The Stories We Tell

         

As I was browsing about the internet, I stumbled upon an article stating that a shocking 85,000 United States war veterans received medical treatments for sexual abuse trauma in 2012. However, only a few days ago did the Pentagon finally admit to the problem of sexual abuse in the military. This has really made me think about the stories that people tell in the United States. American soldiers fight for our country to protect our rights and freedom, however, the untold story of the US military is the military's problems with sexual abuse. While it does seem to make sense why the government would keep quiet about an embarrassing problem, it does make you think about how stories are told.

        How we portray ourselves in the stories we tell is very important and telling, and most of the time we are heroes of the stories we tell. This theme of being heroes in our own stories is even present in Robert Schenkkan's The Kentucky Cycle. When JT Wells, a storyteller, come to visit the Rowen's land, he reveals to Mary Anne that "everybody got his stories" , and when she contests that we do not  make ourselves, and explains that we tell the truth. JT responds, " And he's the son of heroes, right?". It is interesting that, even in a play staged in 1890, there is evidence that back then even that we are our own heroes of the stories we tell. 

So, what do you think? Do you think we portray ourselves as the hero of our own story? Why or why not?

Monstato: Frankenfood or Not?

        Just yesterday, thousands and thousands of people took the streets to protest Monsanto, a controversial agricultural company in genetically modified seeds. Organizers said the protest "March Against Monsanto" was held in 52 countries and 436 cities, including here in Chicago. This worldwide protest was done to not only raise and spread awareness about genetically modified foods and the harmful effects of these foods, but also to protect our food supply, support local farmers, and to bring accountability to those responsible for genetically modified foods (MarchAgainstMonsanto). 
      Monsanto produces genetically modified seeds, which grow into crops that are engineered to withstand insecticides and herbicides while improving crop yields, increasing global food supply, and adding nutritional benefits and improving crop yields (NY Daily). Proponents of Monsanto say that three broad categories benefit from Monsanto and genetically modified food: farmers, processors, and consumers. Using Monsanto products and genetically modified foods benefits farmers because it increases productivity and reduces cost by increasing the yield of the farmer's crop, improving crop protection from insects and disease, and increasing crops' tolerance to heat, drought, and other environmental factors. Monsanto products also help processors because by having more crops, it improves the quality and content of animal feed, food, and energy sources. Monsanto also benefits consumers because there are health advantages such as increased protein and healthier oils (Monsanto). However, although this product is beneficial, it also is very controversial. 
     There are thousands of people across the nation and the world who are against genetically engineering seeds and crops because of the many risks that it entails. Because GMO's contains DNA that is alters, its introduces allergens and toxins to foods as well as make crops resistant to antibiotics. Although many crops are genetically modified, there are still crops that do not use genetically modified seeds.  This can pose a problem because if genetically modified seeds and  non-genetically modified seeds are mixed because it can lead to contamination of organic crops. 
Another reason there is a controversy with genetically modified seeds is the health risks. Although Monsanto claims that all of their genetically modified crops are safe, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine has warned consumers of "serious health risks" as indicated by an animal study that measures the effects of genetically modified foods.

       So, what do you think about Monsanto and genetically modified foods.  Should farmers continue to use genetically modified foods, or should people continue there protests to stop genetically modified products? Why or why not? 

What To Do About Affirmative Action

      Whether applying to college or for a job, there is always the thought, “wouldn’t it be nice if there were a way I could make myself more attractive to the admissions department of my top-choice college or the employer of my dream job?”.  That’s what Abigail Fisher thought. Back in 2008, she applied to the University of Texas at Austin. But what kept her out? In her opinion, it was the fact that she’s white, and she is now headed to the Supreme Court.

         Fisher, a white suburban Houston student, asserts that she was wrongly rejected by UT while minority students with similar grades and test scores were admitted, and only because of affirmative action. Affirmative action refers to policies that take into consideration factors such as race in order to benefit  underrepresented groups with a history of discrimination in areas of employment, education, and business. Fisher argues that affirmative action is the reason she was not accepted into UT, and her case is now going to be decided by the Supreme Court in Fisher v. University of Texas.  

          This issue brings up the controversy of whether affirmative action policies should continue. It's a divisive topic because many believe America has progressed so that we've become a "color-blind" society. Some would say that such policies like affirmative action are bad for democracy because they encourage divisions along lines drawn by discriminatory rules, thereby replacing old injustices with new ones and dividing our society rather than uniting it. It may be deceiving that we, the United States, are no longer discriminatory towards minorities races, especially if by 2043, the US is projected to become a majority-minority nation (US Census).  But have we really progressed? Although we made history five years ago by electing our first African American president, I believe racial discrimination is still very evident in the United States today, and affirmative action should continue to be implemented because of our nation’s continued racist ways. I think a diverse university, like UT, offers a better education to all its students, so I contend that UT is right to consider race a factor in admissions. However, Fisher and others would disagree. What are your thoughts? Do you think that America has really progressed enough so that policies like affirmative action are no longer necessary? Why or why not?

Our Veterans and Soldiers

Just recently, I was going about my usual business catching up on one of my favorite tv shows, Grey’s Anatomy. However, I was  very surprised when, in one of the scenes, a doctor had a post-traumatic stress disorder episode and began choking a woman. Not only was this shocking and sad to see, but it got me thinking about how evident post-traumatic stress disorder is in our soldiers and veterans today. The statistics I found were way  more shocking and unbelievable than the scenes from Grey’s Anatomy.
         Post-traumatic stress disorder is an anxiety disorder that normally follows when one experiences a traumatic event. Symptoms of this disorder include recurring visual nightmares about these traumatic events, hesitation in discussing these tragic events, and difficulty in completing and taking part in usual daily activities and tasks ( Do Something). This disorder can very often lead to serious problems, including death. According to a report from the United  States Department of Veteran Affairs, every sixty-five minutes a military veteran commits suicide. Unfortunately, not only is it former United States military, but there are also 349 active duty personnel suicides.; that breaks down to almost one suicide a day (Forbes)      This proves to be a very crucial issue, with, after a decade in war, soldier suicides outnumber combat deaths. But what can we do to stop this phenomenon from occuring? These are our American soldiers who are fighting for our freedom, but why aren’t we doing more to help our current soldiers and veterans with post traumatic stress disorder? What are ways in which we, as citizens of the United States, can raise awareness of this growing problem?  After reading about some ways that we can help stop this phenomenon from happening, what do you think would be the best way to go about it?

Freedom of the Press?

Recently, Obama and the White House have been in hot water over recent scandals with Benghazi, the IRS, and the Associated Press. The most striking of these scandals, to me, is the Justice Department compromising the United States’ First Amendment right and spying on the Associated Press. The Department of Justice secretly obtained two months worth of telephone records of Associated Press journalists and more than twenty separate phone lines, a shocking amount of surveillance and spying between the interactions of reporters and anonymous sources, some being from the White House. This scandal is a clear violation of the First Amendment, and affects the United States’ public and t he news we receive. The line between free press and national security is very delicate, established on trust and expectations that both sides will behave in a certain way. However, because the government went behind the backs of the Associated Press, the trust between the press and national security will be hard to maintain and rebuild, and the public will therefore suffer.

Whenever the Government violates an Amendment, it should be taken very seriously, but there has not been too much has been done since this scandal has surfaced. So, what should we do as citizens of the United States when the Government violates our Constitutional rights?

Will It Ever Stop?

          Just yesterday, nineteen people were injured in a New Orleans Mother's day parade. The victims include ten men, seven women, and two children, a boy and a girl. As of now, no one has been arrested for the shootings, but according to the police, there were three suspects running away from the scene of the crime. Despite recent gun violence in the United States, including the Aurora movie shooting,the Sikh temple shooting, the Sandy Hook School Shooting, and the list goes on and on. Because of these recent shootings, there has been a lot of talk throughout the government and social media about gun control and implementing new gun laws (you can read more about this in an older blog post I wrote here). However, despite recents talks about gun control, mass gun violence still continues, so what more can we, the united states, do to help stop these tragedies?

A picture from CNN of the New Orleans Shooting

One possibility is heightening the level of responsibility for the gun seller and gun purchaser of the weapon. In a recent study, it was found that 83% of felons possessing guns did not buy a handgun or obtain a handgun legally, but instead obtained it in an illegal manner, such as the secondary market or theft (gun laws). Although it is difficult to prevent gun theft, by heightening the level of responsibility for a gun seller or purchaser, it would make it less likely for a gun to makes its way into an illegal market. Ways of heightening owner responsibility of a gun and the responsibility of selling a gun would be to make, for example, a legal gun owner, who sells a firearm to someone who should not have it, help accountable for the crime that buyer may commit. Similar to someone selling a firearm to someone who should not have it, a gun owner who legally carries weapons should also be held accountable if they give a gun to someone without a license and commit a crime. Although implementing laws that would make gun buyers and sellers more responsible for their guns may seem insignificant, small steps towards controlling illegal gun ownership is vital in stopping mass gun violence. In what other ways do you think gun violence could be prevented? Do you think that establishing new laws that would make gun owners and sellers more responsible for their guns would be beneficial towards preventing mass gun violence tragedies like the one today in New Orleans? Why or why not?

A slippery slope?

Recently, I came across an article on Huffington Post that stated one of the Boston marathon terrorist suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev would not be read his Miranda rights. This shocked and immediately interested me because of how this relates to my junior theme topic of wrongful convictions. Miranda rights are the rights stated to a suspect after their arrest and utilized by law enforcement to make a suspect aware of their rights as a US citizen (mirandarights.org). In many cases of wrongful convictions, innocent adults and children are convicted of crimes they have not committed because they either are not read there Miranda rights or do not understand their Miranda rights. However, in the case of Dzhokhar Tsarvaev, he will not be read his Miranda rights because because the government is invoking a public safety exception. A public safety exception is when the police can interrogate a suspect without offering him or her the benefit of their Miranda rights if he or she could have information that is urgent for the safety of the public. Although it may seem strange to say that a terrorist suspect should be read their Miranda rights, it does make you think about the power the government in regards to your rights as a United States citizen.

A photograph of Dzhokar Tsarnaev

It is completely understandable why Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will not be read his Miranda rights because of the extreme danger he put thousands of people in during the Boston marathon and the chase to capture him, but it raises the question on how much control the government has in choosing who gets read their Miranda rights. If the United State government can take away the rights of  Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, why wouldn’t the government take away any of our rights at any point? This controversy has really made me think long and hard about our rights as citizens in the United States and still has me switching viewpoints whenever I stop to think about it. On one end, the government is protecting our safety, however on the other end, the government is taking away the rights of people. Also, once an exception has been made, the government will try to broaden the exception because of political pressure and general hysteria, so will the public safety exception start a slippery slope? So, should the United States government continue to implement the public safety exception to protect the public immediate danger from bombing suspects like Dzhokhar Tsarnaev?