Fear in the Future: America and Guns

My history teacher Mr. Bolos presented a provocative idea about America and the fear of the future and the unknown during class this past week. A hot issue in America over the last year has been gun control, after numerous mass murderers have killed innocent civilians at schools and movie theaters (to name a few). There have been talks about stricter gun control laws in the wake of these shootings, and I believe this is attributed to a fear in America about future incidents of that magnitude.

A family mourns for victims of the Sandy Hook shooting

In reading an article by Sam Harris of The Week, he explained why he owns guns in his home and has trains "with them regularly". He further explains how while dialing 911 for the police is a legitimate mean of protection, if someone intrudes your house with the intent of harming you or your family, there is simply no plausible way for the police to arrive in time.

There is definitely some fear in the future and America in why Sam Harris has guns in his house. Also fear for the safety of his daughter in preschool. I can respect why Mr. Harris feels more comfortable in holding firearms in his household, but lost in all of the fear of mass murderers is the real reason why guns are legal in America to begin with.

It is the fear of the government holding too much power over its people. Even if Americans do not have to use their guns, the government will respect the fact that a revolt would be plausible if its people can own guns. If no guns for the people, the government would have nothing to fear.

Looking ahead, Americans have a lot to be afraid of, and so does our world as a whole. Fear is integral in a changing society however, because without it, one has no motivation to move forward and make the necessary changes.

What is your take on America and the fear of the future/unknown? Should gun laws be changed, and why would your changes be effective?

Final Essay: Blinded by the Light

Deontae Mobley looks in the mirror after having his hair cut by his father

The killing of Trayvon Martin by white shooter George Zimmerman reopened the wound of America’s history of racial violence against blacks. Photographer Lucas Jackson took a fascinating photo of Deontae Mobley, a young black man who lives in Martin’s Goldsboro neighborhood, formerly an all-black city during Jim Crow. The image shows Mobley, in focus, checking his new haircut with a small hand mirror. This photo, however, reveals how the killing of Martin shows the enduring separation of whites and blacks and the shaping force of the legacy of slavery.

The poor condition of the white building is telling of Goldsboro in general: crummy, mistreated, and forgotten. The building is run-down with a rusty roof and tiny windows closed off from the light of day. The fence in front of the building symbolizes the barriers between the races. After the Jim Crow laws cordoned off black communities such as Goldsboro, it seems some whites in Sanford, Florida, have remained unwilling to fully integrate. The building juxtaposed against green grass, which generally relates to growth, opportunity, and freedom; however, I see this grass differently. It is burnt out in patches, much like the present-day condition of blacks in neighborhoods such as Goldsboro.

The photo echoes Sanford’s contrasts between black and white. Both in the contrast between Mobley’s skin and the building and the way the light strikes him, the photo presents a world in which black and white do not mix. This is particularly the case for a young black man who could make whites fearful. This recalls the experience when Frederick Douglass remembered “that killing a slave…is not treated as a crime” (Douglass 14). Slave owners like Covey felt they needed to react with violence in order to suppress revolt amongst their slaves. Obsession with differences based just on race is echoed in the photo’s contrasts.

In the foreground, Mobley holds up a mirror and looks at it with a puzzled facial expression, as if he is deeply thinking about something. Perhaps he is looking for his identity, and the identity of African Americans in today’s society. Mobley might be seeing Trayvon in himself. It could be a realization that justice may not be served from Trayvon Martin’s family. In the Virginia Slave codes, the seventh code states, “no white person involved in such correction…shall undergo any prosecution or punishment.” The correction is referring to a slave who “dies while being corrected by his master.” Although we have equal protection under the law, Mobley may be feeling the legacy of such slave codes, as Zimmerman was not charged with the crime for weeks.

The way the light strikes Mobley’s darker skin is telling as well. He squints, suggesting the white light is hurting him. The sun is positioned behind him but reflects onto his face off of the mirror. The past of white cruelty is still present and is making Mobley, along with other blacks such as Trayvon Martin, suffer.

The feelings stimulated by this picture suggest the struggle of blacks as slaves is still a prevalent issue today. In “Frederick Douglass,” Robert Hayden pictures Douglass “visioning a world where none is lonely, hunted, alien” (Hayden). The Trayvon Martin case shows that this vision is not yet accomplished. In a world in which a young black man can be hunted and killed, Mobley must wonder who will be next. What could be more lonely and alien than that?

NFL A Gamble?

When I woke up this morning, I saw in the Chicago Tribune that former NFL linebacker Junior Seau, a perennial pro bowler and big hitter, has been diagnosed with a brain disease. Seau killed himself in May of 2012, leaving the safety and future of NFL players up in the air.

The diagnosis was chronic traumatic encepholopathy, or CTE. In an article from ABC News, it states that his wife noticed "A lot of things, towards the end of his life, patterns that we saw and things that worried us, it makes sense now." So, could Gina Seau and her family have gotten help earlier for her husband? Or, could Seau have had no head issues to begin with? Sadly, I think no. There will be head injuries in the NFL forever (most likely).

The NFL has not been secretive with the safety of their players, and they are working on improving their safety. A commercial I recently saw showed me how the game is evolving and the NFL.

One can see how the game has evolved and players have gotten bigger, faster, and stronger. The NFL needs to keep up with the evolving game of football, but like Seau's wife admits, "I think it's a gamble." I agree with her. When you get paid great money (even the minimum salary) to play football with fame and spotlight all around you, there is a risk you take with your health.

What risk regarding their health should players in the NFL have, considering they play football for their PROFESSION? Let me know.

P.S. To see a blog post Mr. Bolos, one of my teachers, posted about the NFL and concussions, click here.

NHL Lockout Ending Means Good For All

Most are probably aware of the recent NHL lockout, and how the league has been out of commission for the past couple of months. If you are not aware, it might be that you just are not the sports junky I happen to be. Regardless, bringing hockey back to the United States is a triumph and something I look forward to, even though I am not the biggest hockey fan. I am anxious for its return this weekend because I know it will offer business for sports bars and shops around the United Center (where the Chicago Blackhawks play). I read an article from the Chicago Tribune that expressed the buzz the Blackhawks are bringing back to the city and to small-business owners around town.

The return of the NHL and the Hawks can also show one how professional sports and teams in a city can be an integral part to the functionality of the economy and the people. When the team is in town, it can help businesses run and give residents events to go to in support of their city and sports team. I think having the Hawks back on the ice is exciting, and I look forward to hearing "Chelsea Dagger" play after Patrick Kane (or whoever) nets that first goal this weekend. "Here come the Hawks, the might Blackhawks!"

Redistribio's Pizza

As most Americans know, Congress recently found a temporary agreement to the imminent "fiscal cliff" debacle. In its attempt to salvage the American economy, Congress made a compromise in the form of a short-term solution, but what does that even mean for us Americans and the future of our economy?

Over break, my father showed me an op-ed by P.J. O'Rourke in The Wall Street Journal. O’Rourke, my father told me, used to be a writer for Rolling Stone magazine. Entitled "Dear Mr. President, Zero-Sum Doesn't Add Up," the opinion piece argues that redistribution of American's wealth from the richer to the poorer does not build a stronger economy. Rather than claiming that "there is only so much money," O’Rourke does not believe that America’s wealth is finite. He raises a legitimate question: why not have "more pizza parlors baking more pizzas"? That way, everyone has a stake in more pizza, or more money.

Relating this back to the fiscal cliff, I think that although the agreement is a compromise, it is not good enough.  Because of their unwillingness to cooperate, government officials on both the right and the left have contributed to America’s economic problems. Although conservatives are certainly not perfect, as their unwillingness to compromise on such areas as defense spending attests, Mr. O'Rourke raises an interesting point in his column: "The evil of zero-sum thinking and redistributive politics has nothing to do with which things are taken or to whom those things are given or what the sum of zero things is supposed to be. The evil lies in denying people the right, the means, and, indeed, the duty to make more things" [emphasis added].

Now, in my American Studies class, we were recently talking about rights and how suppressing those rights can run counter to what a country stands for. While few people will object to these tax hikes for the wealthy, I agree with Mr. O'Rourke that we must be careful to avoid “denying people the right. . . . to make more things."

So I ask you, the reader, what is your take on the recent fiscal cliff drama?

Do you agree with P.J. O'Rourke that President Obama's economic stance is redistributionist? Is the right to make things a right that America should protect?