A Deadly Truth: Media coverage of gun violence in Chicago

With a recent media explosion over the hot topic of gun control, our class has also speculated where the media focuses their attention. Mass shootings are seeming to have become a commonplace with Oak Creek, the Oregon mall shooting, the Dark Knight incident, and now Newtown. However, as the media is usually offering extensive coverage of these tragic events, there are even MORE tragedies that occur on our very Chicago streets that often go uncovered by media. A powerful truth was spoken by Jens Ludwig, director of the University of Chicago Crime Lab:

“The gun violence problem in America gets a lot of attention when 20 white kids in Connecticut get shot all at once, but in general it doesn’t get nearly as much attention as it really needs to."

Since Jan. 1, Chicago police have recorded 2,364 shooting incidents and 487 homicides, 87 percent of them gun-related. Shootings have increased 12 percent this year and homicides are up 19 percent. Just like Sandy Hook, young people are often the targets of gun violence in Chicago as well. Chicago police have recorded that this past school year "319 Chicago public school students were shot, 24 of them fatally. The total does not include school-age children who had dropped out or were enrolled elsewhere." The numbers of casualties specifically from gun violence in Chicago FAR outweigh that of mass shootings on the national level, however Peter Slevin of the Washington Post notes that, "Their deaths usually go unmarked". We live in a world where almost all of our information comes from our televisions, computers, tablets, and smartphones, yet tragedies that occur every day in Chicago often go without notice.  Why does the media highlight certain shootings but leave out others, despite greater casualties?  I question whether race plays a role in the exposure (or lack thereof) of certain shootings. Ludwig's speculation (bolded quote above) really got me thinking if it were 20 black kids that were shot, would the media would focus as much attention on it? I'm not so sure the answer is yes.

Regardless of media exposure of Chicago gang violence, it is no question that the city of Chicago faces a major challenge to deal with this growing problem and changes need to be made to get more guns off the streets and in my opinion, need to establish more after school programs for Chicago Public School kids. Increasing the utilization of these programs would help get kids off the streets and from affiliating themselves with the city gangs that have caused many of shootings in Chicago. These types of positive changes would hopefully not only result in less gun related deaths, but also allow the media finally to focus on the "good" news that is coming off the streets of Chicago. I'd love to hear what you all think about media coverage and possible solutions for our beloved city. 

What needs be done to prevent future mass shootings?

As our entire nation weeps the loss of 20 children, and six adults in the tragic elementary school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, there has been much outcry over what our Government can do to prevent these seemingly frequent atrocities. Obama gave a very heartfelt speech, and urged that gun lobbyists need to set aside politics and, "take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this."

An article in the Washington Post revealed that, "Of the 12 deadliest shootings in U.S. history, six have taken place since 2007." The article highlights some reasons of why the fatal incidents have been increasing over the past several years. Regardless of how, or why these shootings keep on happening I think we can all agree that preventative actions must be taken.

What are your reactions to Obama's speech? Do you think it will inspire gun rights lobbyists to put aside their political views and work to prevent these shootings through legislation? Also, please comment what you think should be done in order to prevent future mass shootings. All of your voices matter, and debating the issue will give us all a deeper insight on what can be done to put an end to these heinous acts.  

Changing the Game: Stewardship in the Marketplace

In class today we took a look at Ariel's post, and thought more about where our clothes come from, and the unacceptable work conditions in sweatshops. As there were recent controversies with Apple's factory conditions in China and a fire in a Bangladesh factory killing 112 workers, many businesses are taking considerable actions to turn their company's production methods around. Every year a report of Fortune 100 companies is released measuring employers, sellers, and steward. In the 2012 Good Company Index, a new king was crowned: Time Warner Cable, over throwing Disney. "The entertainment giant saw its Good Company Index grade fall from an A, the top score in the inaugural ranking, to a C+."

 Our teacher mentioned that companies that are supposed to be the face of America (such as Disney, Wal-Mart, and Nike) are often the ones who take advantage of cheap foreign labor with dreadful factory conditions overseas. Although the opportunity of cheaper labor and production is tempting to many of these money hungry companies, there are still several companies demonstrating excellent responsibility with their production methods. Gap Inc. is taking steps forward in their anti-sweatshop advocacy. Some plans for the clothing conglomerate to improve labor conditions include instituting a system which allows the consumer to directly track exactly where/by whom their garment was made all online. More can be read about Gap's sweatshop free plan here. Why don't you think in the wake of all this controversy, more companies aren't making adaptations like Gap? In your eyes, would this change your views on some of the companies who abuse low wage factory workers but make a conscious effor for change? Please comment your thoughts below.

A Multiracial America

In respects to our beginning of Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, there was much discussion  in class this week about political correctness with identifying multiracial individuals.

Today, the darkness looms from centuries of racial prejudice and divide, yet many think that an upward trend of multiracial individuals could bring racism in American to its final stand. However many multiracial individuals show that certain hardships come along with this gray area of racial identification. Please watch this New York Times video to hear how individuals think their multiracial identities impact their lives.

Various tests, and census forms often ask the individual to identify themselves racially which can be quite tricky for some. An article from the New York Times asks Michelle López-Mullins, a 20-year-old junior and the president of the Multiracial and Biracial Student Association, how she marks her race on forms like the census, and she says, “It depends on the day, and it depends on the options.” The rest of this fascinating article can be read here. Our President too identifies himself as biracial, a fact that he believes wouldn't be possible in any other country on Earth as the beginning of the above video tells us.

Doc Oc urged us all in class to think about how far we have come as a nation since the abolition of slavery. Is a multiracial racial America a positive step forward to combat racism? Also, what how do you think this shapes what is considered politically correct in America? I find self identifying with race a fascinating topic and would love to hear what you all think.

An American History of Thanksgiving

As a week full of family, friends, and food lurks around the corner, there is much commotion over the widely anticipated holiday of Thanksgiving. For those whom are unaware of why we celebrate Thanksgiving, feel free to read this brief history summarizing the historic day that triggered a holiday for feast, and giving thanks. The story is widely told that a group of Pilgrims landing in Plymouth, Massachusetts in the early 1620's where visited by a Native American called "Squanto" greeted them in English, teaching them how to cultivate crops, fish, and live off the land.

Although most Americans know the ending to be a bountiful feast, lasting days, with the Wampanoag Indians and the Pilgrim settlers, there is still a dark history with our arrival to America, and our historic encounters with Indian tribes. Before our Pilgrims arrived at Plymouth Plantation, many of the Indians occupying the land had been previously sold in to slavery to Europeans. This is exactly how Squanto learned English! Contrary to Charlie Brown's (5:45) peaceful view on the first Thanksgiving, other English settlers sold Native American's into slavery, killed many in battle, and also brought over terrible plague that wiped out entire tribes. Richard Greener from the Huffington Post agrees that although Thanksgiving marks a historic treaty of peace, it also reminds us of the previous atrocities against Native Americans.

"This day is still remembered today, 373 years later. No, it's been long forgotten by white people, by European Christians. But it is still fresh in the mind of many Indians. A group calling themselves the United American Indians of New England meet each year at Plymouth Rock on Cole's Hill for what they say is a Day of Mourning. They gather at the feet of a stature of Chief Massasoit of the Wampanoag to remember the long gone Pequot. They do not call it Thanksgiving. There is no football game afterward."

The rest of the article can be found here. What do you all think about the true history of Thanksgiving?  Although this holiday of giving thanks is bittersweet, I find it interesting how we all as kids learn about the story of Thanksgiving as if it were a peaceful brotherhood between the Native Americans and European Settlers. Why do you suppose that teachers leave out the violent history of bloodshed and plague? Also please consider and comment your thoughts below to how America portrays these settlers. Happy Thanksgiving everybody. 

Foreign Policy and Anti-American Sentiment

Last week with the presentation of the War on Terror group (perilous times project), an interesting debate arose regarding why Islamic extremist groups hate America. I pondered this and discussed this topic with various people throughout the week.  Mr. Bolos posed the question whether the reason has to do with our foreign policy and meddling activity in the Middle East. The origins of anti-american sentiment is a whole other debate, but I would like to focus on what our policy has done for the U.S’ fight against terrorism.

Many officials from the Pentagon have said that our sole reason for engaging policy in the Middle East, Pakistan, and Afghanistan is to suppress terrorist factions who pose threats to the U.S national security. Both the Bush and Obama administrations have used drone strikes as a policy to remove leaders of terrorist groups such as al Qaeda and the Taliban. Many Americans consider this policy a success as drone surveillance was used for the Bin Laden assassination. These technologies were also responsible for the killings of 33 high ranking Taliban and al Qaeda leaders according to Jeffery Sluka, Ph.D from Cal-Berkeley. A recent article from CNN challenges the policy and its “successes”, which can be found here.

It is suggested that drone policy is ineffective because of the large civilian casualties sustained, especially in Pakistan where drones are most frequently used. The article highlights a study from Stanford University which concluded that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562 - 3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474 - 881 were civilians, including 176 children. TBIJ reports that these strikes also injured an additional 1,228 - 1,362 individuals." Many innocent Pakistanis die from our policy, where only 2% of those killed are high level targets.   Is it justified that we continue to use these policies internationally, even with detrimental impacts to civilian life? Also I urge you to think about whether this is successfully helping the fight against terror or fueling American hatred. Please comment your thoughts below. I’m curious to hear what you all think.

"Waste" of an Education?

Last week in class Doc Oc posed an interesting question about whether certain occupations are a waste of a college education. Some specific jobs that were mentioned included painters, sculptors, and other occupations that are not always what some would consider "well paying jobs." But as the famous saying tells us; Money isn't everything. 

A college education is by no means a cheap investment. College Board reports that in-state public universities cost roughly $21,447 each year, while one year at a private college is closer to $42,224. With these costs, many students are left with crushing debt as well. To add to the costs, there is also suffocating pressure from figures in our community (on the North Shore) such as our parents, teachers, and friends to get into a "good school",  and use that "good education" to land a "good job."


Many parents, especially on the North Shore, will push their kids to take many level 18 classes and numerous APs in hopes that their child will go to an Ivy league school and become a doctor, lawyer, etc. What is often overlooked is what the child wants to do with his/ or her life. For example, many students are brilliant young minds who love the arts. Knowing that making a comfortable living as an artist is extremely difficult, many students are reluctant to pursue what they love to do, which is a huge concern in my eyes. 

I think students should be more encouraged to do what they love to do, rather than what is the safest economically. Pursuing lower income occupations is not a waste of an education if it's your passion. It is important to think about what the purpose of an education is. I urge you to think about this, and comment below what the purpose of your schooling really is. An article from Forbes helped me understand what many perceive to be the main "reasons" for an education. This article can be found here.  When I reflect the early years of my high school education, I quickly realize that my schooling is mainly to develop not only a broader understanding for how our world works, but a deeper insight to who I am, and what I want I want to do with my life. Discovering what you love to study through education seems like the polar opposite of a waste to me. If creating beautiful pieces of art, or whatever it may be is your passion then I say go for it. What are your thoughts?