Throwing Caution to the Wind

I wanted to add a little diversity to blog, so I decided to add some poetry. The beautiful facet of poetry that I've now started to appreciate is the message that it conveys to its audience. Poetry teaches us lessons about life, humanity and our heart. Even though we're students, intellectuals and professionals, we're also human beings with questions and struggles in life. Therefore, I present to you poetry from the lovely Jaida Triblet. Dig in!

Rolling plains, greener pastures,

Blackberry fields yield the smell of temptation,

You lick your fingers clean of their juices.

“Green grass always seems greener when you’re not upon it,”

Your mother said once long ago.

Falling off a cliff is not hard to do,

Its how you land on a cloud that is the challenge.

A whir of nostalgia wipes you down as your voice goes hoarse from screaming in pain,

The needle that sits in your side is not your punishment,

But the reminder that mothers actually do know best

The Dream Act

By Percy D. Lujan

Since the moment the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act, better known by the public as the DREAM Act, was first presented to the U.S. legislature, it has faced the opposition of some groups that qualify it as a threat to the U.S. economy. However, even within the pro-immigrant movement, there is still debate on whether this act should be passed or should it be included within a more complete package of immigration reform.

The organizations against the DREAM Act argue about the cost of undocumented immigrants (the ones they refer as “illegal aliens”) to the government, and subsequently to taxpayers. According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, better known by the noble name of FAIR, undocumented immigrant students cost the states “$12 billion annually” from kinder garden to their senior year of high school. Other organization, known as the Heritage Foundation reports the states pay “$100 million annually” to pay for their in-state tuition.

In addition, according to FAIR bilingual programs are said to cost taxpayers from “$290 to $879 per” student. The money that is used to provide K-12 education to children of undocumented immigrants, according to a report published by FAIR, is capable of minimizing the educator “per student ratios,” which will mean fewer students per class. Also according to the report, in New York, with $3 billion dollars that are spent with these children is capable of covering the cuts done to “payments to hospitals and nursing homes.” In summary, illegal immigration and the children of undocumented immigrants are taking away resources from U.S. citizens. The DREAM Act, according to these organizations would actually add to the cost that U.S. society pays because of undocumented students.

It seems that these organizations really like numbers, and the more they have to do with money the better. FAIR even has “U.S. Population Clock” which changes to show the actual U.S. population, the immigration in-flow every year, and the projected population for the year 2050. This number/money-fascination is one of the reasons why supporters of the New York State Youth Leadership Council (NYSYLC) are very uneasy with the ideals these self-denominated U.S.-loving organizations support.
I happened to attend one of their conferences in the New York University on March 9th. In a meeting that was appointed for nine, so people could come at nine-thirty, so they could start at ten, we actually started at ten and twenty minutes. The objective of the conference was to educate the attendees on what the Act was and how to get involved in order for it to be passed. There were about thirty to forty people present. Not being an activist myself, I found the work they do inside the organization to be very interesting in the sense that they are seemingly sure that what they are fighting for is a fair cause.

The day was divided up in three activities, the first of which we would divide ourselves into groups and learn different aspects of the movement. The second of which we would play a Jeopardy game to learn about the different numbers, people, places and other data related to the movement (which the group I was in won under the name of “Indu” which is a misspelled abbreviation of the Spanish word for “Undocumented”). The final activity being about the ways in which we could contribute to the movement.

During the first activity our host explained that the proponents for the DREAM Act have been engaged in a serious of tactics to convince politicians to support their cause. In California, supporters biked from North California to South California in the name of the Act. In Georgia, they had the original idea of sending pillows, symbolizing their dreams, to their senators.
Supporters of the DREAM Act are not all from Latino origin as it is stereotypically thought. Their backgrounds vary (though a significant majority seems to have Latino origins). Marisol Ramos, one of the members of the NYSYLC claimed by the end of the conference, “We are doing this because we are not intimidated by no one.”

The conference was an opportunity to know some of the proponents of the Act and ask them for the reason why they think these students deserve it to be passed. Another member of the NYSYLC named Sonia Guinansaca spoke about why she thinks the Act will be passed on 2009. “Of course [the Act will be passed],” Guinansaca declared, “for the main reason there is a lot of people working on it, so it's going to get passed. You cannot be pessimistic.”

Among the supporters of the Act were some high school students like Columba, who studies in a Brooklyn high school. As a way of thanking her for letting me interview her, I will keep her last name and school confidential. Columba explained the way in which she thought this new piece of legislation would benefit her. “Me, as an immigrant, that [the DREAM Act] will help me to accomplish my dreams and I want other people to accomplish their dreams.”

Should the Act be passed now, or should it be part of a more complete plan to renew the actual immigration system? This question is the one which sets apart some of the goals within the pro-immigrant movement. Whatever your opinion is on this Act (and hopefully I did not make mine too evident), it is possible for it to become of the most talked-about topics of this year.

Violence in Media: The Illusion, Allusion, Delusion and Contusion

By Nilo A. Bermeo

“There is a great streak of violence in every human being. If it is not channeled and understood, it will break out in war or in madness.” - Sam Peckinpah

In the film version of “The Osterman Weekend,” directed by Sam Peckinpah, agent Laurence Fassett watches the brutal murder of his wife on video. Later, journalist John Tanner is shown video incriminating his closest friends as double agents. While the movie itself is a commentary about manipulation, the actions both Fassett and Tanner take as a consequence of what they have seen is about individual choice. That is the sole factor in committing violence. No matter what Fassett or Tanner saw on screen, they each chose to act according to what they believed was right for them at that moment. Individual choice and individual responsibility is at the heart of this article. With an ever increasing bombardment of protests, studies and oversaturation, the issue of violence in media has taken a witch hunt mentality. Violence in media is seen as an addictive drug the youth of today are being forced to take on a daily basis. A drug that the self-haloed older generation has taken upon as a crusade they desperately need to win. Yet are the youth of today in need of salvation? Are the youth of today nothing more than empty cans that can only retain the evils of humanity? My answer to both of these questions is no. I do not believe violence in media is such a crippling, mind-warping narcotic. I believe the youth of today are much stronger than that. I believe the youth of today have a much better chance of decreasing violence than the older generations in control of the world right now. I believe the youth of today are much stronger and more intelligent than the older generations give them credit for.

The Illusion

The following are “facts” concerning violence in media (taken from mediafamily.org). Without seeking to include every statement concerning this issue, I have chosen the most common and those often used to advocate stopping violence in media.

By the time a child is eighteen years old, he or she will witness on television (with average viewing time) 200,000 acts of violence including 40,000 murders (Huston, et al, 1992).
Since the 1950s, more than 1,000 studies have been done on the effects of violence in television and movies. The majority of these studies conclude that: children who watch significant amounts of television and movie violence are more likely to exhibit aggressive behavior, attitudes and values (Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 1999).
Violence (homicide, suicide, and trauma) is a leading cause of death for children, adolescents and young adults, more prevalent than disease, cancer or congenital disorders (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2001).
Young children who see media violence have a greater chance of exhibiting violent and aggressive behavior later in life, than children who have not seen violent media (Congressional Public Health Summit, 2000).

The Allusion

While I am not seeking to completely repudiate the four “facts” mentioned above, I do wish to point out some interesting details.
According to A.C. Nielsen Co., 99% of households have at least one television. According to Cleancutmedia.com, “the average adult was exposed to a little over 5 hours a day of live TV every day.” Not to sound completely sarcastic, but I wonder how much violence is seen within those 5 hours? I wonder if it is comparable to the violence seen by children? Apparently all adults are better equipped to cope with violence in media than the young. With so much TV viewing, I wonder how adults can resist the impulse to commit violent crimes? I keep forgetting the older generation is completely void of that tendency.
In an article published in 2008, Steve Johnson sights new research that proclaims not all television is bad for children. Jesse Shapiro and Matthew Gentzkow state, "We find strong evidence against the view that childhood television viewing harms the cognitive or educational development of preschoolers." Aletha Huston states, "If used correctly, television can be a wonderful medium for kids. It can be a way of exposing them to the world. It can be a resource for kids to get to places and times they wouldn't get to." After listening to all the studies on violence in media, I was shocked to discover that it could have a positive influence. Who could ever believe that television could foster educational, informative and ethical programming for the youth of today? Who would dare believe that the youth of today could ease off their permanent, addictive high long enough to view anything positive? It simply boggles the mind. Perhaps the youth of today are not complete simpletons.
In an article titled, “The Benefits of Bozo” by Austan Goolsbee, it is argued that “Most studies of the impact of television, however, are seriously flawed. They compare kids who watch TV and kids who don't, when kids in those two groups live in very different environments. Kids who watch no TV, or only a small amount of educational programming, as a group are from much wealthier families than those who watch hours and hours. Because of their income advantage, the less-TV kids have all sorts of things going for them that have nothing to do with the impact of television.” This is a detail that I find of extreme importance and yet I rarely hear it mentioned when all these “facts” about violence in media are publicized everywhere. How is it fair to compare children who watch a certain amount of TV a day because his/her parent(s) are working to feed and support them with children who have at least one parent present and can afford extracurricular activities day in and day out. There does not seem to be a fair balance there for comparison and yet, data shows this is being done continuously.
Accidental death is the most prevalent cause of death among children (Medlineplus). At the top of this list are automobile accidents. Since it tends to be adults driving cars most of the time, I wonder how media in violence caused these fatalities? Naturally it had to be the children’s fault? Whoever heard of an adult being reckless behind the wheel of a car?
It was earlier stated that, “Young children who see media violence have a greater chance of exhibiting violent and aggressive behavior later in life, than children who have not seen violent media.” While I can again talk about the flaw of such a study, citing socioeconomic reasons, I think it is better to show some information from an article in the BBC World Service. It states, “There are an estimated three hundred thousand child soldiers around the world.” In many of the poorer third world countries, children are abducted from home and forced to join the military and subsequently, kill. Who made these children violent? Was it a simple television screen or was it an adult holding a gun to the child’s head and making him/her join the army? While an extreme example, I think this makes my point. People can put all the blame in media, but adults have a much greater impact on children than TV or any other electronic gizmo a child carries.

The Delusion

Let us now take a deep breath, drift deep within the mind’s realm of infinite possibilities and let us see the world without violence in media. Let us imagine a world where the most violent act shown on TV or in videogames is a slight disapproving raise or narrowing of the eyebrow. Now, let us populate this utopian paradise.

A drunken father comes home to an apartment not up to the pristine standards he mandates. He disciplines his wife in front of his small children and then pounds his eldest son for crying.
A small kid walks home from school and is stopped by a genial old man with a twinkling eye and sweet breath. He looks a lot like Santa Clause. The old man happens to carry an assortment of candy canes of all shades and coloring. He invites the small child to take a taste and retorts he has too much in the back seat of his car. He kindly asks the child if he would like to take a basket’s worth home. The child agrees.
A pair of teenagers walk the streets on their day off from school and chance upon a guy they vaguely remember seeing from time to time. This man, dressed in superb garb and brandishing the most expensive sneakers, smiles and waves them over. He produces from his coat pocket a couple of small, clear plastic bags and offers them a taste. He regales them of the extraordinary sensation and tells them to go ahead a try. It’s absolutely complimentary.
A group of twelve year olds are out on the basketball court pretending they are in the NBA finals. They are too deep in fancy footwork and acrobatics to notice the pair of men running frantically in their direction. A blur of blue can be seen just over the distance. A ballet of bullets, screams and blood postpone the game. Three players will need to be permanently replaced.

So strange that such things could happen in a utopian paradise. So strange that violence could continue despite control over media. How ever did the bygone generations maintain their utopia?
The Contusion

The argument over violence in media is an old one. Since Junior High School I have been cognitive of the whole issue. As far as I am concerned, violence in media does not make one any more or any less violent than anyone else. I believe the media can only affect those who allow it. All individuals have a choice when it comes to committing violent acts. To say media makes our children more violent is like saying jaywalking makes adults’ hardened criminals. The two do not add up so simplistically. Still, aside from individual choice and individual responsibility, I am troubled by the rhetoric being spewed by the older generations. Though they continuously attack violence in media for the sake of the young, they are in fact, attacking the young themselves. By trying to rid media of violence, the older generations are stating that the younger generation simply cannot tell right from wrong. This is utterly ridiculous. Why is the older generation quick to point out how much more violent and aggressive the younger generation is and yet not point out the good qualities as well? Last time I checked, the younger generation is also more tolerant and accepting. Why do we only hear the bad of the young and not the good? What’s more, unless I’m completely and utterly insane, most of the world’s problems are directly connected to the actions of the older generations. Who is allowing for all the atrocities across the world? Children? No. Who are continuously building up nuclear armaments and parading around to other nations, taunting them? Children? No. Who control the political arena, the media and the law enforcement agencies? Children? No. Who allowed for the tragic events on Sept 11 to be carried out? Children? No. Who let the war in Iraq start and drag on for so many years? Children? No. The older generations preach about the strides they have made (and they have made numerous contributions, no doubt about that), but they are not completely void of blood on their hands. They are not the top echelon of morality and equality for all humanity. No one is. Yet there is this prevailing message that because they come from a time where viewing television was not widespread (mostly because it did not exist or it was limited), they are so much more stable than the young of today. This is pure fantasy. Despite not having viewed as much television, many of the older generations committed horrific crimes. Many more did not. Shouldn’t the younger generation be given the same respect and allowed to choice for themselves? Isn’t true democracy built upon expanding viewpoints and ideas instead of restricting individuals in how to see, hear, smell, taste and think? Are all young nothing but mindless animals that must be washed and fed, but never allowed to run loose?

I would like to end this article by quoting a scene from the Simpsons (which itself has garnered some critique for its depiction of violence). The scene is from Season Two and is the episode entitled, “Itchy, Scratchy & Marge.”
Meyers: I did a little research and I discovered a startling thing...There was violence in the past, long before cartoons were invented.
Kent: I see. Fascinating.
Meyers: Yeah, and know something, Karl? The Crusades, for instance. Tremendous violence, many people killed, the darned thing went on for thirty years.
Kent: And this was before cartoons were invented?
Meyers: That's right, Kent.

Be the Difference

Before I delve into my blog, I would like to introduce myself. My name is Emmanuel Deegbe and I’ll be the new Publications officer. Even though I’m not quite as eloquent or as sophisticated as my predecessor, I’m just as passionate about writing. Writing helps me to empty my mind and free my heart. Words are not just words, but an instrument a writer utilizes to claw his/her way from their secluded existence and connect to the world. A page is not just page, but a vessel of a writer’s most intimate thoughts and feelings. The process is engaging, stimulating, frustrating, wearisome and intense but I’ll dare to ask, is there any art form better than writing? Forgive me for the blatant bias. Anyway, the blog is an opportunity for us to debate topics, sharpen our intellect, expand our perspectives and most importantly, to learn from each other. I hope this will be an exciting year.

I was going to start my tenure discussing torture, but after the induction ceremony I felt inspired to write about community service. For those who didn’t attend the ceremony, it was a simple, warm event for family and friends. There were a few technical difficulties, some waves of laughter, and numerous ecstatic family members cheering their loved ones. However, the peak of the night, at least for me, was when our incoming president stepped up to the podium. Truthfully, I was expecting to a very rigid, bureaucratic speech and initially it started off that way. However, midway through the speech, Jenny started to tear up and succumb to her emotions. Whiles this may have been an unnerving moment for her; it was a very tender moment for the audience because we could feel her passion. I was hit not only by the beauty of the ceremony, but the beauty of PTK. PTK is not an organization made just for brilliant students to revel in their intellect. Rather, it is an attempt to pluck out young, ambitious individuals from the crowd and carve them into the leaders of tomorrow. It is an opportunity to give back to our community and to our nation. Jenny’s tears reminded me that I am part of a worthy organization that truly wants to make a difference in the world.

I will now turn my attention to PTK members, followers of the blog and whoever else is reading this. I’m not going to sell you reasons why you should get involved with PTK. Yes, PTK is a prestigious organization that numerous 4-year colleges know about; and, yes, being linked with PTK will bolster your resume but I refuse to use such manipulative tactics to get volunteers to come for our events. If you want to get involved and give back, the doors are open. I know many of us don’t have so much spare time, but any time you do, just check out our website to see what’s going on. I only hope that as the new PTK officials start to form ideas, plan events and set the calendar, that you will join us, give us a hand and help us be the difference.

Farewell, But Not Goodbye

Luis K. Feliz

Writing has been an all-encompassing passion, and being Publications Officer for Phi Theta Kappa has allowed me to do what I love every day, and for that I am truly grateful. Nevertheless, as any writer can tell you, writing is not an easy process. In fact, it is excruciating; churning a morass of incomplete thoughts into a cohesive whole is a painful process. Hence, writing requires discipline, patience, conviction, and love. I can still remember staying up all night ideas swarming in my mind, dozing off atop a mountain of crumpled paper, and coaxing the past with trinkets from bygone days of innocence in order to flesh out its lessons. For example, I distinctly remember taking out old photographs and translating the emotions onto a paper with brushstrokes of words. Or I would listen to an old Spanish ballad and recreate in my mind’s eye a family reunion. Ice cubes submerged in an orange sea of rum. My uncle’s makeshift guitar wailing and coalescing with guffaws summoned from strong, oval potbellies. Often staring at the naked sky of New York City, the winds of nostalgia have whisked me to a zinc roof in my grandmother’s house. The expanse of a Caribbean night dotted with silvery chandeliers has always bemused me. What were those silvery lights that hung over the ceiling of the night sky? I mused as child.


This I did often as I thought about what to write for the blog, or how to approach people to ask them to contribute to the blog. In essence, I wanted to understand my relationship to this utterly idiosyncratic craft. If I understood what compelled me to write, I could convince others to do likewise. So I tried to understand why, often, at night, I was restless, ideas clanking in the basement of my mind and not releasing me into the arms of sleep. I believe that in order for me to ask students to share with me and others their most profound observations I had to be earnest in explaining why I write. Despite many efforts, this is what I have come up with: “something inside of me compels me to write, and I write to satiate that impulse.”

I recall the first time I read over Jocelyn’s essay “Life, After Eighteen,” a deeply moving and sincere account of a strong woman’s struggle with cutting and depression. The verve of her voice, the underlying pain in the telling, was an example of a muffled voice finally free to return from self-imposed exile. Therefore, narrative is freedom because it unfolds the origami-intricacy of our lonely, private battles. Cutting, like other personal struggles, is often endured in silence in the solitude of one’s private life. I say that narrative unfolds because it sheds light on the painful experiences or situations that too often keep us captive in the cell of our private agony. If the blog has had an indelible mark on our Chapter, and LaGuardia, it is in the unquantifiable, bringing people together. In other words, my hope is that the blog has not only facilitated discussion of important topics, but has also allowed people to be part of a virtual community of like-minded students.

In retrospect, I do not know whether I was successful as an editor or adept at editing the wonderful work of my colleagues and contributing interesting insights to the ongoing discussion about the issues that affect our college, community and country. But one thing, I can assure you, my friends, I have had a lot of fun these past months. Thanks for the opportunity to touch so many people with my ideas, and conversely to be touched by so many people. I go forth equipped with many wonderful experiences.