Recently, the trend of shootings, whether with a high or low death toll, has increased. The Sandy Hook shooting and the shooting at Lone Star College in Texas are two that were well covered by the media. However, what most of you probably don't know is that between January 10th and January 31st, there were eight shootings at different schools. The event that triggered debates about gun laws was the horrific Sandy Hook shooting. But months after that crisis, there is no resolution on curbing violence.
What people in America think is that our country is getting better. Our economy is improving, there are no imminent dangers that are being pushed to the public, and it seems as if people pay little attention to shootings. But this is all part of the false progression theory - the public isn't aware of certain issues, and they therefore think that nothing is wrong.
But clearly, there are major problems in the US when it comes to curbing gun violence. But since the public isn't getting these events shoved down their throats, they do not pay attention to it. Is this the fault of the media? Since the school shootings aren't as big as the Sandy Hook shooting, the media is not providing coverage on those issues. Should they be?
With media coverage aside, are Americans stuck in a mindset of false progression? Why or why not?
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Sunday, February 3, 2013
The Gun Paradox
Just today, the most prestigious US military sniper, Chris Kyle, was killed. The cause? Not an illness, or a car accident. No. He was shot by an Iraq and Afghanistan military veteran at a shooting range.
I think that this example sets up a clear paradox about guns and their usage. The first is that a man who dedicated his life to killing other people with guns ended up being killed by a gun. To me, Chris seemed to think of himself as almost invincible from the negative consequences of guns, especially given the title of his autobiography, "American Sniper: The Autobiography of the Most Lethal Sniper in U.S. Military History". The word "lethal" to me indicates that he is deadly at what he does. That is magnified by the word "most" because it means more than anyone else. However, the most lethal sniper was killed by his weapon.
The second is that Kyle was shot at a firing range. He brought a military veteran to go to the range to shoot guns with him in order to "bring some relief". To relieve stress, Kyle took the veteran to a shooting range. I think that is another paradox because to me, shooting guns have a negative connotation. I feel this way because I have never been exposed to a gun before, and quite frankly, they scare me. A gun has so much force and power that I feel as if I am not responsible enough. If I were to go to the shooting range it certainly would not be to let out steam.
What I am trying to get at is that gun usage is very two-sided. In other words, Kyle killed people with his guns, but got killed himself by one. How do we, as Americans, suppress or alter gun usage so that horrible events like these don't happen anymore? Are guns embedded in American society to the extent that a change in policy is unforeseeable? Why or why not?
I think that this example sets up a clear paradox about guns and their usage. The first is that a man who dedicated his life to killing other people with guns ended up being killed by a gun. To me, Chris seemed to think of himself as almost invincible from the negative consequences of guns, especially given the title of his autobiography, "American Sniper: The Autobiography of the Most Lethal Sniper in U.S. Military History". The word "lethal" to me indicates that he is deadly at what he does. That is magnified by the word "most" because it means more than anyone else. However, the most lethal sniper was killed by his weapon.
The second is that Kyle was shot at a firing range. He brought a military veteran to go to the range to shoot guns with him in order to "bring some relief". To relieve stress, Kyle took the veteran to a shooting range. I think that is another paradox because to me, shooting guns have a negative connotation. I feel this way because I have never been exposed to a gun before, and quite frankly, they scare me. A gun has so much force and power that I feel as if I am not responsible enough. If I were to go to the shooting range it certainly would not be to let out steam.
What I am trying to get at is that gun usage is very two-sided. In other words, Kyle killed people with his guns, but got killed himself by one. How do we, as Americans, suppress or alter gun usage so that horrible events like these don't happen anymore? Are guns embedded in American society to the extent that a change in policy is unforeseeable? Why or why not?
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
The Show Must Go On
Mike Daisey’s continuation of his theater show after admitting that he was lying is an important contemporary artifact because it demonstrates the tendency of Americans to put morals and facts aside and focus on pure profit. This drive for profit has been embedded in Americans throughout all the time periods that we have studied.
Daisey’s show outlines horrific working conditions and specific stories from workers in one of Apple’s supposed Chinese sweatshops. However, after investigation by reporters, Daisey was forced to come out and admit that the show is just a piece of "theater", and not wholly true. Daisey’s use of the word “theater” indicates that it is merely an attempt to please the audience, not provide facts of a certain situation. A theater show, for example, can act out the brutality and chilling times of the Holocaust, without providing one hundred percent accuracy in its stories.
Daisey’s directors go on to describe that “art is different than journalism.” Art is a form of expression where an artist creates something based on their emotions and understanding of a certain situation. Journalism, in contrast, is limited to providing cold hard facts to a certain audience. A journalist, for example, could detail the horrors of a certain sweat shop and quote the workers about what they go through. An artist, on the other hand, could paint that same worker with blood and tears running over his body. The distinction between art and journalism, though seemingly small, is a clear indication that Daisey fabricated certain parts of his show purely to attract audiences, and ultimately gain profit. The fact that Daisey’s shows continued to run despite being proven false is a clear indication that Daisey just wants his show to make money.
The theme of making money is still present in the modern day. In Mr. O’Connor’s blog post, Polling Matters, he reminds us that “media outlets are businesses.” A business is a company or shop that focuses on buying or selling products in order to make money. The cigarette business, for example, exemplifies that they care only that people buy their product so that they make money, and care less about the negative health issues associated with it.
The drive for profit was clear even during the Salem witch trials. The Englishmen who landed in Salem were “motivated mainly by a hunt for profit” (Crucible 5). The idea of profit is still present during this time period. Profit, as you know, is a drive to make money. The word “hunt” is not only foreshadowing the witch-hunt that ensued in Salem, but also indicates that people are willing to go to extreme lengths to make money. A dog hunts for squirrels so that it has something to eat, similarly to how people hunt for profit. A hunt, to me, indicates that a person will go to all lengths, even kill someone or something, to get what they want. This demonstrates that people will do whatever it takes to get money.
During the Civil War, the drive for profit was also a top priority for most people: “Auctions of slaves took place at public slave markets” (Foner 380). An auction is a place where people sell their goods (or in this case, slaves) for the highest amount of money possible. This is a clear suggestion that the drive for money was preceded morals. During the Civil War, Southerners put morals aside and did all they could to make money.
Throughout the times in history we have studied, the theme of profit preceding morals and common sense has been present, but as they say, the show must go on.
Daisey’s show outlines horrific working conditions and specific stories from workers in one of Apple’s supposed Chinese sweatshops. However, after investigation by reporters, Daisey was forced to come out and admit that the show is just a piece of "theater", and not wholly true. Daisey’s use of the word “theater” indicates that it is merely an attempt to please the audience, not provide facts of a certain situation. A theater show, for example, can act out the brutality and chilling times of the Holocaust, without providing one hundred percent accuracy in its stories.
Daisey’s directors go on to describe that “art is different than journalism.” Art is a form of expression where an artist creates something based on their emotions and understanding of a certain situation. Journalism, in contrast, is limited to providing cold hard facts to a certain audience. A journalist, for example, could detail the horrors of a certain sweat shop and quote the workers about what they go through. An artist, on the other hand, could paint that same worker with blood and tears running over his body. The distinction between art and journalism, though seemingly small, is a clear indication that Daisey fabricated certain parts of his show purely to attract audiences, and ultimately gain profit. The fact that Daisey’s shows continued to run despite being proven false is a clear indication that Daisey just wants his show to make money.
The theme of making money is still present in the modern day. In Mr. O’Connor’s blog post, Polling Matters, he reminds us that “media outlets are businesses.” A business is a company or shop that focuses on buying or selling products in order to make money. The cigarette business, for example, exemplifies that they care only that people buy their product so that they make money, and care less about the negative health issues associated with it.
The drive for profit was clear even during the Salem witch trials. The Englishmen who landed in Salem were “motivated mainly by a hunt for profit” (Crucible 5). The idea of profit is still present during this time period. Profit, as you know, is a drive to make money. The word “hunt” is not only foreshadowing the witch-hunt that ensued in Salem, but also indicates that people are willing to go to extreme lengths to make money. A dog hunts for squirrels so that it has something to eat, similarly to how people hunt for profit. A hunt, to me, indicates that a person will go to all lengths, even kill someone or something, to get what they want. This demonstrates that people will do whatever it takes to get money.
During the Civil War, the drive for profit was also a top priority for most people: “Auctions of slaves took place at public slave markets” (Foner 380). An auction is a place where people sell their goods (or in this case, slaves) for the highest amount of money possible. This is a clear suggestion that the drive for money was preceded morals. During the Civil War, Southerners put morals aside and did all they could to make money.
Throughout the times in history we have studied, the theme of profit preceding morals and common sense has been present, but as they say, the show must go on.
Sunday, January 6, 2013
Forced Labor in China
A couple weeks ago, we had numerous class discussions about modern forms of slavery. We listened to a very intense poem called "Shirt" by Robert Pinsky, and we were then assigned to write a poem or story about modern day slavery in a certain country or factory. Before the assignment, I had never thought much of forced labor, and how big of a role it plays in the American society. A shockingly high 98% of the clothes in America have been imported from other countries, according to ABCNews. But the problem isn't that we import too much, it's that what we import is made by slave labor in other countries.
Recently, I found a story that details the life of a slave in a factory in Masanjia, China. The story was discovered when a woman and her husband opened a box of Halloween decorations to decorate their house. But when they opened the box, they found more than just the decorations, they found this:
In the letter, a woman from the Masanji Forced Labor camp in China begs whoever opens the item to alert the World Human Rights Assocation about the cruel violations that occur daily. She works fifteen hours a day, gets zero days off. If a worker tries to get a day off, they "will suffer torturement, beat and rude remark". And they only make $1.61 a month.
Yes, the details are horrid, and yes, we should all go out of our way to make sure we stop things like this from happening. But a larger impact would be the impact that items made by slave labor would have on the US companies that sell them. According to Title 19 Section 1307 of the US Code, any item made in a country by forced labor is not legally allowed to come in the US. If these laws were truly followed by the US, I would be interested to see how much of the products and goods we buy are made by forced slave labor.
After all of this, I have been left questioning: Are products made by slaves a part of the American society? Is there anything that we can do to ensure that we don't buy or support slave labor? I think that the Americans rely too much on cheap, slave-made goods in order to make a profit, and that most care more about money than suffering people in other countries. What do you think?
Recently, I found a story that details the life of a slave in a factory in Masanjia, China. The story was discovered when a woman and her husband opened a box of Halloween decorations to decorate their house. But when they opened the box, they found more than just the decorations, they found this:
In the letter, a woman from the Masanji Forced Labor camp in China begs whoever opens the item to alert the World Human Rights Assocation about the cruel violations that occur daily. She works fifteen hours a day, gets zero days off. If a worker tries to get a day off, they "will suffer torturement, beat and rude remark". And they only make $1.61 a month.
Yes, the details are horrid, and yes, we should all go out of our way to make sure we stop things like this from happening. But a larger impact would be the impact that items made by slave labor would have on the US companies that sell them. According to Title 19 Section 1307 of the US Code, any item made in a country by forced labor is not legally allowed to come in the US. If these laws were truly followed by the US, I would be interested to see how much of the products and goods we buy are made by forced slave labor.
After all of this, I have been left questioning: Are products made by slaves a part of the American society? Is there anything that we can do to ensure that we don't buy or support slave labor? I think that the Americans rely too much on cheap, slave-made goods in order to make a profit, and that most care more about money than suffering people in other countries. What do you think?
Sunday, December 16, 2012
The Influence of the NFL
During class, we
discussed the NFL - its rules, its penalty system, and its influence on kids.
The part that I found most interesting was the spillover effect it had on other
players in the NFL and of other ages. I especially found the question that Mr. Bolos
posed on his blog post interesting. He asked: "Finally, I guess I wonder
what you think about the impact of football on young people who play the game
and how the NFL doe(s) or does not influence the kids playing at the high
school level, for example."
To answer his question, I think that
the NFL has a large impact on high-school football. This is especially apparent
in two examples that I can remember. Cam Newton, the starting quarterback for
the Carolina Panthers, does a touchdown celebration where he acts as if he rips
off the shirt from his chest. He does this every time he scores a touchdown,
and never gets in trouble for it. However, Jalan McClendon, a high-school
quarterback, did the same exact celebration during one of his games, because of
how much he looked up to Newton. The celebrations were the same, but the
consequences were not. McClendon got ejected from that game because the high
school thought it was disrespectful.
Similarly, a well-known football
star is Tim Tebow. He also has a coined touchdown celebration called “Tebow-ing” where
he kneels over and looks like he is praying. Many young kids, and even adults,
mimic this by tebow-ing at any time they deem necessary. Some high-school
students at Riverhead High School were suspended for a hallway tebowing
session.
Both examples indicate that actions
that NFL stars take are often copied by high-schoolers who look up to them. The
pattern indicates that the actions the pros take have no consequences, while
the kids often do get penalized. Why do you think this is true? Should pros be
more careful about their celebrations, or should they continue to do what they
do?
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Americans and the Lottery
During this past week, the news was filled with stories not of the situation in Syria, but of the lottery. The Lottery was up to $580 million dollars last week, which was the second highest jackpot in American history. My initial reaction to this was, "here we go again." But the longer I thought about it, the more I connected it to our discussions of success in class.
The craze over the Lottery to me indicates that Americans would much rather get their money in a way that requires absolutely no work, rather than working hard doing a job they love. This fantasy of winning the lottery coerces people to buy a lottery ticket. The interesting thing to me is that the odds of winning are so minuscule, yet thousands upon thousands of people still buy tickets.
The odds of winning the Jackpot were at 1 in 176 million. That is such a ridiculously small chance of winning that I would think it would turn some people off from buying the tickets. Boy was I wrong about that. Anyway, I found this hilarious Times article that compared the odds of winning the lottery to the odds of other funny, random things. Here are some of my favorites:
Chances of dating a supermodel: 1 in 88,000
Chances of dying by falling off of a ladder: 1 in 2.3 million
Chances of drowning in the bathtub: 1 in 840,000
Chances of dying by getting hit by a vending machine: 1 in 112 million
Despite these odds, Americans don't cease to buy a ticket for a chance to win. This tells me a couple of things about Americans: Like I mentioned earlier, they would rather have to do no work to get an absurd amount of money that they have no need for. Second, that they care more about money than doing what they love.
Do you think this is the case with all Americans - do they worship money? Or is it just a craze due to the lottery?
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Fiscal Cliff
The fiscal cliff is approaching. And if a deal isn't made before January 1st, our economy will be doomed. There will be spending cuts all across the board in all different sectors of our economy - the defense sector, welfare, etc. This will devastate the economy, the most important possession that the US has.
What intrigues me is how important money is to the US. We care less about fighting in wars, or our troops dying, or anything else really. All that we care about is that we have enough money to sustain those wars, or invest in new technology or infrastrcuture that isn't necessarily essential to helping our country grow stronger.
What also interests me is the vast difference in ideologies between the Republicans and the Democrats in the fiscal cliff negotiations. The Republicans are most concerned with increasing taxes on the wealthy, whereas the Democrats are more concerned about programs like welfare. How does one nation produce such different ideologies when it comes to the economy? What is most important to America right now? Are those priorities correct? Feel free to comment below.
What intrigues me is how important money is to the US. We care less about fighting in wars, or our troops dying, or anything else really. All that we care about is that we have enough money to sustain those wars, or invest in new technology or infrastrcuture that isn't necessarily essential to helping our country grow stronger.
What also interests me is the vast difference in ideologies between the Republicans and the Democrats in the fiscal cliff negotiations. The Republicans are most concerned with increasing taxes on the wealthy, whereas the Democrats are more concerned about programs like welfare. How does one nation produce such different ideologies when it comes to the economy? What is most important to America right now? Are those priorities correct? Feel free to comment below.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)