Pay attention to our legislations...

Social injustice is not confined to particular individuals or groups of people within our society. We are all prompt to be victims of social injustice if we don’t fight for what we believe is just. Although our government representatives are suppose to help us in the fight, sometimes they take whichever side is more beneficial to them.

Why don't we look at what defines our government-structure so that we can better evaluate if our representatives are doing a good job. The fundamental structure of our government is based on a representative democracy that calls for government action on behalf of the people’s interest. As a constitutional republic, our government is responsible for making its decisions base on what the majority rules while keeping in mind the minority rights. So, if the government makes decisions that benefit the majority while providing resources to help those in the minority, I would say they are doing a good job. However, are they? Our government often stops acting on behalf of the people’s interest and starts acting on behalf of interests groups, which I like to call "money providers". Many of these interests groups form part of massive conglomerates that have large amounts of money to spend in lobbying and influencing our government’s decisions. Everyday our congress passes legislations that greatly affect our daily lives but that many times we are not aware of. Although some of these legislations may be beneficial to some, it is more certainly that they are not beneficial to many. Since all legislations don’t apply to everyone, we fail to pay attention to those that really affect us all. Such is the case when we talk about the net neutrality legislation.

Net neutrality refers to “the understanding that telecommunications providers should not control how consumers use the Internet by discriminating against content providers who can not or will not pay the additional cost of a premium connection which allows their content to be viewed more quickly by consumers” (U.S. Congress. 2007). Net neutrality is something that affects each and every one of us; as we all know we are entering an "electronic era" that will outgrow other media sources. We should also be concern because it violates our freedom of speech and our freedom to choose what we can access or not access online. Internet providers want the power to favor the highest bidder therefore not giving the consumer the choice to access content from the regular you and me who may have no money to bid. Also, with instances such as AT&T wiretapping our conversations, Comcast blocking us from uploading and downloading files, yahoo scanning through our e-mails, the time has come to make our voices heard and show the corporate giants that we the people have the power over the net; afterall, it is a public service.

Net neutrality initiatives have been arising for a long time and it is time for people to know about them and start getting involved. We need to let our congress know in which side of the issue we stand. It is obvious that when it comes to public issues such as net neutrality, different groups see it from a different viewpoint depending on their personal interest. To companies such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast, net neutrality means that they “can charge more for high-bandwidth services and get a return on networks that cost them billions of dollars to build” (Rash 2006). While to other companies such as Goggle and Amazon, who play the role of “content providers,” net neutrality means that “telecommunications providers need to treat all traffic equally, whether from a small nonprofit agency or from a large, established company" (Rash 2006). In simple terms Internet providers want more money and content providers don’t want to pay more. But the question that remains is which side is fighting for the interest of the common people?

People who are pro net neutrality legislation feel that the Internet doe not need to be regulated. They feel that the Internet was created under the ideology of “free for all.” It functions under a free-market where anyone can use as much bandwidth as they want with no restrictions or regulations. They argue that we would loose the true essence of the Internet if we loose its social aspects; the common person would no longer be able to share his or her stories, provide a service to the community and would not be stimulated to create new and creative content. They feel that the corporate giants have enough power as it is, and that we cannot trust them with more; they have previously betrayed the people and favored the government and their corporate means. A net neutrality legislation supporter points out that the gain of power by these corporate giants has only contributed to America dropping to 16th place on a list of broadband penetration. He argues that “if these companies would spend more money on infrastructure and services and less money on corporate take-overs and lobbying Congress, we could have fiber-optic connections in every home" (Baumann 2006).

Big corporations, argue that “it's in their best interests to keep all Internet traffic flowing at an equal speed” (Hart 2006). Other opponents of net neutrality feel that if we don’t allow Internet providers to make money, they will have no incentive to invest money into new technology. Proponents argue that innovation would be at stake if Congress doesn’t intervene because lots of creative minds like me and you can get shut down. We would not have sites like you tube and my space or any social networking sites that would allow for technology to develop on its own. They believe that if Congress does not get involve America will fall even farther behind in Internet penetration.
If you want to know more about net neutrality check out this video Net Neutrality

References

Baumann, M. 2006. Net neutrality: The Internet’s world war. Information Today, vol. 23 no.8. http://www.infotoday.com/it/sep06/index.shtml (accessed March 28, 2007).

Hart, K. Kehaulani, Sara. 2006. Tech Faceoff: Net Neutrality, In the Eye of the Beholder. Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/01/AR2006070100138.html

Rash, W. 2006. Four faces of net neutrality. eWeek.com, August 6. http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1999848,00.asp (accessed March 28, 2007).

U.S. Congress. 2007. Net neutrality overview: Issues for debate. Congressional Digest, Februrary.

Just because Bush says so...

How often do people walking down the street, especially those listening to their I-pod, take a moment and say hello to a stranger? Never. Nowadays everyone is scared of one another. We hear of so many atrocities in the news that we can’t even trust our own shadows and people live in a state of anxiety and anger. As I walk down the streets, I notice people with their long faces carrying their bad moods with them everywhere they go. I can’t help to wonder... are we becoming a society full of angry and unhappy people? It seems as if more people everyday are adapting to these new societal norms and nothing good can come out of adapting to a more violent society. Violence is producing its final and most lethal effect. It has become such the normality that we are no longer greatly impacted by it and have therefore lost our ability to recognize its presence.

Violence seems to be very prominent in every aspect of our lives. We are exposed to it both in our everyday reality and through the media. Although the media attempts to portray our daily reality, it is no a secret that it rather presents an inaccurate and incomplete representation. When we turn to the news, we hear about homicides, sexual abuse assaults, robberies, and many other typical representations of violence. But, do we ever hear about the violence provoked and committed by and within our own system? We hear about violence in the streets and violence in other countries, but our most deathly assault, is always unspoken of; the assault of killing someone against their will and taking pride on their suffering. Yes, I speak of the death penalty. How can we allow our government to spend more than $2.16 million to kill a human being?

How can President Bush demand people in other countries to stop killing each other, when he is responsible for so much of the killing happening within our own nation? He proclaims an ideology of peace to other countries, but he acts upon the ideology of “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” on his own nation. Have we forgotten that it is not through revenge that people learn their lesson? Have we given up on the idea of forgive and forget? What about the valuable lesson of putting up the second cheek after someone hits your first one? He claims to be a religious person, but I often ask my self if a religious person would use war as a the vehicle for their ulterior motives. I certainly don't think that the leader of a nation should set the example of violence as the right answer. Now, just as he did in Texas, he is driving people to think that since the leader of our nation believes in death penalty, as it is now a societal norm, perhaps it is the right thing to do. People are getting convinced that violent means are the solution to many problems.

I will never forget what I heard on the radio the day after the Virginia Tech shooting. A lady said “if kids were able to bring a gun to school, less children would die in the case of a school shooting, because someone would shoot the aggressor before he can possibly hurt more people.” I was shocked. It seems as if people have become oblivious to the sad reality of this violent world. How can we get rid of violence if society teaches us that violence is the answer? We need to look beyond the easy way out and realize that fighting back with violence will bring nothing less but more violence.

Any attempt to physically hurt a human life is a violent crime, regardless if it comes from the aggressor, the victim, or any person who wants to take revenge. Violence is never the answer. Perhaps I have a bias opinion because of my background. In Colombia we do not have “pena de muerte,” death penalty. We are not worthy of deciding whether someone’s life is worth living or not. We have no right to judge what makes someone’s life more worthy to live than that of someone else’s. We all commit mistakes, and therefore we all should have an equal chance to redeem our selves and our actions. No one should be deprived of that chance just because our president feels like it.

Please watch this wonderful film called The Life of David Gale that will make you think differently about the death penalty. It is not worth to carry under our belts the weight of revenge just because our government wants us to. We have the right to say no.

If you like to know more about the Death Penalty and its abolition please check out this organization. They fight for human rights and take particular interest in cases of people who are on death row. Please read about the particular story of Troy Anthony Davis, who is an innocent victim of our flawed system.

The Innocent Victims of Violence. Part II

The bigotry of violence has been haunting us all through out history. We have lived it in its extremist measures through wars and genocides, but at its core, we still live it in our everyday lives. Violence has become like an epidemic that has our society grieving. It is like a plague that is afflicting our homes, our communities, and especially our children. Because this is something hat really concerns me, I decided to do some research on the topic and today I will like to share my findings with you.

Today I won’t be talking about the Iraq war but rather about a war that we have been fighting for much longer; the violence within our own communities. According to Osofsky (1997, p. 9), there is plenty of evidence to indicate that many children are exposed to considerable amounts of life-threatening violence in their homes and communities. His research shows, that “homicide is the second leading cause of death among all 15-24-year-olds and is now the third leading cause of death among elementary school children, ages 5-14”(Herbert, 1996, as cited in Osofsky, 1997, p. 3). It is not rare for a child from an urban neighborhood to witness a severe act of violence by the time they reach the age of 10. This is the cruel reality that has become an everyday fact of life. In this post I hope to give you enough facts for you to make up your own opinion about the magnitude of this problem and decide for your self whether or not it is time to do something about it.

For some of us whose reality does not include exposure to cruel acts of violence on daily basis, it is easy to think that such a problem does not exist. Well, I wish I could tell you that this is the case. “Each day, ten children in the United States are murdered by gunfire, approximately one [child] every two-and-a-half hours” (Mcalister, 2002, p. 21). These statistics provide only a partial picture of the problem of violence in the lives of American children, because aside from murder there remains a very high level of non-lethal assaults. In a recent study of inner-city elementary school children, “80 percent of the sample reported witnessed violence; 60 percent had seen weapons and 40 percent had seen a dead body” (Osofsky 1992, as cited in Chiland & Young, 1994, p.111). In many parts of the country, it is normal for children to hear the sound of gunfire outside the windows of their home. Some children are constant spectators or involuntary participants of actions that they perceive as dangerous or harmful. They are exposed to domestic abuse, robberies, stabbings, shootings, and many other situations in which they, or the people around them can get hurt. Violence knows no class or ethnicity. Although levels of exposure may be higher in urban communities, children in the suburbs are also unquestionable subjects of violent incidents, such as school shootings. In a study on elementary school children in the suburbs shows that “40 percent reported being witness of at least one violent crime in the past year and a high percent of them show fear of a possible violent act happening at their school. (Osofsky 1992, as cited in Chiland & Young, 1994, p.111).

Children who are exposed to severe acts of violence present problems in their psychological, emotional, social and cognitive development. Being exposed to such a world causes for children to fear for their lives and for that of their family members. They don’t feel safe at home, school or anywhere. This insecurity causes stress on the child and therefore contributes to the malnourishment of their emotional stability, social relationships and ability to learn. Research shows evidence of the prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder in elementary school children and adolescents who are exposed to violence (Chiland & Young, 1994, p. 110). PTSD occurs in response to some recognizable, extreme stressor, and it is characterized by specific behaviors that fall into the categories of re-experiencing the event, avoidance of reminders, psychic numbing, and increased arousal (Osofsky, 1997, p.15). It manifest it self through disrupted patterns of eating, sleeping, fearfulness and as well as the lack of ability to pay attention or relate to others. Unfortunately, if a child does not present symptoms of trauma immediately after the incident, it does not mean they do not suffer of PTSD. Symptoms can take months, and up to years to develop, or they may only surface once the child is mature enough to comprehend and understand the implications of the incident.

Children shape their perception of the world base on what they experiment and perceive from their environment regardless if it is positive or negative. Consequently, children who are exposed to on-going violence perceive the world as a violent place and may see violence as a societal norm. According to Mcalister (2002, p. 31) “Exposure to violence changes the emotional landscape for children by distorting their emerging view of the world and their place in it…It lays the foundation for later behavioral and emotional problems.” Because children many times are not taught that violence is bad, they tend to adapt it as well as other behaviors that they feel are useful to assimilate to the world they live in. “Too often, they learn that violence is an acceptable way to resolve conflict” (Osofsky, 1997, p. 2). If the world in which children have to survive is hostile, they will then be hostile. Children who are exposed to violence at a young age, are forced to grasp a reality that they should not have to understand and are too young to bear. They are awakened to the sad and cruel fact that they are responsible for their own survival; and at a young age they are forced to adapt violence as a defense mechanism and a way of life. Therefore, as children start gaining understanding of their surroundings and need for survival, ‘the terrorized infant become the terrorizing adolescent’” (Mcalister, 2002, p. 38). Research shows that this is the devastating reality. Many adolescents who first become delinquent and later develop into criminals, show sings of exposure to much violence earlier in their lives (Osofsky, 1997, p. 5). Consequently, children exposed to violence, as adults, are subjected to a psychological, emotional and social imbalance.

When we talk about cognitive effects, we are talking about those that take part in the child’s brain. According to Dr. Bruce Perry (as cited in Tortoricy, 2002, p. 25), a chief of psychiatry a Children’s Hospital and faculty member of the Child Trauma Academy, a child who is subject to cruelty, brutality and abuse, presents profound and perhaps permanent changes on the chemistry of his or her brain. He explains that the brain changes in response to how it is used. Therefore, if a child overuses the primitive, life-preserving parts of the brain, they become overly developed, at the expense of the cognitive and social learning areas. The child’s lack of development in the cognitive area of the brain, affects the child’s ability to acquire knowledge and process information. When a children’s brains are constantly thinking and acting on the basis of survival, children become less receptive to learning the lessons being taught in the classroom and more receptive to any sings of danger. Their defensive mechanism is always on the look out and can be easily trigger by any unexpected sound or movement. “Children who grow up exposed to violence, may spend all their time in the classroom either in a state of anxiety or dissociation- a defense against extreme stress. They may never achieve the relaxed alertness that makes a child receptive to learning” (Tortorici, 2002, p.25). Children who are expose to on-going violence, cannot be children. They are unable to enjoy life because the thread of violence is always roaming on the back of their minds; and they unable to explore their full potential because of their difficulty to achieve academic success.

Well, now that you are aware of the horrific reality that our children are living, there is only one question left. What can we do about it? Well, the first step is to educate people who are not aware of the problem. People need to know far beyond what the news tells them. It is not enough to know what is happening on the streets of our neighborhoods. It is far more important to find out who are the people affected by what is happening and how can we help them. A way to get involve could be through non-profits who are fighting towards better resources for children who have been victims of violence. A great organization is Save: Students Against Violence Everywhere

The second step is to become better listeners and to seek those voices that are never heard, the voices of the innocent victims of violence. Children who are expose to violence need tell the world their powerful and impacting stories. People can see violence through their eyes so that they can understand the cruel reality that we are allowing to take over the innocence of our children. A great organization that provides a forum for these voices to be heard is talkingwithkids.org. Listen to these voices and share with others what they have to say.

The third step is to get involve in our policy making. We need to fight for better gun control reforms. Although this is not the solution to the problem, I am a firm believer that “less guns equals less violence”. This is proven by looking at other countries that have adapted stricter gun reforms and consequently have presented a lower rate on homicides. How can a child be an incidental victim of a gun shooting if there are no guns? We need to explore why our government does not fight for something that can only be beneficial to our society. They would not want to get their most important supporters angry, now would they?

And the last and most important thing is to never loose hope. We must have faith. If we all take responsibility for what is happening, collectively we have the power to change the course our society is taking. We need to spread the love and fight violence with peaceful acts not with more violence. I will like to share this memorable story of how others are doing it.


References

Chiland, C., & Young, J. (Eds.). (1994). Children and Violence. New Jersey: Jason Aronson, Inc.

McAlister Groves, B. (2002). Children Who See Too Much. Boston: Beacon Press.

Osofsky, J. D. (Ed.). (1997). Children in a Violent Society. New York: The Guilford Press.

Payne, R. K. (2001). Thinking in a culture of Poverty. In Costa, A. L. (Ed.), Developing Minds: Resource Book for Teaching
(229-232). Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Penn, H. (2005). Understanding Early Childhood. New York: Open University Press.

Tortorici, L. J. (2002). Helping Children Learn: The Legacy of Violence. Leadership, 24-27.