Category: Uncategorized

Should We Have Zoos?

          Almost everyone has visited a zoo at one point in their life. They’ve always been great places to spend a day and admire some of the animals that we would’ve never been able to see before. However, there is far more debate about zoos that show some of the darker aspects of a place that would seem so happy. Is it worth it to have zoos still? At what point is containing a wild animal cruelty? Is it worth it for the general public to see animals in person for them to be removed from their native habitats? Do animals have rights? All of these questions have sparked debate between clashing groups. 

          In an article “Why Zoos Are Good” by Dr. Dave Hone, he examines some valid reasons for why zoos should be continued. Starting off with his clear stance he states that he has worked at a zoo and is very much in favor of them. This already provides some ethos since he would have had first hand experience with how zoos work. Their value according to him has to do with conservation efforts. What is becoming increasingly known to us is that humans are causing the extinction rates of animals to soar at a rate only common in mass extinctions. He argues that zoos are so important because they can be used to breed endangered animals to be released back into the wild in a conservation effort. He clearly puts value in the conservation of animals over the ability for them to be free. He believes that only through people being able to see the animals will they be inspired to do anything for conservation. In part this puts value in people seeing the animals even though it takes away the animals ability to have any privacy. This argument ultimately relies on the logic that conservation and education are the most essential parts to helping animals. 

          He brings up a second argument that has a far more emotional appeal. He explains that many animals in zoos are able to live lives where they are safe, with lots of food, “and nor will they be killed in a grisly manner or eaten alive”. While his other argument uses strong logos this one uses lots of pathos. This makes his view much stronger as he incorporates both ideas. It’s very true that many of us don’t want to imagine the harsh reality of nature when we see cute penguins at a zoo. The idea of any of them being eaten as another part of the food chain sounds extremely disheartening. This puts a clear value that an animal having a peaceful life outweighs it being in captivity it’s entire life. He explains at the beginning that he really is only a fan of “good” zoos and that of course some enclosures will be too small but many will be good. This is his way of bringing up the counter argument that animals in captivity don’t get to wander freely and therefore live a worse life. By bringing up the counter argument he was able to strengthen his own ideas of how important zoos are.

          An opposing stance is written in a second article “Do We Need Zoos” by J. Westen Phippen who brings out a counter argument that shows the different sides of how zoos are actually harmful to animals. He brings up strong points on how zoos do not do enough conservation to make up for the treatment of animals in enclosures, and what effects these contained lives can have on animals.

          He starts off with a story most people have become familiar with. He talks about the zoo where Harambe the gorilla was killed after a child fell into his pen and was dragged around. He immediately opens up with this story because it’s a classic, strong example of what happens when things go wrong in a zoo. This emphasizes that these are wild animals and keeping them contained for public show isn’t safe. The argument now expands to what rights do the animals have. The orcas in SeaWorld have sparked so much controversy about animals not having enough room, but he wants us to look beyond this and see that all captive animals have this problem too. To add to the problem many animals end up with mental illnesses from captivity. These are all good points that even though animals may be safer in zoos they aren’t living a life that they’re supposed to. He wants us to see animals as having basic rights and makes it clear through discussing their health over the importance of their conservation. 

          A second argument comes up that contradicts the last article. It states that the excuse for zoos has often been that they’re important to conservation. However he points out that, “of all the animals at the 228 zoos it accredits, only 30 species are being worked with for recovery.” If zoos aren’t primarily about conservation then their main goal shifts from what the first article implies. It moves to just being about making money and providing entertainment. He wants us to see that zoos aren’t as essential to conservation as they want to seem. He believes zoos don’t do enough for animals and instead put all their priorities in the people visiting the park. He views this as morally wrong because it hurts the animals to be in captivity and is not worth it for people to have some entertainment.

          Another piece that has contributed to the argument is the video “Why Zoos Matter” by the Metro Richmond Zoo. This video is primarily focused on the importance of zoos because they improve the lives of animals in the zoo, and the zoo helps breed endangered animals. Their video plays into the common argument of conservation but also acts as a direct contrast to the idea that animals are unhappy in zoos through showing many bright and happy scenes of animals together as a family. 

          At the very beginning of the video it gains the interest of the audience by stating many facts about endangered animals including many of the reasons why it’s happening. They use harsh scenes of deforestation along with beautiful scenes of untouched landscapes. In doing these things they’ve made it very clear that this is about the environment and conservation more than anything. They want to take this away from being about people initially and make it solely about the animals. This already gives them a strong starting point because that is such a common reason for why zoos matter. Their video makes it clear that extinction is a terrible thing and through the images and text provided they are able to play into fear for the sake of these animals. This combination of facts and emotion makes the beginning of the video a strong hook and way of introducing their argument. 

     As the video continues the screen cuts to black and a recording plays of two zookeepers talking about a giraffe who’s about to give birth. We are then shown many scenes of animals giving birth and then nurturing their newborn babies. This is such a good transition because we go from learning that many animals are endangered to seeing some of these endangered animals having children. These births are used to bring hope to viewers knowing that these animals now have a stronger chance of making it because of this zoo. This is then followed up with many facts about their number of endangered animals and how many of some endangered animals were born in a span of so many years. This is mainly about how zoo conservation has helped so many species. They state that their zoo is making major efforts to combat extinction for the species they have in their zoo. Through the images they show they also have an underlying argument that these animals are happy there. The animals are never shown as sad and instead are always in bright lighting surrounded by their families or people. They never seem distressed to be around people and are painted to be living perfect lives. The zoo continues this idea by stating everything the animals have in the zoos such as food, shelter, and medicine. This gives off the strong impression that animals in zoos are living their best possible lives unlike what J. Westen Phippen stated in his article that animals often suffer from mental illnesses in zoos. Bringing up this argument enables the zoo to paint a picture of how perfect zoos are.

          A final argument is made in the article “Zoos Are Outdated and Cruel – It’s Time to Make Them a Thing of the Past” by Damian Aspinall. He makes his argument stating that zoos are invalid because the animals they keep will often be unable to ever return to the wild successfully, and because zoos are more for the enjoyment of people at the expense of animals.

          The beginning of the article focuses mostly on countering the main arguments about zoos such as the ones seen by Dr. Dave Hone. He gives multiple facts about how people do not actually learn that much in zoos and only about 1 in 100 people will become interested in conservation because of them. He argues that this is not enough to justify animals being held in captivity. By focusing on logos he is able to make the claim that his argument is solely based on facts and gives him far more credibility. He quickly follows this up with stating that zoo research hasn’t contributed nearly as much as they’d like people to believe. He argues that research can be done just as effectively if not better by observing animals in the wild or in conservation areas. If zoos fail to educate and research then their purposes diminish significantly. It also makes a strong statement to say that zoos are covering up how little they are able to learn from research. It diminishes their ethos and brings into question how much zoos lie about in order to remain open.

          He brings up another strong point against zoos saying they’re important to conservation efforts. Not only does he reiterate the argument made by J. Westen Phippen that zoos do not have enough endangered species to be justified but he also follows this up by stating that many of these endangered animals will never be able to integrate back into the wild. Due to the breeding processes and spread of disease among these animals they are unfit for the wild making the zoos “ark” of animals simply for the enjoyment of people. This is such a strong point because knowing that animals can’t be brought back to the wild ultimately ruins the purpose of breeding them in captivity because they won’t be able to help the endangered wild population. By implying that this is only for people it makes such an important point that zoos aren’t as good as they want to appear. He makes it clear that we shouldn’t be ruining the lives of animals for the sake of our own entertainment. He is able to make this argument clear through his strong use of logos but also includes moments of pathos especially in the use of a short clip depicting a baby elephant in a roadside zoo. It’s forced to perform before people and is taught to do so by hurting the animal. He uses this heartbreaking example because it makes the argument clear that this is not just about the zoos we see commonly but also so many zoos that abuse animals too. So many zoos mistreat animals and they do not get to live their natural lives. This means that animals lack the rights he thinks they deserve.

Works Cited

Aspinall, Damian. “Zoos Are Outdated and Cruel – It’s Time to Make Them a Thing of the Past.” 

The Independent, Independent Digital News and Media, 15 Aug. 2019, 

www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/zoos-cruel-wildlife-conservation-species-a905

6701.html.

Hone, Dave. “Why Zoos Are Good.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 19 Aug. 2014, 

www.theguardian.com/science/lost-worlds/2014/aug/19/why-zoos-are-good.

Phippen, J. Weston. “Do We Need Zoos?” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 3 June 2016, 

http://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/06/harambe-zoo/485084/.

Philpott, William/Reuters. 30 May 2016. The Atlantic, Accessed 6 November 2020.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/09/harambe-the-perfect-meme/498743/

San Diego Zoo. 8 May 2019. KSNV: Las Vegas News, Accessed 6 November 2020.

https://news3lv.com/news/offbeat/two-cute-zoo-celebrates-birth-of-first-two-african-penguin-

chicks

“Why Zoos Matter.” YouTube, uploaded by Metro Richmond Zoo, 8 January

2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxlLaDSZwCU

Workshop Draft

Social Medias Effect on Society

Social Media is a platform which provides information, knowledge, and awareness of the latest trends to people all over the world. Social Media has heavily increased over the years, and more people take part in it than ever before. Social Media, accompanied by google search, instant search, and other forms of internet and technology have implemented into society that information needs to be nearly instantaneous. Not only are industries coming out with social apps, but technology has a whole is immensely modernizing. The affects that technology and the media are having on society creates many conversations among people. Some believe these advances are benefitting our world, and many feel the opposite.

Although there are many opinions, social media and new advances in technology are leaving many people grateful. Author Jenna Wortham wrote the article “How I Learned to Love Snapchat”, where she discusses her views on communication through a device. Wortham believes phone calls leave an awkward feeling on people, which is why she loves Snapchat, which is an app where you communicate through pictures or texts that disappear after a select amount of time. Wortham states, “Texting freed a generation from the strictures and inconvenience (and awkwardness) of phone calls, while allowing people to be more loosely and constantly connected (Wortham 475).”  What Wortham enjoys Is the simplicity and efficiency of a text or a quick post. Similar to Wortham, Kenneth Goldsmith wrote the article, “Go Ahead: Waste Time on the Internet” where Goldsmith provides information on why and how the internet is important, and the positive impacts it brings to modern day society. In Goldsmiths article, he makes a point in comparison to spending hours watching tv, he says “ Our time spent in front of the computer is a mixed time, a time that reflects our desires as opposed to the time spent sitting on front of the television where we were fed shows we didn’t necessarily enjoy (Goldsmith 501).” This is a great example of advances, because TV has been around longer than some forms of internet, and his point that on the internet you’re engaging in what you actually interested in, instead of spending your time watching television shows you do not care to see. Both authors do a phenomenal job informing their audience with reasons technology is helping us, but of course not all agree.

There are many people in our society that are very against technology and how it’s affecting the younger generations. Nicholas Carr wrote the book “The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains” explaining the different ways the internet is negatively affecting our brains. While talking about the advances of the internet, Carr says, “What the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation. Whether I’m online or not, my mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles. Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski (Carr  ).” What Carr is getting at is the internet and its instant gratification is taking away people’s ability to take their time to find information. His reference “zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski” is another way of him stating reading is turning into skimming, and the information does not last long-term in a person’s memory. Carr creates many of his arguments around the idea of “distraction” that is caused by the interaction with the internet. Carr talks about Google as a company that wants to be able to give information as fast as it can, saying “The last thing the company wants is to encourage leisurely reading or slow concentrated thought.” Then follows with “Google is, quite literally, in the business of distraction (Carr 157).” Carr wrote this book from the perspective of someone older in society, now experiencing these advances. I believe many people who are against technology are older and not used to it which makes them dislike the effect being left on society.

Although there are many people who feel social media, and technology are helping our society and many who feel it is hurting it, there are also people who lie somewhere in between. Clive Thompson wrote an article called “ Smarter than You Think: How Technology is Changing Our Minds for the Better” and although this article was written in a positive bias, Thompson says “ The one thing that both apocalyptic and utopians understand and agree upon is that every new technology pushes us toward new forms of behavior while nudging us away from older, familiar ones (Thompson 457).” By saying this, Thompson is not saying new technology is neither good nor bad, he is closing in on the idea that as a society we r moving in a different direction.

Social media and technology are going to continue advancing and will probably never stop. People are always going to have their opinions ….

Who are you working for?

Companies have been a staple of the American economic system since the Virginia Company organized charters to establish settlements in North America in 1609. Since then, privately-owned companies have evolved into the backbone of the American economy, and questions about capitalism and whether or not the system works for everyone have existed ever since. History provides countless examples of labor strikes and full-scale revolutions that illustrate the volatile nature of people’s faith in capitalism. Admits a global pandemic in which millions of Americans have filed claims for unemployment benefits, many feel the time is now for an economic overhaul. While exactly what a new system would look like in a nation that has only known capitalism remains unclear, the arguments made by both advocates for and critics of capitalism may provide insight into the state of our nation and may even provide a reason as to why the American public is so highly polarized today.


On August 27th, 2020 protesters gathered in front of Jeff Bezos’s home in Washington DC. That morning the 56-year-old Amazon CEO had surpassed a net worth of $200 billion making him the richest person in history according to Forbes. Not unconnected to Bezos’s rapid accumulation of wealth has been the sudden demand from the American public for the services that Amazon provides. In accordance with the requests of public officials, many Americans have been reluctant to leave their homes due to COVID-19. This in turn has seen Amazon’s revenue soar past expectations during their second quarter as more people than ever before are ordering goods online according to CNBC. During this time of economic turmoil for millions of Americans, I think it is only human to feel a bit of discomfort to see a billionaire getting richer while so many Americans are experiencing hardships. The protesters, many of which were Amazon employees felt that they were being taken advantage of and were there to demand higher pay and better working conditions. In America, it is a commonly held belief that workers should be treated fairly and that people should be fairly compensated for their labor. However, the line between what is fair and what is exploitation is often blurry. For example, what a single person considers a fair wage may be very different than someone who is trying to support a family. While the economics of the matter are intriguing, what may be even more interesting is the ways in which advocates for and critics of capitalism frame their arguments.


Recently, chants of “Eat the rich!” and protests such as the one that took place at Bezos’s home in August have received a majority of the publicity, however, there are many Americans who are not amongst the top one percent that argue in defense of capitalism and are adamantly opposed to a new system. To cast these individuals off as “old-fashioned” or unwilling to adjust I think does a disservice to the conversation as a whole. Some may argue, although it may be true that there are inherent flaws in the system, the presence of a top one percent is what drives the economy and fuels innovation. One such advocate of capitalism is German historian, Rainer Zitelmann who argues that the Anti-rich sentiment that has swept the nation had manifested itself in the form of the guillotine on Bezos’s doorstep. In his article “Anti-rich sentiment drives former Amazon employees to pick up the guillotine” published in the Washington Examiner, Rainer states, “Wherever you look, rich people have become the enemy. At the Democratic National Convention, there was a great deal of talk about rich people, but none of it was positive. Not one Democrat referred to the rich as creators of wealth or as innovators” (Rainer, 2020). Here a very different set of beliefs and ideals are present in Rainer’s article than the protesters in Washington DC. While the protesters were concerned with what Bezos could have and should have been doing for them, Rainer is acknowledging the good that Bezos’s wealth has already done for many Amazon employees. I think it safe to assume that many Americans share similar values when it comes to financial opportunity. For example, I think everyone would agree that hard work should be rewarded and that everyone should have equal opportunities to provide for themselves and for their families. Considering these common beliefs, it is all the more intriguing to examine the divide between those who support the system and those who are calling for an overhaul. The stark divide may not solely be based on the actual economics of the situation but also the emotional and ethical debate of whether or not one person should be able to accumulate so much by benefitting off the work of their employees. Would the protest be taking place if Amazon employees felt they were being compensated fairly but Bezos’s was still accumulating enormous amounts of wealth during this difficult time for so many Americans? Maybe or maybe not. Regardless, the extreme rhetoric used by critics of capitalism such as the assembling of a guillotine and chants of “Eat the rich” suggests that this debate isn’t going to disappear overnight. In fact, the anti-capitalist movement is garnering more attention than ever before and is becoming increasingly more popular amongst world leaders and politicians as well.


Rainer isn’t wrong when he highlights the recent criticism that capitalism has drawn at the Democratic National Convention. For example, in both the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, Bernie Sanders, a self-described “democratic socialist”, gained a very substantial following and was a legitimate contender to become the Democratic presidential nominee. Sander’s grievances with capitalism are very similar to the views expressed by the protesters. Sanders has repeatedly denounced the one percent and expressed his belief that capitalism is a system that exploits the working class. Among the policies, he proposed was his assertions that he would make tuition at public colleges and universities free, implement a national health care program, and follow through on a “Green New Deal” which would allocate massive amounts of funding to combatting climate change. Again, it would be a mistake to assume that because an individual may not support Bernie Sander’s that he or she must not value education or believe climate change is real. All too often, debates over the most important issues facing our nation become a matter of partisanship. In complicated issues such as the discussion surrounding whether or not a new economic system is necessary it is important that Americans do not fall into the trap of blindly agreeing or disagreeing based on the views of the political candidate of their choice. A voter may support another candidate for any number of reasons. In 2020 and 2016 many voters felt that Sander’s positions were too radical while others felt his proposals sounded great in theory though were skeptical of whether they would work in practice. Quite simply and more commonly voters may also simply agree on more policies with a different candidate. Still, the practice of a politician presenting themselves in a way that makes them “the candidate” on an issue is a staple of politics and campaigning. Similarly, to how critics of the protests outside of Bezos’s house may be unfairly deemed “anti-worker” or “traditionalists”, non-supporters of a given political candidate or movement are often characterized by those who are supporters. Statements such as “If you care about the environment vote for candidate x” make it easy for people to adopt an “us vs them” mentality as well as instilling a sense of guilt in the prospective voter. While they may not entirely agree with a politician’s policies, voters often find themselves at a crossroads. Rather than be labeled something they aren’t (i.e. anti-worker or a climate change doubter) voters are often compelled to associate themselves with a given candidate that has effectively positioned themself as the candidate of choice on a given subject that is widely valued by voters. For example, in June of 2020, President Donald Trump declared himself the “Law and order candidate”, a strategy that as CNN’s Gregory Krieg, Dan Merica, and Ryan Nobles point out was especially effective for former presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush (Kreig et al, 2020) Does that mean that the millions of people that voted for Biden this November are anti-law and order? Of course not, but depending on who you ask during these extremely polarized times in our nation, you may receive a much different answer.


Another interesting perspective regarding the laws of capitalism and its inability to provide prosperity for all is shared by self-proclaimed capitalist and member of the top .01% Nick Hanauer. During Hanauer’s Ted Talk, “The Dirty Secret of Capitalism- and a New Way Forward” he criticizes the economic system through which he acquired his wealth and insists that capitalism is built on “social norms and constructed narratives based on pseudoscience.” He advocates for a new economic system that no longer operates under which he believes to be false assumptions that “greed is good, widening inequality is efficient, and the only purpose of the corporation can be to enrich shareholders” (Hanauer, 2019) He proposes that innovation is not driven through competition but cooperation. Hanauer lays out a compelling argument that the assumptions under which our neo-liberal economy has operated are false and that in order to end economic inequality a new system must be adopted. Contrary to this argument however advocates for capitalism such as George Gilder, a best-selling author of multiple books defending capitalism and a co-founder of the Discovery Institution, have made a living off of discrediting the claims of those seeking to overthrow capitalism. In a video published by a well known conservative organization, Prager University, Gilder claims “That only capitalism can create a group of people known as entrepreneurs who have no choice but to concern themselves with the needs and desires of others. These others are their customers” (Gilder, 2014) He claims that if economists were to study these entrepreneurs that they would come to realize that these business owners “must shun greed.” In order to run a successful business, he alleges, entrepreneurs must put the interests of themselves second and those of their customers first which is the very opposite of greed. What I believe to be one of the more interesting aspects of this debate is the fact that whether you on Hanauer’s or Gilder’s side, both hold (or at least portray themselves to hold) very similar values. Both claim to have the interests of the employee and the consumer at heart when they are presenting their beliefs about which economic system is superior. Both portray themselves to be honest and empathetic people who have the common man’s interest at heart. Of course, not both of them can be correct. Gilder and Hanauer both present vastly different ideas about how the economy should operate and only one of them can be right. Either more people would be better off with a more cooperative and inclusive economy that Hanauer proposes or more people would thrive with the competitive and often times cutthroat capitalistic market-driven economy that we have today which Gilder advocates for. If we assume that both men truly have society’s best interest at heart then the debate becomes purely one of economics. Under-which system are more people better off? While this debate is sure to continue, it is interesting to see how the two major political parties have divided themselves into this debate. Perhaps it is because Republicans are inherently more conservative and Democrats more liberal that we see the vast difference in opinions on this issue on either side of the aisle, however, if we are to truly to reach achieve an economic system that sees the most people thrive the focus must be on furthering the economic of everyone not on furthering the political interest of the few.

Works Cited

Gilder , George. “Why Capitalism Works.” PragerU, 10 Mar. 2014, http://www.prageru.com/video/why-capitalism-works/.


Hanauer, Nick. “The Dirty Secret of Capitalism — and a New Way Forward.” TED, July 2019, http://www.ted.com/talks/nick_hanauer_the_dirty_secret_of_capitalism_and_a_new_way_forward?language=en.


Krieg, Gregory, et al. “Why Trump’s ‘Law and Order’ Rhetoric May Not Be as Effective as It Was for Nixon and Reagan.” CNN, Cable News Network, 4 June 2020, http://www.cnn.com/2020/06/04/politics/law-and-order-trump-2020/index.html.


Palmer, Annie. “Amazon Sales Soar as Pandemic Fuels Online Shopping.” CNBC, CNBC, 30 July 2020, http://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/30/amazon-amzn-earnings-q2-2020.html.

Ponciano, Jonathan. “Jeff Bezos Becomes The First Person Ever Worth $200 Billion.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 27 Aug. 2020, http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanponciano/2020/08/26/worlds-richest-billionaire-jeff-bezos-first-200-billion/?sh=5f2729d74db7.


Zitelmann , Rainer. “Anti-Rich Sentiment Drives Former Amazon Employees to Pick up the Guillotine.” Washington Examiner, 31 Aug. 2020, http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/anti-rich-sentiment-drives-former-amazon-employees-to-pick-up-the-guillotine.

Has FootBall Met It’s Match

Football has become a staple American sport. Families flack to the stands to watch their teenage sons, and in few cases daughters, enter that football field and play their hearts out in front of the crowd. On Saturday evenings everyones families and friends gather around the couch to watch the intense NFL games that Americans have become so accustomed too. This has been the American tradition for years now, but will that soon be changing?

Over the past couple of years there has been a huge decline in youth attending football. Scientist are warning families to keep away from the head injuring sport as more and more information about what the sport is doing to young brains is revealed. “a significant decrease in gray matter pruning [essential for brain development] in the frontal default mode network, which is involved in higher cognitive functions, such as the planning and controlling of social behaviors”(PsychologyToday). Scientist have also discovered even after one single game of football there are extremely small changes to the brain after the game that are not good when brains are still developing at such a young age. This has scared parents so much that one by one they are pulling their kids out of Americas beloved sport trying to protect their kids from long term damage. A High school in New Jersey has suffered very badly. This school in the past had supplied a numerous amount of players to the NFL but now-a-days they are struggling to even make it to a game because of the loss of players. As of right now Football is slowing down drastically but we have yet to know when we will have to kiss our Friday night games and our Saturday family gatherings goodbye.

Many scientist and test done have made people believe that CTE, chronic traumatic encephalopathy, is permanent condition caused by playing football. In reality, CTE is not only caused by football, “The same study that found an association between repetitive head impact and dementia in CTE also found that cardiovascular disease and dementia in CTE were correlated… a separate study 10,000 people found no association between participation in contact sports and later cognitive decline or increase in symptoms of depression”(FiveThirtyEight). Many scientist are positive this will not turn into a huge thing across the United States. Just last year, 2019, the NFL has come out with three new rules to try and prevent head injuries. “The blindside block is eliminated… It is now prohibited for a blocker to initiate forcible contact with his head, shoulder or forearm when his path is toward or parallel to his own end line”(NFL). “It is a foul for running forward and leaping across the line of scrimmage in an obvious attempt to block a field goal or Try Kick”(NFL). Lastly, a change made in 2018 with the kickoff rules has decreased concussions by 35%. The NFL is constantly making new rules for each player to follow in hopes of protecting their players from further head injury.

Just like everything else in our world, Football is constantly changing and developing. No one knows yet what will happen to Football in America. Parents are scared for their kids brains but there are constantly new rules and regulations made every year and that trying to improve the safety of our young kids playing and grown adults in the NFL. Only time will tell if Football has met it’s match.

Citations:

https://operations.nfl.com/football-ops/nfl-ops-honoring-the-game/health-safety-rules-changes/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/singletons/201901/tough-decision-should-you-let-your-child-play-football

Should Parents Be Afraid To Let Their Kids Play Football?

The Rising Debate: Should College Athletes Get Paid?

For many years now, the debate if college athletes should get paid, has been ongoing. Many people think it’s not the best idea because these athletes are still students and that’s not fair to all the other students who aren’t athletes. However, some people think that it’s a good idea college athletes get paid because people feel as though the students are working two full-time jobs. Many articles bring insight to these ideas and how the debate started.

In a recent article posted in 2019 “NCAA Plans to Allow College Athletes to get Paid for Use of Their Names” explains how the NCAA started to consider paying college athletes. The NCAA wasn’t fond of the ideas of paying college athletes. However, once California had passed the bill that made it illegal for schools to ban students from getting compensation from advertisers. Soon, Illinois, Florida, New York, and other states decided to join this idea. The NCAA has now started to think about the idea of paying college athletes and giving some of them scholarships. Even though the NCAA isn’t giving all college athletes scholarships, their goal is to be fair to everyone.

After reading this article, it is clear that the author is bias in their writing. The author makes it clear that they think college athletes should get paid. This is made clear by not bringing up anything about how college athletes should not get paid and instead bringing up how they are starting to get paid. The author thinks it’s fair for college athletes to get paid and they are glad that the NCAA is changing their mind and starting to agree.

However, before the NCAA agreed to paying students, they had their disagreements. In the article written in August of this year, “Opinion: The Case for Paying College Athletes” it’s explained why the NCAA doesn’t want to pay athletes. The NCAA believes that it’s not reasonable for college athletes to get paid because they are still students. Even though this is true, these athletes have a very heavy workload with academics and school. Some athletes rack up 34 hours a week in practice plus academic semester hours of up to 18. This is more than a full-time job. A UCLA quarterback, Josh Rosen, feels as though with being a college football athlete and a full time student, he is working two full-time jobs. The NCAA only allows 20 hours of practice in a week. However, it seems as though this is not being monitored making it hard for college athletes to find time to have a normal college experience.

At the end of the article, the author makes his opinion clear. By stating that he thinks the NCAA needs to start doing their part, as in paying the athletes, he states his bias of thinking that college athletes need to be paid. A reader may at first think that he doesn’t think he wants college athletes to get paid because he states all the reasons why NCAA doesn’t think the students should get paid. However, as one continues to read the article, the author’s opinion becomes more clear.

As there is for every debate, there are pros and cons. In the article, “Should College Athletes Get Paid?” pros and cons are talked about. Some reasons as too why college athletes should get paid include that there is not implementing difficulty, college athletes risk permanent damage to their body, and lots of money is already a part of college sports. The reason why there is not implementing difficulty is because it’s already been discussed that the athletes that would/should get paid are the ones that bring in more revenue. These sports include college football and college basketball. Along with these sports bringing in the most revenue, these sports can also have a lot of career ending injuries that have the possibility to leave permanent damage. Money is also not a big concern because college football and basketball already bring in lots of money, leaving room for athletes to get paid from the profit that is made.

The cons that are included in the debate of paying college athletes are there is no difference in salaries and scholarships, financial awareness can become nonexistent, and responsibility is gone. If one were to compare the numbers of earning a salary and a scholarship for college athletes, there is only a few hundred dollar difference. This makes the salary aspect of paying athletes almost pointless. Also if given that much money, college athletes are more likely to become less financially aware. As well as being athletes, they are also college students. College students aren’t always financially aware with their money and by having a large amount this unawareness increases. Also by paying for the athletes’ college tuitions, they aren’t learning how to take care of their own expenses, they are just being handed the money.

This article isn’t the most clear as to which side the author is on. This article is more informational rather than opinionated. Even though there is no opinion to this article, in some cases it’s better for an article to be informational rather than bias. This is a way for readers to form their own opinion on the subject with the provided information rather than to get lectured about an author’s opinion on a subject.

In the YouTube video provided by CNN “Crossfire: Should college athletes be paid?” there are two ethical people debating. Kareem Abdul Jabbar believes that college athletes should be paid and Christine Brennan believes college athletes should not be paid. Christine Brennan believes that it wouldn’t be fair if only the highest paying salary sports got paid. For example, football and men’s basketball. Since the salaries made would only be benefitting the college football and college basketball players, people wonder about the other college sports. If college football and basketball players are being paid, so would softball, baseball, lacrosse players, and so on. This is a big reason as to why people don’t think college athletes should be paid, because it doesn’t account for all college athletes.

Kareem Abdul Jabbar is more worried about when the athletes get injured. It has been seen many times when a college athlete gets injured, gets their scholarship taken away, is then not able to play their sport anymore because of the injury and is left with not only academic bills to pay but also medical bills. Most of the time both of these bills range in the five digit numbers. This is a lot for one family to pay without any help. Kareem believes this is unfair to not only the athlete, but also the athlete’s family.

In the twelve minute YouTube video, Kareem doesn’t get much time to talk because Christine is making her point almost the whole time. This gives some insight on CNN’s point of view on the debate. By having Christine talk almost the whole time in the video, it seems clear that the opinion is college athletes shouldn’t get paid. Even though this seems that it’s more of an informational conversation and not meant to be an opinionated video, it seems to have come out biased.

Throughout reading these articles, it is clear that this debate has been going on for awhile now and isn’t going to stop and be resolved anytime soon. If athletes do end up getting paid, the other side will be upset. However, if athletes don’t get paid, many more people will be upset. The articles that were biased and believed that athletes should get paid made it very clear. The ones that didn’t make the opinion clear were the informational ones. The article that provided the pros and cons seems to truly be more informational opposed to the CNN video. The CNN video may have seemed informational at first, but looking further into the video, CNN is more bias towards college athletes not getting paid.

This rising debate has brought much information for people to form their own opinions. The main questions that are brought up when speaking about this topic are education or exploitation?, what are the benefits to athletes being paid?, and on the flip side, what are the consequences of athletes being paid? It seems as though there are more benefits, which is why the NCAA has started the process of paying college athletes through scholarships. People are entitled to their own opinions, however, their opinion isn’t always the right opinion.

Gun Control

What makes a topic controversial? Is it your political belief? Is it based on how many viewpoints there are? Does there always have to be a correct answer? These were some of the questions I asked myself when I was considering what topic to choose for my argument. Although the questions have no real answer, it was a good way for me to think about what topics would be considered good. After an extended period of stressful brainstorming, I finally concluded that the ideal controversial subject has to be one that is not so black and white. What makes a subject most controversial is that it needs to be a topic that, when supported with the right evidence, somebody could make a case either for or against it. The topic that I felt best fit this description was the argument on gun control. The gun control argument is one that is very difficult to moderate. There are people all over the spectrum in regards to whether or not people should own guns. On top of that, no matter what actions are taken to either promote or knock the ability to own guns, it seems that there is no real way to appease everyone. Everyone seems to have a strong opinion in the gun control argument, regardless of whether or not they are around them or really care about them. The argument at hand is very simple; should the government increase the number of laws regarding guns or not. According to New York Times, in recent years, gun control debates have focused primarily on background checks for buyers, whether or not people should be allowed to carry weapons in public, and whether to allow the people to own assault rifles. 

Pro Gun Control

In an article on Impact Fund, a website where progressive advocates stand up for economic, environmental, and social justice, writer Kelsey Rogers tells the tragic story of a high school basketball player whose career was greatly affected by gun violence. The boy she writes about in her story, Danny Williams, was a rising junior in high school from Buffalo, New York. While playing basketball outside of his house one day, his ball bounced into his neighbor’s yard. When he went to go pick it up, out of nowhere, a car drove up and a gun emerged from the driver’s side window. The shooter then fired a bullet into Danny’s abdomen. Although Danny survived the incident, his dreams of playing basketball at the next level did not. Where this story raises debate, is the fact that Danny’s shooter, a gang member who had mistaken him for somebody else, had purchased the weapon illegally through a gun trafficking ring at an Ohio gun show. This gun was only one of over 140 semi automatic handguns sold from this show. The ability to buy a gun with such ease is a substantial issue and it is one of the main arguments of why people believe gun control should increase. Had there been greater laws that better restricted the shooter’s ability to get a gun, Danny would still be playing basketball and achieving his greatest goals and aspirations. However, Danny is not the only person that has ever fallen victim to gun violence.

Who Is Rob Rogers? The Artist Behind This Viral Gun Control Cartoon Wants To "Get The Dialogue Started"

Gun violence has become a large issue in America in recent times and many believe that the only way this may be solved is through greater gun control. If people are stripped of their weapons, or if they are denied access to certain types of firearms, then gun related crimes would have no choice but to drop as people wouldn’t have access to the issue. An article in the Washington Post by Robert Gebelhoff lays out a number of steps that can be taken to end the war on guns. First, it is a necessity to ban weapons of war. Although banning assault rifles was never meant to reduce overall gun deaths, it was meant to reduce the number of deaths from mass shootings. Therefore, this ban would not exactly end gun violence, but it would keep more dangerous weapons from being used in crimes, which is a good place to start. Another step that the Gebelhoff offers in an attempt to lower gun related crimes, is to strengthen background checks. As of now, background checks are required by federal law, however, they’re not difficult to slip past. That is because the background checks are only required when purchasing through a licensed dealer. Private individuals and online retailers do not require these checks. This means that many gun owners, 42% of them in 2017, did not undergo any background checks before obtaining a firearm. Without greater gun control laws, convicted criminals and other individuals who should not receive access to these weapons, are still able to get one. It is obvious why this is an issue as these are the exact types of people who should be banned from having anything like this in the first place. The third step laid out by Gebelhoff is that the government needs to stop the flow of guns. As simple as it sounds, this would help as the more guns there are, the more gun deaths there will be. A 2013 study from Boston University found that for every percent increase in gun ownership at the state level, there was a 0.9 percent rise in the firearm homicide rate. This means that for every additional gun owned by somebody in America, there was a firearm homicide to match it. Some ways that the country may go about decreasing the flow of guns could be; instituting a buyback program, limiting the number of guns that someone can buy at one time, and holding gun dealers more accountable of who they sell guns to. Instituting a buyback program has proven successful before in Australia. In the 1990s, Australia spent $500 million to buy back almost 600,000 guns. Harvard University researchers found that in the seven years following, the gun homicide rate dropped 42 percent and the gun suicide rate fell 58 percent. Limiting the number of guns that a single person can buy at once would be of big help too. Studies from what is now called the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) show that as many as 1 in 5 handguns recovered in a crime were originally purchased as part of a sale in which multiple guns were purchased. If people were limited to one gun per month or so, then there would be less guns in circulation and people wouldn’t buy and sell guns illegally at such a fast rate. Finally, gun dealers should be more accountable of who they sell guns to. If a dealer sells a gun to somebody who they believe seems suspicious and a crime is committed with that gun, the dealer should have to serve some sort of punishment. This change would make dealers second guess everyone that they sell guns to, and sales would only be made if they were safe.

Anti Gun Control

Cartoon: Gun Control for Dummies | The Maine Wire

As bad as some people want increased gun laws, there are still people on the other end of the spectrum who believe increased gun control laws are unnecessary. Furthermore, people challenge the idea of gun control in general. In an essay on Sage Journal, author Gary Kleck raises the question of whether or not gun levels should affect the rate of crime and violence. Gun control laws are intended to reduce crime and violence rates by keeping guns away from those who are more at risk of committing a crime using one. Although some laws attempt to do this by reducing gun levels in public, neither the federal government or any state has ever banned the ownership of guns. Further, research indicates that existing laws have no measurable effect on overall gun ownership levels in the population as a whole. Instead, gun laws are intended to stop trade, possession, and criminal use of guns by convicted criminals, mentally ill persons, alcoholics, or drug addicts. Because criminals, mentally ill persons, and alcoholics are already denied access to guns through background checks, increased gun laws would only keep those suitable to owning one from getting one. Some even argue that increased gun control laws could increase crime. By disarming possible future victims of violence, their ability to defend themselves reduces greatly, and any deterrent effect that the victims’ gun may have possessed towards the offender is gone. There is more to why guns can be looked at as good. News headlines are always filled with reports of gun violence and crime. While we hear about these murders and accidents all the time, what we often don’t hear about is the crimes stopped because of guns. People do not hear about times where would-be victims took a gun out and scared a criminal away. These failed crimes and saved lives usually aren’t reported to police, and when they are reported, the media tends to ignore them. This is because media producers have grown to realize what kind of news sells better than others.

In the End

In the end, the gun control debate is one that may never fully conclude. There are valid arguments to be made across the board, whether it be for or against gun control. One thing that I found interesting while doing this assignment however, was how much easier it was to find articles regarding increased gun control. I believe that this is a direct result of how times are changing and how it is slowly becoming the societal norm to feel strongly against guns because of all of the violence going on in this world. This just magnifies the need to “map out” controversies such as this one so that people may be able to gain a solid understanding of topics before they argue them.

Sources

Gebelhoff, Robert. “Opponents of Gun Reforms Say Nothing Can Be Done. Science Says They’re Wrong.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 2018, http://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/opinions/gun-control-that-works/.

Kleck, Gary. “Does Gun Control Reduce Violent Crime? .” SAGE Journals, 2016, journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0734016816670457.

Pérez-peña, Richard. “Gun Control Explained.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 7 Oct. 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/07/us/gun-control-explained.html.

Rogers, Kelsey. “Gun Violence – We’ve Had Enough!” Impact Fund, Impact Fund, 6 Oct. 2015, http://www.impactfund.org/social-justice-blog/gun-violence-weve-had-enough?gclid=Cj0KCQiAwMP9BRCzARIsAPWTJ_GyRWEg3UdAcSEPyKG-496UaXRJhSgmq3V1s3q-BS66SvQwHI-tVO4aArTrEALw_wcB.

Stossel, John. “Why Guns Are Good.” Fox News, FOX News Network, 12 Nov. 2014, http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/why-guns-are-good.

Discussions Regarding Drug Reform

Oregon made history this election cycle when its population voted to decriminalize all drugs. Oregon was not alone in changing drug laws either. Washington D.C. decriminalized the cultivation of psychedelic mushrooms. New Jersey, Arizona, Montana, and South Dakota voted to legalize marijuana, while Mississippi voted to legalize it for medical purposes. This policy change is representative of the direction America seems to be heading concerning the war on drugs.

There are many differing opinions about the war on drugs and its effect on American society and the global community. But one thing seems to be almost unanimously agreed upon; it is a complete and utter failure. As a result, new opinions and goals have entered the discussion over the future of drug prohibition. A recent cultural conversation has emerged; one focused on less punitive measures and drug reform. The solutions proposed vary, ranging from an emphasis on treating addicts to legalization and regulation of all narcotics. But just as these solutions vary, so are the reasons behind them.

In German Lopez’s article, “Should America Legalize All Drugs? This Story Should Give Supporters Pause.” Lopez argues that the government isn’t capable of regulating drugs effectively. He uses the opioid epidemic to prove his case. He blames the regulatory capture of the FDA by pharmaceutical companies on its ineffectiveness. The FDA entrusted a group of pharmaceutical companies with curbing inappropriate uses of medication, and when officials knew off-label prescribing was widespread, intervention rarely happened. He claims the FDA’s failure to act during an opioid epidemic and their late response time to public health crises is why he claims our country is ill-suited to regulate legalized drugs. He relates this to both the tobacco and alcohol industries. He does say that marijuana would probably be okay under the current system as it is a relatively harmless drug. He also briefly discusses the overly punitive aspect of our criminal justice system concerning drug users.

Lopez admits in his paper that before the opioid epidemic, he would have agreed with total legalization and regulation, but that changed because of the American government’s corruption and ineptitude when dealing with the opioid crisis. Perhaps his biggest concern is that newly legalized drugs would follow the tobacco and alcohol industries’ footsteps, lobbying policymakers to implement higher taxes and nutritional labels on their product. As a result, he chooses the middle path between (as he puts it) an excessively harsh criminal justice system and a legal industry carelessly causing drug epidemics. This middle path is the decriminalization of drugs for personal use. Drugs would still be illegal, but you wouldn’t get arrested. He believes that this model will be less corrupt and require fewer government interactions.

Peter Moskos’ article “Two Takes: Drugs Are Too Dangerous Not To Regulate – We Should Legalize Them” argues that drugs are too dangerous to be unregulated. Therefore they must be controlled through regulations.

Interestingly, Moskos is a Baltimore police officer, which may explain his main reason for legalizing drugs. Moskos first tries to relieve those fearful of an increase in public violence should drugs be legalized and regulated. As a police officer, he admits that we can’t reduce supply or demand through force. He claims that prohibition doesn’t work, and by prohibiting an item, you give control over it to criminals. By claiming this, he leaves little option left, but to change the current approach towards narcotics. But what he does when he connects terrorism to the illegal drug trade ensures that those fearful of legalization see an even more significant threat. He says that by continuing prohibition, we are, in essence, funding terrorist and rebel groups globally. These terrorist groups profit from the illicit drug trade and are willing and able to use extreme force if necessary. By claiming a legal drug trade would harm these groups more than military action would, he further delegitimizes a common concern amongst opponents of legalizationㅡan increase in drug use.

He provides the notion that we reduce drug use with education and regulation more than we could by prohibiting these substances, using the decline in cigarette smokers in younger generations to give an example of legalization and regulation reducing drug use. I feel that this is a weak point when contrasted to what follows, as it makes it seem almost unnecessary. He compares the Dutch approach to drug addiction to the American one—the Dutch view drug addiction as a health problem, aiming to save lives and reduce drug use. The Dutch succeed in this. The heroin overdoses in Baltimore alone are three times greater than the overdoses in the Netherlands. Furthermore, the Dutch use drugs at a much lower rate than Americans, being half as likely as an American to have smoked marijuana. By comparing the drug use in the Netherlands to the US, Moskos made sure there could be no doubt that legalizing or decriminalizing drugs decreased the percentage of the populace using narcotics in the Netherlands.

Ethan Nadelmann’s article “The US Needs to Decriminalize Drug Possession Now” brings a new concern to the public discourse surrounding drugs. His essay introduces the role punitive drug laws have on mass incarceration. His article relates America’s attitudes towards drugs with other countries, namely Portugal. He concludes his piece by discussing the growth of public support for legalization and the continued resistance by politicians towards further reform.

Nadelmann’s piece introduces concerns about race and public sentiment in the discussion. Worldwide support for decriminalization has grown. In the US, gentler approaches have begun to gain traction. Nadelmann relates this change in public perception to the various drug epidemics our country has faced. More importantly, the fact that the opioid and fentanyl epidemics ravaged white communities. Nadelmann’s writings would suggest that some people, in his view, lawmakers and enforcers, only considered there to be a problem when their communities were afflicted. The year was 2018 when Nadelmann wrote this piece, but he made a prediction for 2020 that came true. When this was written, support for legalization wasn’t large enough to make ballot initiatives. But as can be seen with Oregon, the direction of public opinion is heading towards reform.

Theodore Dalrymple’s essay, “Don’t Legalize Drugs,” attempts to debunk the positions of those in favor of legalizing narcotics and argues for prohibition based on his personal experience and statistics.

Dalrymple has many concerns over the potential legalization of drugs. Through his work, Dalrymple reveals he comes from a more conservative and traditional mindset than the other authors. One moment from the text is telling of his worldview. When discussing freedom of choice and drug use, Dalrymple states, “It impairs their ability to pursue more important human aims, such as raising a family and fulfilling civic obligations. Very often it impairs their ability to pursue gainful employment and promotes parasitism.” It’s clear what he thinks about recreational drug users, and I suspect it is indicative of a larger whole. The view that recreational drug use is not only unproductive, but it is a detriment to society as a whole.

His preoccupation with family and civic obligations rears themselves throughout the passage. One such incident is demonstrative of the fears over children and narcotics. He adds caution against legalization because dealers would start selling to young children, who would readily accept drugs because of society’s permissive attitude towards drugs. Here, he reveals yet another piece of his actual position, as he refers to the children already being ‘inducted’ into a drug subculture. He displays that not only do people sharing his views heavily concerned with children’s safety, they also view drugs as a threat, an insidious force, one that can recruit followers.

There are many views towards drug reform, with solutions ranging from prohibition to legalization and everything in between. Behind these solutions lie various motives and arguments taking place in the debate. There are concerns over government corruption, government control, public safety and health, race relations, a punitive vs. a rehabilitative response, and many more.

Works Cited

Chandler, Jamie, and Skylar Young. “Legalizing Marijuana Won’t End the War on Drugs.” U.S. News & World Report, U.S. News & World Report, 14 Mar. 2014, www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/jamie-chandler/2014/03/14/legalizing-marijuana-wont-end-the-war-on-drugs.

Dalrymple, Theodore. “Don’t Legalize Drugs.” City Journal, City Journal, 17 June 2019, www.city-journal.org/html/don%E2%80%99t-legalize-drugs-11758.html.

Kreps, Daniel. “Oregon Decriminalizes All Drugs, While D.C. Decriminalizes Psychedelics.” Rolling Stone, Rolling Stone, 4 Nov. 2020, www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/oregon-decriminalizes-all-drugs-while-d-c-decriminalizes-psychedelics-1085109/.

Lopez, German. “Should America Legalize All Drugs? This Story Should Give Supporters Pause.” Vox, Vox, 6 Aug. 2018, www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/6/17649036/fda-fentanyl-opioid-epidemic-drug-legalization.

Moskos, Peter. “Two Takes: Drugs Are Too Dangerous Not to Regulate-We Should Legalize Them.” U.S. News & World Report, U.S. News & World Report, 25 July 2008, www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2008/07/25/two-takes-drugs-are-too-dangerous-not-to-regulate–we-should-legalize-them.

Nadelmann, Ethan. “The U.S. Needs to Decriminalize Drug Possession Now.” Rolling Stone, Rolling Stone, 26 Nov. 2018, www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/united-states-decriminalize-drug-possession-nadelmann-760001/.

Personal Privacy VS National Security

In recent years, two major events have put “security” in the public eye, and governments around the world have raised the issue of the current state of “security” at the national level. At the very beginning, it was Snowden’s “PRISM”—a secret surveillance program executed by  United states government  have shocked the whole world. It turned out that all countries and sensitive jobs were exposed to the surveillance of the us government. Traces of surveillance can be seen in communications, in anything on the network. Through this event, people began to pay attention to their information security. In order to protect their privacy right, people start to protest the government. The second issue was the attack on France by the terrorist group ISIS in 2018, with links between its members and the release of information allegedly spread through the encrypted messaging platform Telegram. The incident has shone a spotlight on technology companies and exposed the irreconcilable tension between privacy and national security. In the Internet media, the debate about this has never stopped.

“personal privacy vs national security”的图片搜索结果
(https://www.safervpn.com/blog/online-privacy-vs-national-security/)

The article “Stop spying on Wikipedia Users” written by Jimmy wales and Lila Tretikov argued  that the US national security agency’s massive surveillance program on the Internet violates the constitution’s right to privacy. To Wikipedia volunteers, their anonymity is not guaranteed, and the national security agency may track their activities: not only what they read or type, but also sensitive and private information about an individual’s actual location and their identity. This would stifle free speech and the exchange of knowledge. Not just editors, but hundreds of millions of readers in the United States and around the world whose job it is to communicate sensitive information to people outside the world. Privacy is a fundamental right. It is a prerequisite for free speech and supports freedom of investigation and assembly. It gave people the right to read, write and communicate in secret without fear of persecution. The victim not just the user of Wikipedia, one of the documents revealed by the Snowden specifically identified other major media like CNN, Gmail and Facebook are also the targets for surveillance. By using that monitoring, N.S.A can learn nearly everything a typical user does on the internet.

The author of “Online Privacy Issue is also in play in Petraeus scandal”  —Scott Shane also supports Jimmy’s view. On the Internet, and especially in emails, text messages, social network articles and online photos, these activities linked Americans work and live closely together. Sensitive private information stored on computer servers for years is likely to be discovered by investigators, even though the events they are investigating may not have anything to do with it. When government investigators monitor online crime, espionage and subversion, they will inevitably invade people’s private lives. That’s a scary thing for privacy advocates. When law enforcement investigators dig deep into the private sector of the Internet, they can also uncover completely irrelevant information, leading to surprisingly damaging results. And when the investigation is keep going, it is easy to blur of lines between the private and the public.

In “Blowing a Whistle” the author Thomas Friedman takes a different view. In the world where people live, if a government wants to protect its citizens from a real terrorist threat, it must use big data within legal and judicial constraints. This is an inevitable operation. That’s not an ideal approach, but another 9/11 would be far more damaging to civil liberties. The author is more worried about another 9/11 than about a government invasion of privacy. That is to say, the heavy blow brought by terrorists is more terrible and deadly. This is not because the author does not care about civil liberties and privacy, but because a 9/11 incident — or worse, a nuclear material attack, for example — could send America, a supposedly good open society straight to the end.

“Belgium Says Law Limiting Raids May Have Allowed Suspect in Paris Attacks to Escape” , Milan Schreuer demonstrated how Belgian law prevented police from searching private homes at night after the terrorist attacks in Paris , which allowing attackers who were holed up inside to escape. The terrorists escaped because of the law, which was designed to protect family privacy. The news further reinforced the reputation of the Belgian government as dysfunctional and inefficient, with all its ill effects. Concerns about civil liberties and the safety of people, the government have put the region on a high alert, with schools, markets and public transport closed. The Belgian authorities have increased the frequency and intensity of the raids, but they have brought no significant new information to light. The decision to go by the book underscores the difficult balance between national security and the privacy of citizens in Europe and the United States in an era of terrorist threats.

Freedom of privacy is a fundamental right. As far as respecting human rights are concerned, personal privacy is absolutely inviolable. In addition, with the development of technology and the improvement of encryption methods between communication products. Theoretically, personal privacy can be guaranteed with no doubt. But in terms of national security, this phenomenon of absolute security is completely impossible. Whether rumor or fact, the phenomenon of backdoor of various hardware devices and software systems is extremely common.

So, the question ultimately falls on the balance between national security and citizens’ privacy: to what extent should citizens’ privacy be allowed to be accessed by the judiciary in the name of national security. The U.S. constitution does not specify which is more important, national security or personal privacy. The key is to judge whether the government’s access to data is to meet the legitimate public security needs of the society, or whether the government’s access to data is an abuse of rights caused by the way it destroys individual freedom and privacy but is not regulated.

In an international legal environment, in order to protect individual rights, national interests should sometimes make concessions to maintain the civilization of modern society. But at the very least, if national security can not  be guaranteed, there is no privacy for the individual. Without privacy, national security may lose its greatest value. Because at this stage of national security is not guaranteed, the country is not the country, the people’s privacy is nothing. National security and social stability are the preconditions for reform and development. Only with national security and social stability can reform and development continue.  In the premise of ensuring national security, how to ensure that personal privacy will not be violated? How to balance these 2 things is still a question to all the countries and people.

Source:

1. Wales, Jimmy, and Lila Tretikov. “Stop Spying on Wikipedia Users.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 10 Mar. 2015, www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/opinion/stop-spying-on-wikipedia-users.html.

2. Shane, Scott. “Petraeus Case Raises Concerns About Americans’ Privacy.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 13 Nov. 2012, www.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/us/david-petraeus-case-raises-concerns-about-americans-privacy.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=C78E6B5FDF9868E3C40C5A3771A2F50D&gwt=pay.

3. Friedman, Thomas L. “Blowing a Whistle.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 12 June 2013, www.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/opinion/friedman-blowing-a-whistle.html.

4. Schreuer, Milan, and Sewell Chan. “Belgium Says Law Limiting Raids May Have Allowed Suspect in Paris Attacks to Escape.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 16 Dec. 2015, www.nytimes.com/2015/12/17/world/europe/belgium-says-law-limiting-raids-may-have-allowed-suspect-in-paris-attacks-to-escape.html?_ga=2.192036269.647702604.1555434360-1766241882.1555218145.

Max Baer

Professor Cosner

Legal marijuana?

            Marijuana has become a big debate in America in terms of use medically and recreationally through the streets of America. Doctor Peter Grinspoon of Harvard brings up the point of CBD as a form of medical marijuana without the effects of the high saying “ patients report many benefits of CBD , from relieving insomnia, anxiety, spasticity and pain to life threatening conditions such as epilepsy”. Another use from the medical marijuana according to Harvard is the use of it as a NSAID which is the same as advil or a pain reliever, this is one of the leading uses for medical marijuana in America. Dr. grinspoon brings up how marijuana also lets patients let about their day without being so drugged up they can’t do anything. It also is used to help with weight loss and nausea with patients struggling to keep food down. Studies have also shown marijuana to help parkinsons disease and lessen the tremors and other chronic pains such as back pain or arthritis. Marijuana is legal in 33 states medicinally but is still illegal on the federal level.https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/medical-marijuana-2018011513085

this is giving another heated debate in the government as to if the government should be able to come in and raid legal marijuana dispensaries.

            According the to DPA “drug policy alliance” marijuana is medicinally used all over the country but the laws restrict all types of people from getting the medicine due to the federal government overall illegalized marijuana on a federal level but allowing states to choose their own laws over it. This allows for the DEA to come in and raid dispensaries and take all the money and cannabis and just leave with. If you aren’t in a state that allows medical marijuana and that’s the medicine you need the laws make it pretty hard to obtain unless to travel to a legal 

state but then you have to drive it back home which is then illegal. If the government could 

legalize the drug then they could do a ton more research and make it a ton safer then what it already is. This would move the world of research forward and advance medicine to help more people.

  The university of Utah has been doing research on this topic for some time now and they brought up how back before the prohibition in 1937 the use of cannabis as a medicine was a top 3 prescribed drug for patients at the time. Marijuana is classified as a schedule 1 drug also meaning it has no medicinal effect for a patient and can be addicting. As we have come to know the drug more we have laearned it helps relieve any type of pain you may have from a headache to cancer treatments to neurological disorders. There are also multiple ways to ingest of the marijuana, you can smoke it which gets the THC and CBD into your bloodstream instantly or ingest it through food or a pill which will take longer for it to effect you but is healthier than smoking due to all the smoking carcinogens. The university also brought up how getting the world to learn to know the drug as medicine instead of a party drug may lessen the desire for teens to rebel and use it recreationally.

            according to drugbuse.gov the legalization of medical marijuana in some states has decreased the use of opioids and overdoses. The legalization of tis drug medicinally and recreationally could help lessen the amount of hard drug users and get them onto a safer regulated drug or get them medicinal help they need to get off a hardcore drug. The two main parts of cannabis are THC and CBD the “THC” is the chemical that gets the user high and the psychoactive effects while the CBD gives the user the relation feeling. This is making it for researchers now to look at both of the chemicals and see what the benefits and draw backs are from both of them and which one can be used best for whatever issue. They have found in studies on rodents that some marijuana types can help reduce cancer cells and slow the growth of cells or tumors.

A doctor on the opposite side of the argument was interviewed on fox and he said that marijuana legally is a bad idea. He believes the legalization of the drug will lead to people not believing how dangerous it can be and increased use around the country. He goes down the route that the drug may reduce the crime rate and drug violence, but is that that more important then the health of the community? With the increase of growers being able to grow higher more potent marijuana that’s making it even more dangerous to use. Smoking the drug can also lead to breathing problems like asthma due to smoking it and clouding up your lungs with all the harmful toxins. Use of the drug long term can lead to laziness, withdrawals from family or friends and a dissatisfaction with life. Anyone with schizophrenia can get worse symptoms with marijuana and people with increased risk for heart attacks become even more at risk when smoking marijuana because it increases you’re heart rate for up to three hours after smoking.

With all these debates going on about the legalization of medical and recreational marijuana there are all kinds of new research and studies going into the drug to find out once and for all if its safe to use and if it has any benefit for the people as a whole. This debate has fueled a fire In the government and between the people and the government because many people have a strong opinion on the subject. With all this research going on and all these debates I bet the government will come to a final opinion on marijuana within the next couple of years on if it should be legal country wide or not.

“Pot Is Dangerous, Not Funny — a Doctor Tells Us Why.” Fox News, FOX News Network, 

www.foxnews.com/opinion/pot-is-dangerous-not-funny-a-doctor-tells-us-why.

NIDA. “Marijuana as Medicine.” National Institute on Drug Abuse, 27 Jun. 2018, https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana-medicine. Accessed 18 Apr. 2019.


“Cannabis in the Clinic?” Cannabis in the Clinic? The Medical Marijuana Debate, learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/addiction/cannabis/.

Grinspoon, Peter. “Medical Marijuana.” Harvard Health Blog, 9 Jan. 2018, http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/medical-marijuana-2018011513085.