February 17th - The Streets of Heaven

Just over a year and a half ago, a man walked into a movie theater and opened fire. Five months later, it was an elementary school. Since then, it seems as though every few weeks we hear about another gun being drawn and used to cause terror, pain, and, all too often, death.

At the 2013 State of the Union address, President Barack Obama made a bold statement that something had to be done to prevent this kind of violence from tearing the country apart. He punctuated his speech by inviting the families of shooting victims to the speech and honoring the memories of those whose lives were cut so mercilessly short.

It turns out, one year later, Obama’s bark was worse than his bite. Congress did little to nothing to prevent such acts of violence, and killings didn’t stop. This year alone, in 48 days alone, there have already been several incidences of killings at the hands of gunmen. In fact, the number and frequency of public gun violence has increased, rather than decreasing the past year.

And Obama relented. Little to nothing was discussed during this year’s State of the Union to address the growing issue. Obama asked for legislation, Congress said no, and Obama backed off. A year after his initial call to action, Barack Obama’s second State of the Union of his second term barely confronted the notion of any form of gun control. It just didn’t make the list of things to discuss that night.

Here is the scary thought: maybe the violence is perpetuating itself. Copycats see others successfully (or at least what they believe to be successful) spread fear and create havoc. Some even may look at the attention a killer “earns” in a glorified way. All of a sudden, the notion of using violence may be implanted in the mind of someone who otherwise would never have considered it.

Although I don’t encourage the ownership of guns, I do understand the notion that the government shouldn’t be able to tell me what I can and cannot own. The arguments in defense of the second amendment grow more tired, though.

At its inception, the second amendment to the constitution was created for the purpose of allowing citizens to own muskets to maintain a militia in times of need. At the time, it was imperative for national security and defense.

Times have changed in the past 200 plus years, though. So too must our understanding of gun rights, and the right to bear arms. Those who use second amendment arguments fail to understand that the right to bear arms originates from the necessity to do so, which truly doesn’t exist. It is also important to note that very few people are arguing about the right to own a 18^th century musket. The weapons have grown far more terrifying.

This gets very well to the next argument which most gun carriers hold to: that carrying a gun makes one feel safer and allows for self-defense. There’s a fundamental error in logic. How can more weapons lead to less violence? Clearly people are still using their guns; it doesn’t appear as though concealed carry is being effectively used as a deterrent. And if you’re so worried about your safety, wouldn’t it be safer to eliminate the guns, rather than make everyone carry one?

I carry a pocket knife with me most of the time. I like having it with me. I use it to open boxes, cut through packaging, and other simple tasks. Could it be used as a weapon? Sure. But its purpose is to be used as a tool. The same cannot be said for a gun. The gun, especially the automatic weapon, was invented for the sole intent and purpose of killing. Even when used recreationally, it is still a killing tool. There is no ability to assume good will. A gun can be used for nothing but harm, or at the very least, intimidation and fear.

We had our chance to fix the problem. For 18 months, Congress has sat back and allowed things to continue with no significant gun control reform. But now, as each day of inaction passes, the blood is not only on the hands of the attackers, but also the bystanders. Congressmen and Senators are elected to serve the people of each state. They fail if their inaction leads to the unnecessary murder of those citizens.

We need to take away guns. We need to make them nearly impossible to buy. We need to make ammunition difficult to attain. We need to make things tough. I respected your right to carry a weapon right up until someone ruined it. And we ruin it when we continue to allow our peace of mind to lead to the destruction of human life.

The streets of heaven are too filled with angels. And we can keep those angels on earth. It’s our job to figure out how.

--Follow us on Twitter at @ZootPerspective for even more great content

February 9th - America the Beautiful

American politics are screwed up, and they aren’t getting better. Republicans don’t want to talk to Democrats, and, frankly, Democrats aren’t that interested in talking to Republicans. The government can’t seem to agree on anything, and it doesn’t look like the American people are getting along any better than their politicians.

On the other side of the world, though, something big is happening. 230 men and women are going to compete in the Olympic Games. They are doing so not as individuals, but as representatives of the United States of America.

This year’s games, taking place in Sochi, Russia, carry with them a significance far beyond simply athletic prowess. The post-USSR Russian government is not in a good place, using the guise of democracy to overshadow an inherently corrupt system. This might have gone unnoticed, until some logistical pieces of the games started to fall apart. Running “water” came out looking more like iced tea than anything else, doors wouldn’t open, rooms weren’t well put together. Overall, the accommodations were a mess.

That would have been bad enough, but things didn’t get any better when some reporters started doing some digging on other Russian behaviors. Like, the notion of putting men in jail for being homosexual. All of a sudden, protests were going up, calling for all sorts of action, from sanctions to boycotts, all attempting to boldly protest the crimes that Russia has committed against its people.

This isn’t the first time the Olympics have served as a staging ground for the world’s conflicts. The 1936 games were held in Berlin, Germany, at a time when Germany was well on its way to starting the most atrocious act of hate in recent history. The 1980 Olympics held in Lake Placid, New York featured the bitter rivalry between the United States and USSR, culminating in the “Miracle on Ice” hockey championship. In both cases, political situations almost led to boycotts of the games, and in both cases the Americans competed. The result? An African American man winning a gold medal in Hitler’s home and an band of Americans showing the Russians that they’re dominance will be short-lived.

For the next two weeks, Americans will once again be on foreign soil, competing for medals and the rights to claim athletic superiority. There is, though, so much more at stake than awards and accolades. The United States is defending a way of living, a freedom, and an idea. We are defending the right to freedom, the right to be a light unto the nations.

Americans are not unified. We don’t agree on a great many things. We don’t agree on the way we should run our government, or the line between where my liberties end and the liberties of another begin. We can’t seem to agree on much of anything. With one major exception: we live in a country that allows us to fight for what we believe. Our rights are defended, and there is a civilized way of fighting for what we want.

There are 230 Americans in Sochi. I don’t know what they believe about homosexuality, healthcare, government spending, or guns (well, maybe with the exception of the biathlon competitors). I don’t really care. What they’re doing there, what they’re saying by being there, is that America, the country they represent, is alive and well, and we are ready to be a presence on the global stage.

There is a difference between being an American and the idea of America. America is something we all believe in. America is an idea. And we have to come together, most especially for the next few weeks, to support America as it represents us, each and every one of us, on the world’s stage.

January 29th: The Big Cheese

During the Andrew Jackson administration, the story goes, a large block of cheese was wheeled into the White House. The purpose was to allow for all of those who were hungry to come and join the staff and cabinet of the highest office of the United States and share some food and discuss matters that would important to them.

This tradition was brought into common knowledge when it was featured on the West Wing, Aaron Sorkin’s masterful television show detailing the workplace environment of those working at the White House. In the show, the Chief of Staff brought back this tradition, or at least the part of getting some face-time with the leadership of the government. Throughout the seven seasons of the show, the White  House staff was visited by a wide variety of people with interests ranging from wildlife conservation to astrological concerns and even cartography issues. While many were ridiculous proposals and somewhat outlandish, all received the time and attention of those with some degree of power to act on the shared knowledge.

In a Youtube video that brought Bradley Whitford and Josh Molina together alongside Jay Carney, the White House Press Secretary, the White House announced their intentions to make this tradition come to life. For the first time, the White House has been accepting videos today to be answered by government officials. This will offer the opportunity for citizens, the day after Barack Obama’s State of the Union, to reflect on ways that their government can best serve them.

While the day in the West Wing was often thought of as “Crackpot Day” because of the prevalence of rather crazy ideas, this is an incredible opportunity for the government to be transparent and include the people in their deliberation. A government run for the people must have an idea about what the citizens deem important, and this gives all Americans the opportunity to have the ear of the leadership of our country.

The Obama administration won the presidency in 2008 because of their ability to understand the internet and social media, and how to use these tools to speak to an audience larger than any public appearance. This is yet another example of that understanding.

As is almost always the case, the State of the Union shed light on an incredible number of issues that are important not only to the Obama administration, but the country as a whole. Everything from the education system, the middle class, and international politics were called center stage to the forefront of the mind of all Americans. As incredible as it is that television has allowed all of the American citizens to get into the room for this address, there is an issue with translating those powerful words into powerful action. This year, more so than any in recent memory, the government looks incapable of making the kind of changes that Obama calls for.

This is where Big Block of Cheese Day comes into play. The American public gets to put the important questions to the government and get answers about not simply beautifully written words, but the actual actions that will be taken to make them a reality. Through this one day of internet communication, the Obama administration has the opportunity to use social media tools to communicate with its constituency in ways never done before.

January 17th: A World Away

Friends and family alike, when I told them of my upcoming trip to Israel, wished me the same sentiment: “Be safe.” While the thought was based on caring and affection, I couldn’t help but be disconcerted. My trip was through Birthright, an opportunity for 18 to 26 year old Jews to go to the Holy Land to experience all of the magic of what the Jewish homeland had to offer. Falling off a beautiful mountain should have been the only real risk to my health and wellbeing.

Unfortunately that isn’t the picture in the minds of most Americans when thinking of Israel. The images of war, conflict, and hate are all-too prevalent. Israel is almost always the first two syllables, followed swiftly by “Palestinian Conflict.”

This was, though, not my first trip. I had been to Israel once before, although in a far less structured function. It was especially difficult to reconcile what I knew about Israel with what others knew, or at the very least claimed to know. I felt myself as conflicted as the land supposedly was.

It was on the very first day that this conflict was challenged outright. As part of our tour, we had the chance to go to an olive oil manufacturing plant, where they harvest the olives and produce a wide variety of products from the plants, from food oils to skin creams and more. The owner was there to greet us, and he did with a smile and a demeanor that didn’t seem unlike everyone’s favorite Jewish uncle.

He spoke for a few moments about the process of making his products and the idea behind his creation of the company. Quickly, though, he changed the subject.

“I’m sure you will find, in your travels in this beautiful land, that everyone you meet is nice to you, friendly, and helpful.” He said. He went on to say that these people were trying to show us the real Israel.

“You don’t make a 65 year investment in hate. We are making an investment into a land where we can be a people, where we can put down roots and grow. We make that investment in love. There is this belief that we wake up in the morning full of hate, grabbing our guns. You can’t survive like that. You don’t make an investment in hate. It would kill you.”

I was instantly struck by his words. I rolled them around in my head for the remainder of my ten day trip, and for the week since my return. He was absolutely right. Everywhere we went we found happy, helpful people who wanted to show us how incredible Israel is. The land is beautiful, and the people are as well.

We have such a skewed idea of what it means to go to and live in Israel. We paint a one-dimensional picture. Yet, that fails so wholly to appreciate the complexity of it. There isn’t a single person living in Israel who doesn’t know someone who has lost their life fighting for their country. Conflict and war definitely exists.  Our tour showed countless locations where battles, armaments, and the picture of war still very much stains the earth. But the land is also filled with craftsmen, painting over that beauty.

People greeted us with open arms, offering to teach us about their country and help us with the language barrier. We found kindness running through the streets, history rich with culture, and a modern society that just doesn’t look that different from any American city. In fact, there were a great many places I would rather be in Israel after dark than downtown Chicago.

These people are making a commitment to the land. They want to create homes, make businesses, and raise children to live in the land. They want all of the same things that Americans of all people should understand. The notion of winning freedom is an equally American concept, which is one of the reasons that I believe American-Israeli relations have always been so important. We, in the United States, though, can’t really honor our end of the friendship if we believe that Israel is a cruel, dangerous place. We need to understand our allies if we are to truly call them our friends.

Not once on my trip did I feel scared for my safety. I felt like, if my health were in jeopardy, I would have 7.9 million family members waiting to help.

Dec. 23rd: Spineless

All through elementary school and middle school, I was that nerdy kid who could be counted on to have a book in hand. Everywhere I went, I would have to have something to read, to keep me busy, to entertain me, and to get me engaged.  It continued on to high school, although a problem arose: as I got older, books became bigger, heavier, harder to whip out at a moment’s notice. I began to shift my reading from a constant activity to a very much controlled one. I would read for a half hour before bed, or a few minutes right after school. I began to develop routines.

But, as is always the case, as the world around me got more complicated, so too did finding time to read. All of a sudden, I found myself in front of screens more often than pages. It was increasingly difficult to not only find the time, but also the motivation to whip out a book. With the limited free time I have, a book isn’t necessarily the way I want to spend it.

Throughout college, though, I have made it a point to always read a little bit before going to bed. There is no better feeling than reading a book you simply can’t put down. More so than any other media, books can lead to hugely creative entertainment.

Finally, I decided to make a change to my reading habits. I decided to invest in a Kindle. For years, people had been telling me that e-Reading was perfect for me, and I had refused every time. I like the feel of a book, the smell of it, the way I can track my progress. After years, though, I decided to make the not-too-expensive decision and cave.

It didn’t take long for me to regret my years of resistance. All of my opposition to reading had an answer. I could track my progress not only through page numbers but also percentage of the book, time remaining in a chapter, and chapter headings. I could transition from one chapter to another almost as easily as if I flipped the pages.

The quality of the reading is perfect. Plus, I never had to worry about running out of content. I can preload books when I’m getting close to being done with one, and get all set to pick up right where I left off in a series, or start a new endeavor immediately. I don’t even need to go to the library.

All of this innovation, though, led to an interesting consideration: does digital reading lead to an increase or a decrease in reading? Does it mean that libraries will meet their demise? Do we have a reading problem on our hands and, if so, are e-readers part of the problem or the solution?

After a little time with my e-reader, it is pretty clear that e-reading offers a multitude of solutions to the reading issues that are becoming all-too-popular. The ease with which reading becomes accessible offers the consumer a whole new opportunity to interact with different texts and different media. We can continue to use screens, but this time, we will be doing more with that technology.

The consumer side of the market is better, growing, and easier. That doesn’t necessarily bode well, though, for the book industry as we know it. Book sellers and libraries face a difficult reality. They will either have to change the way they play the game, or choose to remove themselves. As we see them now, bookstores are locations for buying hard-copies of books. You can get new digital copies on the internet. Same goes for libraries. Under the current system, there is no need for these institutions if a digital download is available.

Yet, both bookstores and libraries are making shifts. Many libraries offer online libraries, where patrons can download copies of books and return them online, just the same as hard copies get returned to the library building. The same goes for bookstores. Barnes and Noble has created the Nook, their own version of the e-reader, and offers their books both online and in-store. While this won’t necessarily help the stores themselves, the company is prepared for the future.

The world of reading is changing, and so must the locations where reading is stimulated. That doesn’t mean, though, that reading is going to struggle. To continue to allow reading to be competitive with other sources of media, the industry needs to move to continue to allow consumers to get their hands on material.

After years of waiting, I decided to buy into the future of reading. It didn’t take long to realize just how limitless the possibilities are.

Dec. 10th: Fear Itself

This past Saturday was the anniversary of “a date that will live in infamy.” 72 years ago, Pearl Harbor was attacked, launching the country into a war that, to that point, we had avoided.

Now, as we reflect on the events of December 7^th, 1941, I can’t help but remember another famous statement by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, this time one eight years earlier on his inauguration for his first term as president. He boldly stated that “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” This came at a time when living in America was a potentially terrifying notion. The Great Depression raged and a country in need of some courage was able to put their fear at bay by the words of their newly elected president.

American culture today is not that different. Our society is based almost entirely on fear. We go through every day in a perpetual state of discomfort and unease.

We fear what we do not know. Between homophobia, Islamaphobia, and even our fear of foreign cultures, we are trained to be scared of people who are different from ourselves.

We fear that, simply by their existence, organizations such as the Traditionalist Youth movement will become the norm. It doesn’t matter that their opinions and ideals are a tiny minority, the fact that they exist terrifies us.

We also fear being judged. An inordinate amount of time is spent worrying about what others think of us. We worry that we will be shamed, analyzed, critiqued, laughed at. We don’t want others to judge us, therefore we start campaigns against slut-shaming, gay bashing, and all other forms of criticism. While none of those things are acceptable in the society in which we live, they receive far too much of our attention, because of our constant fear that they will become our tags.

The result of these campaigns, though, is not less fear: it is more. We become afraid to say anything for fear that someone will be offended. We lose ownership of our own actions because we are so afraid of the ways that our behavior will be received by others.

The bottom line is that we all will be judged. We all will be put in situations that make us uncomfortable, force us to interact with different ideas and different kinds of people. Rather than retreating, then, and avoiding these situations, we have the opportunity to reflect on what makes us scared and actually do something about it.

During the Great Depression, fear was an incredibly real and contagious notion. That same concept of fear is no less real today. The difference is that the thing we fear most is ourselves. We are afraid to be who we are because we are worried that others will not take it well .We are afraid that, if we are who we are ,someone else, some “other,” will step in and attempt to take our identity away.

So what can we do? How can we avoid the crippling fear that permeates our lives? The answer comes in the form of information. We are most afraid when we are at our most ignorant. By learning about others and learning about ourselves, we can be less susceptible to the fear that has become culturally normal.

The fear in the aftermath of the Great Depression and World War II was followed by an era of great American growth and learning. America can learn just as significantly today from the fears and strength of our past.

December 4th: Polar Pops

One of the most successful advertising campaigns of all time just got a whole lot bigger.

Introduced for the first time as early as the 1920s, the polar bear has been a mainstay in Coca-Cola’s advertising campaigns. The ads spun off into a campaign with the World Wildlife Fund to help protect the bears, creating something of a symbiotic relationship between the advertisers and the furry friends that have helped to launch the company into the hearts of billions of people around the globe. Through the over 80 years of polar bear-based Coke ads, the animation and characterization has changed and developed, advancing as technology allows. Now, they are ready to take yet another step forward in the hopes of selling their iconic brand.

A short, six minute movie has been produced, featuring the Coca-Cola polar bears. Yes, that is how they are introduced. At first glance, it would be totally reasonable to believe that it is simply a children’s movie with polar bears as the protagonist, but within moments, Coke removes all doubt of their stamp on the film.

This is a brilliant move on the part of the Coca-Cola Company for several reasons. The timing is also pretty well scripted. The film trailers were featured in new releases such as the Hunger Games, which hit theaters just a few days after Coke announced their intentions to donate their advertising budget for the coming period to disaster relief in the Philippines. While donating their money in such a public way is definitely doing good work for the world, it is also a form of free advertising. The money that Coke sent to the Philippines also helped to create a positive media buzz that can’t hurt Coke’s bottom line. Having a six minute advertising movie can’t hurt their case.

It is also interesting to note the target audience for the short film. The expectation is not that older media consumers will stumble upon this film. The most significant demographic for this movie is children, who will seek out some screen time with their new favorite white friends. I’m sure there will be stuffed animals, t-shirts, and other merchandise running in parallel to the movie and even further infiltration into our homes. What this does is get children hooked on a brand before they are trained to understand the complexity of advertising and how it affects them. By getting them while they’re young, Coke is maximizing their ad profits, because they have the potential to create a connection with the individuals who will be their target audience not only now, but for the rest of their lives.

As one of the most innovative advertising companies in the world, Coca-Cola continues to find new ways to get their names out there and into the homes of consumers. Without analysis or thought, it can leave consumers completely at the mercy of the corporation.