Tuesday, December 29, 2015

College Men Accused of Rape Have Rights Too

2015 has seen some important milestones in the fight for due process for college students. Families Advocating for Campus Equality (FACE)  distributed a flyer on California campuses with sage advice for young men who may face the possibility of a false rape charge, warning them to beware of sexual encounters with women who have had even one drink; counseling them to save conversations with sexual partners; and reminding them that not deleting correspondence on Twitter, on FaceBook, on their cell phones, may provide necessary evidence of consent from a woman determined to bring a false charge of rape. Harsh advice, but necessary in today's culture, where a young man can be accused at any time of rape and expelled from college with no evidence from the woman, no due process from the authorities, and no chance to confront his accuser or even present his side of the story. Indeed, going into 2016, the atmosphere on far too many college campuses encourages reporting alleged sexual assaults to campus administrators rather than to the police. Still, FACE was able to get that flyer out, and by encouraging young men to adhere to campus policies and alerting them to the possibility of false accusation, there is reason to hope that students in the coming year will avoid false accuasations of rape and unjust expulsions from college.

There are other hopeful signs. State Represenatative Matthew Manweller plans to introduce a bill in the Washington State Legislature that would provide students accused of non-academic offenses the right to hire lawyers. This right would apply even in cases based on accusations made by one student against another. Representative Jared Polis (D-Co) apologized for his remark that private colleges should automatically expel students accused of sexual assault even if there is only a 20 percent chance that they are guilty. The sponsors of the Campus Accountability and Safety Act are beginning to pay lip service to the importance of fair hearings for accused students. Senator Bill Cassidy (R-La) has raised due process concerns. And Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) has disupted the idea that calling the police hurts the investigative process, pointing out that without a victim cooperating with the police, there can be no legal case.

Going forward, organizations such FACE will continue reaching out to college students, warning them of the new danger young men face on campuses as women are encouraged to report alleged sexual assaults to college administrators rather than to the police. There will be more resources to assist students if they are falsely accused of rape, and encouragement for young men who need help to obtain a fair hearing under the law. Students accused of rape are beginning to find their voice, a voice that calls for justice under the law and protections guaranteed under the Constitution. 

Thursday, September 3, 2015

Transexual or Sexual Predator?

Mike Huckabee ignited a firestorm of criticism when he joked about wishing he could have said he was transgender in high school so he could shower with the girls. At least, he was partly joking when he said he would have found his feminine side and asked to shower with the girls. He was also making a pretty accurate, although politically incorrect and unpopular, assessment of the laws that allow people to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity. The LGBT community leaped to the defense of transgender people who want to use the bathroom they are comfortable with, damning Huckabee for a transphobic bigot who didn't appreciate the courage it took for a transgender person to come out with their own special identity. It was all very predictable, but I really didn't think much of it at the time because I didn't think that any school would tolerate a transgender boy showering with the girls anyway. Was I wrong!

Enter Lila Perry, of Hillsboro High School, Hillsboro, Missouri, a young man who's decided he's a young lady and who wants to use the girl's bathroom and the girl's locker room. As near as I can make out, this youngster thought he was gay for a while, and now he thinks he's a girl. The school, in an effort to please him, made a unisex bathroom available to him, which seems remarkably like sense to me. Lila doesn't feel like a boy, so he doesn't want to be in the locker room or the bathroom with the boys, and the girls shouldn't have to put up with a boy in their private space no matter what he calls himself. A reasonable compromise is to accomodate the young person with a private space of his own while he sorts out his inner self. Problem solved, no?

No. Lila decided his own private bathroom was not good enough. He wants to be in with the girls. He wants to go to the bathroom with them, and he wants to shower and change with them. He insists he is a girl and he doesn't want to be made to feel different from the other girls and he doesn't want to be segregated, comparing his situation to the kind of discrimination blacks once faced when they were not allowed to use whites-only bathrooms. While I commend a teenager knowing history, I question the logic. Nobody was offering blacks their own private bathroom with an outpouring of support at how brave they were for being black.

A number of students staged a protest when Lila insisted on using the girl's facilities, walking out of school. A few supported him using the girl's facilities. Parents demanded a meeting with the school administrators, insisting that the girls had rights too and that one student should not be allowed to dictate to the entire student body. And once again, the LGBT community has leaped to the defense of the transgendered, calling the girls transphobic bigots who don't appreciate the courage it takes for Lila, a teenage boy, to be in the locker room with a bunch of naked teenage girls.

It's very confusing. If this were a college campus, a man strolling into the women's locker room would get him branded a rapist and very probably expelled from school with a record as a sex offender. Rape culture dictates that all men are misogynists and that they are just looking to hurt women every chance they get. The words manspreading (a man sitting with his legs apart) and mansplaining (a man explaining something) have entered our vocabulary and those are bad things because men are doing them. A woman can spread out over three seats on the subway with her purse and her laptop and her umbrella, but that's okay. And a woman can explain whatever she wants, in as many words and in whatever tone of voice she likes, and that's okay. There are many more examples of a pervading dislike and distrust of men to be found in the news every day, but Lila seems to have found a way around it all. He's not a man! He's a girl, and entitled to all the attention and accomodation he can garner.

I don't know this young man or what his mindset is, but I do know that I am deeply suspicious of a boy who is using his sexuality to make his female classmates uncomfortable. While a large number of girls are protesting Lila using their bathroom and locker room, I haven't been able to find any accounts of trouble before he invaded the girl's private space. Even Lila, in his numerous interviews, hasn't said anything that I can find about longstanding trouble at his school. It seems like he was treated with tolerance and understanding and acceptance. Maybe that wasn't enough attention for him, or maybe he is a sexual predator who has found a way to ogle naked classmates without having to drill a hole in the wall of the girl's shower like the guys in Porkies. I should think the best thing to do would be to go back to the sensible compromise of having the boys in their private space, the girls in their private space, and Lila in his private space. He won't be happy with that solution, but it seems more reasonable than letting one student dictate to a whole school, particularly when young girls are unhappy about a young man in their private space. If Lila is a predator, the girls deserve protection from him. And if he's just an innocent kid who can't figure out where he belongs in the world, he deserves the life lesson that the world is not always going to bend over backwards to accomodate him. Either way, I'm just glad I don't have a daughter who goes to school with him.

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

What The *@&^)! Is With The Language?

I often feel myself out of place in the modern world. People are loud, and don't respect other people's privacy, or boundaries. Children run roughshod over their parents and everyone else in sight, college students start indignant campaigns against anyone they think is committing a microagression, feminists claim that teaching young women safety tips to avoid rape is victim blaming. The POW-MIA flag is declared racist, senators are forced to apologize for saying all lives matter, minorities are declared to be worse off than in the days of actual slavery, and dead lions are more important than dead babies. There's a kind of Alice in Wonderland quality about it all and I am alternately outraged and amused by the madness of the world we live in.

One thing I can't get used to is the cursing. The everyday, casual cursing where F-bombs and the N-word and every other foul word is used in everyday conversation. I'll hear people talking in my apartment building using words that I associate with blood about to be spilled, and they're just talking. What to me would be the filthiest of insults is casual everyday conversation between people who don't seem to have any vocabulary at all. They use the F-bomb the way Smurfs use the word "smurf." The F-bomb is constantly dropped, it's a noun, a verb, an adjective, an adverb, they dangle the participle and split the infinitive and use it as a shout out, and I'm just waiting for it to show up on prime time TV.

I hate it. I'm not a prude. Obviously I hear a lot of swear words, and I've used them myself on occasion. I'm not going to pretend to be some prissy holier-than-thou type who never uses impure language and looks down on people who do. The Bible says there's a time and a place for everything under the sun and I have long believed that goes for cursing too. There's a time and a place for cursing, even casual cursing. I understand that when somebody's team loses a point, or they hit their thumb with a hammer, a few well-chosen words can relieve an awful lot of pain. But when you can't tell the difference between two people about to kill each other and two people talking about their day, I think it's going a bit overboard.

It's gotten to be so much overboard that even in restaurants, people drop F-bombs all around them. I was in Hometown Buffet today with my husband and chose a booth next to two older men in dress shirts and slacks. And we had barely started eating before I was shocked to hear these two men throwing around F-bombs, right next to a table with a young couple and their four children. The young couple looked pretty uncomfortable but didn't speak up. Me, I asked the waitress to do something about it. She got the manager, the manager addressed their phraseology. Unbelieveably, they pretended not to know what the manager was talking about. Swearing? What swearing? The manager politely but firmly told them their language was not appropriate for a family restaurant, gesturing at the children at the next table. Oh, their language! But they weren't being loud! No, the manager was still firm. No F-bombs. The men finally agreed to tone it down, the manager went about his business, and the young mother looked at me and mouthed Thank you.

Mind you, these men were still upset. The new topic of conversation was how Hometown Buffet wasn't a nice restaurant and they should be able to talk any way they wanted in such a cheap place. One of them took a phone call about a test drive for a car he was thinking of buying. He made it a point to say, more than once, that the car was $70,000, as if he was emphasizing what a high class person he really was. The other one was still stewing and called the manager back over. He found it a little difficult to come to the point, asking about Hometown Buffets in other towns, then finally told the manager he was offended at being asked to tone down his language. The manager took it in stride, pointing out that it was his job to address customer complaints, repeating for I don't know what time that it was a family restaurant and there were children around, and that language had to be appropriate for a family setting. They finally let him go and laughed about the stupid people in the restaurant who got offended at what they were saying. No more F-bombs, though.

I just don't get it. Maybe it's our repressive society, where no conversation of substance can take place, especially on college campuses, without being branded a microagression or racially insensitive. Bruce Jenner proclaims himself a woman and Twitter sprouts a bot designed to correct anyone who uses a male pronoun to refer to Jenner, even though he's still a man down to the smallest strand of his DNA. Prominent scientist Tim Hunt gets fired for joking about working with women in the lab. No one can say anything anymore without the threat of an Internet rage mob cutting loose and lynching them, and I don't mean in the virtual sense either. It used to be said that loose lips sank ships but now the wrong words can destroy your life. Maybe under such enormous pressure to conform and be silent except to agree with the mindset du jour, people need to be able to cut loose and curse. I just would like to be able to eat in a restaurant, even if it is just Hometown Buffet, without hearing the kind of language my father would use if he was working on a car and it fell on him.

Thursday, July 2, 2015

In Defense of the Confederate Flag

No, not the Confederate flag that flew over battlefields where brave men struggled to settle the question of slavery once and for all. Not the Confederate flag in the hands of Dylann Roof, who waved it on his website before he shot up the Emanuel African Methodist Church in downtown Charleston. I'm talking about defending the Confederate flag on top of the General Lee in the show The Dukes of Hazzard.

The Dukes of Hazzard is a TV show that came out in 1979 and ran until 1985. The main characters were Bo and Luke Duke, a couple of country boys who were on parole for running moonshine and lived on the family farm with their Uncle Jesse and their cousin Daisy Duke. And they drove around Hazzard county in their Dodge Charger, which they named the General Lee and had a Confederate flag on the roof. They weren't racists. They didn't hurt people. Quite the contrary, the Dukes were considerate and compassionate people who helped everyone who needed it. They even helped and protected their enemies Boss Hogg and Sheriff Roscoe P Coltrane. The younger Dukes said "Yes, sir," and "No, sir" to their uncle Jesse. They knew how to say please and thank you as well, and they were also adept at taking personal responsibility for what they did. Seems like every other episode the Dukes were raising money for the local orphanage, and the show is notable for its lack of gunplay. The Duke boys were not allowed to have guns because they were on parole, so they used bows and arrows. They never shot a person with an arrow. They went to church and prayed before eating and tipped their hats to ladies and gave back to their community. They were good people in every sense of the word.

The Dukes of Hazzard provided endless hours of family fun, first for me growing up and then in later years when I was raising my son. We would watch the show together, and discuss such points as the younger Duke's respect for wise old Uncle Jesse, their kindness to strangers, their willingness to extend a helping hand to all in need. We also discussed the Duke's work ethic, because that was a big part of the show. The boys worked on the farm and took other jobs as needed to pay for what they wanted. Daisy worked at Boss Hogg's place, the Boar's Head. Like I said, these were people with a strong sense of personal responsibility, as well as family and community.

Does the Dukes of Hazzard deserve to be labeled racist because of the Confederate flag on top of the General Lee? I am aware that some people look at the Confederate flag and see nothing but the symbol of a people who wanted to preserve slavery in the United States. Such people seem to think that white American southerners invented slavery, no country before or since has ever had slavery, and that the Confederate flag can mean nothing but what they say it means. To many southerners, the Confederate flag is a symbol of their heritage. They have ancestors who fought and died under that flag. That doesn't mean they support their ancestors fighting to preserve slavery. Southerners understand that you can deplore the history of slavery in the south and still be proud of the courage of your ancestors who fought to defend their homes. It's a nuanced viewpoint, I admit, but a valid one.

There's nothing nuanced about the Dukes of Hazzard, though. The Dukes weren't attending KKK meetings. Uncle Jesse was not a Grand Wizard of the Klan. They had black as well as white friends, the toughest and most competent sheriff on the show was a black man, and even the guest-star villains were usually a pair of men, one white and one black. The General had the Confederate flag on his roof as a symbol of regional pride, nothing more. The Dukes were proud of their heritage as southerners, which included Dukes who had fought for the North. And for more than thirty years, the General sported his Confederate flag without a problem, because anyone who watched even one episode of the show knew perfectly well that particular flag did not symbolize anything but a strong loving southern family.

Now the thought police have decreed that the Confederate flag is unacceptable no matter where it turns up. I can understand taking it down from official government settings. It's not the flag of the United States of America. It's the flag of a defunct nation that went to war with the United States of America. It is entirely right and proper that it should be removed from official buildings and symbols. But to take away a TV show? A TV show that never hurt anyone, that millions of people have watched and loved for decades? Whatever will be next? Will the Dukes reappear with a sanitized General with the Confederate flag digitally edited out, and will the thought police next decide that the cow horns on Boss Hogg's car have to be taken out because they might offend Hindus who have literal sacred cows in India? Will the social justice snowflakes then want to cover up Daisy Duke's spectacular legs because the image of a woman in short shorts might offend Muslims? Will Boss Hogg have to be digitally slimmed down, lest the obese be offended? I'm afraid if the politically correct are not stopped, they're going to insist that in Civil War reenactments, the soldiers on the Union side use real bullets. 

Friday, April 3, 2015

Why CAN'T Gays Live and Let Live?

I have been following the story of Memories Pizza in Indiana, the modest little pizza parlor that has found itself in the middle of a firestorm of virulent criticism after taking the position that it would refuse to cater a gay wedding. The pizza place has never refused to serve gays, and has no intentions of doing such a thing, but the fact that it does not discriminate against gay customers seems to have escaped the attention of the liberal left. There have been threats, and floods of negative reviews, based not on the actual service or pizza or any of the legitimate reasons that businesses get reviews. No, the reviews have been hate mongering against the establishment's decision that to cater a gay wedding would violate their Christian principles. It all comes in the wake of a new law passed by Indiana, a law virtually identical to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed by Congress with an almost unanimous vote in 1993 and signed by Bill Clinton. The law came into being after a Supreme Court decision upholding an Oregon drug law against members of the Native American Church, who claimed that using peyote was part of their religious practice. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act simply states that the government cannot enforce a statute requiring people to violate their religious convictions unless it can demonstrate a compelling interest in doing so and then does so by the least restrictive means possible.

Seems like a pretty reasonable law to me. A person's religion is an important part of who they are, and to expect people to go against their religion, there should be a very good reason to require them to do that. A reason that encompasses the protection of society at large, not from nebulous "That hurts my feelings" complaints but actual harm. Like, say, requiring children to get vaccinated whether or not their religion allows it, or forbidding honor killings even if religion calls for it. It seems like preventing epidemics and murders is a compelling interest of society. Protecting people's feelings? Well, like it or not, the United States is a free country, and the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, not people's feelings. If someone's feelings are hurt, they can speak up and say so, but the government doesn't, or shouldn't, get involved. It's a system that has worked well for hundreds of years, and it's a system that has allowed women to gain the vote and blacks to gain civil rights. It's a system that's breaking down, though, under the onslaught of political correctness and the neurosis-breeding notion that if someone's feelings are going to be hurt, nothing should be said. 

Whatever happened to being able to speak up for what you believe in? Being able to take a stand and have the same right as every other American to have your free speech protected? Brendan Eich was forced to resign from Mozilla after a public campaign against him because he donated to oppose same sex marriage in California. Didn't he have the right, as an American citizen, to participate in the political process as he saw fit? Didn't he have the same right as any gay citizen not to lose his job for no reason? No gay person can be fired from their job for advocating same-sex marriage. Why is a person in danger of losing their job now in this country for advocating against same-sex marriage? Wherever you come down on the question of same-sex marriage, surely it must be recognized that without the First Amendment, without the freedom to speak up even though society hates what you're saying, gays would not be gaining the right to marry today. They asked for tolerance and compassion-why can't they exhibit the same?

The argument has been made that a business has no right to refuse service to anyone. Does that argument hold up? There are Muslims who are against same-sex marriage on religious grounds but I haven't seen any news stories about Muslim businesses being harrassed by gays to violate their religious principles to cater or provide flowers or any other kind of service to a gay wedding. Not even the Muslims who flat out refused to bake Steven Crowder a gay wedding cake. http://twitchy.com/2015/04/03/hidden-camera-steven-crowder-tries-to-buy-a-gay-wedding-cake-at-muslim-bakeries-video/And remember the Oklahoma University students and their stupid racist chant? If they walked into a bakery owned and run by a black man and asked him to bake a cake with a little black man hanging from a tree, he would refuse to bake such a thing and he would be upheld in that decision. Not on religious grounds, or any legal grounds at all-he would just say no, and tell them to get out of his place, and the liberal left would break their hands applauding him. They would applaud a vegan photographer who refuses to photograph a deer hunt. So just what's going on here? Why are Christians the only ones being held to this standard?

It's beyond me. I admit it-I don't understand why Christians are held to a different standard than everyone else in America. I do understand one thing. The gays won their point on same-sex marriage. It's being legalized all over the country. They can afford to be magnaimous in their victory-they can afford to allow free speech in the United States. Taking away free speech is not going to protect their victory. It's going to erode it. I know gay people who went to Chik-fil-A after president Dan Cathy said he supported a Biblical view of marriage as being between a man and a woman. They went because they wanted to support free speech, not the restaurant. They went because they were appalled at the backlash against a man speaking his mind about what he believed. They went because they were good Americans. Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty was reinstated, not because his viewpoints on same-sex marriage suddenly became acceptable, but because there was a backlash in his case against the calls for his head on a platter after he exercised his right to free speech. Memories Pizza has collected half a million dollars in donations since they said they wouldn't cater gay weddings. No doubt some of it is coming from people who don't like gays, but the lion's share is much more likely to be coming from Americans who are irked at the idea that they can't say what they want. It's been a cherished right in this country since before we were a country and people are loathe to have that right taken away.

The argument for same-sex marriage was always that it didn't hurt anyone if two people of the same sex wanted to marry each other. That argument doesn't seem to be holding up. Now two people of the same sex can marry each other, and people can get hurt. People can lose their jobs, or their business can be fined, and they can be subjected to hate and death threats, and goverment interference in their religion, and squashing of their right to free speech if they don't follow the party line and agree with everything the liberal left and the LGBT community wants. Surely there is a better way. Let everyone have their say without let or hindrance. Let people participate in the political process, so that the end result is the will of the majority of the people and not special-interest groups. Memories Pizza? Let them have their viewpoint and run their business as they see fit. If they get enough customers to keep their business going after saying they won't cater a gay wedding, fine. If they get so few customers they have to decide between going out of business and catering gay weddings, also fine. Whatever the result, it would be their free choice to decide what they want to do with their lives. And really, isn't that how this whole thing started, with gays asking to be free to decide what they want to do with their lives? Let's see that tolerance extended to everyone.

Thursday, January 15, 2015

The Police Dog's Pledge

I will lay down my life for you and ask for nothing in return but a pat on the head. Your disapproval casts a shadow over me, but when you tell me I've done a good job, my heart lights up. Let me always keep you safe, for you are my partner and the only person in the world to me.

Image result for cops and their dogs

Image result for police dog kisses his partner

Saturday, January 10, 2015

Fighting Radical Islamists and...

...every other fundamentalist out there. Like many others around the world, I've been following the Charlie Hebdo story very closely. I had never heard of this magazine before their offices were stormed on Monday by a pair of terrorists who killed twelve people and wounded eleven others in the name of Allah. I've seen Je Suis Charlie (I am Charlie) on signs held by people mourning in the streets of Paris, and in lights on the Arc de Triomphe, and I am moved by the incredible courage of the Charlie Hebdo staff, who have gone back to work already, determined not to let the bad guys win.

I've also seen a lot in the news from two different positions. One side claims the terrorists had nothing to do with Islam, and the other side claims they had everything to do with Islam, and you know what? I think they're both right, and they're both wrong. These killings were done in the name of Islam just as much as the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem witch hunts, and the Holocaust were done in the name of Christianity. Every religion has its dark side, every religion has things in its sacred texts that have been used by the fundamentalists of that faith to make life a horror for those who don't share their viewpoint. And it's fundamentalism, not the religion as such that is the true problem. And the really ironic thing is that fundamentalism isn't limited to religion-it can be applied to any cause to create people immune to reason and determined to make the lives of other people miserable.

We're seeing a surge of fundamentalism in the world today. Feminism has been taken over by fundamentalists who see men as bears with furniture and women as helpless victims. These women saw a scientist land a rocket on a comet, a feat comparable to a fly landing on a speeding bullet, and they attacked the man for a tasteless shirt he wore to a press conference. They fervently support the notion that a woman who accuses a man of rape must not even be questioned, only believed, and that rape is such a terrible crime that even innocence is not a defense. Civil rights activists have been derailed by fundamentalists who don't care if a man killed by the police was a criminal resisting arrest-the fundamentalists have ruined lives and careers, disrupted New York City, burned down a chunk of Ferguson, and stooped to stopping children from singing Christmas carols with chants of "I can't breathe." Atheist fundamentalists have attacked Christmas year after year, with huge billboards in Time Square mocking the Christian faith and lawsuits to take down Christian displays. Muslim fundamentalists have set bombs and flown airplanes into buildings and beheaded people on videos distributed around the world.

The greatest irony of all is that all these people, of different races and religions and sexes and worldviews, have so much in common with each other. All of them unquestioningly adhere to their faith, all of them are willing to attack anyone who does not share their faith. Some of them attack with words, some with lawsuits, some with demonstrations, and some with bullets, but the mark on all their souls is the same. On a basic level, they all have total intolerance for anyone who does not believe as they do and they all are willing to make nonbelievers in their cause suffer in some way. This is the true evil of fundamentalism-not that someone is passionate about their beliefs, but that they will not tolerate anyone who does not believe as they do.

So how do we fight them? It's remarkably simple in theory, but very hard in practice. We don't let them win. Someone calls you a racist, or a misogynist, or demands that you take down your Nativity set on your own lawn, don't cave into them. Don't apologize for living your life if you haven't done anything wrong. And in the case of these terrorists, all of us in the civilized world need to do the same thing. We need to band together and stand up to them. If it takes not doing business with any country that harbors terrorists, that's what we should do, and if those countries scream "Islamophobia!" let them scream. If we have to pass laws that people who immigrate into a country must assimilate and participate in that country's way of life to prevent enclaves of people adhering to a fundamentalist mindset, that's what we do. I grew up with Chinese immigrants, Cuban refugees, Filipino refugees, immigrants from Haiti and Jamaica and Poland, and they were all vibrantly interested in preserving their heritage, but they were Americans first. Their allegiance to America didn't stop them from celebrating their festivals, observing their religions, cooking their traditional foods, or speaking their native language.

I'm not going to say Je Suis Charlie, though. I'd rather say Je Suis Ahmed, and honor Ahmed Merabet, a policeman murdered confronting the Charlie Hebdo gunmen. 

Did he agree with the magazine's policy of creating scurrilous attacks against Islam along with Christianity and Judaism and politicians? I don't know. What I do know is that Voltaire said, "I do not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Ahmed Merabet lived that sentiment. He was a Muslim, far more representative of the followers of Islam than any number of terrorists who kill in the name of Allah. And as long as Islam can produce such men, there is hope of beating back the barbarians at the gate. Those of us who are not fundamentalists just need to remember this brave young man, and so many others like him, and stand together, because a Christian, an atheist, a Muslim, a feminist, and a civil rights activist who can tolerate the beliefs of others have more in common with each other than we know. We share a mindset of compassion and kindness that can conquer the world if we refuse to bow to the terrorists.