How Many More?

Niccolo Machiavelli’s Il Principe (The Prince) was first distributed in 1513. Fast forward 500 years, and now you have a world whose reality maybe different from the world in which Machiavelli resided, but only on the surface. The nature of human beings have stayed the same, and that includes the nature of human conflicts, regarding which, Machiavelli had this to say:

“There are two ways of contesting, the one by the law, the other by force; the first method proper to men, the second to beasts; however, because the first is frequently not sufficient, it is necessary to have recourse to the second.”

I know that the chances are quite high that you will not agree with me on the subject I am about to discuss, and the reason I can say this with a fair amount of certainty is because the subject I am about to discuss - the issue I am going to advocate for - is military intervention in Syria by the United States Armed Forces. And I can understand your disagreements. Whether you are an American, or a citizen of some other nation, the last decade has left nearly everyone across the globe fatigued by war - both emotionally and economically. Besides, the fact of the matter is... nobody likes wars. Nobody likes wars; nobody likes to watch pictures of dead children; hear stories of families being torn apart due to displacement. It is all very depressing; and I count myself amongst those who do not like wars.

Oddly enough, it is precisely because I do not like wars that I am advocating for a limited military strike against the regime of Bashar al Assad. It is precisely because I am against wars, I believe that the time has come to opt for the method proper to beasts rather than the method proper to men.

The civil war in Syria has raged on for more than two years now. More than a hundred thousand people have died. More than two million people have fled their homes. From the very onset of this crisis the international community had been trying to bring about a cessation of violence through a political solution - the first method of contesting: by the law - and every single time they have ran into obstacles. At the United Nations Security Council, Russia and China have vetoed resolution after resolution that simply condemned the al Assad regime. The Syrian government and the Syrian National Council does not even want to talk to each other. All options for a political solutions had already been exhausted.     

Then, on August 21st, 2013, for the first time in the 21st century, chemical weapons were used by a government against its own citizens. If all options for a political solutions had already been exhausted before, the hopes a political solution is now gone.

Despite all these, I have heard a range of arguments from people who are vehemently opposed to any military intervention: The United States should not act as the world’s policeman; it will cause even more bloodshed; it is their war, let them settle it.

Prima facie, they all sound good. But dig a little deeper and you will notice flaws in every single one of them. But let’s start with the “it’s their war” argument. Yes, it is their war; but think of what will happen should the U.S not intervene. It will only embolden Bashar al Assad and others like him to use chemical weapons more frequently; the killing will only escalate. Not holding the al Assad regime accountable for their actions provides them a get out jail free card. You will see more pictures of dead children on t.v, you will hear more stories of displacement. On the other hand, if the rebels win, the first question they will ask themselves is “where was the international community when needed them the most?” The rebel ranks are filling up Islamist militants; they will present this question to the citizens. And if there is no American military intervention now, they will persuade the Syrians to turn their country into a terrorist base. So, if you think a limited strike against the al Assad regime is not in the national interest of the United States, think again.

The “it will cause more bloodshed” argument falls flat on its face. The very nature of the strikes would be to reduce, if not eliminate, the capability of the al Assad regime to attack the citizens of Syria. Would there not be civilian casualties during the strike? Yes; in all probability there would be. But if al Assad goes unchecked, there would be far more civilians being massacred on a daily basis for the foreseeable future. The strikes would bring the massacres to a halt, and the loss of a few to prevent the loss of many is worth the sacrifice.

And finally, the “U.S should not act as the world’s policeman” argument. This is, strangely, a favorite among liberals, conservatives, Americans, and non-Americans alike; and this is the one argument that worries me the most. As I mentioned before, if the U.S does not strike al Assad for his actions it will embolden him to take more actions. He will be pushing the boundaries to see how far he cab go before someone says stop; until finally, one day, a headline will appear on the news: “Syria Attacks Israel”. If not Syria, then Iran, or someone else, and if not Israel, then Turkey, or someone else. What the neo-isolationists do not understand is that the world is shrinking fast: a tweet sent from the Guangdong can easily reach California, but so can an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. The world needs a policeman because there are international laws that all nations must abide by. If there is no cop to enforce the law, then chaos will be the norm. If the United States, the country that was founded upon the notion that all were created equal, is not present to provide protection to those who aspire to introduce the same notion in their countries, no one will ever seek equality again, and those who do will be prosecuted. I have heard some Americans refer to their country as a “once great nation;” a wrong assumption given that the United States has the biggest economy and the greatest military might. Should the United States sit on the sidelines while tyrants massacres their people, that assumption will turn into a reality.  

          

The decision to go to war is never an easy one, and it is always unpopular, even when it comes with guarantees that there will be no boots on the ground and it would be limited in time and scope. And I know, despite all the arguments I laid down for a limited strike against the al Assad regime, there will be still be many among you who would be vehemently against it. Despite my arguments, and despite Edmund Burke’s warning that “all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

If you happen to be one of those against the limited strike, ask yourselves just one question: how many more people need to die before you change your mind? How many more?

A More Perfect Union

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

I abhor the institution of marriage. I absolutely do. To me, marriage is an antiquated and over-rated institution which, by its very nature, deprives a person from enjoying the freedoms he or she can only enjoy as an individual. I plan on never getting married myself, and, on several occasions, I have called into question the intellect of people who have decided to get married. Yet, I was not a least bit surprised when, on the 26th of June, 2013, I found myself defending the right of same-sex couples to get married, along with the notion that all marriages should be treated equally.

Before explaining why, I believe a definition of marriage is first required. “Marriage” is, essentially, an agreement between two consenting people which binds them together with a set of rights and responsibilities towards each other. In other words, it is just another contract, and just like all other contracts, it is a relationship based upon obligations; everything else is secondary.

One thing becomes clear from this definition: Consent is the chief requirement for marriage. Not coerced consent; not uninformed consent; but consent that is provided willfully after being presented with all the facts. Ergo, those who are afraid that same-sex marriage will somehow lead to human-baboon marriages are dead-wrong as baboons are yet to demonstrate that they have the skills provide an informed consent.

Besides, if drunk hetero-sexual people can legally get married in Las Vegas, Nevada, on a regular basis without even knowing the basic facts about their spouse, why can two people who just happened to be of the same gender but love each other and have known each other for years not do the same? Is it in any way right?

Having said that, let me explain why I think all marriages – same-sex or otherwise – should be treated equally; and my explanation has nothing to do with beliefs, politics, or sexual orientation. Instead, my reasoning stems from the Constitution of the United States itself. To be more specific, it stems from the Ninth Amendment backed up by the Fourteenth Amendment, unlike the majority decision in United States v. Windsor (2013) which was based on the Fifth Amendment.

The Ninth Amendment basically states that just because some rights were not exclusively mentioned in the first eight amendments does not necessarily mean that people do not have those rights.

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

If one gives it some thought, the Ninth Amendment is the best one of all as it – let's be honest – saves a lot of time. For instance, it would be ridiculous if there was an amendment stating that “the government shall not infringe upon the rights of the people to churn butter, nor shall it interfere with the people's right to go to bed at an hour of their own choosing”. The Constitution skips over several rights, including the right to marry and the right to have a family, by compressing all of those rights into the Ninth Amendment.

But my favorite amendment to the U.S Constitution has to be the Fourteenth Amendment – section one to be more precise. The Fourteenth Amendment essentially turns the values enshrined in the Declaration of Independence into law by making it crystal clear that everyone has to be treated equally and no one can be deprived of a right that has been provided to others.

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

If Citizen A has the right to vote, so must Citizen B. If Citizen C can sit in the front seat of a bus, so can Citizen D. If Citizens E and F can get married, so can Citizens G and H. Regardless of gender, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation, every single citizen of the United States of America has the same unalienable rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution.

Those who truly stand for American values, the chief amongst which is the right of all to be treated as equals, those who truly respect the Constitution of the United States, which guarantees equal rights for all, will not be dismayed by the decision reached by the Supreme Court on the 26th of June, 2013; they will be delighted by it.

There are those who say that same-sex marriages will disrupt the natural order of things, just as there were those who thought the same of inter-racial marriages. But just as the latter have faded into the horizon of history, so shall the former; for in this universe filled with chaos there is but only one fact that is natural: All were created equal and all were endowed with certain unalienable rights.

Two hundred and thirty-seven years ago, an experiment began to see how many people can be sheltered under the umbrella of democracy and equality. Cynics at that time asked how can a group of slaveholders declare that “all men were created equal.” A legitimate question, but every time it has been asked, it has always been answered. William Whipple answered back by freeing his slave; Abraham Lincoln answered by freeing all slaves; Susan B. Anthony answered by advocating for women's suffrage; Dr. Martin Luther King answered by championing the civil rights movement; and, on the 26th of June, 2013, Supreme Court of the United States answered by providing all marriages with equal protection.

The United States of America is an ongoing experiment, and that question will continue to be asked; but the good news is that there will always be someone to answer it. Perhaps the plaintiff in the case, Edith Windsor, said it best: “The truth is, I never expected anything less from my country.”

Happy Fourth of July, and may God Bless America. 

The Susan G. Komen Speech by Kristin Knerr

A dear friend of mine, Kristin Knerr, was diagnosed with cancer fifteen months ago. She has survived it and is still with us to share her life, her laughter, her smiles, her joys, her story with us. Sadly, many, many others who fought with cancer are no longer here to share their stories. Kristin recently spoke at an event called the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure. I believe her story should be shared with all so that a cure for cancer, regardless of stage, could be found as soon as possible.


I'm a little nervous that I'll make a goofy face or that I have something stuck in my teeth, or a prosthetic could end up around my knee cap. You never know when that could end up on a billboard all over town.

I'm not much of a public speaker but I'm going to give it my best here..

I have to say that sometimes it's hard to talk about my cancer. Some days I don't want to think about it at all. But to stand up here, and speak about it in front of hundreds of my own heroes, is such a tremendous privilege. It's overwhelming because I KNOW the power of a survivor and I feel united with all of you.

I would like to just take a moment to remember the men and women who are NOT here today. To our warriors who did not make it through the battleground and to those who are too sick in the fight today to be here with us. I acknowledge those of you who are here today, walking in the memories of someone you love.

Sending out peace and love to all of you.

My name is Kristin and I am many, many things. One of the things I am, is a cancer survivor. I was diagnosed with stage IIIc invasive Ductal carcinoma 15 months ago. My story of treatment and survival is most likely much like yours.

I think the unique part of my own journey has been the fact that I did not live here at the time I was diagnosed. I had been living and working in Mexico for years and was here in Washington to visit some friends for ten days for Christmas. On the third day of my visit, I'm the one who got the surprise and was diagnosed with cancer and told I could not return home.

In the course of a 15 minute phone call, my life was erased. I was wrenched from my family and friends, I lost my home,  and all I had worked for. I was separated from my daughter and precious grandson. And could not reach out for the hand of a friend when I was afraid.

With  a tremendous faith and hope, and a simple stubborn refusal to give in or give up, I have survived cancer and treatment and have made Spokane my home. I am so very proud of all the people who have walked with me here through this truly incredible journey.

I had noticed a lump in my breast two years before my diagnosis. I had numerous mammograms and ultra sounds in Mexico but all of those tests revealed nothing. I was first told I had a cyst and that women get them all the time and I shouldn't be concerned about it. When I continued to insist that something was wrong with me, I was deemed a hypochondriac and put on Xanax. Because of poor, faulty equipment and the lack of a trained physician who could actually read the film, I became a stage IIIc hypochondriac. Yes folks, this tragedy still happens all over the world, even today.

We need to put an end to Stories like mine. Why am I running? Why am i standing here, telling my story?

Because I believe that my life has been spared so I can stand here today and add my voice to yours in the fight against cancer. I believe in fighting for prevention and early detection. i believe in fighting for better treatment options, for better, kinder therapies, i believe in fighting for a higher quality of life for survivors, better support for our families and I believe in fighting for a CURE.  When this race is over today, I will still be running and I will run for the rest of my life. Let it count for something.

The most important lessons i have learned are that God loves me more than I understood.  I found strength i didn't know i had, i found that i am much more loved than i ever knew before, i found comfort from strangers along the way, hope and support through other survivors, and gained a really rowdy group of cheerleaders who did not leave me before the finish line. (WHERE ARE YOU GUYS )

My peeps, the ones who never let me quit and the ones who make me laugh when life just sucks. i love ya. I hope you know just how much you mean to me and how much better this world is with all of you in it. You truly make my life, worth living.

Thank you to Susan G. Komen for changing the direction of my journey and for the incredible support and opportunity to speak out. Thank you to all the local sponsors for caring and supporting the people that make up this awesome community. Thank you to the medical teams, our nurses, and our local hospitals. I'm going to insert a huge thank you to Lake City physical Therapy for putting me back together again. You girls are like Humpty dumpties men. Spokane just rocks!

To all my sisters in the fight, Dig deep. Fight hard. Be fierce!

To the rest of us, lets go take a walk!

"We Have Won"

A clock hanging on a wall to my left informs me that it is now 1:57 p.m, here in Houston, Texas, and a quick calculation in my mind reveals that it is 2:57 p.m Boston, Massachusetts. Right now Dzhokar Tsarnaev, the person apprehended for the Boston Marathon bombing, is sedated and unable to speak. He is still in serious condition, but is stable; which is crucial for there are a million questions that only he can answer at this point. How were the bombs made? Did he receive any training? Were he and his brother acting alone or as a part of a group? And, of course, the ever crucial question, why? What motivated him and his brother to do what they have done? Was it religion (Islamic fundamentalism)? Was it politics (Chechen nationalism)? Was it economics (lack of money and/or opportunities)? Or was it all of the above? Three people lost their lives in the bombing, another during a gun battle on the MIT campus. Their deaths demand answers; their families deserve it. However, as I mentioned earlier, the only person who can provide these answers is currently sedated, and I have no desire to engage in speculation right now. Instead, I would like to share my thoughts about what happened in Boston last Monday. Not surprisingly, a closer look reveals that what happened in Boston last Monday was actually yet another example of an act that has taken place several times before throughout the course of history.

It is 2:22 p.m now in Houston; 3:22 p.m in Boston.

When Pierre de Coubertin set about reviving the Olympics, his primary motivation was the promotion of international peace. When the Greeks held the Games during ancient times, a sacred truce was enforced amongst the nations that participated. Might a modern Olympics not have a similar effect? Also, could the Olympics not be used to promote understanding across cultures, and thereby, lessen the dangers of war? Along with de Coubertin, the initiators and organizers of the modern Olympics began selecting the events that would be incorporated into the Games. What they specifically had in mind were events that reflected the glory of Ancient Greece. This is where Michel Breal steps in and suggests an event does precisely that – a long-distance running event that commemorates the fabled run of the messenger Pheidippides to announce the victory of the Greeks over the Persians at the Battle of Marathon.

It is now 2:45 p.m in Houston and 3:45 p.m in Boston.

The reason why this specific battle was chosen to demonstrate the glory of Ancient Greece is quite clear. The Ancient Greeks could not have been more different than the Ancient Persians. Persia was an empire, ruled by an Emperor, and her inhabitants, his subjects; his wish was their command. The city-states of Greece, on the other hand, were mostly republics, inhabited by citizens who had rights and freedoms of their own; if they had a grievance with the way their city-states were being run, they had the option to walk straight into the Assembly and state their problems. Of course, Greece did have the institution of slavery, but so did Persia; but unlike the Persians, the Greeks debated over this institution, with some claiming that not only was it necessary but also natural, while others – most prominently the Stoics – calling it an abomination. Greece was a haven for individuals and citizens, for rights and freedom. If there was a “leader of the free world” during ancient times, it was Greece; if there was a “land of the free” during that time, it was Greece.

3:16 p.m in Houston; 4:16 p.m in Boston.

It is easy, therefore, to understand exactly what was at stake when ten thousand Greek soldiers volunteered – yes; “volunteered” – to defend their nations, their democracy, their freedom, against a tyrannical empire which showed up at the plains of Marathon in the form of a hundred thousand Persian soldiers. Ten thousand citizens against a hundred thousand subjects. Their victory proved, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Citizens cannot be subjugated subjects; that those who love Freedom will place their lives on the line in order to protect it; and that whenever Liberty is threatened – whoever the foe; whatever the cause – someone will always be there to defend it. Whether it is by defeating an army, or whether it is by rushing to the aid of those who have been wounded by a terrorist attack, someone will always be there. This is what happened at Marathon; this what happened at Lexington; this is what happened in Boston last Monday; and this is what will always happen whenever someone tries to threaten those who love Freedom.

I do not know what motivated the Tsarnaev Brothers to do what they did, but I do know, with no doubts in my mind, that the flames of Liberty can never be extinguished.

It is 3:36 p.m now in Houston, Texas; 4:36 p.m in Boston, Massachusetts; and 11:36 p.m in Athens, Greece. 

Yes, Pheidippides; 

Nenikikamen; 

And we always will.

The Picture Perfect Picture

The last drop of rain has fallen long ago,

But the sun is still eclipsed.

Thunders can still be heard.

And I sit here,

And stare,

Silently out the window.

There’s a drop of rain

Sliding down a wire;

And it’s going to take its time

(All of its time)

To fall.

Cool moving air,

Moving at uncertain speeds,

Towards uncertain directions.

Leftovers:

Didn't make it to the scene,

But now

Gently swaying the branches

Of some nearby trees.

Then there’s a soaking wet crow,

That flew in under a sunshade

Of a building.

Did find a shelter,

But didn't find it in time.

A million year old stone

Being thrown

Right into the center of a puddle

By a group of children

Playing on the spot.

The drop of rain on the wire hasn't fallen yet;

And the sun is still eclipsed;

And I sit here,

And I wonder,
Covered 
By the warm blanket 
Of tranquility.

I have never seen a Picasso,

A Warhol or a van Gogh;

But for all I know,

I did get to see

The picture perfect picture,

And that’s one I saw,

When I stared

Silently out the window.

Rafi Omar
Originally written for my friend Sarika on her birthday.

...what it is, ain't exactly clear

I am having some considerable difficulties about how best to begin this post. About how best to begin this post; about how best to present my thoughts; and about how best to reach a conclusion, if there is, in fact, a conclusion to be eventually reached. And I do not believe I alone am having these problems. Anyone who has been following the news lately must surely be facing the same issues with comprehension that I myself am facing. Which is why it is all the more important to remind ourselves that it is incumbent upon us all to exercise some measure of caution while approaching the matters being discussed in the news. We, Human Beings, are peculiar creatures indeed. Despite being given – or rather, having been blessed with – the faculties with which to reach reasonable, logical deductions, too often do we make snap judgments about people, nations and nature; and despite calling ourselves civilized, too easily do we allow ourselves to be pushed, by one force or another, towards the lowest depths of barbarity.

Just six months. Within the space of just six months we have witnessed four mass shootings in the United States. Aurora, Colorado; twelve dead. Oak Creek, Wisconsin; six dead. Happy Valley, Oregon; two dead. And finally, Newtown, Connecticut; twenty-seven dead. After each of these instances, people were left pondering the obvious: “Why?” The Oak Creek Sikh Temple shootings seemed to have a ideological motive behind it; the perpetrator was affiliated with white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups, and it was deemed to be a hate crime. The three remaining incidents appeared simply to have been senseless acts of mass murder committed by individuals with no agenda or motives whatsoever. Nevertheless, the people wanted to know why; and a variety of reasons were given; none of which, in my opinion, went on to provide a complete, comprehensive answer.

One reason provided was, obviously, the lack of a more restrictive gun control laws. It is quite easy to come to that conclusion, after all, not only does the Constitution of the United States gives its citizens the right to bear arms, the United States, with a staggering 270 million guns in civilian hands as of 2009, also comes in first in a comparison of the number of privately owned firearms. But depending solely upon the total number of privately owned firearms will lead us nowhere in this debate. What must also be given equal importance is the rate of privately owned firearms for every hundred people. In that list too, the U.S comes in first, with 88.8 firearms per 100 people. The fourth country on that list is Finland, with 45.7 firearms per 100 people. Yet, while 9,146 gun related homicides were reported in 2009, only 22 were reported in Finland (although, the word “only” loses all its significance if one remembers the Talmudic saying that “Whosoever destroys a soul, destroys the world entire”). Now take a closer look at these numbers. If 45.7 firearms per 100 people yielded the murder of 22 people, mathematics dictates that 88.8 firearms per 100 people would have resulted in approximately 43 deaths. But mathematics has no influence upon the Human psyche, and instead of 43, the United States ended up with 9,146 deaths. Clearly, the extent of this disparity indicates that the issue here is much larger than the mere regulations of guns. However, that being said, I must also add my personal views regarding the possession of guns. In my opinion, private possession of fully automatic assault weapons should be prohibited; a thorough background check of any individual who wishes to own a gun must be conducted before any form of firearm is sold to them; and above all else, every gun owner must handle his or her firearm responsibly; for instance, keep them stored safely and securely to prevent unauthorized use and out of reach of children. Everyone should have the right to own whatever it is they wish to own, as long as they do not use it – or allow it to be used – in order to infringe upon the rights of others.

It has also been argued that violent movies and video games are to be blamed for these attacks. Yes, the perpetrator of the Aurora shootings can be placed on display to prove that point; but that is just one person. What about all those millions of others who watch violent movies and played violent video games, who go on to live perfectly normal lives? Besides, if movies and games depicting violence did in fact lead to violent acts, then how come movies and games set in a peaceful environment do not lead to acts of peace? I, at least, am yet to come across a Farmville player who has been inspired to take up farming because of the game.

Movies and games are not the only source of gore and carnage. The scriptures of all great religions are much bloodier than anything Hollywood has produced (in fact, on occasions, the film industry has actually borrowed stories from the various religions to make a profit). And then, of course, there is the local news. With all the stories about shootings, robberies, aggravated assaults, and political wranglings, these news outlets paint a dismal, horrifying picture of the world in which we live, and they do it with a smile on their face. They paint pictures of reality that are much more grotesque than anything that Dali came up with. In some, these images inspire horror; in others, hatred; and in still others, an opportunity to put their grandiose ambitions and agenda on full display. Everyone knows the names of Osama Bin Laden and Timothy McVeigh; how many know the names of their victims?

But the violence displayed in the news media does not wholly answer why these massacres take place either. The news media are doing only that which they have been trained to do, and have every right to do: report, and occasionally, comment. The fact that their subject matters are so despairing and terrifying is not their fault; that is, sadly the reality of the world we inhabit. And as for those who use the news to promote one propaganda or the other, they have always been able to do so, long before modern journalism even came into being.

So, where does all this leave us? Nowhere, to be precise. We started off by asking why these mass shootings take place; we discussed three possible answers – lax gun control laws, violent movies and games, the news; none of them were completely satisfying – not to me, at least. But maybe, we have been asking the wrong question to begin with.

Other than the shooter involved in the Wisconsin tragedy, the perpetrators of the shootings in Colorado, Oregon, and Connecticut had a few things in common: They were all in their early 20's and they were all described by those around them to be nice and smart. One of them was pursuing a Ph.D in neuroscience; another “loved hanging out” with his friends; the other enjoyed skateboarding. And their actions left all those close to them in shock and disbelief.

In their early 20's. In their early 20's. They all had their whole lives ahead of them; they could have contributed so much to the society. Yet they – at least two of them – chose to end, not only their lives, but the lives of so many others, leaving us all shocked, horrified and confused.

The question should not be why these people did what they did; but rather, it should be what pushed these seemingly normal individuals into taking so many innocent lives in such a barbaric manner. For in the answer to that question alone shall we find the tools that will help us prevent such attacks in the future.

No one is born evil. No one. Which is why it is imperative that as we remember the victims of these mass shootings, pray for their families, and their communities, we also remember Adam Lanza (1992 – 2012), Jacob Roberts (1990 – 2012), and James Holmes (b.1987). They, and others like them, hold the key that will explain how a Human Being turns into a monster; that in turn will help us in preventing such metamorphosis; and that, in turn, will eventually lead to a world where parents can send their children to school, fully assured that they will be able to see them smile again.

Innocence of a By-Stander

Sometimes, I wish that I was what I never want to be. I wish I was deaf; I wish I blind; I wish that I was a lot less knowledgeable; and, above all else, I wish that I had no sense of morality or principles.

Sometimes, I wish that I was indifferent towards everything in this Universe, except my own requirements.

Back in my hometown of Dhaka, Bangladesh, there is a park around a body of water called the Dhanmondi Lake, which also happens to be the name of the park. I used to frequent the park quite often. Sometimes to access a shortcut; other times as a relief from the chaos of the city. One cold December evening, I was walking through the park to get to the nearest bus stop. A group of slum dwelling children was walking along as well. One of the children was a two year old girl; a barely two year old girl. And she made the mistake of being an amateur walker. Walking in that innocent manner, which everyone thinks is so cute about babies, she accidentally collided with one of the older children. For this little crime of hers, she was slapped harshly on her bald head. She started to cry. Perhaps that was a crime as well. Another slap. She cried more loudly. The older child went on beating her up and she just kept on crying. I looked around. It was a crowded place. The scene was well visible, and certainly well audible. But no one turned their attention to it. Not a single person looked to see what was going on. Not a single person who wanted to put a stop to it. And the baby just kept on crying.

I was there as well. Right there. I saw what was going on. And perhaps I could have ended the child's torment. So, what did I do? Nothing. I heard the shrieks, and I walked away. I heard the shrieks there; I heard it ten feet away; I heard it twenty feet away; I could still hear it when I was about fifty feet away. Did I do anything to stop it? No. I just covered my ears and kept on walking. But I could still hear the child screaming for her mother, something I have heard no other child do so loudly. Something, I believe, no child should ever have to do.

Then, the cries stopped. Perhaps somebody did intervene; perhaps the mother did come. Or perhaps these are just wishful thinking while actually, perhaps, the shrieks were simply out of my earshot. Whichever one it was, this single event changed my entire perception of myself, of my nation, of my fellow human beings. Why did no one interfere? Why did I not interfere? A child was being hurt and she was screaming for help at top of her lungs. Why did no one answer those calls? I cannot answer for anyone else, but I know why I didn't. I thought that if I got involved people might think that I was beating the child up. Then, I figured, they might try to gang up on me; as a result, I thought, I might get hurt.

It was at that moment that I felt as if there can be no other person on this Earth whose cowardice was bigger than mine.

It is true. I do not know about all the others who were there, but this is probably the best way to describe myself after what I have done. A crime was committed, in front of my very eyes, and I ran away like a coward; putting my own safety in front that of a two year old child. How can I not hold myself responsible for that heinous act? I could have interfered and stopped it; but I chose not to. I feel as if I am responsible. I am responsible. We are all responsible. For every murder. For every rape. For every slap that lands on a child's body, we are all responsible. And if we shirk away from these responsibilities through inaction, then why only fifty feet? Children would be crying for thousands of miles, and no one will be there to stop it.

We are all responsible. And it is about time we acknowledged the fact that no by-stander can ever be innocent.