The War on Drugs

The War on Drugs is a highly debated issue that remains prominent in the news despite beginning in roughly the 1970s. It began with the intent to cut down on the illegal drug trade and distribution of illegal substances. However, since its origin, it has faced pushback due to those who believe at its core, the War on Drugs is a way to achieve the racial and political objectives of those in power. Many believe the efforts to be an excuse to target minority groups and to criminalize them while others support the movement wholeheartedly, hopeful that it could result in a cutdown on crime and result in making the country safer. The government continued to put more and more resources towards the war as time went on, growing to perhaps its highest point in the late 80s and early 90s. Yet, just as support grew, so did the numbers of those who protested it. On top of that, The War on Drugs wasn’t just specific to the United States and the more time that passed, the more it began to affect other countries. While low-income areas with large minority populations were the most affected areas, the Mexican-American border was thrust into the spotlight as talk of the illegal drug trade continued to spread fear and panic. That shock and panic was furthered even more when news of the Iran-Contra affair broke and there was talk of CIA involvement in cocaine trafficking. Due to the fact that the issue is so highly contested, the media has responded to it in drastically different ways.

The History of The War on Drugs

When delving into the issue it quickly becomes obvious that the bulk of it arose roughly 40 years ago, however, the official beginning of the “war” doesn’t have a clear date. Some consider it to be in 1969 where Richard Nixon spoke to Congress and declared drug abuse to be a national threat. This was spurred on by a “dramatic jump in drug-related juvenile arrests and street crime between 1960 and 1967” (NPR). However, it wasn’t until 1971 until Nixon announced a “war on drugs” to the public and referred to drugs, particularly crack cocaine, as the number one enemy to the country. Other sources mention that there has been a war on drugs since long before Nixon gave the movement a name. According to the editors at History.com the beginning of this issue is actually all the way back in the 1800s, which was when the first congressional act to levy taxes on morphine and opium first occurred. This was a major change for most Americans considering that up until then, catalogues such as Sears and Roebuck often sold syringes and a small amount of cocaine for $1.50. It was not until 1909 that recreational use of Opium was outlawed in the United States under the Smoking Opium Exclusion Act. Yet, it was still allowed for medical purposes. There were a few more acts that followed that are worth mentioning such as:

The Harrison Act in 1914 which “regulated and taxed the production, importation, and distribution of opiates and cocaine” (History.com)
The Prohibition Act in 1919
- However this only lasted until December of 1933 when the 21st Amendment was ratified
The Marijuana Tax Act in 1937
- This simply placed a tax on the sale of Marijuana and if that tax was not paid, the perpetrator could face up to a $2000 fine and five years in prison.
The Controlled Substances Act in 1970
- Signed by President Nixon, it calls for regulation of specific drugs as well as creative five levels to classify drugs based on “their medical application and potential for abuse” (History.com)

Whether one believes the war began in the late 1800s or in the late 60s, drastic changes did not truly begin until around 1973 where Nixon create the Drug Enforcement Administration. The DEA was given only about 1,470 agents and a budget that was a little less than 75 Million dollars. While those are certainly not small figures, it is worth noting that today that very same agency has almost 5,000 special agents and a budget of over $2.03 billion. Dozens of resources were poured towards the war even though only 48% of Americans in 1969 believed drugs to be a serious issue. Later on, in 1984, Nancy Reagan launched the “Just Say No” campaign which encouraged students to stop using illegal substances and to say no to those that invited others to use drugs.

Race and Politics

The first time there was mention of there being perhaps ulterior motives behind the War on Drugs was in 1994 during an interview with John Ehrlichman, Nixon’s domestic policy chief. In this interview shocking accusations were thrown out with Ehrlichman claiming that Nixon had two enemies: those against the war and African Americans. He even went so far as to say “Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course, we did” (History.com), claiming that the administration outright lied in order to push their own agenda. Conversation of ulterior motives, as well as efforts of the war itself, faded slightly during Jimmy Carter’s term, however they picked up once more as soon as Ronald Reagan was elected into office and his subsequent focus on the War on Drugs. This focus resulted in an increase in the number of incarcerations for nonviolent drug crimes. In 1986 the Anti-Drug Abuse Act was passed by Congress which created mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug crimes. This law was criticized, however, as a result of the fact that crack cocaine, which was used primarily in communities with larger African American populations, had a longer minimum sentence than powder cocaine which was predominantly used by whites. There was also speculation that African Americans were often targeted and arrested on suspicion of drug use much more often than white people.

Deborah Small explored the effect of the War on Drugs to minority groups in a piece that argues that the War on Drugs is in fact a war on “Racial Justice”. Small points to the fact that “Blacks constitute 13 percent of all drug users, but 35 percent of those arrested for drug possession, 55 percent of those convicted, and 74 percent of those sent to prison” (Small). Not only that but the number of incarcerations of Black women for drug offenses jumped 828 percent between 1986 and 1991, which was the height of the War on Drugs. On top of that, the Latinx community was negatively affected as well with almost half of all marijuana arrests being Latinos.

CIA Involvement

The War on Drugs was thrust into the spotlight once more when discussion of corruption was brought up again in August of 1996 when a series of articles, dubbed as the “Dark Alliance”, were published in the San Jose Mercury News. These articles made allegations claiming that “cocaine was virtually unobtainable in black neighborhoods before members of the CIA’s army–the Nicaraguan Contras–started bringing it into South Central Los Angeles in the 1980s.” (CIA). Following these allegations, a seventeen person team was formed to investigate the issue. Over 250,000 pages of documents were examined and over 365 interviews were conducted, with many of those interviews being under oath. The findings of this investigation were simple, the CIA had never been involved and every accusation was disproven. Yet, despite this, there are still some who believe that there was CIA involvement.

The War on Drugs Today

Over the years, public support towards the War on Drugs has continuously dwindled, with many believing that it creates a racial divide or simply believing that it has failed and isn’t worth the money to continue. While it isn’t as prominent today as it used to be, the War on Drugs is still being fought. Programs like D.A.R.E are reminiscent of “Just Say No” and on top of that, legal efforts are still being made to end drug use across the country and even the world. For example, in April of 2004 the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act was enacted which targeted drugs such as ecstasy and methamphetamine. The War on Drugs has turned into a global effort and it’s not a cheap one. According to a VICE article by author JS Rafaelli, it costs a total of about “$100 billion a year in policing alone” (Rafaelli). The United States continues to be at the forefront of this policing with events such as the recent trial of Joaquín Guzmán Loera taking place in New York City and in 2004, America’s involvement in the U.S. Embassy Kabul Counternarcotics Implementation Plan. Which was “designed to reduce heroin production in Afghanistan, the world’s leading opium producer” (NPR).

Despite this, ideals are changing and in 2010 Congress passed the FSA, or the Fair Sentencing Act, which cut down on the difference between crack and powder cocaine offenses from 100:1 to 18:1. Not to mention, many states have legalized the medical use of marijuana which is changing the public’s overall views of drug use as a whole. With more and more coming to believe that the War on Drugs has, and is failing, it poses the question of if this decades-long war is coming to a close.

Works Cited

“Timeline: America’s War on Drugs.” NPR, NPR, 2 Apr. 2007, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9252490.

Editors, History.com. “War on Drugs.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 31 May 2017, http://www.history.com/topics/crime/the-war-on-drugs.

Small, Deborah. “The War on Drugs Is a War on Racial Justice.” Social Research, vol. 68, no. 3, 2001, pp. 896–903. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40971924.

“Overview: Report of Investigation.” Central Intelligence Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, 3 Jan. 2012, http://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/cocaine/overview-of-report-of-investigation-2.html#conclusions.

Rafaelli, JS. “How the Drug War Eats the Poor.” Vice, VICE, 4 Feb. 2019, http://www.vice.com/en_us/article/43zwbg/how-the-drug-war-eats-the-poor.

Is Voting Worth it?

“If you didn’t vote, you don’t get to complain,” and other variants of the phrase are common following a Presidential election. These phrases reflect a tension that rises around elections, not just between political rivals, but between those that vote and those that do not. The tension between the two groups is in part due to the vast differences in the perceived value of voting. While some people that refuse to vote are, as a large group of voters say, too lazy or unpatriotic. That would not explain why a such a large portion of people do not vote. According to the United States Census Bureau, only about 61% of potential voters voted in the 2016 election (File). Laziness and apathy would not explain why four out of ten eligible voters do not vote, and the issue of whether or not to vote is a complex issue with valid arguments on both sides.

Arguments for voting

To many people voting is a responsibility. A Tallahassee Democrat article, “Voting is more than a right, it’s an obligation,” argues that voting is important because it is the primary way of purchasing policies. By using the analogy of votes as money, the article argues that one only gets what one votes for. Thus for those that don’t vote, they, “cannot or should not expect delivery of service in education, housing, health care, public safety, etc” (Simmonds). By not voting, one rejects the benefits gained and allows for potential injustices to occur as voting is not just for benefits, but to reduce potential harm. Because one’s vote, “coupled with scores, thousands, or even millions of others — can prevent a candidate from denying my human rights” (Simmonds). Voting is not only a source to put those in power that one desires to be in power, but as a way of stopping those that would abuse power. In this article voting is the core of stopping corruption and those that seek to harm rather than help. Voting by its nature is the multitudes’ voice against potential tyranny. Thus at its core the article holds that unified votes are critical because, “Your vote and mine has generational consequences. We must use it with a sense of commitment toward our children and grandchildren” (Simmonds).

In addition to voting being in one’s self interest, not voting, according to a Fortune article, “Who Helped Trump Most in the 2016 Presidential Election? Nonvoters, Pew Study Says,” is against one’s own interest. The article using a Pew Research Center study declares that, “nonvoters in 2016 had just as much to do with establishing the Trump presidency as actual voters” (Shoot). Because “Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents made up a 55% majority of nonvoters,” the nonvoters gave power their less preferred candidate. The article is shows the importance of voting because it states that, “an increase in under-30 voters in key swing states could have cinched the election for popular vote winner Hillary Clinton” (Shoot). This article is attempting to push nonvoters into desiring to vote as the article is arguing against the idea of the individual vote having no impact. However, this article is only influencing a select group, nonvoters in swing states. Because certain states are unlikely to change who they vote for, this article ultimately undermines its own argument as it ends up focused on the potential of the states rather than the overall group of nonvoters.

Arguments for not voting

There are reasons not to vote. In a Washing Post Article, “On election day, consider abstaining from ignorant voting,” Ilya Somin argues that a reason not to vote is a lack of information. This lack of information isn’t due to the information not existing, but that time and energy needed to find all the information one should have before voting far exceeds the value of the vote itself. Quickly getting information through shortcuts do not fix the problem as “Shortcuts can help in some cases. But they can also be actively misleading, and often require considerate preexisting knowledge to use effectively” (Somin). At its core Somin’s argument is about how much does one need to know before one should act on one’s information. Learning everything is a higher cost with less potential benefits in respect to voting because voting is a collective action. In addition voting without knowledge is likely to harm the public’s own interests, and in most cases, “the average of the rest of the electorate will usually be better, or at least is unlikely to be worse” (Somin).

Not voting is also a way to vote. A New York Times article, “Should Everybody Vote?” argues that not voting is a valid vote as, “not voting, then, can be a protest against all the available candidates” (Gutting). By refusing to vote as a sign of protest, one is voicing their decision as one does by voting. The article recognises the main problem of nonvoting being misunderstood, and it offers a solution, “add as a ballot choice ‘No Acceptable Candidate’” (Gutting). This solution could partially work as it allows people that refuse to vote for either candidate to fully voice their opinion, but this idea pushes nonvoters to be voters and will not affect nonvoters that have a problem with the voting system.

In addition to nonvoting as a form of voting, The New York Times article introduces the idea that votes don’t affect specific policy that much. Political scientists, “looked at almost 1,800 cases of controversial policy issues in the United States and explained: ‘[T]he majority does not rule — at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose’” (Gutting). While more research still needs to be done, this argues that votes have little precision in what is accomplished through them. This devalues voting. This reduction in the value of a vote makes it harder to justify spending more time deciding who to vote for. The article then adds, “Of course, the game is not entirely rigged. As long as we have free elections, our wealthy rulers do not have dictatorial power” (Gutting). This article is not trying to reduce faith in the American system of voting. By acknowledging that the research isn’t absolute and that there is still some worth in voting, it seeks to give people reasons why some might not vote and why those reasons aren’t absolute. The article is not trying to have either side of the voting debate reject the article outright. It is seeking to inform and not repulse readers.

Conclusion

Whether or not to vote is an individual choice, but voting itself is a group decision. The reasons not to vote are more individual reasons while the reasons to vote are closer to group reasons. Those that don’t vote appear to value individuality far more than unity, while those that vote seem to value the group effort over their own costs of voting. These clashing values cause a rift each voting season as voters see nonvoters breaking the unity of being responsible, American citizens.

Works Cited

File, Thom. “Voting in America: A Look at the 2016 Presidential Election,” United States Census Bureau. 10 May 2017, www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2017/05/voting_in_america.html Accessed 8 April 2019.

Gutting, Gary, “Should Everybody Vote?” New York Times. 25 April 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/25/opinion/should-everybody-vote.html

Shoot, Brittany. “Who Helped Trump Most in the 2016 Presidential Election? Nonvoters, Pew Study Says,” Fortune 2 August 2019
http://fortune.com/2018/08/09/nonvoters-trump-presidency-pew-study/

Simmonds, Keith. “Voting is more than a right, it’s an obligation,”
Tallahassee Democrat. 21 August 2018,
www.tallahassee.com/story/opinion/2018/08/21/voting-more-than-right-its-obligation-opinion/1050524002/ Accessed 8 April 2019.

Somin, Ilya. “On election day, consider abstaining from ignorant voting,” Washington Post 4 November 2014
www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/04/on-election-day-consider-abstaining-from-ignorant-voting/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9b19ec98296b

What’s the deal with college?

Who knew a little piece of paper could be so important?

By: Ella Benhart April 12, 2019

College is preached to high school students across the country as the only way to survive in a capitalistic society. A small piece of paper serves as the life raft to which so many twenty-year olds cling to. The sad reality is that such a small piece of paper comes at such a high cost. Between rising tuition rates and corrupt admissions, many claim that colleges benefit only the rich. Despite the elitist reputation of many universities, programs have and are being established to aid low income students in obtaining a degree. Many students now rely on scholarships and university funded programs to pay for their degree. The very students higher education aims to help, seem to be excluded from the narrative. College is beyond a doubt an important tool for getting ahead in the work force, but this tool seems to be available only to a certain audience.

So why is college so important?

According to the Mark Heckler, college education remains invaluable for all students. Heckler states that a college degree is the only way to prepare for a financially unstable future. According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, the earning gap between students with a high school diploma and those with a college degree can be upwards of thirty thousand dollars a year. Over a lifetime the earning gap is over a million dollars. Additionally, college graduates are more likely to receive benefits such as health insurance and retirement plans. Heckler also states that factors such as the automation of some jobs can have an effect a secure future. The jobs most likely to be taken over by artificial intelligence are low skill jobs, jobs not traditionally held by college graduates. Heckler also mentions that while automation will force many workers out of a job, it will also provide work for skilled workers. Engineers are needed to keep the machines running and college graduates are the ones to step up to the plate. In summary, investing in a good education is ultimately an investment in a better future.

That’s great, but what about low income students?

It is undeniably true that college benefits workers in more ways than one, but many students cannot afford to make such an investment. Luckily, many universities are rising to the occasion. Schools such as Amarillo College are turning to programs affectionately termed “no excuses”. Amarillo College’s No Excuses Poverty Initiative allows students struggling to make ends meet to attend school at an affordable rate. Since the Initiative was instated, the college’s three-year graduation rate has risen from nineteen percent to forty-eight percent. The college has started a food pantry and dips into emergency funds to support students who otherwise would be one emergency away from dropping out. One student’s mentor even payed for expenses when the student could not. Amarillo is not alone in its fight against student poverty. The City University of New York and Tacoma Community College both have instated similar programs to keep students afloat and in school. Even independent groups have taken on the fight for low income students. Programs such as Single Stop, who serve students all across the country, connects students with vital services they would otherwise have no access to. In today’s society, more and more resources are becoming available to aid students on the financial side of college.

So everyone can afford college?

Unfortunately, programs like No Excuses cannot serve every student struggling to afford college. Many colleges cannot afford to support programs that offer that much support to students. Many programs have been put in place outside of schools to combat the rising cost of higher education, but still aren’t enough. Others just cannot keep up. For example, the Pell Grant’s ability to cover student’s expenses has fallen drastically. Forty years ago, the Pell Grant covered fifty percent of student’s two-year expenses. Now the six-thousand dollar grant only covers thirty-seven percent of student’s needs. With tuition skyrocketing, the Pell Grant still cannot make school affordable for some students. The result is a cycle of poverty that people cannot escape. The very students needing a good education seem to be excluded from reaching that good education.

What about the students who do not live on the edge of poverty but are not rich enough to bribe their way into schools? The infamous Pell Grant typically only goes to households earning less than fifty-thousand dollars. Scholarships used to be the default method that middle-class students used to afford college, but due to the rising tuition, colleges have found their revenue stalling or even decreasing. The decrease in revenue led to excessive cuts to scholarships. Even though middle-class students’ attendance is on the rise, financial aid is still scarce. Many colleges use hefty scholarships to entice high achieving students into enrolling turning financial aid into “a recruitment and enrollment management tool rather than an affordability mechanism”.

Elite universities offer services that lower income students arguably deserve more. Large scholarships, grants for internships, and most importantly, a world class education should draw low income students in large numbers. Realistically, the graduates of elite colleges have an increased chance of joining the middle or upper class. Low income students are rarely the children of top university graduates, thus rendering them ineligible for legacy admissions. According to “Dream Hoarders” author Richard V. Reeves, “the way we organize our education system excludes many of those in the bottom 80%”.

Why can’t the bottom 80% go to good schools?

Not only does high tuition prevent copious amounts of students from attending, but the admissions process works against them as well. Most recently, the scandal dubbed “Operation Varsity Blues” saw the arrests and most recently, the indictment of wealthy parents bribing their child’s way into top universities. Parents payed for someone else to take their child’s entrance exams, bribed coaches to classify students as athletes, and even bribed school officials. Some parents even faked photos of their child participating in a sport in order to gain admission. Operation Varsity Blues exposed the corrupt world of higher education admissions corruption for the entire world to see. Even though some of the parents involved in the scandal pleaded guilty to money laundering, many parents are still giving their student a leg up in a completely legal way.

Legacy admissions are nothing new, but they are becoming a problem. In short, “legacy preference is the practice of providing qualifying students who have some sort of family connection to the school with an advantage in the college admissions process” according to Think Progress. According to CNBC, thirty-six percent of Harvard’s graduating class of 2022 was composed of legacy admissions. Additionally, in 2015, legacies were five times more likely to be admitted to Harvard than students without ties to the university. Some schools even promise deferred admissions to students of certain wealthy parents.

In conclusion…

While a college degree seems like the only way to make an income in modern society, the loans and debt associated with a degree scare off many students. The students intended to be helped by a college degree seemed to be the ones harmed by college admissions. Still, the benefits of a college education are undeniable. Higher education may seem like a headache, but it is the gateway to the real world.

Works Cited

Dewan, Bryan. “Why Do Colleges Still Give Preference To Kids Whose Parents Went There?” 2 May 2016. ThinkProgress. 4 April 2019.

Fieldstadt, Elisha and Tom Winter. “Lori Loughlin among 16 parents indicted on new charges in college admissions scheme.” 9 April 2019. NBC News. 9 April 2019.

Heckler, Mark A. “The Importance of a College education.” 11 September 2018. Chicago Tribune. 4 April 2019.

Mangan, Katherine and Julia Schmalz. “A Culture of Caring.” 3 April 2019. The Chronicle of Higher Education. 4 April 2019.

Martin, Emmie and Yoni Blumberg. “Harvard’s freshman class is more than one-third legacy—here’s why that’s a problem.” 7 April 2019. CNBC. 4 April 2019.

Owen, Stephanie and Isabel Sawhill. “Should Everyone Go to College?” Graff, Gerald, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. They Say I Say with Readings. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 2018. 318-335.

Selingo, Jeffrey J. “Can The Middle Class Afford College?” 8 May 2017. The Washington Post. 4 April 2019.

Gun Violence: When is Enough, Enough?

58 people dead in Las Vegas, 50 people dead in a New Zealand Mosque, 17 teenagers killed in their school, 49 people killed in a nightclub, 20 children and 7 adults killed in an elementary school. All within the last seven years, four of these were in the last two years. When is enough, enough? How many more innocent people by the masses are going to get killed? When will our government draft laws stop these horrid attacks from happening? Gun control has been one of the most heated topics circling throughout our society. The topic has become so prevalent that some people define themselves by it. We hear stories about how students from the Parkland Shooting are committing suicide due to the trauma, hear stories of people being in multiple shootings, and more about the lives of loved ones lost. In this country, it is legal to own heavy weapons that have caused such shootings and the ability for someone to kill a larger amount of people. This does not only affect the people who have been in the shootings with the trauma but also affects the whole country. A lot of people defend the second amendment and the other half are wishing that no one could own any weapon like that used to kill. The same people who defend the second amendment usually look at the power/ economic side of things, while the other side usually looks at the moral and social side of it. This itself is a problem as the nation could be seen as divided just from people’s political point of views. Making our country look foolish, we see the shootings and heavy weapon owning is still present all over the country. Going into a new year we see more and more shootings happening as it is increasing at an alarming and exponential rate. As we continue hearing about all the fatality and the trauma, it is affecting people all over, even those not involved. Everyone seems to have an opinion, but no one seems to have the power to do anything about it on both political party sides, as the controversy continues.

What This Fight is Causing

It is unethical and childish for two parties to debate over a topic which takes the lives of so many men, women, and children. It is normal to have different views on topics such as this, especially because of the second amendment, but arguing whether or not we need change should never be an argument. In a way, it is almost a sense of privilege arguing over whether or not we need change. The fact of the matter is people are dying, families are losing loved ones, life is getting stripped of people who woke up and didn’t know today would be their last. We get to argue back and forth on the laws but we get to shrug off the conversation. We get to go to sleep that night. We will always have that tomorrow to finish the topic. The people who succumb to gun violence do not. The Left and the Right participate in this never-ending debate discussing rights this and rights that but the right to life, the right to feel safe in your school, the right to walk outside and know tomorrow will come.

Our Country Looks Foolish

Our country looks foolish. There is a joking saying that gets told in circles that is “‘there is nothing we can do to fix this’ says the only country where it is repeatedly happening.” This is not just a saying either. Most notably, it was Australia in 1996 who made guns a privilege and not a right after a gunman killed 35 people in the town of Port Arthur. Following this, Australia required gun owners to have a valid reason for owning a gun, licensing rules were tightened, and they introduced a 28 day grace period before purchasing a gun. On top of this, they placed a ban on shotguns and all semiautomatic and automatic rifles. When this was done the country bought back more than 650,000 guns (Ny times) . Since the banning in Australia, the country has yet to have a mass shooting. It has been more than 20 years. In more recent news, 50 people were shot and killed in a mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand. The day they were laid to rest – 10 days later – New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced that the country will see gun reform. All the while Americans are in their homes bickering at their television blaming the other side for ruining the country. We look lousy and our government fails to accomplish anything.

Getting Guns is Hard …Right?

The reason change is needed is because are still dying no matter where they are. Even if it is not a mass murder or a school shooting, people still lose their lives to guns every day. According to the New York Times, there were 39,773 deaths related to guns in 2017, which is an unfathomable amount. So where do all these guns come from? Believe it or not, guns are not that hard to get. In fact, only 13 states require a background check. Crazy right?

In this video, a 13-year-old boy, who gets rejected to buy lottery tickets at a gas station, walks into a gun fair and purchases the weapon for proof that there was no law to not let him. If people keep constantly putting these gun fairs on acting like they are toys, people are going to start treating them that way. Let’s put it into a different perspective. If this boy was mentally unstable, wanted to kill a classmate, a family member, a friend, he easily could now that he has a gun in his possession. Think about it before it is too late.

According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or ATF, there are more than 55,000 licensed gun dealers along with 8,000 licensed pawn shops allowed to sell guns. Both are federally required to provide background checks when selling guns, however, the real kicker is one does not need to go the officially licensed gun retailer route if they seek a firearm. The main loophole is that background checks are not required when doing private purchase, such as through a friend or family member, or at gun shows. It can be seen why this is such a major loophole, because these massive events that have nothing but guns, actually have the lenient views on selling them.

One thing leading into who wants what, there is a common ground surprisingly. Both parties seem to want there to be more background checks on the gun owners. Say you have a person go in and buy a gun and they do not ask for any type of information. Would you rather have a highly trained police officer carry a gun in his belt, or someone who had walked into a gun fair handed someone some cash, and is now a legal rightful gun owner? Who would you feel safer around? The problem here is that everyone would feel safer around the highly trained officer; yet, there has been nothing done in the states that allow just anyone a gun. As the Republican party has stated, all American citizens are allowed to own a gun because of the second amendment. “Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans – Republicans, Democrats and gun owners of both parties – support expanded background checks on gun sales, as well as laws to prevent people with mental illnesses from buying guns. But Republican legislators have continued to refuse to support any gun new control measures, swayed by the influence of pro-gun Republican primary voters and by the political clout of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and its organized and vocal membership” (The Guardian). There is a sudden proof that the people of America fear their lives many times, yet the NRA and the republican party are rejecting the safety of the people.

So What Are the Views of Both Sides?

Democrat View

“We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms” The democratic party is nowhere near to wanting to ban every firearm in the nation. But their views are plenty different than the Republican view. The Democrats believe that life is fragile enough to want to keep it safe within our country. It is more of a social aspect, as they care more about the morality in choices over logical reason at times. They respect the second amendment but think that the people come first before any type of weapon. And, if that means to defend themselves, regulations will be required. It varies in different states as to who can own a gun and who cannot. There is a common theme to the democratic wanting and that is that the United States should keep the guns out of the hands of suspicious people and the mentally unstable. It makes sense as to why they would regulate that, as anyone who could potentially be a threat should not be able to own a weapon powerful enough to kill with one move of a muscle on a trigger. The democratic party socially also does not condone the owning of any type of gun strong enough to kill mass amounts of people in a shooting. The big assault rifles and heavy machinery weapons are not to be allowed in the States, yet every state has its laws. The biggest problem is with this aspect as said before, people from both parties have the view of the hope for deeper background checks of gun owners, yet no one is willing to make the change (thanks to the Republican Senate).

Republican View

The republican standpoint on guns in for the most part uniform. It is fair to say most all conservatives have a pro-second-amendment, pro-gun mindset. It is also a known fact for these people there is a good chance that internet browsing is mostly done on Fox News. I did a quick google search of “Fox News gun control” and clicked the first link I saw. A quick read shows that opinions are stated as facts and there is an ever so clear bias. In John R. Lott’s article Media portrayal of gun ownership is inaccurate and biased, he has a specific paragraph I would like to point out. He says, “NBC might be the worst network, but it’s a tight race. It seems to have given marching orders to its TV writers to churn out scripts demonizing law-abiding gun owners and lionizing those who want to slap strict new controls on gun ownership, even if that means disregarding the Second Amendment to the Constitution.” This article has a lot of interesting twists and choice of word choice, but it is not what I want to delve into. What I would like to point out is that the author establishes a hatred-like opinion towards anyone who is anti-gun and acts like a victim saying pro-gun owners are demonized. These are not facts, and nowhere does it show sources to these claims, they are pure opinion based. The problem is that the thousands of people who view these articles take them as facts and get an uncomfortable feeling when it comes to pro-gun. They hunker down their beliefs and go out and buy another gun in case the government decides to take away their guns. This, unfortunately, leads to a reserved view and the ability to make change will not come easily.

Let’s Ignore Politics

Dealing with the loss of a loved one is a horrifying time in life as it is. A lot of the more admirable easier cases are mostly the loss of a grandparent or the loss of someone who is sick. That only is for the reason that there is a type of warning. If someone knows their grandparent is 102 years old or knows that someone had been in a long fight with a deathly illness, them passing would put them in a grieving state, but would not necessarily be a surprise overall. In fact, it would be easier to know their soul is at rest. But instead, say you get a call that your family member was involved in a deadly shooting as you are on your way into Walmart. What do you do?

It is hard to be in someone’s perspective when it comes to this if you have never dealt with it first-hand. In fact, no one ever wants to deal with something like this, gun-owner/pro-gun or not. Putting the politics aside,

In Conclusion,

Over 100 people on average are injured or killed by guns in the US every day. It doesn’t matter if it is a homicide, suicide, or accidental, people continue to die. Overall, taking a weapon of such harm will not only make it harder for them to get it with more regulations, but it will also increase the chances of people making it out alive in a harmful situation. As the video from Vox said before, “depression with a gun is more harmful than depression without one.” Which this can also relate to how if not only the person is planning a suicide, but also a homicide could be prevented. People should not be afraid to walk outside into a mall, or a school, or a concert, or a restaurant just because they are fearing their life could be in the hands of a gunman. Doing the good for the American people and supporting the putting of regulations on weapons with the proof of most countries that it WILL be effective, might just save an innocent life or two.

Sources

Beckett, Lois, and Ben Jacobs. “Gun Control: House Democrats Pledge to Use Majority to Pass Legislation.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 10 Nov. 2018, http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/09/house-democrats-gun-control-legislation-pledge.

Fieldstadt, Elisha. “Buying a Gun Is So Easy ‘It Doesn’t Make Sense’.” NBCNews.com, NBCUniversal News Group, 5 Jan. 2016, http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/doesn-t-make-sense-how-easy-it-buy-gun-n490756.

Holcombe, Madeline. “New Zealand Prime Minister Confirms Gun Law Reform after Mosque Massacre.” CNN, Cable News Network, 18 Mar. 2019, http://www.cnn.com/2019/03/18/asia/new-zealand-mosque-shooting-monday-intl/index.html.

Lott, John R. “Media Portrayal of Gun Ownership Is Inaccurate and Biased.” Fox News, FOX News Network, 10AD, http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/media-portrayal-of-gun-ownership-is-inaccurate-and-biased.

Mervosh, Sarah. “Nearly 40,000 People Died From Guns in U.S. Last Year, Highest in 50 Years.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 18 Dec. 2018, http://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/gun-deaths.html.

Mervosh, Sarah. “New Zealand Took 6 Days to Plan New Gun Laws. Here’s How Other Countries Reacted to Shootings.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 21 Mar. 2019, http://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/21/world/gun-laws-australia-uk-germany-canada.html.

Uniform-ity and Equality

Photo found at Southland Community School District

Picking out clothing for the day is a part of a daily routine. One considers many factors including anything from the weather, the day’s activities to come, and simply the way they would like to present themselves. However, this simple task may be a distraction on a path to success. A widely discussed debate in today’s world is whether or not students should be required to wear uniforms to school. There are many different factors contributing to this controversy. In examining this argument through five different sources, it is easy to see that this debate contributes to a larger conversation regarding equality in the classroom.

Race and Culture in a Classroom

A major factor regarding this debate is the presence and expression of race and culture in a typical classroom. A simple way one is able to embrace diversity and express their culture is through clothing. In her article refuting the use of uniforms, Jennifer Weiss interviews a mother. In discussing the ability of her daughter to pick out clothing, the mother mentions “it teaches her to embrace diversity on every level, even in dress” (Weiss). These feelings directly expressed by a mother further emphasize Weiss’s point that when a uniform is not required, a student is able to wear clothing they feel exemplifies and expresses the culture from which they come from. The use of a uniform can inhibit this expression. Because students are unable to embrace their culture, they may be led to feel uncomfortable in comparison to their classmates, therefore contributing to feelings of inequality in the classroom.

However, a uniform also has the capacity to place all kids on the same level in the classroom. In a Newswise article in support of uniforms, it is argued that because they are wearing the same thing, students are unable to be racially profiled and judged based upon their clothing. In the article, an interviewed professor, who witnesses uniform use daily, says that the wearing of uniforms “puts all kids on the same playing field” (Newswsie). This credible statement contributes to equality in the classroom in the sense that students are all provided the same opportunities through their appearance. The judgement that the students may otherwise face is not present, allowing them to focus on their studies in the same way as their peers.

Socioeconomic Status

Another factor that contributes to classroom equality is socioeconomic status. In a school in which uniforms are not present, each student is faced with the task of purchasing clothing. This can be a daunting task for those of low economic status. In a world in which appearance leads to friendship, one feels pressure regarding the clothing they should purchase and wear. In her article regarding pros and cons of uniforms, Sarah Kuta argues that students feel the pressure to purchase the newest and most expensive clothing to fit in, a difficult task for those with little money. In the presence of a uniform, this pressure is lifted. In his article in support of uniforms, Bill Gough continues this argument in mentioning that when every student is provided the same clothing to wear, there is no need for individuals to purchase clothing to fit in. This provides an excellent way for every student to remain equal in the classroom. Their socioeconomic status does not contribute to their ability to fit in with their peers based upon the clothing they wear.

Unfortunately, uniforms can also provide a very visible difference between those of different socioeconomic statuses. Sarah Kuta presents another side to the issue in mentioning that an old and worn uniform can be very easily seen in comparison to a brand new one. She includes an interview of Tari Hardy, a middle school principal, who mentions that in looking at the children of lower economic status, “their uniforms were never as fresh, never as well fitting as the more affluent students” (Kuta). This statement is highly credible, coming from a principal who sees students every single day. Through this, Kuta argues that the requirement of uniforms can result in isolation of those who cannot afford newer clothing. Because of this, these students then worry about fitting in with their peers. In this way, lower-income students are not provided an equal experience in the classroom as their higher-income peers.

School Pride

In selecting an outfit, students are provided with the opportunity to express school pride. In the absence of uniforms, students are able to show their love of their institution in the way they would like to. If one student would prefer to wear a sweatshirt with the school logo, but another student would rather wear a skirt of the school’s colors, they are able. Each student is provided the equal opportunity to express their pride in a way they are comfortable with.

Perhaps the simplest way to show school pride and unite a student body is through the use of uniforms. In wearing school logos and colors everyday, students are able to develop a sense of love and pride for their school, along with a feeling of unity with their peers. Sarah Kuta emphasizes a benefit of uniforms through her interview with Samantha Chizauskie, an elementary school teacher, who expresses that “There is solidarity in wearing uniforms,” she says. “It’s like having spirit day every day” (Kuta). By including yet another testimony from a school professional, Kuta establishes great ethos. Her inclusion of this statement further emphasizes that uniforms encourage students to consider one another as equals in class every day. In providing the students with uniforms as a way to be prideful, every student is provided the opportunity to express pride. Additionally, although her article as a whole refutes the wearing of uniforms, Jennifer Weiss touches on this point as well. She too argues that uniforms contribute extensively to school pride through the quotation of a school superintendent, who comments, “the wearing of uniforms contributes to school pride” (Weiss). By including this statement of counterargument, Weiss is able to establish more credibility. In this instance, both authors contribute to the conversation in arguing that with uniforms, no one student can be considered more prideful than another, and the student body works in unity. Therefore, providing students yet another opportunity to remain equal in the classroom.

Self-Expression and Individuality

The clothes a person chooses to wear every day can serve as perhaps the most basic way to express individuality. Some argue that the requirement of uniforms inhibits this form of self-expression, individuality and creativity. In discussing the concept of uniforms, Mark Oppenheimer suggests that by agreeing to wear uniforms, students are participating in “one of the great surrenderings of liberty in modern history” (Oppenheimer). In his essay, Oppenheimer discusses that elements such as freedom of choice are important in self esteem in students. In order to be provided with an equal opportunity to succeed in the classroom, students must be allowed to express their personalities freely. Sarah Kuta touches on this idea as well, mentioning that through the prohibition of clothing choice, the development of self-definition and expression is limited. She again cites a schoolteacher, who mentions that “It is important for young people to be able to express themselves, and some do it best through their clothing” (Kuta). This statement connects the reader to the classroom and establishes immense credibility. Both authors argue that students should be provided an equal opportunity to express themselves, in order to lead to equal learning opportunities.

On the other hand, some argue that students are provided many opportunities to emphasize their personalities, even if it not through their daily outfit choices. Some schools that require uniforms allow for slight alteration of the typical uniform through accessories such as socks, hair bows and jewelry. Through this, students are provided the opportunity to be creative with their clothing choices. It is also argued that self-expression and choice is a distraction for students in the Newswise article. The article argues that because they are frequently thinking about how they would like to define themselves, students are less likely to focus on their school work (Newswise). With this information, the article argues that students who struggle more with their daily outfit selections and self definition are at a disadvantage in comparison to those who do not struggle with this. In order to create more focus and equality in the classroom, it is argued that individuality and choice should be limited.

Final Thoughts

The concept of school uniforms is much bigger than just the clothes that students wear at school. In examining these five sources, one can see that there are many factors that play into this debate regarding topics such as race and culture, socioeconomic status, bullying, school pride, and individuality and expression. This debate contributes to a much more complex conversation regarding equality in the classroom for each and every student.

Gough, Bill. “Advantages of Wearing School Uniforms.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 21 Nov. 1993, http://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-11-21-hd-59758-story.html.

Kuta, Sarah. “The Pros and Cons of a School Uniform Policy.” School Leaders Now, We Are Teachers, 17 Oct. 2018, schoolleadersnow.weareteachers.com/school-uniform-policy/.

Oppenheimer, Mark. “The Downsides of School Uniforms.” The New Yorker, The New Yorker, 6 Sept. 2017, http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-unquestioned-goodness-of-school-uniforms.

“School Uniforms Equalize Students | Newswise: News for Journalists.” School Uniforms Equalize Students, Newswise, 19 July 2006, http://www.newswise.com/articles/school-uniforms-equalize-students.

Weiss, Jennifer. “Do Clothes Make the Student?” The New York Times, The New York Times, 16 Sept. 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/16/nyregion/nyregionspecial2/17Runiforms.html.

How Well Do We Understand Police Brutality?

https://eji.org/history-racial-injustice-ongoing-police-violence

When news about police shooting down unarmed black men and women is so common, it becomes hard to deny that there is a problem in our country. We can no longer deny that police brutality exists when unarmed black people were killed at 5x the rate of unarmed whites in 2015. We cannot deny that there is racism involved. Still, these problems persist and there is a constant debate about police brutality. What is the cause of police brutality, and how should it be handled?

Opinion: It’s An Individual Problem

https://moralmondayct.org/2018/03/30/statement-regarding-police-brutality/

Many people argue that while there have been police who have committed acts of police brutality, it is unfair to characterize the entirety of police forces as killers. This is an individualist outlook. A sort of “there’s always a few bad apples in the barrel” view on the issue. According to CNN, Canterbury of the Fraternal Order of Police suggests that there should be more training and better selection, along with better wages, and a change in police culture. CNN also cites, Christy Lopez, who has investigated into police brutality through the Justice department. She states that when police brutality occurs, communities distrust them, and in turn are rude to the police. This makes the police feel disrespected and oppressed and it perpetuates a cycle of police brutality.

These opinions suggest that policemen guilty of committing acts of police brutality are racist, but not the police forces themselves. The solutions offered are: punishing acts of police brutality, better race training, hiring more selectively, and compelling people of color and police to respect each other more.

The part of this opinion that suggests that people of color need to create a better relationship with police officers receives criticism from the fact that it is victim blaming and does not guarantee the safety of black lives. Another problem with this position entirely is that it sees that it acknowledges that racism within the justice system in America exists, but it mostly suggests individualistic reforms. It also suggests that the system works; that it only needs to be tweaked through better police training and weeding out the racists rather than reworking the system entirely and/or replacing it.

The “bad apple” argument has also been discredited by many academic sources and research projects to show that police brutality goes beyond racist cops being in the police. A study by Princeton University shows that police brutality is extremely disproportionate between whites and minorities and that police brutality stems from racist motivations. So if better police training is not enough, what should the police do?

Opinion: It’s An Institutional Problem

Other opinions on police brutality state that rather than it being an individual issue, that it stems from systematic racism. It states that police brutality is not something you can reform by simply telling cops to be less racist and by asking people of color to be nicer.

For instance, in Ijeoma Oluo’s book, So You Want to Talk About Race, her chapter, Is Police Brutality Really About Race? she explains the vast history behind police brutality in America. She cites how police forces were originally the Night Patrols responsible for capturing “escaped” slaves and re-enslaving them. After the civil war, the Night Patrols were turned into the first police forces. In the post-Reconstruction era, police participated in terrorizing black people. They were KKK members. Oluo states, “[Our police force] was created to police black Americans and serve white Americans…Our police forces were created not to protect Americans of color, but to control Americans of color…what we need is different policing. Policing not steeped from root to flower in the need to control people of color” (91-95).

https://www.vox.com/identities/2016/8/13/17938186/police-shootings-killings-racism-racial-disparities

What is this “different policing?” and how is it different from the previous opinion’s solutions? For one, this opinion says, “one rotten apple spoils the whole barrel.” This opinion sees police brutality as an institutional problem entrenched in the U.S.’s history. Police brutality does not come from racist police, but rather systemic racism. Institutional problems are changed by changing the institution. Across the U.S., legislation has been passed at the state level about when to use force. In April of 2018, Shirley Weber introduced Assembly Bill 931, which would change the requirements for the use of force from “reasonable” to “necessary.” According to NPR, the Seattle police department agreed to change their use of force policy and make more efforts to deescalate confrontations. These measures, however, raise concerns about police officer’s safety.

This argument also agrees that there needs to be a cultural change. It does not agree that it is the responsibility of people of color to have a more “respectful” attitude towards police. Many black men and women have been gunned down while being respectful. So while more police training and better selection methods will help combat police brutality, there needs to be a systemic change and it is not the responsibility of the marginalized population to control that.

This opinion also suggest that police reform cannot only be through changing the police officers. It needs to occur through legal enforcement because in order to fix a systemic racial issue, the institution itself needs to be changed. This is shown through the laws earlier mentioned, but some suggest that there should be more done. One example is Campaign Zero, an activist group against police brutality, that suggests ten principles of police reform. Some of these intersect with the individualist approach, which is better training, community representation, and community oversight, but the other principles differ. For instance, it suggests, ending broken windows policing, limiting use of force, installing body cams/filming the police, ending for-profit policing, demilitarization, fair police-union contracts, and most importantly, independently investigating and prosecuting the police. This is important because in most situations of police brutality, local prosecutors rely on the local police departments to conduct investigations into crimes. This undoubtedly creates a conflict of interest because if police officers are investigating their own officers. Campaign Zero suggests that the changes in investigating should be: lower the standard of proof for Department of Justice civil rights investigations of police officers, use federal funds to encourage independent investigations and prosecutions, establish a permanent Special Prosecutor’s Office at the State level for cases of police violence, and require independent investigations of all cases where police kill or seriously injure civilians. These changes would drastically change the justice system in America, and thus address some of the institutionalized racism that exists in our police departments.

This point of view, in comparison to the individualist outlook on police brutality, has more reliable evidence, research, and solid solutions. This makes this side of the debate more reliable but it is still fairly controversial to the public. The idea of changing the justice system so much is hard for people to imagine when they see America from an individualistic approach, but also because the idea of changing the government seems like a radical and impossible task.

So…What Now?

The first opinion, that police brutality is an individual issue and needs to be handled as such makes sense on a surface level but it does not have a lot of factual support to back it up. The second opinion, that police brutality is a result of institutionalized racism, has a lot more evidence. It also has a lot more solutions with evidence to show that they would be effective if implemented.

Both these opinions, however, intersect in some of their solutions and they all share a common motivation to combat racism and achieve peace.

Works Cited

“Article 931.” Bill Text – AB-931 Criminal Procedure: Use of Force by Peace Officers., leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB931.

Goncalves, Felipe. “A Few Bad Apples? Racial Bias in Policing.” Industrial Relations Section, 2018, pp. 1–80., doi:http://www.princeton.edu/~fmg/JMP.

“History of Racial Injustice: Ongoing Police Violence.” Equal Justice Initiative, eji.org/history-racial-injustice-ongoing-police-violence.

“Independent Investigations and Prosecutions.” Campaign Zero, http://www.joincampaignzero.org/investigations.

Kaste, Martin. “For Police, A Debate Over Force, Cop Culture And Confrontation.” NPR, NPR, 25 Sept. 2014, http://www.npr.org/2014/09/25/351373721/police-mental-stamina-metrics-shed-light-on-deadly-force.

Lopez. “There Are Huge Racial Disparities in How US Police Use Force.” Vox, Vox, 14 Nov. 2018, http://www.vox.com/identities/2016/8/13/17938186/police-shootings-killings-racism-racial-disparities.

Moralmondayct. “Statement Regarding Police Brutality.” Moral Monday CT, 1 Apr. 2018, moralmondayct.org/2018/03/30/statement-regarding-police-brutality/.

“Police Killed More than 100 Unarmed Black People in 2015.” Mapping Police Violence, mappingpoliceviolence.org/unarmed.

Vera, Amir. “Should Police Use of Force Be Regulated? The Answer Isn’t Simple, and That’s a Problem.” CNN, Cable News Network, 30 Sept. 2018, http://www.cnn.com/2018/09/30/us/police-use-of-force-legislation/index.html.

Humans and Technology: The Mess They’ve Created

How Navigating the Internet has become so Tricky…

Trying to navigate the online world can be just as hard as following direction on an upside down map. Consumers are trying to find a healthy way of using media without harming their minds. Technology critics like Nicholas Carr warn their readers of the dangers of social media and online connection and the effect it has on our brains. Other’s like Jenna Wortham, see the fun and loving side of an online connection across miles brings. While considering both sides of the spectrum, the outcome has overwhelmingly shown that media itself is not harmful, but the way that media is consumed can lead to negative effects on the individual and on society.

Carr’s Fears for the Future

Is Google Making Us Stupid By Nicholas Car

Carr, someone with a large public disdain for how media has affected society wrote his book The Shallows to lay out changes being made to our brain’s through our social media use which will be discussed later in this post. Carr also wrote an essay that was published on The Atlantic, website in 2018. In this essay titled Is Google Making Us Stupid Carr explains that he feels his mind slipping and his memory worsening by the day as he continues to consume media in the way he does, “My mind isn’t going—so far as I can tell—but it’s changing. I’m not thinking the way I used to think”. He accounts his change in thinking to the way media is consumed. He speaks on the ease people experience when finding the answer after a search. You type in what you’re looking for and it tells you right away, with no further research on learning done. Carr mentions Marshall McLuhan’s ideas of passive channels, writing “As the media theorist Marshall McLuhan pointed out in the 1960s, media are not just passive channels of information. They supply the stuff of thought, but they also shape the process of thought”. Carr feels that the current way media is being consumed will end up being harmful to our brains and thinking in the future. Using McLuhan’s words, Carr demonstrates the internet shapes how a person thinks, or doesn’t think. Relying on the internet to give you the facts you want, makes a person let their guard down and easily forget things, because they have the ability to open up their phone and find the answer right away, with no pressure to remember. Carr does not hate technology all together, he thinks that the way we use technology is what’s harmful, not the technology itself.

The Reason our Brains are Slowing Down

The Juggler’s Brain By Nicholas Carr (chapter 7)

Carr uses this chapter to lay out what a rapid frenzy type of media consumption does to a person’s brain. He talks about the digression that happens when media consumption becomes overwhelming in your head. Dozens of studies by psychologists, neurobiologists, educators, and Web designers point to the same conclusion: when we go online we enter an environment that promotes cursory reading, hurried and distracted thinking, and superficial learning” (116). All of these, are things people usually wish to avoid. In lames terms Carr is saying that Learning on the internet is like trying to study at a rock concert. There are too many distraction that hinder the information from effectively being entered into the brain. He explains that reading online does not transfer knowledge to your long term memory, because it does not have the time to process. Citing study done by a UCLA professor of psychiatry, Carr explains how this study revealed how brain activity of a group of avid net users was very different than someone who does not use the internet often. Continuing on Carr puts much of this up to the many distractions that come along with reading online, “Whenever, we as readers, come upon a link, we have to pause for at least a split second”(122). In this spit second the brain hast to make the decision if we will click on it or keep reading, distracting the mind away from what a person is trying to read. He continues, “it’s been shown to impede comprehension and retention, particularly when it’s repeated frequently”(122). He shows that media and technology do actually have an effect on us, and our consumption habits need to be changed in order to keep our minds healthy. He does not say to swear off technology and media, but just be conscious of your habits and how you spend your time online. Carr is saying don’t replace real literature with the online world. Reading and writing from or on paper strengthens our minds and keeps our bodies alert and ready. Trying to cram online wont help a person, as it never gets the chance to reach long term memory

In Cooperation

Smarter Than You Think: How Technology is Changing Our Minds for the Better By Clive Thompson

Clive Thompson uses his book Smarter Than You Think: How Technology is Changing Our Minds for the Better, to highlight the collaboration between media and man. With his anecdotes about chess, Thompson tells his audience about the advantages of man and technology working as one to get a job done, better than either could do alone. The chess anecdote begins right away as Thompson glides into telling his audience about the strenuous work it takes to be a Chess Master. He shows data and gives facts and examples to help prove his point, which pushes his credibility higher. One example he gives to further his argument came from the winning team of a “freestyle’ chess tournament in which a team could consist of any number of humans or computers”(446). Thompson explains that the winning team did not have any grandmasters, just two amateur chess players, and their computers. He uses this example to promote a very similar message to Carr.

Both Carr and Thompson argue that computers can not replace humans. Thompson stresses this because computers have no sense of intuition, which is why they need a human to operate them. Man still needs to be able to think for himself and use a computer, to further the knowledge he already has inside of him. Thompson acknowledges the great accomplishments made by the human race, and the lengths chess masters went to learn and become the amazing players they are, however he feels that the new use of technology with the human mind can make learning more efficient and take humans beyond what they could do lone. Thomson’s idea of collaboration between machine and man suggest he sees the power that technology has, yet we still need to have a human part to keep control.

A Time of Reflection

How I Learned to Love Snapchat By Jenna Wortham

Jenna Wortham discusses the relaxed, light hearted media of Snapchat in her article from the New York Times. She begins by explaining where online text communication began, and how it evolved. Wortham writes about the findings of a German engineer, saying “most things that needed saying could be done so in an economical 160 characters or fewer”. She explains the moral panic that came with the introduction and rise of texting, explaining that many thought it would push humans to me more asocial and lose our need for face to face contact. Amid the fears and warnings, texting took off as a less formal/awkward form of communication, replacing the frequency of phone calls. When Wortham moves on to talk about Snapchat, she explains that it puts the more intimate vibe back into online conversations. Texting is emotionless and hard to interoperate with out a tone of voice from who is saying it, however snapchat brings in the intimacy of having a face or picture to look at. Wortham goes on to say, “Snapchat is just the latest and most well realized example of the various ways we are regaining the layers of meaning we lost when we began digitizing so many important interactions”. Wortham suggests that adding back a personal touch of seeing another humans face when communicating online, will help to re-strengthening relationships that have been lost on the internet.

To Wortham Snapchat is a medium in which she can let loose and relax, with no rules and freedom to use the app as you please, and most of all puts a personal aspect back into online technology. There are no expectations, just fun. Wortham sees the benefit in a social media allowing users to relax and let their guard down. She sees snapchat as a place to be your real self and allow comfortable conversation to go on in a completely informal, non-stressful way. While Wortham suggests many great things about social media, she also acknowledges the pitfalls that unhealthy amount of social media can create. She stresses the need of face to face relationships, but acknowledges the strides taken by using Snapchat to continue a personal connection online, still being able to see a face.

So What…?

The take away is that being a mindful media user is the safest way to integrate technology into out everyday lives. Remembering what Carr says about the things that have helped our brains become so advanced, like reading a real book improving long term memory. Focusing on one thing at a time, and allowing yourself to let loose and enjoy the fun life of social media, like Jenna Wortham. Working together with technology, to make the world a better place as offered by Clive Thompson. The power is in the users hands, and they are responsible for making the decisions of how they will use media and technology throughout their lives.

Works Cited

Carr, Nicholas. “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 13 June 2018, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/306868/.

Carr, Nicholas. The Shallows: What The Internet Is Doing To Our Brains. New York : W.W. Norton, 2010. Print.

Thompson, Clive. “Smarter Than You Think.” They Say I Say: The Moves that Matter in Academic Writing. New York :W.W. Norton & Co., 2018. 500-504

Wortham, Jenna. “How I Learned to Love Snapchat.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 18 May 2016, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/magazine/how-i-learned-to-love-snapchat.html.

Death with Dignity

Maddison Ficke

On April 20^th, 2017 Charlie and Francie Emerick decided to end their own lives, together, by taking doses prescribed by their doctors. Both of them being terminally ill, they wanted to die together on their own terms. With the Oregon Death with Dignity law this was able to happen.

Basics

https://www.lifenews.com/2018/04/02/despite-massive-push-by-euthanasia-activists-just-6-states-have-legalized-assisted-suicide/

According to Dictionary.com, assisted suicide is, “The suicide of a patient suffering from an incurable disease, effected by the taking of lethal drugs provided by a doctor for this purpose.” This act is only legal in Canada and in the USA; California, Colorado, Hawaii, Montana, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia as of 2018. Assisted suicide only being legal in the states listed is linked to why this topic is so controversial. Criteria for physician assisted suicide.

Francie and Charlie

http://time.com/5179977/assisted-suicide-couple-death/

With a topic so controversial, there is no definite yes or no answer on if assisted suicide isethical or not. In the story of Charlie and Francie their goal was, “…to help people change the way they think about dying,” says one of their granddaughters (Aleccia, 2018). Many believe that when terminally ill, an individual should have a say on how and when they die, Charlie and Francie had that choice and had a painless death together.

Supporters of assisted suicide claim that, “…individuals have the right to end their lives as part of their right to autonomy” (Ayres, 2015). The couple married each other and dedicated the rest of their lives together and neither wanted to be without the other. The couple celebrated with their family six days before their death giving members time to prepare for losing their loved ones. “Charlie and I have a rather unique relationship in that we have done and been so much to each other for 70 years,” (Aleccia, 2018). Francie explained this after stating she had more time to live than Charlie. The process was explained to the couple as falling asleep after taking the prescribed drugs. Though many were concerned because assisted suicide does prevent people of certain religions of this law. Francie and Charlie wanted people to perceive dying in a different way with the assisted suicide law, they believed you choose your own destiny.

“We have a faith that says life is not to be worshipped,” Francie said. “It’s the quality of life that counts” (Aleccia, 2018).

Managing Your Right to Die

In the TED Talk “Beyond Life: Managing Your Right to Die” by Dr. Allan Sax, he addresses the big idea that people are fearful of dying. But not just dying in general, how we may die. He asks the question of, “what if someone says they don’t want to suffer anymore?” He brings up his mother, in the hospital fighting for her life. He asked for a pain medicine for her, but she died a painful death two hours later due to it not being ready. He asks, “Why do we do this? Why do we make people suffer?” Sax ties this question into assisted dying and introduces another thought of, how come we let our animals go when they are suffering but it is considered by many inhumane to end the life of a human being when they want to be done fighting? He states that people are afraid to die a painful death, where others may argue that some people want to fight until the end, which is just fine too, but Sax says it is about having a choice. We, humans, don’t know what it is like to want a choice whether to end our life until we are really in that position of being terminally ill and fighting the pain. Throughout this TED talk Sax does a beautiful job at admitting he is old, and getting older, and that he is scared of what he will do when the end is near for him. Dying is no longer painless, organ failure and disease are what make up the end of someones life. Sax makes sure viewers know that it is ok to want to stop fighting.

So is PAS Ethical?

Dr. Joseph E. Marine, author of, “Assisted Suicide Is the Wrong Prescription” and Professor of Medicine at John Hopkins University, links The Oath of Hippocrates. This is an oath taken by physicians and it has been around since 1923. This oath states, “…neither will I administer a deadly drug to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course.” This has been described, by many, as unethical for a physician to assist in this act because of this oath. Marine also makes a point in his article that in Oregon specifically, where PAS is legal, prescriptions are only written by 2-3% of in state doctors and in Washington DC only .02% are registered to help with PAS (Marine, 2018). This article supports that physicians don’t want to feel liable for helping someone legally end their life even though it may be what is best. The discussion between animal euthanasia and assisted dying for humans strikes some controversy towards emotions of a vet versus a doctor.

How come we do it to animals?

http://www.vetstreet.com/dr-marty-becker/when-it-comes-to-volunteering-animal-lovers-are-happy-to-lend-a-hand

Robin Hargreaves, senior vice-president of the British Veterinary Association reveals that putting animals to sleep is “…one of the aspects of my job that I genuinely enjoy,” he states. Hargreaves believes that euthanizing an animal when it is at the point where there is nothing left to do relieves it of pain and suffering altogether. He also expresses that, “…in that hiatus after the animal has been put to sleep many clients express the wish that a deceased relative could have been given an equally peaceful end – and sometimes, that relative was suffering from exactly the same condition.” The text explains that no one wants to let a loved animal go but sometimes an owner must make the decision to end the suffering of an animal. Many agree this should be legal with humans. Ultimately, veterinarians and physicians differentiate because of how they feel about euthanasia and PAS with animals and human beings.

Wrapping Up

This controversy of PAS is nowhere near the end but think about this, “If it’s morally wrong does that still make it right?” asks Ira Byock, a writer, medical officer, and professor. This text has identified sides that veterinarians, physicians, and states agree and disagree with relating to end of life decisions and the state an individual is in. Many states have a law allowing PAS but yet it is rarely provided to the terminally ill. No one’s opinions are wrong nor right and we are free to follow whatever beliefs we choose. Wether an individual has six months to live or fighting a painful battle with cancer, every single person has the right to the pursuit of happiness.

Works Cited:

Aleccia, JoNel. “This Couple Died By Assisted Suicide Together. Here’s Their Story.” Time, Time, 6 Mar. 2018, time.com/5179977/assisted-suicide-couple-death.

Baggini, Julian. “Euthanasia for Animals: What Can It Teach Us about Assisted Suicide In.” The Independent, Independent Digital News and Media, 21 July 2015, http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/euthanasia-for-animals-what-can-it-teach-us-about-assisted-suicide-in-humans-10405840.html.

Byock, Ira. “Expanding the Right to Die.” The New York Times, The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/10/06/expanding-the-right-to-die/doctor-assisted-suicide-is-unethical-and-dangerous.

Marine, Joseph E. “Assisted Suicide Is the Wrong Prescription.” RealClearHealth, 2018, http://www.realclearhealth.com/articles/2018/09/20/assisted_suicide_is_the_wrong_prescription_110827.html.

Talks, TEDx. “Beyond Life: Managing Your Right to Die | Dr. Allan Saxe | TEDxPlano.” YouTube, YouTube, 7 May 2015, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7ehf6CmG4Y.

Eat it America

When you think of “American food”, what is the first thing you think of? For most, it is a big, juicy cheeseburger paired with a mountain of fries. This is a staple meal in many American diets and is a cheap way to feed the entire family. While a single “southwest salad” costs roughly $4.79 at McDonalds, four cheeseburgers cost roughly $4.00 in total. It is becoming increasingly difficult for the average U.S. citizen to maintain a healthy diet all while not breaking the bank. This is because consumers, in most cases, reach for the cheaper, less healthy option.

Fast food is quick, easy, and cheap. What’s not to like? With its simple sweet, fatty, and salty flavors, these establishments are a picky eaters dream. Shereen Lehman points out that while fruits and vegetables have textures that take some getting used too, the fast food industry has mastered those satisfying textures such as smooth ice cream and crunchy potato chips. Everything about the fast food industry screams “why not buy me?”

Are we loving it?

Eating out is a quick and easy way to feed an entire family. With a variety of options, there is something for everyone. One of the biggest appeals of a fast food restaurant is the large selection of food items. Most fast food restaurants menus include items such as burgers, chicken, and fish. They also offer sides such as french fries and ice cream. Along with a large variety in food, these chain restaurants have many different drink options. From soft drinks to tea, they have it all.

While most Americans are content with these options, some of us are left asking, “where are the healthy options?” Looking through the menus of popular restaurants such as McDonald’s and Wendy’s, customers are greeted with a very underwhelming amount of healthy options. Over atWendy’s, the “healthy” options consist of 5 salad options while at McDonald’s there are only 4 salad options.

Looking at the nutrition facts, customers will be pleased to see the 320 calorie salad option, but according to David Zinczenko in his essay “Don’t Blame the Eater”, these meals might not be as healthy as they seem. He states that once the customer has added the dressing, the salad still seems like an ok option, even when it adds 280 calories. Coming in at about 600 calories, most customers would still be satisfied. But if you read the small print on the salad dressing, the packet comes with two and a half servings. After crunching those numbers, Zinczenko says that the once “healthy option” has turned into a 1,020 calorie meal, almost as bad as eating a cheeseburger and fries. This number is extremely alarming and it does not even include the sugary soft drink that comes with the meal.

Without doing extensive research on each meal, the customer could be blindly eating about half of the recommend number of calories per day in just one meal. Fast food restaurants are finding loop holes to convince their clientele that their healthy options are indeed healthy, but will consumers be convinced? In most cases the answer is yes.

The fast food industry is a master of persuasion. Their nutritional facts are just one part of a large more elaborate design. Another huge part of the industry’s success is their prices. By using the less expensive ingredients in their food such as processed, frozen meat instead of fresh meat, they are able to sell their food for rock bottom prices. For most lower and middle class families this is very important.

Food price plays a very important role in many Americans lives. For most, a $20 meal is not a sustainable price. After two to three meals at this price, they would be over their budget for the week. In some cases that cost would put the person over their budget for food for the entire month. Because of this, people constantly choose to purchase the full and unhealthy meal verses the small healthy meal.

You know you want it

If fast food is so terrible for customers, why even eat there? This is a puzzling question. For some the answer is simple: “It’s cheap and I need to feed my family.” For other’s the reason’s not to eat there are just as simple.

There are plenty of other ways to eat healthy on a budget. Fast food restaurants are not the only places that serve cheap food. They are simply the most well known. There are plenty of small businesses throughout America that sever healthy and reasonably priced foods. These establishments all compete with each other and the big chain restaurants to have a competitive price while at the same time having good food. Because of this these smaller restaurants are very concerned with the quality of their food.

Small businesses are local and in most cases family owned. This means they have a higher focus on customer service. You will almost never find a grumpy teenager serving you at one of their establishments. While at a fast food restaurant most of the workers don’t want to be there and aren’t afraid to show it.

Home Sweet Home

Another great and reasonable alternative to eating at a fast food restaurant is cooking your meals at home. What better way to eat healthy than this? You have total control of what goes into each meal and the options are endless! While at a restaurant you have to pick a specific dish that they have at home you can pick virtually anything under the sun.

Another great plus to cooking at home is built in family time. While grabbing a quick meal from the nearest fast food restaurant is rushed a home cooked meal brings the family together. While sitting around the table the family has time to catch up and talk about how their day is.

Along with family time and options, another great plus to cooking at home is the prices. You are able to choose exactly what you buy which allows you to choose between the name brand products and the off brand products. The price differences can be shocking. In some cases name brands are almost 50% more than their off-brand counterparts. This affects the cost of the overall meal. If you shop smart you can make a healthy version of a chain restaurant meal for virtually the same price.

That’s a Wrap

Fast food is a staple in most American’s diets. It’s inexpensive, fast, and convenient. While all these things are great, it is not the healthiest choice out there. Restaurants are a good alternative if you are looking for a healthier option. By going to a locally owned restaurant you will find reasonable prices for quality food. The final choice is home cooked meals. These have the most potential with their unlimited options and health benefits. They can be inexpensive and bring the family together.

With all of this in mind, Americans need to find a balance between all of these food options to create the cheapest and healthiest food palate available to them. The food industry is not to be blamed for an individual’s struggle to eat healthy. By balancing how much fast food you eat verses restaurants and home cooked meals all Americans are capable of creating a healthy diet.

Zinczenko, David. “Don’t Blame the Eater” They Say/ I Say with Readings, edited by Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, and Russel Durst, W.W. Norton & Company Inc., 2018, pp. 674-650

Lehman, Shereen. “The Reasons Why Americans Consume a Lot of Junk Food.” Verywell Fit, 19 Nov. 2018, www.verywellfit.com/why-you-eat-junk-food-2507661.

Feminists Vs. Moms

The year is 2019, and glass ceilings are constantly being shattered into millions of little shards in these last few years. A woman ran in the 2016 election, entire movements such as, #MeToo and #TimesUp were generated, and women are running hugely successful companies. While those are just a few examples, the list goes on and rightfully so. What is less documented, however, is the pressure women, particularly active feminist, put on women to move up in the ranks of this once male dominated world. So much pressure that there is contempt for women who choose to stay at home and raise a family, or women who step down from demanding positions for their families.

How The Older Generations Feel

In an essay written by the first female director of the State department, Anne-Marie Slaughter, titled Why Women Can’t Have It All, Slaughter explains her choice to step down from her demanding position to spend time with her family. She particularly goes into detail about the backlash she received from the older female community. Not long ago at all, say 60 years ago, women had little choices when it came to employment opportunity. Nurse, secretary, school teacher, or stay at home mom were about the only options. And God knows they weren’t paid fairly. Those women confined to those career choices had an itch to do more, to be more, and to be respected. Hence the feminist movements that made huge strides over the next 60 years. Thanks to those women who had to be restrained and fight, women today now have opportunity. The opportunity to be in executive positions or run for office or work full time jobs. But what about those women who regress and do choose family over work? A sense of contempt arises from that generations 60 years ago, as Slaughter states, “But I routinely got reactions from other women my age or older that ranged from disappointment…to condescending.” It makes sense, in all honesty, for the older generation of women to be upset. They must feel as though they had been gypped of a life they dreamed of, and it would be hard to see the younger generation of women giving up what they could never have. Yet shouldn’t they be excited that women have the choice of whether they want to stay home with their families or strive for the top at all?

The Choice To Be A Stay-at-Home Mom

A common argument among feminist is the belief that stay-at-home moms are detrimental to the advancement of women’s rights. A common question asked is this: If a women is well understanding that there is more out there for her, but she chooses to nurture her children while supporting those ambitious women, why should she be to blame for any plateau in the movement? In a powerful opinion piece done by feminist comedian Nikita Redkar called 5 Sexist Assumptions About Stay-at-Home Moms All Feminists Need to Shut Down, the power of choice among women is addressed as inherently the most important aspect of feminism, yet that often gets misconstrued by feminist themselves. Even if that choice is to be a stay at home mom. Although there are huge pressures placed on women to shoot for the stars, most women- feminist or not- agree that as long as the opportunity for equality is there, women are free to choose whatever path they want in this life.

A huge issue that Redkar brings to light is the belief that stay-at-home moms cannot be feminists. She beautifully puts feminism and stay-at-home moms like this, “Taking away feminism from woman who opt to nurture their family is like saying people who choose to be vegan…are not receiving the full culinary experience they could have.” Redkar is stating that choosing to care for your children while supporting the women who are changing the world is not regressive at all. Redkar also has a very simple yet powerful line in which goes like such, “Feminism, at it’s core, advocates the freedom of choice.” The definition often gets blurred in today’s society. Little girls feel as though they need to grow up to become CEO’s or the President, when some simply might want to raise a family. Nikita Redkar addresses the faults of a group she identifies with, and successfully expresses that while the world should always teach the young women of today that they can be anything, they should also be taught that their lifestyle decisions will be supported by women across the board.

Arrest Stay-at-Home Moms?

Yes, there are people advocating that being a Stay-at-Home mom should be illegal. There are statistics showing the economic disadvantages to women of age not working and many believe that by placing women in the workforce, there will be a decrease in welfare needs and the fear of the taxes placed on single income households. As for the feminist viewpoint, an Australian columnist named Sarrah Le Marquand wrote a piece for the Daily Telegraph named, It Should Be Illegal to be a Stay-at-Home Mum, supporting a law that enforces women to work. Although an opinion piece, the article gained huge backlash, but also support. Le Marquand says, “Only when the female half of the population is expected to hold down a job and earn money to pay the bills in the same way men are routinely expected to do will we see things change for the better for either gender.” Many agree that there could be truth to that statement, yet many more question the reality of that ever happening. Of course a world where mothers could contribute to the family income while feeling they are giving their children all the attention they need would be ideal for all. Perhaps the issue is deeper rooted in unpaid maternity leaves or companies not willing to give mothers time off.

What About Fathers?

Ah, yes. We get to the question old as time in the world of Stay-at-Home mom controversy. A very, very valid question it is. In today’s world, it is not uncommon for there to be stay-at-home dads. Of course they’re stuck with the degrading title of “Mr. Mom” but it happens nonetheless. Many people argue that fathers are just as deserving of time off with their children, and if women have the choice to stay at home to raise their kids because of guilt, then do the fathers just have to bare the brunt and ignore their own guilt? It’s a headache producing topic that provides many true arguments from both ends of the spectrum, because fathers really shouldn’t have to be the ones who suck it up and sacrifice family time. Going from a biological point of view, Suzanne Venker in her article for Fox News titled, Should it be illegal to be a stay-at-home mom? Why feminists are so frustrated, states, “Men have a visceral need to provide for and protect their families, whereas women are more invested in the home.” Motherhood is a biological response. Mothers change into a nurturing “Mama Bear” and fathers become the provider. Everyone has always heard it that way, and there is science dating to caveman times backing it up. Yet, someone can also argue that as needs and times adapt, so do humans and their nature.

Venker then explains that feminists are so frustrated BECAUSE of this biological response. Feminists are attacking stay-at-homes moms because after they have children, their priorities change. Their lives become less centered around their career, and more around their children. Venker believes that feminists want the fathers to take on more nurturing roles and that women should not have to give everything up. However, if you ask most mothers, they don’t believe they’re giving anything up. Their kids are their priority. It is a truly tiresome debate that may have no right answer.

The Understanding

There may be no right answer or no solution to make everyone happy, but that is okay. As long as no women feels subjected to a certain role, there should be freedom and respect in a choice that is solely a women’s.

Works Cited

Redkar, Nikita. “5 Sexist Assumptions About Stay-at-Home Moms All Feminist Need To Shut Down.” Everyday Feminism, 18 Mar. 2016, everydayfeminism.com/2016/03/myths-stay-at-home-moms/.

Slaughter, Anne-Marie. “Why Women Can’t Have It All.” “They Say / I Say”: the Moves That Matter in Academic Writing with Readings, by Gerald Graff et al., W. W. Norton & Company, 2018, pp. 534–554.

Le Marquand, Sarrah. “It Should Be Illegal To Be A Stay-at-Home Mom.” The Daily Telegraph, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 20 Feb. 2019, http://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Daily-Telegraph.

Venker, Suzanne. “Should It Be Illegal to Be a Stay-at-Home Mom? Why Feminists Are So Frustrated.” Fox News, 24 May 2017, http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/should-it-be-illegal-to-be-a-stay-at-home-mom-why-feminists-are-so-frustrated.