America and Paranoia: One Take on Terrorism

On the evening of November 13th, a series of unfortunate and uncoordinated terrorist attacks stroke Paris, France and it's Northern suburb, Saint-Denis. Three suicide bombers had struck near the Stade De France which were followed by suicide bombings and mass shootings at cafes, restaurants, and a music venue amid Paris. These attacks killed 130 people, including 89 at the Bataclan Theatre,where they took hostages before engaging in stand-off with people. Seven of the attackers additionally died at the scene of the attacks which took counter part of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISL) whom had claimed responsibility for the vicious acts. Since then, other associated events have unraveled within the eyes of America as numerous attempts, one in which was successful which was the St. Bernardino Shooting, has evolved within just one month. The increase in high alerted behavior has become even more frequent recently, for even the smallest of situations such as the witness of a hand gun in a hospital or extra caution within the eyes of those who evaluate passengers on a plane or large social events has gotten out of hand. From my perspective, it is hard not to believe that we have already been terrorized: the events that have been taken account of and what has continued to unravel afterwards, have all together, already impacted us whether we have recognized it or not. We now live in a state of paranoia, fear, worry, panic, and restriction. It is hard to commit to public social gatherings without the concern of something or someone going off. It is hard to go to the mall or attend a favorable concert or simply enjoy ourselves without feeling paranoid or fearsome of what could possibly go on. It does not take for another situation like the one in Paris to have us held mentally hostage and restricted from going outdoors and living carelessly because we all already live in fear that disables us from running our lives. Mentally, we have already been terrorized by these horrific situations and it is important to recognize so. We, as a society, should not feel restricted from continuing on with what we do on a day to day basis the way it already is. The fact that our sense of well being and security has been stolen away from us makes matters even worse and allows for terrorism to succeed and thrive off of our anxieties.

OJ Simpson Case: A Psychological Perspective

As our first semester in Global gradually comes to an end, it has become evident that, within all of the information that has been conducted through all of the content that has been evaluated in class using all of the documentaries and in class discussions, the infamous 1995 O.J. Simpson Case has made not only our heads spin but most of America's, then and now. Within so much of the content used in the procedure within this case, it is almost impossible to feel torn and somewhat confused when it comes down to believing on one single aspect of the story. The O.J. Simpson murder trial spoke volumes about race and the criminal justice system in America, ushering deep into the 24-hour news cycle. Tens of millions of viewers not just in the United States, yet worldwide, were drawn and almost hypnotized to this true crime story that played out similar to a murder-mystery. During our second period class in Global, we had the privilege to get an even more in-depth yet outer perspective on the complexities behind Simpson's mind. Mr. Stewart enabled for students to approach the trial using a more constructive and efficient method which was to think like psychologists and putting together characteristics like missing puzzle pieces, making sense of not just the the information and content given out during the trial however what was able to be found beforehand. Psychological background, I have learned, can be such an efficient and significant element in finding a conclusion to the main idea of a case trial. Does that mean we must over-analyze and point our fingers towards mental illness at every given subject as a method of excuse? Nope. However, it is always vital to look past the momentary information given and believe in retrospect. In the most recent documentary, those whom were closest to Simpson and Brown speak up for the first time in front of cameras and give important insight on the OJ they knew, from a different and personal level. From the interviews given, it is evident that Simpson had basically grown up under stardom. He was used to having it his way the majority of the time and everything appeared to have surrounded around him. He was smart in ways that led for him to appear charismatic to others and appealed to the public eye since an early age which contributed to the leading and powerful figure he grew to becoming. All of those years of being a true national symbolization of the "American dream" within his success from sports and later entertainment entrepreneurship, Simpson had carefully crafted his image and appealed to both white and African american communities- strategically popularizing himself even more so. I believe that because Simpson had psychologically adapted to not only being "eye candy" to the public eye but also simply being adored for every thing he did and was, IF he were found to be guilty for the murders of Brown and Goldman, publicly becoming accepting of it must have been a fearsome and panic driven thing. Growing up a perfectionist and carefully protecting his image to possibly being responsible for death is a huge jump and it is understandable as to why Simpson would rather avoid the truth and do anything he possibly could to keep the figure that he had spent so many years trying to perfect. Psychologically, it is evident that Simpson was much more than the public figure he had portrayed himself to being (also looking at the many years of verbal and physical abuse with his ex-wife) and had become an expert at having different faces and using each one considerably. The behavioral science behind this can be so complex, however with open minds towards gradually making sense of more than just trial clues and evidence, it is easier for one to look behind the curtain call and question the mentality of a possible murderer, most importantly.

Mass Shootings

       I stumbled upon an article that basically says that the media has lied about how many mass shootings actually occurred. Out of the 355 shootings that happened, the article stated that only 4 including the San Bernadino attack was a "mass shooting". According to the article, what qualifies as a mass shooting is when 4 or more people have been killed. But does that really matter? Mass shooting or not, there have been 355 cases where a gun was used in an inappropriate and violent manner that caused injuries or led to someone's death. The idea that there have only been 4 "mass shootings" this year alone does not stray away from the fact that there is something really wrong with the way people use guns, and the way our society reacts and handles the situation.
     

Ferguson: Mike Brown being arrested for stealing or J-walking

One of the many questions that everyone asks about the Ferguson incident is, did the police approach Mike Brown solely because he was blocking traffic and j-walking or was it due to the fact that earlier that day he had stole some cigars? In my opinion the answer to this question is extremely important to the case. The attorney for the Ferguson market said that the workers in the market at the time never called or showed the police department the tape of Mike entering and stealing the cigars until the police department granted a search warrant to watch the tape. This being said Officer Wilson didn't know that Mike had stolen the cigars earlier that day resulting in Officer Wilson approaching Mike only because he was blocking traffic and J-walking only. For me this information means a lot when trying to figure everything out. If the officer knew Mike had stolen the cigars and was going after him for that specific reason then I believe the excessive force in which Officer Wilson used is more acceptable. I say this because catching a thief compared to busting someone for J-walking are completely different. I believe that when trying to arrest a thief that is resisting arrest and trying to go after and hurt an officer then the officer has more of a right to kill an individual. On the other hand if you are just trying to get someone in trouble for J-walking and then they turn around and go after an officer, the officer could always shoot the person in the legs to cripple them until backup arrives or even use another method that police officers have in order to stop the individual.

Mike J-walking/blocking traffic

A well known case that dealt with the shooting of a black male by the name of Michael Brown. What started this horrible event in history was due to Mike J-walking which is also considered blocking traffic. J-Walking is something that almost everyone does and police normally never get people in trouble for it. Not only do I J-walk every once in a while but I also see elderly people along with families and many more types of people J-walk. On multiple occasions, especially in Downtown Los Altos, I have seen police officers literally stop in the middle of the road in order for a j-walker to finish crossing the street and the police officer didn't do anything about it. On the other hand, in Mike's case it wasn't surprised that Officer Wilson went after Mike for j-walking. I believe that the Police in Ferguson felt like since Mike was a large African American teenager he had potential to cause danger to others and since he was doing something illegal Wilson had a reason to go after him. I don't blame Mike for reacting like he did because in his head, which could be true, the only reason he was being stopped was because he was black.

Planned Parenthood Shooting and The end of Anti-choice Rhetorics

An act of domestic terrorism, one in which was committed by 57 year old, Robert Lewis Dear, on November 27th when he opened fire at a Colorado Planned Parenthood Center. According to an anonymous source police source, after the attack, the alleged perpetrator made a comment in it's wake about "no more baby parts," specifically targeting the facility. An act perpetuated out of simple public harassment and a need for intimidation that would justify these vicious violent acts of crime against providers and clinics. This shooting may have been known for being the most horrifically violent attack on a clinic in our country's history which left three people dead and nine wounded, was shocking yet seemed to have been predictable result of a culture that demonizes abortion, uses fantastical and false rhetoric about Planned Parenthood and allows politicians and activists to make false representation about a woman's reproductive health. Do we really think that there are no consequences to claiming that abortion is murder, or that planned parenthood is an organization of "money-hungry monsters selling baby parts?" The culture of hate against Planned Parenthood- an organization that serves mostly low income women and provides legal, safe medical services- is so extreme that some felt it entirely appropriate to express their glee over the Colorado shootings, claiming that the people hurt "had it coming for them." From my perspective, enough is enough. We must demand that the violent radical language and lies about abortion come to an end. People disagree about the morality of abortion, yet the doctors who provide them are not evil; they are simply corresponding to their jobs and doing what they think is right and good for their patients. The women who go to planned parenthood are not callous beasts; they are people trying to do the best they can for their lives and families. As we find out more about the shooter, people will claim- as they often do- that he was a "lone wolf," that he was "mentally unstable" and that he is not at all "representative of those who disagree with abortion." Republican politicians will eventually take great pains to condemn the shooter's attack, while ignoring all of the lies, language, and culture of misogyny that contributes to the kind of violence. Up to this date, it has been somewhat confirmed, by president and CEO of Planned Parenthood and following eye-witnesses, that the attacker "was motivated by opposition to safe, legal, and abortion." I firmly believe that this attack was an attack against women receiving care at Planned Parenthood, which leads me to my second topic: YOUR opinion. Do you agree or disagree?

NFL concussions

I just wanted to say that when I went to the movies to watch Spectre I saw a preview of a movie called Concussion featuring Will Smith. It was about the exact same story of the Dr Omalu and how Mike Webster died with a brain disease due to football. It just got me thinking about how big of an event this was and this discovery. How football is such a big part of American society and how Omalu fought to uncover the ugly truth that most Americans wanted to deny completely.