Stand Firm

Take a look at today’s headlines concerning the debate in Washington about our national debt:

• Senator: Mood on Hill is “Toxic”
• Boehner backed into corner by Tea Party, Obama
• Opinion: Get over it, raise debt ceiling
• IMF Chief on Debt: No Magic Bullet
• No love for GOP plan
• Betting on Default
• McCain blasts fellow Republicans
• Can the “Hell, No” caucus get to “Yes”?
• Debt plan failed to get enough support for a vote
• Cut the Crap Act
• Opinion: Shared Sense of Purpose Lost
• Dems or GOP: Who's to blame?
• Zakaria: The damage is already done

In the opinion of this long-time observer of American society and politics, the current debate in Washington is the most bitter and divided since the late 1960s, when we had anti-war protests that turned violent, riots in the cities, tear gas and bullets on college campuses… when “Hell, No, We Won’t Go” met “Better Dead than Red.”

The current debate over the budget is kind of like that.  Fortunately it’s mostly verbal, so far.  But unless we rediscover our common ground as Americans All, it may not stay that way.

This is not about the budget, as such.  It is about the way we as a people are losing the ability to work together.  The budget debacle is just one of the latest and most obvious examples of our loss of shared purpose.

Whether you consider yourself a partisan of the left, a partisan of the right, or a moderate participant, here are some questions you must ask yourself. 

• Do you want to share the power of government with others, even though you do not agree with their opinions, or would you rather your people be in charge of the whole thing? 
• Do you want your chosen political party to run the country unopposed?  Wouldn’t that be great?

Unfortunately, if you are like most Americans today you may not have thought this all the way through.  Consider this: if you prefer your political group to rule unopposed, then you are by your own choice and declaration endorsing one-party rule.  Like the Soviet Union.  If you want to silence and render powerless those with whom you disagree, then whether you realize it or not you are an extremist.

If you do want your opinions to prevail at all costs, here are some words of advice. 

• Portray moderation as weakness and cooperation as failure. 
• Present every choice as a matter of principle.  Do not allow multiple opinions to become points of distraction.
• Do not allow divergent opinions to be considered, however modest they might seem.  It sets a bad precedent. 
• Avoid listening to opinions other than your own, except to find ways to counter or ridicule them. 
• Encourage your representatives and spokespeople to flatly refuse compromise.  Tell them to “Stand Firm!” on your chosen political positions. 

"Stand firm" has in the past conveyed the image of a soldier couageously defending his position against overwhelming odds.  It has connotations of bravery, moral strength, and triumph against overwhelming odds.  It was an uplifting and empwering exhortation.

As is the way with politicians and advertisers, this powerful phrase has been twisted to serve another purpose.  Instead of encouraging gallantry, it has become a code phrase meaning "Refuse to cooperate."  For purposes of manipulating public opinion, extremists pretend that they are being gallant.  But in fact, in this toxic political environment, “Stand firm” really means "Refuse to listen to anyone else's opinion."  Instead of "Do the right thing," it means "Force everyone else to do it our way, regardless of consequences, because only we know what is best.”  One of the minor goals of this post is to take back this one phrase, at least, from the extreme partisans who have misappropriated it. 

Extremists usually justify their fanatical positions and behavior by either (1) insisting that if their radical measures are not taken, the nation will suffer great calamity, or (2) accusing their opponents of being fanatics, and portraying themselves as trying to bring balance to the dialogue by counteracting the bias of others.

To the (rare) unbiased observer, the fatalistic attitude of most political extremists is apparent.  They seem to believe that it doesn’t matter if they bring the country down in the process of trying to enforce their will.  They imply that a country that is not doctrinally ‘correct’ does not deserve to survive anyway. 

This is a high stakes game.  If the current hyper-partisanship continues, then sooner or later one side will emerge victorious.  At that point, one party rule will be achieved.  Hopefully there will not be a full-blown civil war on the way to one party taking charge.  But if there must be a civil war, extremists seem to be saying, so be it. 

Those of us who still actually listen to and consider the opinions of others are considered dangerous by partisans of both sides.  Partisans mistrust people who think for themselves.  Apparently, their need to impose their black-and-white world view is overwhelming.

From the partisan perspective, it is better for a person to affirm the party “platform” than to risk the possibility of coming to an incorrect conclusion by thinking.  Ironic, isn’t it, that extremists who scream about the supremacy of individual rights (and BOTH sides do!) are busy at the same time denying the validity of any opinion which does not mirror that of the collective (whether of the right or the left).

In earlier times, parents taught their children to work together, and fanatics were feared.  Not any longer.  When did zealotry become a virtue, and cooperation a vice?  That is what has happened in our national dialogue.

The most unsettling thing to those of us who still believe in respecting others, who still believe in listening, who honor other people’s rights as much as our own… the most unsettling thing is that it won’t really matter who wins the endgame.  Once one party rule is firmly established, whether from the left or the right, we will all lose our freedom.

Our system of government by the people inherently requires cooperation, and sometimes, compromise.  ‘Compromise’ is not a dirty word, by the way, despite what the extremists tell you.

If you do not like the idea of one party rule, then quit encouraging political intolerance and reaffirm our common ground as Americans.  Talk with respect about your political opponents because, despite honest differences of opinion they are persons worthy of respect, and because they are Americans too.  Reaffirm our American way of government as a Republic, not a dictatorship of the most dogmatic. 

If we all agreed about everything, we would need no government.  One of the functions of government is to moderate differences of opinion.  That is why Congress debates laws before passing them.  That is why, for big disagreements, there is a system of courts.

Nations and persons who value freedom live peacefully among neighbors with whom they disagree.  It is not necessary for everyone to agree about everything.  Seeking universal agreement is a futile quest that will only end in oppression or political ‘cleansing’ or both.

People who want to live in a society where everyone agrees do not value freedom.  They value the supremacy of their own doctrines or their own political allies (comrades?).  They do not value the rights, opinions, or (in some cases) lives of others.

Intolerance is a symptom of totalitarian desires.  Whether of the left (collectivist) or the right (fascist), totalitarian desires are toxic to our American freedom. 

Definition of totalitarian: “Relating to or operating a centralized government system in which a single party without opposition rules over political, economic, social, and cultural life.”  Does this sound like what our Congressional leadership is pushing for?  Regardless of the lip service they may pay to freedom, equality, or American values, those who want to impose political rule by crushing the opposition are moving our country toward totalitarianism.

Do you believe in the wisdom of the founders and great leaders of this American Republic?  If so, then listen to them now.

Benjamin Franklin, at the Constitutional Convention, concerning political arrogance:  “I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the convention…, would, with me… doubt a little of his own infallibility…”

Thomas Jefferson, in his First Inaugural Address, on the intolerance of that time: “Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle.”

George Washington, in his Farewell Address, referring to the ambitions of political parties:  “They are likely, in the course of time… to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government.”

Abraham Lincoln, on the dangers of division among Americans:  “At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.”

By all means, do get actively involved.  Do work to influence your government for the better.  Do not stand idly by while other people do things that are bad for our country.  Be politically active.  Do not, in the process, begin to demean, ridicule, or hate. 

This American believes strongly that one side in the budget debate is more honest, more ethical, and better for the future of our country.  I want that side to prevail in the current crisis.  I have taken steps to let my representatives know what I think is the best course of action.  I do not want my representatives to shut down the other side.  I do want all the representatives of the American people to work together honestly, cooperatively, to achieve financial responsibility. 

The end result needs to be fiscal responsibility, but the goal must be reached together.  If it is not, then the success will endure only as long as it takes for the other side to gain enough political power to reverse course.  Without an ongoing spirit of cooperation and shared purpose, any controversial political issue is destined to become an ongoing drama of reversal after reversal.  In the end, nothing will ever truly be accomplished.

So never compromise on matters of principle.  But do be willing to compromise on matters of policy and opinion.

Do not, in the process of pushing your chosen agenda, destroy the very thing you seek to preserve.

The next time a partisan of one extreme or the other tells you to choose sides, because the fate of the nation depends on it, tell the partisan that you have chosen sides.  Explain to him that the opposite of an extremist is a moderate, and that you have chosen to stand in favor of moderation and against extremism.  That’ll get him worked up.  Extremists hate moderates even more than they hate the opposite extremists.  That is because the partisan’s own hyper-partisan perspective is validated by extremists of the opposite persuasion.  The opposing extremist also validates for the partisan the environment of urgency in which he thrives. 

The moderate on the other hand, by refusing to buy into the drama, the urgency, and the paranoia, undercuts the extremist’s own sense of self-importance and leaves him without his most effective weapons – fear and urgency. 

Want an example?  You’ve probably heard of ‘McCarthyism.’  Look at what happened to Senator Joseph McCarthy after he was called to account for his extremist allegations and actions.*

Do you see why they hate you?  Do you see why you must not hate them back?

One final word of encouragement.  Stand Firm Against Extremism.

Gryphem

* Would you like to know how Senator McCarthy created hyper-partisan paranoia, and how he was ultimately stopped?  If so, I recommend the movie, “Good Night, and Good Luck.”  We could use some voices like Edward R. Murrow today.

Big Brother is Still Watching

He’s getting better at it, too.

Seriously, I am getting freaked out.  Again.  Even though I am careful about protecting my personal information online, someone is watching, gathering, waiting… and he knows too much.

How do popup ads know my name, where I live, and what year I graduated from high school?  I keep my online professional, personal, editorial, and business identities separate.  I don’t even use my real name on Facebook.

How is it then that Facebook can recommend that I “friend” a family member of a former colleague whom I knew six years ago in Iraq?  I have no ongoing contact with him, and I never met her.  So how did Facebook draw the line to make that connection?

How is it that when I open a website anonymously to look for an airfare deal, I am presented with hotel ads for a city where I stayed earlier this year?  I don’t remember posting my hotel arrangements online, so how do they know?

Here’s today’s most freakish.  I have spent time over the past three days doing online research about a certain place far away, where I have never lived or worked.  During the entire time when I was doing this research I did not log onto my secondary email account.  So how is it that when I log onto that account today, I am presented with weather information for that very place?

As much as I wonder how someone is accomplishing all this, my biggest questions are not about ‘how.’  My biggest questions, the ones that bother me the most, are (1) WHO is doing all this watching, collecting, analysis, and exploitation?  (2) And WHY?

I’m not just worried about myself, either.  If I, a security-minded technophobe, am this visible in the “ether” world, then how visible are people who never consider their own personal security or privacy?  What about the people live on their blackberries and internet-capable phones?  What about the ones who post pictures of themselves on Facebook and YouTube?  What about those who “tweet” their thoughts sixty times a day?  I especially worry about the ones who have been so desensitized that they think “reality” television is normal.  

The connections we have through the internet can be a wonderful thing.  But like other wonderful things – automobiles, alcohol, and advertisements, for example – the internet is best used with caution and in moderation.  Remember to behave responsibly online. 

·         Don’t reveal personal information online. 

·         Never respond to unsolicited emails. 

·         Never click on links in emails, no matter who it seems to be from.

·         If it seems too good to be true, it probably is.  If it seems too horrible to be true, it probably is.  Use common sense.

·         Ensure all your online financial transactions are via secure connections.

·         Don’t drink and tweet. 

·         Don’t trust anyone whose goal is to get you agitated.  They do not have your best interests in mind.  This one works in real life as well as online.

·         Trust no one you know only through an electronic connection.  They might not be who you think they are.

·         Use complex passwords.  If you use a real word someone will figure it out, eventually.

·         Post no pictures you wouldn’t want to see on the front page of your local newspaper.  If newspapers seem archaic to you, post nothing you wouldn’t want to see on the evening news.

·         Obstruct the collectors, whether they are persons or drones or programs or zombies, every chance you get.  I leave it to your diabolical creativity to figure out how to do that.

Thank you for reading Gryphem.  I appreciate your time and interest, and the daring you show by your willingness to enter the cyber world to participate in the Gryphem experience. 

You may rest assured that Gryphem will never collect personal information without your consent, will never sell your personal information, and will never use any information collected to target you for marketing or exploitation.  This has been a public service announcement.

Now be careful out there.

Gryphem

 

Courtesy userfriendly.org



Smile!

Everyone say 'kashk.'
Why do we have to take a picture?  I'm having a bad hair day.

Tarub's toes are showing.

I don't want to smile.  People will see my braces.

Be sure you get my good side.
Wait!  I want to wear the tee shirt I got this morning.

Jada is making a face at me.

I need to fix my makeup.

I am smiling!

Lutfiyah's boyfriend is going to love this picture of her.

Stop looking away, Shakira!

I think that man over there is staring at me.

Why does Rafah get a new burka?  I want a new burka, a pretty black one.

Can we go to the beach yet?

I want a copy of the picture so I can show my friends that I was here.

Take another one.  I had my eyes closed.

Sometimes I wonder why.
And sometimes I think it's better if we don't ask too many questions.

Gryphem

Defending Religious Freedom Against Angry Aggressive Atheists

I do not understand why there continue to be all these endless twisted attempts by radical atheists to harass and ultimately silence persons of faith.  I can’t comprehend their desperate need to deny freedom of religion to honest people who believe.  I don’t know why they intentionally misconstrue and misapply the first amendment to the Constitution - the one that prohibits our government from deciding for us what we must believe.  I am astonished by the disinformation they spread, the constantly-repeated lie that religion has been responsible for creating nearly every problem in the history of the world.  The reason they always fill the comments section of every online religious site with spite and ridicule is beyond me.  I do not know why they want to hurt and offend with their talk about sky fairies and imaginary friends.  I can’t wrap my mind around why they hate and despise people like me.  I do not hate them, but that doesn't seem to matter.  They hate me, just like they hate everyone who believes in anything other than their big doctrine of nothingness.

In the news yesterday morning was yet another story about a group of atheists using the courts to attempt to deny freedom of religion to others.  This time the conflict centers on a “Day of Prayer” in the state of Texas.  The Governor proclaimed the Day of Prayer, helped organize a related event, and plans to take part in a rally on that date.  The legal complaint alleges that the entire event is unconstitutional and that the Governor’s participation violates the First Amendment. 

I wonder if these same atheists would claim that the Governor’s church attendance is a violation of the First Amendment.  I wonder if they would try to make atheism a prerequisite to holding public office.  I think they would if they thought they could make it stick.  They probably will try that will someday.

  “I really wish that it was feasible to start another society. We'd be

  a society of all atheists, and anyone found to be practicing religion

  would not be jailed or killed, but rather simply deported.”

  Bagpiper2005, atheist blogger

The name of this particular atheist group is revealing.  The atheist group bringing the lawsuit is the “Freedom From Religion Foundation.”  Notice the preposition.  It is “from,” not “of.”   This group does not believe in freedom of religion.  They do not want to keep the government out of religious matters.  On the contrary, they seek to use the power of the government to enforce atheism. 

I have two things I would like to say to the aggressive atheists.  One is a legal point, and the other is a historical observation.  Both are factual.  Both are logical.

First, the legal observation.  The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” 

Atheists love to quote the first part of the amendment, in which Congress is prohibited from establishing a state religion.  You’ll notice though, if you pay attention, that they never read the latter part of the phrase.  Look at it again. It states that Congress shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion.  It does not endorse atheism, it endorses the free exercise of religion.  The First Amendment is not opposed to religion at all.  The First Amendment is all about freedom of belief.  The First Amendment  actually protects us from state-approved atheism. 

“Atheism discredits condemnation and condemnation discredits atheism.”

Mariano

Note to Atheists:  The First Amendment says you can’t prevent us from believing and practicing our religion, any more than we can prevent you from affirming your atheism.

Secondly, the historical observation.  It is true that human history is filled with oppression of one group by another.  Sometimes the oppressors have been defined by nationality, sometimes by ethnicity, sometimes by belief systems.  Those belief systems that have been the source of oppression have included religious groups as well as atheistic groups, such as Communists.  The one who blames all oppression on religion is either ignorant of historical reality or simply dishonest. 

Then what is the common characteristic of oppressors throughout history?  If it’s not religion, then what is it that encourages them to harm, restrict, condemn, ridicule, terrorize, squelch, and kill their fellow human beings?  What do Klansmen, Crusaders, Stalinists, proponents of ethnic cleansing and genocide, fascists, the Khmer Rouge, Nazis, and the Taliban have in common?  One word: Intolerance.

Note to Atheists:  Religion doesn’t kill people.  Intolerance kills people.  It isn’t any particular set of beliefs about the supernatural that cause problems.  No, problems arise when one person or group attempts to impose their beliefs or practices on another person or group.  Kind of like you want to impose your ethos of atheism on those of us who believe in a God of Love.

A word to Atheists of good conscience.  I know there are a few of you who choose not to believe in God and yet support the principle of religious freedom.  I respect your right to believe as you choose.  I will not ridicule you.  I expect you and your fellow atheists to respect my rights and beliefs.  Please speak out in favor of personal freedom and in opposition to intolerance, especially when you find it among those who share your chosen ethos.  Thank you.

May you ALL have a Blessed Day.

Gryphem

Are You Hiring?

Note: This is an actual letter posted on an actual job search site.  I thought it might get more visibility here.  Who knows where or how the next wonderful development in life might begin?  And seriously... If any of you know of professional possibilities, go take a look at the resume that goes with this.  I'm fairly sure that I am the only Adelaar Gryphem listed on any major job board.  ;-)
- - - - - - - - - -

From:   Adelaar Gryphem

To:       My Next Employer

Thank you for taking the time to read this.  I hope you’ll find it interesting.  As you’ll see, this is not your typical cover letter.

Let’s start with this… Even though it is a fantastic name, Adelaar Gryphem is a pseudonym.  It is the name under which I write my blog, ‘Gryphem’ (www.gryphem.blogspot.com).  I use my pseudonym to avoid confusion.  It would not be difficult for you to determine my legal name, if you really wanted to.  My purpose in being Gryphem is not secrecy, but separation. 

You see, I have a job-seeking account under my actual name.  That one is more practical, and more likely to be viewed by traditional hiring authorities.  My real-name account presents my real accomplishments in a practical, career-oriented format.  It is quite factual.  My real-name account supports my career in a conventional way.

The presentation of Adelaar Gryphem, on the other hand, is full of hope, beyond-reasonable aspiration.  As Adelaar, I seek more freedom and creativity, more interaction with people, more travel to more places in the process of earning an income.  This account represents my search for an ideal. 

I am currently employed, and I make a decent salary.  I greatly appreciate my job.  I don’t know what I would have done over these past two years without it.  Even so, what I would love is a job that demands imagination and ingenuity, that involves history and travel and the satisfaction that comes with solving a problem or building something that didn’t exist before I created it. 

Thanks to my current position, I have been able to take on a lot of financial responsibility.  Not extravagances, but responsibilities.  Because of the constraint of those responsibilities, I’ve had difficulty finding my perfect next position, the new job I will truly love.  So I continue to work, gratefully, in my military organization... but I dream of greater things.

I have traveled much of the world, and loved every minute of it.  I want to travel more, especially in Europe.  I am beginning to learn German in the hope of being able to speak it one day in Germany and Austria.  I would be open to travel throughout North and South America, the Middle East, South Asia, Australia and the Pacific…  almost anywhere, to tell the truth. 

I have been a teacher, and I loved that job.  I found great joy in persuading young people to open their minds to the amazing world all around them, in showing my students the wonders of history and literature and music and nature.  I left that profession after 16 years only because certain administrators cared more about statistics than people, because those administrators were demanding that I do things to squelch creativity instead of encouraging it.

My areas of particular interest, beyond what I’ve already stated, include the ocean, religion (in a non-dogmatic sense), geography, and conversation.  I love the forest, manatees, Celtic and classical music, impressionist art, baseball, folklore, maps, old buildings, good movies, and people from different places who are curious and good-natured.  I love my family most of all. 

I am geographically constrained in my search for the perfect position.  Home ownership, my spouse’s job, and local responsibilities mean that I need to remain in the Norfolk, Virginia area… although Washington State and Florida are not out of the question if the perfect job were to present itself.

My ideal job might combine travel and teaching, although I am open to opportunities in either field separately, or in something totally different but fascinating.  It would be magnificent if my ideal job were to involve responsibilities of great significance.  In the past I have been blessed by the opportunity to keep the world safe (Navy) and build the future (teaching).

There are a few jobs out there that might fit the bill, except for my financial obligations.  Because of those obligations I need to maintain an income at or near my current level.  Believe me, I’d love to throw it all to the wind and join the Peace Corps, or start a coffee shop, or lead tours through Europe, or build patios, or even go back to teaching – overseas. 

Because I take my responsibilities seriously, I continue to give my best hours each day to the organization where I work.  I affirm my support for those who defend our freedom, and I am honored to be a part of it.  Given a real alternative though, after more than a couple of decades in defense, I would choose to spend the hours of my days traveling in a different direction.

I am old enough to have a lot of professional and personal experience, and young enough to do any reasonable job.

I am a professional with the demonstrated ability to do almost anything.  I learn fast.  I can follow or lead.  My enthusiasm for the right opportunity will astonish you.

So now that you see what I’m trying to accomplish, are any ideas coming to mind?  I’d love to discuss the possibilities.  Give me a call.  Oh, and thanks for reading Gryphem.

R/

Adelaar

Intolerance In Denial

The following exchange was found on a CNN blog following a news story.  The topic of the story was transgender issues, but that isn't the real story here.  With apologies to the good people of Brooklyn, NY (I can’t help what the commenter called herself), what is significant is how ‘Brooklynny‘ (or as I think of her, ‘the hater’) puts words in the mouth of another writer, ‘ImJusSayinn,’ and then blasts him for what he never said.  This is an obvious example of jumping to conclusions, a transparent case of venomous hatred exploding without provocation.

I reprint this here on the Gryphem blog in hopes of reminding you, readers, to be on your guard against those who are lying in wait to bait and belittle people of good conscience, eager to act on their fury, anxious to hurt those who have the temerity to hold different beliefs… and to do it in the name of tolerance.  Here is the excerpt:

ImJusSayinn:

"...for 2000 plus years there has only been two types of human beings.."male" and "female" and now all of a sudden people wanna change their genders and wanna say that gender status is a personal issue!"

Brooklynny:

"I love Jesus, his people.... not so much. You should be looking in your hearts, not a 2000 year old book written 60 years after the fact. Who cares what you believe, how dare you force your believes on others. But I guess that the Christian way, believe what I believe or I'll hurt you."

ImJusSayinn:

"Who said I was looking in a 2000 year old book? I dont believe I said that at all, What I AM saying is that for the past 2000 plus years on this planet all there has ever been is 2 types of human beings, male and female...  I think its funny how u get mad at people judging "transgenders" but then u turn around and judge christians… If you dont want people judging other people then dont do it urself."

I guess this is the proudest I have ever been of anyone who uses the letter 'u' as a word.

Consider… Someone wrote these three phrases in the same argument, in the same paragraph:  (1) "Who cares what you believe,"  (2) "You should be..."  (3) "How dare you force your beliefs..."  The double standard is so obvious it’s giving me a headache.

Brooklynny just condemned her respondent for sharing his thoughts, then told him what he must believe.  Wow, for some reason I had this fleeting image of the Inquisition declaring someone a heretic and burning him at the stake… and the image was not spurred by the religious respondent in this exchange.  What is more manipulative, for one to share his thoughts, or for another to tell him what he must think?

Next question.  Brooklynny, where did the accusation, “believe what I believe or I'll hurt you” come from?  In the first place, your respondent never claimed to be a Christian.  You assumed that.  Secondly, he most certainly never threatened to hurt you or anyone else.  The commenter ‘ImJusSayinn’ is not the threatening presence in this conversation.

Those are only a couple of the irrational, emotion-laden contradictions here.  In fact, there are so many logical inconsistencies in this short paragraph that to continue would be like shooting fish in a barrel. 

Here’s an interesting sidebar that might give us a clue about the perspective of this hater.  I notice that Brooklynny felt the need to proclaim her love for Jesus in the same sentence in which she expressed hatred for Christians.  I think this is evidence of that most illogical but pervasive practice of double-speakers everywhere, ‘political correctness.’  Even in the process of a tirade Brooklynny, out of habit probably, denied any ill will.  She denied it right before spewing her negativity all over her unsuspecting victim.  In this way she will be able to deflect any criticism of her mean-spirited rant by pointing out how she said she loves Jesus.  Insidious.  She says something appeasing, then proceeds to assail the character and beliefs of the target.  Reminds me of Pilate washing his hands before releasing Jesus to those who would execute him.

So what was the real message of this hateful commenter?  She would have you believe that her reason for commenting is to spread a message of tolerance.  That is not so.  The hypocrisy is obvious. 

The reasonable person who doesn’t think about it too hard would probably conclude that she is attempting to silence dissenting opinions by character assassination.  Closer, but that still is not the prime motivation for ‘Brooklynny.’  The hatred is non-specific, thrown at a target of opportunity even though the target hasn’t really said or done anything offensive.  She didn’t know him before, and his words were not enough to inspire this level of response.  So silencing him was not her initial objective.

The fact is, Brooklynny came to this meeting with a loaded gun.  She was primed and ready, and needed only a target to present itself.  The real reason for her explosion is simple.  To hate.  To despise.  To hurt.  In her cynical angst, Brooklynny is lashing out sadistically for the primary purpose of hurting another.  It was not logical.  It was not even personal, really.  Her respondent just happened to appear in her line of sight. 

Shocking?  Yes, and also true.  Evil exists, and we deny it at our peril.  I do not say the person Brooklynny is pure evil.  She is a human being like we all are, with both good and evil battling within her.  But for the time it took her to write her comments this day, she gave in to the wrong influence.  I hope she one day rejects the anger and learns a better way to live.  I hope that by thinking about it in advance, we honest believers might be better prepared the next time we are ambushed by someone with an axe to grind.

Be on your guard.  Call it like you see it.  Don’t take it personally.  Don’t give in to the temptation to hate.  Instead, against all odds, love.  Say a little prayer today for someone you know who is overcome with negativity and needs to understand the love of God.

Gryphem

- - - - -

This piece was originally created in response to a CNN blog in April 2010.  The issues presented are not diminished by the passage of time.