Rights vs. Safety

Most people don’t realize that when you are on the phone or you send an email it is automatically stored by the National Security Agency (NSA). The NSA was developed after 9/11 to prevent terrorist and other attacks. Some people have taken issue with the NSA because they feel they are being unjustly violated. As it turns out, a federal judge agrees with them.

According to an article in The Guardian, Federal Judge Richard Leon believes that the collection of America’s metadata goes against the fourth amendment. This amendment states that it is illegal for unreasonable searches and seizures to take place. That being said, the NSA isn’t there just to listen to you and your friend gossip on the phone.

In a 60 Minutes piece last Sunday Keith Alexander, leader of the NSA and US Cyber Command, along with other members of the NSA revealed some of the things the NSA has done to protect the US. One attack they did see coming was called the BIOS Plot. The BIOS Plot was a system (allegedly by China) that could destroy computers. It would get the operating system to turn on the computer and essentially turn it into a brick or a paperweight. An attack like this has to potential to take down the US economy. The NSA was able to stop this catastrophe before it became a national issue.

This issue reminded me of the question we’ve been thinking about in my American Studies class. This question is: When, if ever, and to what degree, should civil liberties be limited during wartime? Although I am not talking about a war, I think this question still applies in this situation with some minor alterations. So my question is: When, if ever, and to what degree, should the NSA be able to compromise some of our rights as Americans in order to protect the US?

Good Guys and Bad Guys

In my American Studies class we’ve been talking about how on TV there are often “token” characters that are only there to make the show more diverse. My teachers have made it clear that this applies to dramas, so that left me wondering about other forms of TV. Since I generally prefer sitcoms to dramas, I decided to look up the top sitcoms to see if they follow a similar system of having “token” characters.

            According to TV Guide, these three were top in the ratings for sitcoms in 2013.

The Big Bang Theory

Two and A Half Men

How I Met Your Mother

The Big Bang Theory features Kunal Nayyar as Raj Koothrappali. Raj is the only non-white main character out of these three shows. Clearly, making sure the shows are diverse is a lot less of a concern for the producers of sitcoms than dramas, but why?

            These shows do draw fewer viewers than the dramas, but they still have around 16 million viewers each episode. In my opinion, I think that dramas are more concerned with having their “token” characters because in dramas there are often “good guys” and “bad guys”. For example, in class the vast majority of dramas we talked about were crime shows. In these shows the main characters are typically trying to solve a new case or arrest a new criminal each show. If all of the main characters on the show are the “good guys” and if they’re all white than the only characters left for minorities to play are the roles of the “bad guys”. Therefore, it is important for the main casts of dramas to seem more diverse, even if they are just tokens, so that all of the “good guys” aren’t strictly white.

            Sitcoms, on the other hand, are usually more light-hearted and don’t usually have a lot of criminals or “bad guys”.  Therefore, the networks might not view it as important to make sure their cast is diverse. Personally, I think this is an issue that should be addressed because I think that TV shows shouldn’t only be diverse so that they don’t generalize certain groups as the “bad guys”. Why do you think that top rated sitcoms are less diverse than the dramas?  

$25 for Catching an Illegal Immigrant

Believe it or not, there was an event scheduled for last Wednesday called “Catch an Illegal Immigrant” at University of Texas at Austin. The Young Conservatives of Texas, a group of college students at University of Texas, planned to have people walking around the campus with “Illegal Immigrant” on their clothing. Any student to catch one of these people would win a $25 gift card. The group said the purpose of this event was to start a campus-wide discussion about the topic of illegal immigrants but they had to cancel the event when the school threatened to expel any participants.

This event reminded me of a picture in a Zine by Billy Dee that we looked at in my American Studies class last week.

This picture had the caption “The Prison Industrial Complex criminalizes immigrants”. We learned in class that this means that immigrants are often being arrested and contained in prisons until they are deported back to their home countries. Since the object of the game was to “catch an immigrant”, isn’t it doing the same thing as the Prison Industrial Complex?

Olympics, Politics- What's the Difference?

With the Sochi Winter Olympics quickly approaching, Germany just released their colorful uniforms 

 Many are viewing these uniforms as a protest of Russia’s new laws against gay rights. In fact, many athletes are showing their support. From Sweedish high jumper Emma Green Tregaro painting a rainbow on her nails to tow Russian athletes Kseniya Ryzhova and Tatyana Firova kissing on the podium, everyone seems to be showing that they don’t support these laws.

As it turns out, this was not the first time the Olympics were used to make a political statement. At the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City, bronze and gold medals were stripped from two African American 200-meter dash sprinters. When Americans Tommie Smith and JohnCarlos stepped onto the podium to accept their medals, they were barefoot. They did this to represent the poverty that so many black Americans were struggling with. They also wore necklaces and scarves for those who were lynched and when the Star Spangled Banner played they raised their fists in a black-power solute. These men wanted to make a stand, so instead of boycotting the Olympics all together, they decided that this would make a more lasting impression. Even thought they had their medals stripped, they did make a statement for the Civil Rights Movement.

Even Jimmy Carter used the Olympics to send a message. After the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, he threatened that the United States would boycott the Moscow Olympics if Soviet troops didn’t leave Afghanistan in a month. Sure enough, when this demand wasn’t met, the United States boycotted the 1980 Olympics.

Clearly the Olympics have been grounds for political statements for years, but like many Americans, when I watch the only thing I usually notice is the sports. So should we be more aware of the political statements around us? Should the Olympics be a place of politics?

How They See Me

I’m illiterate. Well, that is according to the 1965 Alabama Literacy Test. Personally, I consider someone literate if they can read and write. However, to be considered literate in the state of Alabama at this time you would need to be able to answer questions like, “A U.S. senator elected at the general election in November takes office the following year on what date?”  To be able to answer questions like these it requires a lot of prior knowledge, not just being literate.

To be able to vote in Alabama, you could only incorrectly answer seven out of sixty-eight questions. Every single person in my American Studies class was considered illiterate by the time we got to question twenty-four. However in Alabama, not everyone had to take this test in order to vote. If your grandfather voted than you were “Grandfathered In” and you could vote without taking this test. This was done to keep African Americans from being able to vote when the laws technically said they could. These people were being judged off of factors they couldn’t control, but doesn’t that still happen today?

I think one example where you are also judged off of appearances is when you apply to college. First of all, they see your grades and the classes you take. From this they can judge whether or not your challenging yourself in the classes you take and how hard you’re working. However, I took a class last year that was considered a lower level than some of my other classes, but I still thought it was my hardest class. So can a college really tell how hard I’m working or how much I’m challenging myself by looking at my grades and classes? They also judge you off of your ethnicity, whether or not you have a family member who attended that school before you, and whether or not you live in the same state as the school you’re applying to. Many of these things a student can’t control either, so is it fair to be judged off of them?

Be Prepared

When my college councilor walked in to my advisory today to meet us, she immediately brought up standardized testing. She told us that she thought there was no point in going to a test like the ACT or SAT unprepared and that most New Trier students participate it some sort of tutoring for these tests.  This didn’t come as some big surprise to me because many parents want to do whatever they can to give their children a leg up in getting into college, including trying to boost their test scores. But does that put the students who can’t afford tutoring for standardized testing at a disadvantage?

For the ACT and SAT, the same test is administered nation wide on the same day so that it is fair and equal for all the students taking the test. However, all students are not going in on an equal playing ground if some students have been given the opportunity to prepare for the test when others have not.

According to both the ACT and SAT websites, they test to see how ready a student is for college. If going in to this test unprepared really is pointless, then wouldn’t these tests actually be testing who is more prepared for the test not college?

Candy or Crystal Meth?

Looking at the picture above, what do you think it is? Candy or crystal meth?

It seems like a ridiculous questions, but some members of the NYPD suspected the latter. In Brooklyn, 25 year old Love Olantunjiojo was detained for 24 hours because cops thought that the six Jolly Ranchers he was carrying were actually crystal meth. An article wrote that his lawyer responded, “I don’t know if these cops have been watching ‘Breaking Bad,’ but my client is not Walter White.”

I don’t watch Breaking Bad, so that line didn’t mean much to me. However, it did cause me to think about the number of crime shows on TV today in America. In these shows there’s usually a cop or a detective who solves a case in a way the viewer would never expect, like figuring out that some candy is actually crystal meth. The reason for this is obvious: ratings. Who wants to watch a show where someone gets pulled over for speeding or the person who committed the crime is exactly you’d expect?  

I think this case shows how TV can cause Americans to have unrealistic expectations. To assume some candy is crystal meth is clearly a stretch, yet things like happen all the time in crime shows. If Americans start to assume that everything that happens on TV could happen in their lives, I think they are expecting their lives to be far more exciting and dramatic than the average American’s.

Is a member of the 10 most wanted list going to turn himself in and then refuse to talk to anyone but you like in The Blacklist? Probably not. Is a mysterious person that goes by “A” going to try to ruin your life after your best friend dies like in Pretty Little Liars? I certainly hope not. Is your candy actually crystal meth? It’s highly unlikely.

Most Americans, including myself, enjoy watching TV. However, it should be seen for what it is: entertainment. Does television play too big of a role in our lives? Does it impact how we view the world around us?