welcome fellow historians.
this blog is an opportunity for you to begin or continue formal discussions similar to those we have in class. I encourage any student to either bring up an issue that they'd hoped to pursue during class discussion, or begin a discussion based on something they've read/encountered through homework/reading assignments or otherwise.
this blog is an extension of our classroom, and as such, the expectations is that your interactions will be respectful.
enjoy the journey.
Does "real America" always have the right answer, or what is it that corrupts them/divided them from the rest of the country?
ReplyDeleteNo "real America" doesn't. From the film the definition of real America was defined through the people of the film and made it apparent that many of them did not find and or have "the right answer". Someone like myself would hope that real Americans could find the underlying issues of this country and focus on the facts that have an effect on all Americans. However, many of the real Americans seemed to focus on his "color" and "religion" rather than his views. After watching the film, I felt that some people were just voting for McCain because they were republican and they would "never vote for a democrat". The ideas that corrupt them and divid them are where they are geographically located and the people that surround them. There was a young boy in the film that was completely against Obama for no reason and the only thing that he had to really say about him was that if he became president he "would move to Canada". These people do not really know their facts and instead they are repeating things that they have heard around them. The real idea is that they think they are real America and that they show what most of Americans think, but why is it that Obama became president because obviously more people voted for him.
ReplyDeleteI love the personal bias already expressed on this blog. In support of the self-proclaimed "real Americans" from the documentary, I have to say I really appreciated the honesty of those that, as Alexis pointed out (although with a different view), based their political alliances on color/religion. A lot of them were willing to admit, for example, that they were "just not ready for a black president." In particular, there was one man who kept saying "that's just how backward I am," and he was being perfectly honest to himself and to the viewers how conservative he was (remember "if I had it my way, women wouldn't be voting).
ReplyDeleteI also think the packet on the Civil War points out an awesome idea of how concrete issues being reduced to abstract principles make conflicts this country expand until people are willing to give their lives for their "beliefs." Take the Obama and the pin for example. I personally (in a very influenced and bias opinion) feel that Obama was right in taking the pin off. The point is that what the pin "symbolizes" is no longer the actual issues or rights that we as Americans care about; rather, it symbolizes principles and a vague sense of patriotism that (pardon me) is an excuse for actual conduct. If we in reality conducted ourselves in a way that gives justice to what we believe in, there's no need for a pin or anything else to tell the world for us that we are a just, moral, sane group of people.
Tiffany
I do definitely agree that some citizens belonging to a particular party only elect candidates belonging to that party. This just exemplifies how stubborn people can be about their democratic or republican beliefs. I believe that this stubborn behavior accounts for the continued bipartisanship of the United States, making it impossible for everyone to agree on everything.
ReplyDeleteThere is also the issue, that the Civil War causes packet raises, of passion. Passion symbolizes people being firm in their beliefs, which can cause them to act rash towards others who disagree with their views. It is kind of interesting to see how far passion can make people go, causing for reason and compromises to be disregarded in favor of violence, succession, and war.
I agree with what Annie said about passion, in the sense that it is definetely very interesting to see how far passion makes people go, and what people will do to fight for what they believe in. I think its somewhat sad that our country is so divided, but I also believe it is reasonable because not everyone will ever agree on everything, and everyone is stubborn in their own beliefs. THis video definetely showed a side of America I wasn't made aware of, and I find it really interesting to see how hard people are willing to fight, and how much they are willing to say to degrade the other side. But what I'm questioning is if there is a solution to this division, because it really seems like there isn't one.
ReplyDeleteI tried having this conversation with my parents at the dinner table last night and was somewhat shocked that I could point out so much bias in our discussion. Because we are part of the upper class population, it is hard for us to consider the perspective of many of the interviewee's from the documentary. On the east coast, most of us consider the "commoner" as the business man. We understand that we have a dependence on the resources in regions farther west, but I find that we continue to struggle (and rarely knowingly) with considering the opposing end.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I do not feel I can completely blame those who's comments I found so extremely ridiculous in the documentary. I, no doubt, had huge issues with the "not ready for a black president" and "if it were up to me, you wouldn't be voting" comments. However, I had to take a step back and force myself to consider the huge degree of influence our environments have on our beliefs. I think it is more important to try to understand where these beliefs are coming from rather than getting rapped up in a debate.
(...And of course there are people like the "s-o-c-i-l-i-s-m" kid in the documentary for whom I am still having trouble finding reason to pardon.)
I feel impelled to bring up the idea of oversimplification again. I recently wrote an English paper discussing my observation that people tend to pick out the "good" and "bad" qualities based on society's ideology and then create versions of themselves (usually subconsciously) that appeal to society. These classifications are generated by society's pressure on the individual, and I think that because of that, an isolated population's interpretation of good/bad has become extremely uniform.
Unfortunately, this has created America's bipartisanship as a society's ideology is also influenced by its environment. Our biggest issue, though, is that when a people is introduced to the idea of self-representation, this bipartisanship is inevitable. People are bound to develop their own ideas. The government can't instruct its citizens what's right and wrong because it will only cause more outrage--citizens have already nibbled at the sweet taste of democracy and simply wouldn't allow the government to make a decision on its own. Because the Americans are fighting over the idea of governmental intervention, the government can't do much but stand by and hope that the people won't tear each other apart. A republic is high maintenance. The internal rivalry is the price we pay for insisting on this system of government.
Bailey brought up a really good question when she said if there could be a solution to the clear division our country suffers from. I like Kelly's idea, where she says that bipartisanship is inevitable due to the idea of self-representation and democracy. Even further, I think that bipartisanship is hugely impacted by geography. Typically, the South tends to have more conservatives while the North has more liberals. When people grow up surrounded by ideas that sway more to one side than the other, it's more likely that a person will develop similar views. To me, this creates almost an isolation between Americans based on where they live. I don't think this will change unless babies stop being born...which probably isn't going to happen any time soon.
ReplyDeleteI do think that bipartisanship is a bit of a downfall for America, however, because it causes a person to be predisposed to vote for the member of their party. If a person is a democrat, they're more likely to immediately support the democrat regardless of their stances. This is clear not only from the movie we watched, where extremely conservative citizens were prepared to vote for McCain and hate on Obama for various reasons, as well as the Glass Booth system that Schager told us all about the other day. A person would come into class being all for Obama, then he or she would take the quiz and realize that, in fact, his or her views are more aligned with McCain's stances (and vice-versa). All in all, I think that the existence of political parties isn't really helping America, and if they were to end, there might be an election winner based less off of democrats voting for democrats and republicans voting for republicans and more on what Americans actually want to lead their country.
I hope everything I just said makes sense, and if it doesn't...sorry guys. HAVE FUN FINISHING YOUR PAPERS!
- Sarah
2 comments coming. Sorry, I have a lot to say.
ReplyDeleteI think the beauty of America is that there is in fact no "real America." We have become both a "salad bowl" and "melting pot" culture, being able to adopt the views and culture of a multitude of ethnicities and nationalities and yet having also developed some aspects of our society to be "American."
That being said, though there are many downsides to our country's dangerous bipartisanship, it is an inevitable and somewhat beneficial side effect of the fact that there is no “real America.” We’ve just taken it way too far. I find the fact that people can affiliate themselves with a political party that has similar beliefs to them somewhat reassuring. That way, we’re not all fighting each other separately; we know we can agree with someone. Sure, it may make the nation more susceptible to being split apart in the future because there is Democrat and Republican, North and South, liberal and conservative, but isn’t it reassuring that in a nation of people who come from many entirely different backgrounds, many of them can agree on a single political party?
I agree with Kelly in saying the oversimplification of issues is what really has caused this bipartisanship to become an issue. The fact that Americans are the products of so many different family backgrounds and their accompanying opinions and cultural beliefs is both a benefit of America and a problem, for it causes people to be adamantly in support of something that someone from a different background could be completely opposed to. In America, there's the "real America", the "1%", the inbetweens, the minorities, the North, the South, the East, the West, the Center, the Jersey Shore-- the list goes on and on. I hate to even split people up into categories, but the fact is, they do it to themselves. We all do; it makes us feel like we belong somewhere. We all have prejudices against, alliances with, neutralities towards one another, which all cause us to believe there's one right and wrong answer to every problem in this country depending on whether we want to disagree in spite of someone or agree in support of another. With this oversimplification of issues comes the issue of prejudice against a certain idea just because of who believes in it.
I understand that the majority of people in this country have been able to identify that they share the common state of being deprived of some things, namely money and health/medical/educational, etc. benefits that are "handed out" generously to the "1%." They believe they are the "real America," and I agree completely with Alexis in saying they do not always, nor do they ever have a right answer. For example, they think they are "real America." They are not. We are all America. We live here, don't we? And in the end, our world has become so screwed up that, I hate to say it, but there never seems to be an answer that turns out propitiously for everyone, which the "real America" seems to believe they've got down pat.
Even so, in watching the video, I realized that I couldn’t be mad at these people for thinking they are "real America," nor can I be mad at them for some of the more... odd... things they said. I remember this great quote that former Senator Moynihan said: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, not his own facts." And I think that quote really applies here. We can't be mad at these people for having an opinion, however stupid and infuriating it may be. I mean, when that lady said, "we need more good Christians in this country," I was pretty mad. But this is what people think, what they live their lives believing and swearing upon, and though we can try to change it by promoting tolerance peacefully, this is America; they are entitled to freedom of speech. Whether or not I agreed with them (and I really, really didn't) is irrelevant, because I can't tell them to shut up. If they were putting people at harm, like those two guys wrestling each other over the poster, then yes, intervene. And if they are making up facts about Obama, like the "fact" that he's a terrorist, or a "socilist," that's not OK either. However, the beauty of being an American is that we can all have different opinions without some KGB-esque secret police hunting us down if we have an opinion that differs or even seems wrong to people of other dispositions, if you will. Yeah, it sucks that because of this our country has become dangerously bipartisan, but it's bound to happen. After all, we are all different and have different outlooks on issues.
ReplyDeleteI'm not trying to say it's OK for people to be racist, prejudiced, bigoted, against people for no good reason, etc. In fact, this is one of the biggest issues I have with the world, that there are racial extremists and horribly bigoted people out there, that there are "real Americans" who feel that they need to make up terrible lies about Obama to corroborate the necessity of McCain's being president. But to hold a logical opinion, or even a logical fear, like those who feared losing their small businesses if Obama were to be president, is OK and should even be encouraged. And to find oneself comfortably affiliated with a political party should not be an issue either... provided that they don't take it too far.
Love always, Caitlyn
(by the way the Jersey Shore thing was a joke, in reference to the show because... I hate that show. K bye)
ReplyDeleteI think that although the views in the movie were clearly very extreme and not representative of the country as a whole, it is inevitable to have parties and people siding with certain recurring ideas, which are usually held by the party they affiliate with. When I asked my dad if he ever voted for someone from the opposite part than he "belongs" to, he said no. At first I thought this showed that he only voted based on the party. However, he went on to explain that in every election he has voted in, the people running in each party was so different and one person better embodied the beliefs that he holds. He said that he still looks closely at both candidates and their ideas before voting and it has just worked out that he always votes within his party. On the other hand, he also explained that in some elections he has had to vote for the "least bad" condidate because he didn't like either. I think this may be similar to the people in the movie because they were always talking about why they didn't vote for Obama and didn't say as much about why they "loved" McCain.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, I think that the party affiliation in our country needs to be, but some people take it further by creating extremes that no longer represent the views of who they are voting for but rather keep them within the bounds of a certain political party. In essence, the elections are not black and white, republican or democratic, as many people make them out to be. This is the main problem in politics in the U.S. in my opinion.
HEY GUYS
ReplyDeleteI'm going to post the text to an article from the Wall Street Journal Political Diaries that was released today, and I think it totally relates to what we spoke about in class today, regarding the effect politics has when it comes to national tragedies like this and how people point blame. There's a lot more to it, so I'd love to open this up for discussion.
ADIOS!
PART ONE:
ReplyDelete'Pin This on the Tea Partiers'
The shootings in Tucson, Ariz., are being called a "teachable moment" for America. And I agree that there are many things to be learned from them, especially how and when to intervene after people show signs of clear mental instability such as those that Jared Loughner exhibited prior to his picking up a gun.
But another lesson from Arizona is how people can exploit a tragedy for political gain. Tucson Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, the elected Democrat in charge of the investigation, accused the tea party of bigotry last September. Now he has ventured even further afield from his duties by deploring the political critics of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the intended victim of Loughner. He told Fox News that there had been "vitriolic statements made night and day on radio and TV about her support of health care, about her support of some of the other things, and some of the vitriol got . . . a lot of people agitated."
MSNBC political commentator Keith Olbermann even had the chutzpah to go on air Saturday night and call for rhetorical restraint in politics while simultaneously demanding that Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly of Fox News offer "solemn apologies" for giving "oxygen to those deep in madness to whom violence is an acceptable solution."
PART TWO:
ReplyDeletePolitico.com quoted one veteran Democratic operative saying that the Obama White House should use the tragedy to score political points. "They need to deftly pin this on the tea partiers," he said. "Just like the Clinton White House deftly pinned the Oklahoma City bombing on the militia and anti-government people." Indeed, at the time of the bombing in 1995, then-Clinton strategist Dick Morris had penned a memo on how the tragedy could lead to a "permanent possible gain" because it "sets up Extremist issue vs. Republicans."
Happily, there have been a few sane voices on the left cautioning against exploiting the tragedy for partisan gain. Some have pointed out that the media and political reaction to U.S. Army psychologist Nidal Hasan's killing spree at Fort Hood, Texas, in late 2009 was highly restrained. Even though Major Hasan had ties to violent jihadists and had yelled out an Islamic religious expression as he set about killing 13 people and wounding 42, everyone urged caution in not jumping to conclusions that he was engaged in terrorism.
Steve Kornacki, the news editor of the left-wing Salon.com, noted that Longhner's "political thinking isn't particularly coherent or organized." He said attempts to link Sarah Palin to the Arizona tragedy because her website once put crosshairs on a map of Ms. Gifford's district along with those of 18 other Democrats may show that Ms. Palin's "opponents are trying just a little too hard to make her the villain."
So perhaps one of the clearest "teachable moments" we can get out of the Arizona carnage is to exercise the same kind of restraint that the media and politicians did with the Hasan killings -- at least until all the facts are in.
-- John Fund
In response to the class discussion today:
ReplyDeleteI found Jared Loughner's youtube channel
(http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10#p/a/u/2/PnNx0WThoF0)
and to be honest his videos are weird (especially the one titled, How to: Mind Control) and his ideas are bizarre. Based on the ideas he proposed I think he clearly needs help. Loughner lived a good portion of his life without most people trying to help him seek treatment for his mental issues that were clear from being around him. I believe most people with mental illnesses do not tell their friends/ family or do not seek treatment because they are worried of how society will view them. How often does a person open a magazine or turn on the television and see a person with a mental illness being portrayed positively? Personally, I have never witnessed this. Whenever I have seen a person in a movie or television show that has a mental illness they are being portrayed as crazy people who do not fit into society. I believe until these views of people with mental illnesses change than the people who have these diseases are not going to be as willing to seek help. People need to come together as a society and except people who are different.
As a response to Gabriella's comment, I obviously agree that it is important to identify those who need help, but I think we need to be careful about our conclusions as to why these people don't get the help. I think to be fair, we need to be a bit more general in our conclusions because, as we learned from the Women's Suffrage papers, there a lot of different factors that contribute to something like this.
ReplyDeleteAs to my reaction to Ben's article, I think it's sad how even after such a tragedy, people are still trying to make their arguments against the opposing political party: "Politico.com quoted one veteran Democratic operative saying that the Obama White House should use the tragedy to score political points. "They need to deftly pin this on the tea partiers," he said." Maybe politicians *are* trying to go through the national soul-searching process, but I still see that politics are consuming our consideration for humanity. Someone died, and all this guy can think about is blaming the Tea Party activists?
Much like Kelly said, this is another saddening example as to why partisan politics is so horrible and how we are not very "united" as a people. Politicians and media outlets didn't go minutes after this tragedy occurred before attacking those in the opposing parties. We have turned this tragedy in which we should be mourning as a nation into an event that political figures have used to try win political points by smearing others. I personally feel it was disgraceful, from reading Ben's article, how the sheriff immediately pointed his finger at the Tea Party. Trying to put my bias aside, it seems disgraceful to me that he, and so
ReplyDeletemany other politicians, would make such strong accusations that in are in no way actually supported by any legitimate evidence. Loughner is clearly a deranged man who needs help, and until we understand his motives and how his mind functions, any finger pointing as to possible causes of this massacre is just misleading and will further divide our already heavily divided nation.
Doug
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, we need to be realistic here. Partisan politics in itself is not to blame. Any democracy must have at least two parties in place, which are elected by the people. Otherwise, the country ends up looking like Iran or the Soviet Union where it was near impossible for strong beneficial change to run its course, because the candidates' opinions were so similar. If you want to blame partisan politics, specify who or what you are condemning; the political system itself should not be under attack, but rather the people who use irrelevant and dangerous rhetoric to ignite the indignation of the type of American portrayed in "Right America Feeling Wronged," as well as people with the capability to be violent. Maybe it is time America points fingers at the politicians whose rhetoric could encourage a senseless act of violence. Isn't it of simple moral responsibility to denounce an action that could lead to injustice or violence? Unfortunately, it took a tragic day for this important conversation to be brought up.
ReplyDeleteThe question really comes down to, who do we as Americans looking in depth at this tragedy blame in a situation like this, where a man with serious and obvious mental issues who has been deemed a "freak" kills and injures multiple people while going after a politician who just happened to be "targeted" on Sarah Palin's crosshairs chart? Do we blame ourselves? Should the people in America of the past and present be blamed for having caused the bipartisanship in this country to become dangerous and detrimental through their excessive devotion to one side? Should the politicians be blamed for, like Erik said, encouraging a complete, sometimes physical, devotion to one's own party and forgetting the need to stay together as a whole in this country? Should Sarah Palin and her administration be blamed for making the mistake of using a crosshairs map to "target" politicians who voted for the Health Care bill for bringing guns and targeting into a political message? Should all those who believed the shooter of this incident was a stark right-wing republican who despised democrats in perfectly good health (I'll admit, that's what I immediately thought of upon hearing the tragedy-- who would immediately think of a possibly schizophrenic man on some unexplainable mission?) be blamed because they are the embodiment of the political prejudice in this country? Should these people be blamed for assuming Loughner had political motives, when he may not have? Should Loughner's friends, family, classmates, etc. be blamed for neglecting a man who clearly needed help but didn't know it? Should all Americans be blamed for not knowing how to or not wanting to deal with people who have mental issues? And finally, should Loughner, a possible schizophrenic, ignored and deemed a freak and creeper by his peers, with the unexplainable desire to kill other people, including a politician, be blamed? Is it all of these factors that contributed to this situation? Is it none? Who should be apologizing, and who should be pointing fingers?
ReplyDeleteI know I’ve asked a lot of questions without answering them, and I have done so because I don’t think there’s a right answer to any of these questions. I don’t think we can blame anyone for this tragedy. The whole country is confused and angry right now, some feeling guiltier than others and some feeling less responsible, and just like gaining suffrage, it’s a confluence of factors that contributed to this situation. The biggest question is, however, should or can one person be blamed, or any person at all, when tragedy hits, when it's questionable that some factors seem inevitable and others just terrible mistakes? Or can you only blame America for being the way it is.
Here's a link to Sarah Palin's crosshairs map:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wisepolitics.com/sarah-palin-crosshairs-map-target-list-2989.html
I agree with Caitlyn about all of the different questions we should be asking ourselves and especially that there is no right answer here. This was a tragedy and I am in no way trying to undermine it, but it has already happened. Pointing fingers will not do anything. But, what we should be asking ourselves and our leaders is what can we do to prevent something like this happening again. And (assuming Loughner did have political motives) this is something much bigger than change gun control laws or anything like that. Preventing something like this from happening again would require a change in the country. This is America and people have the right to different views but I think some politicians get lost in it all and can take their opinions a little too far as we saw in Right America: Feeling Wronged. Even besides the radical conservatives in that film, the documenter herself was wildly liberal and making a documentary that puts conservatives in such a negative light just reenforces how destructive bipartisan politics are. We need to ask ourselves why this happened. Not who's to blame, but what exactly caused it and if it was bipartisan politics, then this system of bipartisan politics needs to change, if that's what will prevent this from happening again.
ReplyDeleteI think Martha has a valid point when she says that this is a political issue that stretches farther than gun control, but I think that a change in the current system would be almost impossible. Sure, there used to be a lot of different parties that developed into the two main parties we have today, but it seems that the republican party and democratic party will not be going anywhere all too soon. Both are so widespread that most people fall SOMEWHERE on the spectrum. Deleting the parties themselves and deleting party affiliations (like labeling this candidate as liberal or democrat and this candidate as conservative or republican) could not alter the massive differences in opinion that America has. I think that, yes, the lack of labels might clear up the air a little bit, but I think that bipartisan politics couldn't ever really disappear when so many people fall under it. You can take away the "partisan" part, but it still wouldn't help the fact that America is incredibly divided in views. (I'm sorry I used the word "you"...)
ReplyDeleteOn another note, in regards to Loughner, I wondered why he wasn't nearly forced into mental evaluation when it was so highly recommended by his own educational system. I didn't quite understand why his parents didn't bring him to a clinic. Perhaps his symptoms were a bit undetectable, but I have to think that something must have seemed off about their son (at this point you can tell that I think that Loughner must have some kind of mental illness, especially after watching the youtube channel that Gabriella posted). Why don't people come forward about these types of things, and why don't people report when a loved family member or friend doesn't seem like he or she is acting normally? I guess I'm just having a hard time grappling why so many mental illnesses are left untreated and end up like the Virginia Tech shooting, and now, the Tucson shooting.
- Sarah
I actually don't think bipartisanship caused it to happen, and I think that if this situation happened a month ago, when we weren't discussing RA,FW and the foibles of bipartisanship in America, then it would not be discussed as much among us as a factor to causing this. I think people are assuming too much and not looking at the real problems of this issue. There is a man here who, for some reason that I don't know, was allowed to be ignored by his classmates in college after being a good student in high school. He was allowed to leave college after being suspended and was allowed to go without taking a mental illness test even though it was necessary to him coming back to college. He was allowed to plan an assassination without intervention. He was allowed possession of a gun somehow, and finally, he was left to have some sort of mental illness develop in his brain without anyone close to him trying to fix it, which is more of a problem than Sarah Palin's crosshairs chart, gun laws, and the bipartisanship in this country. Assassinations have happened in this country, multiple times. Yes, upon first glance this looks like the work of a destructive bipartisanship, but don't all assassinations? Personally, if I hadn't read the articles Mrs. Schager emailed to us, I would have definitely assumed this was a stark right-wing republican just as ridiculous as the people in RA, FW. Shouldn't people begin to assume that anyone trying to kill a politician or any person has some sort of something going on in his or her brain? Otherwise, like we discussed in class Monday, these people who need help, most of the time without knowing, will go on without help, solving nothing.
ReplyDelete*assassinations and shootings.
ReplyDeleteSimilar to what Caitlyn said, it is ridiculous that he was not allowed in the military yet he was allowed possession of a gun. Gun laws are obviously another point of discussion however, what America needs to focus on is that similar to what Obama said at the memorial, "Rather than pointing fingers" we should question our morals and heighten our listening skills. We should focus and be more aware of the people around us and their problems. Like what Meagan said in class people who have significant issues many individuals do not want to get involved with. They figure that it will be a hassle and complicated. As a child, you are taught to be accepting however, when there are obvious problems Americans must know that they should step up and do something about it.
ReplyDeleteHey guys,
ReplyDeletePerez found a little more information on Loughner. Scroll down to "Drugs, Arrests, Bullying And More! New Deets On Arizona Shooter!"
http://perezhilton.com/page/9/
Any reactions?
I would just like to point out that I sent Caitlyn that link...lolz.
ReplyDeleteI think this article, however, is a testament to how Loughner really wasn't okay. He was bullied twice in pretty extreme ways - I mean, he was assaulted with a needle as well as forced through emotional trauma when an "ex-friend posted a mock profile of him on the internet". Both would be rather traumatizing to any individual, but I think his choices to drink and use drugs often later on might have added to the trauma or emotional confusion he might have had from when he was bullied. Of course, this is all speculation, but I find it hard to believe that nothing drove him to be as weird as his college students claimed him to be. Perhaps it was a trauma from being bullied that led to forms of self-medication...his arrests might have given him a feeling of invincibility as well. After all, if a person is arrested, there's not a lot more a person can do than be arrested again. Maybe Loughner's thinking was somewhere along these lines. Does anybody think that his decision might have stemmed from his rocky adolescent years? Maybe his own isolation from other kids that were more, for lack of better word, "normal" affected his mental illness which he supposedly has? What do you all think?
Perez for life <3333
You sent me that link to tell me about the Bratz dolls controversy. Nice try.
ReplyDeleteWell, his "rocky adolescent years" may have caused him to be who he is today, but I think another factor is his lack of mental intervention.Back to what Sarah said eariler about how she thought it was enigmatic that his parents did not find help for him, even though it was recommended, I think there is a possibility that his parents were in denial. They might not want to be the parents with the really strange kid, and every parent wants to believe that their child is special in some way and as perfect as a child can be. They might have felt embarrassed. I think this may be the case for others,as well, but his lack of mental intervention is still strange. I mean,as shown by his weird videos on youtube, something is clearly off about with him and I think to the point where his parents should be concerned enough to get him the help he needs.
ReplyDeleteI think Loughner's life was a domino affect. He was first bullied pretty severely, which led him to turn to drugs and alcohol. He was then arrested and received no professional help when he clearly needed it. Multiple things led to Loughner committing the shooting crime in Arizona, which I believe could have been prevented if Loughner had been treated for his issues. In response to Sarah's questions, his adolescent life contributed to his actions as he got older as I explained previously. I agree with Sarah that Loughner's isolation from "normal" children aided in his mental illness because he probably knew he was different from the typical child since they would bully him. The bullying he experienced might have added hostile and violent feelings towards others. These feelings could have built up over many years spent without help from family or friends.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI actually disagree with your argument Gabriella-
ReplyDeleteI don't think this is a simple case when a kid goes down hill from being bullied; I think it was derived from a more complicated reason.
Loughner had had very strong beliefs about something called "nothingness". What this meant was that he literally believed in nothing, which is why he was so convoluted and all of his thoughts seemed to be so disconnected. Also, 3 and a half years before his attack, he was a a meeting with G. Giffords, where he asked, "what would government be if words had no meaning?" (60 minutes). Her response to this was, well, nothing. Her inability to answer his question created this grudge against her, but nothing to do with her political beliefs. His choices were not random, but he wanted this reaction from everybody. To add to that effect, he also chose Giffords because she was high profile. According to two of his close friends, "[Jared] actually wanted/predicted all of this to happen, he wanted us to be questioning ourselves and look for a real reason why he did the attack: nothing?".
Finally, we should reconsider the gun law, as glock sales soared up by 60% the day after the attack. Hmm..
I think that what actually caused Jared to go on a rampage is a combination of what James and Gabriella said. It was obvious that he needed help and received none and the fact that he was bullied could have contributed to his need for help. Because he was so unstable, it was only a matter of time before he did something rash, and Giffords provided the catalyst that lead to what he did. It was a combination of factors that lead to the shooting, his unstableness and the catalyst, neither can be ignored.
ReplyDeleteIt is amazing to hear that Rep. Giffords has already left the first hospital and "Doctors at the Houston, Texas, hospital where U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was transferred said that while she remains in intensive care, she has surprised them with the progress she has already made."
ReplyDeleteMore information on her transfer can be found here:
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/23/arizona.shooting/
In addition to what everyone has been saying about the life of Loughner and what caused the shooting, I find it fascinating to look at the aftermath of the shooting. As Alexis said, Rep. Giffords is making great progress, but she still has countless months of recovery ahead. Also, I was reading about the shooting and the trial of Loughner.
ReplyDeleteFrom the associated press, I read that "It's a case that likely will take years to play out as it goes through the many phases of the criminal justice system: prosecutions by both federal and state authorities, proceedings over whether to move the case to a different venue, a possible insanity defense by Loughner and prosecutors' likely push for the death penalty" (Case in Giffords shooting likely to take years). I was amazed that it would take years to finally come to a conclusion about the fate of this man.
At first it seemed to be so black and white to me-he went around killing so many innocent people. However, there seem to be layers of this situation that keeping turing up, and it seems they will continue to be uncovered. What do you think the punishment for Loughner should be and how should the law enforcement come to this conclusion?
This is from Rachel:
ReplyDeleteI think that the significance of this event can be seen through this discussion. Almost twenty days after the shooting, we are still talking about the impact and how things need to change. Even though it may not be flashing all over the news, this specific shooting was a wake up call to our country. Because Loughner was first thought have shot Rep. Gifford for political reasons, this shooting could have been an example of the people feeling mistreated by the government. However, it was an act of personal expression. I cannot condone his shooting, but because he was labeled a freak by society, what else was he supposed to do. He was though to be scary and crazy so thats what he became. I know that Alexandra posted about his trial and how he will be punished, but I do not think that that's what should be the main focus now. It reevaluating society's behavior and opinions of others to become more accepting of "freaks." I definitely think that he should be punished for the casualties, but think of who is to blame for his actions.
I think it is very unfortunate how our society allows people to slip through the cracks. In the society that we live in today people are allowed to post crazy things online, and act out in public areas and we as people usually don't do anything about it. With the exception of extreme cases like the Tucson shooting. I agree with what many of you have said about the problem starting with adolescence in school and at home. I believe that the problems mainly start in middle and high schools. Children, through the years are becoming more and more vicious and clever in the ways they torment one another. It's no longer just the school yard bully stealing lunch money. On top of that children now have to face the cruelties of cyber and verbal/mental abuse. Very few children are brought up in homes like ours (Ours meaning the shiny pink bubble that is Westport). I'm not saying that Westport is perfect, however, most of us are being brought up in environments that teach us how to deal with the burdens of high school torment. That being said, I have no idea how Loughner was brought up. But it is clear to me that no one helped him learn how to deal with and conquer the torment of his childhood and even adult years. Because of this he became secluded, awkward, weird... And let's be honest here, who wants to have to hang out with "that weird kid"? We all know who these people are... What they look like, and what they do. In fact I can think of a few in our own school. The big question is, Why don't we do anything to help them until it's too late? How many more shootings, bombings, and knife attacks in public places and schools is it going to take before we as American people step up and do something??? Sure you can make stricter gun laws and beef up security, but things like that take time and of course money (something this country doesn't exactly have at the moment). This whole issue has left me feeling helpless. I want someone to do something, I want to stop the senselessness but I just don't where to start. There are so many problems out there that need fixing... how do we decide which ones to fix first? And while thats being sorted out how many more lives will be lost before people can open their eyes?
ReplyDeleteSorry that I don't have much time to respond right now (chorale paper <333), but does anybody think it's ridiculous that Loughner actually pleaded not guilty?
ReplyDeleteI actually do not think it is as ridiculous as it seems that Loughner pleaded not guilty. Loughner's actions, and other evidence like his Youtube channel, indicate that he was definitely not on the same "page" as most people. He had all of these weird theories about currency and the Consitution, and then he had all of these "If then" statements that he was using to prove his (kind of crazy) points. While I think that it is strange for him to plead not guilty, since a bunch of people witnessed him killing/wounding 20 or so people, I can see that because society seems to have ignored his problems, we may be the ones who are guilty. Obviously, Westport and Staples High School is not the problem...but what about his college? Clearly he was having a difficult time in class, but the administration did not help him. Instead, they kicked him out, which only got him angrier. Furthermore, when people who do not see eye to eye with most of society feel rejected or isolated, it is likely that they get angry and want to retaliate. I suppose, then, that Loughner was simply trying to prove his point or simply get revenge on the people who have always passed him by. While his actions seem wrong in our minds, they may not seem so bad in his, which is probably why he is pleading not guilty.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest with you, I don't quite know how to respond to something like that. I understand that he is suffering from metal disabilities and that there were many factors that led to him shooting but COMMON HE SHOOT AND KILLED 6 PEOPLE AND WOUNDED OTHERS! There no good reasons to plead him innocent.
ReplyDeleteI agree somewhat agree with Katie in the sense that Loughner pleading not guilty comes as no surprise to me, I disagree with the pseudo-justification of his crime, because of the blatant immorality in his crime as expressed in sarah's question. While the ability for a person to plead insanity in a court of law is no stranger to criticism, it usually is impugned when someone is who is widely thought of as perfectly sane uses it as what is seen as a scapegoat. However in this case, because of all the evidence claiming he had mental stability issues (i.e. his blog, kicking out of school etc) continually being brought forth by the media, many people are very receptive of the fact that his mental instability might me the sole reason for his killing. The question I want to propose is wether or not Loughner should be given a lesser sentence than someone who is "sane"? Personally I have trouble accepting that Loughner shooting 19 people and killing 7 is less of a demonic act because he was "insane." Regardless of the punishment at stake I personally find it unfit for him to be given more leeway for being mentally Insane. I don't believe there is genuinely anything that can justify his actions and feel as though he should be prosecuted not as an insane man, but a man who just killed seven people.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'm with Ryan here. No matter the degree of his mental issues, he killed and shot people, and in our justice system, that means he is punished and punished severely. Whether he gets the death penalty or not is another story, which I'd rather not touch on since I am kind of biased on the death penalty issue in general. However, no matter how much we analyze the situation, we as high schoolers across the country cannot figure out his real intent in the killing, which plays a role in his punishment. We really don’t know, and I doubt we’ll hear it from the man who pleaded not guilty in court for the most ridiculously obvious crime. So how can we assume that he should get a lesser punishment than normal when, just like every other killer, he had some sort of unbalance in his brain (I think it’s safe to say that anyone who feels a desire to kill other people has some sort of mental issue) that caused him to break the law, and we don’t know his intent in killing Giffords and others?
ReplyDeleteOn a slightly unrelated but still interesting note, I'm watching a show on TLC called "My Deadly Appetite," where a kid has a disease called Prader-Willi syndrome, a genetic disease that causes two main disabilities: the inability for the person to tell when they are full (they can eat until their stomach literally explodes), and also learning disabilities/uncontrollable anger. He got expelled from his school because he threw books at and stapled a teacher’s arm four times when he tried to take him to the principal’s office. After the incident, he said, "I couldn't control my anger. I just couldn't." I found this to be somewhat similar to Loughner's story-- first off, this is a kid who has parents that seem to have "let him go" just because they are both overweight; in actuality, he cannot help it because it is due to a chromosomal mutation, and he cannot control his weight, and it has subjected him to bullying and prejudice, sort of how Loughner’s insanity should not be blamed solely on his peers or family because it could be a real mental issue. However, just like Loughner, do you punish a kid to the same degree as a normal (as in not genetically diseased) child for hurting other people and destroying school property when the kid has a genetic disorder that causes him to have uncontrollable anger? We want to say no, but only because we want to show him mercy because he has a genetic disease beyond his control. Yet, after looking at these two issues, when we think of a shooting or a child acting out, we want to be lenient with them because we are categorizing their wrongdoings separately from those that children without mental issues commit, when in actuality, no child with perfect mental health would staples a teacher’s arm or kill innocent strangers and a politician. (If that makes any sense…).
I think the point I’m trying to make is that obviously it’s a very difficult situation, and I don’t quite know how I myself would answer it. I would say to punish Loughner like a normal person, but I would feel guilty.
I completely agree with Caitlyn when she says she has mixed feelings about the punishment of Loughner because similar to her, I feel as though he deserves to be punished, but it may not have been completely his fault because of his clear unstable mentality. In an article I read about Jared Lee Loughner it made it clear that he was continuously, "disconnected from reality." While reading about him, I became sympathetic because even one of classmates said “I sat behind him in that class and dropped it partially because of him. He was the kind of guy I pictured bringing a gun to class and shooting everyone.” To me, this not only proves that people weren't particularly friendly towards him, but that no one did anything about it. We touched upon this in class but I am fascinated by how people chose to steer clear from the "creepy" guy when it was clear he needed help.
ReplyDeleteAnother question that came to my mind while thinking about this situation was: How did someone with such problems obtain a gun? I don't completely understand the process that someone has to go through to buy a gun, but I know enough to say that Loughner shouldn't have been able to get one. I think this should serve as a wake up call for America to show that it maybe shouldn't be so easy to buy a gun. Loughner even had a criminal record which had "minor offenses since 2007."
I completely agree with Olivia's point. The fact that he was able to purchase a gun is incomprehensible. He wasn't allowed in the military, yet he is able to have a hand held gun.
ReplyDeleteHowever to transition to the new current events regarding Egypt it seems very apparent that the US is having a trouble handling the situation because "the administration seems to be one step behind the developments in Egypt, as each step happens." The interesting thing is that the reporter asked what the republicans think and the response was, "Republican leaders basically went on the air yesterday saying whatever he says, that's fine." This relates to the initial idea of whether the US is split or not. When it really comes down to it they join together to united as one to fight against these tough situations even when, "Republicans who also have their own domestic issues that they want to push at this moment." How do you think the US could handle the situation better? Should they step in?
I have two points to make. First off I feel that even though people may think we have rigorous tests before we can purchase guns, that is not the case. I California you can purchase marijuana with a prescription. Seems great, except that doctors prescribe it for everything. On a show on National Geographic it was cited that a woman got prescribed marijuana, because her feet hurt from wearing high heels. This same principle relates to guns. While many people follow the tests and do the necessary steps to get a gun, it is very possible to get one when you probably shouldn't have it. People have downplayed the importance and power of guns. If you see a small pistol, you may think "Oh its just a little pistol it must be safe". But in reality every single gun can kill someone and whether it be a pistol or assault rifle the restrictions should be raised.
ReplyDeleteMy second point is on Egypt. This could prove a critical decision not only in helping stop the rebellion, but in issues such as the Arizona shooting and the economy. Personally when I look at the president, I view them as a smart, always right person. I am confident that there are many people that also feel that way. However in recent years, the way we have responded to disturbances is quite violently. We start wars, send troops, and do our duty to support our cause. This causes a problem as if people see our country constantly using violence as an answer they may adopt that attitude. I am not saying that that is the cause of the Arizona shooting, but I think that it could have factored into the events. The way Obama chooses the handle the Egypt crisis will also be very influential on the economy. On the surface, Egypt provides us with oil, and we like to have cheap oil, so we want as much as possible. But on another front, the way Obama handles the situation, he could either create or destroy trust with other countries. This could open up new countries to trade with for oil, or may make some refuse to trade with us. Also if he is able to peacefully resolve the conflict, it will boost American confidence, which could be a key factor to our economy recovering.
I agree with Alexis that this does all come down to the fact that the United States is still very divided, as it is explained in the report that both Republicans and Democrats are handling this situation differently. I think it's sad to see how divided our country gets when dealing with the state of our international relationships, and I believe both groups should want to look for a solution that protects the country. However, this is not the case and leaves me questioning if our country will continue to always be divided, and also is more effective for there to be two opposing groups?
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Alex, that the President's role has been a disappointment over the last couple of years. I regard the President as a hero, and someone I admire for always resolving issues using the right solution. Now, it is frustrating to see how the violent methods used in the past are now used in every critical situation. I have high hopes that President Obama will solve this issue correctly, and that he will do what will benefit our country positively. This is the perfect situation for him to gain back America's confidence through making the right choice.
Can we continue this discussion on Schager's earliest post? I think we're ignoring some of the comments people are making there by sticking to this one...
ReplyDeleteI'd like to start talking a lot more about the crisis in Egypt on this blog like we did in class today (this post is really similar to my reflection).
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost, I think the protests are barbaric. We live in the year 2011, and the brutal, violent, unorganized manner that the Egyptians are protesting in is, suffice to say, gross. That being said, I do support the cause that the Egyptians are revolting for. Many of the rights that they are requesting are what we in America think of as basic civil liberties, such as free speech, the right to peacefully assemble, among others. Regarding the potential shift in the alliance between America and Egypt, I don't think we have to worry so much as other countries might because what they are fighting for are pretty much rights that we actually have in our nation today. At this point, I am most fearful for Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not really issued an opinionated statement yet most likely because he fears an obvious potential shift in Israeli-Egyptian relations. I personally think it’s really scary, because, to quote an article I read online in an Israeli newspaper, “Without Egypt, Israel will be left with no friends in Mideast.” Without Egypt, Israel really only has Jordan and the Palestinian Authority left to help defend the country, and even still, the potential loss of an Egyptian ally would be completely devastating for the state of Israel in terms of terror attacks and the Hamas.
Actually, I've been reading around a little bit more and I'd like to add that while I still support essentially what the Egyptians are fighting for, I think they should allow Mubarak to stay in the country until at least September. I think the best thing would be if Mubarak stays in Egypt until his term ends, if both the protests and Mubarak himself don't interfere with the electoral process and there is an orderly transition, a gain of power in the radicals can be avoided, which is what I think is the best thing to happen at this point, at least.
ReplyDeleteTo change the subject slightly, today in class we were talking about how in every conflict, at least all the ones I can think of, there are a variety of conflicts. There are long term effects, the can trace back decades from when conflict breaks out. Then, there are shorter term effects, that come closer together and lead to a direct result. With all of this buildup, just one little spark can cause a major conflict. In and of itself, this spark would not always seem like much, and without the other causes, it probably would not cause the huge conflict it often does. In terms of this conflict in Egypt, what can you highlight as any of these types of conflicts? What was the spark because it is clear that tension in the middle east is never-ending and it needed something to push the people over the edge.
ReplyDeleteI think another thing to think about that relates to both of the issues is the issue of morality. I think the idea that struck me the hardest was how just like slavery was profitable for Americans yet it went against civil rights, we have once again not learned from our mistakes and are repeating the same deed by trading with Saudi Arabia and China who both have terrible crimes against human rights. You would think that the United States would have learned from their past mistakes, and yet we seem to be repeating history. I realized that we are complete hypocrites. We try and help human rights yet we too will not sign the Declaration of Human Rights because then we might actually have to care. We seem to think that it is more important to help our economy rather than help these poor, helpless people around the world. Like the people in the south, they overlooked the violations to human rights and rather just looked at the positive for their economics.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteP.S.
ReplyDeleteEveryone please refer to Olivia Stanley as "England"
it is her new self professed nickname.
Thanks see y'all at 7:30 sharp!!!
*had to fix some typos!!*
ReplyDeleteI think Alexis makes a valid point in saying that the people's treatment in countries such as Saudi Arabia, and Egypt are similar to that of slaves in the civil war era; However, while the exploitation of cheap slave labor was indeed greedy by plantation owners, America's trade with countries such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt are pivotal to our nations basic functionality. The United States accounts for approximately 25% of global oil consumption with approximately 20% of that oil coming from nations the state department classifies "dangerous or unstable" (around 17% of our oil is estimated to have come from Saudi Arabia in 2007). While the implications of these actions may seem morally unjust they yield the resulting product of the influential, productive, and especially powerful country that we are. Without these massive amounts of cheap oil the U.S. simply wouldn't be able to fit our consumption needs with the current oil based infrastructure (the switch to renewable clean energy is a whole different argument, I am merely talking about us a nation now). Another hugely important player in the impugning of immoral foreign nations is our debt. If you did not already know the United States is currently over fourteen trillion dollars in debt, and our biggest foreign U.S. bond buy is, as you have most likely already heard, China. China owns around 6.5% of America's debt. This amount may seem inconsequential at first but then looking at the actual numbers this is literally China owning a little over 900 billion dollars of the United States's debt. Similar to when the U.S. government bailed out big banks and many in the auto industry, only now the U.S. government is the one who spent beyond their means. The facts and our actions, or rather non-actions, always make me think of the saying "Don't bite the hand that feeds you," and in this case we aren't challenging China's cultural and political immoralities, because they are the main nation keeping us afloat. I do not want anyone to think that I am trying to justify the moral implications of our fiscally based actions with unjust nations, but I do want to shed light on why we are sometimes forced to do so, in order to maintain the way our country functions in regards to its need for oil, and the delicate relations it has with nations like China. The problem is incredibly paradoxical in my opinion because we as a nation feel obligated to help the nations of no moral standards, but in order to do so we need to wield a great amount of global force, one that is almost always linked to monetary status.
I would just like to point out that one of our fears in class was that other countires may join in on the revolting and that fear has come true. Iran has now started protesting in the streets. For more information you can go to:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/12464562
Hey everybody! Since Caitlyn is partying hard in London, I figure I should take over her duty of compulsively checking our awesome blog. So here I am, doing just that.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I was wondering what your opinions were about what has been going on since Egypt's political crisis? It seems to me like it resembles a chain reaction of sorts, now that citizens in additional countries (like Bahrain, Lybia, Yemen, and Morocco) are beginning protests against their dictator-like governments. Do you think that they have observed Egypt's success at getting Mubarak out of power and want a taste of it for themselves, or do you think that the sudden unrest from such similar countries is due to something else?
I hope you're all having a lovely vacation! I'm off to go let my guinea pigs have some exercise time!
Sup Hushers. Just wanted to weigh in on the situation taking place in Wisconsin. While I respect the moxie and determination of the protestors, I think it displays a general greediness by the Unions. The reason that Gov. Walker his implemented these tax increases and budget cuts is to help pay off an ever increasing budget deficit. The unions, who will have to take these budget cuts, are infuriated, for good reason, that their wages will be decreased. But there is a point where they should recognize, as difficult as it may be, the positive that could come from these new budget proposals. I'm all for the demonstration of democratic rights by these people, but I am simply opposed to the cause and motive in which they are fighting against. I think they should try to think about future generations being affected by a growing deficit, rather than themselves in the short run. Once again, I'm all for protests, just for the right cause, and in this case I have trouble siding with the protestors.
ReplyDelete