IS DOMESTIC TERRORISM A SELECTIVE PHRASE?

Kareem Rahman

 

 

Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT ACT, acts of domestic terrorism are those which”(A) involves acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state; (B) appear to be intended – (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”

 

This is not my definition of domestic terrorism or something I’ve heard. This is the FBI’s official definition of domestic terrorism. When Stephen Paddock fired off round after round from automatic weapons at concertgoers, from his 32nd floor hotel suite at the Mandalay Bay Hotel last night at around 10 pm., he was in direct violation of section (A), (B), and (B-i) of the USA PATRIOT ACT. But you already knew that. I doubt that you needed to see the law written in this article to know that Stephen Paddock had committed an act of domestic terrorism. You’re probably not a lawyer or a news reporter. The two types of people, who I’m more than certain know these things by heart, considering their credibility and probably careers depend on knowing these type of things. If we all are aware of that, why was it not reported anywhere that what Stephen Paddock did last night was an act of domestic terrorism? The president of the United States seemed to have trouble bringing himself to call this incident such, as he spoke to the nation this morning. This, from a man who sitting at his desk, in Washington D.C, in the United States Of America, called the train bombing in London earlier this year an act of terrorism before it was even reported by the London authorities. Why is it so much easier for some people to call terrorism when an act comes from a person who does not look like them? It almost seems like some have reserved words like “terrorist” for certain groups of people. Racism is probably the easiest answer to why, but it still baffles me that people can allow themselves to think this way. How? It’s not like this is the first act of domestic terrorism committed in the United States by a “red-blooded, born and raised in the good ole’ U. S. of A., American citizen. So why is it so hard to believe that such a thing could happen? Common sense says that if it can happen once, it can happen again, right? I mean, we did say that we put a man on the moon before. Would it really be so hard to believe that we could send a man up there again? There is definitely some racism in the selective use of words like terrorism. I think that even more than racism, the selective use comes from a need by people to see things through the lens of good vs. evil. In their minds, I think they believe that good and evil is defined by entire races, statuses, or classes of people. When the perpetrator of such a horrendous crime easily falls into the category which they fit in, they feel extreme guilt. Most horrendous acts like this one are done by individuals with evil intentions. The fault does not fall on a whole race, religion, or creed of people for the actions of one, or a few. But this type of thinking does not fit the agenda of some. Therefore, when an action like this takes place, the first separation of self from the act they look for is race. Was the perpetrator of another race other than theirs?? If yes – see, I told you “those people” are animals. That’s why “we” need to get rid of them. If no, they’ll move on to the next separating factor on the list. Religion. Was the perpetrator of a religion other than theirs? If yes – see, I told you “that” religion preaches hate “we” need to get rid of them. If no, move on to the next separating factor on the list. The next and final separating factor on the list is political affiliation. Was the perpetrator of a political affiliation other than theirs? If yes – see, I told you “that” political affiliation is nothing but trouble, “we” need to get rid of them. But what happens when the perpetrator is of the same race, has no religious ties whatsoever, and has no political affiliations at all????? Well, you get what we have going on in the media right now. Selective speaking. People are being extra careful not to throw the “terrorist” label onto this person until they can find out if they can, or can not separate themselves from the perpetrator. The very definition of selective phrasing or wording.

Advertisements

TWITTER TESTING 280 CHARACTER LIMIT. GOOD IDEA, OR TRAGEDY?

On Tuesday Twitter announced that it would be running a trial test of it’s new character limit that will double in length from 140 to 280 characters. Twitter allowed some users that it included in it’s test group to use the new feature before they decide if they will adopt the new program permanently. Like myself, you’ve probably seen some users who have been included in the test group send out Tweets with 280 characters. I have to admit, after seeing it in action, I don’t love the idea. I don’t hate it either, but I definitely don’t love it. When I see one of the 280 character Tweets roll down my timeline it always stands out. The first thought that pops into my mind is “I ain’t reading all that.” I know that 280 characters don’t make for a whole lot more words in a Tweet, but try explaining that to my brain! 280 characters start to look like a paragraph, which I’m guessing, is exactly what Twitter didn’t want when they rolled out the Twitter app with it’s 140 characters. The ability to write long useless thoughts is what chased most of Twitter’s current population from sites like Facebook to Twitter. The great challenge of using Twitter was always “how to cram a complete thought into 140 characters.” This 280 character thing is clearly going in the opposite direction and vision that it’s creators initially had for the social media site. In a world where the average attention span has dropped drastically, Twitter was the perfect tool to keep the unfocused and easily bored (myself included) engaged. With this move, I fear that Twitter will fall into the trap of being “just another social media site.” I believe that changing the main thing that made Twitter special in the first place is a big mistake. After this, what’s left to separate Twitter from every other social network out there?

WOULD YOU LET A STRANGER INTO YOUR HOUSE TO DELIVER & PUT YOUR GROCERIES AWAY FOR YOU?

That’s exactly what the new delivery service that Walmart is working on wants to do. Trying to keep up and compete with Amazon is enough to drive anybody to the edge of insanity. That’s what it looks like is happening here. Walmart has teamed up with smart home accessory company, August to give the service a test run. Here’s how the service will work:

  • The delivery man, using a one time code provided by August, will enter the customers home (provided they possess the necessary home upgrades provided by August of course)
  • The delivery man will then place all perishables into the fridge for you. The remaining items will be left in a box next to your front door.
  • Customers will get a notification of the delivery, at which time they can watch the whole process via remote camera with the August home app.

The test is being run in Silicon Valley and only customers of August home accessories can use the service as of now. Will you be using this service when it becomes available in your area?

WHEN THE RATINGS DIP…GO TO WHAT YOU KNOW

Have you ever noticed that the only time some people mention anything they think black people care about is when they need attention? Better yet, when their ratings start to take a dip and they’re desperate for clicks, views, or just being talked about. The same people pull the same stunts at least five to ten times every year. Whenever ratings dip, or they’re in need of attention, say something that they feel will anger the black community. They’ll probably classify this as saying something “controversial.” Just the thought that if you do or say a certain thing, a whole race will react, is really racist in and of itself….but I won’t get into all of that right now. The point of this post is that these same people pull this same desperation trick out of their bag for attention and I’m getting sick of the act.

 

 

Piers Morgan took to Twitter this afternoon to promote an article or post that he was writing (I really don’t know what it was, I didn’t bother to read anything but the title) titled “Black people say the ‘N’ word in their songs, so why can’t white people say it?” Or something along those lines. Granted, I never bothered to read the article. As far as I know the article could be about something completely different and Piers just used a catchy title to garner some attention. I doubt it though. The point is, the last thing in this world that Piers Morgan cares about is rap music  and how much the ‘N’ word is used in the lyrics. You know it, I know it, and Piers Morgan knows it. Yet, this is the topic he chooses to speak on. Why? I’m sure there are a million other things Piers Morgan cares about more than rappers saying the ‘N’ word. Like anything political going on in the United States right now. The GOP is right in the middle of another push at getting a terrible HealthCare bill passed. The President of the United States is once again making a public spectacle of himself…..this time on a global stage. Why isn’t Piers talking about those things? I’ll tell you why. It’s because in the political arena he’s just another small fish in a very big pond. Nobody gives a damn what Piers Morgan has to say unless its…..wait for it…..”controversial.” People like Piers Morgan whole careers lives or dies bases on attention. The man has no discernible talent. If he doesn’t get any attention, he will disappear into oblivion, because he really doesn’t add any value to anything. He’s just there. People like Piers Morgan don’t care if people are speaking about them negatively or positively. All that matters is that people are talking about him. Truth be told, that’s all the networks care about too. Do you think the networks go through the hassle of checking to see what each individual Twitter account is Tweeting about a person when that person is trending? HELL NO! All that matters is that the person is trending. That means they’re getting attention. To Networks, that means the person holds some sort of value. It’s that simple. This is all a game, and I hate to say it, but some people know how to play it, some don’t, and some aren’t even aware that there is a game going on. This is why people like Piers Morgan target a black audience when they need some attention. Their thought process is that, whenever you Tweet certain key words, the black community will react. And if you Tweet or speak about those key words negatively, the black community will give you the attention that you want and desire. Some of those key words being: Anything about white people saying the N word, anything negative about Beyonce, and anything negative about Barack Obama. They’re trolling. Most times they could honestly care less about any of these things. We have to do a better job of recognizing the game. If we keep giving them the attention they crave every time they’re looking for it, they will keep doing what they’re doing. Cussing them out in the comments does nothing at all. It’s still attention. That equals a win for them. The best way to handle these trolls is to completely ignore them. That hurts more than any comment you could think of typing. Attention is food for these trolls. We need to treat them like the animals in the zoo. DON’T FEED THE TROLLS!