Beyond the Gun-Control Debate

Once again we open the newspapers and find ourselves shocked by the random killings of innocent victims. This time, however, it seems to shock us a bit more. Possibly because of the number of victims or the fact that it happened in a school... Again. But most likely because of the 26 dead 20 were 6 or 7 years old. 8 boys and 12 girls according to official reports.

Again a shooting. Another in a long tragic and painful chain of school shootings in the USA. Once again the gun control debate reopens throughout the country as both sides get their argumentative ammunition ready. We´ll hear again about people´s right to bear arms, and about statistics. Some will remind us that this has happened in other places (Google: Oslo Massacre 2011) and that it has happened as well where people have had no access to guns (Google: China Knife Attacks 2010). Statistics will be fired in every direction: percentage of gun crimes carried out with legally obtained weapons, number of these weapons that end up in the wrong hands, gun crimes in the USA vs countries where access to firearms is limited, number of criminals who claim they would not have killed if they had known for a fact that there were other armed people among their potential victims, and so on. More than anything, people will adopt a position somewhere around the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. 

The Second Amendment is the part of the Constitution´s Bill of Rights that defends the people´s right to "keep and bear arms." The Bill of Rights is the term applied to the first 10 amendments to the Constitution in order to guarantee basic rights (such as freedom of speech and a fair trial) to all Americans, as well as to limit the powers of Government. Viewed from a 21st century point of view, especially from outside the US, the fact that having firearms is considered a basic right seems crazy to say the least. We should consider things within their context though, and the 2nd Amendment´s context was very different from anything we deem normal nowadays. The 13 Colonies had just earned their independence, war had just ended, and newly declared American people understood that if they wanted to protect their lives, property, families, and freedom they had to do it themselves. After decades of being abused by the British Crown, it was only understandable that they wanted the right to protect themselves and rebel against an unfair rule guaranteed in writing. In present day people debate whether the guarantees established by the second amendment are still necessary.

As I have said before, every time there is intense debate over anything we must stop and wonder what the other side is seeing that we are not. Thus I am willing to accept some of the reasons told by people who use the self-defense argument as logical. For example that those who legally buy weapons are NOT the ones that commit gun crimes, or that states that are more permissive with guns are NOT the ones with the highest gun crime rates.  However it is not easy for me to understand that people defend the right to have assault weapons. I personally don´t understand, but I don´t judge either, those who want to have hunting guns. I certainly don´t share the idea of having a revolver for self-protection at home, but I can sometimes understand it. But I most definitely can´t accept that we allow anyone to have guns that were specifically designed to kill people. Accurately. Multiple people at a time. Who can seriously claim that people who buy this kind of weapon have self-defense in mind? Self-defense against what? An army of mercenaries? 

As President Obama said, "the complex causes of gun crime can´t be an excuse for inaction" and something has to be done. Some US politicians have already promised they will propose a nation-wide ban on assault weapons (which I applaud, but is not enough), and everyone throughout the country is urging people to reflect on what needs to be changed to prevent another massacre like the one in Newton, Conn. It is hard to say. I certainly have no answer. It breaks my heart to think of the families who sent their little ones to school just another Friday morning and never saw them return. I can´t begin to imagine the pain they must be going through as I type these words. The thought that there is something deeply wrong with a country that produces the kind of monster who would perpetrate such an act is only slightly alleviated by the idea that the overwhelming majority of us are NOT like that. Most of us wish to change something. Most of us send our condolences and prayers to the families of the victims. But nothing we do or say will bring them back.

Breakfast Who is Who

They say breakfast is the most important meal of the day. However, the idea of what a good breakfast is can greatly differ depending on where you live. In the USA, as in most of the Americas and Northern Europe, people tend to eat hearty, strong and complete breakfasts. These are usually high-protein and include items such as eggs, bacon, potatoes, veggies, and pancakes. For people here in Mediterranean Europe American breakfast items usually seem too heavy. They find it difficult to believe a person can actually feel like eating that much, especially that early in the morning! Mediterraneans usually have significantly smaller breakfasts that consist of coffee and milk and a slice of toast with butter and jam for those who like it sweet, and oil and tomato for those who don´t.

In general breakfast habits are only a matter of taste, except when it comes to the fact of actually having some breakfast. Researchers seem to agree that the worst possible breakfast is no breakfast at all, especially for children and teenagers. Many studies suggest a strong correlation between academic achievement and having breakfast, which is why many states in the US began their breakfast-at-school programs.

So, if we consider breakfast necessary, how can we choose wisely what to have? According to several medical studies, the most important nutrients to include in a complete breakfast are fiber, protein, and vitamins, especially vitamin C (more so in the wintertime when our immune system needs a little boost). Given this information, the best breakfast may be a combination of American and Mediterranean ingredients. American breakfast items are high in animal protein, but also in saturated fats, whereas Mediterranean breakfast is high in fiber but often lacks protein and vitamin C. The ideal breakfast should definitely include some dairy products, fruit, and bread. The way you mix and match these is entirely up to you and your schedules, but remember... NEVER SKIP BREAKFAST AGAIN!

Homeschooling

     There is a lot in the news lately about whether children can be home-schooled or not in Spain. Apparently it´s not clear here if homeschooling is constitutional. Most of the debate centers around the ambiguity of the Spanish Constitution on the issue of free and mandatory education. People who want to home-school their children claim that the document establishes the right and obligation of all children to receive an education, but never stating WHERE. In other words, that as long as they are educated they do not need to attend school.

     In the United States about 2.9 percent of children are home-schooled. Depending on the state, the laws that regulate homeschooling range from virtually no regulation at all (not even notification of homeschooling) to very strict controls by the state of the curriculum taught, the parent/home teacher qualifications, official evaluation, and home visits. The picture on the right shows the degree of regulation and its distribution by state, according to the Home-School Legal Defense Association.

     The reasons parents decide not to send their children to school are very diverse, with morals and disagreement with the school system behind most of them. These are the top ten reasons given by American parents to home-school their children according to the National Center for Education Statistics:

Reason for homeschooling	Number of homeschooled students	Percent	s.e.
Can give child better education at home	415,000	48.9	3.79
Religious reason	327,000	38.4	4.44
Poor learning environment at school	218,000	25.6	3.44
Family reasons	143,000	16.8	2.79
To develop character/morality	128,000	15.1	3.39
Object to what school teaches	103,000	12.1	2.11
School does not challenge child	98,000	11.6	2.39
Other problems with available schools	76,000	9.0	2.40
Child has special needs/disability	69,000	8.2	1.89
Transportation/convenience	23,000	2.7	1.48

     According to several studies home-schooled students on an average outperform their schooled peers in all subjects. However those who oppose homeschooling claim that it severely hampers the social and civic development of children. Controversial issues would not be so if there weren´t good reasons to both sides and this is no exception. If we dig a little we can find tons of evidence both in favor and against homeschooling. The important thing is to keep an open mind and make informed decisions weighing advantages and disadvantages and reading as much information as there is around, especially when we are dealing with such an important issue. Now that Spain is staring to consider homeschooling as an option, Spanish people should take advantage of the vast experience the US has with it and use the information available there to form a more complete opinion.

When Friday Goes Black

     After giving it some thought, I decided not to join the hundreds of other bloggers in writing about Thanksgiving this week. A big part of the reason is (besides the fact that I think we´ve heard a little too much about turkeys, stuffing, and Pilgrims this week) that I´m sure most of my readers have heard a lot about Thanksgiving and very little, if anything, about the day after: Black Friday. I also consider the timing right since this year I saw for the first time a few references to this unofficial holiday here in Spain (see picture on the right).

     In a nutshell Black Friday is the day after Thanksgiving and the official kickoff of the Christmas shopping season. The term was first used in the early 1950 by business managers referring to the economic losses caused by the number of people who called in sick that day. Later in the 60´s it was used again by the Philadelphia police department to describe the hordes of shoppers who invaded (and collapsed) the downtown area causing all sorts of accidents and incidents. Then, sometime during the 1980´s, retailers aggressively campaigned to get rid of the negative connotation surrounding the term "BLACK Friday" by highlighting that the color could very well refer to all the "red ink" that magically turned black on merchants´balance sheets on this day.

     Nowadays Black Friday has grown in every way. It has grown popular to surpass the Saturday before Christmas as the most active shopping day of the year. It has also grown in length with big retailers such as Target and Best Buy opening earlier and earlier. In fact "Black Friday" became "Black Thursday" this year for the first time, with WalMart opening at 10 PM on Thanksgiving night. Finally Black Friday also continues getting bigger by its numbers, with 20.7 % more money spent this year over 2011.

     No matter what time stores open, or how long they stay open, shoppers throughout the US line up for hours to avoid missing out on the best bargains of the year. Most Americans peacefully shop (though a lot!) and go home. However, every year the frenzy Black Friday creates results in a few stories of violence and injuries on the morning news the Saturday after (just take a look at this example). Because of this, retailers increasingly try to implement measures to reduce crowds and keep crazy shoppers in line. In the early 2000´s for example, many stores issued coupons for exactly the number of some of their most popular items that people had to get beforehand. Another strategy merchants recently resorted to was offering the same or slightly better deals to those who shopped online on the Monday after, which has come to be known as "Cyber-Monday," which makes Black Friday a total of five days long. Who knows, at this rate we may soon end up with a whole "Black Month"!

   

Why the British Drive on the Left

     Have you ever wondered why the British have not joined the rest of the world in driving on the right? Well, I´m not here to give you an answer to that, but I do have some interesting facts related to the popular question. For starters, I can tell you that joining "the rest of the world" is not quite accurate, since there is at least one country in each continent that still follows the "keep-left rule," as you can see in the picture (on the left, of course!). Secondly, if we look back in history, it is keeping left what has been used the longest and what made more sense before cars existed (and possibly even after).
     That´s right! The earliest evidence of road use comes from ancient Rome, and it suggests they kept left. Later, in medieval times, keeping left allowed the right-handed majority to comfortably mount their horses and get going (think about it... To mount a horse you first put your left foot on the stirrup and then mount, and if you do it from the sidewalk you´d be on the left of the road once on the saddle). Besides, meeting people on the road would always be more convenient if they were on your right hand side, whether you wanted to shake their hands or cross swords with them.
     It wasn´t until the late 1700´s that the rules began to change, mostly due to the use of large wagons driven by teams of horses in the United States. These wagons did not come with a driver seat, which meant the person who drove them had to mount the last horse on the left of the team. Keeping left meant severely reduced visibility for these wagon drivers, since other wagons and riders would be coming on the right hand side. Finally, in 1792, Pennsylvania passed a law declaring all wagon drivers and traffic in general were to keep right.
     The new "keep-right rule" quickly spread all over the Americas, but is unclear when and why it was established in Europe. What we do know is that is was first established in France during the Napoleonic period, and that it was Napoleon the one who spread it all over Europe as he expanded his empire. Years later, well into the 20th century, Germany became crucial to the spread of the keep-right rule both by forcing the new system in all invaded countries and by becoming the main car manufacturer in the world.
     Britain, and consequently all the countries the British conquered, never adopted the keep-right rule. This may have been because large wagons were never an option for England´s narrow urban streets and rural roads. Whatever the reason, according to research done in 1969, keeping left significantly reduces the risk of head-on collision, which means sticking to the old rule may be saving lots of lives.
     Now we know it´s not that the British (and all the countries influenced by them) stubbornly refuse to join the rest of the world, it is the rest of us who have changed the original rule!

The Democratic Donkey and the Republican Elephant

     Every four years Americans are called to the polls to vote and elect a President of the USA under the curious and/or inquisitive look of the rest of the world. As a consequence, every four years people out of the United States start asking the same questions: What is the Electoral College? Why are they saying in the news a candidate with more votes may lose the election? What´s the difference between Democrats and Republicans? And Why do they use elephants and donkeys as party symbols?
Today I will address the last of these questions (one step at a time!). I highly recommend to those of you who are interested in learning about the Electoral College this video.

     We owe the famous donkey and elephant party symbols almost entirely to a single person, caricaturist Thomas Nast, considered the father of the American cartoon. I say almost because, contrary to popular belief, Nast did not invent the Democratic donkey, he simply made it famous (but he did come up with the elephant!).

     Everything started during the 1828 presidential campaign which, according to many historians, marked the beginning of modern politics. The  two presidential candidates, Democrat Andrew Jackson and Republican John Quincy Adams, used for the first time a political tactic that quickly became common practice: mudslinging. Mudslinging consists of making negative statements about the opponent, trying to discredit him. One example of mudslinging is John Quincy Adams´ referring to Andrew Jackson as a jackass (a donkey), which the democratic candidate decided to use to his advantage. He printed the donkey on his campaign posters as a symbol of a strong will. Many years later Thomas Nast began to use the donkey on his cartoons to represent the Democratic party, which ended up adopting the symbol.

    Almost half a century after the Jackson - Adams campaign, in 1874, Nast published yet another of his brilliant cartoons on Harper´s Weekly. The cartoon (see image) presented a Democratic donkey disguised as a lion scaring away all other animals in the zoo. Among the animals there is an elephant labeled "the Republican vote." The cartoon (as most other cartoons Nast published) became incredibly popular throughout the country, and the Republican party quickly adopted the elephant as their symbol.

     Nowadays both political parties continue proudly displaying their animal symbols. Democrats claim the donkey is smart and brave, whereas Republicans regard their elephant as strong and dignified. Who would have thought a simple name-calling would result in such internationally recognized symbols?

   

What is the Official Language of the USA?

     If your immediate answer was English, well... YOU´RE WRONG!!

     The truth is the United States has no national language. That´s right, even though English is the most widely spoken language in the country (82% of the population claim it as their mother tongue) , the American Constitution does not establish English or any other language as official.

     Whether this was intentional or not is a whole different story. On the one hand there are people who argue that the absence of an official national language was part of the Founding Fathers´ equality project. We know they wanted to create a country in which absolutely everyone, no matter what their cultural, racial, religious, or ideological backgrounds were, had the same opportunities to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. On the other hand there are those who defend that, since all but possibly one of the 55 delegates who wrote the Constitution were native English speakers, it was simply assumed that English would be the national language.

     The usefulness of the debate in general is questionable. English is the de facto language in the USA, which means it is the language of choice when broadcasting information: most colleges and universities teach only in English, and governmental acts are carried out in English. It´s true, there are television channels, newspapers, and even some street signs (depending on the state) that make it possible for large communities of people with other cultures and languages to get by without learning English. Moreover public education is provided in other languages in many states where there is a large enough language group whose native language is not English. However the people they are meant for end up learning the language anyway simply because they need it to be able to achieve certain level of influence within their communities. In addition  research suggests that strengthening literacy in the mother tongue helps learn a second language better and faster, with which teaching children in their native language is also an investment in their future learning of English.
   
     In conclusion, although English is not the official language of the USA, it is necessary to be able to take part in America´s broader social, cultural, and political life. English is and will continue being the link that binds together the colorfulness of America´s cultural wealth.