The Bigger Issue Behind Protest in Ferguson

After the grand jury in Ferguson, Missouri decided not to indict Michael Brown's killer, Officer Darren Wilson, one thing that grabbed my attention- apart from the massive, even destructive, protesting- was the flood of stories* I saw of police killing unarmed white people. People were posting with intent to show that the tragedy in Ferguson was not an issue of race and also not uncommon as one may think, revealed to me what I believe to be the bigger issue behind the Michael Brown killing: gun control.

The truth is that there are a similar proportion (accounting for population differences) of whites killed by police to blacks killed by police: 326 whites to 123 blacks in 2012 (The O'Reilly Factor, 2:20). This means that race is not what is causing police to kill people. Everyone is being similarly harmed. The most effective way to protect people from police violence in the future would be to take away their guns, like in countries such as Britain and New Zealand.

However, of course, that would be impossible because of the insanely high number of regular citizens that carry guns. Unarmed police would be in greater danger themselves, and, in some situations, useless in protecting others from violence. Therefore, gun control must be significantly increased for everyone, in order to begin the process towards a less violent nation. Ideally, we will live in a nation where police can assume citizens are unarmed, and citizens would never have to think of an officer using his firearm during an interaction.

Unfortunately, the main defense of guns is the fairly strong: the second amendment right, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". Guns have been engrained in our nation from the beginning. Luckily, our constitution also says that it was designed to be changed with time, both in the elastic clause and the fifth article, in order to best serve our ever-evolving country. It is called an amendment. And never has one been more called for than when guns- something legal for civilians to carry on their person- are responsible for facilitating thousands and thousands of homicides each year, over 11,000 in 2013.

By gradually decreasing the prevalence of firearms, whether it be through a strict amendment or decreasing their accessibility, hopefully police will once again be viewed as those sworn to protect, and young men such as Michael Brown will not be "legally" killed by their sidearms.




*Many stories of those who have been killed by police violence are documented on the website: www.innocentdown.org

America's Sleeping Tortoise

Courtesy of The Economist

In this week's edition of The Economist, the US capitol building was depicted as an old, sleeping tortoise with American citizens waiting while it lay motionless. It represented the extreme unproductiveness of Congress recently, that they have been pretty much doing nothing
but arguing.  The Economist article,
"Powering Down", attributes this mainly to the unprecedented (except for following the Civil War) difference between the views of the Republican and Democratic parties. And also the fact that, "over the past 20 years, the share of Americans who express consistently liberal or consistently conservative opinions has doubled, according to a study by the Pew Research Centre" (26). This combination basically means that it is harder than ever for the government to compromise (which is unfortunately essential to a functioning democracy). And subsequently, "trust in Congress has tumbled to seven percent".

However, after this recent election there is hope: Republicans have gained majority control in both the senate and the house. With greater numbers, Republicans should have an easier time passing their bills. Ideally, this should promise greater progress. But similarly to how Republicans worked against Democratic bills in the past, some rules may allow the stalemate between parties to continue, this time with the Democrats impeding things.

Republicans claiming the majority in both chambers might not be so significant due to flaws in the distribution of power within Congress. One flaw that may impede progression is a result of a "filibuster rule" in the Senate, which requires any bill to gain a 60-vote majority. This enables a group of 41 senators to "halt almost any piece of legislation". This may not seem that bad, however, the true flaw is that those senators may represent as little as eleven percent of Americans because of the equal representation that even the smallest states receive. 

Because of this, one of America's greatest treasures, its fairness, may be holding it back. When the government tries to focus on meeting everyone's views, no one's views can truly be met. Therefore, a better representation of the state of Congress may be two pick-up trucks tied together by a length of chain, constantly spinning their wheels and burning fuel in attempt to pull the other to their side. The Republican side may have appeared to gain the edge however the absurdity of this gas-guzzling tug of war may continue.

America's Obsession with the End of the World

During its season five opener, AMC's The Walking Dead attracted 17.3 million viewers, 2.5 million more than all of Sunday night football did. It is, and has been, the most popular show on cable television- yes, even more popular than Breaking Bad. It even has its very own talk show, The Talking Dead (somewhat like post-game for a football game), which immediately follows every episode. As a recent viewer, I know The Walking Dead, in addition to its popularity, is also one of the darkest, most violent shows ever.  Character are constantly dying gruesome and heart-breaking deaths, either at the bloody hands of another survivor, or a horde of the undead. Only four original characters of the total thirty something characters have lasted all five seasons without being "killed off". There appears to be little hope for the survivors as they slowly descend farther and farther from their own humanity, both physically and psychologically. So why is it America's favorite show?

According to an article in Time magazine, this newfound obsession may be a result of the media constantly feeding frightening news to people everyday, and causing people "to envision how we and our own would thrive if everything went to hell and we lost all societal supports". It suggests that Americans enjoy having a glimpse into the world that is constantly being placed in their mind by the media, with its alarming stories of anything from financial crisis to global warming, Ebola to the collapse of the U.S. power grid. Perhaps there is a sort of appeal, whether it be a comfort or an excitement, that accompanies experiencing a story of survival in a world ravaged by something far worse than viewer could ever imagine for the real world. The story of the people battling the worst of all hardship is what draws in the most, loyal fans.

If The Walking Dead is so popular truly because of the thrill of experiencing this post-apocalyptic scenario, why is it that Americans are interested in such tragedy, even considering it a form of entertainment? After all, as any viewer can tell you, the show focused on extremely unpleasant content. Is the show's popularity truly a temporary trend due to current world conflicts? Is it bound to go away as easily as trends change? Or, is this extreme type of television one to stay and evolve into the cultural norm?

"What's Dating, Grandpa?"

According to this past week's issue of Forbes magazine, Tinder is the world's hottest new app. This time, it is a dating app, and, as the name may suggest, it serves as a means through which singles can meet, and talk, flirt or even start a relationship. The basis of the app is browsing pictures of possible partners within the app users' areas and either swiping displayed profiles right for a, "yes, I'm interested" or left for a "no". When two people individually happen upon each other and both swipe right, a match is made and a chat is set up.

Tinder is the latest revolution in the transition to a socially digital world. It presents us with what may be the beginning of the digital dating explosion. According to Forbes, the app has been downloaded "40 million times" since it "relaunched in 2012". Also, "the 30 million people who have registered collectively check out 1.2 billion prospective partners daily- that's 14,000 per second". That is a lot of people looking to technology as their means of romance. But with the more than one third of all marriages starting on some form of dating website already, it is not surprising that this app so quickly rose in popularity. What is concerning is how this app may increase that figure in the future.
         
The revolutionary part of this app is that it is "digitizing how humans physically court"and making it "stunningly simple to do so via a smartphone". Tinder is not an alternative option to dating for those who have tried and failed to find their perfect match- as a dating site would be- but something openly available to everyone, everywhere, all of the time. And it is the first of its kind to offer this digitized dating experience and reach such popularity.

It has the potential to change the how singles interact with one another. Social environments may no longer be a game of men trying to impress or "pick-up" women. "Plays" and "wingmen" may be things of the past. This is possibly the begining of another technological change in human interaction. Why face the pressure of rejection or even put forth the effort to dress up when you can swipe through Tinder?

Justice for Sale

In last week's edition of The New Yorker, Rachel Aviv told the story of Sam Kellner, a jew living in Brooklyn's Hasidic neighborhood, Borough Park. The article was entitled, "The Outcast", which became an fitting descriptor of Kellner soon after he decided to take legal action against Baruch Lebovits, the man who molested his son. After he was condemned to a thirty-two year jail sentence for eight counts of sexual abuse (for several victims), the Lebovits family, a wealthy and revered rabbinic dynasty, decided to do everything in their power to get Baruch out of prison, and Kellner in prison for extortion. As a result, in the words of a Hasidic business man (who chose to remain anonymous), "Kellner [became] the prime example of 'how devastated you will be if you go against the rabbis'" (Aviv). Kelllner also experienced first hand the advantages that a more powerful individual has in America's supposedly equal justice system. 

The power of the Lebovitz family allowed them to overwhelm Kellner in court with their ability to acquire evidence and manipulate witnesses. The family hired private investigators and worked with law enforcement to find evidence against Kellner; they bugged his car, wired conversations, interrogated witnesses, and negotiated with other victims of Baruch. They had every advantage. Eventually, "Lebovits was released, after thirteen months in prison" (of his 32 year sentence) and "[Kellner] was handcuffed and escorted to Kings County Supreme Court". Kellner never spent more than two days in jail, and has not yet been convicted of any alleged extortion crimes. However, Lebovits never received the punished he deserved either.

By allowing this outcome, the justice system failed to provide Kellner with equal protection before the law. The abruptness with which the wealthier, more influential man, Lebovits was able to turn the tables on Kellner caused him to say, "'The D.A. turned against me. And no one stood up for me. . . Basically, the D.A. destroyed me.'"

What was America's Favorite Pastime

Florida Marlins' Sun Life Field During Game

When I asked my classmates at lunch today if they knew who won the World Series, none of them could even name both of the teams playing in it. Nobody had even watched a single inning. I could not be one to judge however. I wasn't sure myself. Having played baseball for ten years myself, I used to have such passion for the game that I could recite my favorite teams' batting orders from memory. What happened? I couldn't help but wonder why none of us high school athletes knew anything current about the baseball league that was once unquestionably the center of the American sports culture. The answer that I, and almost everyone else, comes up with is that, baseball simply cannot compete with sports such as basketball and football, the current reigning king of the sports industry. Americans' affinity for violent, fast-paced action puts baseball in an entirely different ball game. Football crushes baseball in television's Nielsen rating and even the NBA nearly doubles that of baseball.

Baseball is naturally at a disadvantage to football. In his New York Times article, "Is the Game Over?",  Jonathan Mahler, argues that football is simply "louder, faster and more violent", and therefore more "in tune with our cultural moment". According to Daniel Okrent, the founder of fantasy baseball, "we are a shouting culture now, shouting connotes and engenders excitement. Baseball is quiet and slow.” So baseball no longer fits into our culture. Being a sport placing a lot of value in tradition, maybe baseball has failed to evolve with our  culture. Or maybe, as Mahler implies, this is only a moment in our culture, a trend where football, the action based sport, outperforms baseball. 

I wonder what events or changes are actually causing this cultural shift towards a predominantly football loving society. What has changed since baseball's so called golden era, the 50's and 60's, until now that has caused baseball to decline in popularity relatives to other sports?