Do We Understand?

This week in American Studies, I was challenged by a fellow classmate to explain my views on racial profiling.  In some circumstances, like at the airport, certain people groups, recently people who look Arabic, are put through more severe security than other citizens.  I believe that this is justified in some cases, especially when it may help catch a terrorist.  However, my classmate disagreed.  They claimed that I would never understand racial profiling because I am not a minority, and have never experienced the hardship of having a different skin color or being discriminated or profiled.  I replied that if I had to be searched a little more at the airport for the sake of national security, I would.  This classmate did not think so.

The truth is that I did not know the whole story.  According to my parents, my ancestors experienced a lot of racial profiling, for at least 20 years.  When my grandmother emigrated to the United States in 1958, she and her fellow German immigrants  were profiled as Nazis for years.  Anyone with a German accent, style of dress or habit was profiled and discriminated against.  The sad thing is that it only took one crazy leader to cause generations of hardship for many races.

Another more recent example is Reverend Terry Jones with his Koran burning scheme.  He caused a bad light to be shone on Christians.  I am a Christian, and this frustratingly was shone on me while he was in the news.  Our school is fairly tolerant in my eyes, and I did not experience any extreme hardship or abuse because of claiming the same religion as this radical, but I definitely got "the look" when the subject of Reverend Jones came up, as people watched to see if I would back him up.

Now, another leader has incited his followers to kill.  We aren't sure who is working for him.  He's a few fries short of a Happy Meal, and we've been tightening security because of the threat.  Do all of the Arabs who travel through an airport deserve to be searched more than others?  Probably not.  But when just 19 radicals killed about 3000 people in one day, I believe that a little extra searching is called for when dealing with those who are from the same area as the perpetrators.  Do I understand what this is like for those who are searched?  No.  Will I?  Maybe not.  But I certainly have had a taste.  Each generation will have their group who is discriminated against.  That's the way things are with humanity.  But I will contend that those who have the most likelihood of being terrorists should be searched a little more, and hopefully that will save the United States a few thousand more lives.

The Vietnam Protests

In American Studies, the Vietnam War group presented most recently.  According to their presentation, large numbers of college students protested the war on their college campus, and many of the protesters were harassed for doing so.  In addition, some of the protests became a little rowdy, and the protesters started throwing rocks, goading troops to action and becoming violent.  The police beat many protesters in the video that we saw on Friday, at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago.  Another form of protest was the burning of draft cards, which is illegal according to the Selective Service Act.  People who burned their draft cards were sentenced to a term in jail and a fine.  I sensed from the presenters and from the atmosphere in the room that the protesters should not have been beaten or sent to jail.  I think there is a problem with that thinking.

While I certainly don't condone the use of violence to quell protests, I also do not believe that a protest should be allowed to occur where the protesters become riotous.  It is a terrible tragedy that young people lost their lives while protesting, I think everyone can agree, but the government does not allow violent protests.  The first amendment says that Congress shall make no law prohibiting, "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."  Please note the word peaceably.  The protests, wherever they became violent, destructive, or hateful were illegal.  It is sad that the protesters were injured or killed, but they were breaking the law.

The draft card burners also broke the law.  In my opinion, it is ridiculous to break the law and not expect to go to jail.  For example, every time the speedometer says that I am going over the speed limit, I expect a cop to show up any minute and pull me over for breaking the established traffic laws.  Possibly a better example is that of Martin Luther King Jr.  He led peaceful marches and protests all over the southern United States, and was put in jail many times.  He expected it.  When he broke laws and went to jail, he knew that he was making a statement by going to jail peacefully.  His actions spoke louder than any appeal could have.  While the draft protesters wanted to make a statement by burning their cards, they still broke the law, and that deserves jail, according to the same law.

While I do not advocate our government to place undue restrictions on our civil liberties and not allow the citizens to protest, I also do not believe that justice's hand should be stayed from law breakers.  The tragedies that occurred are sad, and I do not think that any of the violence on the part of the national guard or police was warranted.  However, when one breaks the law, one should expect to have a punishment.

Korean Crisis

In the news, North Korea shelled an island where the South Koreans were performing a military exercise, killing two and wounding 16.  In the article that I read, which can be read HERE, I learned that South Korea and North Korea have had numerous skirmishes over the years, and I have to wonder about their internal states of affairs.  In American Studies, we are talking about civil liberties during wartimes, and I wonder how South Korea is doing in the civil liberties departments.

I learned, after reading the Wikipedia article on civil liberties in South Korea, that they are much more restrictive of free speech than other democratic nations, like the United States.  They do not tolerate sympathy for North Korea, web sites from North Korea, or anything North Korean.  Also, they don't allow songs or theater in Japanese.  It seems that in this time of tension between the two countries, both refuse to have anything to do with the other, and are trying to dehumanize them by denying the other of any form of expression in the other country.  Hopefully the prohibitions of speech and press will be lifted in North Korea and South Korea, but this seems unlikely.  We'll just have to make do with watching and commenting, or will we?

Critical Thinking 101

In American Studies, we often are challenged to think critically about a passage or a theme.  But what is thinking critically?  According to the Oxford English Dictionary, critically means, "With critical judgement or observation; nicely, accurately, precisely."  Basically, we look at the precise words the person said, based on their definitions and connotations, we interpret what the person maybe was trying to say.  But here we run into some grey area.   Some people look at the connotations of words and decide that the author was trying to say something that may or may not have been the intent.  Perhaps the author writes, "The sky turned black."  Someone may want to interpret that the color black has the connotation of evil and that they can foreshadow that something evil will happen soon.  However, maybe the author didn't mean that at all.  Maybe the author was reporting fact.  The truth is that we really don't know, so it frustrates me when people try to assign a meaning to a passage that can't be assigned for sure.

Aliens?

Last weekend, my family and I went on a trip to Indiana so that I could swim in a big meet there.  We left Friday night at about 5:00, so it was pretty dark by the time we crossed the border into Indiana.  We were driving along, my sister and I were doing homework, my dad was asleep, etc, when all of a sudden we looked out the window and realized that we were surrounded by blinking red lights.  All around us, the sky lit up red every second or two.  It looked like the alien invasion was occurring, in the middle of the country around a highway in Nowhere Indiana.  It turns it was Fowler Ridge Wind Farm, the sight of hundreds of wind turbines, all spinning as they generated power for use in the power grid.  Needless to say, it was an amazing sight.

It reminded me of an article that I read, which can be found HERE.  Basically, it says that this important guy is going to set aside government money to look into putting wind farms on the ocean, where there is lots of wind.  however, talk about renewable energy tends to spark debate.  The research is costly, and the choice of which energy choice will be implemented usually goes to politicians, not the science community, who would know better which ideas would work the best on the market.

Sadly, many other decisions are left to politicians that aren't in their realm of expertise.  Their job is to know the law and how to get around it.  At least that is what it seems like.  But when they need to know something about engineering, or business, or maybe how to run a country full of technology and businesses, they come up short in all of those departments.  Or they bring in an "expert" who is in their pocket anyway.  I think we need more civilians in government, not just politicians.  Sure, politicians know how to get elected better than anyone else, but in our nation's early history, all kinds of smart men were elected to congress and as president.  Farmers, lawyers, generals, and all other kinds of trades were elected because the people thought they would do a good job.  I'm not saying to draft people into congress, but I think we need a little more diversity of profession in our governing bodies.  How can they represent our motives if they don't represent the actual American public?

American Consumerism

Yesterday on our day off, we went to Costco.  Now this in itself was not a different experience, but I had never gone after having been in American studies, where we think critically about everything.  Looking through new eyes, I saw a giant warehouse piled high with more food, electronics, and clothing than I have ever seen.  The ceiling was about three or four stories high, and in some places, shelves of stuff on palates could be seen almost touching the roof.  Although it was early in the day, people were already there, and filled the massive storage facility with their purposeful gathering.  Everywhere there was so much of everything that I wondered if it would ever all get sold.

Everything has a very low price compared to other stores.  For example, a soft shell coat costs about $100.  At Costco, any size for kids cost $20.  This makes it extremely appealing to many different groups of people.  However, I had to wonder how this could be.  Why can Costco sell for so little?  From consumer class, I knew that if Costco sells more items for a lower price, they can make more money than if they sold for a higher price.  The catch is that the consumers have to buy lots of stuff.

Americans have a track record of extreme consumerism and I can't help but wonder what circumstances led to our desire for more items for ourselves.  Has our constitution that obviously promotes capitalism led to a society where we value products over prudence?  Or is there an innate quality about humans that makes us want more?

6 minutes to freedom

On Friday, when the substitue teacher did not show up on time, the class just talked for a while, but then the exclamations came forth.  We were all thinking the same thing, "What if the sub doesn't show up at all?"  A student reminded us that if the sub didn't come within 10 minutes of the bell, we were allowed to leave.  The thought of this freedom and early dismissal from class excited us all, and we proceeded to write on the board, talk excitedly, and ruminate on what we would do with all the free time.  Well, the sub showed up just as we were writing, "6 minutes to freedom" on the whiteboard.  We all gave a sad kind of sigh, as if saying that we knew that it would never happen, but were excited by the prospect.

The strangest part was that we proceeded to go down to the auditorium and listen to a punk rock legend with a cool accent tell us about his career.  It was the most relaxing day of American Studies that we have ever had!  It made me think that if the sub hadn't shown up, we probably would have gone down to hear him speak anyway, just to see what it was all about.  What else would we have done?  There really isn't much to do at school when classes are still running and your friends are in those classes.

So, from what does our desire for freedom come?  Why do we need it?  As teenagers we tend to want freedom from our parents, as Americans we wanted freedom from England, as a society we enjoy our freedoms as protected by the constitution.  The Puritans wanted freedom to start their own (hopefully perfect) church.  What fascinates us with freedom?

2010 Election

It seems like this coming election is not so much a decision as to who will be in office as who's ideas will take over.  I have read for weeks that the president's approval rating is going down, and tea party activists are protesting against big government and enormous spending.  In an article that I read recently, the author explained that one of the things that makes president Obama a president that people think of as an outsider is his presidential mentality.  Instead of the historical, "We are America and we are the best" mentality, Mr. Obama has come to the plate with the attitude that America is evil and needs to be fixed.

This idea came about in the 60s, when we realized that we were harming the environment, that racial discrimination was wrong, and that the Vietnam war was making America look bad.  Obama campaigned and won by convincing people and playing off the sentiment that what America and the Bush administration was doing was wrong, and that he would change it.  However, as the article describes, this does not make a good leader.  It makes a critic and pessimist, not a positive leader who can galvinize the country out of its recession and other problems.  He focuses on the problems more than solutions, and that is part of the problem!

After this election we will surely see some changes in policy and mentality, no matter what the outcome.

In class we were talking about civil liberties, and what the first amendment covers.  During this campaign season, a lot of opinions have been thrown around, including this one.  It is wonderful that in this country we can discuss the problems that we see in the government freely without fear of persecution.  This free expression of ideas makes our country better than others, because we collaborate!  300 million minds are a whole lot better than just 100.  Without all the discussions about opinions, America would not be the same.

The Uber-Post

Over the past few weeks, I have seen a change of theme in my blogging patterns.  In the beginning, I looked online for a news article that stimulated my interest and then wrote about it.  Over the next few weeks I transitioned to writing about the topics from class discussions, and then finding a news article pertinent to the subject.  In general, I like to write about recent technological finds and then debate about how they could possibly affect our society positively or negatively.  Also, I like to write about education and equal opportunity.  Since I have strong opinions about these things, they were easy to blog about.

I noticed that I tend to ask direct questions that I want my readers to answer, because I want them to focus on those specific points, and not be completely free to comment on anything I say.  These questions are usually big picture, for example, in my post, "Video Game Craze in Japan," I ask the question, "Which do you think is more important?  The person's life or the town?"  Here I am trying to direct the readers to ponder a specific problem, then give a thoughtful answer and why they think that.  This interests me more than a commentary on my topic.  I could improve by trying not to direct the readers to answer a specific question, but leave it more open ended, and also make my point in less words.  I see the lengthyness problem in Education Americana where it looks like a daunting block of text and even I am not interested in going through it.

As I reread my work, I was surprised about what caught my reader's attention by having the most hits and the most comments.  This was a post about video games and a hint at the theme of portrayals of women at once. I think that the subject of women's roles is worth re-visiting because a lot of females are in our class and they would probably have a lot to say about a topic like that.

In my blogging, I value the idea that the conversation doesn't have to end at the end of the class period, because I usually have an opinion that I haven't been able to put forth due to time limitations.  This shows in my blogging about topics from class discussions, like the heated debate on race and education.  I chose to continue the discussion on the blog.

Edited: 10/25

Modern Day Slavery?

The other day, we touched on modern day slavery that occurs in many different parts of the world.  These kinds of slavery may include sex slavery or economic slavery like in many industrial areas.  Economic slavery occurs in China, Jordan, and many other countries where the workers are paid very little and not regularly, work in poor conditions for long hours, and are threatened if they try to join a union or something to improve their condition.  However, this repulsive and highly unjust practice does not only occur overseas.  It also is prevalent in America.

It was very easy to find an example of this.  A few words in Google, and bam, out came an example.  Written only four years ago, this article explained that the only things necessary for a garment manufacturer are electricity, sewing machines, and a building.  After that, the immigrant population supply them with workers.  In the United States, while slaves used to be exploited, threatened, and beaten, now illegal immigrants are abused and forced to work in extreme working conditions while being paid next to nothing.

The rationalization?  These shops are all in the name of capitolism.  Why not use the source of labor?  What's wrong with bringing the prices down, no matter how we get the clothing?  The customer is always right.  This mentality permeates the industry so much that shoe manufacturers, clothing manufacturers, and food processors are treated horrifically all in the name of low prices.  How can this be stopped?  Is the government really necessary?  Will sending out more government officials help?  The article said that the shops can be moved very easily.  Will workers protesting help?  They will get fired and maybe killed.  I believe that the consumer can control the economy.  If the consumers don't buy items made in foreign countries in poor conditions for workers, the company will be forced to close or allow their workers better conditions.  This is one way, but it is not a definite fix?  Is there one?

What Colleges Look For

It is the question of junior year; "Do you know where you are going to college?"  And many of us find ourselves saying, "No, and I've told that to a million other people.  I just don't know!"  Others may have an idea, but unless an older sibling has paved the road, most kids don't have a clue about the college gig.  What classes and tests should I take?  How about extra curriculars?  Sign me up for twenty.  Every college will love me!  Can I say that I am 1/128th Sioux?  Will that help?

In answer to all these questions, I found a great website to help.  (It can be visited HERE.)  It dispelled many of my preconceived notions, like the idea that colleges only look at a test score or a racial group.  Reading the article, it became clear that colleges look at almost 20 different factors to determine who they will admit.
First on the list is the academic record.  Colleges look at test scores, your transcript, and any awards.  Also taken into account are personal factors, like recommendations, extra curriculars, and traits that you have written about.  The small factors are race, gender, geographic location, and legacy status.

Is this system fair?  Does it give equal representation to everyone?  I do not think so.  Clearly the academic record is important, and personal factors help keep well-rounded students.  The other factors that are taken into account I believe are possible unfair.  A student should not be admitted with race being the deciding factor, nor should women be given higher priority than men when women make up the majority of college students.  Area of origin should not be a factor at all, because colleges should be looking for the smartest person who can convince the board to admit them.  All of these smaller factors that may be a decision maker are things the students could not control.  Therefore, I don't think colleges should be able to use them to decide on admission.

Side note: the government puts a minimum requirement on colleges to admit a certain number of minority groups, including women as a minority.  Is this right in our day and age?

Recent find: While this kind of discrimination does happen at many colleges, some individuals, like Carl Cohen, discuss and lecture about the injustice in this approach to college admissions, and as early as 1998 gave a very thorough and persuasive lecture at the Heritage Foundation about this subject.  The text of it can be found HERE.
Edited on 10/25

Education Americana

While talking about the American education system in class today, I started to become frustrated.  We talked about how bad the system of quantifying learning and forcing achievement through the numbers destroys the necessities of a playful and happy childhood.  We talked about how achievement on standard tests is so worshiped that schools spend hundreds of hours preparing for the test without making sure the kids know the material,  comprehend it and ask questions if they aren't sure.  Mr. O'Connor described a "bulimic" education system, where kids take in the material, spit it back out, and forget all about it.  Some of these themes were described in the film, Race to Nowhere, which is promoting education system changes.  A link to the web site for the movie and to change opinions can be found HERE.  I have experienced these education problems by forgetting the same material for math tests that I learned for three years in a row.  I still don't know how to do a logarithm.

However, as nice as it is to bash the education system, and point out all its flaws, I think this form of argument is flawed.  I have always learned that unless I can suggest a better alternative, I shouldn't complain.  So I started thinking.  One of the problems I encountered was that the mentality of having to perform better than everyone else and out-compete them is ingrained into our society.  It scares me to think that if I just let go of everything and enjoyed myself, I may not be able to get a high paying job, or create a good life for my children.  I am also afraid of the damage I might inflict on my kids if I don't change my way of thinking a bit.  But the obstacles that an activist faces are gigantic!  We're talking about a whole overhaul of the way parents and kids envision the future and try to prepare themselves and others who depend on them.  This is as big of a change as Martin Luther King Jr. had to face to change people's minds about racism. 

So how can a person or even a whole school change things?  New Trier, even the whole North Shore, is only a drop in the bucket.  But as the Chinese proverb goes, a journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.  So clearly change is possible, if improbable.  One idea is to start programs at New Trier to educate parents, kids, and faculty about the best education models, and put ourselves on the right track.  After that, other schools in the North Shore may look at New Trier's model, and change a bit to help their students grow as people as well as be intelligent.  If this model follows, and the Chicago-land area is well know for its positive and well-rounded education, then this idea may show up in the national news.  Although it would take a lot of time, I believe change is possible, but only if the hearts of the students are devoted to it.

How do we get our knowlege?

In American Studies, one of the most interesting things has been the critical analysis of where we get our ideas on race.  This made me think, because most of the time we don't ever wonder about what kinds of sources we listen to.  Our parents influence us, our classes and teachers influence our views on race and even the structure of standardized tests change our ideas about what race is, how many there are, and what kinds of people fall into each.  Not having had a conversation like this before, I was challenged to think of how I know what I think I know about race. 

I am most influenced by my parents, teachers and curriculum, and my church and missionaries.  Many missionaries have taken the time to speak at church about what they do in other countries, and I have learned about many different people groups.  Each group catagorizes themselves differently, and others have to be taught not to make generalities.  But now, I am wondering about my sources.  They are all some kind of caucasian person, who lived the most part of their life in America.  From there on out, it is their experience in travels and interaction only.  Not coming from a minority backround limits their perspective, and therefore mine as well.  How can I know if my sources are accurate?  Some of my ideas come from my own ponderings.  Do they hold water?  How can I test my ideas to see if they are right?  Can there be a right and wrong idea when it comes to race, or only different?

I looked online for something about race, and there wasn't much, I assumed because of the controversy.  Upon seeing the wikipedia article, I saw it had some good stuff, so HERE it is.  However, this article is very scientific, and I am not sure if race can be defined completly by science.  Does DNA hold the answers?  What about culture?  Is race only the outside appearance of a person?  How many races are there?

Has America Been Emancipated?

In class we talked about how some remnants of the slave trade and of Jim Crow times may still remain and not allow African American citizens to enjoy the full freedom that others have.  For example, statistics show that African Americans have on average lower income, poorer standard of living, higher percentage in jail, and a greater percentage have terminal illnesses than Caucasian Americans.  In Barack Obama's speech on race, (the full text of which can be read here) he purposes that many of the problems that African Americans face can be traced back hundreds of years.  To quote directly,

"But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow."

However, I am not so sure this is true.  There have been many African American people who have worked hard, sent their children to school, and are now living high end lifestyles.  Take for example Nelvia M. Brady, who has her PHD and is an author, columnist, and owner of This Mother's Daughter, Inc., Chicago, IL.  (Many more successful African Americans can be found HERE)  Have these certain few been given some sort of advantage?  I do not believe so.  They or their parents have worked hard in positions and jobs that may have been les than desireable, but through hard work they have ascended to the top of the socioeconomic ladder.  This is part of the American dream.  Like many presidents (like Obama himself), CEOs, and millionaires, an American can grow up poor, work hard, and die rich.  African Americans who experience poverty could climb the ladder too.  All they have to do is put their foot on the first rung.

Are Video Games Beneficial?

As I looked briefly at CNN's home page for a topic, I came across an article about how video games can help you make decisions in real life.  As I read the article, which can be read HERE, I found it was only a sarcastic reply to a thought provoking question.  The beginning of the article started that a study by the University of Rochester said that people who play action-packed video games have better decision making skills.  I believe that this can be a very interesting subject to discuss, because I have learned a lot from some videogames, and the study's results make sense.

In video games, it is imperative to make quick decisions.  If your character's life is in danger, it is important to do something quickly!  This helps teach skills necessary for emergencies, or even driving, when split second decisions must be made.  In some video games, history is a large part of the storyline.  For example, playing Age of Empires taught me to tell the difference between different types of weapons, how structures were built, and other militaristic details of history.  Playing video games also has been proven to help train surgeons because detailed surgery necessitates very slight and controlled movements of the hands, fingers, and arms.  These all are used in video games, where smooth movements are always valued.

However, video games can become addicting, take a lot of time for no immediate real-world benefit, and take time away from other things that could potentially be more rewarding.  While there is a definite argument in the defense of gamers, do these benefits justify the time spent?

Relief for America

Upon looking at my iPod's news app last night, I was hugely relieved to see that Pastor Terry Jones wasn't going to burn the Q'rans tonight.  I read on Facebook a long conversation about the burnings and the mosque that was the cause to much indignation.  A short summary of the controversy can be found there. (click here)  In short, the Pastor claimed that the threat was only used to try to open a door to talk with the imam who was going to build the cultural center near ground zero.  While I and my facebook friends agree that it was within Pastor Jones's rights to do this, it certainly would have been a very poor choice.  As it is, the threat has incited large anti-American gatherings in Afghanistan, larger than ever before.  Pastor Jones had recieved pleas not to burn Islam's holy book many times now, and he backed down.


However, the long term affects of this man's threat, will not be as trivial as we may wish.  Because of this one man, many groups look bad.  Americans were hated more than ever in countries where Islam is the dominant religion, and I have no reason to believe this will stop.  Our troops in Afghanistan could be in more trouble and experience more violence because of the threats.  Christians have lost face, which disappoints me.  As a Christian myself, I do not want to be judged based off this one man's actions hundreds of miles away.  In a way, I believe this helps me identify with muslims.  Most are peaceful, and only a small group are violent.  In the same way, I guess Christianity has radical sects as well.

Because of all of this, many questions have been raised.  Just because we are allowed to do something by law, should we do it?  Are our rights so important that we would compromise our image locally and globally in order to exercise them?  Do we sacrifice all our rights so that our image is preserved?  Where is the line?  How could we tell if one of our actions could offend others if we never could have imagined that they would be impacted?

Video Game Craze in Japan

In American Studies, the project so far has been to research as much as we can about Mr. Bolos.  We were prepared for a different lifestyle than ours, especially after seeing the rubber mouth, but I would never have guessed that people could have a lifestyle like this!  I read an article in the Wall Street Journal today about how young men play a virtual romance video game for companionship from their Nintendo DS gaming device.  It can be found here.

I will summarize a few key points.  A whole town has been inundated with young men who play a specific virtual relationship video game.  A vacation to an in-game town is granted if the men complete certain in-game activities to make themselves more attractive to the virtual girl.  The in-game town is a real town that can be traveled to in real life, and was once a romantic hot-spot.  It has since fallen into dis-repair and doesn't attract the same tourist traffic it once did.  It is now flourishing more under the tourist traffic it gets by playing along with the fantasy world of the gamers and continuing the illusion.

I found it hard to believe that a large group of males would rely on a video game for a friend, and talk to it, monitor it, and care if the game said that it was sad.  When I read that a town was being subsisted by the gamers however, I found my opinions conflicting.  On one hand, it is very quick thinking and business savvy for the town to accomodate the new arrivals to the town, with special foods based on in-game characters, and hotels that help facilitate the illusion that the young man is on a real vacation with a real girl.  However, I find it sad that the men are so obsessed with the game, and I wonder if it would be better if the town help snap the unfortunate men out of their reverie and away from their digital girlfriend.  Which do you think is more important?  The person's life or the town?  Should anyone worry about the people?  It is their choice, right?

Who is Mr. O'Connor?

On the American Studies blog, there is a reference to "Doc OC." So, does Mr. O'Connor have a doctorate? It seems like I know so much about Mr. Bolos now, but Mr. O'Connor almost seems mysterious.