A year ago, David Loftus and Ryan John shared with us their hope for what 2010 would bring. I think it's fitting to look back on what they wrote then, knowing now how the year played out.
Ryan John:
What is my hope for 2010? Wow, I have a lot of hopes for next year and most of them I don’t even know exist yet. I mean all my life I’ve always have the same big picture, life hopes I dream one day will work out. But the small hopes change too rapidly and spontaneously for me to even think about. The small ones hit me first thing in the morning as soon as I wake up. These are the routine things I’ll always hope for that either stems from my mood that minute or my immediate agenda, like getting out of bed on time to making it into work when I’m supposed to.
Than, throughout the normal course of the day, as usual, I’ll put some sort of effort into hoping things go the way I want at that point in time. Some days in 2010, my small hope will be to surf the net, daydream about whatever pops in my brain and not really be held accountable for and real, substantial productivity. These are the days in 2010 when I need my big, life hopes to come in and override those little variable, sometimes detrimental hopes.
My personal hope for 2010 is to spend less time hoping and more time resolving. Starting to resolve those burning things inside of me I know I’m capable of. Small steps towards that direction can take me down the road I know I want to be on. I need those big hopes in my life to become more of a reality and less of a daydream. Hope is given me too much of a safety net I guess. I’m not getting any younger. My hope for 2010 is more resolve.
David Loftus:
I suppose I could hope for something really wonderful and earth-shaking (in human terms, anyway) like an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a world treaty to stop the production of greenhouse gases, or a dependable alternative energy source that replaces petroleum, but none of those seems to be within the realm of possibility within the next year. There are also things I wish to achieve personally in 2010, but those are mostly in my hands; I regard them as closer to plans than hopes.
So my hope is that most Americans will clear up their consumer debt and stop buying things they don’t really need, especially on credit. In the past, about 70 percent of the Gross Domestic Product has depended on consumer spending, but we have to stop measuring economic health this way. It’s become a big, unending, breakneck cycle of production and consumption, mostly for their own sake. One of the great ironies of the past half-century is that corporate America has managed to sell the notion that spending money is an expression of freedom . . . so that citizens overspend on credit, and succeed in losing their freedom to banks, lending companies, and sometimes even the sheriff.
If Americans were to break out of that rut, they would discover subtle but deep psychological and spiritual rewards. Once free of the accumulation-of-debt-in-order-to-keep-consuming cycle, fewer folks would feel tied down to their particular jobs. They’d be more likely to devote their energies to activities -- even work -- that they love, less likely to cling to neglectful and abusive partners, more likely to spend time with their children, and less likely to turn to drugs (from aspirin and shopping and television to alcohol and heroin) in order to get by. And little by little, the world will become a better, happier place. That’s my hope, anyway.
On behalf of everyone at AMERICAN CURRENTS, have a happy and healthy New Year!
When freshman Dharun Ravi and his lady friend set up the web cam on Tyler Clementi's laptop in Rutgers this month, I'm sure they didn't anticipate Clementi jumping off the GW Bridge. But, what did they expect? They expected to extremely expose Clementi's most hidden secret to willing viewers in an effort to achieve some short lived Internet fame that would increase their popularity around a very large and intimating college campus.
Ravi probably assumed maybe a few Rutgers students would take his Twitter advice and log into iChat to view the video and like wild fire the video would spread to hundreds of Rutgers students before making it's way to the rest of the world. Ravi's name would be attached to this video as the funnyman prankster who caught his roommate in the act. How hilarious, right? A great way to kick off his freshman year!
One of my favorite guilty pleasures is scouring Youtube watching the widest range of videos the site has to offer. And I figured out why. I am obsessed with reality. I'm obsessed with figuring out the world through analyzing real people and situations... what people are really thinking or what happens when someone is caught off guard. That is the type of video I really enjoy- Basically people's candid reactions when they believe no one is watching.
The barrier to this is that most people put on a show in front of other people. They go by the character that they want the world to know them by and their lines are almost rehearsed like that of an actor. But when individuals are given an opportunity to watch other peoples real selves in action, it reminds us of our own imperfect selves and we feel comforted to know that we are not alone in our human imperfection.
Hence the unquenchable thirst for reality television. But lets not get it confused. The reality television of 2010 isn't what first caught our eye back in the days of America's Funniest Video's and Cops. It has turned into a scripted reality that shows what people might do for money, but I guess the majority of people fall for it.
If I could have one wish, it would probably be to be invisible so that I could figure out the world little by little. The Internet is a gateway to figuring out the world. I think we all have that desire to be invisible and a computer screen is often the projection of what that invisible eye picks up.
These moments of candor expose other peoples humanity. Ravi probably felt better about himself and his human flaw because he was exposing something he thought was humiliating about another. It just so happens we all have that personal need for comfort and when someone or something can make us feel better about it, we'll entertain it. There is strength in numbers. The people watching that video are the equivalent to the kids on the playground laughing and pointing when a bully beats up a "wimp."
With the internet, the bully doesn't have to be the biggest kid on the playground. With the internet, Ravi was able to bully Clementi to this extent. But without the internet, this story probably wouldn't have the reach that is has and perhaps the lesson learned wouldn't be to so many people.
Last year at Eastern Michigan University (EMU), a school counselor named Julea Ward was expelled from her counseling duties after refusing to counsel a homosexual student on his relationship difficulties.
Ward refused to counsel the student on the basis of religious conviction and recommended the student see another counselor. Following her expulsion from the university, she filed a federal lawsuit against EMU which claimed her First Amendment right to freedom of religion had been violated. In late July, a judge ruled in favor of EMU’s claim that its school counseling curriculum adhered to the American Counseling Association’s Code of Ethics which mandates “professional neutrality and a strict non-discrimination policy.”
In Georgia, former Augusta State University (ASU) student Jennifer Keeton, a student in the school counselor masters program, filed a federal lawsuit against ASU, claiming staff had required her to accept homosexuality or be expelled from the school’s masters program. Keeton was assigned remediation assignments from faculty that were designed to increase her sensitivity toward the gay community.
Suspicion arose based on her class writings and discussions concerning homosexual topics. Failure to complete these required tasks would lead to Keeton’s dismissal from the graduate program. After first agreeing to it, she reneged and stated the University’s assignments were aimed at making her accept such homosexuality in contradiction to her religious beliefs. Keeton lost her legal battle recently when U.S. District Judge Randal Hall dismissed her case.
I applaud ASU’s proactive approach in assigning Keeton tasks that would test her flexibility with the gay and lesbian community after hearing her respond negatively on such issues in her class discussions and writings. Perhaps ASU and other school counseling programs could “nip it in the bud” even earlier on the application for admission into the school counselors graduate program.
I atttended a conservative Catholic college. I interviewed our director of counseling for a class I was taking. A self-confessed liberal, he told me he almost hadn’t gotten the job because he exposed some “liberal tendencies” when faced with a question about how he would handle a pregnant student.
I wonder how Ward was even hired in the first place at a gay-friendly institution like EMU. I suppose I can see how a job applicant wouldn’t be familiar with the campus culture prior to experiencing it first-hand, even though such familiarity should be an integral piece of the interview preparation process. But, as EMU values its gay-friendly atmosphere, as my institution values its Catholic beliefs, they should have raised hypothetical questions during the interview process to gauge where Ward stood on these important issues. Kudos to my school for hiring our director of counseling forty years ago, despite his honest expression of some fundamental religious differences.
As a graduate student in a school counseling program myself, I believe that remaining non-biased, non-judgmental, and client-centered should take precedence. The only book a counselor should be devoted to is the American Counseling Association’s Code of Ethics.
A while back I wrote a blog commentary about how amazed I was about the plans to build a mosque at Ground Zero.
This week I was equally amazed when Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam leading the effort to build the mosque, stated that if the location was moved away from the intended site, violence would erupt. Rauf told CNN: “The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack.”
I grew up in a relatively peaceful American era, considering our war-stricken past. However, I always wondered how the country could get to a place where civil war was likely, or a world war was on the brink. I can understand both now, particularly a civil war and here’s why: Let’s say…
1)Florida pastor Terry Jones goes through with plans to burn Korans on 9/11 anniversary.
2)The White house and military make continued public stance against this church’s plans and clearly express their opposition.
3)Muslims protest the Qur'an burning and violence occurs on American soil, furthering tensions between Muslims and Americans.
4)Since the White house already sided against Qur'an burners, all legal support goes to Muslims and angry American protestors bear the brunt of legal action.
5)Other radical Christian groups from all over the U.S. join in support of this Florida church, defending their right to freedom of speech and stating that if Muslims can practice freedom of religion, why can’t we practice freedom of speech no matter how offensive it may be.
6)Angry, patriotic Americans watch as the same government that supports Muslims’ freedom of religion by building the mosque is blatantly ignoring American citizens’ right to freedom of speech, and get fed up. They form militias throughout the country to fight not only Muslim groups, but our own military.
7)The extremes will recruit the moderate centrists from both sides as violence escalates to war level.
I agree with Sarah Palin, who said the Qur'an burning is insensitive in the same way that building a mosque at Ground Zero is insensitive. The American people are told to be tolerant as Islam practices an American right to freedom of religion, but the American government and media can’t ask Muslims to keep the peace as group of 50 Christian radicals do something … well, radical yet consistent with the American right to freedom of speech?
Meanwhile, General Patraeus is concerned about how this Qur'an burning image will conflict with Muslim morale in the U.S. and overseas. Why isn’t a similar concern for American troop morale expressed with the images of a mosque being built blocks away from ground zero? But the troops are so loyal to their commander that they hardly question it and support whatever effort is in put in front of them.
The United States government needs to be consistent in its stances. They can ask Americans to peacefully allow a mosque to be built, but cannot ask the Muslim community to remain peaceful throughout some American stupidity? Why not just ask the Muslims to peacefully allow a boneheaded demonstration of free speech?
It is religious radicalness from this Florida pastor, BUT I can see how fringe, apathetic Christian Americans could take up with his cause if Muslims are freely revolting with support from our own government. That’s how I can envision a modern day Civil War.
Imagine a company that is able to sell all the material you’ve ever put in e-mail or Google, blogged or commented in response to someone else’s blog, posted on MySpace, Facebook, dating sites, or special interest groups, weird chat forums, or whatever Internet site you frequent. Imagine that one or more companies owned the rights to all that information for nearly everyone in the country. Let’s say that for a fee, they might sell it to anyone interested in viewing all that content, for whatever reason. Would there be a market if a company could do so? Probably. Needless to say, we’d be totally exposed and things we thought were personal would suddenly be available to anyone willing to pay to see them.
How would this come about, you ask?If cyberspace threats continue to mount, the government will eventually control all Internet content by way of security intervention. Already, the National Security Agency is investing $100 million in a program called “Perfect Citizen” to detect cyber assaults on private companies and government agencies that run such critical infrastructure. It makes sense to start with the energy and utility companies that control our infrastructure, but it will eventually lead to an increasing number of private companies relinquishing control, all in the name of patriotism and national security. If there is one thing that both sides can agree on, it’s that the government should control national security. Soon the government will encourage companies to encourage their access, ultimately leading to almost universal government control in the public and private sectors.
There are theorists who believe we are advancing in technology to create one giant brain-like, super-organism amongst all human beings webbed through the Internet. It is, after all, a “world-wide web.” Although individuals may have a hard time recognizing this hyper-interconnectivity as it’s happening, someone from the outside -- say, outer space -- can certainly perceive the evidence if our connectivity is observed on a macro level. Perhaps it’s the intelligent next phase of the evolutionary process.
There is a strong argument to be made that Internet activity encourages a short attention span, which could arguably lead loss of concentration, which is ultimately bad for the individual. I would say that’s probably true. However, the Internet undoubtedly collects and connects group thought which is ultimately good for the birth and sustainability of group consciousness. Sure, the average visit for two hundred people a week to americancurrents.com might be less than a minute, but we represent a minute fragment of the technological consciousness, considering all that is out there. Perhaps through the cognitive convergence in technology, we’re creating an environment where honest communication amongst humans is almost forced. Joe Rogan is the guy who introduced me to this concept, and I’m finding that it is shared by others, including Kevin Kelly, who wrote the book What Technology Wants. Both predict a very slow, yet inevitable collective dependence.
So beware of what we’re doing out there. I know we’re mostly all pretty normal, but how comfortable would we be if all our technological communication were made public for anyone to read? If you say pretty comfortable, you’re leading the evolution.
A company that could make it all known, however, will probably get those who are currently lagging behind, up to speed.
An interesting discovery was made in Afghanistan this week. Or perhaps I should say an interesting discovery in Afghanistan was announced this week? I think this is huge! I mean, could it get any easier for conspiracy theorist? After close to ten years of occupation, without capture of the main culprit in the attacks on 9/11, we discovered a trillion dollars in minerals in a country we were assured in 2008 by the campaigning President-to-be, was the better of the two wars to be fought. He increased our troop presence late last year. We didn’t find WMDs in Iraq, but we did topple Saddam and removed a threat. We didn’t catch Bin Laden in Afghanistan, but we found a trillion dollars.
This is making the blogosphere go wild. Some are saying this was the reason we initially invaded Afghanistan in 2001. Others conclude that whatever country has the capital stability to sponsor such mining will profit immensely. Will Halliburton get a no-bid contract? Although some people swear on it, I find it that too unbelievable. I do believe, however, that the money gained will eventually boost the Afghanistan economy only as a byproduct of our gains.
The U.S. Geological Survey and the Navy concluded in a 2007 report that “Afghanistan has significant amounts of undiscovered non-fuel mineral resources.” I’m sure this wasn’t news to many. But the fact that, all of the sudden, the United States happens across one of the largest mineral deposits in the world is fascinating. Maybe we’ll engage in conflict over ownership with say, Russia, who apparently discovered it first when the Soviets invaded almost 20 years ago. Maybe the spoils will propel the battery-powered transportation we need to eliminate our oil dependency, and that use alone will win over war support from the American people. Plus we’re in some serous debt that huge mineral deposits could ease; that alone might be enough to boost morale.
But maybe in the same fashion we tried to promote the war against Iraq by “sprinkling democracy dust” all over (as Bill Maher amusingly puts it), we’ll promote a righteous cause with the mineral issue. The United States, through control of mining, will impose fair practices and orderly removal and distribution of the minerals. If anyone else takes over, it will threaten American interests with forces that are erratic, corrupt, and a threat to the rest of the world.
I’m glad we received some good news for a change. But the potential for a fight between China and Iran over the goods scares me.
Picture this scenario: The most powerful people in the world, also affectionately known as the Global Elite, are meeting right now in Barcelona, Spain for their annual conference, known as Bilderberg, from June 4-10like they have for more than fifty years. Kind of sounds like something out of a comic book, if you ask me. But it’s a reality and it’s a reality that doesn’t get much attention in the mainstream media.
Since 1954 world leaders in government, media, and commerce have met every year to discuss important world issues. This year’s topics include the future of the European Union, the US troop presence in Afghanistan, the collapse of the United States dollar, the Iranian and Russian alliance, and Japan’s economy, to name a few. According to some, this meeting is setting the stage for world government, with the slow but deliberate merger of European powers and the Anglo establishment of the United States and England. In 2008 Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama were attendees.
Now, I am fascinated by conspiracy theories and those who perpetuate them. Alex Jones is the most prominent spokesperson for conspiracy theories and often my go-to guy. If he says it, you can believe others are following right behind him. He is totally convinced there is a secret world conspiracy working toward global governance and the transformation into a New World Order.
Analyzing politics is a funny thing for me. The highest person I know in politics is a county commissioner in Pennsylvania. He may not even know my name, come to think of it. So I have nothing but an outrageous curiosity, the Internet, and a gut feeling that I know how things work -- a totally false sense, perhaps, but a sense I believe nevertheless. I think the Republicans and Democrats work for the same machine and each party respectively plays its part to advance whatever agenda this country sets forth. I don’t believe the country’s agenda is set by President and an administration that comes and goes every 4 to 8 years. Absolutely not. I think those gentlemen are essentially figureheads for someone or something bigger that the American people don’t see and hear.
Maybe I give people too much credit. But I can’t believe George W. Bush invaded Iraq and toppled Sadam with no reason other than the possible possession of WMDs that were eventually unfounded. “Whoops, my bad,” we were told. I didn’t buy it. Although W. has a hard time putting sentences together, it’s not because he’s dumb. It’s because he has to watch what he says. If the man could speak from the gut all the time, he’d be engaging and enlightening I’m sure. But he can’t. We are not kept informed by the government or the media. My gut tells me we are those prisoners trapped in the cave in Plato’s famous allegory. We aren’t given the truth. Rather, we’re given whatever images that Somebody Unidentified wants us to see. The global elite, possibly? I don’t know. But with the convenience of the Internet, we’re getting more and more of our fellow prisoners feverishly trying to tell us what we don’t know or can’t see. And when I hear these things, it makes more sense than what I see on the 6 o’clock news.
The Pennsylvania Senate campaign has gotten pretty interesting. First of all, it was surprising that Arlen Specter wanted another term after 44 years as a Senator. At 80, he’s pretty old, has battled cancer, and has taken enough criticism and praise during his public service to last ten lifetimes. I would think he might have wanted to enjoy his old age and success for a while. But apparently he wanted it so bad that he was willing to change his political affiliation again (he switched from Democrat to Republican while running for district attorney of Philadelphia in 1965, and then back to a Democrat last year) just for another potential term. He seriously jeopardized his political legacy in the process. Even though he received the White House endorsement, he still went on to lose last month.
There was a lot of buzz surrounding his primary opponent, Democrat Joe Sestak, whose navy career was called into question by the Specter camp. Sestak claimed to have received a job offer from the White House in exchange for agreeing not to run against fellow Democrat Specter in the primary. Sestak used the potential White House controversy to his advantage and went on to beat the veteran Senator.
Now people want to know the “who, what, where, when, and why” of the White House job offer. The people of Pennsylvania are rightly wondering about Sestak’s integrity before they go into the voting booth in November. And the American people should be interested to know their federal government may be secretly using such tactics to cherry-pick Senators. This is something that can’t be talked out or dismissed by, say, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs (shown above), who denies all these claims. Either Sestak fabricated the job offer to reclaim an honorable image that was potentially damaged over his Navy discharge; or the White House staff is trying to pull some strings they shouldn’t be pulling.
And was that part of the deal when Specter supported Obama’s stimulus package in 2008? We’ll never know if Specter was being an Obama puppet to gain his endorsement, but at least we should know if a job offer was made to Sestak. If it was, we have a serious problem in the White House when a man whose main campaign theme was Change is digging the political-credibility hole even deeper. My guess is, from now until November, this controversy will continue to brew, but that Sestak will not provide any further information regarding the alleged White House job offer and ultimate damage his credibility. Therefore he’ll lose in November to the very conservative, standing-to-the-right-of-Rick-Santorum, Republican Pat Toomey.
When I heard they were considering building a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero, I think at first I just dismissed it. I probably heard it, but I didn’t really look into it because I think I considered it nothing more than an inconsequential, exaggerated headline on some cable news show that was only used to get my attention.
I really couldn’t believe when I read that a New York City community board agreed to build a mosque and cultural learning center in an old Burlington Coat Factory two blocks from Ground Zero. The argument being made by mosque supporters is that a mosque presence reminds everyone that the true nature of Islam, which condemns the 9/11 attacks and fundamentally rejects the actions of the terrorist group that took down the World Trade Center, is of tolerance. Others argue that it is within historic Islamic culture, considered a sign of dominance or victory for Muslims when a mosque is erected at a particular location. I can’t help but agree with them regarding victory and dominance.
The attacks on 9/11 were considered acts from Islamic extremists over our occupancy in their holy land. It just seems far too ironic that a mosque is about to be placed on the American site where these hijackers are considered martyrs by other extremists in their religion. I’d venture to say that the majority of the 3,000+ people that died on 9/11 were Jews and Christians. Maybe a small percentage were Muslim. If America and our capitalistic values are sacred to us, then that location near Ground Zero is sacred ground.
The attack on the towers, and their collapse, was an attack on our national principles, specifically our military and economic ambitions. These hijackers weren’t political extremists. They were religious extremists. The literal translation of Islam is said to be submission. That a New York City community group agreed to place a mosque so close to the World Trade Center cite for any reason is what I call an American submission.
It’s ironic that the policy Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan publicly refuted at Harvard will be the same concept that will get her elected to the highest court in the next couple of months. The Kagan nomination from President Obama creates an interesting dilemma. Biden set the tone when he supported Obama’s choice Tuesday while regurgitating the same talking points about Kagan she has during her career. But regarding her sexuality, I think Kagan is simply not telling, because nobody is asking. I think she has been a very strategic lesbian academic with political ambition who didn’t make her sexual orientation known because of its potential to be used against her.
I’m pretty convinced she is a closeted lesbian, but I don’t doubt that she supports the military. It’s the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that had her so fired up at Harvard. I still think that a truly patriotic person wouldn’t sacrifice military recruits just to show her disapproval with “don’t ask, don’t tell.” But hopefully that will be brought up at the hearings.
This leads me to question whether her sexual orientation should continue to be the non-issue it has been. We’re sure she is going to be super supportive of any gay legislation that comes up, but will she ever announce a girlfriend in the years to come? If so, by that time she’ll be on the Supreme Court for life. But will it be worthy of criticism then because of her lack of disclosure during her hearings in 2010? My guess is she’ll skate around that issue by saying, “well, I was never asked so therefore I didn’t lie.” By that time everyone will be too busy touting the historical significance of the first gay judge to sit on the highest court.
Then, I believe we’ll see a true victory for the gay and lesbian movement as democratic politicians reap the benefits from the typically financially well-off homosexual base. I mean geez, in Philadelphia one representative was “outed straight” by the lesbian incumbent who accused the young single guy trying to represent a predominately gay section of the city, of only saying he was a bisexual to win over the gay vote. Should Kagan’s sexual orientation be questioned during her confirmation? Yes. But it would have to be done by a Senator ready to commit political suicide.
Late last week Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens announced his retirement. Justice Stevens was nominated by Republican President Gerald Ford, however, he has been a strong liberal voice on the court.
Republicans have warned President Obama that should he nominate a justice "too liberal" they will make it a "whale of a fight." With all of the political capital expended to pass the health care reform bill just last month, should President Obama heed the Republican's warning?
Scott Hinkley:
I am very pleased that Justice Stevens is seizing this opportunity to help re-shape the direction of the Supreme Court. I am sure that he has been frustrated by the conservative and compassionless views taken by his adversaries throughout his tenure, and I have no doubts that he has felt the push from corporations who have gutted the Republican party, driving the court further into the pockets of the few at the price of the freedom of the many.
I think that Obama has every right to press back against the cronyism George W. ushered back into the American psyche. Furthermore, the unwaveringly contrary stance taken by the leaders (and wannabe leaders) of the Republican party is only serving to undermine the legitimacy of their opposition.
Let me pause for a moment and say how sad I am that there is almost no way to criticize the small-mindedness of the pirates currently looting conservative American values without seeming like the criticism also includes the values these despicable people hide behind.
I am all for fiscal-conservatism. I am all for protecting our country. I respect the power of faith and the singular value of family and community. Where are the leaders who act, rather than preach, these things? All I see are rich men spending other people's money and laughing all the way to the bank. $1.3 Million squandered on House Speaker Ray Sansom alone.
I encourage President Obama to continue to press ahead, regardless of the threats and hyperbole. Thanks to Justice Stevens for recognizing the singular power of his timing.
Ryan John:
President Obama hasn’t been very afraid to instigate criticism from the right so far in his term. Therefore, I don’t think he feels any pressure to appeal to congrassional republicans in any way with his second Supreme Court nomination.
He already offended republican Supreme Court advocates when he apologetically condemned the Supreme Courts decision to allow big corporations to spend without regulation during elections, when he delivered this years State of the Union. Instead of nominating a moderate to appease the right, I think he’ll nominate someone just as liberal as Justice Paul Stevens.
With approval ratings in jeopardy, I think Obama will use this nomination as his time to please his liberal base while propelling the liberal agenda set forth in his 2008 campaign. No matter what he does, Obama doesn’t stand much chance of bringing republicans on his side. He can, however, bring back some democrats, mostly progressives who vote according to wedge, social issues.
When Obama nominates another liberal to the Supreme Court, whoever it is better be ready to fight. It also has to be someone with little or no baggage. Some are speculating Hilary Clinton. She is on Obama’s “short list” of possibilities. I think it will be the left leaning former Georgia Supreme Court chief justice Leah Ward Sears, making her the first African American woman to sit on the court.
Over the past year, “flash mobs” have popped up as a way for large groups to meet up via social networks They have taken to Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, and texting to organize everything from mass snowball fights to a giant dance tribute after the death of Michael Jackson. In Philadelphia, however, the flash mob phenomenon has taken a decidedly violent turn.
Today we asked our panel what they think causes groups of teenagers to turn violent. After reading their opinions, share your thoughts by leaving a comment.
RYAN JOHN:
For the un-evolved mind, beating someone up is the same as getting an A on a paper to the intellectual mind. Although it doesn't take much to beat someone up with the help of four or five other people, there is still that feeling of dominance and superiority an ignorant person gets. Now, when professional fighters fight other professional fighters one on one, like boxing or MMA, its a science that involves skill, mental and physical dedication and I admire the guys who can do this. The physical jousting of two trained fighter is just as impressive to me to watch as two minds debating the meaning of life.
However, when you see the sometimes violent result of these flash mobs and other vicious beating as showcased on the internet, it's human behavior at it's worst. I haven't encountered these flash mobs in Philadelphia, but It infuriates me to think about the victimization of innocent people and business owners from some kids who have nothing better to do.
So, here we go again with the never ending question any social ill prompts. Who do we blame? Is it the public schools, social networking sites, or the rec centers for not having enough weekend programs? Consumers should suffer from the jacked up prices of business owners so we can tax them more to create more social programs so these kids will have something to do. I kid, of course. It's the kids faults for participating in this and the parents who don't care enough to stop it. Pay attention! If your son or daughter shows signs of being involved in this type of stuff, don't let them out of the house.
If these kids want to congregate all throughout the city wreaking havoc on who or whatever they want, they should be prepared to suffer the consequences. The mayor of Philly and police commissioner have taken a pretty tough stance on this, but if the problem persists, bring in the national guard and start using violence on these kids if you have to. I can see it now. Somebody is going to get in trouble for using excessive force on one of these kids and that will create another issue on top of the one at hand. However it's dealt with, it needs to stop. Innocent people shouldn't have to suffer if they want to enjoy the city streets on a nice spring weekend they look forward to all week.
SCOTT HINKLEY:
It is difficult for me to say what drives teens to violence, as I was never much for violence when I was a teenager, but I can certainly look to the usual culprits: a desire to have impact on your own life, boredom, revenge, angst. The first thing people seem to say when they hear of youth violence is "where were their parents?" I would guess that in many cases the answer is working, or caring for other younger children. I think the important aspect of this story is to look at the ways young people are using technology to leave their parents out of their decisions. I am reminded of the poor girl in Massachusetts who hung herself recently in response to bullying, much of which took place on social sites. I think the double importance here is that parents are pretty much absent from their children's on-line activities, and that the results of these activities have very real, physical, consequences.
I think it is important for parents to step up and guide their child's life on-line as well as off, but I am doubtful that there is much guidance to be had. It seem unlikely that there is much wisdom in how to conduct yourself with respect, especially with adults using on-line persona to live out all the devious and deceitful things they are too ashamed to be associated with directly. Social networks are here to say, and trying to control behavior through restrictions to these sites seems about as misguided as closing the mall to stop truancy. We need to begin to accept that communication is power, and we better respect that power, or our voices will quickly be drowned out by those looking to have their say for the first time.
ROSEANNE FRANGIONE:
While reading about the flash mobs in Philadelphia as well as the television news coverage, my first question is, “Where are the parents?” As the mother of two young boys, I am always aware of where they are and what they are doing. Of course, my children aren't teenages, however I have no plans to stop parenting when my boys become older. It may not be easy to handle children as they grow into teens, but it is still the job of a parent to guard and to guide, to love and to teach, and to lead by example. However, even with all the love and guidance a parent can give, there must be social outlets for teenagers.
Ryan and Nikki are both contributors for American Currents who are from Philadelphia. I'd like to ask them both if they are aware of any programs in Philadelphia for teens. What kind of resourceful recreation is available for the kids in the city? Fortunately for the teens my area, Tampa Bay is a year round tourist spot which enables many of them to have part time jobs after school and in the summer. There are also many youth groups and teen clubs around Tampa Bay to keep kids active and off the streets. To me, it seems as though the youth of Philadelphia have become bored and reckless, which sadly is leading to violence.
May I suggest to Philadelphia's Mayor Nutter that he look into expanding teen-related activities before being so quick to condemn and persecute his city's next generation.
DAVID LOFTUS:
“Flash mobs” are expressions of a confluence of basic human needs: for getting together with others, for escape from solitariness and boredom, for power and its expression. There’s nothing inherently dangerous in them, but when they’re not particularly well organized -- when they’re largely spontaneous -- they can bring together a volatile combination of a few people with dangerous ideas and many other followers who feel safely anonymous while committing unlawful or unethical acts.
I don’t think it’s the youth of the participants that makes a mob inherently unstable. Though there is undeniably such a thing as testosterone-overdosed teenage males (which also finds expression in extreme sports, fights organized and unplanned, gang violence, and speeding tickets), on the other hand the mobs of Nazi Germany were mostly composed of grownups.
I haven’t seen a close examination of the kids who participate in the rowdier, more violent mobs, but I have to suspect many of them are no longer under the control of adults in any case. They’re either out of high school by virtue of their age, or they’ve dropped out and/or left home anyway. God knows there are plenty of families where there hasn’t been sufficient or proper adult supervision of the children, but somehow I suspect that’s not the problem here. There’s really not much society can do except make sure law enforcement responds quickly and firmly when these things start to gather steam.
As the government continues working on the 2010 Census, some Americans are suspicious about filling out the forms the have received. Some have privacy concerns, others feel it is not important.
Today we asked our contributors if the plan on participating in the census, and if they have any concerns about being counted. After reading their opinions, join the conversation by leaving a comment.
JEFF WEISS:
I find it silly that people would not want to be counted in the United States Census. First and foremost, I can't think of any reasons why anyone wouldn't want to be counted. I can, however, think of plenty of reasons why everyone needs to be counted.
For starters, the census directly affects funding for communities. The government allocates hundreds of billions of dollars each year to individual communities for education, road improvement, public health, transportation and more. The census data is used to establish state legislative districts and determine the number of seats each states has in the U.S. House of Representatives. Census numbers are used to determine the amount of federal assistance areas receive in the event of a disaster. And let's not forget another important reason: all census information is completely confidential.
If you haven't filled out your census form and returned it, do it today.
RYAN JOHN:
For anyone who didn't know this, the 2010 census has a great website and a very citizen friendly approach to it's information. The director of the 2010 census, Robert M. Groves , keeps a routine blog where he discusses all things census including myths to ease our apprehension. I learned a lot from this website and was really happy to see the federal government taking this approach to educate us, as opposed to having a mandatory, punitive tone.
Turns out, this isn't a modern exercise in big government. It was ran by the federal government since 1790 and the line of questioning is very similar to that of the founding fathers. Now, what their true intentions were, I guess we'll never know for sure. But it's sold as a tool to determine the number of seats your state will hold in the House of Representatives. Therefore, even though it's a federal government plan, state officials should encourage participation to ensure maximum representation in congress. Plus, it a rather expensive cost for tax payers so delaying the process only costs fellow citizens more money.
I'm not worried about it. Maybe it's because I saw the website. Or maybe it's because I have nothing to hide. I mean come on- We shop and pay bills online, Google whatever our private minds inspire, share photos and personal information with our friends through social networking, blog and whatever else technology allows. I sacrificed privacy for convenience a long time ago.
SHAUN HAUTLY:
I had an opportunity to talk with census officials back in September and they told me about some of the reasons for the census and how it's used. One notable fact was that for every 100 people in my county that down turn it in, we lose about $10,000 of federal funding. That's our schools, our police force, etc. It seemed like taking the 4 minutes to fill it out was worth it.
As far as people being concerned about security, they need to stop being so paranoid. The only questions on it are about your age, whether or not you own your home, and if you're white or not. For all I care, they can tell that information to the Taliban. It's clearly important or the government wouldn't spend the millions of dollars on the coordination and collection of data from EVERY individual.
I know this isn't that long of a piece, but this isn't that complicated of a situation. Part of being an American is taxes, fireworks, and filling out the census. Security? Not really an issue. Unless someone is dumb enough to write their credit card information on the form for some reason, it shouldn't matter. Just go fill it out and complain about health care for now.
DAVID LOFTUS:
In 2000 I filled out the extended U.S. Census form. If I remember correctly, it was five or six pages with dozens of questions, and I enjoyed answering them all. This year my wife and I only received the basic ten-question form. We’ve already filled it out and sent it off.
It’s just another symptom of the silly, ignorant paranoia of too many American citizens (or perhaps the bill of goods they’ve been sold by conservative and Libertarian commentators about “government intrusion”), that some are loathe to complete and return the form. Dozens of Web sites urge people not to do it. Libertarians call it an invasion of privacy. Others are offended by the racial and ethnic classifications delineated on the form. Still others are afraid the census is another tool for the government to pursue nefarious ends, such as deportation or tax liens. A staff member of the large law firm I was doing some temp work for last week sent around in-house email asking whether we were required by law to answer all the questions because she was uncomfortable releasing her Social Security and telephone numbers. (An attorney laconically answered that the law requires all the questions to be answered.)
The Census Bureau assures us that it does not share the information it collects with either the IRS or the Immigration Service. And really, if such were not the case, do you think there would be no complaints? That they would be able to hide the fact? Census workers are bound by law and oath not to reveal the personal information they gather. Besides, don’t we freely hand out credit card information on the Web all the time? If someone were really out to get us, he or she could probably find out a lot more just by some concerted Internet surfing. Just like working-class Americans regularly get suckered into voting for conservative candidates whose economic policies end up hurting them the most, the people who seem the most nervous about the Census -- immigrants, racial minorities, and other unusual ingredients of the Great American Melting Pot -- are the ones who stand to gain the most if they participate. As called for in the U.S. Constitution, Census Bureau info is collected specifically to allocate apportionment of Congressional seats, and to guide Congress and other government agencies on where to allocate funding for education, jobs, and other vital functions. If you go uncounted, you could be underrepresented and under-served by the government.
If you're like me, the worst thing about getting a new job, besides warming up to your coworkers, is the HR stuff you have to go through. I never know what type of coverage to get, I hate trying to figure out what retirement strategy is right for me and I usually just cross my fingers and sign. Of course the responsible thing to do is to actually read the boring information regarding health coverage and choose one that actually makes sense for me. But, that's why I stopped taking MBA classes. i find that stuff utterly dry and boring. I'd rather just ask the HR lady which one most people in my situation go with. Trust me, I know it's lazy.
As for as medical coverage, I go with whatever my employer offers, and hardly notice the amount that's taken out every pay period. I rarely visit a doctor and don't take any medications, thank God. I can imagine if I had children or my own business, would be more of an issue for me. Currently, I have neither, so therefore, I don't worry too much about what goes on in health care because I doubt I'll be seriously affected by this in the immediate future. I say this of course as i knock wood, because the universe has a funny way about it.
But, I'm fairly apathetic with this debate. Republicans are quick to say that the government can't run anything efficiently and this is just one step closer to Obama's socialist agenda. On the other hand Democrats preach the necessity of every American to have affordable health care. I give credence to both stances. Thankfully, I haven't encountered any serious health issues in my life, or suffered through a trial with an insurance company leaving me sick and bankrupt. Politically though, this was a huge win for the Dem's and the republicans have to be scared of loosing their America.
Call me unethical, but I can sometimes justify covering up certain situations in your organization for it's common good and sustainability. Assuming your organization is a good one, I can see cutting a few corners and avoiding certain legal consequences if you can because sometimes, less face it, the law can be too bureaucratic and time consuming. If I ran a home security business and found out one of my guys was using his technical skills to steal cars on the weekends, at the very least I'd fire him. I may not offer a press release, but I wouldn't simply transfer that guy to another branch so I didn't have to deal with him. It's amazing the church did that.
Why the Catholic Church both in the United States and Europe covered up so many sex abuse scandals is beyond me. I guess I have a few theories. They were afraid of reducing an already diminished priesthood and catholic community. Plus, they feared the fund raising difficulties if donors knew that some of that money was used to handle court cases. And maybe they thought, one abuse case was a mistake and it may never happen again if the man had a fresh start.
Yes, the letter Pope Benedict wrote to the Irish is a step in the right direction. However, what the Catholic Church needs to think about is why so these cases of sexual and physical abuse was so rampant in the first place. This is obviously more than just some PR work that needs to be done. People look at the Church as God's place on earth...A priest is almost the personification of God and a priest is someone expected to embody God like qualities that the average man doesn't possess which is why we turn to them. Needless to blog, molestation and pedophilia is the antithesis of this principle. So, a letter is a step. A leap would be a philosophical look at the recruitment of and orientation of new priests in the Catholic Church to not just consider, but implement a very different one.
I’m curious to see just how far media hype can take someone. I think we’re fascinated with Palin for the reason Jeff mentioned when setting up this topic for discussion. She was a governor, yet a nationally unknown politician who was launched on the stage to compliment an old, seemingly out of touch, non charismatic, non attractive, republican male. Although she did have strong conservative roots and a political resume to be proud of as governor of Alaska, she wasn’t picked for her political clout or because she’d be a competent number 2 if the president can’t finish his term. She was picked to give the McCain camp a fighting chance in 2008. At least that what I hope.
I can’t imagine she was picked as VP to lead the Republican Party in future years. I have to say that although I say less than flattering things about her whenever given the bloggertunity, the bottom line is that I would be humbled and very gracious to be in her presence. I’d probably find her attractive, and even more so in person, because of the confidence I’m sure she exudes. But, I’m thinking big picture here. I think Palin would be a perfect fit for a Press Secretary, but please not president. Didn’t she want to be a sports broadcaster when she was younger anyway?
Bush, like Palin certainly wasn’t known for his intellectual prowess. But, he spoke cowboy and there something’s all American and comforting about that. Bush wasn’t so concerned about appealing to the universal language of intelligence as much as he was with scaring people away from messing with America. It doesn’t take a great vocabulary to get that message across.
I'm not like Chris Matthews. I don’t get chills up my leg after an Obama speech. But every time, without fail, I YouTube Bush at ground zero with his bullhorn telling the firemen and rescue workers that pretty soon, that the people who knocked down these buildings will hear all of us, I get chills. In an unscripted moment of candor as firemen chanted “U.S.A” and “go get me George”, he delivered probably the most impactful couple of sentences I’ve ever heard from a president in my time. For a couple minutes I forget any 9/11 conspiracy theories. Why is that relevant? Bush spoke common man and tough while Obama speaks intelligent, but apologetic. Both have their purposes. That power of perception just doesn’t work in Palin's favor if she has presidential ambition.
However, that doesn’t mean she can’t make the crossover to celebrity as a politician first. Most of Hollywood gets famous before they become liberal activists. Perhaps Palin will just do it the other way around.
I know drastic times call for drastic measures in Kansas City, but I'm pretty confident that those "above average" are going to quickly turn into the mediocre ones that lost their jobs. I'm not sure why KC will incur a $50 million shortfall, but if they're like most states in the U.S., cuts and changes are an inevitability. I'll assume that they could have predicted this budget problem was on the horizon if they paid closer attention in previous years. It could have been a less dramatic change if done properly.
I'm sure the overcrowding of the existing public schools will lead to an increased enrollment in charter or private schools, which could be a good thing for students. However, the ones who aren't fortunate or resourceful enough to do that, they're public school experience could be negatively affected. I hope the KC School Board will increase the number of classrooms and teacher's enough to keep the average class size relatively reasonable. They could better utilize college students or anyone seeking a state teaching certification to assist the teachers and administration in the classroom.
Although the government is increasing it's size and scope, we still need to think creatively and innovative. There is no reason why the Board can't accommodate these students sufficiently despite having to close down that many schools and fire as many teachers. These kids, as all kids in this country, share no responsibility for the recent economic decline. These were adult mistakes and now adult remedies. I hope they at least will implement changes with the students in mind. I believe it was Tim Geitner who said we shouldn't let a disaster like this go to waste. Well now is the time for a young, creative and socially responsible person to make a name for themselves in the School Board and/or the political arena.
I think that if half of the "hit" shows on television can survive the ratings game, there is no reason why the Miss America Pageant cant make a comeback. In our information overload, media obsessed time, some good old fashioned buzz surrounding the event can certainly boost ratings. Now the problem is, it seems to take the wrong kind of buzz to get people talking enough to tune in and watch. The Carrie Prejean moment of 2009 was pretty interesting I thought. But the only reason it generated so much controversy was because how traditionally cookie cutter it's use to being. It needs more honesty...more rawness, and less pleasantries. Why can a show like Charm School , or Tool Academy be successful? Because it shows people at, in my opinion their worst.
The Miss America Pageant has too much of a wholesome, old fashioned congenial approach. It's just not exposing enough and that's what people want to see. It's unfortunate though. I think Miss America contestants are pretty admirable role models for young girls. Sure, the fundamental prerequisite is their attractiveness, but they tend to use it wisely. Typically they get involved in their communities while working up the beauty pageant ranks and they have to hone one or more talents other than a walk and bathing suit presentation. Now, of course I know this all so they can win the pageant, but it's way more respectable than how many other people use their looks.
It's sad that the only way I can think to drum up ratings for this tradition is to contaminate it with controversy, but there has got to be marketing executives out there who can think of a healthy positive something. Maybe they need a Simon Cowell. Or, more importantly, perhaps its the girls these pageants attract in the first place. Maybe they need smart, well informed, honest and opinionated girls who stand for something and are willing to express it to America. Kind of like Prejean. And the smart, well informed, honest and opinionated Americans can have someone to root for. Maybe then we'll tune in.
I recently heard a radio host talk about this story briefly and he said, “Geez, it’s his [Tilikum] third killing. Put him down already!” I have a lot of respect for this guy and I have to think he’s smarter than that comment.
Those lives, although lost in tragedy, are the losses that SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment risk when their main investment is a 6 ton, alpha-orca. As in any investment, there are risks are rewards. The rewards-Even if Tilikum doesn’t perform anymore, he is responsible for 13 offspring, 10 of which are alive and remain in captivity surely to be bred and trained for show. As a superstar, he is literally worth hundreds of millions to the corporation, so putting him down because he took three lives doesn’t make sense from a business standpoint.
Plus, to no surprise, the audience is intrigued by Tilikum and interested to see how other killer whales will react in future shows. It’s kind of like a crash in NASCAR. If trainers are willing to work with Tilikum again or other killer whales so soon, than I say let them do so. Of course it’s an occupational hazard, but I’m sure they love the thrill of the challenge and feel accomplished if/when they get the orca to perform cooperatively.
Now, should Tilikum and other animals be caged and on display for our own amusement? That’s a whole other blogs worth if you ask me. The fact is zoos, aquariums and aquatic shows like Sea World aren’t going anywhere. Supporters say it’s educational fun and the animals are treated better than if they were in the wild. Opponents say we’re inhibiting them from enjoying the natural environment they’re wired to live in. Personally, I find them boring. I’m way more interested in observing animals in their natural environments. Watching a Discovery Channel documentary is way more fascinating than looking at a docile gorilla sitting there in a cage. I want to see the food chain in action. I want to see a pack of lions hunt down a pack of zebras, or a killer whale fight off a great white. So, maybe we as a people will stop taking our kids to these kinds of boring shows and educate ourselves in a different fashion. If we’re not fortunate enough to visit a safari, television and the internet certainly make it possible to benefit from others first hand perspective.
Anytime I think about unemployment benefits I'm automatically critical and think . I just had a conversation with a guy on unemployment Friday night. He was in his 40's collecting about 2 thousand dollars a month for doing nothing. He told me sleeps till about eleven and wakes up and watches television for most of the day until his kids get home from school. The concept is mind boggling. Furthermore, he told me that he answers a quick questionnaire before making his unemployment claim. They ask him if he's actively seeking work and if he has denied any employment offers this month. After a quick, "Yes, No," a check is automatically deposited into his account. He has been doing this since May 2009 and will be about to do it for at least another year and a half. I know this instance is not uncommon and a very familiar process for millions in American, especially now, but it just seems so flawed on so many ways.
I respect Bunning for taking a hard stance in opposition against the unemployment and insurance inevitable extension. Because he is retiring at the end of this term I don't think he's striving for Maverick status to prolong his political vitality. I think it's motivated out of principle. He is angered at the hypocrisy of the Senate to go against the PayGo bill that was just passed which is supposed to ensure Congress can pay for any new legislation. Granted it won't get him very far in his efforts and the extension is going to get passed. I certainly don't think Bunning is cruel for cutting off unemployment benefits because all he did was stall the effort and anger other politicians. It's easy to vilify Bunning, however, and for the sake of political expediency, dems and republicans took advantage of it. He stood fast though and even said "tough shit," after one democrats plea.
I understood many people have fallen on hard times because of the current economic meltdown. But, there is something so fundamentally wrong with a system that pays people good money to watch television all day. I'd like to get rid of the sympathy association that goes along with unemployment. The government should some how some way make people earn the money they're getting. Okay, so there business had to lay them off for whatever reason. Why can't they be forced to volunteer their time in order to earn any unemployment benefit. Perhaps, a laid off hardwood flooring guy can work with Habitat for Humanity twenty hours a week and actually producing something for the betterment of the state who is being quite generous.
David Loftus, a free-lance writer and actor, is the author of AMERICAN CURRENTS. A native Oregonian who has lived on the East Coast and traveled much of Europe and parts of Asia and Africa, he makes his home in Portland with his wife Carole and toy fox terrier Pixie. David reads more than a hundred books a year and watches an average of less than two hours of television a week. He does not own a car, has no children, and pretty much avoids meat. Click the photo for more by David.
Posts
