Profound Pontifications

One of my colleagues posed the question of whether or not the media should have publicized the fact that Army psychiatrist, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan – the culprit in yesterday’s Ft. Hood shootings – was a Muslim. I seems like a valid question. I mean, was his faith really determinative?

According to CNN, Fort Hood’s commanding general (unnamed) relayed that witnesses reported that Hasan yelled “Allahu Akbar,” Arabic for “God is great,” during the shootings. But then they reported that Lieutenant General Robert Cone said investigators had not confirmed that. Why is it that a lieutenant general is referred to by name, but the commanding general isn’t? Is it because the commanding general said, “Don’t quote me on that”? And if he did, why would he have done so? Could it be that he was embellishing – trying to give a religious motivation to an incident that had no clear indications of one?

Oh, I’m not saying that there was no religious motivation – just that it isn’t clear. And my legal background has trained me to give the benefit of the doubt. Too many Muslims in this country have had to live a fragile existence since 9/11. We need to tread lightly in this area.

Like many in this country, my own sixteen-year-old son has an Arabic name, though he – just like the President – is not a Muslim. I named him after Kahlil Gibran, a Lebanese poet who wrote one of my favorite books – The Prophet. So the current environment where Muslims – and those with Arabic names – are viewed with suspicion concerns me. I fear for my son’s safety.

The Christian Science Monitor reported that there were signs that Maj. Hasan was “troubled”. He apparently counseled soldiers who experienced post traumatic stress disorder. And though he was never in a war zone, there is every indication that his treatment of traumatized soldiers coupled with the ominous prospect of deployment to a war zone, was just too stressful for him to handle. He wouldn’t be the first psychiatrist with psychiatric problems of his own.

All I’m talking about is fundamental fairness. We don’t attack or ostracize all Christians – and those with Christian names – when a particular Christian kills people. So what’s good for the goose….

Any thoughts?

Luther Vandross’ “Always And Forever” concert recorded for PBS. It is presented in 13 consecutive videos that run back-to-back. This is here simply because everyone needs a little Luther Vandross in their life! R.I.P.

The Saturday, October 24th gang rape of a 15-year-old Richmond, California girl pisses me off on so many levels. The fact that it happened at all is one. The fact that – despite 20 to 25 onlookers – no one came to her aid is another. And the fact that these witnesses jeered, cheered, and took photos with their cell phones makes my flesh crawl.

But, since my central focus on heinous activities such as this is prevention, I am ultimately more bothered by the fact that no one watching this two-and-a-half hour ordeal cared enough for the well-being of this young lady to call the police. Not coming to the aid of a victim of a mob attack can be dangerous as the brutal September 24th killing of 16-year-old Chicago honor student Derrion Albert clearly indicates. And just maybe the jeering, cheering, and photo taking can be construed as youthful posturing – a misguided attempt to give the appearance of condoning heinous activity to avoid the more dangerous notion of disapproval and, thus, subsequent reprisal.

Still, my gut tells me that unless we as a nation institute a “duty to report” mob violence in particular – with legal culpability for not doing so – the “bystander effect” will continue to flourish. I’m not referring to an instance where one or two non-participants who witness a crime would incur this “duty to report”. That could be dangerous to the witness(es). The identity of the “snitch” could then be easily deduced. But when there exists a group of witnesses, anyone could call in an anonymous tip without the culprits knowing who had done so.

Throughout history we have seen that the mob insulates criminals (i.e., lynchings) to the extent that they feel a tacit condoning of their activities. At the very least, a “duty to report” in mob situations would cause onlookers to disperse – possibly shortening the time of the attack, if not halting it altogether. According to MercuryNews.com, “No one called police until word of the ongoing rape spread to a house party in the city’s North and East neighborhood, where an appalled partygoer felt obligated to phone in the rumor”.

Finally, I am particularly troubled by Richmond Police Department’s Lt. Mark Gagan’s response to a KGO-TV (ABC-7 News, San Francisco) reporter’s question as to whether or not the witnesses faced any criminal charges. He responded that, “California law does not allow you to arrest a person for witnessing a sex crime if the victim is over the age of 14”. Why in the hell should the age of the victim in a sex crime be determinative! What are your thoughts?

Is it just me, or does anyone else see the dichotomy attenuate to the notions that: a) America should escalate her military presence in Afghanistan, but b) her inner city youth need to find nonviolent ways of addressing their differences with others? Both of these scenarios represent subsets of the larger sociological discipline of conflict resolution. And since the methodologies of dealing with the two scenarios are “mutually exclusive”, “contradictory”, and “sharply distinguished or opposed” they undoubtedly fit the definition of a dichotomy. But should they be dichotomous or should we resolve both scenarios similarly?

I believe that principles are principles. If you follow specific ideology in one circumstance, you follow it in another. What’s your take?