Seperate but Equal?

In class last week, we discussed our new unit: Women and Children. I think this is a very unusual idea for a unit, but I am intrigued in the sorts of discussions and projects we will be having in the duration of this unit. I brought it up in class, but I think the 'women & children' stereotype is still in place today partly because we refuse to change. Notably, I talked about the fact that women are not allowed in combat in the army even today. When I was trying to find evidence to back my claim, I came across an article by the Center of Defense Information.

Women in History

Joan or Arc was the most famous female warrior, "who in 1429, at the age of 17, successfully led French troops into battle against the English. Hundreds of women disguised themselves as men to fight in the Revolutionary and Civil Wars."

Policy Today

"On October 1, 1994, the Defense Department issued a policy that rescinded the so-called "risk rule" that gauges the specialties to which women can be assigned. The policy was backed strongly by Secretary of Defense Les Aspin and was the extension of the changes made in April 1993 that opened most aviation specialties, including attack helicopters, to women (Army, March 1994). The policy emphasized that no job will be closed to women just because it is dangerous, but fails to open direct offensive ground combat jobs to women (Army, March 1994). Even today, though, the official policy of the Army and Marine Corps excludes women from combat which precludes 12 percent of skilled positions and 39 percent of the total positions (GAO Report, July 1996)."

Although the army allows women in some dangerous position, they are excluded from combat. I don't understand why the army does this. With today's situation in Iraq we clearly need fighting soldiers. Also if women sign up for duty, they should assume the same responsibility as men. But if I was given an "easier" position, I would be offended. Women go through the same training as men. There is no difference except for the way the army treats them in times of war.

The article ends with "If the United States is to remain the world's most capable and most powerful military power, we need to have the best person in each job, regardless of their gender." I think common standards for combat should be kept for all armed forces soldiers to pass. If you do pass them, even if you are a women, you should be allowed to fight. The regulations that the army keeps is holding women back in terms of equal rights.

This Day In History

Being bored, and needing one more blog post, I searched the Internet for anything interesting. One site I found is from the history channel, "this day in history." Today (or yesterday at this point), January 7 was a historic day in 1789. Today, 219 years ago, the first presidential elections were held. This was monumental for our country in its infancy. According to the article, only white men who owned property were aloud to vote in that election. Back then they started the Electoral College system, which we still use today. I feel this is so relevant because now, in 2008, we are currently undergoing the beginning stages of a new presidency. The Iowa Caucasus were last Thursday, and the New Hampshire ones are tomorrow.

Since our first elections, I think we've come a long way. We have 50 states now instead of 13. We have things like electronic voting machines, poll watchers and precincts. Also blacks, women and non-property owners are allowed to vote. But the core essence of democracy is still the same. We vote for who we believe can effectively run the country. Although the technology of running the polling stations has improved, have we as a country evolved? Historically we have been less than enthusiastic about voting. According to George Mason University, voter turnout peaked at about 63% in the 1960's election. We take the right to vote for granted, and don't see it as an privledge, not a right. I think Americans should step up and take charge of the country. In 219 years if we haven't seen much improvement, there is something wrong. If we want our country to remain free and productive, we have to vote for the right people to lead our nation.

New Years Resolution

We all know when the ball drops in New York at midnight, we begin a new calender year. But some people try to reinvent or better themselves every year. New Years Resolutions are always a topic of conversation. When I googled "New Year Resolutions" it returned about 7.47 million results. Scrolling down, I found popular new year resolutions according to usa.gov:
Lose Weight
Pay Off Debt
Save Money
Get a Better Job
Get Fit
Eat Right
Get a Better Education
Drink Less Alcohol
Quit Smoking Now
Reduce Stress Overall
Reduce Stress at Work
Take a Trip
Volunteer to Help Others
Holiday and New Year Health-e-Cards

Now if you click on any of these suggestions, it links you to a website that could help you keep all of these resolutions. But why do we really want to get rid of our bad habits during this time of the year? Personally I don't think it's realistic to put so much pressure on ourselves to change. If I haven't been working out since the summer, why am I likely to start now? Honestly, I'm not. In a way I almost see New Years as a type of consumerism I can only relate to say Valentine's Day or Christmas. A manufactured holiday to boost sales. In the past week, no matter what channel I watch, I am bombarded by fitness club advertisements and diet commercials. I don't believe I have ever talked to anyone who has kept their resolutions past February. Life is stressful, and high expectations make it even harder. I can see how people want to be hopeful for a better or more happy life. But why can't we except ourselves? I'm happy with not going to the gym everyday. Most of the resolutions on the list above are things I try to do all year round, not just in January and February. When looking at life, I say be who you are. If you aren't the type who is going to go to the gym everyday, don't.

Essence of Christmas

Before we left for break, Mr. O'Connor asked us to count the number of times objects were mentioned during the winter break. I followed this advice, not counting, but rather noticing things about the gifts we opened. This Christmas I did not ask for anything extravagant. My favorite gift was a pair of pants I had been wanting. But the best gift our family received was from my mom. She scoured the Internet trying to find a very specific type of antique beer glasses. We used to have two that were my grandmothers. Over the years, one had broken, and we were unable to find another like it. My mom's gift was four identical glasses she had ordered from an obscure resale website. This gift was not the latest and greatest. It was not hundreds of dollars. But it was still the best gift under the tree.

The one problem I have with Christmas consumerism, especially in the north shore, is the giving of money. This year I received a nice check from my parents. So did my sister, boyfriend, and several of my friends. Now I can understand receiving money from a distant relative who doesn't really know you that well, because they don't know what you like. But what really bugs me is getting money from your parents. On paper it seems like a great idea. Parents have plenty of it, and kids can never get enough. But what is it teaching kids? I know I may seem hypocritical seeing as I did not turn down the money I was given, but it seems too easy. Money is a cop-out gift. It takes away the giving spirit of Christmas. I would much rather have received a well thought out gift, instead of a check my mom wrote Christmas morning. But in the grand scheme of things, I do not agree with Mr. O'Connor's point of view. Christmas is not just a time of objects and money, but a time of family and loving.

Public Service Announcement

Watch this video. This video was a public service announcement in the UK, where most guns have already been banned. But, as already said in Bolos and O'Connor's blog, the second amendment of the Bill of Rights states that:

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Although the commas are an interesting topic, I want to blog about the pressing issue of guns in the hands of the mentally ill. Currently there is an act in place to prevent the mentally ill from obtaining guns. It is the Gun Control Act of 1968. The specific part of this act is line 6.

"Under the GCA, firearms possession by certain categories individuals is prohibited:

6. Anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution"

But this act is not being followed. This morning I read an article titled Hole In Gun Control Law Lets Mentally Ill Through. It talks about a woman, Lisa Duy, who was diagnosed with "paranoid schizophrenia and, only a year before...had been committed to a mental hospital by a judge after threatening to kill an F.B.I. agent." She had also been hearing voices in her head telling her to kill. Now the store that sold her the gun had done a background check before selling her a Smith & Wesson 9-millimeter semiautomatic pistol. The search showed no felonies and no history of mental illness.

RESULTS

"Less than two hours after leaving Doug's, on Jan. 14, 1999, Ms. Duy...walked into the studios of television station KSL...and began firing her new weapon. She shot more than four dozen times in all, killing a young mother and wounding the building manager."

WHY

"...laws in most states guard the privacy of the mentally ill, and to protect them from stigma these statutes generally bar law-enforcement agencies from access to mental health records.
As a result, gun background checks of people with psychiatric problems typically fail to turn up their mental health history, a loophole that has contributed to the wave of school and workplace shootings of the last decade. In the 100 cases reviewed by The Times, the vast majority of them from the last 10 years, half the killers were people with a history of serious mental health problems, and at least eight had been involuntarily committed."

MY THOUGHTS

The facts I have presented are clear. States are 'protecting' the mentally ill, and endangering the entire population. The mother of Lisa Duy said in the article, "I don't understand how Lisa could buy a gun." If the states keep their laws, they are overriding this government act. I think that if this issue was actually taken seriously by the government, they would step up and take further actions. This act of 1968 was a good idea. But it's not being taken seriously. I think we should make it a bill and put it through Congress. If the Congress looks at these facts, they can see how logical the Gun Control Act of 1698 is. Other provisions in it include that no one under 18 can buy a gun. States abide by this part of the act, why shouldn't they abide by the whole thing?