The Realities of Racism

After having a core understanding of what racism really is, and how it has affected this country, a couple of statements could be drawn from this pool of knowledge. The most common being “this country was built on racism, it will never go away,” or “You cant change the way people think,” or “if it were not for those aggressive protection laws in airports or other places, this country would be in a far worse situation.” While there is plenty of evidence to support these claims, overall they are weak, flimsy arguments, but how? if there is evidence to support the claims how can they possibly be weak? Its the same way someone can have mounds of evidence on something else, but it is eventually proven wrong. These statements are used by those who generally are not the most progressive, and usually come out when situations like marches, or airport race scandals, or other things are within the news. These statements are the only real opposites to Racism and Immigration discrimination being terrible things. These statements let people beat around the bush, coming out and saying “oh well this kind of stuff happens” or something along those lines. These statements are the only “real” rebuttals to racism and discrimination being wrong, and are the primary inhibitors of real progress not being made in this country.

Breaking down these three statements is the only real way to understand just how they inhibit change. So when people say “this country was built on racism” this is what they really mean. During the 1800s to 1900s Slavery was a huge proprietor to this country’s wealth and well-being, and in reality this country was literally built on the backs of black men, women, and children, but it was white people who took the credit. Racism was used in the form of a power. Degrading, insulting, and outright dehumanizing other races, especially black slaves in America, is how White people held dominance for such a long time. And it can be seen today too with immigration, especially after 9/11. Like previously stated, shows like 24 and those of similar concept sprung up after 9/11, and always showed a white American thwarting some secret Middle-Easter terrorist plot. Not only was this plot a great selling point, but the main premise of the show almost felt like it was supposed to teach White America to be on guard, and that if they see a Sihk man, or a middle-easterner being rigorously questioned at the airport, they were not supposed to question it, that person could have took down another flight, or killed a dozen more people. And the same can be seen with immigration. White America has a huge stigma against Syrian Refugees, they claim that those refugees are a threat to their job security and their families. When in reality, people are more likely to die to a radical White American, than any Syrian refugee. History tends to repeat its self, and we live in a time that is all too similar to the red-scare, except this time, Racism is being used as a means to “snuff out” potential threats within America. There are no real threats these people of color are showing, they are more in danger than White America is. So the phrase “this country was built on racism” is most definitely  true, but its is a lazy argument that inhibits progress simply because people do not want to admit that their grasp of power is being weakened by a multitude of factors.

A counterpart to the previous argument is ” you can’t change the way people think” This is not true, the ability to open someones eyes is already a primary step to changing someones thought process in regards to an issue. This statement is brought out when people are too stubborn or lazy to take the time to see the kind of problems another race or gender faces. Generally this argument is made for older people who may be too “set” in their ways to try and change now, but can apply to younger people as well. This reveals a critical weakness in that argument, and that is that these people have lived through some of these civil movements and changes in the country and have learned nothing and still refuse to change. Partial blame can just put on how people were raised. Parents teach a majority of knowledge to their children with out even knowing sometimes, but TV and the education system play a big role in this too. This is most apparent with “white Privilege”, the invisible weight that most Caucasians are not explicitly taught to recognize. Doctor Peggy McIntosh, sheds some light on this ignorance in her work White Privilege: Unpacking The Invisible Knapsack. She states “My schooling gave me no training in seeing myself as an oppressor, as an unfairly advantaged person, or as a participant in a damaged culture. I was taught to see myself as an individual whose moral state depended on her individual moral will. My schooling followed the pattern my colleague Elizabeth Minnich has pointed out: whites are taught to think of their lives as morally neutral, normative, and average, and also ideal, so that: when we work to benefit others, this is seen as work which will allow “them” to be more like “us.”” Most white people who can not change their thinking due to this subconsciously taught problem, which was more apparent with things like segregation back in the 50s. And using terms like “We” and Them” helps tear the divide even more. So the real reason people who cant change their thinking is because it takes an effort to understand privilege, the struggles of others, and how everything is interconnected, but with the right teachings this change of thought can most definitely happen. Its a weak excuse to try and brush aside ignorance under the guise of “some people cant change”. People can learn about different issues, and be more enlighted to what goes on in the world around them, but white privilege inhibits that change.

The last, and actually most compelling argument is “if it was not for those aggressive laws, America would be a much different place”. This is very true, but it does not excuse racism and discrimination, but it is effective. Strong laws have protected us, mainly the airport regulations in regards to random searchers. They have stopped many potential threats and have increased the safety of flights, but this does not exclude just “randomly” middle-easterners, mainly those of apparent Muslim faith. However, for immigration, seeking out and detaining every immigrant to uncover a “terrorist coup” after 9/11 has been something abused. A piece from Victor Romero’s Decoupling Terrorist from Immigrant :An Enhanced Role for the Federal Courts Post 9/11 reads “…Following the September 11 attacks, The Immigration and Naturalization service (INS) arrested and detained approximately one thousand mostly Arab and Muslim non-citizens for immigration code violations in an effort to uncover possible terrorist among them.”  Regardless of violations or not, hunting and arresting inherently innocent people under the guise of “any of them could be a terrorist” is not the way a county should handle something like this, and  things like this happen too often for it to be called random, and it is  very rarely someone of a different faith or race. So while they  are good safety measure, airports and organizations like the INS,tend to racial profile or stereotype, instead of actually conducting random searches. The same thing can be said about immigration as well. Tightening the immigration intake is beneficial to a growing country with limiting resources, but painting new immigrants as untrustworthy and threats until proven otherwise is not the way to do it. There are many different ways America could protect itself without discrimination, but racism is far too ingrained within the county for that to happen.

All and all, Racism is a huge issue with this supposed “land of the free” and causes so much pain and fear for those just tying to live their lives normally. Racism is a tool used to illicit fear in those who are no a part of white America, and the abuse of this tool will always cause a chain reaction for the entire nation. Immigrants face hate crimes and discrimination for just being themselves, and if they are not Americanized, they are seen as potential “threats”. And that’s the sad truth about racism and discrimination, innocent people get painted as offenders, and those that claim they are threatened are the perpetrators in disguise. It’s a vicious cycle that, without a strong push for real justice, will Continue to grind on this country for a long, long time.

Works Cited

Romero, Victor C. “Decoupling Terrorist from Immigrant: An Enhanced Role for the Federal Courts Post 9/11.” Journal of Gender, Race and Justice 7.1 (2003): 201-212.

McIntosh, Peggy. “White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack.” (1988): 31-36.

Needs a Title

To graduate basic combat training, a recruit must be able to think on their feet, be able to cope with tough conditions, and must be in great physical shape. Anyone who cannot meet those standards will wash out. It is argued that by removing everyone who doesn’t meet all three of those standards, the Army is doing itself a disservice while also being unfair to those who may have a unique talent to bring to the military. This is a compelling argument, yet it makes the assumption that the given soldiers talent in one subject outweighs the importance of being a well rounded soldier.

I trained with several recruits who where going on to be “wheeled vehicle mechanics” in the Army after they completed training. Several of them joined with prior experience as either a car or truck mechanic and looked at basic training as a minor road block in the way of a successful career. It did not take long for this mindset to take its toll on the recruits resulting in 11 out of the 18 mechanics in my unit being removed from training by the end of the cycle. I was dumbfounded when I found out that the Army would actually ditch 11 experienced mechanics because they did not have what it would take to “be a soldier” when these soldiers were not even going to be combat oriented. Just as the argument above, I assumed the Army did itself a disservice by removing 11 mechanics with prior experience.

About half way through the training cycle, a close friend of mine told me that he was dropping from the training. When I asked him why, he could not provide any reason other than that he was not cut out to be a soldier. The explanation made absolutely no sense to me because he had an awesome sense of humor, he was in better shape than most, and was a much better shot than anyone. If anyone was cut out to be a soldier, it was him. I began to resent the training and to wish it wasn’t as difficult for my sake as well as his. This sheer brutality was enough to have my best friend bail of the training and I was convinced that not only did the Army screw him over, they also lost out on a great soldier who would have went on to do great things.

My answer to why the Army wanted its mechanics to be top tier soldiers and to why training was so difficult that even those who seemed to be the best would drop out was not found until my graduation. My battalion commander gave a speech explaining that we were all officially lethal assets to the United States Army who’s number one mission is to perform our duties as a soldier through our designated career field. He explained that we are all rifleman first, capable of taking the fight to the enemy at any time. Even as mechanics, cooks, aviators, and armorers, we could find ourselves operating in environments that only the strongest could get through. Those words struck a chord with me and allowed me to see the unique purpose of basic training.

The truth of the matter is, every job in the military can see combat and get thrown in the thick of it. Mechanics sometimes go out on convoys to fix vehicles and to provide support for the infantrymen during a firefight. Intel guys go out into the field to collect intelligence. Aviators fly in and out of hostile zones to provide support for the ground troops. Cooks are often attached to an infantry unit and sent to a small forward operating base to keep the soldiers there fed. In all of these circumstances, soldiers who are not infantrymen need to have the skills of an infantrymen while having the confidence of acting accordingly. If the standards were lowered just so they could have experienced mechanics, the soldiers would not have known how to handle the situation  endangering themselves and those around them. Along with that, even those who are a great shot could put the whole mission in jeopardy if they suddenly loose the heart to continue on. Once you are in the middle of a combat zone, there is no turning back.

While the argument that the Army is missing out and being unfair by having tough training demands has some substance, it’s just not feasible. The Army is not loosing anything when it drops someone because they potentially just saved that recruits life along with the lives of those they would have served with. The Army can teach anyone to be a mechanic and because of that, they do not care what background the recruit has. When it comes to the Army being unfair, I can say pretty bluntly that the military does not give a damn. For the same reason as why those who are blind are not allowed to be bus drivers, you cannot put people at risk to make some recruits feel better. It’s a tough organization but it’s the most lethal for a reason. The military knows what its doing and it needs to make the best of its all volunteer force.

Go Without Animals

Doctors are finally able to realize animal testing does not get their job done and they need to find a new solution. The former U.S. National Institutes of Health director Dr. Elias Zerhouni expresses, “We need to refocus and adapt new methodologies for use in humans to understand disease biology in humans.” This is the first step in the right direction in order to cease animal testing.

Everyone, even the doctors, are aware of how harmful testing is to animals, however no one has put enough effort in to stop it. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, PETA, declared these experiments are “cruel, expensive, and generally inapplicable to humans”, so a handful of scientists have finally stepped forward to create a different, more effective method. They are in the process of ending animal testing and finding better tests that are “relevant to human health.” These upcoming techniques will include newer technology, human cells and tissues, and even human volunteers in order to give the best possible reaction. Not only will it enhance the medicine for human diseases, but it is a method that is much cheaper and easier to perform.

To start off, there is “In Vitro” testing. Where Harvard’s Wyss Institute has developed, a technique called “organs-on-chips” which has human’s cells grown in the system in order to double as the function of human organs. PETA shares that this method has been shown to “replicate human physiology, diseases, and drug responses” more accurately than animal testing. This chip has already been bought by researchers and used instead of animal experimentation. Also, there is a new cell-based and tissue model test that has been introduced to test the reliability of “drugs, chemicals, cosmetics, and consumer products.” By using human cells replicating the traits of human skin, this method gets rid of testing for guinea pigs, mice, and rabbits.  These animals would not have to be shaved down and put in painful tests waiting for the results of the test. Instead, using this duplicate skin researchers are able to evaluate from that source rather than anything else. At the European Union Reference Library, researchers have found tests that the use of human blood instead of putting rabbits through this painful test is quite more successful. The blood is used to identify any red flags that would pollute the human body and result in fevers when it accesses the body. In the end, it gives the result of anything that would be harmful directly from a human source.

When it comes to chemical testing, human tissue is proven to give more accurate results than using animals. A researcher’s job is to find the best possible answer to the problem they are presented with, meanwhile non-animal testing is producing the results they need. Since this method could leave a patient potentially dead or alive, researchers should take the opportunity to participate in such a method. Human volunteers have also come forward to help not just themselves, but everybody else. Micro dosing is a technique that gives volunteers a “small one-time dose” which allows researchers to observe the body. The drug will be watched in order to see how it affects the body making this method able to banish certain animal testing’s all at once. Using this method gives information letting researchers know the safeness of a drug and how it will react to a human in the long-run. Rats, cats, and monkeys will no longer have to have their brains damaged thanks to the advanced brain imaging and recording approach. This method allows humans to have their brains studied in a safe environment by researchers and even temporarily solve their condition.

In the technological field, there have been few advanced systems created in order to deal with the human body. For example, animal testing and drug tests can soon be taken over by a computer-generated test. Researchers have computer models that mimics the human biology and the growth of diseases within. This method will be able to find new ways and new drugs to help the human body react to any illness. Quantitative structure-activity relationships, QSARs, is a computer based system that will get rid of animal testing by using the known knowledge of human biology. This way will avoid animal experiments involving chemicals and any other harmful tests. These methods are much quicker and definitely much simpler.

There is no better reasoning to stop animal testing than knowing “alternative scientific tests are often more reliable than animal tests”, directly from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Right then and there, doctors should rely on tests that do not use animals, giving their patient the best possible treatment they can get. Countless tests showed human skin cells compared to traditional animal tests to be more accurate in identifying chemical skin. The simplest change of not using animals could make the biggest difference in somebody’s life.

In the effort to teach not only medical students, but save people lives, there has been a human-patient simulator. What is better than learning how to react with problems from the human body by using a human body? Life-like computerized human-patient simulators have been constructed in order to teach students the most accurate way to treat a patient. This excludes any animals, such as pigs, goats, or dogs, to be cut up. The simulator breathes, bleeds, talks, and reacts just as a normal human would. Medicines will be injected and act as if it was on a real-life person, allowing students to learn lifesaving skills on the spot. No animals will be touched or need to even be present in order for any of these new methods to take place.

There has always been insignificant alternative testing that has not been used, yet there are many benefits if they were used. The organization New England Anti-Vivisection Society ,NEAVS , expresses when no animals are used for experimenting its creates “cruelty-free products” and makes the world “more environmentally friendly.” This could increase consumers’ willingness to buy more products if they knew it was not included in animal testing. NEAVS also argues by using non-animal testing is “more cost-effective and practical”, leaving there no question not to use animals. Researchers would be able to fix two major variables, with one minor adjustment making their lives much easier. While animal testing takes weeks to perform and record substantial information, other tests take “as little as 3 minutes to four hours.” NEAVS has found By experimenting chemicals without animals, researchers can “test hundreds of chemicals in a week for a fraction of the cost.” There has yet to be any red flags from non-animal testing.

It would be more appealing, especially as a patient, knowing the medicine that is put into my body is found to be from a more reliable source. The risk of knowing if a treatment will or will not work on a disease only gets the hopes up of the fighting people in need. When researchers use animal testing, they are able to prove a safe solution for animals, but not necessarily for humans. The small percentage that this could happen could make a huge difference. According to Meredith Cohn, reporter from The Baltimore Sun, physicians still see  the “basic research and drug and chemical tests still rely heavily on animals.” That should not be the case, the bigger and more important tests are even starting to move to non-animal testing. More researchers are finding a way to “incorporate human-based needs” however, “there is no comprehensive substitute for animal testing and research.”

Even if this type of action is not illegal, it certainly is not ethical. The law not to test on animals when there are better and easier alternatives available should be stressed immensely. According to NEAVS,  three states have “ already passed legislation mandating that federally approved non-animal alternatives, when available, be used for product testing in place of animals.” This will gradually lead to “cruelty-free research and testing” to be the “status quo.” NEAVS strongly believes since science “promotes better health and well-being”, they can do the same to “protect animals lives.”

All in all, there are numerous outcomes from non-animal testing. Not only are animals free from being in agonizing pain, but there is a better chance humans can live through a disease. Non-animal testing is growing but until it is completely vanished, animals are out there being harmed for no reason and giving possible false results for the ones in need. Thanks to the non-profit organization New England Anti-Vivisection Society, the public is able to see “Science finally moving forward to realize the premise that the best test species for humans are humans” without harm and with enormous benefit to humans.” There is no reason not to be involved in this type of testing when it can only help for the better.

Works Cited
“Alternatives to Animal Testing.” PETA. N.p., 2017. Web. 27 Mar. 2017.
Cohn, Meredith. “Study Aims to Check If Other Methods Can Replace Animal Testing.” Baltimoresun.com. Baltimore Sun Media Group, 12 Mar. 2017. Web. 27 Mar. 2017.
Society, New England Anti-Vivisection. “Alternatives to Animals in Science.” In Testing. NEAVS, n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2017.

Preferable American Identities

There is a hidden value of hegemony that is present within the fabric of American culture. America prides itself internationally by selling the idea that the country is a free land that is welcoming and accepts all walks of life. There is a paradoxical nature of this promise and the reality of living in the country that goes hand in hand. The United States since its conception is country built on and around the idea of complete cultural domination. Many of the first European colonists were escaping the tyrannical ruling of the English king who was forcing his subjects to adhere to rules of his religion when did not agree. The english have a long history of conquering land and ruling with firm ethnocentric beliefs. English influence coming into the united states is where the beginning of racial and religious superiority come to fruition. Many mainstream or normal ideas present in contemporary American culture also come from this long history of hegemony and continue to oppress and privilege certain individuals over others. European settlers felt they were more human than their Native American counterparts and saw them as animal like even after years of claiming most of the North American continent. Europeans felt because of their identity they possessed the divine right to own as much as they could with no regard for the people already living on the land. This kind of prioritizing of people is in direct relation to many of the social issues this country still faces today. The LGBT community has felt the effects of these feelings in a harsh way.

There is very strong racial bias when describing who is considered American in the United States. Historically citizenship was initially saved for mostly white people in America other groups were either brought against their will or were treated like second class citizens. The rush to flee persecution and establish a new type of world where these Europeans could be safe with their puritan values caused the new settlements to be filled with more tyrannical rules establishing values than actually alienated people and caused them to have the same feelings the puritans themselves had.The characteristics of deserving of rights at this time were given to primarily white males who owned land followed heteronormative behavior.

Christian superiority is present in almost all aspects in american life. American values claim to be secular but institute values that are Christian. Christian values in a broad sense like most religions establish a code and rules for someone who practices this faith to live by. The United States socially rewards behavior that comply with these demands. The United States also as country has excused vicious religiously motivated attacks as not representative of the christian religion while perpetuating stigmas given to other religious. This is significant when speaking about attacks by muslims which is always explained in a way that islam is violent in nature. this is an example of hegemony because christian values are considered american whereas American muslim’s value are treated like values that compete with America’s.  When new identities are present in the country it is socially acceptable in this country to alienate these people and make them  feel less welcomed. Gender norms in this country exist to primarily help heterosexual males. This identity is prioritized because only heteronormative males were seen to be people in most of christian literature. Those who may not agree with these rules or do not identify with this particular religion are not excused and Christian values are still implemented on them.

The founding fathers were aware of this type of tyranny and thought of ways to restrict the power of the church through legislative practices. An idea thats visible in the “separation of church and state”, Brant explains its usage through James Madison who says “the basic element was freedom of conscience. But in the protection of that freedom, the fundamental requirement was a total separation between government and religion” This mindset is remarkable for its time and showed a way in which the country could strive to be a nation free of constraints aspiring to be the most free.

Discrimination for those who do not fit the ideal american man has gone down but the favoring of this archetype is still present in mainstream media and is perpetuated by the same ideologies that fight to keep more balanced representation of identity. The first amendment of the United States is designed to maintain neutrality of religion, while allowing individuals to practice their own personal faiths. Theses ideas however are ambiguous and the belief is up for debate and has remained a highly controversial principle since it was dictated by Jefferson. This idea has been abused by the certain conservative individuals to discriminate against homosexuals because their lifestyle does not correspond to the christian way of life and for that reason citizen of this country feel they have the right to discriminate against them. This is how even through efforts to stabilize the unbalanced favoring of certain types of identity hegemonic mindsets continue to plague the liberty of American culture.

Work Cited

Barner-Barry, C.. Contemporary Paganism : Minority Religions in a Majoritarian America. New York, US: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 6 March 2017.

Blumenfeld, Warren J. “Christian Privilege and the Promotion of “Secular” and Not-So “Secular” Mainline Christianity in Public Schooling and in the Larger Society.”Www.tandfonline.com. Taylor & Francis Online, 23 Nov. 2006. Web. 6 Mar. 2017.

Brant, Irving. “Madison: On the Separation of Church and State.” The William and Mary Quarterly, vol. 8, no. 1, 1951, pp. 4–24., http://www.jstor.org/stable/1920731.

The Power of Subtlety

P1. Whether we like it or not, first impressions are important. Unfortunately, people tend to make up their mind with very little information. Good first impression improve your career opportunities and make forming new relationships easier, while bad first impressions create a difficult obstacle to overcome. After people have formed an opinion, it is hard to change it. The narrative created in the original article written about the murder of Kitty Genovese has still affected the public’s idea of the murder. The original article still influences people despite many of the most powerful points have shown to be wrong. The title, “37 Who Saw Murder Didn’t Call Police,” is not true. The actual number of witnesses that understood a murder was in progress was likely closer to 7. It is also untrue that no one called the police or intervened. At least one witness claimed to call the police and told them that a woman was being assaulted. Another witness called the police and ran outside to Kitty once she realized what was going on. Another shouted at the murder and temporarily scared him off. The article creates a compelling story where a large group of ordinary people stand by and watch a tragedy happen. It seems strange that people still believe this story after it being shown to be false.

P2. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. People have misconceptions about this murder because they don’t have enough information about it. Almost 60 percent of people surveyed said that they only read headlines. It is likely the actual number is high due to some being embarrassed and unwilling to admit that they only read headlines. If the majority of people are basing their opinions off of the title alone, it makes sense that they have a warped view of the actual story. They have never heard any interpretation of the story. Even if the other 40 percent of the people read the article, they would still be influenced by the headline. Headlines are meant to grab the attention of the reader. Unfortunately, they also influence the reader. A study has shown that misleading headlines impair information processing. A headline interprets a story for the reader and creates a bias in the reader before they get a chance to read the article themselves. After reading the headline,” 37 Who Saw Murder Didn’t Call Police,”, the readers were already influenced to the interpretation of the writer. They read the article with a bias in their head and fail to interpret the information for themselves.

P3. The misleading headline didn’t only influence people while they were reading the article. Misleading headlines like the one used in the article change which details the reader remembers from the article. People are more likely to remember details that are related to and support the headline and dismiss other information. They are also more likely to remember the headline even if it is not proven or supported by the article. This means that it is likely that readers remember the headline that told them that 37 people watched a woman get murdered but forget that a man intervened by yelling at the murderer and that a woman called the police and stayed beside the body while ambulances arrived.

P4. Headlines can also invoke an emotional response from the viewer. A headline like, “37 Who Saw Murder Didn’t Call Police,” invokes a very strong response. It makes the reader angry at the bystanders that failed to act, upset a person was so close to help but didn’t receive any, and confused why the witnesses didn’t call the police. These emotions influence how well the reader can rationally think about the article. It has been shown that mood can affect how well a person does on intelligence tests. People in a good mood perform better than people in a bad mood. Therefore, it is likely mood also affects how well a person can read an article and form reasonably opinions about it. After reading a title that makes the reader angry and upset, they are not in a good state of mind to read the article. Because they were impaired by their emotions, they were less adept at forming reasonable opinions.

P5. After forming these misled beliefs on the murder, people failed to change them when presented with newer and better information due to simple biases. Everyone is subjected to confirmation biases. We like to be right and we trust ourselves to have the right opinion. After all, we were the ones who formed it. People tend to embrace information that supports our belief and ignore or even attack information that contradicts it. People ignored evidence that showed that the original article was wrong or misleading. Without giving new evidence a chance, it is impossible for someone to change their opinion. Because this article was likely the first information the readers received about the murder, the readers were subjected to the first impression bias. People tend to give more weight to information they received earlier. The information used to create a first impression is more important to a person and is harder to refute. These biases make it difficult to effectively argue and change people’s minds. The result is people holding onto their old beliefs and opinions.

P6. Unfortunately, the deck is stacked against well thought out opinions. Even the people that give an honest effort at finding the truth are mislead. Headlines pull them off the course. Headlines cause them to focus on specific details, manipulate their emotions, and leave them at the mercy of the author. Biases make it more difficult to change an established opinion. It is difficult to change an opinion. It means admitting you were wrong. Changing your opinion means we are not perfect.

Works Cited

Ecker, Ullrich , Stephan Lewandowsky, Ee Pin Chang, and Rekha Pillai. ” The effects of subtle misinformation in news headlines. .” PsycNET (2014): n. pag. APA. Web. 27 Mar. 2017.

Gansberg, Martin. “37 Who Saw Murder Didn’t Call the Police.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 26 Mar. 1964. Web. 27 Mar. 2017.

Jung, Nadine, Christina Wranke, Kai Hamburger, and Markus Knauff. “How emotions affect logical reasoning: evidence from experiments with mood-manipulated participants, spider phobics, and people with exam anxiety.” Frontiers in Psychology 5 (2014): n. pag. Web.

Konnikova, Maria. “How Headlines Change the Way We Think.” The New Yorker. The New Yorker, 17 Dec. 2014. Web. 27 Mar. 2017.

The Land of the Rich

Modern day American slavery is crippling the poverty of the country. The modern day American slavery comes in the form of the common man being ruled and abused by the big government. There is no bondage in today’s America, but the government restricts many of its citizens from having freedom. The poor have significantly less availability for programs that are intended to help leave that poverty. College has become a necessity; however, it is not available to those in poverty. Today’s jobs are set up in a way, that in order to earn a livable wage, a college education is necessary. Creating this rigged system has only increased the poverty rate in recent years. As the poverty rate increases, many other rates such as life expectancy and overall quality of life change. Modern day slavery in America (the poor being owned and ruled by the rich) is only increasing in America, and those in power want to keep it that way.

Steve Hargreaves of CNN money reports that those in upper class have at least one of a few crucial components. Most are either college grads, come from two-parent families, are white, or never experienced unemployment in their childhood household (many have  all of these components). The upper class students are given the tools to make a success out of themselves because they can afford college and are taught financial literacy, while those without access to these luxuries follow a path towards economic instability. This is why 70% of those in poverty stay in poverty. The system is becoming rigged against the poor so the wealthy can prosper.

The problems that cause poverty are often due to government negligence. Because the government is run by the wealthy, the poor often get forgotten. From the President down to each member of congress, the majority of the Washington politicians are millionaires. The rich control the economy and guide it to aid themselves, leaving the poor out of the picture. The system is clearly set up to help the rich and hurt the poor. For example, taxes are hinted to be put into programs to help everyone, but that is false. Programs like food stamps and section eight housing do in fact give aid to the poor. However, food stamps and section eight housing are funded through taxes (which they already pay). Almost everything the poor (along with all Americans) purchase has a tax on it. That tax money is controlled by the wealthy government and they do whatever they want with it. The government claim taxes help the poor; however, those who get help from the government-assisted programs actually lose money. Justin King, policy director of the Asset Building Program at the New America Foundation, describes it:  “While the government promotes wealth building for some—largely through the mortgage tax deduction and other tax loopholes used mainly by the middle and upper class—it actually discourages wealth building for the poor.” The government claims they help the poverty through taxation; however, they actually hurt the poor.

Those in poverty do not have access to simple necessity such as healthcare or decent food. This has caused the life expectancy to be significantly lower in low-income cities. According to  a survey done by Harvard University, the life expectancy of the top 1% and the bottom 1% has a difference of about 12 years. Not having access to decent food or healthcare is causing this epidemic. To not have simple necessities such as doctor visits or epi-pens available to everyone does not sound like the land of equal opportunity. The rich get not only a better life, but on average, a longer one too.

Many have tried to install a universal healthcare act; however, every attempt has failed. The sad truth is that the there is too much money to be made in medicine being expensive. The pharmaceutical companies would lose billions if they made their products available to the poor. So they would rather have the people die in order to make a profit. Those in poverty have to choose rent or a necessary drug (such as insulin.) Factors like these are what cause the difference in life expectancies. Since these people are unable to earn their way out of poverty, they are forced into living like this.

College tuition rates are increasing dramatically, making it more of a burden for low income household students to pay for. The average college tuition for the 2016-2017 school year is approximately $33,000 (and the minimum wage salary is only $15,000 a year). There are some programs to help college students with tuition (e.g. financial aid), however, it doesn’t actually help those in poverty too much (the tuition often exceeds the $15,000 mark). Often to afford the high tuition, low income students are forced to take out loans. These loans are often extremely difficult to pay off, creating enormous amounts of debt. High tuition  rates (which lead to student debt) are making it extremely difficult for those in poverty to get out of the that predicament. The debt is owed to the government, whose only goal is to get more money out of the student.  The government doesn’t think about helping out those in poverty; they are only focused on the wealthy.

Unfortunately those who come from the poverty income bracket have a very low chance of escaping that income bracket. Due to the system being catered to the rich, those in poverty do not get to experience their life’s goals. Instead they have to work a minimum wage job, and be forced to make unfortunate decisions, such as choosing rent over insulin. While the rich get richer, the poor stay poor. The land of equal opportunity unfortunately has become the land of the rich.

Works Cited

Peter Reuell, Harvard Staff Writer |. “For Life Expectancy, Money Matters.” Harvard Gazette. N.p., 11 Apr. 2016. Web. 27 Mar. 2017.

Hargreaves, Steve. “New Reports Shows 70% of Those Born Poor Stay Poor.” CNNMoney. Cable News Network, 13 Nov. 2013. Web. 27 Mar. 2017.

How Much Is Too Much Information

P1. The Internet is becoming a dangerous place for teenagers and young adults whose online profiles attract sexual predators. The U.S Department of Justice has joined with nonprofit groups to promote public service campaigns to warn those using Facebook that personal information posted online can lead to abductions and sexual abuse. Facebook has allowed sexual predators to attract victims from the comfort of their homes. Predators are able to learn about their victims solely from their posts on their profile: they learn about their likes or dislike, personality traits, and day to day routines. Predators have websites of their own to talk anonymously to one another on different ways to attract victims and where and who are the easiest targets. It is extremely important for teenagers and young adults to pay close attention to what they are sharing online and who they are sharing it with.

P2. According to the Journal of Adolescent Research the news is filled with stories of the dangers that exist for teenagers and young adults today. From the risks of drugs, alcohol, and risky sexual behavior, we now add the dangers the internet brings: predators, lurkers, and access to inappropriate information. Young girls are blindly posting personal information about their daily routines and their identities, setting themselves up for disaster. They are single handily giving predators everything they need to know to gravitate towards them, making them easy targets. Despite all the dangers, online communication is used by almost 2.1 billon users worldwide causing the young generation to spend most of their time indoors and in front of their electronic devices instead of outside and being active.

P3. Today’s generation has had the privilege of growing up with the latest technology which allows them to learn how to use most electronic devices before adults and parents can figure it out. This experience has allowed today’s generation to become so comfortable with posting personal information online thinking that they cannot be touched because they are behind a screen. Teens feel an element of control and invincibility by sharing personal information they have chosen to share. They are so caught up with the feeling of control and popularity they find online instead of the real world that they allow anyone to befriend them through social media. “52 percent of online teens say they have had an experience online that made them feel good about themselves.” Not realizing who they are allowing to follow them they are exposing themselves to the dangers of sexual predators accessing their personal information. Facebook does not provide enough security and privacy settings that will completely block predators from viewing their profile page.

P4. Teenagers tend to have the most Facebook “friends” compared to adults. According to the article “The Dangers of Facebook” the average Facebook user has 135 friends, each of those friends has average of 135 friends as well. Most teenagers and young adults don’t realize that sharing posts with your “friends” is not safe because it exposes all your posts to tens of thousands of strangers. The average Facebook user is connected to 80 community pages, groups and events says “Eye Guardian”. Facebook accounts should be monitored by parents because your child’s protection and well-being is at stake. A parent’s job is to protect their child and do everything they can to prevent them from harm. It is extremely important for a parent to maintain active in their child’s lives online and in the real world.

P5. The U.S Supreme Court considers whether social media is a privilege or a right in modern society. North Carolina is one of five states where convicted sex offenders are not permitted to use social networking sites. And in the article “Do Sex Offenders Have A Free Speech Right To Use Facebook” by Allee Manning, Lester Packingham Jr. did just that he simply posted about a traffic ticket dismissal to warrant his arrest. He violated North Carolina’s law of protection of past and potential victims. Social media sites are an access point for those targeting teenagers and many as four percent of youths aged 10-15 have received unwanted sexual claims according to a 2008 survey. Almost everyone is on Facebook that it has become second nature to having internet access. This meaning that a majority of criminals are signed up as well. Jam Kotenko talks about the scary reality that most sex offenders count on that Facebook can not control you joins. According to a report, the number of sexual assault cases has reached a high in only four years since 2009 reports have increased form 139 to 164. Half of the cases involved victims under the age of 16 according to Jam Kotenko article “Scary Statistics Show that Sex Offenders are Taking Over Social Media.”

Work Cited

Manning, Allee. “Is Using Facebook A Free Speech Right? Supreme Court Weighs Case.” Vocativ. Vocativ, 01 Mar. 2017. Web. 06 Mar. 2017.

Kotenko, Jam. “Scary Statistics Show That Sex Offenders Are Taking over Social Media.” Digital Trends. N.p., 02 Apr. 2013. Web. 06 Mar. 2017.

Writer, Leaf Group. “Dangers of MySpace and Facebook With Sexual Predators.” Our Everyday Life. Our Everyday Life, 16 Feb. 2013. Web. 06 Mar. 2017.

“The mass media and American adolescents’ health“. Brown, Jane D et al. Journal of Adolescent Health , Volume 31 , Issue 6 , 153 – 170

Fear and Loathing in America

Understanding how and why racism came about only helps a little when understanding the widespread racism that happens now, especially towards immigrants. Racism works in a chain, X causes Y, which causes Z, so on and so forth, and learning how it came about helps understand this chain a little in the sense that we know where X comes from. X in this case being the billowing fear and stereotypes that come from the hearts of the close-minded American people. With certain ideas implanted into the heads of these people through mediums such as television and political talking heads, these preconceived  notions are what allow racism to spread like a plague to the younger generation.

Certain ideas about other races have stemmed from historical events. Pearl Harbor, 9/11, and other historically recent events cause fearing Americans to be more “alert” around those that look like they committed acts like that, but racism is not a viable defense mechanism, especially decades after the events, so why does it keep happening? Like previously stated, racial stereotypes start out as jokes when young, and eventually wind up as full blown racial comments as time and persistence goes on, and like before television, film, and other sources of media portray so. people always hear about certain things and then once they read about it they assume it to be true. Say, a poor African-american or latinx lives in a shabby neighborhood, even sub-consciously, a white American will start to guess and assume about what life is like for them. “do they sell drugs, do they steal, do they have a complete family?” even if one doesn’t outright focus on these preconceived notions, they cross the mind.

These notions “plagued” white America when former president Barack Obama first took office.  one strange results to these notions came about in “white denial”. According to between Barack and a hard place by  Tim Wise, “White folks by and large failed to see what all the fuss was about when president Obama took office”.  To see the emergence of “white denial” is stunning to see when the first Black president, ever, gets inaugurated, and ” white America” still doesn’t see how monumental of an event that was is almost astonishing. The polarity of what it is today however, going from the first black president of the United states and a somewhat frighted “white america” to a man who is every ideal and belief of said “white America” goes to show how powerful these harmful ideas of “another people” can really be harmful and influential they are in America.  America was so quick to go back to a “comfort zone” of a white president, that they didn’t care who it was, or what their platform was built on. It was normalcy, something humans desire when things get too out of hand for them.

The big picture of this recent presidential event was nicknamed a “white lash” at the rest of America, so in a sense this can be seen scale model effect, when compared to racism in America as a whole. The idea of a black president stunned and infuriated that jokes about certain things going wrong would always have the punch line of “thanks Obama”. Because, for a time, most of “white America” genuinely believed that  it was his fault for a majority of their issues. He became an escape goat, an while every president has issues tied with their presidency that people do not agree with, they were never the butt of a joke. So the cries and fears people had for having a black president caused jokes, rumors, and other assorted things associated with him to spread throughout America, leaving some with a diminished view of him.  And this is exactly what happens with racism in America on a larger scale.

The cause and effect of Barack Obama’s presidency can be compared to other events. Like previously mentioned, 9/11, Pearl Harbor, and other events caused Americans, mostly white, to act in a “defensive manner”. recently after said events, people being on edge was to be expected, it was chaotic and frighting for many during the time, but as time went on, feelings diminished, but some people stuck with their “gut feeling” about other races. After 9/11 specifically, things like the TSA started to crackdown to ensure the safety of people, however random searches soon became “random”, that meaning if someone was middle eastern, and or wore a turban they would be called in for a search. It comes from the premise of equation.  Al-queda, a middle eastern terrorist organization caused the planes to crash, so many white american equated middle easterners to Al-queda, so racism and Xenophobia against middle easterners, and those of the Islamic faith, grew rampant.

Racism and Xenophobia against Middle Easterners also spread so rapidly after 9/11 because of media, once again. Places like Fox News were quick to jump the gun on anything related to muslims, but mainly the television trope of combating terrorist caused a rise in prejudice, easpecially thanks to shows like JAG and 24. An excerpt from Arabs and Muslims in the media: race and representation after 9/11 by Alsultany reads “…Bauer subverts a nuclear attack by the apparent “Middle Easterners” partially orchestrated by the Araz family, which has lived in the united states for years, secretly conspiring, with other to attack this country and murder hundres of thousands innocent Americans”. plots like this aroused the suspicion of White america, causing widespread distrust, against both long time residents, and new ones escaping from hardship

Realizing the effects that racism causes truly shows how harmful it is to those on the receiving end of it all. So these deep rooted ideals about other “people”, mixed with recent tragedies, and a wide variety of media portrayal causes this tidal wave of racism that still sweeps the country. Which in turn, causes some brush back from the receivers, and soon mass amounts of tension form with in the nation, and like a chemical reaction, said tension will explode at some point, which repeats the cycle all over again.

Works Cited

Alsultany, Evelyn. Arabs and Muslims in the media: race and representation after 9/11. New York: New York U Press, 2012. Print.

Wise, Tim J. Between Barack and a Hard Place Racism and White Denial in the Age of Obama. San Francisco: City Lights, 2009. Print.