slumdog stars return

what is wrong with the film producers to let those children return to the slums in Mumbai??Wrong!!!!!!!!Young 'Slumdog' stars back in Mumbai slumsStory Highlights
"Slumdog Millionaire" won eight Academy Awards in Hollywood on Sunday

Child actors who attended Oscars ceremony return home to India

Rubina Ali and Azharuddin Ismail greeted by crowds, celebration, paparazzi

Rubina says she loved Disneyland rides, but didn't like American food

Next Article in Entertainment »


Read VIDEO PHOTOS
From Mallika Kapur
CNN

MUMBAI, India (CNN) -- On Sunday night, Azharuddin Ismail and Rubina Ali were in Hollywood, California, getting celebrity treatment as eight Oscars were awarded to the movie they starred in, "Slumdog Millionaire."


Rubina Ali, who starred in "Slumdog Millionaire," is greeted by crowds in Mumbai, India, on Thursday.

1 of 3 more photos » Thursday night, the two children were sleeping at home in Mumbai, India. Azharuddin sleeps under a plastic sheet in a shantytown beside a railway track, where the smell of urine and cow dung lingers in the air. Rubina sleeps with her parents and siblings in a tiny shack beside an open drain.

The slum they live in put on a Bollywood-style welcome for the two young stars. There were music, dancing, sweets, garlands, security -- tears and tantrums -- and paparazzi.

Mumbai's Garib Nagar area, which translates literally into "poor district," put on a robust show for two of its own. Watch the children get happy, chaotic reception »

Rubina and Azharuddin have lived in a Mumbai slum all their lives. They were handpicked by the producers of "Slumdog Millionaire" for parts in the movie, which tells the rags-to-riches tale of a young boy who grew up in a Mumbai slum.

Following the film's spectacular success around the world, the producers decided to include the two young actors in the movie's Oscar experience.

The children made their first journey on a plane when they were flown to Los Angeles to attend the awards ceremony. "The plane was so big," said Rubina. "I'd only seen [planes] in the sky earlier and it used to look so small."

Don't Miss
'Slumdog' kids live Hollywood dream
Free computer-access project inspired 'Slumdog'
Is Bollywood coming to Hollywood?
In Depth: Academy Award spotlight
"America was just fantastic," Rubina gushed, visibly excited after she made a dramatic entry into the slum on her father's shoulders on Thursday afternoon. "I was so excited to be on stage at the Oscars. Everyone was crying."

Red-carpet formalities done, the children were given a whirlwind tour of Los Angeles. The highlight -- a trip to Disneyland. "I loved all the rides, especially the fast ones," said Rubina.

The trip to the United States did have some drawbacks though. "The food is different over there," said Rubina. " I didn't like it. I missed Indian food."

They'll have plenty of that now that they're back home. The first thing Azharuddin did when he returned to Garib Nagar was to dig into a plate of biryani, a traditional Indian meal of meat and rice, at a restaurant. His mother, who accompanied him to Los Angeles, spoke to reporters at home -- a makeshift shelter under a tree, with a torn plastic sheet for a roof. See where the children live »

She said she hoped the "Slumdog Millionaire" experience would change things. "It would be nice to get a proper home." She says she has heard rumors the government may provide her family with one, but no one has confirmed any plans for a new home. "I've been praying for a new home for so long. It's all up to Allah now."

Returning to their slum, Azharuddin and Rubina were excited -- and exhausted -- by media attention that was sometimes a little overwhelming. Azharuddin burst into tears while eating lunch, leaving his biryani unfinished, his every move caught on camera.


Hoping to secure a future for Azharuddin and Rubina, the film's producers have enrolled them in a school and set up a trust fund to ensure their welfare.

"I hope the children get a better life after this," said a neighbor who waited outside her home all day to welcome the children home. "They've achieved so much at a young age. They deserve much better."
E-mail to a friend
Share this on:
Mixx
Digg

Facebook

del.icio.us

reddit

StumbleUpon

MySpace
| Mixx it | Share

All About Academy Awards • India • Mumbai

green jobs

So What's A Green Job, Anyway?
Topics:Colleges & Universities | Employment | Careers | EnergyBy: Joseph Pisani, News Associate | 26 Feb 2009 | 02:46 PM ET Text Size Everyone’s talking about green-collar jobs, but defining what one is is a pretty grey issue.

“There’s no answer. We don’t really know what one is,” says Joel Makower, executive editor of GreenBiz.com, a Web site that covers corporate and environmental practices. “It’s a big problem because there’s a lot at stake politically.”


Eric Risberg / AP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

President Barack Obama’s New Energy for America plan would commit $150 billion for the creation of five million green jobs over the next ten years. But experts remain split on what makes a job a green one.

For instance, does a person who builds an SUV one week and a hybrid the next week at the same car plant have a green job? What about the truck driver who delivers solar panels, or the accountant who works at the office of a wind turbine producer?

Despite all the questions, there is some consensus about who will benefit from Obama's plan and that's workers with lower skill and education levels. Driving those types of jobs will be Obama's plan to overhaul federal buildings, schools and weatherize one million low-income homes a year. Those measures will be covered under the recently approved stimulus plan, with $500 million allocated to a green job training program.

“The jobs will require a low enough skill that they can train someone at a vocational school or a community college, or even in high school,” says George Hawkins, the director of the District Department of the Environment.

Much of the training is expected to take place at community colleges. “They're like the National Guard of education, they’re in every community,” says Makower. “That’s where it is likely to happen. It’s an existing infrastructure.”

Also getting into the game are non-profit organizations, which have begun training people for green-collar jobs. MillionTreesNYC, a partnership between the New York Restoration Project, Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s PlaNYC initiative and the New York City Department of Parks & Recreation, started a seven-month training program in 2008. The program pays and trains individuals in urban greening, forestry, ecological restoration and landscape design according to Drew Becher, executive director of the New York Restoration Project.

Those skills are becoming increasing valuable as more large cities around the country continue to expand their green initiatives. Finding trained workers is a challenge. “We had an arborist job that paid $60,000 a year open for a year and a half because we couldn’t find anybody to fill it,” said Becher.

In Washington D.C. the District Department of Environment trains 14 to 21 year olds during the summer to maintain trees, parks, install watershed protection and learn about energy efficiency technologies.




Current DateTime: 01:05:26 26 Feb 2009
LinksList Documentid: 29412236
A Short Course On Unemployment Benefits
So What's A Green Job, Anyway?
If You're Thinking About Starting Over
What College Graduates Can Expect Out Of The Job Market
Don't Let Job Loss Take Your Family As Well

Besides jobs on the lower level of the green ladder, jobs for more highly-educated workers are expected to pick up. In fact, while white-collar workers are mostly suit-wearing professionals, and blue-collar workers are doing manual labor, green-collar jobs will be a mix of the two and “actually bridge the gap," says Jen Boulden, cofounder of Ideal Bite, a service that emails readers daily green tips.

Green and sustainability courses have been taught at MBA programs across the country for years, but are getting more attention from students. The Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise at the University of Michigan have been giving MBA students a masters degree in sustainability for 15 years, but has seen the number of students in the program grow over the last five years, according to Rick Bunch the managing director of the institute. Over that time he has seen more students go on to work “at big companies.”

Many large companies have been changing their corporate strategy on environmental issues, opening up more jobs for highly educated green workers. “Every major company has some sort of corporate responsibility and sustainability program,” said Boulden.

© 2009 CNBC.com
Tools: Print EmailMORE FROM CNBCTOPIC : Colleges & UniversitiesView AllHeadlines
Highest Paid Bachelor’s Degrees: 2009
College Degrees in Most Demand: 2009
Business Schools Prepare For A New Wall StreetPosts
Web Extra: Education Sec’y Answers Your Questions
New Solutions for Student Loans
Web Extra: Four Tips for Saving with a 529

shaman among us

A Shaman among us
UW-Oshkosh student embraces ancient form of religion, beliefs
by Will Amacher, of the Advance Titan

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Guidance can come from countless sources, and the manner in which we are guided greatly depends upon what we believe in, what we hold dear and what we wish to change about ourselves or the world around us.

Saul Meyer, a fifth-year UW-Oshkosh senior majoring in studio art and history, never really considered himself to be a religious person and said he wanted to find a belief system that fit into what he thought was important or beneficial.

“I was raised Lutheran,” Meyer said. “But [organized] religion never really was my thing.”

As a result, a little over two years ago Meyer decided to channel his beliefs in a different manner, far from the religious institution that he had been raised in.

“I had always been interested in shamanism for a long time. And one day, I decided that I wanted to become a shaman,” Meyer said.

Humoring his interest in spiritual truth through personal discovery versus dogmatic tradition, Saul opted to look into shamanism as a belief path.

“With shamanism, there aren’t gods,” Meyer said. “There isn’t a priest class… There is us, the normal people, and there is the spirit world that exists outside the material world. Then you have the middle man, which is the shaman.”

The Encyclopedia of Religion, a resource on most religious practices and beliefs, goes into great detail describing the many facets of shamanism, the origins of which range in location from Siberia and inner Asia to North and South America. According to the encyclopedia, a “picking-and-choosing” of shamanic beliefs from these assorted sects has begun to occur. Dr. Jeff Kaplan, a religious studies professor at UW-Oshkosh, described this occurrence of “Neoshamanism.”

“Neoshamanism is a type of self-taught shamanism, which attracts people in an eclectic sort of way,” Kaplan said. “You get pieces from here, pieces from there, literary pieces.”

The Encyclopedia of Religion describes one of the unique tasks undertaken in shamanistic practices, citing that “the shaman ‘specializes’ in the trance state, during which his soul is believed to leave his body and to ascend to the sky or descend to the underworld.”

This trance state is reached during what is called a “vision quest.” This quest is a spiritual journey where shamans detach themselves from the physical world and depart into the spirit world to try to discover the truth behind a dilemma or problem. Such journeys begin in many different ways depending on the culture in which they are used. Religious studies Professor Dr. Dennis Lishka differentiated between the numerous ways such enlightenment can be reached.

“It can be a vision quest, where you take a physical journey, or they can be involved in some kind of exhausting physical activity, like nonstop dancing to drumming for long periods of time,” Lishka said. “Or they can take psychotropic drugs, specifically around the Equator where the drum skins don’t stay very tight because of the humidity in the jungle.”

Meyer has never partaken in a vision quest, participated in any such retreats or become part of any mail order program, but he has found guidance in literature that he has acquired.

“My family and friends humored me,” Meyer said. “I’ve had friends give me books on shamanism and my parents gave me some books for Christmas last year.”

Although his beliefs are much different from those in his family, Meyer has never received any resistance for choosing an alternate religion. Not only has his family accepted his newfound beliefs, Meyer has even inspired members of his family to appreciate some of the different practices behind shamanism.

“My dad is pretty supportive of me,” Meyer said. “He participates in drum circles, and he even made me a drum of my own.”

Where one man practicing shamanism is fairly innocent in the society that we have become used to in America, this general tolerance of such religions is not true throughout all of the United States. Kaplan, who studied for over six years with the Inupiat Eskimo tribe in northern Alaska, revealed some of the glaring threats and prejudices that threatened the Inuit tribe that he spent numerous years with.

“Shamanism among the Inupiat has been demonized by the Church to the point where it is only practiced underground,” Kaplan said. “[The Church] sees the shaman as a literal servant of the devil, which makes it difficult to be a shaman and teach shamanism.”

To the minds influenced by Christian churches, the attempt to create a lasting connection with the environment around us could be seen as pagan or otherwise heretical compared to the “be a good person and you will go to heaven” mentality. Time has loosened such prejudices, but this may be due to the dwindling participants in these unorthodox beliefs. Needless to say, considerable resistance still exists in areas where shamanic practices are still a part of local culture.

Although he has had a minimal amount of experience with shamanism beyond reading and meditation, Saul Meyer has found a set of beliefs that closely fit with what he finds important rather than forcing himself to adhere to traditional religious groups and the beliefs that come along with those groups.

“With shamanism, there is no ‘book,’ there is no school that you need to go to,” Meyer said. “Rather than believing that a higher power controls everything, shamans believe that everything has an energy that coalesces and mixes to create the natural order of things.”

His shamanic ways still in their infancy, and despite the fact that he has never gone through any tribal shamanic practices, Meyer has found a system that works for him. Even though he is comfortable with the path he has chosen, Meyer still has goals that he wishes to accomplish within his system of beliefs.

“I would like to do a vision quest, I really would,” Meyer said. “In terms of a lifelong goal, I want to get back to being able to create my own view of the world, not one that is forced on me by a church or school.”


Photo submitted by Heather Wright
With no traditional shaman in reach, Saul Meyer turns to literature and a natural setting for spiritual guidance.
Username:@uwosh.edu
Password:
Username or Password Problem?
Comment Text:

Feel free to leave rational and thoughtful comments about this story. But remember, the views expressed here do not reflect the views of The Advance Titan. Racist, sexist and discriminatory comments are not welcome. The Advance Titan does not actively monitor the content of these posts and does not claim to have control over what gets posted. However, we do reserve the right to edit and remove anything that gets out of hand when we become aware of it.
Comments People Have Left
No comments have been left!
Supported By
Questions and comments can be sent to atitan@uwosh.edu

tara watch

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Smithsonian Magazine - Endangered Site: The Hill of Tara, Ireland



A new tollway threatens the archaeologically rich complex that is the spiritual heart of the country

Endangered Site: The Hill of Tara, Ireland

Smithsonian magazine, March 2009 * By Amanda Bensen

"The harp that once through Tara's halls
The soul of music shed
Now hangs as mute on Tara's walls
As if that soul were fled."

The words of 19th-century Irish poet Thomas Moore still ring true, and the only music you're likely to hear around Tara nowadays is the clang of construction equipment. Several hundred acres of gentle green fields, marked by some lumps and bumps, cover this patch of County Meath in northeast Ireland. A nice place to lie down and watch the clouds scud by, perhaps, but is it any more remarkable than the rest of Ireland's lovely landscape?

Cinnte, to use an Irish expression of certitude. The archaeologically rich complex on and around the Hill of Tara is seen by many as the spiritual and historic heart of Ireland. It was the venue for rituals, battles and burials dating back to 4000 B.C. More than 100 kings were crowned at Tara, and St. Patrick is said to have stopped there to seek royal permission before spreading his message of Christianity.In more recent history, the hill was the site of Daniel "the Liberator" O'Connell's 1843 "monster meeting," a massive political demonstration that rallied some 750,000 people to the cause of repudiating the country's union with Britain. Thousands of people still gather on its crest on midsummer's eve, both for the panoramic view and what one visitor calls "the sense you get there of being close to something holy."

"Tara is a part of the Irish psyche," says George Eogan, a retired Dublin archaeologist who led excavations near the hill in the 1960s. "Irish people, they know of Tara from their very early days. It's in schoolbooks and stories, even in primary school."But Irish history now risks being consumed by the Celtic Tiger—the nickname given to Ireland's phenomenal economic expansion for more than a decade. Inevitably, a thriving economy brought demands for an expanded infrastructure. And so, in 2003, the Irish government approved construction of a new four-lane tollway, the M3, to cut through the Tara complex.

Construction began in 2005, and despite a storm of public protest, the project appears unstoppable."When it was proposed in 2000, most people nationally had no idea what was happening. And I think everyone trusted the government not to pick a route that was so damaging," says Vincent Salafia, a lawyer from nearby County Wicklow who founded the anti-M3 group TaraWatch in 2005.

"There's fat land all around. We still can't quite figure out why they insisted on going so close to Tara."Proponents of the M3 argue that the highway will improve life for tens of thousands of commuters who live northwest of Dublin and often spend hours each day creeping along traffic-clogged, two-lane roads into the capital city, about 30 miles away from Tara.

Other proposed routes for that section of the M3 would have disturbed a greater number of private homes and farms. Proponents also note that the new road will be almost a mile away from the actual Hill of Tara, a 510-foot-high knoll.

"If it doesn't go through the hill, then it's not damaging the site? That is the greatest bit of nonsense that I've ever heard," counters Eogan. "The Hill of Tara is only the core area of a much larger archaeological and cultural landscape.

"Preservationists particularly worry that the M3 will slice between the Hill of Tara and Rath Lugh, an ancient earthen fort about two miles northeast thought to have been used to defend the hill. A smaller road already divides the two sites, but the M3 will run much closer to Rath Lugh, even removing part of the promontory it sits on.

"If this development goes ahead, Rath Lugh will merely overlook, from a distance of 100 meters, a motorway—which would be a rather ignominious end for a once proud and important monument," a trio of archaeologists warned in a 2004 publication.Much of the recent controversy has focused on the 38 new archaeological sites that construction teams have unearthed along the section of motorway closest to Tara since the project began. The discoveries represent centuries of human activity, including prehistoric settlements, Bronze Age burial mounds, a possible medieval charcoal manufacturing kiln and the remains of a 19th-century post office. At the time, the discoveries barely caused a hiccup—the artifacts were removed, and once the sites had been "preserved by record" in notes and photographs, they were destroyed. Ireland's National Roads Authority has pledged that any artifacts will eventually be deposited in the National Museum of Ireland.While that approach may be legally permissible, that doesn't make it right, says Salafia, who examined one of the exposed trenches at a site just north of Tara.

"You could see a child's body where [construction teams] had actually cut off the nose and toes, and also shaved off the top of a cremation urn, leaving the ashes exposed," he says. Eogan calls it "an act of sheer vandalism."The M3 is scheduled for completion in 2010, though the global recession may delay it. In the meantime, Tara is attracting increased international attention, and is under consideration to become a Unesco World Heritage Site.

"Most of the endangered sites around the world are suffering due to neglect and climate change," Salafia says. "But this is an act of assault—premeditated assault, if you will—by the very people who are given the job of taking care of it."



For more information contact info@tarawatch.org

violence

Psalm 73:6-Violence covers them as a garment.Psalm 73:9-Their tongue walks through the earth.Psalm 74:8-They said in their hearts,"Let us destroy them together."

drunkards

Psalm 69:12-I am the song of the drunkards.Psalm 69:22-Let their table become a snare before them.Psalm 69:24-Let Your wrathful anger take hold of them.Psalm 71:10-Those who lie in wait for my life take counsel together.Psalm 71:12-O my God,make haste to help me!

Say to God

Psalm 66:3-Say to God,"How awesome are Your works!Through the greatness of Your power,Your enemies shall submit themselves to You."Psalm 68:1-Let God arise!

robbery

Psalm 62:4-They curse inwardly.Psalm 62:10-Do not vainly hope in robbery.Psalm 64:5-They encourage themselves in an evil matter.Psalm 64:8-All who see them shall flee away.

God is for me

Psalm 56:9-God is for me.Psalm 62:4-They only consult to cast him down from his high position.

prayer

Psalm 52:7-Strengthened himself in his wickedness.Psalm 55:9-Destroy,O Lord,and divide their tongues.

prayer

Psalm 52:5-He shall take you away.and pluck you out of your dwelling place.

prayer

Psalm 27:12-Such as breathe out violence.Psalm 28:3-Evil is in their hearts.Psalm 31:13-They scheme to take away my life.Psalm 33:7-He lays up the deep in storehouses.Psalm34:14-Depart from evil.Psalm 35:17-Lord,how long will You look on?

prayer

Psalm 18:41-They cried,but there was none to save them.Psalm 22:17-They look and stare upon me.Psalm 23:4-Your staff comforts me.Psalm 24:7-Be lifted up you everlasting doors,And the King of Glory shall come in.Psalm 25:19-They hate me with cruel hatred.Psalm 27:2-They stumbled and fell.

prayer

Psalm 2:4-The Lord shall hold them in derision.Psalm 7:6-Lift Yourself up because of the rage of my enemies.Psalm 9:15-In the net which they hid,their own foot is caught.Psalm 10:7-His mouth is full of cursing.Psalm 10:13-He has said in his heart,"You will not require an account."

information

information leading to an arrest...information leading to an arrest....do people have the right....to listen to peoples walls and try to find something..to frame somebody for crimes??????????Writing down any thing they hear...private phone calls and conversations????????Extortion...committing identity theft and fraud..have all your bank numbers and social security numbers...and claim that you are the criminals when they are...claiming you are a stupid idiot and act like its you that is the criminal...HATE CriMes...Committing cybercrime...thinking they are great hackers...going into your emails and we bsites and deleting things?????they go on my websites and delete things right in front of my eyes....i have reported this many times...death threats,arson threats....

religious fanaticism

Religious fanaticism · Religion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Religious fanaticism is defined as fanaticism related to a person’s, or a group’s, devotion to a religion. In his book, Holy War, Just War, Lloyd Steffen says, “[Religious] fanaticism . . . invokes the idea of ultimacy, and its presence in religious life is undeniable.” [1] He goes on to say, “[Religious] fanatics are persons who attach to some object an ultimate valuation and then attend to that overvalued object with what is recognizable as a kind of religious devotion.” [2]

Contents [hide]
1 Features
2 Possible Fanatic Scriptures
3 Popular Examples of Religious Fanaticism
3.1 Christianity
3.2 Judaism
3.3 Islam
4 Conclusion
5 Citations
6 References



[edit] Features
Steffen gives several features associated with religious fanaticism. Calling it “the demonic”, he says:

• The demonic meets spiritual needs. . . .Human beings have a spiritual longing for understanding and meaning, and given the mystery of existence, that spiritual quest can only be fulfilled through some kind of relationship with ultimacy, whether or not that takes the form as a “transcendent other.” Religion—even demonic religion—has power to meet this need for meaning and transcendent relationship. [3]

• Demonic religion is attractive. . . .Because demonic religion is real religion and meets real human spiritual needs, it presents itself in such a way that those who find their way into it come to express themselves in ways consistent with the particular vision of ultimacy at the heart of this religious form. People are not attracted to demonic religion because it is false or a perversion of religion; they are attracted by all it promises to do for them, and more often than not it delivers on its promise. [4]

• The demonic is a live option. . . .The demonic is presents itself in competition with another way to be religious, the life-affirming option, and it sometimes wins. It wins because it is present to the moral consciousness as a live option that addresses spiritual need and satisfies human longing for meaning, power, and belonging. [5]


[edit] Possible Fanatic Scriptures
There are some who think that certain scriptures can influence fanatic and even violent behaviors. In Volume 3 of his book, The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, J. Harold Ellens indicates a few possibly fanatic stories in The Bible.

• Story of the blind born man: Ellens speaks in depth about the story of Jesus’s miraculous healing of a blind man living on the city streets. The story goes as such: Christ was walking in the city when he saw a blind man. Jesus approaches the man, applies some clay to the man’s eyes like a salve, and sends the man to bathe in the pool of Siloam. [6] The man emerges from the water and is able to see. Jesus, though, is nowhere to be found. Later, the Pharisees see that this man has been healed and try to interrogate him a total of four times, asking him who had healed him and where that person was, and asking him to admit that whoever healed him was a sinner for doing so on the Sabbath. [7] The now seeing man responds, saying, in essence, “Whether my healer is a sinner, I do not know. This one thing I do know, once I was blind, now I can see”. [8] Most logical people think that anyone would consider it very kind to be healed of blindness; however Ellens finds fault in Christ in this story, saying:

It was abusive for Jesus to abandon the healed man to the assaults of the Pharisees, whose psychology was . . . taking the role of the scolding parents and putting the healed man down into the role of the naughty child. . . .The gamesmanship of the healed man does not obviate the fact that Jesus abused him, exploited him for his own purposes, abandoned him to significant persecution, and only thereafter, when all the damage was done, embraced him in a redemptive way. [9]

• Christ’s cleansing of the temple: Ellens makes his case again in the story of Christ purging the temple during Holy Week, saying that during his cleansing, “Jesus had one of his fits of violence”. [10] He says that Christ, in cleansing the temple, “chase[d] cattle, release[d] birds, overturn[ed] money tables, annoy[ed] legitimate assistants to the temple program, and attack[ed] the temple itself”. [11] Ellens’s explanation for this is:

[Christ] walked into the temple . . . trying to find a place of tranquility in which to pray and an audience with whom he could discuss the coming kingdom of God. All he could see was the hated priests in their formalistic rituals. All he could hear was the bawling of the cattle. All he could smell was the odors of the stable. . . .He cracked. He picked up a riding crop or bullwhip and . . . abuse[d] those most available, expending his long-anguished anger, his weariness with the spiritual mediocrity of human life. [12]

• Other possibly fanatic scriptures: Grant R. Shafer suggests that there are a number of teachings of Jesus that have a preoccupation with death and violence. He says, “The parable of the wicked husbandmen ends with the Lord of the vineyard killing them (Matt. 21:41; Mark 12:9; Luke 20:16). One version of the parable of the wedding feast includes the king sending his armies, killing those who murdered his servants, and burning their city (Matt. 22:6-7; Luke 14:16-24 omits these details). [13]

It should be known, though, that although Ellens’s arguments are valid, there are many other interpretations of these stories that may be equally valid.


[edit] Popular Examples of Religious Fanaticism

[edit] Christianity
Ever since Christianity was brought to power, those in authority have sought to expand and control the church, often through the fanatical use of force. Grant Shafer says, “Jesus of Nazareth is best known as a preacher of nonviolence. Yet Christians, in persecutions of other religions, in wars about religion, and in wars of conquest, have perhaps been more violent than members of any other religion except Islam”. [14] The start of Christian fanatic rule came with the Roman Emperor Constantine I. Ellens says, “When Christianity came to power in the empire of Constantine, it proceeded almost to viciously repress all non-Christians and all Christians who did not line up with official Orthodox ideology, policy, and practice”. [15] An example of Christians who didn’t line up with Orthodox ideology is the Donatists, who “refused to accept repentant clergy who had formerly given way to apostasy when persecuted”. [16] Fanatic Christian activity continued into the Middle Ages with the Crusades. These wars were attempts by the Christians, sanctioned by the Pope, to reclaim the Holy Land from the Muslims. Charles Selengut, in his book Sacred Fury: Understanding Religious Violence, said:

The Crusades . . . were very much holy wars waged to maintain Christianity’s theological and social control . . . . On their way to conquering the Holy Land from the Muslims by force of arms, the crusaders destroyed dozens of Jewish communities and killed thousands because the Jews would not accept the Christian faith. Jews had to be killed in the religious campaign because their very existence challenged the sole truth espoused by the Christian Church. [17]

Shafer adds that, “When the crusaders captured Jerusalem in 1099, they killed Muslims, Jews, and native Christians indiscriminately”. [18] Another prominent form of fanaticism came a few centuries later with the Spanish Inquisition. The Inquisition was a way of making sure the people stayed within Orthodox Christianity. Selengut said, “The inquisitions were attempts at self-protection and targeted primarily “internal enemies” of the church”. [19] The driving force of the Inquisition was the Inquisitors, who were responsible for spreading the truth of Christianity. Selengut continues, saying:

The inquisitors generally saw themselves as educators helping people maintain correct beliefs by pointing out errors in knowledge and judgment. . . .Punishment and death came only to those who refused to admit their errors. . . .during the Spanish Inquisitions of the fifteenth century, the clear distinction between confession and innocence and remaining in error became muddled. . . .The investigators had to invent all sorts of techniques, including torture, to ascertain whether . . . new converts’ beliefs were genuine. [20]

In addition, John Edwards, in a review of an article called “Was the Spanish Inquisition Truthful?” says, “Ferdinand and Isabella’s Inquisition . . . repressed . . . the natural yearnings of . . . Jews who had converted to Christianity . . . after the attacks mounted against numerous Jewish communities in the early summer of 1391.” [21]

During the 19th century most Christian nations have adopted the principle of separation between church and state. Religious fanaticism is since an internal problem of the christian churches or merely a personal (psychological) problem.Not so however in most muslim countries (except f.ex.Turkey since Ataturk)


[edit] Judaism
In the eyes of some, some of the violent actions of the Israelites in the times of the Old Testament were fanatical in nature. Steffen describes the Holy War waged by the Israelites, along with the God of the Old Testament, Yahweh. He describes this “divinely sanctioned use of force and violence”, or herem, saying:

In the herem, Yahweh seeks general destruction, as in the conquest of Canaan (Josh. 6:17-18), or even total annihilation, as in God’s command to King Saul to include in the slaughter of Israel’s enemies ‘man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey’ (1 Sam. 15:3; 22:19). [22]

As Steffen says, this war bordered on omnicide. [23] The Israelites dealt with neighboring cities in a way that some would deem fanatical also. Paul N. Anderson says that “nearby cities were to be destroyed completely. . . .If they are not, they will corrupt the Israelites with their religion and detestable practices and will cause Israel to fall away from God.” [24] In addition, he mentions that the people were told to obey Yahweh’s commands completely, and, for the most part, the people obeyed. The only king that defied Yahweh during the Holy War was Saul, who preserved the flocks of the people the Israelites attacked because he didn’t see a point in wasting them. [25] This, as the scriptures say, angered Yahweh, thus proving, in Steffen’s eyes, that Yahweh demanded absolute obedience from his chosen people.


[edit] Islam
Perhaps Islam has come to be the most noticeable religion with members who display fanatic tendencies. Ever since Osama bin Laden’s fatwa in 1998, the world has known about radical jihad. Bin Laden’s concept, though, is very different from the actual meaning of the term. In the religious context, jihad most nearly means “working urgently for a certain godly objective, generally a positive one”. [26] According to Steffen, there are portions of the Qur’an where military jihad is used. As Steffen says, though, “Jihad in these uses is always defensive. Not only does ‘jihad’ not endorse acts of military aggression, but ‘jihad’ is invoked in Qur’anic passages to indicate how uses of force are always subject to restraint and qualification”. [27] This kind of jihad differs greatly from the kind most commonly discussed today. Osama bin Laden’s fatwa illustrates the goal of fanatic jihad: “In compliance with God’s order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims: the ruling to kill the Americans and their allies—civilians and military—is and individual duty for every Muslim who can do it”. [28] Fanatic jihadists' beliefs, as Ellens says, stem from a feeling of inferiority to Western civilization. He says:

Because of its sense of inferiority in power and its sense of arrogant superiority in spiritual and religious quality, this militant form of Islam feels thoroughly justified in resorting to the most vicious forms of violent assault on its identified enemy. America is the perceived source and center of its problems. [29]

Thomas Farr, in an essay titled “Islam’s Way to Freedom”, goes further, saying that, “Even though most Muslims reject violence, the extremists' use of sacred texts lends their actions authenticity and recruiting power”. (Freedom 24) He goes on to say, “The radicals insist that their central claim—God's desire for Islam's triumph—requires no interpretation. According to them, true Muslims will pursue it by any means necessary, including dissimulation, civil coercion, and the killing of innocents”. (Freedom 24) This disregard for others and rampant use of violence is markedly different than the peaceful message that jihad is meant to employ. Although fanatic jihadists have committed many terroristic acts throughout the world, perhaps the best known is the September 11, 2001 bombings of the World Trade Center. According to Ellens, the al-Qaeda members who took part in the terrorist attacks did so out of their belief that, by doing it, they would “enact a devastating blow against the evil of secularized and non-Muslim America. They were cleansing this world, God’s temple”. [30]


[edit] Conclusion
Religious fanaticism will always exist in some form or another around the world. Over the years, it has been manifest in many different religions and taken on many different forms. As long as religion exists, there will be people who interpret it in different ways, and there will be fanatics. Religious fanaticism has been a major part of the dealings between nations throughout history, and will most likely continue like that for years to come.


[edit] Citations
^ Steffen, Lloyd. “Holy War, Just War: Exploring the Moral Meaning of Religious Violence.” p. 81.
^ Steffen, Lloyd. “Holy War, Just War: Exploring the Moral Meaning of Religious Violence.” p. 81.
^ Steffen, Lloyd. “Holy War, Just War: Exploring the Moral Meaning of Religious Violence.” p. 119.
^ Steffen, Lloyd. “Holy War, Just War: Exploring the Moral Meaning of Religious Violence.” p. 120.
^ Steffen, Lloyd. “Holy War, Just War: Exploring the Moral Meaning of Religious Violence.” p. 121.
^ Ellens, J. Harold. “The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam Vol. 3.” p. 5.
^ Ellens, J. Harold. “The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam Vol. 3.” p. 8.
^ Ellens, J. Harold. “The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam Vol. 3.” p. 9.
^ Ellens, J. Harold. “The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam Vol. 3.” p. 12.
^ Ellens, J. Harold. “The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam Vol. 3.” p. 16.
^ Ellens, J. Harold. “The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam Vol. 3.” p. 29.
^ Ellens, J. Harold. “The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam Vol. 3.” p. 32.
^ Shafer, Grant. “Hell, Martyrdom, and War: Violence in Early Christianity.” p. 215.
^ Shafer, Grant. “Hell, Martyrdom, and War: Violence in Early Christianity.” p. 193.
^ Ellens, J. Harold. “The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam Vol. 3.” p. 42-43.
^ Shafer, Grant. “Hell, Martyrdom, and War: Violence in Early Christianity.” p. 236.
^ Selengut, Charles. “Sacred Fury: Understanding Religious Violence.” p. 22.
^ Shafer, Grant. “Hell, Martyrdom, and War: Violence in Early Christianity.” p. 239.
^ Selengut, Charles. “Sacred Fury: Understanding Religious Violence.” p. 70.
^ Selengut, Charles. “Sacred Fury: Understanding Religious Violence.” p. 70.
^ Edwards, John. “Review: Was the Spanish Inquisition Truthful?.” p. 352.
^ Steffen, Lloyd. “Holy War, Just War: Exploring the Moral Meaning of Religious Violence.” p. 184.
^ Steffen, Lloyd. “Holy War, Just War: Exploring the Moral Meaning of Religious Violence.” p. 185.
^ Ellens, J. Harold. “The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam Vol. 3.” p. 46.
^ Steffen, Lloyd. “Holy War, Just War: Exploring the Moral Meaning of Religious Violence.” p. 184.
^ Ellens, J. Harold. “The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam Vol. 3.” p. 45.
^ Steffen, Lloyd. “Holy War, Just War: Exploring the Moral Meaning of Religious Violence.” p. 224.
^ Johnson, J. T. “Opinion, Jihad and Just War.” p. 12.
^ Ellens, J. Harold. “The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam Vol. 3.” p. 43.
^ Ellens, J. Harold. “The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam Vol. 3.” p. 35.

[edit] References
Anderson, Paul. “Genocide or Jesus: A God of Conquest or Pacifism?” Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam Vol 4. Ed. J. Harold Ellens. Westport: Praegers, 2004.
Edwards, John. “Review: Was the Spanish Inquisition Truthful?” The Jewish Quarterly Review 87 (1997): 351-66.
Ellens, J. Harold, ed. The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam Vol. 3. Westport: Praegers, 2004.
Ellens, J. Harold, ed. Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam Vol 4. Westport: Praegers, 2004.
Farr, Thomas. “Islam’s Way to Freedom.” First Things 187 (2008): 24-28.
Johnson, J. T. "Opinion, Jihad and Just War." First Things (2002):12-14.
Selengut, Charles. Sacred Fury: Understanding Religious Violence. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2008.
Shafer, Grant. “Hell, Martyrdom, and War: Violence in Early Christianity.” The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam Vol. 3. Ed. J. Harold Ellens. Westport: Praegers, 2004.

fanaticism

Fanaticism · Mental Health
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"Fanatic" redirects here. For the television series, see FANatic. For the film, see Fanatic (1965 film).
"Fanatical" redirects here. For the TV documentary series, see FANatical.
This article or section includes a list of references or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations.
You can improve this article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate.

Fanaticism is an emotion of being filled with excessive, uncritical zeal, particularly for an extreme religious or political cause or in some cases sports, or with an obsessive enthusiasm for a pastime or hobby. Philosopher George Santayana defines fanaticism as "redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim"[1]; according to Winston Churchill, "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject". By either description the fanatic displays very strict standards and little tolerance for contrary ideas or opinions.

The difference between a fan and a fanatic is that while both have an overwhelming liking or interest in a given subject, behaviour of a fanatic will be viewed as violating prevailing social norms, while that of a fan will not violate those norms (although the person may be considered unusual).[2] A fanatic differs from a crank, in that a crank is defined as a person who holds a position or opinion which is so far from the norm as to appear ludicrous and/or provably wrong, such as a belief in widespread alien abduction. In contrast, the subject of the fanatic's obsession may be "normal", such as an interest in religion or politics, except that the scale of the person's involvement, devotion, or obsession with the activity or cause is abnormal or disproportionate.


[edit] Categories
Consumer fanaticism - the level of involvement or interest one has in the liking of a particular person, group, trend, artwork or idea.
Religious fanaticism - considered by some to be the most extreme form of religious fundamentalism.
Political, ideological fanaticism.
Ethnic, national, racial fanaticism.
Leisure fanaticism - high levels of intensity, enthusiasm, commitment and zeal shown for one's leisure activities.
Sports fanaticism - high levels of intensity during sporting activities. This is either done based on the belief that extreme fanaticism can alter games for one's favorite team (Ex: Knight Krew)[3], or because the person uses sports activities as an ultra-masculine "proving ground" for brawls, as in the case of football hooliganism.

[edit] References
^ Santayana, George (1905). Life of Reason: Reason in Common Sense. (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons) 13.
^ Thorne, Scott; Bruner, Gordon C. (2006). "An exploratory investigation of the characteristics of consumer fanaticism". Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 9 (1): 51–72. doi:10.1108/13522750610640558. ISSN 1352-2752. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/2160090104.html.
^ Mackellar, J. (2006). "Fans, fanatics or just good fun - travel behaviours of the leisure fanatic". Journal of Vacation Marketing 12 (3): 195–217. doi:10.1177/1356766706064622. http://intl-jvm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/3/195.
Haynal, A., Molnar, M. and de Puymege, G. Fanaticism. A Historical and Psychoanalytical Study. Schoken Books. New York, 1987.
Rudin, J.Fanaticism. A psychological Analysis. University of Notre Dame

zealotry

zealotry Related Forms
Variant of zealot

zealot Definition zealot (zel′ət)

noun

1.a person who is zealous, esp. to an extreme degree; fanatic
2.among the ancient Jews, a member of a radical political and religious sect that openly resisted Roman rule in Palestine
Etymology: LL(Ec) zelotes, one who is jealous < Gr zēlōtēs, zealous follower < zēloun, to be zealous < zēlos, zeal
Related Forms:

•zealotry zeal′·otry noun

zealotry

–noun undue or excessive zeal; fanaticism .....Obama speech...America is full of them...Obama....god bless you

FrameUP

Frameup
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (January 2007)

Criminal defenses
Part of the common law series
Insanity · Immunity · Mental disorder
Diminished responsibility
Intoxication · Infancy
Automatism
Consent · Mistake
Duress · Necessity
Provocation · Self defense
False confession · Entrapment
See also
Criminal law and procedure
Other common law areas
Criminal · Contract · Tort ·
Property Wills
trusts and estates Evidence
Portals
Law · Criminal justice
v • d • e
A frameup or setup is an American term referring to the act of framing someone, that is, providing false evidence or false testimony in order to falsely prove someone guilty of a crime.[1] It is likely to derive from the English word frame meaning to cause someone innocent to appear guilty by "putting the person in a picture frame of suspicion".

Sometimes the person who is framing someone else is the actual perpetrator of the crime. In some other cases it is an attempt by law enforcement to get around due process. Motives include getting rid of political dissidents or "correcting" what they see as the court's mistake. Some lawbreakers will try to claim they were framed as a defense strategy.The term comes from the criminal subculture, with an early version being the claim that "someone is trying to put me in the frame," as in a picture frame.

Frameups in labor disputes sometimes swing public opinion one way or the other. During a strike in Lawrence, Massachusetts, police acting on a tip discovered dynamite and blamed it on the union. National media echoed an anti-union message. Later the police revealed that the dynamite had been wrapped in a magazine addressed to the son of the former mayor. The man had received an unexplained payment from the largest of the employers. Exposed, the plot swung public sympathy to the union.[2]

Frameups are often part of conspiracy theories, for example, there are frameup accusations in the Anthrax incident involving the United States Postal Service.[3]


[edit] Frameups in fiction
Frameups are often used as a fictional device. An innocent party trying to prove that they have been framed for a crime is a popular theme in literature, film, and television. Perhaps the most famous example of such a storyline was the TV series, The Fugitive,[4] later remade into a 1993 film starring Harrison Ford as the doctor trying to prove that it was not he who killed his wife, but rather a one-armed man who set him up.[5]

Another TV show that commonly used the theme was The Dukes of Hazzard, in which the principal characters (Bo and Luke Duke) were constantly being set up by the crooked County Commissioner (Boss Hogg) and Sheriff (Rosco P. Coltrane). The "Duke boys" were always thwarting Boss and Rosco's schemes and Boss was always concocting methods of getting the Dukes out of his hair and into prison, only to have the Dukes win out in the end every time.

On the TV show 24, the protagonist of the show, Jack Bauer, is framed in Seasons 1 and 5. In Day 1, he was selected to be the scapegoat for David Palmer's attempted assassination which was orchestrated by Serbian businessmen with ties to European terrorists. In Day 5, he was framed again twice by a corrupt U.S. President for his friends' murders (David Palmer, and Michelle Dessler) in a massive government conspiracy to secure oil interests in Central Asia. Later in Season 6, Jack found out his father and his brother masterminded that conspiracy to frame him and secure American interests. In Day 6, he finds out his father's and brother's involvement after they arranged to eliminate him.

In the film Mission Impossible, Ethan Hunt, the hero, was framed by a mole in the CIA by killing Ethan's associates and leaving him alive in a mole hunt, thus confirming to the CIA he's the mole. Hunt is able to expose the conspiracy by smoking out the mole (who was his boss) and his supervisor, arms dealer Max, who tried to auction a CIA NOC (Non-Official Cover) list to terrorists.

On the TV show Prison Break, a former criminal named Lincoln Burrows is framed for the murder of the Vice President's brother and thrown in prison; awaitng the death penalty. Burrows's brother, Michael Scofield, hatches an ingenious escape plan to break him out. It turns out a group of multinationals who are influencing the U.S. government, framed Burrows because his father was going to expose their illegal dealings. Several Secret Service agents, and the Vice President are involved in the conspiracy. Burrows and Scofield try to expose the conspiracy while on the run.

In the film The Bourne Supremacy, Jason Bourne, a former CIA black ops assassin, is forced out of hiding when unknown conspirators kill his wife and frame him for the murder of several CIA officers. A past mission haunts him as he finds who set him up. Eventually, he finds out his former boss (Alexander Conklin)'s supervisor, Ward Abott, assigned Bourne the haunting mission to kill a Russian diplomat named Vladimir Neski. Thus, Neski was killed because he was going to expose Abott as a mole in the CIA, stealing money and sharing it with Gretkov, a Russian oil businessman. Abott had Gretkov hire a Russian FSB agent named Kirill to kill the CIA officers who were unraveling the plot and framed Bourne for it. Bourne recorded a conversation between him and Abott when they confronted each other, implicating Abott in the conspiracy. Abott committed suicide as Bourne survived an attempt by Kirill, by killing him. In the end, Gretkov was arrested and Bourne apologized to Neksi's daughter for killing her parents.

In the video game, Driver: Parallel Lines, T.K. starts working for a New York gang in the 1970s. By the last 70s mission, T.K. is framed for the kidnapping and murder of Rafael Martinez.


[edit] See also
Identity theft
framing (social sciences)

EMail Fraud

E-mail fraud
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
Please improve this article if you can. (October 2007)

Fraud has existed perhaps as long or longer than money. Any new sociological change can engender new forms of fraud, or other crime. Almost as soon as e-mail became widely used, it began to be used to defraud people via E-mail fraud. E-mail fraud can take the form of a "con game" or scam. Confidence tricks tend to exploit the inherent greed and dishonesty of their victims: the prospect of a 'bargain' or 'something for nothing' can be very tempting. E-mail fraud, as with other 'bunco schemes' relies on naive individuals who put their confidence in get-rich-quick schemes such as 'too good to be true' investments or offers to sell popular items at 'impossibly low' prices. Many people have lost their life savings due to fraud.

Contents [hide]
1 Forms of e-mail fraud
1.1 Spoofing
1.1.1 Phishing for data
1.2 Bogus offers
1.3 Requests for help
2 Avoiding e-mail fraud
3 Example
4 See also
5 External links



[edit] Forms of e-mail fraud

[edit] Spoofing
Main article: e-mail spoofing
E-mail sent from someone pretending to be someone else is known as spoofing. Spoofing may take place in a number of ways. Common to all of them is that the actual sender's name and the origin of the message are concealed or masked from the recipient. Many, if not most, instances of e-mail fraud use at least minimal spoofing, as most frauds are clearly criminal acts. Criminals typically try to avoid easy traceability.


[edit] Phishing for data
Some spoof messages purport to be from an existing company, perhaps one with which the intended victim already has a business relationship. The 'bait' in this instance may appear to be a message from 'the fraud department' of, for example, the victim's bank, which asks the customer to: "confirm their information"; "log in to their account"; "create a new password", or similar requests. If the 'fish' takes the 'bait', they are 'hooked' -- their account information is now in the hands of the con man, to do with as they wish. See Phishing.


[edit] Bogus offers
E-mail solicitations to purchase goods or services may be instances of attempted fraud. The fraudulent offer typically features a popular item or service, at a drastically reduced price.

Items may be offered in advance of their actual availability, for instance, the latest video game may be offered prior to its release, but at a similar price to a normal sale. In this case, the 'greed factor' is the desire to get something that nobody else has, and before everyone else can get it, rather than a reduction in price. Of course, the item is never delivered, as it was not a legitimate offer in the first place.

Such an offer may even be no more than an attempt to obtain the victim's credit card information, with the intent of using the information to fraudulently obtain goods or services, paid for by the hapless victim, who may not know they were scammed until their credit card has been "used up".


[edit] Requests for help
The "request for help" type of e-mail fraud takes this form. An e-mail is sent requesting help in some way, but including a reward for this help as a "hook," such as a large amount of money, a treasure, or some artifact of supposedly great value.

This type of scam has existed at least since the Renaissance, known as the "Spanish Prisoner" or "Turkish Prisoner" scam. In its original form, this scheme has the con man purport to be in correspondence with a wealthy person who has been imprisoned under a false identity, and is relying on the confidence artist to raise money to secure his release. The con man tells the "mark" (victim) that he is "allowed" to supply money, for which he should expect a generous reward when the prisoner returns. The confidence artist claims to have chosen the victim for their reputation for honesty.

Other form of fraudulent help requests is represented by romance scam. Under this, fraudsters (pretended males or females) build online relationships, and after some time, they ask for money from the victims, claiming the money is needed due to the fact they have lost their money (or their luggage was stolen), they have been beaten or otherwise harmed and they need to get out of the country to fly to the victim's country.

This confidence trick is similar to the face-to-face con, known as the "Stranger With a Kind Face," which is the likely origin of at least the title of the vaudevillian routine known by the same name, as "Niagara Falls," or as "Slowly I turned..."

The modern e-mail version of this scam, known variously as the "Nigerian scam", "Nigerian All-Stars," etc., because it is typically based in Nigeria, is an advance fee fraud. The lottery scam is a contemporary twist on this scam.


[edit] Avoiding e-mail fraud
Due to the widespread use of web bugs in email, simply opening an email can potentially alert the sender that the address to which the email is sent is a valid address. This can also happen when the mail is 'reported' as spam, in some cases: if the email is forwarded for inspection, and opened, the sender will be notified in the same way as if the addressee opened it.

E-mail fraud may be avoided by:

keeping one's e-mail address as secret as possible
ignoring unsolicited e-mails of all types, simply deleting them.
not giving in to greed, since greed is the element that allows one to be 'hooked'.
if you have been defrauded, report it to law enforcement authorities — many frauds go unreported, due to shame, guilty feelings or embarrassment.

[edit] Example
From Angela White.

Hello Dear,

My name is Mrs. Angela White, a business woman in London. I have been diagnosed with esophageal cancer which was discovered very late due to my laxity in caring for my health. It has defiled all forms of medication right now and I have only few hours left to live, according to medical experts. I have never particularly lived my life so well as I never really cared for anyone not even me but my business. Though I am very rich, but I was never generous. But now I regret all this as I now know that there is more to life than just wanting to have or make all the money in the world. Now that God has called me through this way I willed most of my properties and asset to my immediate and extended family and as well as few close friends. I am going in for an operation now, and i dont think i will make it.

I want God to be merciful to me and accept my soul and so with that reason I decided to give alms to CHARITY ORGANISATIONS, as I want this to be one of the last good deed I did on earth.

I now give you the authority to dispatch my last funds to CHARITY organizations. I have set aside 40% of the total amount $1,500,000.00 (One million five hundred thousand dollars) for you and your time and patience for carrying out this duties. This means you will keep $600,000 (Six hundred thousand dollars) for yourself and donate the rest to any charity organisation of your choice. May God be with you as you carry out this task. I believe with this, i can now be free to depart peacefully.

If you can render me this assistance, you can then contact my lawyer who will assist you in getting the funds to you in my absence if i die or not. He would give you more details. His name is Barr. Thomas Harry and his email address is: (emailaddress@yahoo.co.uk) He would guide you through receiving the funds.

Best Regards, Angela White


BULADAS


[edit] See also
Mail fraud
Advance fee fraud
Confidence trick
Fraud
Get-rich-quick schemes
Spamming
Web bug

[edit] External links
E-mail Scam Reports
no419.com - Nigeria's Business Private Investigator
The Paid Online Survey Center - E-Mail Scams
Learn about Email Scams, Identity Theft and Phishing
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-mail_fraud"
Categories: Spamming | Confidence tricks | Internet fraud
Hidden categories: Cleanup from October 2007 | All pages needing cleanupViewsArticle Discussion Edit this page History Personal toolsLog in / create account Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Search
Interaction
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact Wikipedia
Donate to Wikipedia
Help
Toolbox
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Printable version
Permanent link
Cite this page
Languages
Deutsch
Español
Esperanto
Français
Italiano
עברית
Nederlands
日本語
‪Norsk (bokmål)‬
‪Norsk (nynorsk)‬
Polski
Português
Русский
Suomi
Svenska
中文

This page was last modified on 24 October 2008, at 19:49. All text

DEFRAUD

To make a Misrepresentation of an existing material fact, knowing it to be false or making it recklessly without regard to whether it is true or false, intending for someone to rely on the misrepresentation and under circumstances in which such person does rely on it to his or her damage. To practice Fraud; to cheat or trick. To deprive a person of property or any interest, estate, or right by fraud, deceit, or artifice.

Intent to defraud means an intention to deceive another person, and to induce such other person, in reliance upon such deception, to assume, create, transfer, alter, or terminate a right, obligation, or power with reference to property.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

defraud v. to use deceit, falsehoods, or trickery to obtain money, an object, rights or anything of value belonging to another. (See: fraud)

Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved

conspiracy

In the criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between natural persons to break the law at some time in the future, and, in some cases, with at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement. There is no limit on the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect (compare attempts which require proximity to the full offence). For the purposes of concurrence, the actus reus is a continuing one and parties may join "the plot" later and incur joint liability and conspiracy can be charged where the co-conspirators have been acquitted and/or cannot be traced. Finally, repentance by one or more parties does not affect liability but may reduce their sentence.

Contents [hide]
1 Conspiracy in English law
1.1 Common law residue
1.1.1 Conspiracy to defraud
1.1.2 Conspiracy to corrupt public morals or to outrage public decency
1.2 Statutory conspiracy
1.2.1 Exceptions
1.2.2 Elements of the offence
1.2.3 Things said or done by one conspirator
2 Conspiracy in the United States
3 Conspiracy against rights
4 Conspiracy and international law
5 Footnotes
6 References



[edit] Conspiracy in English law

[edit] Common law residue
At common law, the crime of conspiracy was capable of infinite growth, able to accommodate any new situation and to criminalize it if the level of threat to society was sufficiently great. The courts were therefore acting in the role of the legislature to create new offences and, following the Law Commission Report No. 76 on "Reform of the Common Law", the Criminal Law Act 1977 produced a statutory offence and abolished all the common law varieties of conspiracy, except two:


[edit] Conspiracy to defraud
Although most frauds are crimes, it is irrelevant for these purposes whether the agreement would amount to a crime if carried out. This gives the prosecution a choice whether to charge statutory or common law conspiracy where the agreement would amount to the commission of an offence if carried out. If the victim has suffered of any financial or other prejudice there of, there is no need to establish that the defendant deceived him or her. But, following Scott v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1974) 3 All ER 1032, it is necessary to prove that the victim was dishonestly deceived by one or more of the parties to the agreement into running an economic risk that he or she would not otherwise have run, if the victim has not suffered any loss. For the mens rea, it is necessary to prove that "the purpose of the conspirators (was) to cause the victim economic loss" (per Lord Diplock in Scott). For the test of dishonesty, see R v Ghosh (1982) 2 All ER 689.


[edit] Conspiracy to corrupt public morals or to outrage public decency
These two offences exist, if at all, only when the agreement would not amount to a substantive crime if carried out by a single person and covers situations where, for example, a publisher encourages immoral behavior through explicit content in a magazine or periodical. But, in R v Rowley (1991) 4 All ER 649, the defendant left notes in public places over a period of three weeks offering money and presents to boys with the intention of luring them for immoral purposes, but there was nothing lewd, obscene or disgusting in the notes. The judge ruled that the jury was entitled to look at the purpose behind the notes in deciding whether they were lewd or disgusting. On appeal against conviction, it was held that an act outraging public decency required a deliberate act which was in itself lewd, obscene or disgusting, so Rowley’s motive in leaving the notes was irrelevant and, since there was nothing in the notes themselves capable of outraging public decency, the conviction was quashed.


[edit] Statutory conspiracy
This offence was created as a result of the Law Commission's recommendations in their Report, Conspiracy and Criminal Law Reform, 1976, Law Com No 76. This was part of the Commission's programme of codification of the criminal law. The eventual aim was to abolish all the remaining common law offences and replace them, where appropriate, with offences precisely defined by statute. The common law offences were seen as unacceptably vague and open to development by the courts in silly ways which might offend the principle of certainty. There was an additional problem that it could be a criminal conspiracy at common law to engage in conduct which was not in itself a criminal offence: see Law Com No 76, para 1.7. This was a major mischief at which the 1977 Act was aimed, although it retained (as a temporary measure) the convenient concept of a common law conspiracy to defraud: see Law Com No 76, paras 1.9 and 1.16. Henceforward it would only be an offence to agree to engage in a course of conduct which was itself a criminal offence.

Section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 provides:

"...if a person agrees with any other person or persons that a course of conduct shall be pursued which, if the agreement is carried out in accordance with their intentions, either -
(a) will necessarily amount to or involve the commission of any offence or offences by one or more of the parties to the agreement, or
(b) would do so but for the existence of facts which render the commission of the offence or any of the offences impossible, [added by S.5 Criminal Attempts Act 1981]
he is guilty of conspiracy to commit the offence or offences in question."

[edit] Exceptions
Under section 2(1) the intended victim of the offence can not be guilty of conspiracy.
Under section 2(2) there can be no conspiracy where the only other person(s) to the agreement are:
(a) a spouse or civil partner; [2]
(b) a person under the age of criminal responsibility; and
(c) an intended victim of that offence.

[edit] Elements of the offence
There must be a real agreement with the parties having agreed all the major details of the "crime" or "crimes" (not including other inchoate offences) to be committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, and the parties must "intend" or "know" the facts which make the conduct criminal even where the full offence is strict. Thus, the mens rea of conspiracy is a completely separate issue from the mens rea required of the substantive crime: Attorney General ex parte Rockall (1999) Crim LR 972 where the issue of corruption in public office was complicated by the presence of the presumption of corruption in s2 Prevention of Corruption Act 1916 unless the contrary is proved in respect of payments to persons in public employment (a provision that probably breaches the human rights requirement as to a presumption of innocence).

The so-called Wharton's rule (also known as "Concert of Action Rule") regarding conspiracies is relatively simple: Unless the statute specifies otherwise, when two people are required to commit a crime, such as gambling or prostitution, there can be no charge of conspiracy where only two people are involved. The reasoning behind this rule, which has been enacted in many states, is that conspiracies, by their very nature, bring together individuals with different resources and abilities. This group action is dangerous. However, where there are only two people involved in a crime that requires two people to commit it, there are no concerted group action. In order to prosecute under gambling or prostitution as a conspiracy, most states require more than two people involved.


[edit] Things said or done by one conspirator
LORD STEYN in R v Hayter [2005] UKHL 6 (03 February 2005) at paragraph 25 referred to: The rule about confessions is subject to exceptions. Keane, The Modern Law of Evidence 5th ed., (2000) p 385–386, explains:

"In two exceptional situations, a confession may be admitted not only as evidence against its maker but also as evidence against a co-accused implicated thereby. The first is where the co-accused by his words or conduct accepts the truth of the statement so as to make all or part of it a confession statement of his own. The second exception, which is perhaps best understood in terms of implied agency, applies in the case of conspiracy: statements (or acts) of one conspirator which the jury is satisfied were said (or done) in the execution or furtherance of the common design are admissible in evidence against another conspirator, even though he was not present at the time, to prove the nature and scope of the conspiracy, provided that there is some independent evidence to show the existence of the conspiracy and that the other conspirator was a party to it.

[edit] Conspiracy in the United States
Conspiracy has been defined in the US as an agreement of two or more people to commit a crime, or to accomplish a legal end through illegal actions.[1][2] For example, planning to rob a bank (an illegal act) in order to raise money for charity (a legal end) remains a criminal conspiracy because the parties agreed to use illegal means to accomplish the end goal. A conspiracy does not need to have been planned in secret in order to meet the definition of the crime. One legal dictionary, law.com, provides this useful example on the application of conspiracy law to an everyday sales transaction tainted by corruption. It shows how the law can handle both the criminal and the civil need for justice.

[A] scheme by a group of salesmen to sell used automobiles as new, could be prosecuted as a crime of fraud and conspiracy, and also allow a purchaser of an auto to sue for damages [in civil court] for the fraud and conspiracy.

Conspiracy law usually does not require proof of the specific intent by the defendants to injure any specific person in order to establish an illegal agreement. Instead, usually the law only requires the conspirators have agreed to engage in a certain illegal act. This is sometimes described as a "general intent" to violate the law.

In United States v. Shabani, 513 U.S. 10 (1994) the United States Supreme Court ruled: U.S. Congress intended to adopt the common law definition of conspiracy, which does not make the doing of any act other than the act of conspiring a condition of liability" at least insofar as to establish a violation of a narcotics conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 846. Therefore, the Government need not prove the commission of any overt acts in furtherance of those narcotics conspiracies prohibited by 21 U.S.C. § 846. The Shabani case illustrates that it is a matter of legislative prerogative whether to require an overt step, or not to require an overt step in any conspiracy statute. The court compares the need to prove an overt step to be criminally liable under the conspiracy provision of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, while there is no such requirement under 21 U.S.C. § 846.

The Supreme Court pointed out that common law did not require proof of an overt step, and the need to prove it for a federal conspiracy conviction requires Congress to specifically require proof of an overt step to accomplish the conspiracy. It is a legislative choice on a statute by statute basis.

The conspirators can be guilty even if they do not know the identity of the other members of the conspiracy. See United States v. Monroe, 73 F.3d 129 (7th Cir. 1995), aff'd., 124 F.3d 206 (7th Cir. 1997).

California criminal law is somewhat representative of other jurisdictions. A punishable conspiracy exists when at least two people form an agreement to commit a crime, and at least one of them does some act in furtherance to committing the crime. Each person is punishable in the same manner and to the same extent as is provided for the punishment of the crime itself. [3]

One example of this is The Han Twins Murder Conspiracy case, where one twin sister attempted to hire two youths to have her twin sister killed.

One important feature of a conspiracy charge is that it relieves prosecutors of the need to prove the particular roles of conspirators. If two persons plot to kill another (and this can be proven), and the victim is indeed killed as a result of the actions of either conspirator, it is not necessary to prove with specificity which of the conspirators actually pulled the trigger. (Otherwise, both conspirators could conceivably handle the gun—leaving two sets of fingerprints—and then demand acquittals for both, based on the fact that the prosecutor would be unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, which of the two conspirators was the triggerman). In order to achieve a conviction on charges of conspiracy, is sufficient to prove that a) the conspirators did indeed conspire to commit the crime, and b) the crime was committed by an individual involved in the conspiracy. Proof of which individual it was is usually not necessary.

It is also an option for prosecutors, when bringing conspiracy charges, to decline to indict all members of the conspiracy (though their existence may be mentioned in an indictment). Such unindicted co-conspirators are commonly found when the identities or whereabouts of members of a conspiracy are unknown; or when the prosecution is only concerned with a particular individual among the conspirators. This is common when the target of the indictment is an elected official or an organized crime leader; and the co-conspirators are persons of little or no public importance. More famously, President Richard Nixon was named as an unindicted co-conspirator by the Watergate special prosecutor, in an event leading up to his eventual resignation.


[edit] Conspiracy against rights
The U.S. has a specific statute dealing with conspiracies to deprive a citizen of rights justified by the Constitution.[3]


[edit] Conspiracy and international law
Conspiracy law was used at the Nuremberg Trials for Nazi leadership who were charged with participating in a "conspiracy or common plan" to commit international crimes. This was controversial because conspiracy was not a part of the European civil law tradition. Nonetheless, the crime of conspiracy continued in international criminal justice, being incorporated into the international criminal laws against genocide.

It should however be noted, that of the Big Five, only the Republic of France exclusively subscribed to the civil law; the USSR subscribed to the socialist law, the U.S. and the U.K. followed the common law; and the Republic of China did not have a cause of action at this particular proceeding. (In addition, it upheld both the civil and the customary law). In any event, the jurisdiction of the International Military Tribunal was unique and extraordinary at its time, being a court convened under the law of nations and the laws and customs of war, was the first of its sort in human history, found several defendants before it not guilty, and, of the guilty parties, it is certainly arguable that of the conspiracies plotted, many bore fruit.


[edit] Footnotes

voyeurism

Voyeurism · Sexuality
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2007)

"Voyeur" redirects here. For other uses, see Voyeur (disambiguation).

Mercury and HerseIn clinical psychology, voyeurism (or scopophilia) is the sexual interest in or practice of spying on people engaged in intimate behaviors, such as undressing, sexual activity, or other activity usually considered to be of a private nature.[1][2] In popular imagination the term is used in a more general sense to refer to someone who habitually observes others without their knowledge, and there is no necessary implication of any sexual interest.

Voyeurism can take several forms, but its principle characteristic is that the voyeur does not normally relate directly with the subject of his or her interest, who is often unaware of being observed. The voyeur may observe the subject from a distance, or use stealth to observe the subject with the use of two-way mirrors, camera, videos etc.

Contents [hide]
1 Etymology
2 DSM IV Classification
3 Legal position
4 Secret photography
5 Voyeurism in popular culture
6 See also
7 References
8 External links
8.1 Laws



[edit] Etymology
Voyeurism is a French word adopted into English, and is derives from the verb voir (to see) with the suffix -eur suffix that translates as -er in English. A literal translation would then be “seer” or "observer", with pejorative connotations.


[edit] DSM IV Classification
Voyeurism
Classification and external resources
ICD-10 F65.3
ICD-9 302.82
Certain voyeuristic fantasies, urges and behavior patterns are classified as a paraphilia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association and a disorder of sexual preference in the ICD-10.[3][4] The diagnosis would not be given to people who experience typical sexual arousal simply by seeing nudity or sexual activity. The aspect of spying is central to paraphilic voyeurism.[citation needed]


[edit] Legal position

Two actors, a young woman watches secretly while two male actors make loveVoyeurism is not a crime in common law. In common law countries, it is only a crime if made so by legislation. In Canada, for example, voyeurism was not a crime when the case Frey v. Fedoruk et al. arose in 1947. In that case, in 1950, the Supreme Court of Canada held that courts could not criminalize voyeurism by classifying it as a breach of the peace and that Parliament would have to specifically outlaw it. On November 1, 2005, this was done when section 162 was added to the Canadian Criminal Code, declaring voyeurism to be a sexual offense. [5]

In some cultures, voyeurism is considered to be deviant and even a sex crime. In the United Kingdom, non-consensual voyeurism became a criminal offense on May 1, 2004.[6] However, some societies tolerate it in some circumstances (e.g., adolescent "Peeping Toms" and the UK dogging craze).[citation needed] Voyeurs are typically male, although many women also practise voyeurism.[citation needed]

In the English case of R v Turner[7] the manager of a sports centre videoed four women taking showers. There was no indication that the footage had been shown to anyone else or distributed in any way. The defendant pleaded guilty. The Court of Appeal confirmed a sentence of nine months imprisonment to reflect the seriousness of the abuse of trust and the traumatic effect on the victims.

It has been claimed that some individuals who engage in "nuisance" offenses (such as voyeurism) may also have a propensity for violence.[8] Voyeurs may demonstrate some characteristics that are common, but not universal, among sexual offenders of all types including sadistic or violent offenders who invest considerable time and effort in the capturing of a victim (or image of a victim); careful, methodical planning devoted to the selection and preparation of equipment; and often meticulous attention to detail.[9]

In the United States, video voyeurism is an offense in nine states and may require the convicted criminal to register as a sex offender.[citation needed] The original case which lead to the criminalization of voyeurism has been made into a television movie called Video Voyeur and documents the criminalization of secret photography. Criminal voyeurism statutes are related to invasion of privacy laws[10] but are specific to unlawful surreptitious surveillance without consent and unlawful recordings including the broadcast, dissemination, publication, or selling of recordings involving places and times when a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a reasonable supposition that he or she is not being photographed or filmed by "any mechanical, digital or electronic viewing device, camera or any other instrument capable of recording, storing or transmitting visual images that can be utilized to observe a person."[11]


[edit] Secret photography
Main article: Secret photography
Secret photography by law enforcement authorities is called surveillance and is not considered to be voyeurism, though it may be unlawful or regulated in some countries.

Some fine art photographers have displayed a fascination with the forms of secret voyeuristic photography. Voyeuristic photography has also been centrally explored in movies such as Powell & Pressburger's Peeping Tom, and Michelangelo Antonioni's Blowup, and has appeared to comic effect in films such as Gregory's Girl and American Pie.

Sometimes voyeurs use normal cameras, but the photographer is concealed. Sometimes the camera itself is disguised or concealed. Some obvious element of concealment (or great distance) is generally needed to make such photography fall under the category of 'secret photography' rather than street photography or documentary photography.

Although spy cameras small enough to fit inside a pocket-watch had existed since the 1880s, since the 1950s advances in miniaturisation and electronics has greatly aided the ability to conceal miniature cameras, and the quality and affordability of tiny cameras (often called "spy cameras" or subminiature cameras) has now greatly increased. Some consumer digital cameras are now so small that in previous decades they would have qualified as "spy cameras", and digital cameras of 5 megapixels or more are now being embedded in some mobile camera phones.

Some institutions, such as gyms and schools, have banned camera phones because of the privacy issues they raise in areas like changerooms. Saudi Arabia banned the sale of camera phones nationwide for a period, but reversed the ban in 2004. South Korea requires that all camera phones sold in the country make a clearly audible sound whenever a picture is being taken.


[edit] Voyeurism in popular culture

Fragonard's The Swing depicts a young nobleman hidden in the bushes watching his mistress on a swing. As the lady goes high on the swing, she let him take a furtive peep under her dressVoyeurism is a common plot device in both serious (e.g. Rear Window, Klute and more recently Disturbia) and humorous (e.g. Porky's, Animal House and more recently Semi-Pro) films.
A serious psychological treatment of the topic in cinema was done in Peeping Tom.
The anime Colorful is devoted almost entirely to the paraphilia.
Alone With Her is a recent Indie film shot completely from a high tech, spycam point-of-view.
The movie Video Voyeur: The Susan Wilson Story is based on a true story about the woman who was secretly videotaped and consequently, helped get the law against voyeurism passed.
Cult movie double feature The Rocky Horror Picture Show/Shock Treatment deals with the theme of voyeurism sexually and in mass media
In "I'm On Setanta Sports", José continuously refers to Arséne Wenger as a 'Voyeur'.
In Popular Anime Manga/Ova Eiken The main character Mifune is labeled as a Voyeur, by everyone because he accidentally looks at Shinonome when she was nude, and again when her panties dropped down.
Ellen Page's character accuses her victim of being a voyeur in the movie "Hard Candy".
In the E.L. Doctorow novel Billy Bathgate, Billy is a voyeur who masturbates as he secretly watches a woman.
The 1993 film Sliver deals with voyeurism.
In the film Saw 4 the villain Jigsaw depicts Ivan as a voyeur when he recorded himself on a tape recorder saying "Hello Ivan, as a voyeur you have kept pictures of those you have victimised"
The song "Voyeur" on Blink-182's album Dude Ranch is about a voyeur.
Voyeurism is an ingredient in some reality television programs such as Big Brother.
Laura Mulvey talks about scopophilia in terms of feminist film theory in Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema

identity murder

Identity theft to stalking to Murder

murder threats

Pennsylvania Crimes Code

Section 2502. Murder.

(a) Murder of the first degree - A criminal homicide constitutes murder of the first degree when it is committed by an intentional killing.

(b) Murder of the second degree - A criminal homicide constitutes murder of the second degree when it is committed while defendant was engaged as a principal or an accomplice in the perpetration of a felony. (Chgd. by L.1978, Act 39(1), eff 6/27/78.)

(c) Murder of the third degree - All other kinds of murder shall be murder of the third degree. Murder of the third degree is a felony of the first degree.

(d) Definitions - As used in this section the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this subsection:

"Fireman." Includes any employee or member of a municipal fire department or volunteer fire company.

"Hijacking." Any unlawful or unauthorized seizure or exercise of control, by force or violence or threat of force or violence.

"Intentional killing." Killing by means of poison, or by lying in wait, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate and premeditated killing.

"Perpetration of a felony." The act of the defendant in engaging in or being an accomplice in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing, or attempting to commit robbery, rape, or deviate sexual intercourse by force or threat of force, arson, burglary or kidnapping.

"Principal." A person who is the actor or perpetrator of the crime.



Back to Criminal Law Syllabus

gossip

by Lori Palatnik and Bob Burg Gossip can be more powerful than biological weapons.

Email this Print this



The sages teach that each time someone speaks badly of others, it is like killing three people.

Who is dying?

1. THE PERSON SPEAKING

In whose eyes is this happening? On one level, the person speaking is being killed in the eyes of God. The Almighty has given that person the gift of speech, and he or she is using it to pit one person against another, to put others down and to speak of other people's private business.

On another level, he or she is being killed in the eyes of all those who are listening. When you have "the goods" on some-one and say to a group of people, "Guess what? I heard the real story about so-and-so's marital breakup," what happens?

Everyone leans in to hear the juicy gossip, and you become the center of attention. You are, in a sense, being crowned! You become the queen or king of this moment.

But it's just a moment. If you are known as the type of person eager to speak badly of others or quick to share "the dirt" at any given time, you will not be the person others come to for advice or with whom they entrust their lives. After all, if you are so quick to speak badly of others, everyone knows that soon they will be fodder for your social hobby.


If you are quick to speak badly of others, everyone knows they will be fodder for your social hobby.

When Bob was a television newscaster, he was also an avid speaker -- as well as listener -- of gossip. According to Bob, "When I was with certain people, it felt like we were best friends; as though it were the two of us against the world. But I also knew that the same was true for whomever my 'friend' was with at the time. If they talked about others so viciously, what did that tell me would be said about me when I wasn't the 'best friend of the moment'?"

Interestingly enough, not only did most of Bob's coworkers not trust people like this, but they didn't like them either. Of course, that didn't stop anybody from listening to all the juicy gossip.

The truth is that at any moment you can be the popular one, but in the long run, you are lessened in everyone's eyes if you gossip. When you speak badly of others, it is like committing slow suicide.

Did you ever wonder why gossip is called "the low down" and "the dirt"? Let's face it, putting others down only brings us down. Some time ago, someone in my evening class on ethics shared the following story with everyone in attendance:


I was attending a ceremony at our house of worship and my sister-in-law walked in dressed very inappropriately! She was wearing a revealing top and I just couldn't believe it. I pointed this out to my husband and told him that his sister had done it again. When will she ever learn?

But my husband did not respond. He just stood there and stared at me. It's maddening. He does it every time I speak about people. Don't you think he should say something to his sister, or perhaps I should?


I responded by saying, "First, do not say anything to your sister-in-law. She won't be able to hear it from you. If you have that type of relationship, chances are she won't be able to hear the weather report from you, let alone a comment about her choice of dress -- as this can often be a challenging relationship.

"Second, when you speak negatively about others, who is being lessened in your husband's eyes?"

The woman didn't have to think long. "I am," she whispered.

"You've got a good guy there," I answered. "Don't just hang on to him. Learn from him."

2. THE PERSON YOU ARE SPEAKING ABOUT

The person who is the topic of discussion at hand is obviously being killed. Such people are going about their business innocently, oblivious to the fact that you are speaking about them and affecting the way others view them. Irreparable damage can be done with every word, whether the information is true or not.


Money can be earned back easily, but a reputation developed over years can be wiped away instantly.

A person's reputation -- their good name -- is certainly a major part of his or her joy of existence. Money can always be earned back fairly easily, but a reputation for honesty, integrity, and kindness, for being a loving husband, a good parent, a charitable and righteous person, while developed over years, can be wiped away instantly in a flash of evil speech. Depending upon the circumstances, it may be nearly impossible to restore it to its original level.

The Japanese have a term that describes very well what happens when a person's reputation is damaged: The person is said to have "lost face," as if they no longer exist.

3. THE PERSON LISTENING

The Talmud says that the person who is damaged most of all is the one who is listening. Worse than gossiping is listening to gossip!

We all know deep down that, although almost everyone does it, speaking badly about people is plain wrong. The person you are slicing up is being harmed to no end. Yet, we wonder, why in the eyes of God is the passive listener the one who is doing the most harm?

The answer lies in the word passive. Of all three parties, the listener is the only one who has the ability to stop the evil speech in its tracks. The speaker has already made the decision to speak badly of others. The one being spoken about has no control over the situation. The listener is the only one who has the power to change the course of the conversation, which is why God puts the onus on the listener.


Reading gossip is even worse than listening to it.

My son pointed out to me that reading gossip is even worse than listening to it! Sometimes, he said, we are in a situation in which someone will blurt out something negative about a person, and we have heard it before we have had a chance to block it. However, reading gives us time to decide whether or not this is something we want to know about. If an article is a juicy exposé on a person's life -- exposing private details that are surely embarrassing and damaging to that person's reputation -- why do we spend even one second of our lives reading it, other than for a momentary thrill or as a sick form of entertainment at someone's expense? There can be no excuse that we couldn't help hearing something that was suddenly blurted out. Clearly we would have made a conscious choice to "listen" to things we shouldn't.

Reputations are destroyed, marriages are ruined, partnerships are broken -- there is no end. Are you beginning to understand why Bob and I are so emphatic about one of the world's favorite pastimes?

Keep in mind that these biblical laws apply not only to talking about people, but also about organizations, groups of people and an individual you probably never expected -- you. Yes, you are not allowed to speak badly about yourself! If you put yourself down, you are transgressing these laws. By doing so, in essence you are saying that God blew it. God doesn't blow it. He made you in His image, and God doesn't make junk. So forget the self-deprecating dialogue. You are unique. You are special. You have potential for greatness. Now use that potential for good.

THE TEN PATHWAYS OF POSITIVE SPEECH

Better pointed bullets than pointed speech. Otto von Bismarck

The Ten Pathways of Positive Speech

Speak No Evil. Say only positive statements. Let words of kindness be on your tongue.

Hear No Evil. Refuse to listen to gossip, slander and other negative forms of speech.

Don't Rationalize Destructive Speech. Excuses like "But it's true" or "I'm only joking" or "I can tell my spouse anything" just don't cut it.

See No Evil. Judge people favorably, the way you would want them to judge you.

Beware of Speaking Evil Without Saying an Evil Word. Body language and even positive speech can bring tremendous destruction.

Be Humble; Avoid Arrogance. These will be your greatest weapons against destructive speech.

Beware of Repeating Information. Loose lips sink ships. Even positive information needs permission before being repeated.

Honesty Really Is the Best Policy -- Most of the Time. Be careful to always tell the truth, unless it will hurt others, break your own privacy or publicize your accomplishments.

Learn to Say "I'm Sorry." Everyone makes mistakes. If you've spoken badly about someone, clear it up immediately.

Forgive. If you have been wronged, let it go.



Excerpted from "Gossip -- Ten Pathways to Eliminate It From Your Life and Transform Your Soul," by Lori Palatnik and Bob Burg Simcha Press). Available at Amazon.com.



Published: Sunday, September 29, 2002

If you would like to receive "Aish Weekly update" or other features via e-mail, please enter your email address here:


Hear related audio on this topic

Top of article Submit comment Email this Print this





E-mail this article:
Gossip: The Triple Murder Threat

Privacy Guarantee: Information submitted on
this page remains private.

Recipient's E-mail address: required
TIP: Send to many email addresses, put a comma in-between.
Your Name: optional Your E-mail: required

Your Personal Message: optional

Send me a copy.



VISITORS COMMENTS: 13


(13) Anonymous, 23/7/2007
I agree!
This is an eye opener. It took me while before I could have the courage to honestly read this. When you are used to being abused by someone in your life, a ex spouse or even a parent, its not allways easy to apply Gods commmands in our lives, much effort is required at times. This is true, honest Godly wisdom, that you have provided but, not always easy to apply, yet not impossible to do! I agree with you, because it comes from God. He said it first, you have managed to explane it in more detail, that reached the heart. And for me the only way I can succeed in this wonderfull, godly inspired councell, is to cut off what is bad, or cut off what will make me fall into this sin. Yes its true, we have to avoid damaging speech, and gossip, and sometimes the only way to do this is to avoid the situation which means to avoid the person attached to the situation, kinda like a "divorce", once you do it, you dont turn back to it, you get on with your life, heal, throw out the bad, take out the weeds form the flowers so you can enjoy the real beauty that is all around you. Kill it before it kills us. The bad talk and gossip. {Not kill the person literally but metaphorically speaking, spiritually}thank you!!!
(12) Anonymous, 4/4/2005
Sometimes Staying Silent Is Wrong
This is a great article, and I agree with all the points made. However, I believe that we must speak out about an injustice or evil if we see that maintaining silence will perpetuate abuse. For example, I think it's wrong for newspapers to dish dirt about people who happen to be famous, but it's a duty to report a crime such as the current genocide in the Sudan or even government corruption at home. On a personal level, I think it's wrong to discuss other people, but it's right to report child abuse to the authorities, or, if you are abused, speak to someone in confidence in order to get help or advice.

(11) Anonymous, 28/3/2005
Thanks for the article
Guarding your tounge protects yourself and others.
If you're in a situation though where you need to say something, you should learn what and what Not to say, subscribe at free_email@chofetzchaimusa.org

(10) Manuel, 16/11/2002
Comment of gossip ?
Well, sometimes with my coworkers I speak badly of my bosses, they are sometimes mean people

I know is wrong but it is difficult to avoid it

Could you call that gossip ?


(9) Olga Loaiza, 16/10/2002
Words That Hurt
Yes, absolutely, because of the human physique, once the gossip is out, “REPUTATIONS ARE DESTROYED”.
(8) Tom Price, 11/10/2002
Wonderful and wise
I enjoyed the article very much.Very well written. It contains many "gems" of wisdom. Keep up the good work.
Sincerely,
Tom

(7) Linda, 2/10/2002
Fantastic and so simple!
These ideas can drastically change the lives, of the victims and the gossipers. Thanks for your amazing thoughts.

(6) Bob Burg, 2/10/2002
Response to reader question from co-athor of book
This is Bob Burg, co-author (with Rebbetzin Lori Palatnik) of the book, "GOSSIP...". I'd like to respond to one of the readers below, who asked a couple of excellent questions regarding this topic.

First, "Anonymous" asked, <>

Your question is very intelligent and appreciated, and I thank you for asking. Let's first define gossip as any type of harmful or hurtful communication. As you may know, in Hebrew, "loshon hora" literally means "evil speech" (and this would also apply to something written or even body language). With this in mind, it is actually part of the Laws of Proper Speech (Shemiras haloshon) to inform someone when that is necessary and proper. An example would be someone about to enter a business deal with one who you know to less than ethical. Without going into detail here, let me say that, although there are certain guidelines to be followed here, it would be correct to provide a warning. Or, if someone is speaking loshon hora and you want to gently admonish them. The key is to do so with tact and kindness. All of this is covered in the book.

The next question asked by Anonymous was
<>

WOW, I love your question because that was one of mine when I (myself, a former speaker and listener of gossip)first began learning about this topic.

First, discussing a problem with a trusted friend would not be gossip, providing that what is said is necessary and helpful. Sometimes, it is more the "way" it is said. Rebbetzin Lori teaches this beautifully when she says there is a big diffence between telling your spouse that "John and Mary are having some problems; do you think you could help them?" and, "Oh, did you hear the big news - John and Mary are having problems". The first way was said with helpful concern; the second way would be gossip.

Regarding gossiping "just" to let off steam . . . again, that was me. Interestingly enough though, it was sort of like eating an ice cream sundae: I felt some instantaneous pleasure, but afterwards had to deal with an extra two pounds. Instead, maybe there's another way to let off steam which is more positive.

Again, thank you so much for your comments and questions. Feel free to check out our new website at www.EndGossip.com

Be well,

Bob Burg


(5) Anonymous, 1/10/2002
Where is the separation?
In everything that was said, in this topic, I too agree that gossip is a very dangerous tool to use against people.

But I wonder this; when does it become gossip verses letting someone know when something might be going on that is not quite right?

And what is the difference between gossip and discussing something with a person of trust, or friend, when you are needing to let off frustration or needing another insights into an issue?

I'm honestly a little confused with the gossip issue.

I think we all gossip, even when we are not aware of what we are really doing. Until we think about it later.

But I still believe that there must be a time and a place to discuss matters of the heart and soul, even if it involves other people. Am I wrong?

(4) Denise Rootenberg, 1/10/2002
Very timely message
We just had a big upset in my family with someone blithely passing on information another family member had told her. Your article appeared on the same day!

It really made an impact on me. I have read a lot about lashon hara but never thought about reading it being so bad. I always look at the junk magazines at the grocery checkout and laugh at the absurdity of the stories. I never thought anything of it. Now I realise that your son is right and it's a form of lashon hara even if we don't believe the articles.

(3) Jeff, 30/9/2002
Another explanation which I came across...
A few weeks ago, I was really thinking about this subject. How was Lashon Harah equal to murder? I thought about this realistically: If, for example, you were to convince a friend of yours not to get into a relationship with another friend because of certain characteristics, and that friend and the other were actually B'shert to be together, the breaking up of that B'shert relationship thus would cause children from never being born and thus you were the one who caused this. This essentially murdered future children from being born.

(2) Esther Gerber, 30/9/2002
One of the most IMPORTANT books I have ever read!
I am in a state of wonderwent.
It was a fantastic learning experience.
One of my favorite proverbs is--The tongue is a powerful weapon, Once you spew a word it can never be retrieved.
I take this very seriously.
Oh, I was so proud.

You know what! I did not know the essence of gossip.
There are so many subtle ways in which I did, without realizing it.
Read and see. You'll be amazed.

With Bob"s good common sense and Lori's sense of spirituality it's got to be a winner.
Happy reading...Esther Gerber

(1) Robin Slovacek, 29/9/2002
Powerful and Profound
Thank you for printing the excerpt from "Gossip: 10 Pathways To Elimate It From Your Life And Transform Your Soul". It is a powerful and very profound message we all have to remember. When we gossip, the person we are gossiping about is not the only one who is effected. We are all effected by Lashon Hora (evil speech), and it is up to each of us in our own way to elimate it from our lives. "Gossip: Ten Pathways to Elimate It From Your Life And Transform Your Soul" is an excellent book as well as being a great learning resource. I have read the book and can recommend it highly. I have learned a great deal from it, it has opened my eyes in a number of ways and it has made a huge impact on my life. Once again, thank you for printing the excerpt from the book.