It's time to Break It Down!
Because I was born, and grew up in Eastern North Carolina, primarily, I am inclined to be interested in news from that area. In recent months I have read and heard about a story revolving around 10 missing women in Rocky Mount, NC, about 75 miles from Kinston, my birthplace.
The compelling aspect of this story for me is its relative obscurity. It is not a story that greets you each hour of the news cycle on all the cable channels. While it is not uncommon for major media outlets, cable channels, and even bloggers to take a story viral in a matter of days, sometimes hours, this is not one of those stories.
The story of Michael Jackson’s death, which occurred June 25th, is still resonating four months later, as “This Is It” premiered last night, and is scheduled to open nationwide today. Of course Michael is the Elvis of our time, so the fact that news of his untimely demise spouted legs, and has demonstrated staying power is not so surprising.
Of course one does not have to have lived a life of celebrity to gain notoriety in death, or unexplained absence. Chandra Levy and Laci Peterson were not household names, but their stories dominated the airways and news reports for weeks on end.
Make no mistake, this is no bitch and gripe about the coverage afforded either Ms. Levy or Ms. Peterson. Rather it is proverbial written throat-clearing admonishing not just the media, but all of us to slow down and take a closer look at some of the horrific atrocities that occur within our midst, or at least within our state, if you happen to be a North Carolinian.
Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, were in Chicago a few weeks ago to draw attention to the slaughter that is going on in the streets of Chicago, one of America’s great cities. But before their arrival, Chicago’s mean streets had been the backdrop for a record number of murders of school-age children. In fact many argued that Mr. Duncan, who was CEO of the Chicago Public School System before assuming the post as Secretary of Education, was at least partially at fault for the dismal school-age murder statistics.
After enough clamoring, the Chicago situation found a champion in President Obama, who dispatched highly placed emissaries to intervene in the matter. A couple of poignant questions of the day are:
• “What level of agitation will be necessary to rise to the point when
there has been enough clamoring in the Rocky Mount cases?”
• “When the threshold is reached, to whom will we turn to find a
champion?”
“The Rocky Mount 10" is not comprised of blue bloods or patrons of the arts; they were neither white nor wealthy. They were not highly educated; not well-known. They were human beings, they were Americans, they were a part of the Edgecombe-Nash County and Rocky Mount Community, cited by Forbes as on of the 10 Most Impoverished Communities in America, and they were themselves, poor. But poor does not mean worthless. They are entitled to due diligence in determining the causes of their death, as well as the culprit or culprits. And even though, their stories are not steeped in idyllic Fairy Tales, they do merit being told.
I’m done; holla back!
Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com . A new post is published each Wednesday. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinston,_North_Carolina
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Mount,_North_Carolina
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/6255724/
http://www.newsweek.com/id/218911
http://kaleidoscopelyfe.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/rocky-mount-murders-go-unsolved-and-unpublicized/
http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/news/authorities-match-reward-in-missing-murdered-women-case-863866.html
http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/news/suspect-charged-with-murder-of-one-of-five-local-women-807508.html
http://www.fayobserver.com/Articles/2009/09/05/931188
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=112704643679417975004.00046fcba0914d40f3e85&ll=35.970227,-77.801743&spn=0.097251,0.180244&z=12&source=embed
http://www.ncwanted.com/ncwanted_home/story/5675790/
http://www.wral.com/news/news_briefs/story/6172163/
http://www.witn.com/edgecombeandnashcounty/headlines/63054807.html
http://www.blackpower.com/lifestyle/possible-serial-killer-murdering-black-women-in-nc-gets-no-media-attention/
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
"Change We Can Believe In!"
It's time to Break It Down!
Don’t let the title fool you. If you are expecting (or desiring) a Barack Obama commercial, you may stop reading now! The elements of change I will touch upon must certainly be factored into the calculus of President Obama's success, but it goes well beyond any political campaign, even one with implications as historic as those in Mr. Obama's election.
By almost any reckoning, Maria de la Soledad Teresa O’Brien, and that does not include her husband’s last name (which, by the way, is Raymond), is the world’s most renowned Afro-Cuban-Irish-Australian. For the past two years Ms. O’Brien has spotlighted the conditions of Blacks in America during two 2-hour evening segments. Tonight and tomorrow, she turns up the Klieg lights on another part of her matriarchal heritage, Latin Americans.
In the event one has been disconnected from the dynamic evolution of American society, this may see like a story that, even when all three segments are combined, takes up just 12 hours of 6 days, out of 731 days, and 17,544 possible TV viewing hours, over the 2-year period of 2008-2009. While that is correct, technically, this is an instance in which the whole is significantly greater than the sum of its parts.
In 2005, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated, Latinos in America surpassed African Americans to become the nation’s largest ethnic minority group. As a side note, African Americans remain the largest racial minority; Latinos are comprised of both blacks and whites. A second point worth mentioning is that even after 2050, when minorities will make-up the ethnic majority of the country, whites will still account for the racial majority, because such a large number of Latinos and Hispancs are white.
The change to Latinos and Hispanics becoming the largest ethnic minority in America marked the first in a major trend line. More than 46 million Americans are Latino, making them the nation’s largest ethnic minority. When combined with the roughly 42 million African Americans, 13 million Asians, and over 2 million Native Americans, the 103 million minorities in the four principal groups in this country comprise more than one-third of the 308 million Americans estimated to be in this country today.
The U.S. Census Bureau projects that minorities will be the majority of Americans by the year 2042. Moreover, the agency projects more than half of the nation’s children will be minorities as early as the year 2023. By 2050, more than 54% of Americans will be minorities, as will 62% of the country’s children, according to Census predictions.
These developments amount to “Change We Can Believe In,” because, in large measure key aspects have already occurred, and the foundation for others is solidly in place. Latino Americans are not only the largest ethnic minority, the also have the highest birth rate among Americans. As a group, minorities have higher birth rates than whites. Finally, as the often contentious immigration debate underscores, there is a substantial influx of Latin Americans into the U.S. from the 20 countries in the region.
Persons of Spanish origin are also counted in calculations and projections of Latino and Hispanic population growth. It is largely for that reason the terms Latino and Hispanic are not interchangeable. Though Americans often use them as if they were, broadly speaking, Latino refers to persons native to the Latin American region, while Hispanic tends to be inclusive of all native Spanish speakers in both hemispheres, and emphasizes the common denominator of language in communities where there are few other mutual characteristics. Framed differently, a native of Spain residing in the United States is not a Latino, just as there is no “Hispanic influence” on Mexican culture.
One way to view the on-coming change in America is through the lens of a Prince Song. Given his heritage, perhaps there is a subtle irony in that fact. In the song, “Family Name,” Prince asserts:
• “When a minority realizes its similarities on a higher level - not just
"black," - but PEOPLE OF COLOR, and higher still, "INDIGENOUS," and even
higher still, "FROM THE TRIBE OF,” and yet higher - the "RAINBOW CHILDREN."
When this understanding comes, the so-called minority becomes a majority, in
the wink of an eye!”
It is not going to happen in the blink of an eye; but…it is going to happen. As the Generation Y set is fond of extolling, “You better recognize!” “Change We Can Believe In” is here; and it is here to stay.
I am done; holla back!
Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com. A new post is published each Wednesday. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2009/latino.in.america/
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2009/black.in.america/
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2008/black.in.america/
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/08/13/census.minorities/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans
http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2006/July/20060707160631jmnamdeirf0.2887079.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_American
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States
http://www.lyricsdepot.com/prince/family-name.html
Don’t let the title fool you. If you are expecting (or desiring) a Barack Obama commercial, you may stop reading now! The elements of change I will touch upon must certainly be factored into the calculus of President Obama's success, but it goes well beyond any political campaign, even one with implications as historic as those in Mr. Obama's election.
By almost any reckoning, Maria de la Soledad Teresa O’Brien, and that does not include her husband’s last name (which, by the way, is Raymond), is the world’s most renowned Afro-Cuban-Irish-Australian. For the past two years Ms. O’Brien has spotlighted the conditions of Blacks in America during two 2-hour evening segments. Tonight and tomorrow, she turns up the Klieg lights on another part of her matriarchal heritage, Latin Americans.
In the event one has been disconnected from the dynamic evolution of American society, this may see like a story that, even when all three segments are combined, takes up just 12 hours of 6 days, out of 731 days, and 17,544 possible TV viewing hours, over the 2-year period of 2008-2009. While that is correct, technically, this is an instance in which the whole is significantly greater than the sum of its parts.
In 2005, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated, Latinos in America surpassed African Americans to become the nation’s largest ethnic minority group. As a side note, African Americans remain the largest racial minority; Latinos are comprised of both blacks and whites. A second point worth mentioning is that even after 2050, when minorities will make-up the ethnic majority of the country, whites will still account for the racial majority, because such a large number of Latinos and Hispancs are white.
The change to Latinos and Hispanics becoming the largest ethnic minority in America marked the first in a major trend line. More than 46 million Americans are Latino, making them the nation’s largest ethnic minority. When combined with the roughly 42 million African Americans, 13 million Asians, and over 2 million Native Americans, the 103 million minorities in the four principal groups in this country comprise more than one-third of the 308 million Americans estimated to be in this country today.
The U.S. Census Bureau projects that minorities will be the majority of Americans by the year 2042. Moreover, the agency projects more than half of the nation’s children will be minorities as early as the year 2023. By 2050, more than 54% of Americans will be minorities, as will 62% of the country’s children, according to Census predictions.
These developments amount to “Change We Can Believe In,” because, in large measure key aspects have already occurred, and the foundation for others is solidly in place. Latino Americans are not only the largest ethnic minority, the also have the highest birth rate among Americans. As a group, minorities have higher birth rates than whites. Finally, as the often contentious immigration debate underscores, there is a substantial influx of Latin Americans into the U.S. from the 20 countries in the region.
Persons of Spanish origin are also counted in calculations and projections of Latino and Hispanic population growth. It is largely for that reason the terms Latino and Hispanic are not interchangeable. Though Americans often use them as if they were, broadly speaking, Latino refers to persons native to the Latin American region, while Hispanic tends to be inclusive of all native Spanish speakers in both hemispheres, and emphasizes the common denominator of language in communities where there are few other mutual characteristics. Framed differently, a native of Spain residing in the United States is not a Latino, just as there is no “Hispanic influence” on Mexican culture.
One way to view the on-coming change in America is through the lens of a Prince Song. Given his heritage, perhaps there is a subtle irony in that fact. In the song, “Family Name,” Prince asserts:
• “When a minority realizes its similarities on a higher level - not just
"black," - but PEOPLE OF COLOR, and higher still, "INDIGENOUS," and even
higher still, "FROM THE TRIBE OF,” and yet higher - the "RAINBOW CHILDREN."
When this understanding comes, the so-called minority becomes a majority, in
the wink of an eye!”
It is not going to happen in the blink of an eye; but…it is going to happen. As the Generation Y set is fond of extolling, “You better recognize!” “Change We Can Believe In” is here; and it is here to stay.
I am done; holla back!
Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com. A new post is published each Wednesday. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2009/latino.in.america/
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2009/black.in.america/
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2008/black.in.america/
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/08/13/census.minorities/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans
http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2006/July/20060707160631jmnamdeirf0.2887079.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_American
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States
http://www.lyricsdepot.com/prince/family-name.html
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
The Verdict Is In!
It's time to Break It Down!
Last Friday morning America and the world awoke to a startling announcement; President Barack Obama had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. A mere week earlier, the national pundits and especially critics had spent the weekend dissecting every aspect of the failure of the President’s impromptu visit to Copenhagen to salvage an ill-fated attempt by the City of Chicago to win the 2016 Olympics. They labored on about how it was his fault, or a sign of his waning influence, or an indication of his misplaced values, or simply a poor use of political capital.
What a difference a week makes. Well, perhaps not. Instead of viewing the President’s selection as a coup for this President, administration, and our nation, once again the media was abuzz. This time, as a result of the news from Oslo, story lines included assertions that the President has not produced any discernible accomplishments meritorious of consideration for the award, his selection was political, and bestowing the award on such an undeserving candidate cheapened the award, and reflected poorly on the process.
The howls of critics took over where the press left off. In a nod to Letterman’s Top 10 List, here are ten reactions from persons or groups who consistently oppose the President:
• Rush Limbaugh, radio personality, called the President “A world-
wide joke,” and noted further that he agreed with the Taliban and Iran, that
the President does not deserve the award.
• Michael Steele, Republican National Committee Chair,
lampooned the decision, and asked for contributions to combat
“Democrats and their international leftist allies who want
America made subservient to the agenda of global redistribution and
control. Truly patriotic Americans like you and our
Republican Party are the only thing standing in their way.”
• Bill Kristol, neoconservative analyst, compared
President Obama to Russia’s Mikhail Gorbachev.
Kristol argued the President will be ousted in 2012
, noting the Soviet Union collapsed the year after
Gorbachev won the Peace Prize.
• Glenn Beck, Fox News commentator, contends Obama
doesn’t deserve the prize; rather the Tea Party protesters do. He
credited them for creating an extraordinarily powerful progressive
network.
• Erick Erickson, RedState blogger, went straight to the heart of the
matter. He suggested President Obama won because the committee had
an affirmative action quota, and added the only responsible thing to do would
be to decline the prize.
• John Bolton, conservative member of several Republican
administrations, also suggested the President should turn the prize
down. Side note: Mr. Bolton failed to win Senate confirmation in his attempt
to transition from interim Ambassador to the United Nations
to Permanent US Representative.
• Andy McCarthy of the National Review simple contended the
award was damaged goods because Yasser Arafat once won it.
• Brian Kilmeade, Fox News Channel personality wondered
whether President Obama delayed a decision on sending
troops to Afghanistan in order to win the award.
• John Miller, the National Review,
opines, “Obama’s award is simply the projection of wishful
thinking.”
• The Taliban, in a statement said, “We have seen no change in his
strategy for peace. He has done nothing for peace in Afghanistan.”
I openly admit to mixed opinions about this contrivance of a controversy. It is certainly selling newspapers, magazines, and air time at a time when all three of these media formats struggle to move the dial on subscription and ad revenue. But it is more than a bit paradoxical for the erstwhile Country First phalanx to, on one hand, openly cheer the United States' failure to win an Olympic bid one week, and then 7 days later, alternately attack the leader of the Free World for being awarded one of the most prestigious awards known to mankind.
The Democratic National Committee took aim at the President’s critics and offered a terse assessment: “The GOP sides with terrorists.” While that may be a gross oversimplification, the tone deafness of Mr. Limbaugh’s admission that he agrees with the Taliban (and that “we all do”), should give pause to anyone who would dare take that possibility lightly.
There certainly have been alternative views, expressing support for President Obama receiving the award. I will not list ten, but one comment seemed to echo the committee’s sentiment:
• James J. Zogby, President of the Arab American Institute,
noted, “One shouldn’t ignore the change he has already delivered – in how
we deal with the world and how the world sees us. The rage that greets every
Obama move isn’t rational.”
The point is elegant in its simplicity. Somewhere along the way, civility and reason have been excluded from the discourse. What is left is an increasingly unpleasant conversation on every turn; incivility for the sake of incivility.
The last word on this question belongs to the normally secretive Nobel jury. Four members of the five-person panel spoke out on the issue yesterday. Not surprisingly, their take reaffirmed their initial action. In doing so, they underscored several points:
1. The decision was unanimous
2. President Obama’s selection was merited
3. World leaders have reacted positively to Obama’s award in most cases
4. There are only two groups who vociferously opposed the award:
a. The media
b. The President’s political opponents
5. The jury awarded the prized based on what President has done,
including specifically, his efforts to:
a. Heal the divide between the West and Muslims
b. Scale down a Bush-era proposal for an anti-missile shield in Europe
c. Strengthen the U.S. role in combating climate change
Committee Chairman Thorbjorn Jagland insisted the committee followed the guidelines set out by Alfred Nobel, the Swedish industrialist for whom the award is named. Nobel wrote in his will “The award should go to the person who has contributed most to peace in the previous year.”
So that’s it; “The Verdict Is In!” The Nobel jury, within whose province the decision fell, made an informed and unanimous decision to name President Barack Obama the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. It is not the first time the validity of the award recipient has been challenged, and it will undoubtedly not be the last. I embrace the jury’s decision and congratulate President Obama.
I’m done; holla back!
PS. Just in case you thought I forgot about last week’s exam…no way. Here are the answers:
1. Leader of the Branch Davidian movement; responsible for the 1993 Waco
Siege
2. The Oklahoma City Bombing
3. An Islamist group believed to be responsible for the 9-11 attacks
4. Sunni Islamist religious and political movement; currently an
alternative government in Afghanistan
5. Leader of Al-Qaeda
6. Leader of the Taliban
7. President of Iran
8. Iranian reformist political candidate for President in 2009; last
Premier of Iran
9. The Ayatollah/Supreme Leader (Highest Official) of Iran, since 1989;
President from 1981-89
10. Leader of the 1979 Iranian revolution; Ayatollah/Supreme Commander until
his death in 1989
Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com . A new post is published each Wednesday. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33291989/ns/politics-white_house/
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200910090029
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/09/obama-nobel-prize-reactio_n_315690.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091013/ap_on_re_eu/eu_nobel_peace_obama
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/president-obama/conservatives-critics-blast-obamas-nobel-peace-prize/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/09/obamas-nobel-prize-inspir_n_315167.html
http://blogs.timeslive.co.za/minor/2009/10/13/nobel-committee-defends-obamas-prize/
http://cbs4denver.com/national/nobel.jury.obama.2.1244916.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/13/world/main5381694.shtml
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYEdkmyuKrU
Last Friday morning America and the world awoke to a startling announcement; President Barack Obama had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. A mere week earlier, the national pundits and especially critics had spent the weekend dissecting every aspect of the failure of the President’s impromptu visit to Copenhagen to salvage an ill-fated attempt by the City of Chicago to win the 2016 Olympics. They labored on about how it was his fault, or a sign of his waning influence, or an indication of his misplaced values, or simply a poor use of political capital.
What a difference a week makes. Well, perhaps not. Instead of viewing the President’s selection as a coup for this President, administration, and our nation, once again the media was abuzz. This time, as a result of the news from Oslo, story lines included assertions that the President has not produced any discernible accomplishments meritorious of consideration for the award, his selection was political, and bestowing the award on such an undeserving candidate cheapened the award, and reflected poorly on the process.
The howls of critics took over where the press left off. In a nod to Letterman’s Top 10 List, here are ten reactions from persons or groups who consistently oppose the President:
• Rush Limbaugh, radio personality, called the President “A world-
wide joke,” and noted further that he agreed with the Taliban and Iran, that
the President does not deserve the award.
• Michael Steele, Republican National Committee Chair,
lampooned the decision, and asked for contributions to combat
“Democrats and their international leftist allies who want
America made subservient to the agenda of global redistribution and
control. Truly patriotic Americans like you and our
Republican Party are the only thing standing in their way.”
• Bill Kristol, neoconservative analyst, compared
President Obama to Russia’s Mikhail Gorbachev.
Kristol argued the President will be ousted in 2012
, noting the Soviet Union collapsed the year after
Gorbachev won the Peace Prize.
• Glenn Beck, Fox News commentator, contends Obama
doesn’t deserve the prize; rather the Tea Party protesters do. He
credited them for creating an extraordinarily powerful progressive
network.
• Erick Erickson, RedState blogger, went straight to the heart of the
matter. He suggested President Obama won because the committee had
an affirmative action quota, and added the only responsible thing to do would
be to decline the prize.
• John Bolton, conservative member of several Republican
administrations, also suggested the President should turn the prize
down. Side note: Mr. Bolton failed to win Senate confirmation in his attempt
to transition from interim Ambassador to the United Nations
to Permanent US Representative.
• Andy McCarthy of the National Review simple contended the
award was damaged goods because Yasser Arafat once won it.
• Brian Kilmeade, Fox News Channel personality wondered
whether President Obama delayed a decision on sending
troops to Afghanistan in order to win the award.
• John Miller, the National Review,
opines, “Obama’s award is simply the projection of wishful
thinking.”
• The Taliban, in a statement said, “We have seen no change in his
strategy for peace. He has done nothing for peace in Afghanistan.”
I openly admit to mixed opinions about this contrivance of a controversy. It is certainly selling newspapers, magazines, and air time at a time when all three of these media formats struggle to move the dial on subscription and ad revenue. But it is more than a bit paradoxical for the erstwhile Country First phalanx to, on one hand, openly cheer the United States' failure to win an Olympic bid one week, and then 7 days later, alternately attack the leader of the Free World for being awarded one of the most prestigious awards known to mankind.
The Democratic National Committee took aim at the President’s critics and offered a terse assessment: “The GOP sides with terrorists.” While that may be a gross oversimplification, the tone deafness of Mr. Limbaugh’s admission that he agrees with the Taliban (and that “we all do”), should give pause to anyone who would dare take that possibility lightly.
There certainly have been alternative views, expressing support for President Obama receiving the award. I will not list ten, but one comment seemed to echo the committee’s sentiment:
• James J. Zogby, President of the Arab American Institute,
noted, “One shouldn’t ignore the change he has already delivered – in how
we deal with the world and how the world sees us. The rage that greets every
Obama move isn’t rational.”
The point is elegant in its simplicity. Somewhere along the way, civility and reason have been excluded from the discourse. What is left is an increasingly unpleasant conversation on every turn; incivility for the sake of incivility.
The last word on this question belongs to the normally secretive Nobel jury. Four members of the five-person panel spoke out on the issue yesterday. Not surprisingly, their take reaffirmed their initial action. In doing so, they underscored several points:
1. The decision was unanimous
2. President Obama’s selection was merited
3. World leaders have reacted positively to Obama’s award in most cases
4. There are only two groups who vociferously opposed the award:
a. The media
b. The President’s political opponents
5. The jury awarded the prized based on what President has done,
including specifically, his efforts to:
a. Heal the divide between the West and Muslims
b. Scale down a Bush-era proposal for an anti-missile shield in Europe
c. Strengthen the U.S. role in combating climate change
Committee Chairman Thorbjorn Jagland insisted the committee followed the guidelines set out by Alfred Nobel, the Swedish industrialist for whom the award is named. Nobel wrote in his will “The award should go to the person who has contributed most to peace in the previous year.”
So that’s it; “The Verdict Is In!” The Nobel jury, within whose province the decision fell, made an informed and unanimous decision to name President Barack Obama the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. It is not the first time the validity of the award recipient has been challenged, and it will undoubtedly not be the last. I embrace the jury’s decision and congratulate President Obama.
I’m done; holla back!
PS. Just in case you thought I forgot about last week’s exam…no way. Here are the answers:
1. Leader of the Branch Davidian movement; responsible for the 1993 Waco
Siege
2. The Oklahoma City Bombing
3. An Islamist group believed to be responsible for the 9-11 attacks
4. Sunni Islamist religious and political movement; currently an
alternative government in Afghanistan
5. Leader of Al-Qaeda
6. Leader of the Taliban
7. President of Iran
8. Iranian reformist political candidate for President in 2009; last
Premier of Iran
9. The Ayatollah/Supreme Leader (Highest Official) of Iran, since 1989;
President from 1981-89
10. Leader of the 1979 Iranian revolution; Ayatollah/Supreme Commander until
his death in 1989
Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com . A new post is published each Wednesday. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33291989/ns/politics-white_house/
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200910090029
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/09/obama-nobel-prize-reactio_n_315690.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091013/ap_on_re_eu/eu_nobel_peace_obama
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/president-obama/conservatives-critics-blast-obamas-nobel-peace-prize/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/09/obamas-nobel-prize-inspir_n_315167.html
http://blogs.timeslive.co.za/minor/2009/10/13/nobel-committee-defends-obamas-prize/
http://cbs4denver.com/national/nobel.jury.obama.2.1244916.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/13/world/main5381694.shtml
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYEdkmyuKrU
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Pop Quiz: Terrorism 101
It's time to Break It Down!
So I was sitting in a meeting today, listening to a discussion on the environment, sustainability, and a host of other related buzz words. Suddenly, as the meeting was moving toward its latter stages, someone noted that police had discovered a suspicious device in the vicinity, cordoned off the area, and issued a directive that no one enter or leave the building, parking lot, or other locations nearby.
We live in interesting times. As I sat there, my mind wandered through a maze of historical milestones. I reflected, momentarily, how we as Americans instinctively point to September 11, 2001 as the day that changed everything. But did it really?
To reach such a conclusion may be convenient, but probably not inaccurate. Even though 9-11 is the most horrific day in the history of America, to view it through a lens that portrays that day as the foundation of our Country’s relationship with violence, terror, and mayhem, is at once deceptive, and self-serving.
To get at that singular bedrock, one must first look closely at two days tied together in history by their combined profound human devastation. The Waco Siege and the Oklahoma City Bombing took place April 19, 1993, and 1995, respectively. The latter was actually planned to coincide with the second anniversary of the former.
The devastation resulting from the Oklahoma City Bombing, while it pales in comparison to the 2001 attacks, made it by far the most chilling case of terrorism in this country until 9-11. The event was so stunningly unfathomable at the time authorities immediately attributed the event to foreign perpetrators. The death and destruction included:
• 168 deaths
• More than 680 injured
• 324 buildings destroyed or damaged in a 16-block radius
• 86 vehicles burned or destroyed
• 258 buildings with shattered windows
• An estimated $652 million in damage
So while Homeland Security initiatives skyrocketed after 9-11, the movement began in earnest after 4-19. My thoughts about my predicament (I am fine by the way; police eventually detonated the device and no one was injured), and about the interconnectivity of events, at least tangentially, that cause us to take precautions at the slightest provocation, let me to the novel idea of a quiz.
Anyone who watches or reads the news on a regular basis is buffeted by stories about the threats and concerns that demand the collective attention of America most, and most frequently. Between the wars we are involved in, terrorism, rumors of terrorism, nuclear expansionism, etc.; there is a lot to claim our rightfully divided attention. What follows is a short test; just 10 questions. I don’t need to know how many you answer correctly, and no, there is no prize for getting all of the answers right. Unless of course, you value cultural literacy; in which case, consider knowing the answers your personal reward!
Without further ado, here goes:
1. Who was David Koresh?
2. With what event were Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols connected?
3. What is Al-Qaeda?
4. Who are the Taliban?
5. Who is Osama bin Laden?
6. Who is Mullah Mohammed Omar?
7. Who is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
8. Who is Mir-Hossein Mousavi?
9. Who is Ali Khamenei?
10. Who was Ruhollah Mousavi Khomeini?
I will provide a few hints, but no answers; at least not today. Some would be tempted to look ahead. Of course, you could still look them up, but that’s initiative, a good-old American value. I am cool with that!
• Of the 10 questions, 7 pertain to current events
• Of the 9 people named, 6 are alive today, or presumed to be
• Of the 9 people named, 4 are Iranians
Good luck!
I’m done; holla back!
Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com . A new post is published each Wednesday. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/breaking/story/987950.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_movement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_Siege
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koresh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Nichols
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Omar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir-Hossein_Mousavi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhollah_Khomeini
So I was sitting in a meeting today, listening to a discussion on the environment, sustainability, and a host of other related buzz words. Suddenly, as the meeting was moving toward its latter stages, someone noted that police had discovered a suspicious device in the vicinity, cordoned off the area, and issued a directive that no one enter or leave the building, parking lot, or other locations nearby.
We live in interesting times. As I sat there, my mind wandered through a maze of historical milestones. I reflected, momentarily, how we as Americans instinctively point to September 11, 2001 as the day that changed everything. But did it really?
To reach such a conclusion may be convenient, but probably not inaccurate. Even though 9-11 is the most horrific day in the history of America, to view it through a lens that portrays that day as the foundation of our Country’s relationship with violence, terror, and mayhem, is at once deceptive, and self-serving.
To get at that singular bedrock, one must first look closely at two days tied together in history by their combined profound human devastation. The Waco Siege and the Oklahoma City Bombing took place April 19, 1993, and 1995, respectively. The latter was actually planned to coincide with the second anniversary of the former.
The devastation resulting from the Oklahoma City Bombing, while it pales in comparison to the 2001 attacks, made it by far the most chilling case of terrorism in this country until 9-11. The event was so stunningly unfathomable at the time authorities immediately attributed the event to foreign perpetrators. The death and destruction included:
• 168 deaths
• More than 680 injured
• 324 buildings destroyed or damaged in a 16-block radius
• 86 vehicles burned or destroyed
• 258 buildings with shattered windows
• An estimated $652 million in damage
So while Homeland Security initiatives skyrocketed after 9-11, the movement began in earnest after 4-19. My thoughts about my predicament (I am fine by the way; police eventually detonated the device and no one was injured), and about the interconnectivity of events, at least tangentially, that cause us to take precautions at the slightest provocation, let me to the novel idea of a quiz.
Anyone who watches or reads the news on a regular basis is buffeted by stories about the threats and concerns that demand the collective attention of America most, and most frequently. Between the wars we are involved in, terrorism, rumors of terrorism, nuclear expansionism, etc.; there is a lot to claim our rightfully divided attention. What follows is a short test; just 10 questions. I don’t need to know how many you answer correctly, and no, there is no prize for getting all of the answers right. Unless of course, you value cultural literacy; in which case, consider knowing the answers your personal reward!
Without further ado, here goes:
1. Who was David Koresh?
2. With what event were Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols connected?
3. What is Al-Qaeda?
4. Who are the Taliban?
5. Who is Osama bin Laden?
6. Who is Mullah Mohammed Omar?
7. Who is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
8. Who is Mir-Hossein Mousavi?
9. Who is Ali Khamenei?
10. Who was Ruhollah Mousavi Khomeini?
I will provide a few hints, but no answers; at least not today. Some would be tempted to look ahead. Of course, you could still look them up, but that’s initiative, a good-old American value. I am cool with that!
• Of the 10 questions, 7 pertain to current events
• Of the 9 people named, 6 are alive today, or presumed to be
• Of the 9 people named, 4 are Iranians
Good luck!
I’m done; holla back!
Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com . A new post is published each Wednesday. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/breaking/story/987950.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_movement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_Siege
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koresh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Nichols
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Omar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir-Hossein_Mousavi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhollah_Khomeini
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
