Mini-Interview... Nicole LaCouture

Nicole LaCouture, born February 27th, 1997, is nothing short of individual, and quite interesting. Her mother was expecting to deliver a child born with dwarfism, she stated: “doctors said that I would be born a little person.” Her mother does not, however, have a child with dwarfism. Nicole grew up in Norton, all her life, with a passion for dance and performing, but her focus has more recently been redirected towards an affinity for cosmetology as she now “hates dance.” Nicole spends a lot of free time with her friends, more specifically going out to eat or just hanging out. And should she ever decide to hang out out of town, Nicole said that her dream vacation would be in Hawaii. When asked if there was anything that she wishes she could improve upon, Nicole said that she “wants to be able to play guitar” and overall just “wishes she was more musically inclined.” Speaking of wishes, Nicole mentioned that if there was one charity that she would be more than willing to donate to, it would be make a wish, hands down. Nicole is clearly very at home in her family, saying that if there was a time when she needed to talk to someone, she would either go to “her mom, her dad, or her boyfriend. Depending on the situation.” Nicole spoke more of her family, as well. She said that she’s “Closer to her dad’s side” and described her family as “loud, happy, and fun.” Nicole even went as far as to say that if there was one thing that she couldn't live without, it would be her family. But, alas, not everything is sugar plums and gumdrops. Nicole said that some of her biggest pet peeves include: “people being late, and people touching my stuff,” though who could blame her, really? And if there’s one thing that Nicole fears, it’s being unsuccessful.

Guns and Schools

Schools and guns don’t mix. Guns simply have no place in a school and that is a matter of common sense. But I can’t help but wonder when guns became so horrifying that the sheer mention of one in a school setting is a punishable offence. Imaginary guns are a part of a child’s creativity. They manifest into drawings, games, sometimes even into stories or poems. This is not unhealthy or threatening but somehow, teachers and principals are going as far as suspending students on something as simple as the suspicion of a gun reference.

In a Maryland elementary school, a seven year old boy was suspended for two days for a “gun-shaped” pop-tart that he claims he was trying to chew into the shape of a mountain. His teacher saw it as a gun and claimed that this student said “bang, bang” and pointed it at a friend. The young boy denies saying this and says that the gun shape was an accident. This incident not only earned the student a suspension, but the school also sent a letter home with all students explaining that “A student used food to make an inappropriate gesture.” This child was an avid drawer, a very creative individual. His only intentions with the pop-tart were to make it look like a mountain from one of his drawings, but his teachers jumped to conclusions and took him right out of school. Not only does this stall his education, but also the boy’s confidence in his creativity. What if your child was suspended from school simply for trying to express themselves in a non-harmful, non-distracting way? The student’s father was equally astounded by the incident and says that he “would call it insanity, with all the potential issues that could be dealt with in school: real threats, bullies... its a pastry…”

As if this gross over reaction wasn’t enough, a five year old girl in Pennsylvania was suspended for a “terrorist threat” made with a Hello Kitty bubble gun. All this poor little girl did was get excited about playing with a new toy. She said one wrong word and now she has the word “terrorist” on her permanent record and she had someone tell her that she could go to jail. Try to imagine how terrifying it must be for a five-year-old to hear that she could go to jail. Not to mention, if her lawyer can’t get the red flag off of her record, it will haunt her for an eternity and take a drastic toll on her opportunities. All over a some bubbles. The school also mandated that the girl have received a psychological evaluation, which of course, came up normal.

It’s ridiculous that children can’t even play like they used to. Cops and robbers has become “shady behavior” and bubble guns are a “gateway.” Before long, schools will be completely sterilized; you would think that schools want to forget that guns exist. And for what? To prevent future gun violence? Maybe if students were encouraged to be safe instead of shamed for showing any mental connections to guns, there would be peace.

7-year-old pop-tart incident: 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/grader-suspended-shaping-breakfast-pastry-gun-article-1.1278784#ixzz2ffXwE22h

(also) 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/boy-suspended-gun-shaped-pop-tart-lifetime-nra-membership-article-1.1359918

Bubble gun “terrorist threat”:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/pennsylvania-5-year-old-suspended-bubble-gun-terrorist-threat-article-1.1243635

Rolling Stone and "The Bomber"

Terrorism is a very sensitive subject in the United States. Incidents like that of 9-11, the truck bomb beneath the twin towers, and recently the bombing of the Boston marathon finish line leave our Government and citizens on high alert to any threat that may arise from the dark. Any captured terrorists are treated mercilessly and with the full wrath of this planet’s own superpower. In the case that one of these monsters could be seen as anything besides mindless murderers, the public is sure to react with an uproar. The Rolling Stone managed to create such an uproar with their recent choice for a cover photo In their mid-June issue. Featuring Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, The bomber, on the cover of Rolling Stone was definitely a daring move in marketing… but did it go too far in terms of valuing profitability over morality?

The general public seems to agree that this too far. The article behind the cover of Rolling Stone brought both bombers, but more so Dzhokhar (Jahar), to a very familiar and almost comfortable level. It told the story of a “popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell to radical Islam, and became a monster.”  It is difficult as victims of an act of terror to even try to imagine this person as anything but a monster to begin with, but Rolling Stone writer, Janet Reitman, seems to suggest that we should not only understand, but attempt to sympathize with Jahar’s past. In another article, Carmen Rasmusen feels that Rolling Stone is “the magazine that shouts ‘Congratulations! You’ve made it.’” and questions if “creating an act of terror is now considered something great..?” It’s a valid question, considering that the Rolling Stone is typically viewed as a milestone of super stardom. Even the issue in question had front page headlines with shout outs to Jay Z, Willie Nelson, and Robin Thicke. Even just at first glance, the Rolling Stone’s coverage seems to be sparking interest and conversation across the board.

However, this could’ve been exactly what someone wanted. Opposing arguments are presented in defense for Rolling Stone’s decision. David Carr, from New York Times, questions “When was the last time someone said to you, ‘Did you see the cover of Rolling Stone?’” and later mentions that “magazines are in a dogfight for attention, not just with one another, but with every form of media.” Clearly Jahar’s appearance brought Rolling Stone the attention that it needed, and was a smart choice in that respect, at the very least. The issue sold so well that The Boston media writer, Dan Kennedy, called this move “brilliant.” David Carr makes another point in Rolling Stone’s defense in saying that footage of situations like this will affect those that are personally involved much differently that it will someone who was half a world away. So “the misery of some should not determine the value to the whole.” But in order to ensure that people take the time to look beyond just the mere cover of the magazine, Carr also reminds us of our ever-present and cliche expression: you can’t judge a book by it’s cover.

Unfortunately, the article behind the cover may have been where the limits were pushed too far. Janet Reitman, mentioned earlier, writes of the destruction and describes it as “ a scene of unbelievable carnage that conjured up images of Baghdad, Kabul, Or Tel Aviv.” She seems to almost suggest that we should’ve expected this attack. That we deserved to lose innocent lives because of incidents that happen between us and real threats overseas. Reitman also goes into the past of both bombers. She tells of how they grew up running away from war. They were skilled fighters, and Tamerlan (Jahar’s older brother and partner in crime) was even hoping to represent the United states in the Olympics. So maybe they weren’t all bad? Sure, hundreds were injured. Three were killed, among them was a small child, mind you. But Reitman chooses to give these brothers a bit of a break and credits them as having promising futures and over-glorifies Jahar’s looks. Within the pages of Rolling Stone, there are very flattering phrases hovering around Jahar’s name. Apparently he was “a beautiful, tousle-haired boy with a gentle demeanor and soulful brown eyes” he was “so sweet” and “gorgeous” and so on… Is this really how we want a terrorist to be portrayed?

All of that trouble went into selling the article. Too much for the nature of the situation. Too much credit was awarded to a man who was involved with nothing else but an act of terrorism. Usually when terrorists are featured on magazine covers, it is to let the world know that they are either dead, or there is a threat. Not to frame them with the names of pop-culture icons and tell their ‘tragic’ back story. There is no need to pity a terrorist.