"Fault Lines"

Devin Joseph Metz

We as people are defined by more than we may know, care to realize or want to admit; and that does not mean that every definition will be accurate or even appropriate. There's this novel concept called opinion that each and every individual will find his/herself privy to and subject to; sometimes with both of these occurrences taking place simultaneously. It goes without stating that one's opinion is most times accompanied by judgement. This judgement can and will be viewed as legitimate or unfounded; but the catch here is that the one being judged is the only one that will feel this way; leading that person to believe that he/she has some measure of influence over how one will judge them.

You know what? That person isn't completely wrong, either.

Of course, regardless of whether or not we believe that we have a certain amount of control over how we will be judged, there is still a considerably larger portion of that perception that we have absolutely no control over.

So where am I going with all of this?

My overall point is that although we may have extremely limited control(and in some cases none at all) over how others perceive us, we still have a responsibility to ourselves regarding any initial perception that is shaped in response to our actions and behavior. Now for all of you headstrong readers out there full of pride and whatnot, I know what you must be thinking right now...

I couldn't agree more. 

We are not at all responsible for what another person understands. As a matter of opinion, I've always considered understanding to be relative to the individual; even if the collective appear inclined to the same understanding across the board. We may all share a similar understanding for something; but there will no doubt be slight differences in how one arrived to that point of understanding or how something is understood. You and I may both understand that people love to drink lemonade; but the reasoning that we couple with that understanding can and most times is different. I may fancy it a preferred beverage because it appeals to me as refreshing and light on the palate. You may feel that it is a preferred beverage because of the sweet taste, rather. What is understood is different from how it is understood.

Simple enough.

So let's put away the pitcher and look at this on a grander scale of thinking.

As much as I tried my best to avoid even talking about it altogether, even someone as reserved as myself couldn't pass by the large elephant in America's room for the sake of making a general point. 

On July 13th shortly before 9:00 PM central time, George Zimmerman was found not guilty of a second degree murder charge he received April 11th, 2012; less than a month after he shot and killed seventeen year old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida. For sake of stating what George was up against with this charge, in Florida, a conviction for second degree murder constitutes a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. If a firearm was used in the murder, the mandatory minimum sentence would be twenty-five years in state prison.

*I have already voiced my reservations relative to the verdict rendered and I will not elaborate on those views. They are my own and they are hardly even relevant to what will be divulged in this entry.*

As was to be expected, the public response to the verdict in majority was highly negative; citing outrage, disappointment, sadness and extreme anger among many. There were reports alleging that riots were set to occur along with many other various protests and demonstrations in communities worldwide had Zimmerman been found innocent. People expressed their disdain in grand fashion via social mediums as well; some going as far as to threaten George, his supporters, and anyone who didn't share similar views regarding their disapproval of the jury's verdict.

Only a few of these events as far as rioting and increased violence have come to pass, fortunately(at least not on as large of a scale as I had initially anticipated); but it did open my mind; causing me to recall other court decisions in history that yielded a result that was not quite as fortunate.

Those of you who have viewed my earlier posts will recall my mentioning of the White Night Riots in San Francisco, California. In lieu of a rather lenient sentencing of Dan White in response to his assassinating openly gay San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk, members of the gay community took to the streets in violent fashion; laying waste to anything and anyone in their path and causing hundreds of thousands of dollars in property damage overall. The riots took place on the night of May 21st, 1979; the night before what would have been Harvey Milk's 49th birthday.

In elaboration, The gay community in San Francisco had an everlasting conflict with their police department; and White's position as a former police officer did very little to quell that anger and tension.

When the night concluded, 140 protesters, 61 police officers and 100 members of the public were injured and hospitalized. What made matters worse was when hours after the riot was ended by local police, they raided a gay bar in San Francisco's Castro District; arresting over a dozen patrons after beating many of them while still in their riot gear. This of course led to several people suing the San Francisco Police Department later on.

Gay leaders refused to apologize for the events of that night; forging a substantial spike in political influence for the gay community. This led to an eventual election of Mayor Dianne Feinstein in November of that year. Mayor Feinstein then hired the first Pro-Gay Chief of Police; which increased the recruitment of gay people in police departments and other affiliated positions.

This is viewed as a widely successful ending to something otherwise viewed as disparaging and volatile in that community; but I think that the White Night Riots serve as a control to this experiment. Many other riots were more costly than positively effective....

Whether or not you were born during this time, I'm sure most if not all of my readers from California can recall the more devastating riots from that region, be it the Watts Riots, the 1992 Rodney King Riots and more recently the riots that happened in response to  the verdict rendered for the police officer involved in the 2009 New Year's Day shooting of Oscar Grant by the BART Police in West Oakland, California.

The Watts Riots although incited by people that were tired of the oppression in the region still proved to be far more volatile of an event than anyone involved could've ever imagined. It took place in Los Angeles from August 11th through August 17th in 1965. The riot lasted six grueling days; resulting in 34 deaths, 1,032 injuries, 3,438 arrests and over forty million dollars in property damage altogether.
\

The 1992 Rodney King Riots were the direct result of the acquittal of the police officers that were video taped beating Rodney King. At the time, the riots that occurred here were considered to be the most detrimental with the highest death toll of any riot that took place in the United states up to this point. These riots also occurred over a six day span; covering most of South Central Los Angeles before spreading to other parts of the city. The riots occurred in late April and covered everything from widespread looting and arson to assault and murder; urging the California National Guard to get involved to get things in order eventually.

Although there was still a great deal of oppression reminiscent of the Watts Riots, the Rodney King riots were purely if not exclusively racially charged; drawing Hispanics and Korean business owners into the fray as well. What suffered more was the community and the economy overall with over 3000 buildings destroyed; resulting in over one billion dollars in property damage.

The riots that took place in lieu of the verdict rendered in favor of the police officer that killed Oscar Grant III on New Years Day in 2009 marked a violent response to a form of oppression that very much mirrors what happened to Trayvon Martin in the opinions of some. Although not nearly as substantial in comparison to any of the aforementioned, the riot brought to the forefront the undeniable rift that the incident placed between races, nationalities and factions; not to mention the rift between community and law enforcement.

Although some would argue that these riots took place for good reasons and the retaliatory efforts of the oppressed were necessary hardships, I stand to disagree.

Many of us who consider ourselves among the oppressed surely won't rise to the occasion individually or collectively to examine and discover how much of that oppression is implemented by our oppressors and how much of our own oppression we have lent to them; inadvertently oppressing ourselves in the process.

We who hate to be racially profiled and typecast, we who abhor stereotypical slander with unfounded sensitivity, we who preach and proclaim unity across the board are often the ones imploring that such unsavory treatment continues. This is not a general indictment of any variance. There are those of us who legitimately make a concerted effort to attain the unity only some truly favor; but the vast majority can lay no claim to the pursuit of peace, camaraderie and understanding of another culture's race or belief.

Before social media really thrust itself into our everyday lives, the often shameless, aggressive views of this majority were vented through news media and those of political status; regardless of whether or not their statements were justified, rational or even appropriate. Some forty plus years later, technology gives way to a brave new world where what one states on a social medium can lead to things that are further from the monitor and closer to the porch. Various social networks have become platforms where cyber bullies and internet thugs run roughshod; denouncing each other with their own opinions and jocking for position among those higher in exposure for their lack of social credibility. This is never more apparent than when something takes place in our country that leaves an everlasting impact on society as a whole.

I know what you're thinking: "Cyber Bullies? I'm no bully."

Of course you aren't......until you are. Be it online, in the news, or on the streets throughout the day, anyone willing to resort to despicable acts such as the issuing of death threats, harsh criticisms of another race or belief in lieu of any occurrence, and the ever embarrassing bandwagoning from those who only take part in this banter for the sake of choosing a side are all forms of bullying; and in my scope of reasoning, it is much more redundant and ridiculous than threatening.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I honestly never had much patience for any of them; but it wouldn't be too far fetched to assume that maybe our government would prefer that we continue to cling to the redundant acts aforementioned. It wouldn't seem like too much of a reach to consider that maybe the government uses media outlets and other means as a deterrent; keeping us considerably distant from what we should be paying attention to. Maybe that would've had something to with this piece of commemorative property:

Pretty snazzy, huh? That's actually something else that I've had an issue with as far as things that do nothing to dispel the negative stigma that is attached to us as black people is concerned: Overt, unnecessary exposure and promotion. I don't mind the posters, paintings and maybe even a graphic tee here or there; but when I look on Facebook and find that someone made a Trayvon Martin chain 1/4 of the size of T-Pain's "Big Ass Chain"(Google it. It really is a chain that says "Big Ass Chain"), I honestly wonder how one would expect not to be profiled or even find room to be appalled if someone does profile them? Whether you care or not about the opinions that one may shape about you, one thing remains true in the social aspect of our livelihood:

Perception Is Everything.

It definitely is everything; and that includes adjectives such as skewed, flawed, costly, counterproductive, and everything else that seemingly has something to do with how our government has chosen to "handle" our most pressing issues. For years on end, the need for debate was viewed as a key component to the implementation of positive change. With the handling of the war on terror, the Iraq war and most recently discussions over gun control, that need has slowly but undeniably morphed into a stage set for redundant opinion slinging and unproductive argumentative banter.

Our very own government presumably entrusted with the tools essential to our progression and societal development as a nation appear just as useless in my opinion as most of us taking part in hollow arguments and debates on various social networks. It takes entirely too long for parties or branches of government to come to a unanimous agreement when it comes to things that should be more paramount to them than it may actually appear to be; and the people are beginning to mirror the government so much now that the lines have definitely started to blur substantially.

If you observe a large group more concerned with preserving or improving their stance in stalwart fashion than actually putting their collective knowledge and abilities together to promote advancement and prosperity, who do you think you'd be looking at? 

The People or The Government?

If you observe this large group spending more time threatening and arguing with one another in a manner that makes them appear more adolescent than accountable rather than actually trying to find some common ground to stand on for the sake of their very livelihood overall, who do you think this brings down in the long run?

The People or The Government?

If you observe this large group exhausting vital energy on the opposition of another person or group's ideals or point of view instead of finding a way to coexist while respectfully disagreeing for the sake of actually creating solutions instead of preserving negativity, who can we say are truly at fault?

The People or The Government?

Nothing better than a good rhetorical question to get the blood boiling.

To be completely honest, we are all at fault. We are all guilty of this; be it those who issue threats, those who cyber bully, those of us who condemn others for shaping their own opinion while we uphold ours as sovereign, and especially those of us who keep this vicious cycle of redundancy in frequent rotation.

I would love to believe that it is merely speculation and more theory than actual conspiracy; but one can never really be sure nowadays. The cycle is far too prevalent:

 An issue arises that affects us all one way or another, the smaller percentage of our population joins together and holds our government accountable for finding a solution to said issue while the vast majority of us argue, chew out the opinions of each other and act as ridiculous as we possibly can in the process; which only adds to the typecasts and amplifies the perception we have predetermined about each other. 

While this is taking place, that gathering of people in higher public ranking of importance is busy doing the same; only falling short of the incensed threats that we are issuing to each other. All the while, people are losing hope, politicians are lining their pockets and the problems that we all still find ourselves struggling to deal with linger on instead of being addressed and effectively handled accordingly.

None of us have earned the right to point our fingers at anyone else; especially when we would discover after a bit of self examination that we have contributed more to some of the problems than we ever did to any of the solutions. The difference, however is that we as people have nothing to hide. We can't hide; no matter how much we would like to believe that we can.

Our government, however.......

..........they have a great deal of control over what we can and cannot see; at least until they are smoked out partially if not wholly due to a scandal of some sort. What would the government have to hide? Why would they feel the need to? What motive would they have for keeping us preoccupied with glimmers in the dark rather than revealing to us what only the light shows? Why these new proposals and bills? Why sanction what was supposed to be protected under constitutional rights?

Why give the people a greater portion of what doesn't matter in the form of social networking updates and advancements, video applications for our phones, ridiculous television shows and music that can't even hold a torch to seven or eight years ago to argue over; then when the issues come about, amplify the distractions even more so for the purpose of making us feel like we are actually engaging in real life issues?

What are they distracting us from anyways...........

..........................this? 

 It may behoove us to focus less on each other's faults and more on what is beginning to slowly shift beneath our feet before it surfaces.

"Bear Arms. No Clause."

Devin Joseph Metz

Know what I find so very intriguing about the filter? No matter how much it endeavors to strain out all of the fluid and separate it from the pulp, there is bound to be a portion of that pulp that will slip through even the smallest nook along with all of that fluid. So what naturally would we do about that? Of course we'll strain once, twice, maybe thrice more; hoping to get rid of the remnants. There is a measure of success with this method; but we never get rid of the pulp entirely. There will be a grain here, a seed there, a string left behind, etc.

Some of us don't care about that rogue, disproportionate inkling. We hardly ever notice or even pay attention it; and if we do, it won't completely ruin anything for us. Hell, some of us actually love it and want to see an increase in it for whatever our reasons may be. Some of us, however develop a considerable distaste for these enduring bits of pulp. It is considered vile, disgusting, horrible in texture and taste, and highly invasive. Who really wants to spit seeds out when enjoying that glass of orange juice in the morning? Who wants to chew that grainy, stringy back draft while enjoying some soup broth?

I like my orange juice pulp free, by the by; but I digress.

My point here is that there are three main types of people that make their stance known and very clear when it comes to their response to control; be it their control over something or someone or the inverse:

We Who Concede

We who choose to concede control have either bought into our state of affairs out of a lackadaisical means of reasoning or in lieu of a realization of defeat per our perception of how things currently are; regardless of whether or not we have viewed the potential for things to change one way or another. After straining and separating, if that filter has not yielded our desired result, we calibrate our desires to that of our current situation, chug that pulp and keep it pushing.

We Who Want More

We who clamor for more and more of that control that have either developed it over time or have had it ingrained in us from inception crave an often substantial(or even in most cases volatile) increase in that control. We love the way things are, have become or will soon be and implore more of it; be it out of our love for the improvements or our seeing the depreciation that may take place from this change as a necessity. The more pulp, the better. Our motives are rarely ever clear enough by societal standards and our behavior may call into question those very motives even more; but the only time we will complain about the state of affairs is if that change does not take place at a rate that we would like it to or if it does not take place at all.

We Who Absolutely Hate It

Now this in no way pertains to one's distaste for control. Honestly, I think that among most anything ever hated in existence, control would be one of those things that may very well be viewed as an exception to a degree; because in my opinion, there will always be a desire for control in each individual in some capacity. We who oppose those in positions of power often want that power; be it for the means of personal increase, improvement across the board, or for the employment of our own form of oppression. This type of person truly abhors not being in a position of power over their situation(or in a broader scope of thinking, overall); no matter what manner of control is required. What I took note of is the fact that what usually drives us mad is that small, slight, meager percentage that eludes our influence consistently. That one seed that lands in our glass, those few strands that are discovered on our plate, those tiny grains that surface within our bowl become critical tipping points that incite our anger; many times causing us to lose control over our greater majority in lieu of our amplified focus on the minuscule that always manages to elude our influence somehow.

I can relate to each of these three examples. I'm confident that you can as well if you take each into careful consideration.

The hunger, thirst, desire, passion, drive, and sometimes blatant call for control is hard to ignore or deny; be it confined to the concerns of our country or expounded upon world wide. We will always have a demand for control; and it won't always mean that we require that control to come from us directly. We as a collective demand a lot of our government. We should, of course. They are here to govern us. There are times where this control is misplaced, misused, abused, mishandled or just pressed upon something that society at large may deem highly unnecessary compared to what one would consider more important.

Remember the "War On Terror?" Of course you do. That period where our POTUS at the time bombed defenseless Iraqi citizens, sending many of our family and friends over to Iraq to fight in a meaningless war and left them for dead with no idea when they will return? Remember our current POTUS cleaning up that mess, finding the terrorist that the prior incumbent couldn't find in his tenure and eventually bring our troops back home from where they should have never been deployed to in the first place? 

Was that biased of me?

Did you recognize that the above paragraph is purely rhetorical?

Really?

You did?

Go you!

How very real that war on terror became once we saw a disturbing increase in terrorist activity here on our own plains; be it at a high school or movie theater in Colorado, a mall in California or an elementary school in Connecticut. For something that in my opinion should have been at least higher up on our ledger long before the Oklahoma City Bombing, The September 11th attacks or any war in another country that we've taken part in, we seem to have dropped the ball considerably. Fast forward to the gruesome, depressing and frightening acts that have taken place in our own country over the past two years, however and we find ourselves at one of the most ridiculously unnecessary forks in the road: Gun Control.

In the aftermath of the Columbine Massacre, parents in communities and government officials nationwide called into question a myriad of motivational factors for why Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold committed the murders. One glaringly obvious factor was the fact that Harris suffered with depression; evidenced by his initial prescription for the anti-depressant drug Zoloft. Harris was later prescribed the drug Luvox instead; which is what was found at therapeutic levels in his system at the time of his death.

Other factors were tossed across the perverbial table, of course. Among these included psychopathy to accompany the depression, bullying, the social climate that surrounded them, music that was listened to at the time and even a Goth subculture of sorts.

What was under perhaps the largest microscope, however was the controversy that surrounded video games. Harris and Klebold were fans of the video games "Wolfenstein 3D" and "Doom;" games deemed extremely violent in content. It was proposed that the violent nature of these games and games sharing similarities to them influenced Klebold and Harris; especially as it was uncovered that both often created additional levels for some of the aforementioned games that were heavy on graphic violence and gore. This brought into question the level of naivety that would coincide with a particular age bracket; definitively splitting factions completely down the middle as some believed that aside from the fact that Klebold and especially Harris were obviously mentally unstable, video games hold no indicative influence on the average mentally and emotionally sufficient teenager. It was not ignored, however that video games among other platforms for intrigue and development for children younger in age than the average teenager may potentially cultivate negative and violent behavior that can lead to actions and decisions that may be perceived as unpredictable and threatening as that child grows older; especially given the emotional changes that child is bound to experience.

Suffice it to say, a litany of incidents worldwide that have been linked to video game influence have done nothing to quell the flames in that back and forth debate. In my opinion, blaming something that cannot make a choice for you or forcefully sway your decision either way is just a base display of one's unwillingness to latch onto accountability.

This would be another one of those "control" issues.

Influence only spans as far as those who implore or abstain in response to it. If a video game, music or anything else created by those under a certain degree of control is allowed to have more influence on a child than his/her own parent or guardian(who exercised that control initially by issuing this content to the child), then it may behoove all of us who find ourselves in the role of a care provider to reevaluate our tasks considerably. 

As if the National Rifle Association(NRA) hasn't already found themselves surrounded by enough governmental backlash with their various battles with government officials individually such as their lawsuit against former New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin in light of gun seizures in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 or their support in Brian Aitken's case against New Jersey for their imprisonment of him for seven years for transporting weapons without a permit in 2010, the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shootings called to the forefront both the NRA and the "discussion"(more of a pride and anger driven debate) regarding gun control in the United States. Communities affected by this massacre as well as certain government officials lobbied for the removal of certain weapons from their communities if not a way to make these weapons harder to obtain. Government officials in support of the NRA, however proposed the hiring of armed police officers in every American school to protect students.

In a rather pedestrian move on his part, President Obama responded by issuing a proposal for universal background checks on firearms purchases, an assault weapons ban, and(in a more disparaging and slightly humorous move) limiting magazine capacity to ten cartridges.

That'll show em, POTUS! Reduce that violence! Less head shots means prosperity for all!

Enjoyed that spirited sarcasm? Good. I'm an Avenger Of Truth. It comes with the package.

I'm sure that I am not the only one to have shaped this opinion in response to Barack's proposal; but I feel like he squandered an opportune chance to make a decision one way or another with his meager and rather head scratching proposal. Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that I am for armed cops in elementary schools or against background checks or a weapons ban of sorts. I just feel like he is conceding to some degree. After a great deal of strain and effort by all parties involved, it just feels like he is content to sip that juice with seeds and grains of pulp now. If there is to be a weapons ban, why only limit it to assault weapons? Why leave some of that grainy pulp behind?

Now before our NRA supporters out there jump down my throat, I get it. I know what the constitution says regarding your Second Amendment rights:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I know what you're wondering; so yes: I did read that in Morgan Freeman's voice.

Needless to say, Obama found failure swiftly in his highly waffled exploits in response to the Sandy Hook massacre for heightened gun control; evidenced in January by the Utah Sheriff's Association criticizing what they described as his attempt to "demonize firearms." They went on to state that they would refuse to uphold federal laws that restricted the Second Amendment rights of their constituents.

Ouch.

Furthermore, the bill that would be short-lived in proposed form as the Manchin-Toomey Background Checks Bill failed to pass the U.S. Senate April of this year; leading to an embarrassingly epic stint of finger pointing between President Obama and the Republican Party in public fashion.




Now let's suppose that in some quirky turn of events that Obama's proposal actually went through. Let's say then that this proposal included zone restrictions. You know: businesses, institutions, buildings and certain areas where guns were prohibited as a direct result of Barack's proposal...

See how easy it is to tack this onto Liberal views? Why is this perceived as something that a Liberal would have to stand behind; regardless of whether or not they would? Production credit, POTUS. Production credit due.

So what actions would lead to this ban? This is taking into account that the massacre of small children wasn't sufficient enough, of course. What if that outcry from communities took a more dark, disturbing turn? What if this were necessary to facilitate some visible change...

This image brings into question why the game of dodgeball was banned for it's violence and an assault weapon has yet to befall the same ruling.

Remember those Kinder brand chocolates; especially their "Kinder Surprise" chocolate egg with the toy surprise on the inside? Yeah. You see where they are going with this one. Kinder chocolate eggs were pulled in majority off of the market in the interest of child safety. Still hasn't occurred for assault weapons as of yet.



Creeped out yet? Flabbergasted even? Hang in there...

This little dandy of a poster displays a child holding a book depicting the story of "Little Red Riding Hood" on the cover. This little girl has some nerve; what with her holding a book removed from school for the story revealing a bottle of wine in Little Red Riding Hood's basket. Assault weapons are dry county, though.

The three posters above are part of the Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense In America movement. Check out more about their argument and mission at momsdemandaction.org.

Suffice it to say, depictions as disturbing as these posters surely would drive me to forge some semblance of a more realistic change; but I'm not in the oval office.

At least not yet, anyways.

Still hypothetically speaking, of course; but lets say that this proposal(which would likely become a bill after the highly influential push from those angry mothers) did so well that it passed across the board. Lets also say that it did so well that Barack decided to extend the statutes of that bill to other areas............where people are accustomed to having their weapons as a means of protection or - as the rifle bearers would profess emphatically - as a representation of their Second Amendment rights. What conundrums, arguments and particularly sensitive gray areas would surface as a result of this extension?

Now hold your reservations about this cartoon long enough to allow me to use it to illustrate my next point. The huge machine gun here(or whatever the kids are calling it nowadays) alludes to my earlier elaboration regarding those of us who want more of that control. That's a lot of fire power....um...pulp. Instances where weapon wielding citizens who obviously oppose this bill will bring into the gun control discussion those who would challenge this bill with their right to protect themselves. There would be gripping, elaborate, disdainful stories told by families about how a father or daughter could and likely would have been saved had they not had their right to own a weapon policed under government sanction.

One would presume that in light of such, things likely would have never ended up completely in favor of one result or the other; even given the success of this bill. 

So what would be the governmental retort to the population's argument; regardless of how many people opposed them in that argument? Would they yield in lieu of the urge of the masses or would they get aggressive; decreeing that all who are deemed by government as law abiding citizens must honor the laws that apply to this bill? How would that go over with those who consider themselves unaffected as a result?

If nothing else, these two understood what would be verbally outlined by the government's decree; deciding that they can claim immunity from the law since they do not abide by it. Government reaction would likely be reminiscent of those of us who hate that gray area. That grainy sediment that finds ways to be contrary no matter what the circumstance is more realistic in this real world than the one that I've fashioned for the sake of discussion here in this post. It serves none of us to honestly believe that everyone will at any point be on one accord with what has been and will be discussed in the issue of gun control; and that covers the entire nation from the family mourning a loss due to weapons violence to the community at large scared straight due to violent acts to the government itself that consistently squabbles back and forth without reaching a level solution to the problem around them.

This does not render us as a nation hopeless, though.

There is always hope that our government will get things together at some point; no matter how bright or bleak that glimmer of hope may be. I do not consider myself a radical; but I do fancy myself a Revolutionary. I have faith that a time will rise when government will have to set aside what they don't like and focus on what their nation needs once more; especially when most of what this nation needs becomes what the majority wants after all. There will be a time when government will be compelled to cease debate and embrace productive solutions that will eliminate problems instead of just expounding upon them. 

The Truth Will Not Be Ignored.

This is our mission as Avengers Of Truth; but it isn't confined exclusively to what you are reading. Avenge truth for yourself and those you care about. Avenge truth for the empowerment of positive influence; an influence that can eventually reach further than just our country. Demand that power be drawn away from terrorists and criminals so that it may be placed back in the hands of those that can use it to improve our overall state of affairs. It would be optimal if we could trust our government with that power...........not like the President is concerned with other things.......right?





http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-signs-executive-order-to-allow-shut-down-of-all-us-communications





Well, if you placed the above link in your browser and read the article(initial credit to Melanie for the link, by the way), then maybe there is reason to be concerned after all; but I'll save that for another time.


We are not defenseless; no matter how vulnerable we may appear in response to what has occurred over the past few years in this country as a direct result of widespread gun violence. Power wielded by those who take part in these crimes is only as potent as the fear that they look to invoke with their actions. I'm not saying that we should stare down the barrel of rifles and place a marigold in them. That time has passed and those people will be and have been held accountable for their actions. That same accountability, however must be firmly pressed upon the minds and hearts of both those who have committed these horrible crimes and those who harbor the intent to do so. We are all fully aware that there are individuals that have no remorse at all. We are also aware that just because one may have intent to harm, that does not guarantee that he/she will inform anyone of that intent. 

One thing that we do know for sure about those with the intent to harm is that even if they are perceived heartless, they most definitely have a capable thought process; and that thought process deserves to be aggressively jarred against his/her individual contemplations. 

For all the opposition that music receives in these arguments regarding public safety, gun violence, or any other occurrence that music can be folded into, there is a large amount of strength and levity for the masses amid the intelligence employed by our artists. I am led to recall a quote from Hip-Hop artist Kendrick Lamar:



"Everybody gon' respect the shooter, but the one in front of the gun lives forever." - From Kendrick Lamar's song "Money Trees"




I love how layered this quote is. It has a very poignant and powerful meaning behind it as well. It means that although the shooter is all but guaranteed to garner attention for committing the murder, the victim will be honored and remembered forever. This also tells me that the criminal will have the weight of his/her act of violence exponentially increased with every memory and slight thought given to the victim. 

This analogy insists that the regime(or in this case, the criminal) will always get fleeting respect; but "the one in front of the gun"(we the people) will always exist no matter what threats are issued.

So when is the victim not a victim? I'd venture to say that this occurs when that "victim" lives on further than this life as that one seed at the bottom of the glass, that grainy sediment that couldn't be removed from the soup or that small yet very significant amount of pulp that drives the criminal crazy because there is no way to get rid of what will always exist.

True power in the face of fear.

Offer those who would threaten our safety and freedom a glass of juice. Leave them the option of how many times they'd like to filter that beverage.