I learned about Nash equilibrium as part of a discussion on game theory in one of my freshman year courses. And while I had heard about the movie “A Beautiful Mind”, I hadn’t watch it and knew very little about John Forbes Nash, Jr.. I am really happy that I got a chance to learn more about this brilliant man by getting a chance to watch the movie which also inspired me to read a bit more about him afterwards.

The movie starts with Nash’s life from the time he gets into Princeton with a prestigious scholarship, and meets several other promising math and science students. And we see his relationship with his roommate, Charles Herman (literary student), having an influence on him early in his life. Nash’s brilliant ideas lands him an appointment in MIT. A few years later, Nash is approached by the Pentagon to help decipher enemy communication, and he amazes people with his ability to decipher some of the code mentally. Nash turns increasingly obsessive about searching for hidden patterns and also becomes more paranoid about being monitored/followed by the enemy. His obsession and paranoia is clearly demonstrated later in the movie during a guest lecture at Harvard where he suspects Soviet agents are after him and attempts to flee. We see him sedated and sent to a psychiatric facility, on he believes is run by the Soviets. We then learn that he is diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. We witness his struggles with this devastating condition, and what is impressive is that he ultimately succeeds in sufficiently grappling with his condition and in utilizing his brilliant mind towards his game theory ideas. At the end, we witness Nash receiving the Nobel Prize in Economics for his revolutionary work in game theory.
I researched more about Nash after watching the movie, and read a lot of details that were left out about his life. Despite the fact that the movie was not an entirely accurate exposition of Nash’s life, I greatly enjoyed it. And the movie did an excellent job of depicting how Nash’s motivation to apply his brain power towards progress in mathematical thought helped him partly overcome a devastating mental condition.

Interviews are an opportunity to reveal who you are, but also a space for companies to reveal who they are and what they value. I think you should approach an interview like a first date. While I don’t date, I would imagine that the same principles such as: leave a lasting remark, never address controversial topics, leave things to be desired, be authentic. You want to show that you can add value, for some that by showing you can an analytical side and by showing that you  add cultural and workplace value.

I love interviews. For me interviews have always been a way for me to test my emotional intelligence. Interviews are my chance to challenge myself is tailoring my skills and experiences to organizations or missions that I find intriguing.

I think the key to doing well at interviews is knowing what interviewees want you to say/think. If you know that your interviewer wants excitement, then look for ways to incorporate that. If your future employer or organization values creativity and innovation, look to highlight stories and experiences that speak to those experiences.

Similarly, if you know the guy or girl you are seeing for dinner appreciates a love for arts, then you should cater your conversation to topics of creativity, reflection and artistic qualities. And the best interviewees will look for ways to connect the arts or artistic skills into the passions they do. For example, someone could easily make the case the football is an art that takes training and practice but at the end of the day requires you to see the field as a canvas with many “plays” display for an audience to enjoy.

In the discussion, I think that there were varying points on how to prepare for interviews. It’s a time to be reflective and for me, the reflective piece comes prior. And an interview is a time to preform. Its about striking the right balance between prepared and authentic. I spend a remarkable amount of time prepping for interviews (unfortunately, its typically the night of). But because of the amount of time I’ve spent prepping for interviews, I know how easy it is to fall into a script. That’s why its important to leave room for spontaneity and authenticity. I agreed with the majority of the people in the room that you don’t want to come off as formulaic, and over preparation and memorization can contribute to that. But for me that has never been the case.  A technique I use are to prevent this from happening is recording my elevator pitch and responses to typically asked questions and building excited into my pre-scripted remarks. This is what makes the difference between a quality and a mediocre interviewer.

Like I mentioned before, I don’t really date. I don’t think Cornell dating culture encourages typically dates but if I ever do I hope that I can incorporate so of these interviewing techniques to stimulate conversation and learn more about the other person.

Like any other action movie, Mad Max 3 does not disappoint us with its intense action scenes. The movie title includes the phrase: Beyond Thunderdome, which is the name of the fighting arena. The fighters are on elastic bands in a small upside down dome-like arena where they can jump at each other and use weapons such as crossbows and axes. Some of the best fight scenes in the movie occur in this dome.

The Thunderdome is notorious for a quote: “Two man enter, one man leaves.” Max faces one of his strongest opponents here, named Blaster who he is able to beat but refuses to kill. This upsets the leader of Bartertown, Aunty, where the Thunderdome is located, and she casts Max into the desert. Max is found and saved and brought to a community with only children and teenagers, who had crashed there in a plane. Initially, Max does not want to help them leave, but he ends up being a hero, crashing through Aunty’s men and helping the children escape. Max is left to wander the desert, looking for new journeys and adventures to take on.

I had seen the newer Mad Max before this movie and I thought it was interesting how the two are set in Australia, depicting the world as a nuclear wasteland. This movie seemed to have a better plot and richer characters than the newer movie which is mostly just an endless series of action scenes.

The movie Neruda portrays the political aspects of Chilean poet Pablo Neruda’s life. The movie was more centered around the point in Neruda’s life when he hails communism despite the fact that the president in Chile is against the communist party. The president demands his arrest, turning Neruda into an underground fugitive, with an inspector who is following his trail. Neruda taunts the regime and the inspector on several occasions, where he is intent on making appearances and being in contact with the people. He moves people with his words and speeches about the suffering of the poor and virtues of communism. He makes a few unsuccessful attempts to flee Chile. Ultimately, Pablo chooses a path through the mountains bordering Argentina. The inspector follows him into the mountains but dies in an attack by locals. The ending was somewhat confusing to me (I may need to watch the movie again.) During his last moments, the inspector could still hear Pablo’s words on how Pablo is the person who created him. And when Pablo hears his name being called in the mountains, he goes towards the inspector and appears to know what is happening. In the end, Pablo manages to leave Chile. The movie portrays Pablo as the protagonist and the inspector as the antagonist, and each is a necessary ingredient in making the other character shine through. It’s almost as if one could not exist without the presence of the other, which may also explain the still confusing ending
Before watching the movie Neruda, I remembered that I had read one of his poems in my literature class and I did not know much about him. I was quite fascinated with how a poet can be remembered in the society for their political influence, and that there were many facets to Pablo’s life besides being a poet. Overall, the movie is a deep and moving portrayal of a window in Pablo’s life and character.

This Saturday, I went to D.C. for the Climate March on Washington with Cornell. This meant packing our bags (with who knows what- would this rally become another Berkeley?), staying up till 2:00 AM, then boarding a bus with dozens of other sleep-deprived Cornell students.

We got driving around 2:30. The main lights went out in the bus, leaving only the pale green emergency lights to keep the bus from being as dark as the night outside the windows. I rested my head against the pane and got a few winks of sleep here and there, mostly tossing and turning until 9:00 AM when we arrived at our destination.

It was my first time in D.C., and I was, with bittersweet gladness, cognizant it was under strange circumstances. On one hand, I was here to exercise my voice as a student, a scholar, and a citizen. On the other, it was to protest against one of the most controversial men in American history and his denial of what is the most pressing matter of our time: climate change.

I remember sitting in a Green Cities class Fall semester and having a guest lecturer tell us his story. He was a successful consultant for big oil and gas companies until, midway through his career, he had a epiphany and decided to quit his job to tell people about the damage oil/gas was doing. He showed us all the graphs and all the research and ended the lecture with, “This is your generation’s problem. You are the last hope”. I became a vegetarian that week.

Standing there, in front of the White House, with hundreds of thousands of other citizens from around the country was empowering. It gave me hope to think that I was not alone in this fight. That I was not crazy, contrary to what my government would have me believe. Though I was frightened by the current possessors of power, as I looked around at the young crowd, I had no doubt that it was only a matter of time before my generation turned this around.

Before watching this movie, our GRF Ty spoke to us about Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) and how two powers with nuclear weapons can mutually guarantee to destruct each other. We also discussed whether massive retaliation (as advocated by MAD) is more or less effective as a deterrent compared to a flexible and proportionate response.

Dr. Strangelove is a satirical movie about the terror and absurdity of US and USSR policies during the cold war era. It is directed by the famed Stanley Kubrick, and casts Peter Sellers in three different roles (a British Air Force Captain, US President, and Dr. Strangelove). His most humorous role is reserved for Dr. Strangelove, an ex-Nazi scientist who serves the President as scientific advisor. The plot involves an insane US General who initiates a bombing attack on Soviet Union, under Plan R (contingency plan that allows a senior office to launch a strike if all superiors have been killed by a first strike by USSR). As part of the intense discussions between US and Soviet Union in war room, the soviet ambassador informs the President that the soviets have created a doomsday device that is set to detonate automatically should any nuclear attack strike their country. The device cannot be untriggered, and will encircle the earth in a radioactive cloud that will wipe out all life on earth and make it uninhabitable for 93 years. Dr. Strangelove points out that such a deterrent would only work if the other side knows about it, and the soviet ambassador responds that the plan was to announce it to the world in a week. The movie ends with one of the US planes dropping a nuclear bomb on USSR, which in turn triggers the doomsday device.
The movie does a wonderful job of using satire to point out the absurdity of using mutual destruction as a workable deterrent. It shows that any protocol or scenario can lead to potentially unforeseen consequences that can be detrimental to our existence. I both enjoyed the entertainment value of the movie, and also developed a better appreciation of a proportional response as a deterrent compared to MAD (which definiitely has an apropos acronym ;-).

For my Rose event this week, I tried out something new: I joined a few people going off campus to Catholic Charities of Ithaca, who was holding a free yard sale for members of the Ithaca community, and helped them set up and organize clothes for a couple of hours. Initially, I had my reservations about doing this particular event, but after it was all said and done, I was very glad I did. Engaging in an event that would positively impact the lives of those in our community was refreshing- I got to meet people I wouldn’t otherwise encounter during my normal day here at Cornell. In addition, it felt good to help other people, and get off campus, and the responsibilities that come with it, for a bit. Although I spent a couple of hours bustling around and attempting to keep some semblance of organization to an ever shifting pile of clothes, I felt more relaxed upon my return than when I left. It reminded me that sometimes it can be helpful, and relaxing to get away from Cornell for a bit and try something different. We even got a nice before and after picture of our table of wares.

Before

…and After

Last weekend, I volunteered alongside GRF Magdala and two other Rose Scholars at the Free Sale, hosted by the Catholic Charities of Ithaca. So what exactly is a “free sale,” you might ask? It is exactly what you imagine a yard sale to be–selling old clothes, shoes, and appliances; one man’s trash is another man’s treasure, after all. The catch is that everything is absolutely free! We had a fun time folding clothing donations from storage and setting them out for everyone. We had everything from men’s polos to baby shoes. It was hilarious to see just how much our neat set-up changed after everyone came to take their pick of the various clothes we set out. [Picture courtesy of Magdala :)] Overall, it was a lovely and rewarding experience to see how just one morning spent volunteering could help the community.

Last Friday, I attended the showing of the emotional movie A Beautiful Mind, which features the life of John Nash who was celebrated for his genius mathematical theories yet endured the tricks played by his mind. The movie underscores the contrast between the genius of his theories, and the dramatic loss of clarity in his mind. His delusions make him believe fervently and wholeheartedly in things that are not present, immersing them into his world that is real and present. The movie concludes assuringly — through the tremendous support of his wife, medical treatment, and the harnessing of his will to combat his delusions, he was able to return to teach and continue the work that he was so passionate about.

I think that the reason this movie can stir so many emotions stems from the need of self preservation. It scares us that this could happen to anyone, that schizophrenia is a very real and affecting mental illness. John Nash was diagnosed with schizophrenia late, and was given no warning that it would happen. What is to say that it won’t happen to us? It is often said that what makes up who we are must contain how we think, our memories formed, the things in our mind, governed by our mind, empowered by our mind. So then who are we when this mind does things we feel like we can’t control? Are we the same people if our mind is mixing reality and imagination so thoroughly that we can’t tell? What even is it if our mind chooses to live in a different world? If there is a cure to a mental illness, once it’s cured, is someone a different person? It is unsettling to imagine that there are things that we simply have no conscious control over, yet comforting in that like John Nash, with proper help and support, it is possible to live with it.

This week’s Rose cafe was an about very sensitive topic: torture.  Nick Cheeseman, who is a researcher from ANU and Porpen, an activist, came in to talk about torture in South east Asia. He brought up this question of “does torture work?” to punish those who have committed a crime, a necessary step of punishment throughout SEAsia.

For me, I have never thought it was right. I had a friend who was from Thailand, whose uncle was in jail due to petty crime. However, the jail used torture on him because he has committed a crime. According to the uncle, who is now free, the torture was used as a “cure” and “teaching” to the prisoners. However, rather than preventing crime, it only increased hatred and feeling of vengeance among prisoners. I also think this method is very wrong. No prisoners need to be physically or forcefully harmed mentally. The fact that they are in prison is enough. I think it is important for prisons to reform so that rather than using torture, the government can use its power to prevent future crime, to help the integration of criminals back into society as able good citizens.

I also think that it is important to raise awareness of this issue. I was not informed of such occurrences in South East Asia until the rose seminar, which triggered me to do more research on the topic.

Please do not touch. Please stand at least 10 feet away. No flash photography. All very commanding words that cover museum walls and signs, taunting viewers to take surreptitious glances around before reaching out their little finger to rebel and poke an ancient masterpiece.

At the Johnson for the second time in a week, I found my visit to the Johnson for the sculpting workshop to be enlightening. We took a tour of Pre-Colombian sculptures, of where I made the observation that the Johnson did not have many of these “do not touch” signs around. Instead, the glass walls that encased the pieces of art were more transparent in their messages for nosy students and wandering fingers.

The reason I mention this is because I learned an important fact about making art during the sculpture making portion of the workshop. As obvious as it may sound, working with clay and sculpting is difficult to do well, and I can see that it takes incredible practice. This becomes painfully clear when your piece is not architecturally sound, refuses to stand up properly, or refuses to stick together. At this point in time, the “please do not touch” signs that would surround it if it somehow made it into a museum should be more properly phrased “please do not breathe, sneeze, or cough” since the piece will collapse. Despite my initial frustrations, I did construct a small bowl shaped as a fish, and found this workshop to be incredibly fun and paradoxically relaxing. I find that these events that provide the perfect opportunity to create have been very enjoyable for me in, and hope that they continue.

The film Neruda follows Pablo Neruda, a pen name used by the Chilean politician Ricardo Eliécer Neftalí Reyes Basoalto. Neruda is forced underground when the political tide shifts, and the film follows Neruda and Oscar Peluchonneau, the young and perseverant police inspector who is assigned to capture the former. However, Neruda is not content to simply hide from the authorities (and he states that he “will not hide under a bed”); he makes appearances at public venues and leaves evidence of his movements for Peluchonneau to find. Neruda views the situation as a chance to increase fame, increasing his stature as an icon.

I found Neruda to be an interesting and complex character. His charisma and poetry speaks to many people. The word “cult of personality” comes to mind, indeed Neruda’s followers look upon him as a legend. However, he is also a flawed character. There are several scenes in which Neruda engages in…well, Neruda’s former wife and current partner both note that he is fond of women. He drinks a lot, can be short with . Yet this also contrasts with some of his other actions; for example, when he goes out walking and does not have anything for a child on the street, he hugs the child and gives the child his jacket. The complex portrayal made Neruda an interesting, though perhaps not an entirely sympathetic, character.

I did find certain parts confusing. In some scenes, characters would be in one place, and though they’re conversation was still ongoing, they were suddenly in a different setting. There were parts (though without spoiling too much), particularly at the end of the film that were confusing as well. Overall, I enjoyed the film and would recommend watching it.

This week’s film GATTACA was a look forward into a future ruled by eugenics. The protagonist Vincent, in spite of his curiosity and determination, is fated to never achieve his dream of becoming an astronaut due to an impending fatal heart failure. Rather than accept his doom, he cheats the system, adopting the genetic identity of a “superior being” to rise to the top. While the film chronicles our hero’s journey and warns against the destructive potential of genetic engineering, I also evaluated GATTACA as a critique of the America dream.

Perhaps the most disturbing element of the world that GATTACA depicts is the tacitness of eugenics. As Vincent narrates, it was illegal for employers to select candidates based on their genetic dispositions. However, the existence of technology that could alter one’s genetics ensured this was a factor ubiquitous in the ordering of a society. This parallels the vestiges of legal discrimination that leaves inequalities in today’s educational and economic structure. Additionally, the peak of society, as presented by the film, is lonely and unsatisfying. The subtle conflict between Vincent and Jerome represents this much more effectively than the cliched “clash of brothers” (Anton vs Vincent). Jerome, born with a genetic superiority than many could only dream, is unable to achieve perfection and victory in swimming competitions. His suicide at the end of the film is an admission that Vincent had done something that he never could by achieving his dream. This accomplishment rendered the original Jerome superfluous.

At last week’s Rose Cafe, Andres Simores and his wife joined us to speak about their country, Brazil. Before this Rose Cafe, I had only heard of Brazil in the context of Rio Olympic Games and occasionally the Zika virus. I imagined Brazil’s main ecosystem to be a rainforest.

Andre showed us images of the many different types of ecosystems in Brazil. These ranged from salt marshes, the rainforest and even more desert like environments.

Andre also spoke about the education system at Brazil and how public universities there differ from the universities here. Him and his wife also explained the difficult political situation in the country.

All in all it was a great talk and it definitely moved Brazil up on my list of countries to visit.

The film “Gattaca” depicts a perfect society created through the manipulation of genetic expression in humans. However, the ending of the film seems to share a message of encouraging the audience to accept their individuality. Though I think that most people might agree that it is extremely controversial and perhaps ‘wrong’ to use science to create a whole society of genetically uniform and ‘perfect’ people, social media pushes for the opposite affect. Many celebrities and Internet influences and societies feature the same ‘ideal’ body types, and this idea of perfection is only further spread when even celebs who push for the “#beyourself” or “#nofilter#nomakeup” trends also have had body altercations or have socially acceptable flawless skin or body types. I am not critiquing anyone who uses makeup or has had plastic surgery, but I think that there is a deeper paradox in society about ‘perfection and standards’ and soon a world like the one in Gattaca might very well exist.

For this week, I had the opportunity to attend interview tip session hosted by GRF Sarah. As someone who has interviewed and hosted an interview, Sarah taught us numerous tips on how to leave an impression and what approach each should take when it comes to a job interview.

One important aspect Sara introduced was the two-way conversation must happen in all interview. Rather than the interviewee questioning interviewer, the interviewer should balance the conversation, a talk rather than questioning. By doing so, you can talk more honestly and boldly to the interviewer, and the interviewee will be impressed by the fluent, enjoyable conversation.

In addition, I learned that it is ok to be unique when it comes to interviewing. I remember all the tips and trick of the interview where very obvious as if there were an unwritten rule for all types. Rather than giving cookie cutter answer and view on the question, take advantage of it and twist it. The person who does it will stand out and the interviewer knows that you know how to take a risk and be bold!

I am hoping to in the future extend my knowledge and hopefully do a mock interview with numerous people so that I can get used to interviewing.

The film “They Call Me Muslim” centers around the “controversy” of a Muslim woman’s hijab, particularly in France. In recent media, France, like many countries, has become notorious for the discrimination shown towards Muslim women, in particular, who choose to wear a hijab. The conflict can be traced back to the larger conflicting ideals of “liberal” culture vs “conservative” culture trying to push each’s respective ideals through control of a woman’s body. Instead of just allowing each individual to choose the way they feel most comfortable expressing themselves and their cultural identity, women are being caught in the middle of an external conflict, only intensifying and silencing any conflict within herself.

Jonathan Robins travelled to Ithaca to talk about his vast knowledge of fats despite the conditions of the roads after the snowstorm. One of the most compelling themes within his talk was the fact that fats – and how healthy each type of fat may be – is contested among nutrition experts. Certain forms of fats have been subject to subsidies from the government, or even attempts to make them seem especially unhealthy for consumption. Moreover, fats can be manipulated to taste differently relatively easily. Thus, manufactures exploit this and sell cheaper fats.

What this talk made abundantly clear to me as a student was that oftentimes people assume that science or scientific subjects are simply within the scientific realm and they often fail to think about the social constructs and broader landscapes within which scientific arguments are created. Though we talked about the environmental impact of processing fats and company and government involvement in the production of fats, I wish we would have discussed the labor conditions that are used to process facts. It seems to me that extracting these materials is quite a laborious process. As someone who obtains things from markets, even I sometimes forget that the things in front of me came from somewhere; and the process by which it arrived is a complicated one that involves the labor of workers, likely a long journey across state lines, is a part of a deep, entrenched geopolitical system with a rich history, and is subject to politics just like any other facet of life. My own focus on global supply chains has led me to think deeply about where I purchase my clothes and other commodities and what I am supporting when I do so. However, it is rather difficult to opt out of purchasing certain products when as a student I am trying to get the best deal.

Last week Dr. Robins gave a fascinating talk on the evolution of fat in America. Prior to his talk, I had only thought of fat as a nutrient in a chart on the back of food packages. I did not realize the huge business run on the sale and production of fat.

Dr. Robins explained that different fats can be manipulated to create similar flavors. As a result, large food manufacturers use the cheapest fats and manipulate their flavors to their liking. The industry of food prospers on cheap fats, keeping the American people away from many fats that are actually good for us.

Another interesting idea from Dr. Robin’s talk was about fat extracted from fruits and vegetables. Although this fat is thought to be healthier, there are some serious repercussions. Many vegetarians or vegans refrain from animal fats, and prefer to use vegetable fat. However, the production of vegetable fats actually helps mass animal fat production companies. The remains of the vegetables, after the fat has been extracted, provides cheap feeds for animals. Dr. Robins provided a very interesting perspective on an issue I did not realize was this complicated.

Dear Julia,

City of God has been in my Netflix instant queue since probably freshman year so I was glad to finally watch it. It felt kind of like a hybrid of Forrest Gump and The Wire. I appreciated the breadth of characters and multi-decade time span of the film–it wove a vivid, human narrative. If I had to critique it I would say that some of the narration felt a bit cliché at points. The protagonist was the least interesting character in the film, so a lot of what he had to say as a narrator felt a bit contrived and unnecessary. I don’t think I would have done away with the narration altogether though because that would’ve undermined the tone of the film. Beyond that, while I appreciated the direction and the cinematography a great deal–the film was vibrant and incredibly visually stimulating–but it could have perhaps been dialed back a bit. There were a few moments where the flashy style of the film undercut the power of what was being depicted. By and large though those were my only two complaints with this film. I’d definitely like to watch it again soon. by the time the film is over it leaves lot to carry around with you so to speak. It was a 10/10 wow for sure.

Love,

Robert

Last Wednesday, Dr. Ziegelman visited the Flora Rose House to talk about her research on the Great Depression’s impact on food in America. She shared pictures of the breadlines and of other recipes created to cope with the depression. The term “Square Meals” was coined during this period. These meals referred to meals that were affordable and barely filling.

Dr. Ziegelman also shed light on the creation of processed food. The progressive movement lead to a spike in scientists coming up with theories of certain ingredients being better than others. These findings, in combination with a common goal of ending world hunger lead to the rise of process foods.

I thought Dr. Ziegelman’s comments on eating as part of American culture were very interesting. She implied that the great depression and difficulty in finding affordable food could be the reason why food is not the center of bonding within the family, as it is in other cultures. Fast food and “2 minute noodle soup” seem to be the more “American” option, other than on occasions like Thanksgiving. In contrast, several other cultures socialize and bond exclusively over breakfast, lunch and dinner.

Dr. Ziegelman’s research was incredibly interesting, especially because it was about the history of something as simple as food, something we are fortunate to eat every day. The historical artifacts she shared helped me understand how current American eating habits and recipes evolved.

Last week, I attended a talk about the Attica Prison Uprising of 1971 given by Heather Ann Thompson. This uprising happened in the midst of the civil rights era and the War on Crime under the Johnson administration in which black and brown men were arrested for drug offenses, property violations, and parole offenses. Resulting from this “war on crime” were crowded prisons with egregious conditions. When negotiations came to a standstill, the state dropped tear gas and opened fire on everyone involved, killing inmates and hostages.

Newspapers and the media painted the uprising as evidence of civil rights era excess, and portrayed the prisoners as “cold-blooded revolutionary militants” who murdered many. A media frenzy immediately ensued which false reports multiplied. At every level of government, Thompson asserts, there was complicity in a cover up. State Troopers destroyed evidence by clipping videos, distorting photographs, and doing anything to get indictments for inmates.

One thing that struck me that Thompson pointed out was the fact that prisons are public institutions, yet they remain heavily shrouded in secrecy. I also find it egregious how basic the demands were. They involved simple things like more sanitary conditions and better quality of food. Since this is a public institution, it seems reasonable that anyone can have access to certain records but Thompson points out that many are difficult to access. I think that since a popular conception of prisons is that they are meant to punish rather than rehabilitate, many simply do not care about the horrific conditions that some of these prisons contain.  However, I think that this is a pressing human rights issue and a problem that the United States should take seriously.

History is a reflection of the past and a compass that helps us to predict what will happen in the future. Blood in the water is a very sad historical incidents that happened in Attica prison on September 13, 1971. It was one of those stories that were left under the table until Dr. Heather Thompson dug the truth for 13 years to bring the story to Americans and the entire world. The prisoners at the time protested and took over the prison for four days demanding better conditions and facilities from the New York state government. Instead of dealing with the prisoners in a peaceful way, the government rather sent armed forces who sprayed tear gas and killed around 151 hostages. I was amazed to hear that that the president of the time, Richard Nixon, instead of addressing the issue and holding the governors accountable, he rather said “Was this black business?” This incident was a reflection of human right violation and racial injustice in the United States.

What struck me the most was to find out that the wives of the men who were killed were given stipends. Unfortunately, when signing the papers to take the money, they were rather signing a contract to not question the officials about the death of their loved ones. I consider this no different from a double murder.

Even now people who live near in Attica believe that the prisoners killed the hostages instead of the armed police officers. However, the true story is what Dr. Thompson has presented. She believes“Attica justifies injustice” in the U.S criminal system. I hope her book can lead to more questions that help to improve the current prison conditions.

Last week I went to a discussion that was focused on the Attica prison riot in 1971. Prior to this event I have never heard of the Attica prison riot. I never knew that there was a prison named Attica to begin with. Throughout Heather Thompson’s presentation she discussed the reasons that Attica started such as unsafe and dismal living conditions. The prisoners were being forced to share everything in tight areas, without proper space. They were given food and necessities that were horribly under the quality that a human should have, just because they were prisoners. It was incredible to hear how many people didn’t care about prisoner’s rights at this point, and how they did not care if they lived in these conditions. Due to these conditions, many prisoners began to join together and stick up to those in charge and demand better conditions. They started an uprising, with the help of the prison staff, in order to get attention for their cause. They called in news sources to show that they were simply holding a peaceful protest in order to increase the wellbeing of their life. The governor of New York was not happy with this and pretended to agree to their demands, but later sent in a large group of police and soldiers to take over the prison. These men killed both prisoners and prison workers without differentiating between the two. Later, all the deaths were blamed on the prisoners.

This talk was very upsetting but very necessary. I was extremely unaware of  prison rights and the mistreatment felt by prisoners. No one deserves to live in horrible conditions, even if these people committed a crime. A high number of individuals are sent to prison for nonviolent crimes and do not deserve to be treated subhuman. We must help make prisons more transparent so something like this never happens again. We must allocate resources toward rehabilitation in order to ensure that these men and women do not become a part of the system of release and recapture.

“City of God” follows the choices and challenges faced by a group of kids growing up in a very tough time in a very rough circumstance. This movie felt unique to me because instead of feeling like watching  a movie with clear “good” and “bad” paths, I felt like I was watching an unraveling of childhood innocence and the development of “anti-heroes”. This film reminds of another I have seen called “Beasts of No Nation”, which also dramatizes the situations that many children living in violent areas face. The striping of childhood creates a void in a child which will feel the need to be filled by a means of reclaiming a sense of ‘authority’ or ‘identity’–usually through some kind of a control over a ‘power dynamic’ , as seen in “City of God”. Watching this film really saddened me, and also gave me a sense to evaluate myself and introspect on my own life in relation to others to ensure that before I ever pass judgment on someone, that I ensure I understand their being in the context of their own life, not just from the perspective of mine.

This past week at Professor Enn’s Rose Cafe, a few students gathered in Professor Blalock’s home to discuss the politics surrounding the immigration ban. As a Muslim American, I was particularly curious to hear the thoughts of my peers regarding the ban. As one student pointed out, there are some constitutional gray areas regarding the President’s power over non-citizens of the United States.

My family is originally from Pakistan; a country selectively discluded from the list of largely muslim majority countries that have been banned. Some say this is due to Donald Trump’s business ties to Pakistan, while Trump apologists claim it could be because of the Pakistani governments previous assistance to America during the Afghan war. Yet, I know of international students from Lahore and from Karachi here at Cornell, who fear that Pakistan will soon be added to the list of countries banned from the United States. These students are reevaluating their decisions to study abroad or visit family overseas – for weddings or for funerals- out of fear for losing the privilege of reentering this country and completing their education at Cornell, a school they have already invested so much of their time and money into.

My freshman year at Cornell I was sure that although not everyone has equal chance at being accepted and enrolled at Cornell, once we are here each student does have more or less equal opportunities to succeed. This no longer holds true. Our muslim peers on visas from these select countries cannot study abroad, they cannot be hired by the same companies, and they have to spend extra money on summer and winter housing.

Listening to Professor Enn and the other Rose Cafe attendees this past week gave me hope. I was comforted by the majority opinion the students held- that the muslim ban was inhumane and immoral. One student brought up that we should make an effort to have supporters of Trump or his policies feel more included in our discussions. While a nice gesture on the forefront, I can not find it in me to be inclusive of an individual who believe banning refugees from asylum in America is the correct move for this nation. I do not feel the need to make someone who holds this inhumane and inherently immoral belief feel included and supported.