A Hostage in Winnetka?

A few weeks ago, as us students know, there was a hostage scare in Winnetka.  A teacher was in his car listening to hip hop music, he "butt-dialed" his wife, and she called the police because she thought he was in personal danger.  That much we know.  A short article telling a little more about the situation can be read HERE.  The SWAT team was involved and lots of police.  It is over and all of the law enforcement interviewed said that it was a good exercise and practice for if such an occasion would occur for real.

However, this brings up larger questions.  The man's wife described the words she heard as garbled and, "gangster-like."  One has to wonder why the man had the music cranked up to such a high volume that she could hear the words at all, and why he was listening to that kind of music.  Clearly it was within his rights to listen to whatever kind of music he wants, but the fact remains that the music he chose scared his wife badly enough to call the police and affected the entire North Shore by having lockdowns, discussions, and more drills.  Wouldn't it be worth it to pick less offensive music, not just for others, but for your own mental health?

Meta Post

Over these past few months of blogging, I noticed some trends in my writing styles.  I have become more comfortable blogging, and my blogs are not very short yet.  In the future, I will work on bringing up topics in a succinct manner.

The biggest difference in my writing has come in my writing process.  Instead of looking for a relative news article, I choose instead to continue an in-class discussion on the blog and then find a news article that relates to it.  I comment using the author's point of view as well.  Since I don't always have many opportunities in class to voice my opinion, I enjoy being able to say my point of view on the blog and then get responses as well.  Since many topics in class are controversial, I have no problem picking a side and then continuing the discussion.

The post that generated the most comments was called, Do We Understand?  I stated a point of view that was contrary to many of the ideas that were discussed in class, and that showed through in the comments.  It turns out that I needed to revise my opinion, which I did in the comments.

Another improvement in my blogging is that recently I have not asked the reader many direct questions, but instead have left it more open ended so that they can comment at leisure.  However, I have been disappointed at my readers.  It seems that they don't visit my blog much, or don't leave comments, and I wish they would.  I try to make my blog interesting and opinionated so that they can have something to agree with or disagree with, but I haven't received many comments recently.

Adulthood. Where and How?

In class the other day, we talked about adulthood and how it seems to take longer to get there nowadays.  We read two articles which can be found HERE and HERE.  The first talks about how more people are waiting longer to get married, have kids, and even finish school.  The second is a chart showing a traditional breakdown of ages and their definitions, among other things.

In the first article, it says that some adults got married very early, and then told their kids that they should wait to get married because it is hard work and younger people aren't ready yet.  I was impressed that people had the patience to wait for the right person and circumstances for marriage.  Popular culture portrays a couple getting married as young as 21 and having a turbulent relationship afterwards.  It seems that realistically, many do have enough self-control to not get in a relationship that they will regret.

The second article shows the important issues that each age group faces.  However, how can one person define the conflicts that any other one person faces?  For many, the age ranges may not fit correctly.  There are definitely 18 year olds who do not know how to handle the pressures of school, despite being in it for so long.  In addition, there are people who are very old (80 years old and higher) who are still working and leaving a legacy for younger generations.  I think that some kids may be very advanced or pushed ahead psychosocially, and be interested in marrying at a young age, maybe as early as graduation out of high school.  How can these people fit a model?  Are they somehow unstable because they are ahead or behind the "normal" according to this chart?  Can this chart even be applicable at all?

The part that I didn't notice in either of these articles is an attempt to define adulthood.  In our class discussion, we decided that adulthood comes when a person takes on monetary and mental responsibility for their actions, choices, and lifestyle, as well as the ability to command some respect from others.  Responsibility and respect.  I can imagine that a middle-aged man would still seem childish if he didn't command respect and shoulder responsibility.  I can't imagine a middle aged woman acting that way, but I'm sure it could happen.  Can you have an adult who doesn't "act their age"?  Even if all the normal hoops are passed through, (marriage, kids, a job, buying a house, etc.) I think that a legal adult can still act childish and face the psychosocial conflicts that a 12-year-old might face.  In the same way, a person who is still very young, like Huckleberry Finn, can shoulder great responsibility and be more adult than the aforesaid example.  So, can a system be placed on these cases, or any case at all?

Science or Faith?

This weekend, my dad and I watched a very interesting movie called Contact.  It was about how a radio researcher finds evidence for life in outer space, how a signal is received from the other beings, and how she eventually travels to the other part of the universe to meet one of these other beings.  However, the irony lies in that she asks the people to believe that she actually went to space when all of the evidence from the monitors shows that she didn't go anywhere.  She is very skeptical and only believes in what she can test.  Another of the movie's characters is a religious man, who believes in things that don't necessarily have testable evidence.  Both the religious figure and the scientist ask others to believe them only on faith.

I find this topic very interesting.  The idea that at some point, science becomes almost religious is fascinating, and I found THIS article, which explains the concept very well.

The author writes that in science, the laws of physics are considered untouchable.  They are to be used, not questioned.  He writes, "Therefore, to be a scientist, you had to have faith that the universe is governed by dependable, immutable, absolute, universal, mathematical laws of an unspecified origin."  This idea is very similar to a religion, because in many religions, people have faith that an all-powerful deity of some kind presides over the universe.  This deity is to be interacted with, not questioned.  Both science and religion are based on the idea that some kind of immovable force or set of laws exists that is beyond human control.

It seems like, at many points in our lives, whether a person claims to be religious or not, a certain amount of faith is required.  The truth is, unless we have all knowledge, we will have to attempt to understand the rest on faith.

The Most Recent Threat to America: A Ham Sandwich

This week, I learned the hard way that America doesn't trifle when someone wants to go over the border with food.  Our family was in Aruba for Christmas, and on the day that my dad and I were scheduled to return to the US, we packed sandwiches.  We were going to be traveling from about 1:30 to 11:00 at night, taking two airplane rides and having a connection in the middle for two hours.  We needed food, but didn't want to pay for dinner at the airport, so we packed sandwiches.  I had ham, cheese, and salami on two sandwiches and my dad had turkey on one and ham on another.  We also packed lettuce and grapes.

In order to get on our flight, we had to pass through two security points.  One for exiting Aruba and one for entering the United States, even though we were still in Aruba.  When we got to the United States Customs counter, the agent asked us if we were bringing in any food items as part of a list of questions that they have to ask everyone.  Dad replied that we had some sandwiches.  He asked what kind of sandwiches we were bringing.  We said ham and cheese.  He replied that we couldn't bring ham into the US, and he sent us with an expert to another area, where the lady asked us again what kinds of sandwiches we had and we answered in the same way.  She explained that pork and beef products are not allowed to be brought into the United States.  We asked if we could eat the sandwiches there.

She said, "No, or else we would have everyone eating right here."  We asked if we could take the offending ham slices off the sandwich and take them with us.  She said no because the ham touched the bread already.  She confiscated our sandwiches, lettuce, grapes and left us with one sandwich, the turkey and cheese. 

Why does it matter whether we eat the sandwiches outside the sliding doors or inside?  Just 100 feet in the other direction, we could have eaten the sandwiches, but once we entered the building, we weren't allowed in.  In addition, we would have eaten the sandwiches before we entered the United States.  If the authorities were worried about diseases in the meat, well, I ate pork or beef for nearly every meal in Aruba for 5 days.  Would a few slices of ham make a difference?  For clarification on the intent of this law, I looked it up on the customs website.  The website can be found HERE.

The government is worried about diseases entering the United States.  Here's the problem.  Ham is a processed meat.  It is cured, salted, and cooked until no disease could possibly live.  In addition, I was not going to rub the ham on a pig on a farm and try to get it sick, nor was I going to plant it in the ground an hope that the 'diseases' would get into the soil.  In this circumstance, I do not understand the law.  I can see how it could be important to keep uncooked meat out of the US to prevent disease, but I didn't have a dead pig in my baggage.  Just a sandwich.

In American Studies we learned to think critically about whether laws are reasonable and how they are enforced De Juro and De Facto.  In this case, I think the law was unreasonably enforced.

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.