The Ugly Truth

While reading The Crucible, I was horrified by the blatant unfairness and bias that went along in the court room. And although disheartening, it was comforting to know we have come a long way since those Salem Witch Trials back in 1692. But have we really?

CBS news reported in a a Cornell University study reported that "unattractive defendants are 22 percent more likely to be convicted than good-looking ones" while the "unattractive also get slapped with harsher sentences - an average of 22 months longer in prison."

Well, that's unfair. Justice should be blind, right? Yet physical appearance is a barrier in achieving fair justice and the attractiveness of a defendant is now a factor in deeming their innocence.

But these are sub-conscious biases that have been psychologically imbedded in our brains from a combination of human nature and nuture. They cant really be stopped or even prevented. Perhaps, it is something the justice system will just have to live with it.

"If you touch my junk..."

As I walked through the airport on Thanksgiving Day, my mind was set on maneuvering my way through the bustling airport and coming out alive. It wasn’t until I sat down on the plane, exhausted, that an absolutely terrifying thought entered my mind-Were my civil liberties just blatantly violated? There has been a lot of controversey about airport security issuing full-body scans and intrusive pat-downs. John Tyner became an internet sensation when he famously declared, during a full body pat down, "If you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested." Personally, I in no way feel comfortable with either option. Yet, if you refuse both, you don't get on your flight. It is most certainly an issue of civil liberties, but is it a violation?
Well, Benjamin franklin would most certainly believe so. He has declared:

"They who would give up essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security. "

This is a man that is the essence of Americanism.

So what does the Constitution say about it?

Well, nothing directly, our founding fathers could not predict the future. But, similiarly, it claims habeus corpus can be suspended in "cases of rebellion and when the public safety requires it" So does this mean civil liberties can be suspended when public safety require it? Does public safety require it?

Who knows. It is up to every American to make their decision on the constitutionality of the government's actions, and from there make decisions that support their beliefs. But in order to make educated decisions, they must first examine the past. They must do what we have been doing in AiS, learning how the government treated civil liberties in the the perilous times of the past.

Power Pointless

One of the most important things I learned this whole school year was how to give an effective presentation. It is one of the few things I've been taught that is directly used in the "real world." It is vital to pretty much any profession, and all forms of higher education. So then why are the majority of presentations poorly created and designed, presentations used by such prestigious organizations as NASA and the U.S military?

There are many pros and cons to powerpoint presentations. Although powerpoint can often contribute to lazy speaking styles, an overload of information, and general clutter; it does provide easy and efficent visual aid. Before powerpoint was created, presentations generally included speaker talking with more audience interaction while scribbling on a whiteboard for their much-needed visuals. So which one's better? Is the world better off without powerpoint?

No, the world is not. Powerpoint can be an effective and engaging form of presentation when used correctly. What we learned in class is essential in creating a society that can make effective presenations, and thus avoid often times dangerous consequences. Learning how to do effective powerpoint presenations should become a standard part of a high school education course, for the sake of the droop-eyed audience of the future.

B & W, Part 2

The more I read The Crucible, the more I realize it is not about the Salem Witch Trials whatsoever, or about anticommunism. It is about the human nature and the roles of perpetrator and victim. It is about the unity that comes about from false accusations. Most recently, it mirrors something very close to the hearts of Americans: The War on Terror. Through some research, I discovered something shockingly eerie.

In act III of the Crucible, Danforth states, “But you must understand, sir, that a person is either with this court or he must be counted against it, there is no road between." Forty-eight years after the play was written and three hundred and nine years after the play took place, our dear President said shockingly similar words. September 20th, 2001 in a press conference George Bush exclaimed, “ Either you are with us or your are with the terrorists.” These mumblings of “you are either with us, or against us" can be seen throughout history and literature, in times of peril.

It is a very polarizing, one-sided view of a situation. It was used by Lenin in communist Russia and Mussolini in fascist Italy. It seems to work magic. People hear these words, and with a strong desire to both belong and not be accused themselves, support the speaker of these words. This two-sided view brings us back to an earlier blog post, B & W. Just as Americans view race in America as black or white, Americans viewed the War on Terrorism. It seems as though in “Perilous Times”, the people’s perspective and open-mindedness is replaced with a black-and-white view of the situation. And this, in itself, is often quite perilous.

"Art Blows"

While discussing the first amendment in ‘Perilous Times”, we came across a very interesting obstacle in interpreting the Constitution. When does a form of media, say a movie, cross the line from a form of art to a form of porn? When does a speech intended for the high school students turn into a public display of sexual rant? How can you define art, in order to help maintain the validity and intention of the Constitution? Namely, what is art?
Well, in my opinion, art is beauty and beauty is in the eye of beholder. It is undefinable. Thus, deeming the constitutionality of a subject by its artistic qualities is unfair and un-American. So what happens when a t.v show has a detailed sex scene? When does it turn into full-blown pornography, and how can we limit it? Maybe, don’t. It sounds crazy, especially considering a porn-like show could be aired on public television. But you know what? That’s what HBO is for. Everything, in a way, is art. And it is unconstitutional to limit the way people express themselves, maybe we can just limit the audience who can view it.