Fighting Terrorism One School at a Time

"The decision to act heroically is a choice that many of us will be called upon to make at some point in time."

-Dr. Philip Zimbardo

These are the first words you see when you go to the Heroic Imagination Program's website. This program, led by Dr. Philip Zimbardo (renowned psychologist), gives students the tools and the knowledge that will encourage them to act positively in high pressure parts of their lives. Through workshops Zimbardo and his team are able to reach middle to high school students.

This theory about heroism has to do with teaching. If young people are taught at an early age to be heros, they will probably emerge as one someday. Similarly, if people's "violent extremism" tendencies are fought at a young age, they will probably emerge as much more peaceful citizens. 

In order to promote heroism and demote this "violent extremism" with regards to terrorism, the National Security Council has teamed up with the Department of Education. The idea is this: federal officials have become well versed in finding terrorists who travel overseas for their "training" or conduct hefty money transactions, but the terrorists who are working within the borders of the US are not as easily detected. Therefore, it is up to the schools to find suspicious activity amongst their young students and stop it, just as they would stop gang-like tendencies and bullying. (To read more, click on the "violent extremism" link above.)

Think about this in terms of your school. You've had workshops on how to stop your classmates from bullying several times. Can you imagine having one about how to stop your classmates from engaging in terrorist-like activities?

Americans: The Next Enemy Combatants?

"Enemy combatant" is a term we've always heard being used to describe members of Al Qaeda and other non-American terrorists, but with the National Defense Authorization Act, this label could apply to Americans.

This term was coined when the government was figuring out how to get around the Geneva Convention. It is defined by Dictionary.com in these words: "Any member of the armed forces of a state which which another state is at war; also any person in an armed conflict, including terrorism, who could be properly detained under the laws and customs of war."

I bolded "war" and "including terrorism" in order to emphasize the nod to the War on Terror. The "enemy combatants" who were captured during the War on Terror are currently at Guantanamo Bay, a place where torture is abundant and press scarce. These terrorists aren't American. The majority of them are Middle Eastern, because the Middle East is essentially where America is fighting the War on Terror.

This brings me to a scary thought about the NDAA: Americans who are suspected of any kind of terrorism can be sent to Guantanamo Bay, and once they are sent there, who knows what will happen to them? The realization of what the NDAA meant for our country struck a chord in me. I have heard of cases where people are suspected of terrorism solely based upon their Middle Eastern-sounding name. Could this happen to people in my family? I have relatives in the US named Muhammad and Omer. They have lived here the majority of their lives. They are Americans. Could they be jailed at a moment's notice? I've lived here for 15 out of my 17 years of life. Could I be put through a military trial based on suspicion?

Who really IS to blame?

People ask me all the time if I want to go into politics when I'm older because I am now in the student government. The truth is, I really don't. The way I regard American politics is pretty negative. It's a dog eat dog world, and that's not something I want to be a part of.

But just to cross-examine my claim that politics are nasty I did some research and came upon an article by Jonah Goldberg from The Baltimore Sun called 'Who's to blame for America's nasty politics? Tom Brokaw.' In this article, the author blames a news anchor for the "terrible tone in American politics."

This changed my mind a bit. I realized that while politics itself might be a bit unfair, it's really the media that plays on the small indiscretions that come about during an election. America is a prime example of a Social Darwinism society where the politicians with the fewest amount of flaws excel and the ones with more than a few flaws fail. For noticing these flaws, we can thank the media. It is up to news anchors like Tom Brokaw to take a normal flaw and blow it up. Once he has blown it up, it is available to other news stations and other news castors to take it and run.

To be fair, the media is sometimes used as a medium through which political candidates send videos and pictures that demean their opponents. In this case, the actual politics are nasty. The media, however, is just as much at fault for showing these compromising videos and pictures.

So while I do partially agree with Goldberg, I also think that politics are to blame as well.
What do you think?  

Battle of the Genres

Foster the People: #1 on Alternative Top 10

This past week, my grandma from Nashville came up to celebrate Thanksgiving. One of her favorite things to do while she's in Chicago is indulge in our famous deep dish. On our way to pick up our order, I plugged my iPod into the car and immediately some quality Young the Giant emanated from the speakers. "What's the go music nowadays?" she asks innocently. Little does she know that the answer is not so simple.

LMFAO: #1 on iTunes Top 10

For ages there have been two major types of music genres: mainstream- the norm music of society- and alternative/indie- the norm music of college life. (For a comical look on mainstream and alternative music, click here.) But at the moment, I know as many alternative/indie listeners as I do mainstream. Hence the confusing answer to my grandmother's question.

Even more baffling is the thought that alternative music has now become a mainstream. The reason alternative music was dubbed "alternative" is because it was something other than what everyone else listened to. When you went to college you automatically got a more "refined" taste of music and preferred lyrics with a meaning rather than lyrics about drugs, sex, and alcohol. So how did high school kids start listening to Foster the People and Young the Giant?

Clash of the Races

The best part of our American Studies excursion this past Wednesday was going to the Steppenwolf Theater to watch Clybourne Park, a two-hour play about difference in societies; namely the difference between black and white societies. The first act shows the controversy that is sparked when a black family buys a house in a white neighborhood and the second act is about the controversy that is sparked 50 years later when a white family buys a house in the same neighborhood, which is now prominently black.

This play reminded me of my favorite books: the Noughts & Crosses trilogy by Malorie Blackman. In these books that take place in England, society's minority role is played by whites (noughts) and the majority role is played by blacks (crosses). Blackman portrays the ever-present racial discrimination and hardships through the story of a male nought and a female cross who are in love but are forced apart because of their background. You should really check them out.


In the back of the playbill for Clybourne Park, Rebecca Rugg notes that when the play was taken to London's West End, it won the Oliver for Best New Play. This makes me draw a parallel between England and America. Racial discrimination is not just in our society. Racial discrimination is everywhere. In a British article I found, I learned that while blacks make up only 2.2% of England's population, they also make up 14% of criminal court cases. A review on Black America that I read said that blacks make up 13% of our country's population and 50% of our prison population.

My question to you is how did it get like this? How can these statistics be true? America prides itself in being a tolerant nation while at the same time being racist against people who aren't white. Is this behavior something we learned from our motherland- England? If you look at the statistics I stated, the numbers are pretty proportional. We fought so hard separate ourselves from the Brits, but the way I see it in this respect, we're just like them.

Intelligence vs. Entertainment

news

 [nooz, nyooz]  

noun (usually used with a singular verb)

a report of a recent event; intelligence; information: 

His family has had no news of his whereabouts for months.

Today in class, after finishing Good Night, and Good Luck, we had a discussion about how news has changed overtime. One change we talked about was the presence of segments on life, style, and entertainment. Being curious, I searched the actual definition and got what you see above.

In the sentence given as an example of how to use the word, "news" means information. But now when we turn on the news, we are told which movies to go to or what hotspots we should hit downtown. Even when you go to CNN- "FBI releases Russian spy ring video" is found right next to "Actor, vet, breakout ballroom star" (CNN.com). Learning about an actor slash vet slash ballroom dancer does not make the cable-viewing world more intelligent about their surroundings. Learning about Russian spy ring taking action within the US that could possibly very close to us? That is something that is good to know. While it may not affect us personally, it affects Americans. The actor-vet-dancer doesn't even affect America as a whole. He's just on another reality talent show. 

Maybe I'm part of a minority, but I would much rather know what is going on in the world than watching 10 minutes of weather. But you decide. Would you rather watch a segment about spies that could really affect us, or a segment about a dancing and acting vet?

5 More Minutes.

When my alarm goes off each and every morning about 6 hours after I went to bed, I find myself wishing for just 5 more minutes of sleep. Just 5 minutes would make such a difference. Just 5 minutes would give me that extra energy I need during the day. But I can't sleep for 5 more minutes. I have to get up and get ready for school so that I can be on time to class in order to receive more homework and better my education. But recently I've been thinking, does homework nowadays really better our education?

According to the NEA, 11th graders are supposed to spend only 110 minutes on homework each night. That's an hour and 50 minutes. I think it is safe to say that Freshmen spend that much time on homework on a day that they hardly have any. Yes, it's all about how you manage your time, but the truth is that even with time management skills we are seriously burdened with homework. I know people who are staying up until the wee hours of the morning to finish (or start) an essay. Add extracurriculars to the equation and you have yourself a sleepless night.

Because homework is so much of a burden, it has been my understanding that all students want to do is get it over with. This mentality does not help us improve our learning skills. Most of the time, we complete a math assignment by peeking in the back for the answers or we write a reflection that we would not be able to tell you anything about the next day. In addition, staying up late to finish homework is taking a serious toll on our sleep needs. While adults may be able to run well on just a few hours of sleep, teenagers aren't. Biologically, we are programmed to need more sleep so that we can grow. Adults don't need that extra growing time. The consequences of sleep deprivation are undisputed: lack of concentration, drowsiness, delayed reflexes, depression. The American Psychological Association even says that 100,000 car accidents per year are because of fatigue at the wheel, and more than half of those accidents included teens.

Maybe we feel we have to get all of our homework finished on time and to the best of our ability because the competition is so extreme at school. Or maybe some people just don't know how to manage their time. I don't even know if I'm one to talk, since I am posting this near 11 pm. But whatever the case, the increase of homework time and decrease of sleep time benefits no one. I fear the future when I'll have even more homework and even less sleep.

Unhealthy Competition

While reading Act I of The Crucible, I couldn't help but draw a parallel between their views and the present-day views of Americans. 


The literature states,  “…while there were no witches then, there are Communists and capitalists now, and in each camp there is a certain proof that spies of each side are at work undermining the other" (33). The idea that each group works to undermine another was ever-present then and continues to be ever-present today. Especially in America, where competition can be found at its nastiest. 

There is a need, in America, to be the best. To be at the top. This mentality is seen everywhere: schools, workplaces, social groups. The list goes on. A little competition is healthy. It pushes people to do their best, but when competitors cross the line into being underminers, we run into a problem. 


The problem is this: America calls itself a safe environment where everybody can succeed and everybody is a winner. The truth is that there are only a select few who can succeed. Survival of the fittest, if you will. People come to America expecting a fair fight to the top, but like The Crucible says, "spies of each side are at work undermining the other." 


A clear example of this is seen in political campaigns. Take the campaign ad seen at the bottom left targeting President Obama in the 2008 election.


Notice the small caption at the bottom that says, "PAID FOR BY JOHN MCCAIN." This shows the slandering of a name in order to reach the top. If people running for the highest office in the United States can't even play nice, how can students and business people be expected to?

Times of Peril?

In class this past week, we've been talking about perilous times. What defines a perilous time? Are we, as Americans, going through a perilous time right now?

A perilous time in America means that people are not able to live the "American Dream." During past wars, families have not been able to stay together because of drafting and the extra work women had to take on. That broke up the American Dream. People have become poor due to funding for the war or have come back from the war to no money. That means that they cannot buy a nice house for their family or educate their children. That has broken up the American Dream.

In order to be secure and out of peril, a family must have their white picket fence and college education. This ensures a home and a bright and prosperous future. This is so true, that insurance companies are making their profit by guaranteeing the protection of the American Dream. Take American Family Insurance (click on link for American Dream commercials from AmFam). They sell the idea that by investing in their insurance company, the life they want for themselves and their children will be secure. And of course the life they want is the true life of an American.

In my opinion, we are kidding ourselves. In America, over 20% of American children are living in poverty. The number of impoverished children has gone up by 2 million in 2 years. If this doesn't define perilous times, I don't know what does. Yes, the majority of children are living the American Dream. But when we have to say that 1 in 5 children doesn't have a secure home or a proper set of meals, something has to be wrong. Maybe we aren't going through perilous times in the sense that people are being drafted for war, but we are living in perilous times if there is a large percent of our population that has no security.    

Till Text do us Part

In advisery on Wednesday, we watched the following video on texting and driving:

What gets me in this video is that it was a simple "yeah" that caused a family to be one less; a routine "lol" that distracted someone so much that they took the life of an innocent person. I blame the fast-paced world of technology. It's a time when you can get directions sent to you on your phone or easily communicate with someone miles and miles away from you. Sometimes, this can be beneficial. Oftentimes, this leads to disaster. But what compels us to put our lives in danger just so that we can open a text? Maybe it's the fact that American life has become so fast-paced. We are constantly being pushed to finish first.

With all this new technology, we can multitask in so many other ways with our phones that will allow us to be faster. Some people engage in conversation while texting. Students navigate through crowded halls while texting. People, especially teenagers, believe that since it is so easy to multitask with texting in these ways, it can't be much harder in a car. That's where they have it wrong. When engaging in conversation, you don't need your hands- they are free to text. When walking through the halls at school, you don't need your hands- they are free to text. When driving a car on any road, it is essential that you use your hands- they are not free to text.

A recent article in National Geographic called 'Teenage Brains' brings up an interesting fact: 

"Teens take more risks not because they don't understand the dangers but because they weigh risk versus reward differently: In situations where risk can get them something they want, they value the reward more heavily than adults do." 

Texting while driving is becoming a real issue- people are losing their lives. But is this taking a risk that will get these teens something they want? Or is it a careless example of multitasking?     

People and their Masks

This week in class, we had a very interesting conversation about the masks people wear. The discussion got me curious: what drives us to "put on" a certain mask?

My theory is that our masks have to do with the way we want to progress in society. The way we act is driven by how we want our peers to view us, how we want our family to view us, and how we want our educators to see us. In addition, our masks act as a way to shield others from catching a glimpse of our vulnerability.



In my research for this blog post, I found a poem called 'We Wear the Mask' written by Paul Laurence Dunbar, an African-American poet who wrote in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The stanza that spoke to me the most goes as follows:

    Why should the world be over-wise, 

    In counting all our tears and sighs? 

    Nay, let them only see us, while 

            We wear the mask.

This selection could not be more true of what people are always subconsciously thinking. It puts people in the lower hand if others are able to see how they are truly feeling. If society is able to "count all our tears and sighs," then society knows more about us then we want it to. 

In a sense, this is Social Darwinism. We want to appear better and stronger than everyone else. This is especially true in American societies. When we identified the stories we tell ourselves as Americans, one of the first things a student said was that we feel that we are better than the rest of the world. If America appeared vulnerable to the rest of the world, we would not be the "exceptional template" for other countries that we are today. 

In the end, our choice of mask will always have to do with our community. No matter where someone fits, or doesn't fit, in society, they will have a mask on. It's too risky to take it off.  

"One Nation Under God"

In 1954, the phrase "one nation under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance, much to the dismay of Francis Bellamy who wrote the original patriotic lines. Thus marked the beginning of a great controversy. I would like to write about this line by linking together Jon McNaughton's painting and the idea of the American Dream. 

The painting:

"One Nation Under God"

McNaughton identifies the people behind Jesus as great American people who have dedicated their lives one way or another to our country. The people in the bottom left of the painting are "looking toward the lord" and the people in the bottom right "are all turning away" (McNaughton's website). Among the people depicted as following God, there is a child with a disability, a preacher, a schoolteacher, a farmer. Among the people who are facing away there is a lawyer, a liberal news reporter, a man who has made a living in Hollywood, Satan. 

The message of this painting is clear to me. Those who are following Jesus are living the ideal American Dream and the ones who are painted as not following Jesus don't have a white picket fence. But isn't this painting a bit outdated? As America has evolved, so has it's proverbial dream. The doctor on the left worked hard for his job. He went to college and made his way to the top, as did the Supreme Court Judge on the right. The judge probably had to start in a District Court before he even began to think about the Supreme Court. Then think about the occupations that have been tagged as something a Satan-follower would do. The news reporter is most likely very passionate about her job. This painting is saying that she had a choice: either do what she loves and follow Satan, or do something she hates and follow Jesus. That's not fair- she loses no matter what she picks! 

The understanding now is that if an American has worked exceptionally hard, they have achieved the American Dream. Where is God in that definition? America is no longer solely a Christian nation. Judaism is present, Islam is growing, there are Atheists, Bahai, etc. To be an American means to be free (the soldiers) and to be just (Supreme Court building), to name a few stories from today's class discussion. America has labeled itself as a "nation under God." That doesn't acknowledge the other religions that America claims are free to worship as they please, which doesn't seem just. 

I guess what I'm really trying to figure out is when did being "one nation under God" stop being such an essential part of living the American Dream? Or is it still a part of the American Dream, just in a unique way to each person?

The Airbrushing of 9/11

In the past 10 years, I have not once delved into the inferno that is 9/11. I was never interested in the talk that surrounded it, I never posed any questions, and I never watched anything on the matter. This year, all that changed. For some reason, I could not tear myself away from the images of the Twin Towers or the words of the ones who suffered. I also never thought I would feel so passionately about an event that happened 10 years ago that I would write a blog post about it. But when I watched a documentary called The Falling Man, I felt somehow obligated to write down my thoughts.

Now, I am not going to post the actual picture. Newspapers already tried that and got a strong backlash. But I really urge you to look it up. Here's a link: The Falling Man. What do you notice? Does he look graceful? Do you think he jumped? Or was he thrown from the tower by the impact of the blow?

Believe it or not, this picture was from a sequence of 12 pictures that were all taken by a photographer named Richard Drew. In addition to taking these 12 pictures of this man, he took hundreds of others depicting the terrible choice that some had to make and that some were forced into making. But Drew's pictures weren't the only forms of media that caught the falling people. Several news reporters got pictures and even videos of these people. But why haven't we ever seen them?

Politicians and a few concerned citizens have deemed these depictions as horrifying. After these reports, the pictures and clips started disappearing. They could not be found unless they were thoroughly looked for. And even when they were found, it was clear that some had been airbrushed so as not to include the people falling. A sculpture named The Tumbling Woman was removed from plain sight. In my opinion, this is unfair. The fact that people were falling from the buildings is part of 9/11. It shows the raw, hard truth that some people decided to take their death into their own hands. Instead of burning alive or not being able to breathe, they opted for the 10 second fall. Airbrushing the pictures and making some disappear and not acknowledging that this happened is a great fallacy that doesn't make 9/11 any better.

For more specifically on The Falling Man, click here.

To Standardize or not to Standardize?

There is only one constant in school, and that is standardized testing. Everybody, in America at least, is familiar with the small bubbles and booklets that have recurred every single year since about third grade. I used to think of them as harmless- they didn't take much time, we didn't get homework on those nights, and the results didn't mean much to me.

But then I got to high school. Suddenly, standardized testing became a deciding factor of my future. There is the PLAN, the EXPLORE, the SAT, the PSAT, the ISEE, the SSAT, etc. Suddenly, what used to be a  minor annoyance in my schedule was now a major obstacle in the path to college. Not only college, but the rest of my life! Being a junior, the test next on my agenda is the ACT. I have heard of people taking it 5, 8, 11 times before they achieved their best score. All that tells me is that there is so much to be anxious about. Will that be me? How many times will I take it before I reach a score that I am comfortable with? How many times will I take it before I reach a score that is socially acceptable?

All of these questions made me wonder what the standardized testing really does for us. After doing a bit of research, (here, and here...and here) I've gathered some pros and cons.

Pros: Information can be easily screened; areas of strength and weakness are easily observed; it's an  easy way to compare us to others, say, when reading application; it can track our progress over time.

Cons: There is an issue about whether we are tested to measure our intelligence, our test-taking
ability, or our home life; they are causing students to be tested more vigorously and frequently then ever before; standardized testing actually costs a great deal of cash; the tests can be biased; some people can afford better test preparation.

In my opinion, the cons greatly outweigh the pros. To me the tests seem entirely political and only a benefit for the people that have to grade them. Learning should be measured by how students act in the classroom, not how they attempt to comprehend a random literary excerpt. And if the creators choose to call standardized testing by that name, shouldn't they recognize that there can never be one, all-powerful standard that applies to every student?