there were 16 incidents.  In 2015, so far there have been seven.  Unlike France, Lebanon is surrounded by warfare and instability on most of its borders.  So although the loss of life is just as tragic, a terrorist attack in Beirut is not uncommon.  The press is not going to fixate on something that happens quite often, rather than on something rare and unexpected.

Western media is in large part owned by a handful of conglomerates, sponsored by multi-national corporations, and driven by ratings.   Our news sources, once bastions of serious journalism, have morphed into entertainment machines.  Sensational news gets more viewers, so much of what we see is sensational.  Political unrest and tragedies are often ignored in poorer countries, unless the US has a vested interest in them.   Given our selective press coverage it wasn’t surprising few knew about the equally horrifying attacks in Lebanon.  Far fewer were aware of an attack earlier this year in Kenya with an equally high body count.  I admit I knew of neither, and I’m a bit of a news junkie.

People who speak out about these inequities in our media are right to do so.  I would whole heartedly agree with them that news of Paris is obsessively covered, while other bombings barely register.  The 24/7 cable news cycle tends to simply repeat the same stories morning, noon and night.  So instead of a comprehensive look at world events we get overly detailed coverage of the same story ad nauseam.  Not to mention the amount of frivolous news stories about missing blonde women, murderous mothers and vapid celebrities.

Some critics of the public’s response towards Paris have gone too far.  To quote one article:

“But I refuse — despite my partial French heritage — to cloak myself in nationalism of any stripe or star, particularly not now. Because, besides victims in Paris, an incomprehensibly astronomic number of people have been grieving loss of the highest order for some time — in places whose names roll off our tongues as if it’s accepted that violence simply happens there — and a majority likely couldn’t guess the colors on these victims’ flags.”

The same author went on to advocate for every victim of every global conflict including the war in Syria, Afghanistan,  the continual unrest in Iraq and the entire country of Yemen.  She got a bit off point and ranted about sex slaves in Malaysia, poorly paid workers in Mexico and China but oddly left out the entire country of North Korea.  Of course she’s correct as there is suffering, inequity, and warfare all over the planet.  Some of it is a direct cause of the actions of wealthier nations while other suffering is completely homegrown. There are child brides in India being burned to death by their in-laws, women and girls mutilated from female circumcision, public beheadings in Saudi Arabia, honor killings in Afghanistan, and women and girls dying due to overly restrictive anti-abortion laws in El Salvador.  If we wanted to, we could fill our heads with absolutely soul-crushing images of human misery from around the world.  The author if this specific piece of course didn’t offer a single solution to any of the injustices she ranted about, and I’m not sure what I, or any American can do about the actions of foreign governments.  We can hold our politicians accountable for US military and trade policies. but we’ve got little power to affect certain laws or customs in other countries.   The civil war in Syria is a multifaceted disaster with at least four factions battling each other, while foreign countries including Russia fuel the whole mess.

In contrast to that author’s strident diatribe, I read a simple message from a friend on Facebook.

“Please let me know you are safe.  I am with you in spirit.  I love you all so much.  The news from Paris is breaking my heart”

It was followed by a long list of names, both friends and relatives she was desperate to find.  The specificity of her message broke my heart. Does it hurt any less when a person loses a loved one in a wealthy country than it does when a person loses on in a poor one? Isn’t it human nature to mourn those closest to us more than we would a distant stranger? Wouldn’t anyone feel a greater connection towards a place where they had lived or is similar to their own home? Wouldn’t a Kenyan react more strongly to a story about a neighboring African country, than they might about Paris?  Could any of us really handle the grief if we focused on all of the death, injustice and inequity, that occurs on this planet on any given day?  As a person who lives in New York City I can’t help but see my city as the next target.  I’ll never forget the chaos, loss and despair that lingered here for months after 9-11.  Am I not supposed to worry and fear for my friends and neighbors?  Of course no one should die in a terrorist attack but Is it politically incorrect to care about my own safety?

It’s easy to criticize others for their “misguided solidarity” but it’s human nature to see yourself in another person when they are a lot like you.  We should all be alarmed that Isis managed to pull off such a well executed and organized attack in a wealthy nation like France, one with a professional police force, an intelligence organization, and a well armed military.  If these terrorist could cause so many deaths so easily in a wealthy nation, then countries with less resources are even more vulnerable.  We need to unite together to fight this fanatical scourge that has no respect for life.  So yes, mourn for Paris, Beirut, Kenya, and the entire Middle East Region.  Mourn for all the innocent lives taken by this warped ideology.  The mother who has lost her child in Kenya or Beirut will cry just as many tears as the one who just lost hers in Paris.  This is a time to unite in our grief, not fight over who is more worthy of it.

Related Articles

Follow me on Twitter https://twitter.com/JulietJeske

Add me on Facebook Juliet Jeske Facebook Fan Page

Charlie Hebdo: Racist Xenophobes or Martyrs of Free Speech?

President

On Wednesday January 7th 2015 two masked men armed with AK-47’s  killed 10 staff members and 2 police officers at the Paris offices of the satirical paper Charlie Hebdo. The paper had depicted images of the prophet Mohammad, which the gunmen found offensive.   After news of the massacre hit the press, People flooded the streets of Paris with signs of Je Suis Charlie, or “I am Charlie,” in support of the slain cartoonists.

Then of course, a backlash began,  at least on the internet. and social media.  Many of my well-meaning friends began to re-post blogs and rants stridently attacking the character and political motivations of the slain cartoonists.  Their evidence was cherry-picked cartoons without English translations, or any greater context.. All of the very vocal Americans critics somehow became experts on French culture overnight.  France is not the US, the country has a very different history and the challenges and difficulties in France are not ours.   The French have never viewed themselves as a melting pot, and they do not welcome changes in their culture or even their language.  Some Muslims in France refuse to assimilate and desperately want preserve their own traditions.  So take a proud culture that doesn’t want to change, and then throw in people who also refuse to adapt and you’ve got a recipe for conflict.  There’s more to it than that of course, but that’s the seed of a lot of the tension.

None of these American bloggers openly condoned the killings but they certainly showed contempt and hostility for the victims.  One vocal critic declared, “Why should we feel sorry for privileged white males who spewed xenophobic, racist, nonsense?”  Other critics claimed the Charlie Hebdo cartoonist  “Depicted of Muslims as hook-nosed stereotypes”   I found this unsettling so  I did a quick google search of the words Charlie Hebdo.  I wanted to see for myself if the paper was as racist and xenophobic as these people were saying it was. I easily found the following images:

DaisyChain

I’m not sure but that looks like a circle of Catholic bishops engaging in some type of group sodomy.

Nudity

The French president surround by a cast of naked characters.

Unflattering

The cartoonists do depict Muslims as racial stereotypes, but the same could be said for these Caucasian men.  No one would call these depictions as flattering.

And of course the image that leads this article is

President

The very white, and very powerful, male president with his dick out.  It appears his penis is speaking for him.

The Pope was also a frequent image on many covers, and of course there were also images of Muslims depicted as racial stereotypes.  I’m going to stick my neck out here and say that the editors poked fun at plenty of other religions, groups and public officials.

Most of the critics denouncing Charlie Hebdo were righteously indignant Americans.  None of them mentioned having lived in France, being French themselves or even understanding the French language, yet these highly opinionated voices were suddenly experts on everything Charlie Hebdo.  One angry rant of click bait entitled In the Wake of Charlie Hebdo Freedom of Speech does not Equal Freedom from Criticism, even included as evidence of the paper’s bigotry, a cartoon mocking the leader of Isis.  The same author cited Gawker as a source, (Gawker isn’t exactly known for being a shining example of journalistic integrity or ethical reporting.)  Isis is of course the same radical group that’s known for human right abuses, mass rapes, and beheadings.  Isis is so vicious even al-Qaeda has urged them to kill fewer civilians.  But I guess to some even the worst radical religious extremists are above mockery.

The same author who seemed completely outraged at the mocking of Isis had no problem getting his point across with words like: fuck, bullshit and labeling nearly everyone who didn’t agree with him as racist.  If you dared to repost an offensive cartoon in solidarity with the slain men, then in his opinion you’re a racist.  His evidence of rampant racism other than the cartoons taken out of context was the following two quotes the murdered editor Stéphane “Charb ” Charbonnier’:

“Muhammad isn’t sacred to me.”

“I don’t blame Muslims for not laughing at our drawings. I live under French law. I don’t live under Koranic law.”

I don’t really see how either quote makes him a racist.   As an agnostic myself, I don’t view any religious symbol as sacred, and I don’t know why anyone must be forced to revere a religion they don’t believe in.  In his second quote, he’s basically saying that yes he understands Muslims may not like everything they publish, but France, is a country with freedom of speech, not one that is dictated by any one religion.  Someone might also point out to the author that Islam is a religion not a race, and there are Asian, Arab, white and black Muslims.  But since the word racist packs more a punch than bigot, he and other politically correct bullies love to throw around the R-word.

I’ll openly admit I’m also no expert on Charlie Hebdo. I’d suspect the author of that article was also going off of scant information.  He cited Gawker as a source after all.   Some of my French friends have claimed Charlie Hebdo’s editors really did lampoon everyone..  I don’t know what to think, but I’m not going to go with a handful of cartoons out of hundreds, an opinion of some friends, or a few cover images as any evidence of anything.   If we’re really going to discuss freedom of speech and expression, offensive, even racist or bigoted content is irrelevant.

In this country we have restrictions on some images and speech.  We’ve agreed as a society that blatantly lying about someone is a punishable offense.  A person can sue another in a court of law for slander and receive millions in compensation.  We’re also have penalties and legal recourse in regards to defamation.  We’ve also decided that possessing images of children being sexually molested is intolerable under any circumstances. Profanity and nudity are both somewhat limited, yet both are easy to find if one goes looking for them.  We have limits on speech that call for acts of violence against others, or acts of treason. It’s illegal to endanger the public safety by screaming “Fire” in a crowded theater, and you aren’t allowed to joke about a bomb in an airport.

Other than those basic limits, people can write and express themselves however they want.  Free speech is messy.  It sometimes offends or upsets people.  In a free society some speech is so horrendous it’s downright hateful.  But what is offensive to one person, might be the harsh biting truth to another.  If one group starts to dictate what is and is not offensive, then we are allowing one group to decide the actions and behaviors of others.  There is plenty in any religious text that could easily be held up as sacred and untouchable, but no religion should force their standards onto the general public.

We also live in a world with plenty of avenues for recourse.  A person can combat offensive speech with more speech.  They can battle what they see as inappropriate expression with more creative expression.  They can refuse to buy papers they don’t want to read, and they can publish their own.

If we want true freedom of expression than absolutely nothing is above mockery or criticism. We cannot cower to any organization or ideology wiling to kill those who generate offensive thoughts and images.  A free society allows speech from every direction and viewpoint. The same freedom allows the misguided bloggers to label these victims as racist xenophobes, is the same one that gives me the opportunity to write this blog.

Does it matter if they wrote some racist and even xenophobic material?  They still died for their words and expression and that, by the very definition of the word martyr, does make them martyrs for free speech.  Because their death was meant to silence us all, we need to speak out even more ferociously in defense of free speech, even when that speech is harsh satire. .

“I don’t agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” – Voltaire.

Related Articles

Follow me on Twitter https://twitter.com/JulietJeske

Add me on Facebook Juliet Jeske Facebook Fan Page

Dating Online – Mr. Online ONLY

English: Cybersex

English: Cybersex (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The longer I have been single, the more I have come to realize that logic has about as much to do with dating as subtly has to do with holiday window displays.   Human beings just don’t act rationally.  Online dating has made this abundantly clear.

Mr. Online Only

  • Age – Any Age
  • Never married, divorced, anything goes
  • You NEVER actually meet them, so their whole profile could be a farce.

Mr. Online ONLY is exactly as his name describes.  For whatever reason, these gentlemen prefer to chat online, and will NEVER meet up with you.  They will instead:

  • Make a million excuses
  • Cancel right before the date
  • Stand you up
  • Arrive at the meeting place but not approach you, only later tell you that they showed up and got scared
  • Invent accidents, emergency situations etc. to excuse their behavior.

What causes this type of behavior?  I don’t really know but I have some ideas….

  • Suppressed homosexuality
  • Fear of rejection
  • Anti-social behavior
  • Unresolved issues with another relationship
  • Emotionally cheating on their spouse or girlfriend
  • An ego trip of keeping correspondence with several women at a time
  • Agoraphobia
  • Deep rooted insecurities
  • False representation – Their entire online identity is a ruse.

They will NEVER actually meet up, or physically see you.  What they would rather have is a fantasy they can play out in their mind as they type away. The first sign that you are dealing with an Online Only type: They avoid making time to see you, yet they want to maintain constant correspondence with you online. They push for emotional intimacy without any physical contact.  You might find it sweet or endearing, but in most cases the physical contact is never going to happen.  The online relationship is all they can handle.  If you insist on meeting up and some of these men will become defensive and even hostile.  Others will continually dodge the question, constantly making excuses.

You will never know

  • Is their profile information accurate?
  • Is the photo even of them?
  • Are they in a committed relationship or married and is this just one big game for them?

A recent article in New York magazine  discusses how some men have grown so used to virtual “relationships” with women in porn, that they become sexually dysfunctional when with the real thing.  A sad situation indeed.  Many Mr. Online’s will want to have cyber sex with you either over the phone, or through email or instant messaging.  Because they will never see you, this is the most you are going to get from a man like this.  Not exactly satisfying and you have no way of knowing what is actually happening on his end of the computer.  Is he showing your emails or messages to his friends for a laugh?  Is he publishing them somewhere on a blog?  Is he with another woman while talking to you online?  Since you don’t know, it is probably a bad idea to get into a situation like this.

I once had correspondence with a man I could tell was emailing several women at the same time.  I figured it out when he couldn’t seem to keep track of details or things I had written.  Finally I could tell he wasn’t actually reading the emails I sent him, at least not in full.  The whole endeavor was rather pathetic since my emails were so brief.  Even a full-page email is a few minutes worth of reading.  In his case I suspect, he maintained correspondence with multiple women to feed his inflated and fragile ego.  Once I figured this out, he became a bit of a joke to me.  Luckily that relationship never went any further than mildly flirtatious chats online.

What to do if you encounter someone like this online?  See the signs quickly and don’t take the bait.  There is a reason they refuse to ever meet you.  Their entire identity might be a complete fabrication. Cut them some slack but if the problem persists for an excessive amount of time, cut them loose.

Women also pull this trick, and it is often an actual scam.  The women will contact men, lead them on through promises of love and devotion, maybe even engage in some cyber sex only to eventually beg for money to come for a visit.  The man sends her the cash, and then waits like a fool at the airport for his dream girl who never arrives.  Some of these scams are so elaborate that the photo is of a model or even a stock photo, and the person on the other end of the emails is a man located in another country.   They call this one the lonely hearts scam.

Why would anyone put up with this for months in some cases years?  Virtual relationships aren’t entirely real.  A person we are chatting to online can’t hurt us in the same way a physical lover might.  At least that’s what we tell ourselves.  One viewing of the television show or film Catfish will show much heartache and pain when lovers discover their online romances were complete fabrications. Somehow we want to believe so strongly that a stranger on the other end of a computer is deeply in love with us and our perfect match.  The online version is a mirage, a fairy tale we tell ourselves.

I get about an email a day or several a week from men out-of-state, some from different countries.  I have gotten emails from Pakistan, Morocco, Spain, Germany, France, Ireland and on and on.  Why?  What woman would think starting correspondence with a man in another country would be a good idea?  After my divorce I trust little of what comes out of a strange man’s mouth, and sadly I check as much as I possibly can online.   How lonely does a person have to get to think that some man in a far off country, they have never met,  is the only man for them?  Rub the fairy dust out of your eyes and see reality.  There are available men and women everywhere.  Anyone trying to talk to you from a foreign country is probably up to no good.   Green card, scams, kidnapping…..whatever.  RUN!  If a man doesn’t want to see your lovely face, then he is not that man for you.  A virtual relationship is no substitute for a real one, don’t settle for a man online when you can have a man in real-time.  You’re much better off with the flawed and imperfect real man than a perfectly fictitious virtual one.

Related Articles

Follow me on Twitter https://twitter.com/JulietJeske

Add me on Facebook Juliet Jeske Facebook Fan Page