Army Suicide on the Rise

The suicide rate in the Army has risen to record highs. In 2008 there were 128 suicides by soldiers in the armed forces. This is the fourth consecutive year that the rate of suicide in the armed forces has risen. Due, according to professionals, to the increasing length of deployment, there are usually other factors involved. Personal, financial and legal problems are common themes in the lives of the victims. 15 month deployments in a war zone, not surprisingly often result in post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, alcohol use and personal problems. However, only 30% of the suicides were committed during deployment, the rest were either post- deployment or pre- deployment. Prevention efforts have increased in the last couple of years as the numbers have grown. There is a definite lack of mental health professionals on site however and soldiers turn either to hotlines or other less effective means of suicide prevention. The National Institute of Mental Health in undergoing a five year project to help identify the cause of army suicide. Examining the role of combat, long deployments, family stress and other factors will hopefully provide some answers and means for solving them. Despite awareness, conditions in the army remain poor as far as suicide prevention. It is difficult to see therapists off base and mental health screenings are insufficient.
The rise in army suicide rate does not necessarily surprise me. On top of the usual factors that lead to suicide in the army, the war in Iraq is a highly disputed thing and support for the troops is lacking. Identity loss that comes naturally with enrollment in the armed forces-- caused by forced homogeneity and rigid authority is now confused with a lack of clear purpose and justification for the actions associated with being in the army. Soldiers are far from home and everyday partake in activities that contrast with their self perceptions. The necessity to commit acts that stand in opposition to a person’s believes and morals can have a very negative affect on their psyche. When this happens people try to escape self-awareness, in extreme cases by commiting suicide. Troops deployed in
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/us/30suicide.html?scp=5&sq=suicide%20in%20the%20u.s.%20army&st=cse

Baby Steps

Public relationships between two women are becoming increasingly popular. Of course they have always existed, however it seems as though recently the fight for gay rights has had a visible impact. Many female celebrities are open about their relationships with other women. Binnie Klein, a psychotherapist from Yale University, agrees that alternative relationships are on the rise. People have more freedom and courage to pursue these relationships as the prejudices are slowly dissolved. For a long time scientists have battled with the question of homosexuality and whether it is caused by nature or nurture. Only recently has the opinion started to lean toward the nurture side, especially when concerning women. The term “sexual fluidity” means that people have a “capacity to respond erotically in unexpected ways due to particular situations or relationships.” Sexual fluidity is apparently more prevalent in women. Women are less rigidly fixed toward a definite sex compared to men and are attracted to both sexes more naturally than men. Women seek emotional connection to a person and can be won over by character.
The gay rights movement in the United States is an extremely controversial and misunderstood one. Many people still reject homosexuality outright. Others not only accept it but try to more fully understand it. Understanding is the first step to accepting. Before homosexual relationships become mainstream there are a lot of obstacles to conquer. Old fashioned and traditional views are some of the toughest of these obstacles. Marriage is the most obvious and publicized example. First we must overturn many age-old beliefs. So many people are fixated on the idea of relationships consisting only of a man and a woman, having grown up knowing nothing else. How do you erase years and years of societal perceptions? Slowly. Social conformity makes sure of this. Stereotypes cast negative light on homosexuality that lead to irreversible prejudice. People are conditioned by society to believe one way, and one way only. The exact motivation for this discrimination is hard to identify—fear of the unknown is one theory. People fear what is different and believe that defying it is a way of protecting their own values. Their culture is the right culture and anything outside lays in opposition to it. People tend to possess an ‘us and them’ mentality. It’s going to take time to make it a “we” mentality. The increasing prevalence in public same-sex relationships proves that lately progress has been made. These relationships also serve to further this progress.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/personal/04/23/o.women.leave.menfor.women/index.html

Street Fight or Hate Crime?

Luis Ramirez, an illegal Mexican immigrant was beaten to death last summer in Shenandoah, Pennsylvania as the result of a street fight. Although the defendants—several teenage boys all members of the same football team-- denied that the fight had anything to do with race, the case is being treated as an ethnicity driven hate crime. During the fight the defendants, used racial slurs and told the victim that “you don’t belong here.” The defense attorney argued that had the victim been white the case would be a simple street fight, but because he is Mexican it is automatically a hate crime. Although the defense brings up an interesting point, it is unlikely that it is the true case. Two of the boys were charged with homicide and one with aggravated assault, all were charged with ethnic intimidation. Since this incident last summer ethnic tensions have been much higher in the small town.
A debate over immigration began two years ago when a neighboring town passed an ordinance seeking to discourage the hiring of illegal immigrants. Ramirez’s death has brought back a lot of the tension, and many believe it might have helped create the atmosphere leading to his death. In addition to this, there are a number of cases being brought forward by Mexican residents that were not previously reported. The mayor of Shenandoah is in shock at the fear he heard expressed by some town residents. Issues are suddenly coming out of the wood work in the small town and there is much progress to be made in the assimilation of the Mexican immigrant population assimilation. Race is one of the biggest forms of bigotry in the United States today. Racism is evil in any form but hate crimes are the worst result of it and have the most tragic consequences. In Shenandoah there is tension over not only race but also employment. Ramirez was living there illegally as are many other Mexican immigrants in the town. The “all American” boys who are now charged with homicide probably grew up in families on the anti-immigration side. Socialization taught them to think negatively about the entire population; stereotyping all Mexicans into the same category. The prejudice they were exposed to from (presumably) a young age quite possibly ruined their lives. Had they not used racial slurs or explicit statements of racial hatred the street fight would have produced much lighter sentences. One also has to question whether any of the boys would have gotten so violent had they been alone. The shared responsibility for their actions because they were in a small group probably led them to take the fight further than they normally would have. The only thing one can hope is that something positive comes out of the Ramirez case; maybe race relations will improve and immigrant rights will be more widely respected.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/us/28immig.html?_r=1&ref=ushttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/05/us/05attack.html?fta=y

Who Says What?

Michael Masters, a hedge fund manager, claims that speculation is the main cause of rising prices for oil and other raw materials. He presented charts to Congress depicting the growth of the oil futures market, where investors buy and sell promises to deliver oil at a later date. Apparently the increase in demand from institutional investors is almost equal to the increase in demand from China. Although economists scoffed at this presentation, many members of Congress agreed with it. The “blame the speculators” theory seems to have taken hold in politics. National Review adopted this theory years ago and had been blaming speculators for high oil prices since then. According to Masters, a return to inexpensive oil is within grasp. All Congress would have to do is pass legislation restricting speculation. Masters predicts that if speculation was eliminated, gas prices would fall by about 50%. Although Masters views are a bit extreme, it is true that in some cases speculation can indirectly raise prices and encourage producers to hold oil rather than sell it. It is hard to say if at present there is a speculation price boom; there are no signs for or against it.
At one point Krugman, the author of the article refers to the speculation price boom theory as “the bandwagon.” You can see group dynamics at work not only with the “bandwagon” congressmen, but also the speculators themselves. The speculators make an impact on oil prices collectively. Investment choices are no doubt influenced by those of peers and can catch on. You have to question whether the high demand in oil is a result or a cause of the speculators investments, and to what degree. Is there really a need to reserve large quantities of oil or is it just because everyone else seems to be doing so out of fear? A similar hesitancy can be applied when regarding Congress’s agreement with the speculation theory at this point. There is no conclusive evidence in favor of it, so why commit to it? Krugman suggests that it might be a convenient and comforting excuse for those in denial that oil prices are never going to decrease. It might also be what he said; the bandwagon. Groups tend to make decisions that individual members wouldn’t necessarily make. Belief in the speculation boom is convenient and increasingly popular. There is no distinction between the individual congressmen so no direct responsibility for agreeing one way or the other. Speculators are affecting each other’s choices and subsequently those of congress. It is as Krugman said, a bandwagon.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/opinion/27krugman.html

New Race Relations

Barack Obama’s presidency appears to be affecting the public’s perception of race relations. Two thirds of Americans believe that race relations are good in the United states, and the percentage of blacks who agree has doubled since last July. Black Americans are among Obama’s biggest supporters but 72% of all Americans are optimistic about his coming term. Poll respondents indicate that Americans truly do feel differently about race relations because Obama is president. It seems as if the age old battle between black interests and goals and white interests and goals that has slowly begun to dissolve in recent history is rendered even less significant with a black president; things are becoming more unified. And of course the image that President Obama sends to the rest of the world is one to be proud of.
The election of the first black president the United States has ever had this past November was one of the biggest events in the history of the civil rights movement. In itself a solution to many racial issues in the country, Obama’s term now appears as though it is going to lead to others. The constructed nature of reality states that people’s world views are shaped by their experiences, expectations, biases, and by other people. In this case they are shaped by one person, President Obama. Such a radical increase in the percentage of people who think that race relations are good in the U.S right now is not a complete coincidence. Obama’s presence in politics plays a definite role in the increase and will hopefully continue to do so.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/us/politics/28poll.html?_r=1&hp

Spring Weekend Gone Wrong

Spring Jam weekend at the University of Minnesota did not end very well this year. It is a popular party weekend at the University and extra police officers were scheduled to patrol the off campus houses. On Saturday night 12 students were arrested for unlawful and disorderly conduct. When police officers approached an off campus party they were attacked with bottles, rocks and other objects. The police officers proceeded to use tear gas and foam pellets to clear the crowd which consisted of about 500 students at one point. The students tried to jump on and tip over cars in the street and also start a fire. One junior at the University, Peter Robbins, was shot with a foam pellet but claims to have been taking a picture of the riot, not participating in it. Robbins was shot without warning from a short distance and arrested on spot. No serious injuries were reported, however. The school has since strengthened their code of conduct for off-campus living and the punishments for involved include community service, suspension and expulsion.
Alcohol was certainly a key element in this spring weekend riot, and the riot probably wouldn’t have occurred if alcohol hadn’t been involved. However, when you think about how often large numbers of college student’s party and drink, it makes you wonder what other factors were involved this particular weekend. How much encouragement does a riot of that size take? Were the police officers being peaceful as they approached the house? It makes you wonder. Large groups of people have a collective mind, and in this case also an intoxicated one. Members of this riot most certainly experienced deindividuation: when large groups cause people to act in uninhibited, impulsive, and destructive ways. A snowball type effect takes place—once one student throws a bottle so does the next and the next. This situation happened to be aggravated by alcohol and armed policemen already on edge. It is lucky for everyone that there were no serious injuries.
http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=649923&catid=2

Unexpected Killer

The face of the “craigslist killer” is not what many people expected it to be. Phillip Markoff was arrested without bail last Monday for the murder of Julissa Brisman, a young woman he met because she was advertised as a masseuse on craigslist. Markoff shot Brisman at a Boston Hotel where they were scheduled to meet shortly after arriving. Markoff is also suspected for the kidnapping and robbery of an exotic dancer and the armed robbery of a prostitute in Rhode Island, both took place prior to the Brisman murder. Markoff is an unexpected candidate- an engaged 22 year old Boston Medical student with no record and a loving, supportive family. Markoff was visited to his family on the Friday after his arrest and although they made no personal statement to the press their attorney spoke for them in support of Markoff. Markoff’s fiancé has also made a public statement in support of her husband claiming that he is the wrong man and that he is “a beautiful person inside and out and could not hurt a fly.”
Markoff was described by his neighbors as an “average Joe” and by all appearances he seems to be. Appearances, as we all know, can be deceiving. This is a perfect example of the power of social conditioning/cultural expectations and how they shape our outlook on others. Cultural values and expectations have led us to automatically assume things about people. Markoff’s description took everyone by surprise. Such a mainstream “normal” guy is nobody’s main suspect for brutal murder. Markoff and his family exemplify the shortcomings of social perceptions and normalized cultural views. People’s situations in life lead us to make assumptions about them, for example- that a man who is engaged and in medical school would not be a murderer.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/25/craigslist.slaying/index.html

Deadly Prejudice

A man in Colorado was sentenced to life in prison for the murder/bias-motivated crime of a transgender teen he met online. During the trial the prosecution referred to the victim, who adopted the name Angie at the age of sixteen even though she was born Justin as “she” while defense referred to her as “he.” Allen Andrade, the defendant, met with Angie in person after getting to know her online. When he discovered that Angie was a biological male Andrade killed the victim and fled her house. He did not speak in his own defense and his became the first national conviction for a hate crime involving a transgender person.
Social bias and prejudice are seen in their most extreme form in Andrade’s trial. Extreme stereotyping due no doubt to a combination of factors, but in this case I believe mainly due to socialization, had deadly consequences in this case. Andrade knew and liked Angie well enough to spend three days with her in her apartment. The sole motivation for his crime was the discovery that she was actually a male. The defense claimed that this sudden discovery sent Andrade into a fit of passion that led him to lose control, using this as a reason to reduce the sentence to manslaughter. The intensity of Andrade’s prejudice is almost unfathomable- he was quoted after arrest saying on the phone that “gay things must die.” It is one thing to be raised in a family with traditional values in opposition to equal rights for the gay population-- however it is quite another to automatically kill someone you had spent three days with after getting to know them online just because they are transgender. Andrade took prejudice to a maniacal and tragic level. The courts indecisive use of a gender pronoun for the victim during the trial indicates that Andrade is not the only with misunderstandings about the transgender community. Deep rooted cultural intolerance and biases are being countered by current social movements, but its is the occurrence of hate crimes like the murder of Angie Zapata that make you wonder just how effectively socialization can instill individuals with lasting bigotry to the point of violence. Especially when even the court of law is unable to respect that Angie lived as a girl- as a “she,” and that’s all there is to it.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/22/transgender.slaying.trial/index.html

A Dedicated Role?

Actor Jamie Foxx, who recently portrayed Nathaniel Ayers in the new film “The Soloist,” was very invested in his role. The movie is based on the true story of Nathaniel Ayers, a musical genius who suffered from schizophrenia at a young age and became homeless in Los Angeles. Apparently Foxx was so invested in his character that he suffered from psychological distress during the shooting. In college Foxx was submitted to the hospital for eleven months due to a psychotic episode caused by a “bad trip.” Foxx’s connection to Ayers was so strong during filming that he suffered panic attacks and fits of paranoia.
Becoming so connected with a character that you start taking on symptoms of their mental illness is the sign of a good actor. Or at least an invested one. Needless to say Jamie Foxx is eccentric, and in this case it is not a bad thing. I look forward to seeing the film that taught Foxx so much about not only himself but also the culture of homelessness. The exposure to street life provided Foxx with a whole new perspective. Foxx learned that the people “actually had a life...were laughing and smiling and enjoying their lives.” What Foxx thought prior to this, I don’t know—but it is a good realization. Foxx experienced a stark social contrast between himself and the person he was pretending to be. Because he was already trying to place himself in Ayer’s shoes it was easier for Foxx to relate to them. His blatant disconnect with the homeless population was reduced by the circumstance. His views on an entire population of people changed just by being exposed to them. While Foxx no doubt felt the natural contrast in the comparison, his efforts to assimilate allowed for less bias and very tangible introspection.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/04/23/foxx.the.soloist/index.html

How Desperate Are Times?

Christopher Wood, the 34 year old father and husband of three young children killed his family and then himself at their home in the small town of Middletown, Maryland. Wood left not one, but six different suicide notes around the house. He wrote a letter to his wife (33), two sons (5 and 4), and his daughter (2). These letters expressed his love and regret. In the sixth one, directed at no one in particular, Wood makes his explanations. Wood talks primarily about his failing financial situation and immense debt. A number of prescription drugs were found in the house meant to treat depression and anxiety. In his letter Wood writes about his psychological trouble that was not improving.
However real and serious Wood’s psychological problems were, it is a wonder to me how someone can use them as a justification—or even as a reason, for the horrific act of murder. The primary reason for his psychological problems was the immense financial debt that he was in and the general strain of the bad economy. This is just one of the many stories in the news involving a murder-suicide by a father in financial or other trouble. Are times really so desperate that you have no other choice but to kill your family and yourself? How salient must your financial situation be in life to pay such a price if it’s not going well? Clearly there were other factors involved in the Wood case, but his suicide notes indicate that the financial trouble he was in prompted his actions above all else. An identity constructed principally on one aspect of your life is a risky thing. Such uneven placement of value in life can lead to a loss of self-awareness and control. Finances were clearly a top priority in life for Christopher Wood and carried more weight than they should have. Wood’s entire sense of self was severely jeopardized by his economic distress. This distress clouded the other aspects of his life, and very unfortunately Wood took the most extreme measures to end it.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/18/maryland.family.shot/index.html