The practice of destroying food crops is no new practice among produce farmers. It has been going on for decades for a variety of reasons, the most prominent of which appears to be money. With the economic downturn that that United States has been faced with recently this practice has escalated quite a bit. This practice is a waste of perfectly good food and by not letting people have a chance to salvage these products the farmers are performing a huge injustice against the poor and needy.
This phenomenon has been especially apparent in the strawberry market recently. Farmers can usually get about 20- 30 dollars a flat before March (Velde). This is because this is the month that California and the northern states join the market and the number of strawberries in the market is increased. Because of an unusually cold winter and a series of freezing nights the plants staled in their production of the fruit until late. Cold weather also shocks the plants into producing more blossoms, and eventually more fruit than is usual (Roesch). Because of this the strawberry market was flooded once everything kicked into gear since at the same time that the areas better suited for strawberry-growing got going the northern states and California also were joining the market whereas usually it is staggered, spreading out the amount of berries in the market at any one point. The flooding of the market has caused the prices of strawberries to fall to about $5.90-$6.90 a flat and down at that price range it is cheaper for farmers to just let their berries rot in the fields and plow them under. Some of the farmers say that they sometimes turn their crops over to being U-Pick farms so that people can just come and pick what they want but injury liability keeps many of them from taking a chance of doing that. Only a handful of farms in the country keep that practice alive. Some just plow them under right away and try to plant another type of crop in order to ry and salvage some of their losses. A lot of farmers are just hoping to break even this year and will consider that a successful year considering the bad season.
I can understand why farmers do these things to their crops. This is their living and they need to make money in order to support themselves and their family. There just seems like there is something terribly wrong about letting tasty, nutritious, healthy food go to waste like that. There are a lot of people throughout the world that would go through great lengths to get their hands on any type of food and throwing them away seems like a big injustice to their plight (Speak Without Interruption).It seems that greed is one of the biggest reasons these farmers are destroying their crop s(Hopper). There have to be better alternative solutions to this problem than just plowing under the ground for fertilizer. I see a lot of good in farmers that turn their crop over to the public and let them pick their own berries. This is not only beneficial to the consumer in that they get free or very reduced priced berries, but also good for the farmer since they may gain a good reputation from the public and they may increase the amount of berries they buy from them each year in order to support a local business. Even though there is a risk of liability since they could get hurt on your property, there must be a waiver of some sort that they could sign that would keep the farmer from being able to be sued or taken to trial in the chance that something does happen to one of their patrons while on their farm. They could even pick the berries and donate them to a homeless shelter or soup kitchen to help feed the needy. I would imagine that would be tax deductable which would be beneficial for both the soup kitchen and the farmer. I think that there is a lot of responsibility that can be placed on the shoulders of our food producers in this nation to be leaders of their communities and show that they can make a difference to the people in their towns.
Sources
http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/agriculture/article1082628.ece
http://www.speakwithoutinterruption.com/site/2010/03/dont-plow-food-under-give-it-away/
http://www.bucknellconservatives.org/main/2010/03/strawberries-frozen-in-florida/
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/strawberry-farmers-destroy-crops/story?id=10219820&page=2
Monday, May 17, 2010
Public Smoking Ban: Little Benefits
There is much debate between politicians and common citizens alike regarding tobacco laws. Some believe that smoking should be outlawed in all public places, while others believe that there should be no restrictions whatsoever. Regardless of personal perspective, a public smoking ban is certainly a controversial subject. Those who do not smoke generally feel a full public smoking ban is necessary, while those that do choose to smoke believe that it is their right to smoke freely. While there may not be a clear answer, this issue is extremely meaningful to many. Personally, while there are several pros to a full smoking ban in public, I believe there are more cons, and as a result smoking should not be fully banned in public places.
Smoking and tobacco bans have been fairly common throughout history. The first was in 1590, established by Pope Urban VII. Anyone caught smoking was excommunicated by the church – the first established consequence as a result of smoking. Certainly at that point in history the health risks weren’t known, an it wasn’t until much recently that the health risks of smoking and inhaling second hand smoke became known. As a result of the apparent health risks, exclusive sections for smokers arose in restaurants, businesses, and other public areas. Although this significantly reduced the health risks to non smokers, many states, beginning with California, began to fully ban smoking in certain public places, beginning with restaurants. While this further reduced health risks, the primary reason for backing the ban, many still feel that a full ban in all public places is necessary.
However, while there may be health benefits to non smokers, the cons greatly outweigh the benefits to such a ban. The effects of second hand smoke are still not extremely clear. While there have been many studies of the effects of second hand smoke, the results have varied greatly. Although there are certainly adverse effects to inhaling second hand smoke, are they truly significant enough to ban smoking even outside of public establishments? I think not.
The primary reason smoking should not be fully banned in public is the economic benefits our country receives from smokers. Taxation on cigarettes within the United States yields roughly 8 billion dollars a year, clearly a significant amount. If smokers are going to be taxed by the government so harshly, then they have a right to smoke in public places. The government needs smokers for the significant amount of income that they provide. While this is the primary reason, there are also several others.
Another reason not to ban cigarettes in public is the detrimental effects it will have on those that live with smokers. If public smoking is no longer an option, than cigarette smokers will expose their family and friends to even more second hand smoke within their homes. Those that argue a public smoking ban cite the health risks to those nearby smokers while they do so. However, they often do not consider the fact that those closest to habitual smokers will be exposed to much more second hand smoke within their homes than before the ban. As a result, children of smokers will be far more likely to contract diseases commonly associated with inhaling smoke.
Lastly, a public ban on smoking can lead smokers to resort to other illicit or illegal drugs. If public smoking becomes a significant crime, then the results could be those similar to prohibition. Smokers will be criticized more for their decision to smoke, and as a result may gateway into even more illegal substances. Although adult smokers may be responsible and avoid doing so, young smokers will become even more scrutinized, and as a result more likely to rebel in society by trying other substances.
Ultimately, a full ban on public smoking would be detrimental to society for a variety of reasons. Cigarette smokers have a huge economic importance to our country, and the tax dollars our government receives should allow them the right to smoke freely in public. In addition, while there may be significant health risks to inhaling second hand smoke, a public smoking ban would expose those closest to smokers to even more health risks than before. While I believe smoking is detrimental to one’s health, I will admit to smoking occasionally. Now is not the time for our country to enforce such a ban, for the results would produce little benefits and countless negatives. While such a ban is certainly a possibility in the future, our society is simply not ready for it at this point.
Marijuana Legalization: Why Not
Drugs have had a pervasive role in the majority of societies for essentially all of recorded history with cultural acceptance ranging from complete derision to explicit encouragement. Although “western” culture has historically tended to adhere to the latter policy, the voice for marijuana reform is growing exponentially with each coming year in the United States. Starting with users and groups such as the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, studies regarding the subject of the practical use of marijuana were inevitable, many serving to justify the legalization of the drug, one such survey being conducted at the University of Western Australia, under the supervision of Kenneth W. Clements and Mert Daryal, adopting the name “Exogenous shocks and related goods: Drinking and the legalization of marijuana”. Published in a 2005 edition of science daily, the study goes on to argue that, through extensive use of economic theory, that the legalization of marijuana would be actually beneficial in the sense that it would reduce drinking rates. Despite the expertise of the professors and the wealth of information that they drew from in order to make this study happen, I disagree with their findings, and I believe their argument is fundamentally flawed, marijuana being impractical to legalize for multiple reasons.
Clement’s claim in this article is simple; that the legalization of marijuana would lead to the increase of consumption of marijuana by 4%, while dropping the consumption of beer, wine, and liquor by “1%, 2%, and 4%, respectively” (Clements). Thus, his argument is one in the ilk of utilitarianism; while not stating the negative or positive side effects of marijuana, he supports the fact that reducing alcohol consumption as such would be beneficial to the United States in multifaceted ways. Although not explicitly stated in the article, Kenneth W. Clements, one of the main authors of the article, is one of the foremost experts on marijuana research in Australia, and is in support of the legalization of the substance, citing economic reasons. I find this viewpoint to be less than sound; however, it is not mentioned in this article, and I find his theoretical discovery in the way of determining marijuana’s effect on alcohol to be equally flawed. Using reputable economic equations, such as the Marshallian demand function and the Slutsky equation, he calculates the change in alcohol and marijuana consumption for daily through occasional users, as well as those who do not use and non-users. What results is a table of values based upon the price elasticities and the aforementioned equations, estimating the changes in behavior of the general population with the legalization of marijuana. Consequently, after a thorough explanation of the interior workings of the equations used, the study abruptly ends, leaving the numbers for one to interpret, making this article infeasible to use as a dispositive piece of evidence supporting any premise, due to the fact that it provides many premises, but no actual conclusion, as a proper argument contains premises and a conclusion.
Admittedly, some points in the article did seem rather compelling, most prominently, the fact that alcohol use would go down en-large with the introduction of marijuana to the legal substance system. However, one can refute this rather deliberately ambiguous point simply through numbers. Quite right is the statement that with all users, by this system anyway, that beer consumption would go down by “1%, wine by 2%, and spirits by almost 4%” (Clements), while marijuana usage would increase 4%. This sounds beneficial, reducing the overall substance usage rates, however, this is not so. When one examines table 2 in Clement’s study, one will find that while this legalization affects all types of users a small amount, it has huge repercussions on other groups. Those who would never either drink or smoke marijuana would actually start to use marijuana, while continuing to avoid alcohol. Those who used marijuana or alcohol in the past would also start to relapse, increasing marijuana use by almost 5% (Clements), while continuing not to drink. Furthermore, in every bracket, marijuana has the highest differential percentage change, meaning, in essence, legalizing marijuana would cause a massive increase in substance abuse. Although accurate, Clement’s argument in the abstract is misleading at best, creating the illusion that legalizing marijuana would actually reduce substance abuse, while, in reality, it would simply create a more pervasive drug problem.
Admittedly, the numbers used in the equations do look both valid and sound, however, I believe his logos based argument is weak, due to several reasons. Foremost in the errors is that one of the presumptions of the Marshallian demand function is that perfect use of the utility maximation function is in effect, essentially, that every user of alcohol is willing to try marijuana, with only economic reasons preventing such usage, which is erroneous, as it stands that currently, out of the over one hundred and ninety million drinkers who imbibe at least once a year, only fourteen million have ever tried marijuana. Also, with his usage of the Slustsky equation, he presumes the static nature of the price of marijuana when legalized. This is a shortsighted assumption however, as if the drug were to be legalized, as with the vast majority of similar commodities, it would be taxed extremely heavily by the government, which would negate the change in consumer buying power, thus making the equation invalid. The Slutsky equation demonstrates that demand changes due to price changes are a result of two effects; the substitution effect, the consequence of a shift in the exchange rate between two goods; and an income effect, the outcome of a modification in price results in a change of one’s purchasing power. For the consequence of a shift to be determined, the “p” or price variable needs to be the same on both sides, while if one were to use it for marijuana, as the price would change with legalization for the aforementioned reasons, this would not be the case. Therefore, this reasoning is flawed. The use of Barten’s equation is also invalid in this situation, as, again, demand is not solely determined by the increased purchasing power of the consumer, which the Barten equation presumes, making one of the premises false. A argument featuring extensive use of logos requires a logical response, and my response is this; what works on paper regarding the interrelatedness of alcohol and marijuana is exactly what it sounds like: a paper model at best, with little application to the real world. Indeed, as Clements stated, one can use equations to predict the increase of ice cream sales with the increase in temperature, and the inevitable fall with the drop in temperature (Clements), yet, a comparison of marijuana and alcohol is the proverbial apples and oranges comparison, as users of alcohol may not use alcohol for reasons that may be conducive to marijuana use. Moreover, Clements goes on to state that “It should however be noted that as the standard errors are relatively large, the changes in alcohol consumption are not estimated too precisely.” (Clements), meaning that all perceived benefits of legalization in this article are estimates at best. For instance, in the 1970s, Alaska legalized marijuana, resulting in static alcohol consumption, while teenage marijuana consumption almost doubled (Saffer). Indeed, the states’ residents were forced to recriminalize the substance. The equations presume that people value each substance equally, as per Marshallian demand, yet, it discounts that people are different and not necessarily logical. Using logic in a situation devoid of it will nullify such reasoning, and man’s use of substance is probably one of the least logical phenomena present in our everyday lives. One has reason to reject or proportion the belief to the evidence if there is reason to doubt, and after looking at the aforesaid flaws in even just the Marshallian demand and Slutsky equation usage, there is reason to doubt, and therefore at least proportion one’s beliefs to the information to come about marijuana.
Despite the arguments presented in Clement’s and Daryal’s article, I still strongly disagree with the legalization of marijuana for multifaceted reasons. However, this study has proved rather thought provoking in the sense that one would not assume that the consumption of marijuana and alcohol have a tangible link. Granted, there is some good that would result from the legalization of marijuana. If these economic equations are indeed correct, the reduction in consumption of alcohol would result in saving the United States well over a billion dollars in alcohol damage related costs (Model). Revenue from marijuana would also bolster the economy, as, judging from the already astronomical figure of past or present marijuana users in the United States between just the ages of eighteen and twenty five, standing at fifty one percent, the crop would cultivate a massive new source of revenue. However, for both practical and somewhat altruistic reasons, marijuana must remain illegal. Marijuana is a psychoactive drug that is mentally addictive, having detrimental effects on one’s memory, motivation, and motor skills, essential abilities to keep a job, making it nearly impossible for a marijuana addict to work (Saffer). However, an addict still wants the drug despite legal means to obtain money; therefore, illegal means would have to be resorted to in many cases, thus raising crime rates. Additionally, legalizing a recreational drug is bad in principle, sending the message to younger generations that it is acceptable, as it is allowed in our culture legally, as shown in the legalization of marijuana in Alaska, which presents further problems. Furthermore, in conjunction with the aforementioned increase in substance abuse with the legalization of marijuana, it is established that marijuana is simply not good to ingest, as smoking, the most common form of indulging, results in an increase of acute chest illnesses, airway obstruction, and altered alveoli in one’s lungs. Some may argue that, due to the high cost of the drug medicol, which is the marijuana derived medical version of the drug, that illegalizing the substance makes sure the poor cannot access some of the painkilling and arguably cancer restrictive aspects of THC, the active ingredient in both marijuana and medicol. However, this is quite a fallacy, as the only reason medicol is expensive is it has no demand due to the strong push for marijuana legalization, and some states’ inability to keep the drug off the streets, and even out of their hospitals. Thus, the argument that medicol is more expensive and useless is a circular argument, as it would be cheaper if the illegal and legal supply of marijuana diminished. The drug itself also raises heart rate to dangerously high levels, and has the potential to cause disorientation, hallucinations, and severely impaired memory in the long term. Quite simply, marijuana is a drug, and it is morally unacceptable to legalize it, as by legalizing it, an implicit tone of governmental auspices is cast. In the words of Lü Bu-we, an ancient Chinese official, words I will never forget from my legal class junior year that so appropriately affirm my beliefs and the exact reason why marijuana legalization is infeasible; “In making judgments, the Early Kings were perfect, because they made moral principles the starting point of all their undertakings and the root of everything that was beneficial. This principle, however, is something that persons of mediocre intellect never grasp. Not grasping it, they lack awareness, and lacking awareness, they pursue profit. But while they pursue profit, it is absolutely impossible for them to be certain of attaining it.” While commercialism places profit above all else, losing sight of ethics dooms one’s cause both financially and morally, thus, although Clements makes valid points, marijuana should not be legalized, if not by economic means, then by moral means alone. Again, one needs to proportion to beliefs or all out reject if there is reason for doubt. There is reason for doubt due to the flawed equations. The rest of the evidence suggests marijuana may be detrimental to one’s health, with negligible, due to medicol, health benefits. Thus, marijuana should be kept illegal.
Clement’s claim in this article is simple; that the legalization of marijuana would lead to the increase of consumption of marijuana by 4%, while dropping the consumption of beer, wine, and liquor by “1%, 2%, and 4%, respectively” (Clements). Thus, his argument is one in the ilk of utilitarianism; while not stating the negative or positive side effects of marijuana, he supports the fact that reducing alcohol consumption as such would be beneficial to the United States in multifaceted ways. Although not explicitly stated in the article, Kenneth W. Clements, one of the main authors of the article, is one of the foremost experts on marijuana research in Australia, and is in support of the legalization of the substance, citing economic reasons. I find this viewpoint to be less than sound; however, it is not mentioned in this article, and I find his theoretical discovery in the way of determining marijuana’s effect on alcohol to be equally flawed. Using reputable economic equations, such as the Marshallian demand function and the Slutsky equation, he calculates the change in alcohol and marijuana consumption for daily through occasional users, as well as those who do not use and non-users. What results is a table of values based upon the price elasticities and the aforementioned equations, estimating the changes in behavior of the general population with the legalization of marijuana. Consequently, after a thorough explanation of the interior workings of the equations used, the study abruptly ends, leaving the numbers for one to interpret, making this article infeasible to use as a dispositive piece of evidence supporting any premise, due to the fact that it provides many premises, but no actual conclusion, as a proper argument contains premises and a conclusion.
Admittedly, some points in the article did seem rather compelling, most prominently, the fact that alcohol use would go down en-large with the introduction of marijuana to the legal substance system. However, one can refute this rather deliberately ambiguous point simply through numbers. Quite right is the statement that with all users, by this system anyway, that beer consumption would go down by “1%, wine by 2%, and spirits by almost 4%” (Clements), while marijuana usage would increase 4%. This sounds beneficial, reducing the overall substance usage rates, however, this is not so. When one examines table 2 in Clement’s study, one will find that while this legalization affects all types of users a small amount, it has huge repercussions on other groups. Those who would never either drink or smoke marijuana would actually start to use marijuana, while continuing to avoid alcohol. Those who used marijuana or alcohol in the past would also start to relapse, increasing marijuana use by almost 5% (Clements), while continuing not to drink. Furthermore, in every bracket, marijuana has the highest differential percentage change, meaning, in essence, legalizing marijuana would cause a massive increase in substance abuse. Although accurate, Clement’s argument in the abstract is misleading at best, creating the illusion that legalizing marijuana would actually reduce substance abuse, while, in reality, it would simply create a more pervasive drug problem.
Admittedly, the numbers used in the equations do look both valid and sound, however, I believe his logos based argument is weak, due to several reasons. Foremost in the errors is that one of the presumptions of the Marshallian demand function is that perfect use of the utility maximation function is in effect, essentially, that every user of alcohol is willing to try marijuana, with only economic reasons preventing such usage, which is erroneous, as it stands that currently, out of the over one hundred and ninety million drinkers who imbibe at least once a year, only fourteen million have ever tried marijuana. Also, with his usage of the Slustsky equation, he presumes the static nature of the price of marijuana when legalized. This is a shortsighted assumption however, as if the drug were to be legalized, as with the vast majority of similar commodities, it would be taxed extremely heavily by the government, which would negate the change in consumer buying power, thus making the equation invalid. The Slutsky equation demonstrates that demand changes due to price changes are a result of two effects; the substitution effect, the consequence of a shift in the exchange rate between two goods; and an income effect, the outcome of a modification in price results in a change of one’s purchasing power. For the consequence of a shift to be determined, the “p” or price variable needs to be the same on both sides, while if one were to use it for marijuana, as the price would change with legalization for the aforementioned reasons, this would not be the case. Therefore, this reasoning is flawed. The use of Barten’s equation is also invalid in this situation, as, again, demand is not solely determined by the increased purchasing power of the consumer, which the Barten equation presumes, making one of the premises false. A argument featuring extensive use of logos requires a logical response, and my response is this; what works on paper regarding the interrelatedness of alcohol and marijuana is exactly what it sounds like: a paper model at best, with little application to the real world. Indeed, as Clements stated, one can use equations to predict the increase of ice cream sales with the increase in temperature, and the inevitable fall with the drop in temperature (Clements), yet, a comparison of marijuana and alcohol is the proverbial apples and oranges comparison, as users of alcohol may not use alcohol for reasons that may be conducive to marijuana use. Moreover, Clements goes on to state that “It should however be noted that as the standard errors are relatively large, the changes in alcohol consumption are not estimated too precisely.” (Clements), meaning that all perceived benefits of legalization in this article are estimates at best. For instance, in the 1970s, Alaska legalized marijuana, resulting in static alcohol consumption, while teenage marijuana consumption almost doubled (Saffer). Indeed, the states’ residents were forced to recriminalize the substance. The equations presume that people value each substance equally, as per Marshallian demand, yet, it discounts that people are different and not necessarily logical. Using logic in a situation devoid of it will nullify such reasoning, and man’s use of substance is probably one of the least logical phenomena present in our everyday lives. One has reason to reject or proportion the belief to the evidence if there is reason to doubt, and after looking at the aforesaid flaws in even just the Marshallian demand and Slutsky equation usage, there is reason to doubt, and therefore at least proportion one’s beliefs to the information to come about marijuana.
Despite the arguments presented in Clement’s and Daryal’s article, I still strongly disagree with the legalization of marijuana for multifaceted reasons. However, this study has proved rather thought provoking in the sense that one would not assume that the consumption of marijuana and alcohol have a tangible link. Granted, there is some good that would result from the legalization of marijuana. If these economic equations are indeed correct, the reduction in consumption of alcohol would result in saving the United States well over a billion dollars in alcohol damage related costs (Model). Revenue from marijuana would also bolster the economy, as, judging from the already astronomical figure of past or present marijuana users in the United States between just the ages of eighteen and twenty five, standing at fifty one percent, the crop would cultivate a massive new source of revenue. However, for both practical and somewhat altruistic reasons, marijuana must remain illegal. Marijuana is a psychoactive drug that is mentally addictive, having detrimental effects on one’s memory, motivation, and motor skills, essential abilities to keep a job, making it nearly impossible for a marijuana addict to work (Saffer). However, an addict still wants the drug despite legal means to obtain money; therefore, illegal means would have to be resorted to in many cases, thus raising crime rates. Additionally, legalizing a recreational drug is bad in principle, sending the message to younger generations that it is acceptable, as it is allowed in our culture legally, as shown in the legalization of marijuana in Alaska, which presents further problems. Furthermore, in conjunction with the aforementioned increase in substance abuse with the legalization of marijuana, it is established that marijuana is simply not good to ingest, as smoking, the most common form of indulging, results in an increase of acute chest illnesses, airway obstruction, and altered alveoli in one’s lungs. Some may argue that, due to the high cost of the drug medicol, which is the marijuana derived medical version of the drug, that illegalizing the substance makes sure the poor cannot access some of the painkilling and arguably cancer restrictive aspects of THC, the active ingredient in both marijuana and medicol. However, this is quite a fallacy, as the only reason medicol is expensive is it has no demand due to the strong push for marijuana legalization, and some states’ inability to keep the drug off the streets, and even out of their hospitals. Thus, the argument that medicol is more expensive and useless is a circular argument, as it would be cheaper if the illegal and legal supply of marijuana diminished. The drug itself also raises heart rate to dangerously high levels, and has the potential to cause disorientation, hallucinations, and severely impaired memory in the long term. Quite simply, marijuana is a drug, and it is morally unacceptable to legalize it, as by legalizing it, an implicit tone of governmental auspices is cast. In the words of Lü Bu-we, an ancient Chinese official, words I will never forget from my legal class junior year that so appropriately affirm my beliefs and the exact reason why marijuana legalization is infeasible; “In making judgments, the Early Kings were perfect, because they made moral principles the starting point of all their undertakings and the root of everything that was beneficial. This principle, however, is something that persons of mediocre intellect never grasp. Not grasping it, they lack awareness, and lacking awareness, they pursue profit. But while they pursue profit, it is absolutely impossible for them to be certain of attaining it.” While commercialism places profit above all else, losing sight of ethics dooms one’s cause both financially and morally, thus, although Clements makes valid points, marijuana should not be legalized, if not by economic means, then by moral means alone. Again, one needs to proportion to beliefs or all out reject if there is reason for doubt. There is reason for doubt due to the flawed equations. The rest of the evidence suggests marijuana may be detrimental to one’s health, with negligible, due to medicol, health benefits. Thus, marijuana should be kept illegal.
Perception
“People only see what they are prepared to see” (Johnson, Brian). This quote by Ralph Waldo Emerson portrays how people commonly see things only one way, giving them an incorrect view of events. What one person perceives as inhumane and oppressive, others may not feel the same way. Throughout my entire life I always had a certain perspective on things, mainly because that’s all I could have. You can’t really expect a person raised in middle-class suburbia to know anything other than that lifestyle. Most of my interactions were with people raised in a similar fashion so my experiences became limited to gaining my opinions off perspectives similar to my own. Coming to college has given me the opportunity to expand my viewpoint and has left me with the realization that perception dictates everything, and can often times give us a false understanding of a situation.
I am certain an explanation is in order, so here is an example; throughout a large portion of my childhood education, certain feminist ideals had been constantly taught. Gender equality was at the forefront, pointing to role models such as Oprah Winfrey and Hillary Clinton. These leaders of their respective fields helped prove that with hard work women could dominate politics or become one of the richest people in the world. We briefly touched upon women in other countries, mostly that they were in conditions more oppressive then ours, with barely any rights. One common example that we were given is that some women were severely oppressed to the point where they weren’t even aloud to show their skin. This was one of the best examples they had for showing the cruelties that women have to endure and being a young child in the public school system, I unquestionably believed what I was told.
Coming to Elon, taking global class has managed to give me many alternate perspectives, nearly revolutionizing the way I currently think. Of some of the things I have learned, one happened to be that contrary to popular belief, the burqa isn’t as oppressive as I had once thought. I have been taught that a lot of women feel safer, and even a stronger sense of freedom when they wear the burqa. They commented on how the burqa doesn’t force them to feel trapped by fashion and judgment from the opposite sex, a custom that western culture is very wrapped up in. On January 8, 2004 The Age ran an opinion piece by Fatima Shah, spokeswoman for women's affairs for the Australian Muslim Public Affairs Committee, in which she argued in defense of the burqa. She says, "Whilst the mystique of the veiled Arab woman has captured the imagination of countless Western writers and travelers, it has also captured the unwanted attention of a number of leftists and feminists who view it as a symbol of patriarchic oppression. Feminists have reached such a conclusion based purely on their ideology. Ultimately, the reason they oppose the burqa is because they wouldn't like to wear it themselves, so wrongly assume no other woman would either. When presented with the fact that most Muslim women wear it out of choice, the feminist will typically explain away this phenomenon with the explanation that Muslim women are merely brainwashed and don't really know what is best for them. Of course, in doing so the feminists show the same contemptuous attitude to the rights and wishes of Muslim women as the Muslim men they constantly impugn as oppressive" (Shah, Fatima).
Not to say that in all situations the burqa isn’t a symbol of oppression, but this common miss-conception of female suppression seems to be more rampant in society then just grade school teachers. During the afternoon of April 29, 2010 the Belgium government was likely to vote on whether to ban face coverings worn by observant Muslim women, the spokesman for a Belgian lawmaker said. If passed, the ban would make Belgium the first country in Europe to outlaw the face coverings, which include both niqabs and burqas. A niqab is a veil which covers the face, worn by some Muslim women as a part of sartorial hijab. A burqa is an enveloping outer garment worn by women in some Islamic traditions for the purpose of hiding a female's body when out in public. This following France’s president Nicolas Sarkozy statement saying “The full veil is contrary to the dignity of women, the response is to ban it. The Government will put forward a draft law prohibiting it” (Heneghan, Tom). Perception is everything.
But such examples of false perceptions come more often than at election time in European countries. Often times my knowledge is changed daily, especially when faced with a good argument. After taking critical thinking, I have come to realize that I don’t know anything for certain. When faced with a good argument, your viewpoint on a particular subject could easily change. Knowledge doesn’t need to be based in facts, just in logical reasoning but that doesn’t necessarily mean it is true. Even things that are “certainties” are really only certainties of the time. If you will remember, people were certain that the world is flat based on previous information and a good argument. With the information they had, it seemed to be a logical explanation yet it was completely false. More than likely, everything we know now will be altered or disproven in the years to come with the discovery of new information. With forward progress, new knowledge will be acquired giving new reasoning to explain the why the way things are and this will change what we previously know and our perception of our world.
“University officials throughout the country have entertained the notion that historically black fraternities and sororities, as well as predominantly white Greek letter organizations are possibly creating racial division on college campuses” (Wilborn, Artevia). This is the first line of Artevia Wilborn’s article titled Separate but Really Equal: The Misconceptions of Race Segregation in the College Greek Community. This is something that relates to Elon University, because they have IFC and PHC which are historically white organizations as well as NPHC which are historically black. It has also been a common criticism of Elon that they are not very racially diverse, something which I have noticed being on the school’s campus. But are universities officials correct in their line of thinking? This article, as well as through my own experiences has shown that this is not necessarily the case. Certainly there are instances where this separation may cause some racial tension, but generally it is not something that is a problem. In our current day, especially on Elon’s campus, tolerance is more of a standard and there doesn’t seem to be much of a racial dilemma stemming from these organizations. There are black students who are part of IFC and PHC organizations, as well as white students who are members of NPHCs. Ultimately the trouble only seems to be brought up, when someone like officials with an incorrect perception of the situation brings it up. Such problems like the banning of the Burqa and the perceived racial issues that come with separate Greek organizations come with a skewed view of the situation and with a different perspective, the individual will be able to make a more effective response to a situation.
Works Cited:
Heneghan, Tom. "France’s “burqa ban” and the “Sarkozy shuffle” to shape it." Faith World. N.p.,2010. Web. 15 May 2010. http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2010/03/30/frances-burqa-ban-and-the-sarkozy-shuffle-to-shape-it/.
Johnson, Brian. "Inspirational Quotes." Philosophers Notes. N.p., 2010. Web. 15 May 2010. http://www.philosophersnotes.com/quotes/by_topic/Perception.
Shah, Fatima. "Opinion: Burqa Not Always a Symbol of Oppression (Australia)." Religious Diversity News. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 May 2010. http://pluralism.org/news/view/6665.
Wilborn, Artevia. "Separate but Really Equal: The Misconceptions of Race Segregation in the College Greek Community." http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/107938/separate_but_really_equal_the_misconceptions_pg2.html?cat=9
“People only see what they are prepared to see” (Johnson, Brian). This quote by Ralph Waldo Emerson portrays how people commonly see things only one way, giving them an incorrect view of events. What one person perceives as inhumane and oppressive, others may not feel the same way. Throughout my entire life I always had a certain perspective on things, mainly because that’s all I could have. You can’t really expect a person raised in middle-class suburbia to know anything other than that lifestyle. Most of my interactions were with people raised in a similar fashion so my experiences became limited to gaining my opinions off perspectives similar to my own. Coming to college has given me the opportunity to expand my viewpoint and has left me with the realization that perception dictates everything, and can often times give us a false understanding of a situation.
I am certain an explanation is in order, so here is an example; throughout a large portion of my childhood education, certain feminist ideals had been constantly taught. Gender equality was at the forefront, pointing to role models such as Oprah Winfrey and Hillary Clinton. These leaders of their respective fields helped prove that with hard work women could dominate politics or become one of the richest people in the world. We briefly touched upon women in other countries, mostly that they were in conditions more oppressive then ours, with barely any rights. One common example that we were given is that some women were severely oppressed to the point where they weren’t even aloud to show their skin. This was one of the best examples they had for showing the cruelties that women have to endure and being a young child in the public school system, I unquestionably believed what I was told.
Coming to Elon, taking global class has managed to give me many alternate perspectives, nearly revolutionizing the way I currently think. Of some of the things I have learned, one happened to be that contrary to popular belief, the burqa isn’t as oppressive as I had once thought. I have been taught that a lot of women feel safer, and even a stronger sense of freedom when they wear the burqa. They commented on how the burqa doesn’t force them to feel trapped by fashion and judgment from the opposite sex, a custom that western culture is very wrapped up in. On January 8, 2004 The Age ran an opinion piece by Fatima Shah, spokeswoman for women's affairs for the Australian Muslim Public Affairs Committee, in which she argued in defense of the burqa. She says, "Whilst the mystique of the veiled Arab woman has captured the imagination of countless Western writers and travelers, it has also captured the unwanted attention of a number of leftists and feminists who view it as a symbol of patriarchic oppression. Feminists have reached such a conclusion based purely on their ideology. Ultimately, the reason they oppose the burqa is because they wouldn't like to wear it themselves, so wrongly assume no other woman would either. When presented with the fact that most Muslim women wear it out of choice, the feminist will typically explain away this phenomenon with the explanation that Muslim women are merely brainwashed and don't really know what is best for them. Of course, in doing so the feminists show the same contemptuous attitude to the rights and wishes of Muslim women as the Muslim men they constantly impugn as oppressive" (Shah, Fatima).
Not to say that in all situations the burqa isn’t a symbol of oppression, but this common miss-conception of female suppression seems to be more rampant in society then just grade school teachers. During the afternoon of April 29, 2010 the Belgium government was likely to vote on whether to ban face coverings worn by observant Muslim women, the spokesman for a Belgian lawmaker said. If passed, the ban would make Belgium the first country in Europe to outlaw the face coverings, which include both niqabs and burqas. A niqab is a veil which covers the face, worn by some Muslim women as a part of sartorial hijab. A burqa is an enveloping outer garment worn by women in some Islamic traditions for the purpose of hiding a female's body when out in public. This following France’s president Nicolas Sarkozy statement saying “The full veil is contrary to the dignity of women, the response is to ban it. The Government will put forward a draft law prohibiting it” (Heneghan, Tom). Perception is everything.
But such examples of false perceptions come more often than at election time in European countries. Often times my knowledge is changed daily, especially when faced with a good argument. After taking critical thinking, I have come to realize that I don’t know anything for certain. When faced with a good argument, your viewpoint on a particular subject could easily change. Knowledge doesn’t need to be based in facts, just in logical reasoning but that doesn’t necessarily mean it is true. Even things that are “certainties” are really only certainties of the time. If you will remember, people were certain that the world is flat based on previous information and a good argument. With the information they had, it seemed to be a logical explanation yet it was completely false. More than likely, everything we know now will be altered or disproven in the years to come with the discovery of new information. With forward progress, new knowledge will be acquired giving new reasoning to explain the why the way things are and this will change what we previously know and our perception of our world.
“University officials throughout the country have entertained the notion that historically black fraternities and sororities, as well as predominantly white Greek letter organizations are possibly creating racial division on college campuses” (Wilborn, Artevia). This is the first line of Artevia Wilborn’s article titled Separate but Really Equal: The Misconceptions of Race Segregation in the College Greek Community. This is something that relates to Elon University, because they have IFC and PHC which are historically white organizations as well as NPHC which are historically black. It has also been a common criticism of Elon that they are not very racially diverse, something which I have noticed being on the school’s campus. But are universities officials correct in their line of thinking? This article, as well as through my own experiences has shown that this is not necessarily the case. Certainly there are instances where this separation may cause some racial tension, but generally it is not something that is a problem. In our current day, especially on Elon’s campus, tolerance is more of a standard and there doesn’t seem to be much of a racial dilemma stemming from these organizations. There are black students who are part of IFC and PHC organizations, as well as white students who are members of NPHCs. Ultimately the trouble only seems to be brought up, when someone like officials with an incorrect perception of the situation brings it up. Such problems like the banning of the Burqa and the perceived racial issues that come with separate Greek organizations come with a skewed view of the situation and with a different perspective, the individual will be able to make a more effective response to a situation.
Works Cited:
Heneghan, Tom. "France’s “burqa ban” and the “Sarkozy shuffle” to shape it." Faith World. N.p.,2010. Web. 15 May 2010. http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2010/03/30/frances-burqa-ban-and-the-sarkozy-shuffle-to-shape-it/.
Johnson, Brian. "Inspirational Quotes." Philosophers Notes. N.p., 2010. Web. 15 May 2010. http://www.philosophersnotes.com/quotes/by_topic/Perception.
Shah, Fatima. "Opinion: Burqa Not Always a Symbol of Oppression (Australia)." Religious Diversity News. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 May 2010. http://pluralism.org/news/view/6665.
Wilborn, Artevia. "Separate but Really Equal: The Misconceptions of Race Segregation in the College Greek Community." http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/107938/separate_but_really_equal_the_misconceptions_pg2.html?cat=9
Comparative Advertising: Is it Ethical?
Throughout time commercial advertising has served as an extremely influential tool used by companies and businesses in order to disseminate information to their publics, although it wasn't until 1975 that the US Supreme Court even determined that advertising enjoyed a certain degree of First Amendment protection (Pember,Calvert). As society changes, businesses continue to adapt their advertising and marketing strategies with the intention of adhering to new societal norms. It wasn't until the late 1960's that direct brand advertisements began to frequent various outlets of print media, most notably in 1968 when American Motors compared its "Javelin" to Ford's "Mustang"(Golden 63-67). This advertising technique spawned a new wave of innovative thinking: comparative advertising. Comparative advertising is defined by the Federal Trade Commission as advertising that compares alternative brands on objectively measurable attributes or price, and identifies the alternative brand by name, illustration or other distinctive information (FTC). This beckons the question of ethicality. Just how ethical is it for companies to participate in this type of mudslinging battle? Upon my investigation of various codes of ethics and through the examination of specific advertisements and ad campaigns I have come to the conclusion that comparative advertising is a beneficial technique that is sometimes necessary for companies to implement in order to garner consumer attention.
When thinking about specific companies that have implemented similar comparative advertising strategies, there are a few big ones that come to mind right away. Notably, Burger King has put a great deal of time and money into emphasizing the better value its dollar menu compared to that of McDonald's. In one series of commercials Burger King hypes its $1 double cheeseburger's size in comparison to McDonald's $1 “McDouble”, and even mentions the extra slice of cheese offered on their burger (the “McDouble” only has one slice of cheese). On top of this, Burger King has recently released a new commercial in which "the King" appears sneaking into "McDonald's Headquarters" and steals the recipe for a breakfast sandwich. As "the King" leaves, a voice-over comes on and says, "…Its not that original, but its super affordable." (Advertising Age) Interestingly McDonald's seems not to be phased by Burger King hinting at its better value; a McDonald's spokesperson told Advertising Age that "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery." Allstate, along with Geico, Progressive, and State Farm, is one of the largest car insurance companies in the US and has implemented similar comparative advertising practices. Over the past few years Allstate has aired several widely viewed commercials in which they list exact amounts of money that can be saved annually by switching from Geico to Allstate; specifically $473. One of the commercials even tells consumers that if they switch to Allstate they won't even have to worry about dropping their previous insurance company because their new Allstate agent will do it for them. (Allstate Commercial) Pepsi and Coke have been partaking in a serious comparative advertising battle since the 1980's (Advertising Age). In one Pepsi commercial random pedestrians are given a blind taste test of Coke and Pepsi and apparently 8 out of 10 people say Pepsi is better. Another Pepsi commercial features the famous curly-haired little girl who orders a Pepsi and receives a Coke. Her voice then changes from a friendly high-pitched kiddish voice into a deep Italian accent and she goes on to say that she is insulted that she was given a Coke (Pepsi Commercials). The list of comparative advertising companies can go on and on with another large scale advertising battle between Adidas and Nike being a rather prominent one.
Now this begs the question of how successful these campaigns really are and are they ethical? In "Consumer Reactions to Comparative Advertising" Linda Golden says "…In conjunction with specific themes a comparative advertisement may have a relatively stronger influence upon purchase intentions than a non-comparative advertisement." (Golden 65) This affirms the notion that these ads certainly are successful and that positive consumer feedback is evident within the overall effect of the advertisement. To get another professional opinion in regards to the practice of comparative advertising I interviewed an account executive at a local advertising agency I interned at last fall (Trone Inc.). He told me that he believes comparative advertising is almost essential at times especially depending on the intention of the message. Although he has never worked on a campaign that specifically names competitor companies, he said that it is a smart move because it creates an association in the consumer's mind between your company and your competitor company (LaFleur). He went on to further explain that idea and essentially what he meant was that if a consumer frequently gives business to one company, seeing an ad in which that company is compared to another might make them consider trying that similar product as well. So financially speaking comparative advertising can certainly help to bolster a company's overall revenue. Even the American Association of Advertising Agencies seems to promote these practices; "It is recognized that keen and vigorous competition, honestly conducted is necessary to the growth and health of American business." (AA of AA)
In the end I think it must be accepted that comparative advertising is here to stay. To me, as long as the advertisement tells no lie and doesn't seek to intentionally deceive the consumer, it is fair game. In today's rapidly expanding marketplace consumers are introduced to new products and companies almost on a daily basis, making it difficult to even remember some of the ads they come across. Comparative advertising has a proven positive effect on company sales and helps to distinguish similar companies from each other and has a lasting impact in the minds of American consumers, thus making it an essential form of advertising that is successful when properly used.
Sources
· Linda L. Golden (1976), "CONSUMER REACTIONS TO COMPARATIVE ADVERTISING", in Advances in Consumer Research Volume 03, eds. Beverlee B. Anderson, Cincinnati, Ohio : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 63-67.
· Allstate Insurance Dance Break Up TV Commercial [Advertisement]. (2009, November 2). Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nm1xGhJXFf0
· Comparative Advertising [Advertisement]. (2008, October 26). Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiIIMcelMjk
· STATEMENT OF POLICY REGARDING COMPARATIVE ADVERTISING. (1979, August 13). Retrieved May 4, 2010,from Federal Trade Commission website: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/policystmt/ad-compare.htm
· Parekh, R. (2010, April 1). BK Wages Breakfast War on McDonald's With New Sandwich. Advertising Age.
· Pember, D., & Calvert, C. (2008). Mass Media Law (16th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
· Creative Code. (1990). Standards of Practice of the American Association of Advertising Agencies.Retrieved May 4, 2010, from http://ams.aaaa.org/eweb/upload/inside/standards.pdf
· LaFleur, M.(2010)[Interview with Mark LaFleur, account executive with Trone Inc.] 5 May 2010.
Top 10% Rule
In 1997 the Texas legislature passed House Bill 588, more commonly known as the top 10% rule. The bill guarantees acceptance to the University of Texas to any students who graduate in the top ten percent of their high school class. It was originally passed with the goal of increasing diversity at the prestigious state school. Although diversity at the University of Texas increased after the bill was passed, people soon realized that the bill keeps a lot of intelligent and deserving students from being accepted because they don’t fall into the top ten percent. The top ten percent law was passed to equalize the system and give kids with less “advantages” more access to state education but as a result there is now a sort of “reverse discrimination” because students at respected schools are given less of a chance at acceptance.
Diversity has undoubtedly improved at the University of Texas after the top ten percent rule was passed. The African-American population has increased by 32 percent and the Hispanic population has increased by 29 percent. Geographic and economic diversity has increased as well. Before the law was passed the university drew students from 616 high schools and it now takes students from around 853 high schools. There is no question as to the importance of diversity and giving students with less advantages the chance at a good education, but the state needs to find a fairer way to balance diversity and academic excellence when accepting students.
One of the biggest flaws in the top ten percent rule is the lack of consideration that every high school in Texas has different levels of educational standards and competition. Prestigious public schools are much more difficult and competitive than small town schools with lower standards of education and less competition. To be in the top 25 percent at a respected public school is in many cases more difficult to achieve than the top ten percent at smaller less respected schools. Therefore, students who are both intelligent and motivated, but don’t make the top ten percent at their respected schools, are often turned down from the university and less qualified students in the top ten percent at other schools are admitted in their place. These students are then forced to look at schools outside of Texas where they have a much higher chance at being accepted. About 70 percent of the incoming class at the University of Texas is admitted by the top ten percent rule, which makes the remaining 30 percent, unbelievably competitive. Public school students aren’t the only ones affected by the rule. Private school kids stand to lose the most because in many cases elite private schools don’t have a class ranking. Students who have to pass rigorous entrance exams just to attend private schools are clearly very intelligent. However, they stand little chance at being admitted to the University of Texas because the remaining 30 percent of available spaces are arguably more competitive than some Ivy League schools.
Having attended St. Stephen’s Episcopal School, a respected private school in Austin, I have seen first-hand the effects of the rule. One of my closest friends, a fellow classmate at St. Stephens, dreamt of attending the University of Texas, and worked tirelessly to get the best grades possible so he could get in. However, St. Stephen’s didn’t have a class ranking, and even though he graduated with honors, he was rejected because the top ten percent rule prevented the university from realizing how qualified he was. To see such an intelligent, hard-working, and dedicated student get turned down really opened my eyes to the serious problems caused by the top ten percent rule.
Rick Perry, the governor of Texas, describes the top ten percent rule as a “brain drain.” He realizes that it keeps some of the best and brightest Texas has to offer from staying in Texas and getting an education from the state school designed for them. Students leave the state and in a lot of cases end up moving away because their schools helped them get jobs in other places around the country and world. There have been numerous attempts to change the law, either capping a certain percentage of the incoming freshman class who are accepted under the top ten percent rule or replacing guaranteed acceptance with scholarship opportunities. None have been successful because the state is fearful that diversity would plummet and it would be seen as discrimination.
I want to settle down in Texas after school and want my children to be able to get the best education they can, private or public. If they want to attend the University of Texas, I'm worried that the top ten percent rule would make this much more difficult if they choose to get the best education possible in high school. I would almost consider sending them to an underperforming high school to increase their chances of being in the top ten percent, despite the fact that it would hinder their education as a whole. Many students today are doing just that. They are effectively cheating the system by choosing to attend small town schools, or underperforming city schools because they know they can do less work, still be in the top ten percent of their class, and get in over more qualified and dedicated students. The purpose of a state school is to provide a cheaper, but equally quality education for the best and most deserving students in that state. The top ten percent rule is effectively preventing this from happening at the University of Texas.
Works Cited
Embry, Jason. “Plan Caps Admission But Offers Scholarships.” The Austin American Statesman [Austin] 5 May 2007: n. pag. Web. 1 Mar. 2010.
Glater, Jonathan D. “Diversity Plan Shaped in Texas Is Under Attack.” The New York Times 13 June 2004: n. pag. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 1 Mar. 2010.
Pinhel, Rute. “Texas Top 10% Law.” Connecticut General Assembly. N.p., 15 Feb. 2008. Web. 1 Mar. 2010.
Tienda, Marta, and Sunny Xinchun Niu. “Flagships, Feeders, and the Texas Top 10% Law: A Test of the ‘Brain Drain’ Hypothesis .” The Journal of Higher Education. The Ohio State University, 2006. Web. 1 Mar. 2010.
Abortion
Kemi Olagbegi
Critical Thinking
April 29, 2010
Abortion. The issue of abortion has been disputed for many years but has yet to find a sound solution to its problem. Roughly 1.3 million abortions take place in the United States each year; a startling average of at least 3,700 abortions per day (Abortion Statistics,2010). I believe that abortion is ethically and morally wrong. I do not believe that we have the right to decide whether or not a child should be killed for our own benefits.
According to the legal dictionary murder is defined as, “intentional homicide, without legal justification or provocation (Legal Dictionary,2010).” In both religious and historical documents murder is discussed as being ethically unjust. Throughout the Bible, “Thou shall not kill” is stated several times. Under the Common Law of the United States murder is deemed as illegal under two elements: the act of killing a person and the state of mind of intentional, purposeful, malicious, premeditated, or wanton (Common Law,2010). Abortion is a premeditated action so why isn’t it found to be illegal? "There is no morally relevant difference between deliberately killing a human being who has been born and deliberately killing a human being who is still inside his mother (Foster, 32).”
People disagree over the issues of “pro-life” and “pro-choice” but, I believe that one of the main issues that needs to be addressed is how to reduce unwanted pregnancies and make abortion seem as a less enticing solution for birth control. If we do this the issue of abortion will no longer be a prominent issue in our society. One way America could do this is by increasing our healthcare coverage. In order to make abortion seem as a less appealing solution, I believe that America’s healthcare coverage should expand and cover abortion costs. It has been proven through past research that increased healthcare coverage enhances the distribution of contraception, increases the number of mothers carrying children to full term, and reduced the number of illegal and self induced abortions in America.
Today in society we deal with an ever increasing number of abortions and a healthcare system that does not cover the extent of all our medical needs. Only 14% of all abortions in the United States are paid for by public funds given by the government (Q & A about Abortion,1999). Research has shown that in several of those states, the rate of abortion decreased due to improved health care coverage and distributed enhancements of contraception (Ried,2010). The Washington Post states that, “increasing health-care coverage is one of the most powerful tools for reducing the number of abortions -- a fact proved by years of experience in other industrialized nations” (Ried, 2010). According to United Nation comparative statistics, the United States ranks number one for having the most abortions out of any other developing nation in the world (Reid,2010). This is because other developing nations such as Germany, Japan, Britain, and Canada provide citizens with health care at reasonable costs. Since health care is inexpensive women are impelled to have children because they know they’ll be able to take care of them whenever they need medical attention. These developing nations also have reduced rates of abortion because, sexually active women take advantage of their reduced healthcare and seek contraceptives from their doctors to prevent any future unwanted pregnancies. The main reasons why universal healthcare has been so prominent overseas is because, its “economic (universal care is cheaper), political (the voters like it), religious (it's what Christ commanded), moral (it's the right thing to do) (Ried,2010).”
A two year study in Massachusetts examined the effects of healthcare reform on abortion. When citizens of Massachusetts were implemented with a near universal healthcare coverage, results revealed an evident decline in the states abortion rate. At least 1.5 percent of abortions declined among adult citizens. Abortion rates amongst teenagers declined by 7.4 percent but as abortion rates decreased non-elderly healthcare coverage went up nearly 6 percent. (Gibbson, 2010).
Another reason why our government should increase healthcare coverage is because it would play a vital role in the reduction of illegal and self induced abortions. In 1972, the year before the Supreme Court legalized abortion, there were 1,000,000 illegal abortions. Between 5,000 and 10,000 women died to due to illegal abortions (Willke,2006). Many women also suffered death and severe injuries due to self-induced abortion by using oral and inject able medications, cervical dilators, uterine instrumentation, and causing severe trauma to the abdomen. After abortion was made legal the rate of illegal abortions and deaths significantly dropped. Illegal abortions are no longer as prevalent as they were numerous years ago but, there are cases that exist. If healthcare in America were extended to include abortion, then illegal and self induced abortions would drop dramatically
In conclusion, abortion is a problem that has been rapid in our country for years. In order to control it the most probable solution would be to extend healthcare to include abortion. With this new system in place self induced abortions as well as illegal abortions will drop dramatically, making it safer for women and decrease the overall abortion rate.
Bibliography
Abortion Statistics." AbortionNO.org / The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Apr. 2010..
Brind, Professor Joel. "Q & A about Abortion." Pro-Life Action League. N.p., 23 Aug. 1999. Web. 23 Apr. 2010..
"Common law - JurisPedia, the shared law." JurisPedia, the shared law. N.p., 25 Mar. 2010. Web. 12 May 2010.
"Facts on American Teens' Sexual and Reproductive Health." Guttmacher Institute: Home Page. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2010..
Foster, J. 1985, May. 6. "Personhood And the Ethics of Abortion". Abortion And The Sanctity of Human Life. Ed. J.H. Channer. Cape Town: Oxford University Press. 42-53.
Gibbson, David. "Massachusetts Study: Health Care Reform Reduced Abortions." Aol News:Politics News, Analysis, and Opinion for the U.S. and the World. N.p., 18 Mar. 2010. Web. 25 Apr. 2010.
Klick, Jonathan , and Thomas Stratmann. "The Effect of Abortion Legalization on Sexual Behavior: Evidence from Sexually Transmitted Diseases." The Journal of Legal Studies, 32.2 (2003): 407-433. JSTOR. Web. 23 Apr. 2010.
"Legal Dictionary." Duhaime.org - Bringing Legal Information To The World. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 May 2010..
Palme, Professor Jacob. "Reliability of contraceptives (prophylactics)." Psychology Free Online Medical Advice, Mental Health, Anxiety, Relationship Advice. N.p., 22 July 2008. Web. 22 Apr. 2010..
Reid, T.R.. "T.R. Reid - Universal health care tends to cut the abortion rate - washingtonpost.com." washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines. N.p., 22 Apr. 2010. Web. 26 Apr. 2010..
"What's Wrong with America's Health Care." aflcio.org - America's Union Movement. American Federation of Labor - Congress of Industrial Organizations , 20 Apr. 2010. Web. 29 Apr. 2010.
Willke, Mrs. J.C.. "Why Can't We Love Them Both? On Line Book by Dr. and Mrs. Willke.." Abortion Facts - Information on abortion you can use. Heritage House '76 Inc, n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2010..
Critical Thinking
April 29, 2010
Abortion. The issue of abortion has been disputed for many years but has yet to find a sound solution to its problem. Roughly 1.3 million abortions take place in the United States each year; a startling average of at least 3,700 abortions per day (Abortion Statistics,2010). I believe that abortion is ethically and morally wrong. I do not believe that we have the right to decide whether or not a child should be killed for our own benefits.
According to the legal dictionary murder is defined as, “intentional homicide, without legal justification or provocation (Legal Dictionary,2010).” In both religious and historical documents murder is discussed as being ethically unjust. Throughout the Bible, “Thou shall not kill” is stated several times. Under the Common Law of the United States murder is deemed as illegal under two elements: the act of killing a person and the state of mind of intentional, purposeful, malicious, premeditated, or wanton (Common Law,2010). Abortion is a premeditated action so why isn’t it found to be illegal? "There is no morally relevant difference between deliberately killing a human being who has been born and deliberately killing a human being who is still inside his mother (Foster, 32).”
People disagree over the issues of “pro-life” and “pro-choice” but, I believe that one of the main issues that needs to be addressed is how to reduce unwanted pregnancies and make abortion seem as a less enticing solution for birth control. If we do this the issue of abortion will no longer be a prominent issue in our society. One way America could do this is by increasing our healthcare coverage. In order to make abortion seem as a less appealing solution, I believe that America’s healthcare coverage should expand and cover abortion costs. It has been proven through past research that increased healthcare coverage enhances the distribution of contraception, increases the number of mothers carrying children to full term, and reduced the number of illegal and self induced abortions in America.
Today in society we deal with an ever increasing number of abortions and a healthcare system that does not cover the extent of all our medical needs. Only 14% of all abortions in the United States are paid for by public funds given by the government (Q & A about Abortion,1999). Research has shown that in several of those states, the rate of abortion decreased due to improved health care coverage and distributed enhancements of contraception (Ried,2010). The Washington Post states that, “increasing health-care coverage is one of the most powerful tools for reducing the number of abortions -- a fact proved by years of experience in other industrialized nations” (Ried, 2010). According to United Nation comparative statistics, the United States ranks number one for having the most abortions out of any other developing nation in the world (Reid,2010). This is because other developing nations such as Germany, Japan, Britain, and Canada provide citizens with health care at reasonable costs. Since health care is inexpensive women are impelled to have children because they know they’ll be able to take care of them whenever they need medical attention. These developing nations also have reduced rates of abortion because, sexually active women take advantage of their reduced healthcare and seek contraceptives from their doctors to prevent any future unwanted pregnancies. The main reasons why universal healthcare has been so prominent overseas is because, its “economic (universal care is cheaper), political (the voters like it), religious (it's what Christ commanded), moral (it's the right thing to do) (Ried,2010).”
A two year study in Massachusetts examined the effects of healthcare reform on abortion. When citizens of Massachusetts were implemented with a near universal healthcare coverage, results revealed an evident decline in the states abortion rate. At least 1.5 percent of abortions declined among adult citizens. Abortion rates amongst teenagers declined by 7.4 percent but as abortion rates decreased non-elderly healthcare coverage went up nearly 6 percent. (Gibbson, 2010).
Another reason why our government should increase healthcare coverage is because it would play a vital role in the reduction of illegal and self induced abortions. In 1972, the year before the Supreme Court legalized abortion, there were 1,000,000 illegal abortions. Between 5,000 and 10,000 women died to due to illegal abortions (Willke,2006). Many women also suffered death and severe injuries due to self-induced abortion by using oral and inject able medications, cervical dilators, uterine instrumentation, and causing severe trauma to the abdomen. After abortion was made legal the rate of illegal abortions and deaths significantly dropped. Illegal abortions are no longer as prevalent as they were numerous years ago but, there are cases that exist. If healthcare in America were extended to include abortion, then illegal and self induced abortions would drop dramatically
In conclusion, abortion is a problem that has been rapid in our country for years. In order to control it the most probable solution would be to extend healthcare to include abortion. With this new system in place self induced abortions as well as illegal abortions will drop dramatically, making it safer for women and decrease the overall abortion rate.
Bibliography
Abortion Statistics." AbortionNO.org / The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Apr. 2010.
Brind, Professor Joel. "Q & A about Abortion." Pro-Life Action League. N.p., 23 Aug. 1999. Web. 23 Apr. 2010.
"Common law - JurisPedia, the shared law." JurisPedia, the shared law. N.p., 25 Mar. 2010. Web. 12 May 2010.
"Facts on American Teens' Sexual and Reproductive Health." Guttmacher Institute: Home Page. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2010.
Foster, J. 1985, May. 6. "Personhood And the Ethics of Abortion". Abortion And The Sanctity of Human Life. Ed. J.H. Channer. Cape Town: Oxford University Press. 42-53.
Gibbson, David. "Massachusetts Study: Health Care Reform Reduced Abortions." Aol News:Politics News, Analysis, and Opinion for the U.S. and the World. N.p., 18 Mar. 2010. Web. 25 Apr. 2010.
Klick, Jonathan , and Thomas Stratmann. "The Effect of Abortion Legalization on Sexual Behavior: Evidence from Sexually Transmitted Diseases." The Journal of Legal Studies, 32.2 (2003): 407-433. JSTOR. Web. 23 Apr. 2010.
"Legal Dictionary." Duhaime.org - Bringing Legal Information To The World. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 May 2010.
Palme, Professor Jacob. "Reliability of contraceptives (prophylactics)." Psychology Free Online Medical Advice, Mental Health, Anxiety, Relationship Advice. N.p., 22 July 2008. Web. 22 Apr. 2010.
Reid, T.R.. "T.R. Reid - Universal health care tends to cut the abortion rate - washingtonpost.com." washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines. N.p., 22 Apr. 2010. Web. 26 Apr. 2010.
"What's Wrong with America's Health Care." aflcio.org - America's Union Movement. American Federation of Labor - Congress of Industrial Organizations , 20 Apr. 2010. Web. 29 Apr. 2010.
Willke, Mrs. J.C.. "Why Can't We Love Them Both? On Line Book by Dr. and Mrs. Willke.." Abortion Facts - Information on abortion you can use. Heritage House '76 Inc, n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2010.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Protection vs. Freedom
James Madison wrote, “Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man whatever is his own.” I used this quote in a paper for my College Writing class in an argument against a smoking ban in all public places in North Carolina. It seems that the ever extending hand of the government continues to impose laws in the name of protection of its people. This is a very dangerous premise for a law, for I agree with James Madison that a government ending in the protection of rights alone is a just government. Perhaps this quote was taken out of context for my argument to lift a smoking ban, because smoking can be harmful to those who do not engage in smoking but are in close proximity to somebody who is, but business owners are not even allowed the right to choose whether or not they wish to allow smoking in their place of business. This is a fundamental undermining of a very serious liberty that should be enumerated to and celebrated by all Americans. Of course the smoking ban went through without any serious opposition.
At any rate, the issue of protection versus liberty is crucial, especially in America, the father of liberty. I realize that refusing to wear a seatbelt is not a very intelligent and potentially dangerous decision, however, it is my right to choose whether I wish to wear a seatbelt or not. How can the government be justified in ticketing me for endangering myself? My quarrel is not with the particular law, but with the precedent. Swimming in the ocean puts people in danger of drowning or being attacked by a shark, but clearly nobody thinks that we should be prohibited from swimming in the ocean because we are putting ourselves at risk. The same may be said for food regulations. People seem to use the government to employ their personal philosophies of the ideal living standard. Just because something should not be done does not mean it should be restricted. The highway does not belong to the government, it belongs to the people, because ultimately the government belongs to the people, and the highways were paid for by the people.
I remember watching the movie I Robot starring Will Smith. It was a futuristic depiction of a world where human intelligence was replicated in robots without emotion or morality. The robots were programmed to protect humans, and as such the result was an army of robots attempting to take over the world and oppress mankind, rationalizing that humans were endangering themselves with almost every action they took. It was by no means the greatest movie I have seen, but I found the concept to be relevant to government in the United States today. A just government protects the rights of its people, it does not infringe upon them with the excuse that we do not know any better. People do not act without reason, and the actions of some may construed as despicable or irrational, but they have reason nonetheless. Laws do not possess a conscience, or an ambition, or a passion, and they do not pursue happiness. Society cannot be perfected through law, but through people. To restrict the ability of people to decide for themselves what is right or wrong inhibits the ability of people to perceive what is right or wrong. I am not a more rational person for wearing my seatbelt out of fear that I will be fined if I do not, and though it has a slight chance of saving my life one day, I would rather die than live without freedom.
Death Penalty
Spencer Heflin
Critical Thinking Blog
Death Penalty
Humans are innately flawed with bias. We hold bias towards those unlike ourselves, towards those who live different lifestyles…even towards those whose skin is a different color. Society is aware of the many biases that pervade our streets, yet it continues to make unwarranted judgments. The most unwarranted and selfish judgment society makes is that of defining the value of a person’s life. The death penalty does just that—it deems one human life less valuable than others. Committing a crime does not strip someone of their humanity and certainly does not give others permission to do so either. The death penalty should be made illegal in the United States due to the fact that it violates moral, ethical, and economic standards.
The value of human life seems to be ignored when the death penalty is invoked. The death penalty denies basic human rights and seems to reject the idea that “human life has intrinsic value” (Robinson 2). There is no one person in the world where one can argue their life has absolutely no significance. The death penalty weakens this intrinsic value of human life; it is too important to be snuffed out by anyone, even the state.
There is unfairness in the death penalty because it does not take into account the mentally ill, classism, racism, and sexism. Should the mentally ill be put to death if they do not know better? I do not believe so because some do not have conscious control over their actions. The mentally ill should be tried case by case because the judicial system fails to realize that in some extreme circumstances people cannot control themselves. There was a study conducted by a Texas Civil rights group that claimed that out of 2 dozen convicted criminals on death row, “all had been so seriously abused during childhood that they probably all suffered from brain damage” (Robinson 2). This shows that the justice system does not take into account mental illnesses when not doing so is ignorant. This civil rights group also suggested that, “women convicted of murder are almost never executed” (Robinson 2). This quote proves that court systems often prejudice against men. Furthermore, according to a 1986 study in Georgia persons who killed, “whites were four times more likely to be sentenced to death than convicted killers of non-whites” (Robinson 2). This illustrates the black and white difference in the judicial system and the racist use of the death penalty. According to Stephen Bright, a defense lawyer for convicted death row inmates, “defense lawyers are often incompetent” (Bright). He commented that many of the defense lawyers had fallen asleep during their client’s trials and we not specifically trained to deal with death penalty cases. In many cases, “district attorneys are given unrestricted discretion” (Robinson 2), to the use of the death penalty. Most D.A.’s are not monitored or regulated at all and can seek the death penalty for anyone they see fit.
The chance of error is also present in every death penalty case because convicted murderers are often killed and later found innocent or pardoned. A recent study showed that, “at least 350 people between 1900 and 1985 in America might have been innocent of the crime for which they were convicted, and could have been sentenced to death” (Robinson 2). The legal system only provides guidelines; it is not always right or wrong. There is always some chance of error but, when someone’s life is at stake, cases should be inspected more carefully so numbers like 350 will not occur.
According to the American Civil Liberties Union, “capital punishment is barbarous” (Bedau 11), and the article goes on to suggest that the death penalty is cruel and unusual and inhumane. This is because in some places of the world people are still executed by hanging, firing squads, and electrocution. It is undeniable that these are inhumane ways of killing people because they do not minimize pain. When something is inhumane it lacks pity or compassion and making death a painful process does not show either.
According to an article on the politics of the death penalty, the families of the prisoners put to death usually also suffer. The article comments that, “the prisoner’s family must suffer from seeing their loved one put to death by the state, as well as going through the emotionally-draining appeals process” (Messerli 2). On one hand, the family of the victim is suffering because they have just had a loved one killed; however, killing off the criminal is only hurting his/her family as well. Not only does the death penalty hurt multiple families at once but is also useless in terms of revenge. The tolerance article also mentions that, “killing a murderer does not bring his victim back to life. It achieves nothing but the death of still another person” (Robinson 2). I believe that revenge cannot be accomplished through the death penalty as stated in the previous quote. It is like the saying “an eye for an eye would make the world blind” I believe that the death penalty accomplishes very little.
The death penalty also has negative economic connotations because it would be more cost efficient to keep someone in prison for life than to kill them. The politics article illustrated that, “most people don’t realize that carrying out one death sentence costs 2-5 times more than keeping that same criminal in prison for the rest of his life” (Messerli 1). This is because of the appeals process and additional required procedures. It is wasting the taxpayer’s money to put someone to death if it is cheaper to keep them in jail. This same article suggests that, “life in prison is a worse punishment and a more effective deterrent” (Messerli 1). With the death penalty, the prisoner’s suffering is over almost instantaneously. While it might not be compassionate, if people know they will suffer when they go to jail, it will deter them from committing crimes in the first place.
The death penalty has no benefit, whether one looks at it from a moral or material perspective. Killing a murderer does nothing more than perpetuate the cycle of violence and condone killing. In a society that promotes peace and compassion, the death penalty makes no sense. It is completely counter-productive to the overall moral goals of society, as well as places undue financial burdens on society. The economic aspect does not, however, overshadow that fact that the death penalty is morally wrong. With the death penalty, our justice system becomes the murderer.
Works Cited
Bedau, Hugo Adam. “The Case Against the Death Penalty.” American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved: May 11, 2010. http://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/case-against-death-penalty
Bright, Stephen: Gave a lecture at Elon that I attended
Messerli, Joe. “Should the Death Penalty Be Banned As a Form of Punishment?” Balanced Politics. Retrieved May 9, 2010. http://www.balancedpolitics.org/death_penalty.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)