Gambling in the Bay State

Ben Donelan

Dr. De Brigard

5/12/10

Blog Entry

Gambling in the Bay State

As my home for the large majority of my life, Massachusetts has helped shape the person I am today. It is one of the most liberal states found in America and because of that, somewhat unusual. As one of the oldest states in the country, home to many founding fathers, diverse in most senses of the word, home of one of the most academic cities in the world, and brewing with controversial issues thanks to the sundry views spread throughout the state. Some controversial issues that Massachusetts helped/is helping pave the way for are: same-sex marriage, the abolishment of capital punishment, the decriminalization of cannabis, and healthcare reform. However, in addition to these headline topics, Massachusetts is currently dealing with one more. Massachusetts has been debating whether or not casinos will be legal in the Bay State, a bill proposed by its Governor, Deval Patrick.

The story starts almost forty years ago, in 1971, Massachusetts state legislature voted the approval of a state-sanctioned lottery. This was the first form of gambling in the Bay State since colonial days. The new game proved to be a hit with gambling deprived citizens, and to date the state lottery has earned 15.3 billion dollars, 3.5 of which has come in the past four years. This money has been distributed among statewide education, infrastructure, and public safety. Without the lottery these funds would have come from increased property taxes. (1)

The approval of the lottery in 1971 was a change in the status of gambling in the Bay State, but it is not the only gambling option for Massachusetts citizens. There are several dog tracks and horse tracks in Massachusetts, namely Eastern Massachusetts. Yet another option for those itching to risk their hard earned money is located just south of the border. Connecticut is home the Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun casinos, some of the largest in the United States. These casinos are located on the Mashantucket Pequot Indian Reservation and are considered by many to be the inspiration and template for the Gov. Patrick’s casino bill. In conjunction with gambling in Rhode Island, it is estimated that Massachusetts’ citizens spend $1.1 billion annually gambling in these two states.

Supporters of Patrick’s bill have several well-stated arguments that are backed up even more by the current state of the economy. First, and most formidably, there is obviously a demand for gambling, in more shapes and forms than it is currently presented in Massachusetts. Basic economics dictate that in an optimal economy, where there is a demand it should be met by a supply. Governor Patrick’s bill also requires the casino’s to pay taxes (approximately 40% of the casino makes) to produce tax revenues. According to Patrick’s plan these funds will go to supporting similar public works that the lottery supports. According to the bill’s supporters these tax revenues should be somewhere in the ballpark of $300 to $500 million per year. (2) On top of these revenues the proposed casinos will also bring in “user-fee” license revenues. If the bill is passed the plan is to award three casino licenses to the highest bidders. It is expected, by those who back the bill, that these licenses will sell for $100 million. This money, in theory, will also go to Massachusetts’ public works. Along side with these revenues brought in, possibly more important, is the amount of jobs created by these new businesses. According to the bill’s supporters, tens of thousands and even possibly a hundred thousand, new of jobs will be created by the introduction of these new casinos. All these arguments merge into one final statement: Massachusetts citizens are going to gamble, as a state we should accept this trend and better our community from it.

But don’t be convinced yet. The support for this topic is strong, but the opposition poses an equally compelling argument (this is a controversial issue after all). The overstated pro’s of Governor Patrick’s proposed bill are just that, overstated. The estimated tax revenues and created jobs are optimistic and not realistic. Citizens of Massachusetts can hope for these numbers to come true, but it’s just unlikely. After more than twenty years in business, Foxwoods Resort Casino (Connecticut) just approached $500 million in tax revenue. To think that the $1 billion spent by Massachusetts’ gambler annually would completely move back to Massachusetts immediately is unlikely. The fact of the matter is Patrick’s proposed casinos would be lucky to raise $300 million dollars in tax revenue the first couple of decades.

More importantly than looking at estimates numbers we can look at real cases and the repercussions involved with the introduction of gambling in communities. The introduction of gambling in Massachusetts’ communities will drop property values in an already undesirable market. It may come as a surprise, but of those that support Deval’s plan don’t want these casinos in their towns. If that doesn’t speak volumes about the issue, then what does? Just think about it, destinations like Las Vegas and Atlantic City are seen, as a great weekend but the majority of the people who visit don’t want to live there. The truth is these places are not desired destinations to live. These places attract what most consider bad things. Excessive drinking, drug use, prostitution, and poor judgment call casino towns home. Casinos attract these bad things in accompaniment with possibly the worst thing of all, a disease that is an inevitable presence in every casino: gambling addiction.

Gambling has been proven to be an addiction by countless professionals, as it is an impulsive-control disorder. A compulsive gambler suffers from a psychological disorder and shows many of the following signs:

1. Preoccupation with gambling

2. Raised tolerance

3. Withdrawal when gambling ceases

4. Using gambling as an escape

5. Chasing victories

6. Lying about gambling habits

7. Loss of control

8. Illegal acts in order to continue gambling

9. Risked significant relationship

10. Asks those close for bailout money

11. Biological Bases (the subject has a lack of norepinephrine)

(3)

It is simply immoral for someone to condone these actions. By following Kantian moral theory, the situation can be broken down into a categorical imperative: citizens should promote vices onto others who are prone to giving in to such acts, for the financial betterment of themselves. If everyone was to promote others vices to gain money, society would cease to progress. For each time a man would make an accomplishment it would et back others in his society. This is not a categorical imperative that we, as a state can allow to exist. The promotion of gambling is the promotion of immoral acts.

Gambling doesn’t have to necessarily prey on the poor, foreign, and uneducated, but it often does. One reason for this trend, is the illusion of victory. It is a casinos job to make the customer think they can win, when in all reality the odds are stacked against them. For example, when playing the slots, the casino’s take can be up to 35%. This means that if you bet $10 on average you will only walk away with $6.50. Then, on the rare occasion that a player wins, the casino still wins. Since the casino wins so much, and often, when a player wins he is just taking money from another player. This means that Massachusetts will catalyze a process of bankrupting its citizens that are already in financial trouble. (4)

Quite possibly the worst part about this plan, worse than the lowering or property values, the encouragement of “bad” things (addiction: alcohol, drugs, and gambling), and preying on the uneducated, is that the government will be backing all these actions. Since the government will be making an incredible amount of money off these casinos they will have no choice but to promote these wrongdoings. It can be compared to raising taxes, but only applying those taxes to people who need help with addiction, financial troubles, and education. The American democracy was built on the principles: by the people, for the people, yet this plan sounds like the government will be working against the people who need it most.

Massachusetts faces many controversies; however, none of which threatens so many serious and negative consequences. It is true that Massachusetts could use a boost, but politicians should be thinking of more moral and safe improvements. Despite the demand for gambling, tax revenue, license revenues, and increased jobs, allowing casinos would cause this financially stressed state even more stress. The undesirable aspect of casinos consist of lowering property values, attracting addiction, and the government backing these actions suggest that this bill should not be passed, in order to protect the betterment of the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Cited Sources

"Gambling." Massachusetts Council of Churches. Web. 12 May 2010. .

"GAMBLING ADDICTION." Medical Search Engine & UK Family Health Guide - Medic8. Web. 12 May 2010. .

Jarvis, Tyler J. Gambling: What Are the Odds. Gambling: What Are the Odds. Brigham Young University. Web. .

"Massachusetts' Fortune Is with Gaming - The Boston Globe." Boston.com. Web. 12 May 2010.

Viser, Matt. "Would-be Hosts, Foes Rev up for Casino Bid." The Boston Globe [Boston] 17 Sept. 2007. Print.

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/politics/23154550/detail.html

http://casinofacts.org/

Why Everyone Should Be a Vegetarian (by: Charlotte Collis)

Before you pick up your cheeseburger do you think about where it came from? Do you think about the animal that suffered, the disease you are literally putting your mouth, and the gases expelled into the atmosphere to produce your 1lb burger? Not many people do. But if people took the time to investigate their decision to eat meat, I think they would be shocked into making a change. Eating meat negatively impacts the environment, a person’s health, and the animals overall well being. It would greatly benefit the planet, the animals, and individuals to switch to a vegetarian diet.

             It may seem hard to believe that eating a vegetarian diet can actually be healthier than a diet that includes meat products. However, vegetarian diets are not only healthy but vegetarians also generally have lower body weights than meat-eaters. In 2009, about 63.1% of US adults were either overweight or obese, a shockingly high statistic (Flowers 56). With the number of US adults overweight, perhaps a vegetarian diet should be considered.

            Another benefit offered by excluding meat from meals is the lower levels of cholesterol that are consumed. High amounts of cholesterol directly lead to health complications, such as heart disease and heart attacks. Heart attacks are responsible for 2,400 deaths per day (Flowers 32). For every one percent decrease in bad cholesterol level, your risk of heart disease drops by one percent (Flowers 40). Vegetables and plant-based foods have no cholesterol, but meats contain large amount of cholesterol and saturated fats. The high levels of fiber found in a vegetarian diet also help to cleanse your body of any excess cholesterol (Flowers 52). The British Medical Journal recently published a study that came to the conclusion that lifelong vegetarians have a 57% reduced risk of heart disease (Flowers 105). It has been proven that switching to a vegetarian diet can reverse damage that has already been done. One study put people suffering from clogged arteries on a low-fat meat-free diet, and along with exercise they were able to reduce the amount of buildup in their arteries (Flowers 97).

            Yet another reason to eliminate meat from your diet is the toxins that so often lace the meat we eat. Farmers inject their animals with antibiotics to keep them healthy and free of bacteria. However, they inject such large amounts that the bacteria become resistant to the medicine. Not only are the antibiotics left in the meat that we consume, but a John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health study found that 96% of Tyson chicken is riddled with dangerous antibiotic-resistant campylobacter bacteria (Ball). One of the main concerns with antibiotic use in livestock is that the humans who eat them end up ingesting the antibiotics. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that after the Food and Drug Administration approved the use of antibiotic fluoroquinone in chickens, fluoroquinone-resistant bacteria began showing up in humans (Ball). These medicine resistant strains of bacteria cause diseases in humans that are incurable. The risk involved with consuming meat is simply too high.

            Unfortunately, antibiotics are not the only drugs injected into our meat supply. Hormones are often used on farm animals to make them grow bigger and faster in order to produce the most meat as fast as possible. The human who consumes the animal digests these hormones in the meat, and in turn the hormones have the same affects on the human as they did on the animal. For example, the hormones can cause young children to grow too quickly for their age, with devastating consequences. These consequences were demonstrated clearly in Puerto Rico in the early 1980’s when thousands of children experienced premature sexual development and painful ovarian cysts, all because of eating cattle meat that was treated with growth-promoting sex hormones (Ball). The hormones in meat are also blamed on the premature sexual development of teenage girls in the Western world. Nearly half of all African-American girls and 15% of Caucasian girls hit puberty by the age of eight (Ball).

            Even with the organic food craze, there is no guarantee your meat is completely drug-free. The organic meat claims to be “free-range” which simply means the animals have been “allowed access to the outside.” Even organically raised livestock have been given preventative doses of antibiotics (Ball). People who are aware of the negative aspects of the meat industry choose organic and free-range products because they think they are making a smart decision. However, these seemingly healthier choices are really just as bad for both the humans and the animals. Meat may be tasty and satisfying food option but the food does not get to be enjoyed without risks.

            It is not only humans who suffer when it comes to the meat industry; the true victims are the animals themselves. The treatment of the livestock their entire lives are full of terror, nerves, and sadness. The animals are malnourished, beaten, and terrorized up until their painful death. Under the current system of farming, the idea is to produce the most meat as quickly as possible and for the cheapest amount of money. This means that livestock are packed into small spaces so that they can farm the maximum amount of meat possible. The animals are usually put into very small cages so tiny that the animal can’t even move. They are also deprived of exercise so that all their energy can go into producing meat. The condition of the cages is horrifying, they are rarely cleaned and the animals are left standing in their own feces (Moore). The animals are fed hormones and drugs to ensure they grow fast enough. They are also genetically modified to produce the most amount of meat possible (Moore).

             The choice to turn vegetarian has huge benefits for those who make the switch to a vegetable based diet, for the animals they are saving, and surprisingly for the environment we all share. Meat eaters put a strain on the Earth’s limited resources, cause pollution, and even add to the issue of global warming. The animals that are bred for the purpose of slaughter are fed huge amounts of grain to produce only a small amount of meat, which is a huge waste of valuable resources. The production of meat also creates large amounts of fossil fuels that contribute to global warming. According to Cornell University ecologist, David Pimentel, animal protein expends about eight-times as much fossil fuel energy compared to the same amount of plant protein (Limbach). Greenhouse gases are another cause of global warming; the gases are also released in record amounts by the production of meat. A 2006 study in a United Nations report found that raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all the cars and trucks in the world combined (Limbach).

But what if you could help to reverse the negative effects of the meat industry? Experts say that by switching to a vegetarian diet one person prevents the equivalent of one and a half of tons of CO2 emissions every year- that is more CO2 saved than by switching from a large sedan to a Toyota Prius (Limbach). There are many factors in meat farming that contribute to global warming including the animal manure, deforestation, and fertilizers. The massive amounts of manure produced by all the farmed animals emit greenhouse gases such as methane, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide (Limbach). Forests are also being destroyed at an alarming rate to create room for the farmed animals to graze and create room to grow crops for the animals to eat. When the trees are cut down, the CO2 gases they store are released back into the atmosphere (Limbach). Growing feed for farmed animals require the use of synthetic fertilizers, which emit large amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere during their production. The entire process of farming animals for meat therefore burns massive amounts of fossil fuel that contributes to global warming. From warming the buildings the animals are kept in, to gases emitted in the transport of the animals and the refrigeration of meat, the toll the meat industry is taking on the environment will have disastrous consequences.

            These fumes are not only dangerous to environment but also to the health of humans who live near-by. According to a 2003 article in the New York Times, “Around industrial hog farms across the country, people say their sickness rolls in with the wind. It brings headaches that do not go away and trips to the emergency room for children whose lungs suddenly close up. People young and old have become familiar with inhalers and oxygen tanks. They complain of diarrhea, nosebleeds, earaches, and lung burns” (Limbach). The article even describes how air pollution from hog farms has caused permanent brain damage in near-by residents.

The livestock farms also produce large amounts of manure that cause dangerous run-off and pollutes the nearby ecosystems. Meat factories produce run-off that pollutes streams and rivers, which endanger not only the water supply for humans but also ruins delicate eco-systems (Limbach). According to the Environmental Protection Agency, over 200 manure discharges and spills from US animal farms between 1990 and 1997 have killed more than a billion fish (Limbach).

The meat industry is also a major factor in causing the depletion of fresh water. It takes about 441 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef, and it only takes 14 gallon of water to produce one pound of wheat (Ball). India, China, North, Africa, and the US are all running out of fresh water and are pumping water out of aquifers faster than the rain water can replenish (Ball). According to Ed Ayres of the World Watch Institute, “Pass up one hamburger, and you’ll save about as much water as you save by taking 40 showers with a low-flow nozzle” (Ball). It simply cannot be argued against the fact that plant based products and vegetables are much more environmentally friendly and support a much more sustainable Earth than meat products.

            When most people think of a vegetarian they picture a crazy hippie, but the truth is that the choice to eat a meat-free diet is one that does not have to be made simply out of rebellion. The choice to become a vegetarian is one that positively impacts almost all aspect of one’s life, even the very future of our planet benefits by people making the unselfish decision to forego meat. It may take a bit more energy and time to follow a vegetarian diet but I think that is a small price to pay for the positive payback. Hamburgers and steak may taste amazing, but is a few minutes of heaven for our taste buds really worth losing years off our life and killing innocent, suffering animals? When someone chooses a vegetarian diet, they are making the choice to be healthier people, save the environment, and save hundreds of animals from a painful death. The lifestyle choice is one that affects more than just your immediate eating habits and I hope you will change, or at the very least, reflect on your current diet after reading this paper.

References: 

Ball, Matt. "Animals as the Bottom Line." http://www.veganoutreach.org/.html>.

 

Flowers, Jamie. Please Don't Eat the Animals. Sanger, CA: Quill Books, 2007.

 

Limbach, Elizabeth. "Meat Is Not Green." http://www.vegsource.com/news.

 

Moore, Heather. "Why Eat Vegetarian?." http://blog.peta.org/archives/vegetarian/>.

 

 

Professional Sports Players Salaries

Do professional sports players deserve to earn the money they make? We often hear about players renewing contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Is this fair? Some say no. Some feel this money should go to soldiers, firefighters, and policemen who put their lives on the line everyday to protect this country. I argue that professional sports players actually deserve the money they get from a purely economic standpoint. The question of whether they deserve their salaries for other reasons will not be addressed.

Before I can address the issue of player’s salaries, a background basis of the business of professional sports must be touched upon. Professional sports clubs are monopsomies. A monopsomy is a market with only one buyer or employer (Sharp, Register and Grimes 262). There are two major factors that create monopsomy power for professional sports clubs. The first factor is the immobility of new players (those who were just drafted). New players who want to play pro sports must sign a contract that binds them to their teams for a certain number of years. Once a player signs the contract, he or she does not have the option of negotiating with other clubs. The second factor is the specialized athletic talents (skills) each player possesses. The athletic abilities and skills of most athletes are very specific to their sport, and aren’t readily transferrable to other sports. Players who have only extremely specialized skills have opportunities for employment limited to the employers who require those skills (263). For example, a basketball player with an uncanny ability to shoot a basketball would not be offered employment in the NFL (unless he had football talent). He would only be offered employment by the NBA as a basketball player.
Wages and Employment for A Monopsomist (ex: Los Angeles Lakers -professional NBA team):



As a single employer, the Lakers face the market supply S. S is positively sloped because the Lakers is a single buyer, and thus, must increase its wage offers to hire additional workers. The marginal cost of labor curve (MFC) reflects the additional costs the firm experiences by hiring an additional worker. The Lakers will hire employees up until the point where the marginal cost of hiring an additional player does not exceed the marginal benefit of hiring the player. The Lakers will hire workers up to the point where MFC equals MRP (marginal revenue product of labor). At this point, profit is maximized. It should be noted that MFC and MRP cross above the point where WM and Lm cross. However, according to the market supply schedule (S), the Lakers can hire employees for a wage where WM and LM cross. Thus, even though a player’s contribution to the clubs revenues occurs where MFC and MRP cross, each player will only receive a salary at the point where WM and LM cross (264).

Because monopsomies are able to hire fewer workers than a competitive firm and pay lower wages to their employees, they are said to exploit their workers. For a long time, professional sports players earned a lot less money than they could have been earning (266). This was due to the various monopsomistic powers stated above. In recent years though, professional sports clubs have been forced to give up some of their monopsomistic powers. This has caused dramatic increases in player’s salaries. Free agency is one form of power pro sports clubs lost and one form of power players gained. In past years, player’s contracts had reserve clauses reserving the right of the employing sports club to hold exclusive rights to the player’s services. A player could only change teams if his or her sports club traded or sold the rights to his or her contract to another club. After many years of fighting between the players and the sports clubs, the two reached an agreement in which the employing sports club could hold the rights to its players for only a specified number of years. Once these years were up, the player could declare “free agency”. A free agent is a player whose contract is no longer exclusively held by one sports club. Free agents could roam the market looking for the highest prices individual clubs were willing to pay. Thus, player’s salaries drastically increased (267). According to Major League Baseball, in 1976, players were earning $52,300 per year. After free agency was introduced, player’s salaries spiked to $2,866,500 per year (in 2006).

This brings me to the final question. Do professional sports players deserve to earn the money they receive? Well, from an economic standpoint, they most surely do. As long as sports clubs experience increases in revenue greater than the increases in costs from hiring additional players, the sports clubs can increase profits with every new hire. Thus, if a sports club’s players are paid millions of dollars, but those players are generating even more millions of dollars in revenues, than sports clubs should pay their players millions of dollars because the clubs are still making a profit. Professional sports players salaries reflect their contribution to their club’s revenue. This is the reason doctors and construction workers do not make millions of dollars. Doctors and workers do not generate millions of dollars in revenues for their employees (269). So, who is to blame? The general public is to blame. The people who watch the games on T.V and pay thousands of dollars for season tickets to watch their favorite players are to blame. People who buy thousands of dollars worth of sports merchandise are to blame. These people are directly funding the professional sports market. Thus, if people stopped watching games, stopped buying tickets and stopped buying jerseys, then there would be no professional sports market. Professional sports clubs wouldn’t make nearly as much revenue, and thus players salaries would drastically decrease. From an economic standpoint, players and sports franchises are not to blame. The people who are fans of professional sports are to blame. These are the people who fund the player’s outrageous salaries.
--Matthew Kavalek—
References
Sharp, Ansel M., Charles A. Register, and Paul W. Grimes. Economics of Social Issues. 18th ed. New York: McGraw Hill/Irwin, 2008. Print.

How Toyota’s poor handling of its recalls it hurt its image more than the recalls

How would you feel if you were a Toyota executive and read this feedback from a consumer: “I don't believe I can ever trust a Toyota car again. They have to show a lot to change my mind in the future" (Steinberg 2). Toyota executives should feel nervous, because the quality of their cars has been their edge over other car manufacturers for many years. Of course, all car manufacturers have had to recall some models. In these cases, customer service and how the company handles the recalls is just as important to the consumer as the quality of the car. Toyota, a giant Japanese car manufacturer, recalled millions of cars in early 2010. The recalls themselves were huge news stories, but the media also honed in on the way in which Toyota handled the recalls. If Toyota had been more honest and forthright with consumers from the beginning, not nearly as many people would have turned their backs on the company. Many of these consumers decided to buy cars from other manufacturers, who may have had recalls in the past, but survived them much better than Toyota because of the way in which the recalls were handled.
Consumers have always rated Toyota and its models highly. The brand got the second spot in the most recent Business Times Top Brands car category survey (Dlamini 1). However, the company received different ratings in a survey conducted exclusively for Advertising Age after the recalls had begun. Before the recalls early this year, 92.4 percent of consumers viewed the brand as reliable (Steinberg 2). After the survey, which was conducted in early February, 66.4 percent of consumers thought of Toyota as reliable (Steinberg 2). Despite Toyota’s efforts to maintain customer loyalty, consumers have begun to place a higher value on Toyota’s domestic rivals such as General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler. One respondent to the Advertising Age survey said, "Toyota has been overrated for years. Domestic automakers make the same or better quality cars these days," and the general theme dictated by the majority of respondents of the survey echoed “Buy American” (Steinberg 2). Rob Larson, a sales manager at Larson Ford in Lakewood, N.J., expected to see disappointed Toyota customers coming to his lot as they learned about incentives being offered by Ford, such as $1,000 to Toyota, Lexus, Scion, Honda or Acura drivers who trade in vehicles or have leases expiring by June 30 (Shipkowski A16). General Motors and Chrysler had similar incentives to attract Toyota customers (Shipkowski A16).
Since Toyota has traditionally been a respected and trusted brand, consumers hold high expectations for the quality of its cars and customer service. Two more respondents to the Advertising Age survey said, "I want the problem to be fixed quickly and right. And I want to have my faith restored in Toyota again," and, "I appreciate them recalling their products and admitting there has been a mistake, but frankly I had higher expectations" (Steinberg 2). These responses suggest that Toyota should have been active in February in order to maintain and earn back the trust and respect of consumers. Even if some people were willing to forgive and forget the recalls, Toyota did not handle the situation as well as it could have, according to analysts. Dealers, brand experts, and marketing professionals predicted that if Toyota did not handle the recall well, its brand image would be tarnished (Dlamini 1). On the other hand, they agreed that if the company handled the matter in a “transparent, honest and responsible manner,” Toyota would see consumers forget the recalls after six months (Dlamini 1).
The company did not act soon enough in apologizing and informing consumers on what steps would be taken to fix the problems. The company’s image began to tarnish as early as January 21, 2010, at which time Toyota did not invoke any PR damage control (O’Leary 1). However, Toyota’s domestic competitors did not waste any time creating and advertising incentives for consumers to switch car dealers. The combination of these two actions, or lack there-of, have greatly harmed Toyota’s image and the trust consumers have for the company. If Toyota had been upfront and clear about its apology and how the company plans on resolving any recall issues from the beginning, the damage to the company’s image could have been greatly reduced. However, it does not appear that Toyota had thought of that back in late January and early February. Ian Schafer, CEO of Deep Focus and the owner of two Toyotas, said in February, "If you look at Toyota's Twitter feed, it's all about recall information and it reeks of spin. It doesn't feel like they're trying very hard; it feels like they're defusing. I get more information right now from CNN news alerts and the government. People expect access to a lot of information and a time like this is not a time to underwhelm them” (O’Leary 1).
Toyota had the opportunity of reaching 106 million viewers during Super Bowl XLIV on February 7, 2010 (Bauder 1). Instead of airing an apology commercial during one of those time slots, Toyota waited until the week after the huge advertising event to air a one minute commercial, telling consumers “For over 50 years, Americans have counted on Toyota... 172,000 Toyota and dealership employees are dedicated to making things right. Notice we said 172,000 and not 172,002. Those two were the guys who screwed up. As soon as we heard about all of those car crashes, we fired those two guys” (Toyota Commitment TV Commercial). However, this commercial does not inform consumers of what the company’s plans were for fixing the problem. Informing people that the two guys who “screwed up” does not help the public know where and how to get their cars fixed.
Once Toyota started interacting with its customers about the recalls, crisis-management experts began criticizing the company for not being clear and reassuring enough (Shipkowski A16). As a result, U.S. car dealers have begun seeing more Toyota owners in their lots (Shipkowski A16). In late January, Toyota released an ad campaign in major newspapers to attempt to communicate with its customers about the recalls. However, experts criticized the attempt and claimed Toyota needed to do more to save face with its customers. Alexander Edwards, the president of Strategic Vision, an automotive research group, commented about the ads, “They are trying to do the right thing. But what's going on isn't stated very clearly, and that causes more uneasiness with customers" (Shipkowski).
Despite Toyota’s many mistakes, including the recalls and the manner in which they were handled, and incentives by American companies to sweep up dissatisfied Toyota customers, the Japanese manufacturer saw a 40 percent increase in sales in March (Associated Press 1). Bob Carter, the vice president of the Toyota Group, said, "Many more retail consumers are going to be buying Toyotas in the month of March than any other brand” (Associated Press 1). The reason is because Toyota initiated multiple incentives in early March, including zero percent financing on recalled models, low-priced leasing and free maintenance (Associated Press). Toyota's incentives were supposed to end April 5, but Carter said some will continue into the spring, including free maintenance for returning Toyota customers (Associated Press).
Toyota may have seen an increase in sales in March, but it was only because of the multiple incentive programs. Even though American car manufactures have begun similar programs, eventually all manufacturers will stop the incentives. When that happens, the old issue of the quality of the car and the trustworthiness and reliability of the manufacturers will reappear (Associated Press). At that time, Toyota customers should decide if they have really forgiven the company and feel comfortable buying a Toyota after the way the company handled the recalls. Many will not consider buying another Toyota vehicle because the company was not honest, upfront, and clear in its apology and handling of the recalls. If Toyota had possessed those traits when the recalls first began, the company’s image might have suffered a lot less.

Toyota Commitment Television Commercial:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfrPn2cgyZA

Works Cited


Associated Press. "Toyota sales on the rise despite recall." The New Zealand Herald 1 Apr. 2010: Lexis Nexis. Web. 26 Apr. 2010.

Bauder, David. " Your request is being processed... Super Bowl 2010 Ratings: 106 Million Watch, Top-Rated Telecast EVER ." The Huffington Post. 8 Feb. 2010. Web. 10 May 2010.

Dlamini, Artwell. "Recall tests consumers' faith." Business Day (South Africa) 11 Feb. 2010, Business Day: Lexis Nexis. Web. 25 Apr. 2010.

O'Leary, Noreen. "Toyota: A Battered Giant." AdWeek 8 Feb. 2010: LexisNexis. Web. 10 May 2010.

Shipkowski, Bruce, and Tom Krisher. "For Toyota, an important drive to reassure nervous customers; Without giving details, ad campaign pledges fix for gas pedals." The Washington Post 1 Feb. 2010, Regional: A13. Lexis Nexis. Web. 26 Apr. 2010.

Steinberg, Brian. "Lightspeed survey: Toyota's loss of consumer trust is domestic rivals' gain; Exclusive research shows 26% of consumers view brand as lower quality than U.S. autos following recall." Advertising Age 8 Feb. 2010: 2. Lexis Nexis. Web. 26 Apr. 2010.

Toyota Commitment TV Commercial . Dir. Toyota. 17 Feb. 2010. YouTube. Web. 10 May 2010.

"Under God" Out of Pledge?

Should the words, “under God,” be taken out of our Pledge of Allegiance? My answer to that is ‘why should it?’ They’re just two words in the pledge. What harm are they doing? However, there are a lot of people who would like nothing more than to remove these words from our pledge. They believe they can be American by having those words taken out, but I feel that I’m not an American unless I’m saying these words. Austin Cline writes in his article, ““under God” merely expresses the fact of America’s religious heritage.” Cline continues with this by saying, “the Pledge of Allegiance is not a historical artifact that is kept around to remind of our past; instead, it is an active statement of patriotism which expresses a promise of loyalty to the nation as well as to the ideals which the nation is supposed to create.” I’m a Christian, from the womb to the tomb, I’m a Christian. I have no intention of ever relinquishing myself of this. I know everyone has their own beliefs and what not and there are even some who have no belief whatsoever. However, if you’re in favor of having those two words removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, then you don’t have to say those words. Yes, can you believe it? There is a simple solution to this matter. If you don’t like those words then you simple don’t have to say them.
To be perfectly honest, I’m sick and tired of hearing and reading about this issue. Everyone has their own beliefs and thoughts and feeling on how things should operate in this world. If you don’t like those words in the pledge then fine, that’s your problem, not everyone else’s. Sometimes, or most of the time, I feel that these people only get into this argument, not for the sake of defending what they believe in, not for the sake of honor and dignity, I believe they are only in this argument just so they can get some time on television, radio, and the internet. Think about it. What is the best way for you to get your face on the screen? It’s to voice your opinion on a particular subject. Actually, it could be any subject. It doesn’t matter if the subject you’re going on about is stupid or anything else, just as long as you put yourself out there long enough to get some screen time is all one needs. There is a report in the New York Post by David Li about a woman whose goal is to gain one thousand pounds. It’s her private life and yet she’s on television, the internet, and newspapers. Anything can be news worthy if people press it long enough. These people are probably just trying to get their faces on the screen just so they can go home and say, “Yeah, I was on television today” just to make themselves look good in front of their family and friends.
Also, did anybody ever think of what it might do to people who are Christians and believe in God? No, none of the people who are trying their best to rid our pledge of two words ever thinks about that. They’re only in this to make it seem as if they have a cause. So, in response to that, I want to say that we are Christians and we like our way of life just fine. We enjoy praying everyday and going to Church and reading the Bible. This is our way of life and we shouldn’t have to sit back and listen to some atheist logic cry and whine about two words. Also, what if we decide to remove those words from the pledge? Then what? Should we stop saying God altogether? Should we close down all the churches and recall all of the Bibles that have been sold? I don’t think so. Cline writes in his article, “removing "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance would not prevent anyone from mentioning God in public, nor would it make that more difficult.”
Another thing Atheists are trying to get rid of, they want to get rid of “In God We Trust" and remove 'God' from the Presidential oath. Christians place their faith in God because they want to. It is our belief. The beautiful thing about this is that no one is forcing you to believe in God. Isn’t that what it means to be an American, you’re free to choose what you want to do with your life. Or is that just another blind promise in America? But, why shouldn’t we place our faith in something we believe in? What right do atheists have to try and persuade us differently? Oh yeah that’s right, because God isn’t scientifically proven real, then that gives atheists all the right in the world to bash our beliefs. I mean so what? So what if God can’t be scientifically proven? That doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist. A lot of things in this world exist and we have no idea on how they came to be. Just about everything in this world remains a mystery and yet we all still believe in them.
My overall point to this matter is rather simple. Leave Christians alone in our beliefs. If you don’t like the way the Pledge of Allegiance is written, then simply don’t say those words if you feel so strongly about it. If it bothers you that much, then don’t say those words at all. It’s as simple as that, there’s no need for things to get overly complicated. Look, as Christians, we are bound by our faith with God. We enjoy our religion and are very adamant about it. We love the words “under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance and we prefer if it stayed that way. Why should we have to change our ways just because some people don’t like the way the Pledge was written? It doesn’t make any sense to me. I would just like to know one thing. Who really cares? When one thinks about it, when was the last time anyone actually stood in front of a flag and recited the Pledge of Allegiance? I’m sure that all of these atheists who are going against this are probably the ones who haven’t recited the Pledge of Allegiance in long time. Like I said before, they’re probably just in it to get some time on television. Anyway, that is what I believe in and I don’t want the Pledge of Allegiance to change.


References:
Cline, Austin. "Defending "Under God" - Defending & Justifying "under God" in the Pledge." About.com. Web. 10 May 2010. http://atheism.about.com/od/pledgeallegiance/tp/UnderGodPledgeAllegiance.htm.

Doyle, Michael. "Atheist fails in bid to remove God' from presidential oath." Politics AP. N.p., 7 May 2010. Web. 10 May 2010.

Li, David K. "NJ woman attempting to become world's fattest lady." New York Post. N.p., 17 Mar. 2010. Web. 10 Apr. 2010.

The Organic Debate: Is it Really Better for You?

Carys Roberts
Philosophy
De Brigard
April 27, 2010

The Organic Debate: Is it Really Better for You?

As Americans struggle for frugality during this harsh recession, one thing remains that some individuals refuse to cut costs on: organic food. Consumption of organic food has reached an all-time high in America, and men and women are stopping at nothing to purchase significantly more expensive organic products. In 2008 alone, organic food revenue rose to an astounding $40 billion in the United States alone (Willer 54). Companies such as Heinz, Kellogg, and Kraft have started selling their own lines of organic products, and some cost almost twice as much as their non-organic counterparts. Still, consumers are willing to pay the extra amounts (Specter 128). Men and women swear by the health benefits of organic food, such as increased energy, better taste, increased anti-oxidant levels, improved environmental consciousness, and less foreign chemicals going into the body. However, studies show that there is no real benefit to eating organic food, and it may even be harmful in the long run because growing organically will not be able to meet the demands of the rapidly growing global population. While popular food markets such as Wal-Mart, SuperValu, and Publix are adding organic merchandise to their stores, Americans continue to overspend their money on food and products that have no more benefits than their cheaper and non-organic complements.
Most Americans who eat organically contest that their food is healthier than chemically processed or conventionally grown food. However, studies published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition suggest otherwise, saying that “overall, there are no differences in nutrition between organically grown and conventionally grown crops, meat, dairy, and eggs” (News Front Page). One difference recorded was varying levels in phosphorous and nitrogen in organically and non-organically grown food. The reason for this, however, is because of the use of different fertilizers and ripeness at harvest, and does not provide any health benefit or detriment. A study conducted by Nova Scotia Agricultural College attempted to show that there is no difference in the final product of conventionally versus organically grown food. The study replicated the growth of carrots and cabbage in organic and non-organic settings. Pesticides, lime, and fertilizer were added to the non-organic crops. Lime, composted manure, and insect control substances were added to the organic crops in accordance with the Organic Crop Improvement Association. Their data showed that the carrots and cabbages were not nutritionally affected by the different treatments, although the non-organic crop did produce a higher yield (Warman). While organic-eaters often depend on their “unaltered food,” there is almost no such thing as natural food for sale in American grocery stores (Specter 108). Spring water is processed, salt is iodized, and fruit is refrigerated and often cut into snack-sized pieces, meaning that consumers aren’t getting the natural and untouched food that they think they are.
The main appeal of organic food is the natural way in which it is grown. However, what is deemed as “natural” does not always mean it is healthy and safe. Mercury and E .Coli are natural, yet exposure to Mercury can lead to vision impairment, muscle weakness, and stunted brain growth (Medical News Today). E. Coli is a naturally occurring virus that can be contracted from the consumption of undercooked meat, unwashed fruits and vegetables, and it has even been found in drinking water. E. Coli causes abdominal cramps, diarrhea, and kidney failure (US Environmental Protection Agency). In addition, Salmonella, which is also a virus that is found naturally, was found in peanut butter in 2009 and sparked the largest food recall in history (Specter 133). While consumers claim that their health benefits from eating natural and organic food, in many cases, it is the natural and organic food that is causing the problem.
Michael Specter’s book, Denialism, describes a story in which one woman’s irrational opinions on organic food were brought to light. This woman only consumed organic products and grilled them in such a way “so they didn’t lose their vitamins.” What she didn’t know, however, is that charred food contains cancer-causing carcinogens. While eating organic food comforted this woman and made her feel safer and healthier, the method in which she cooked this food actually made it more dangerous than conventionally grown food cooked in a different way (Specter 127).
As the global population rapidly increases, organic farming is not able to meet the demands of the growing numbers. Currently, Australia, China, Argentina, and the United States are the leaders in organic production, with a total of 18.4 million hectares of organic farmland (Organic Trade Association). However, because organic farming uses no synthetic pesticides or herbicides, the crop yield per hectare is significantly lower than conventional farming methods. To produce the same amount of product as conventional farming would, organic farming requires the use of more land. This results in increased deforestation and destruction of wildlife in order to meet these needs (Sarkar). Over 2.5 billion people live on less than 2 dollars a day, and in places like Africa, unnecessary famine and starvation occur because citizens can’t afford to buy expensive organic products (Specter). They are unable to farm for themselves because of the poor soil quality, which has resulted in 20% less food production than what it was 40 years ago. Because non-organic farming strategies produce longer-lasting crops with increased yields, the widespread adoption of these strategies will be able to help starving countries such as Africa feed their inhabitants. The increased lifespan of these crops will enable shipments of food to be transported to countries that are in desperate need (Specter, 118).
In addition, starving countries also benefit greatly from genetically modified food. While some individuals do not have enough money or resources to have a balanced diet, genetically modified food can remedy this problem by packing essential nutrients into the small amounts of food that they are able to afford. While it is not an organic solution, it will greatly increase the quality of life and improve the health of these malnourished people (Willer 52).
As the purchase and consumption of organic products continues to rise, the health benefits associated with it are shown to be insignificant. The increased cost and lower crop yield from organic food will not meet the demands of the growing population, and in the long run, conventional farming methods are more beneficial to the individual and society as a whole because they are inexpensive and can feed more people. While consumers claim that organic food limits the introduction of foreign chemicals and substances into their bodies, these chemicals have not been shown to be harmful, and in some cases, they can even boost the nutritional content of the food. Still, organic companies are flourishing, and mainstream brand names are adopting organic practices in order to meet the growing demands of patrons.



 
Works Cited

"BBC NEWS Health Organic 'has no health benefits'." BBC NEWS News Front Page. N.p., 29 July 2009. Web. 28 Apr. 2010.

“Drinking Water Contaminants Safewater Water US EPA." US Environmental Protection Agency. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 May 2010.

"Industry Statistics and Projected Growth - Organic Trade Association." Organic Trade Association. N.p., 29 July 2008. Web. 28 Apr. 2010.

Sarkar, Paulomi. "Food & Beverage News: In Focus - Organic food: Is it sustainable?." Food & Beverage News. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2010.

Specter, Michael. Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives. New York: Penguin Press HC, The, 2009. Print.
"The dangers of mercury to our health - Nevada, USA." Medical News Today: Health News. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 May 2010.

Warman, P. R. . "ScienceDirect - Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment : Yield, vitamin and mineral contents of organically and conventionally grown carrots and cabbage ." ScienceDirect - Home. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 May 2010.

Willer. The World of Organic Agriculture: Statistics and Emerging Trends 2008 (World of Organic Agriculture). Revised ed. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd., 2008. Print.

The Controversy Over Pre-Natal Genetic Testing

Genetic testing refers to lab tests done on blood or tissue samples, which provides information about chromosomes, genes, and proteins and indicates if there are abnormalities in the individual being tested. These types of tests are conducted to elicit information for a multitude of issues including: genetic disorders in unborn fetuses, presence of a gene for a hereditary disorder in adults thereby making that individual a carrier of the disorder, and confirmation that symptoms are a result of a genetic disease. Perhaps the most ethically controversial area of genetic testing is pre-natal testing, and therefore will be the area explored in this blog entry. The controversy: as genetic testing becomes more widely used and more precise (thus providing more detailed information about the genome being assessed), there are ethical concerns that pertain to pre-natal testing. The concern is that as more information becomes available, fetuses will be aborted for minor defects and this fuels the fear of another eugenics period occurring. Eugenics referring to the early 1900’s when force sterilization occurred to prevent undesirable traits from being passed down in the population gene pool. However, on the other hand, with correct application of pre-natal genetic testing, there is the possibility of avoiding a eugenics movement and contributing greatly to society.

Since genetic testing encompasses a wide spectrum of tests at various stages of life, this blog entry will focus specifically on pre-natal, microarray testing. The DNA microarray test places thousands of gene sequences in known locations on a gene chip, then the DNA sample is placed on the gene chip and complimentary base pairing between the sample DNA and sequenced DNA on the chip produces light that can be measured by the lab technician and thus identify genes expressed in the sample (National Human Genome Research Institute). Using this technology, patients can be diagnosed as carriers of genetic diseases.

When considering genetic testing it is important to recognize both positive and negative aspects of the argument. First, I will present opposition to the widespread use of pre-natal microarray testing. Perhaps the most compelling argument against pre-natal testing is fear of another eugenics movement. This fear stems from the idea that if taken too far, parents will begin to view the fetus as undesirable if it carries certain genes and the fetus will then be aborted, leading to elimination of certain “types” of people from society. Some argue that in deciding to test a fetus early in pregnancy and then deciding to abort it if it has a genetic disease is somewhat like playing God and placing the degree of value on various human lives. The argument follows that if we begin testing for genetic diseases we will eventually be testing for more desirable traits, like a specific hair color, or level of intelligence, and therefore eliminate certain characteristics from our society. I argue that this is a slippery slope fallacy in which we assume that there will be no checks and balances to prevent such a disastrous outcome, and that the purpose now for the testing is to be able to inform parents so that they will be able to make a responsible decision. With the information they can prepare for a baby that may have a genetic disease or choose to terminate the pregnancy if they are unable to commit to that responsibility.

Another valid concern is that the information provided by genetic testing is too complicated, misinterpreted by doctors, and not accurately conveyed to the parents. To this argument I acknowledge that detailed explanations to the parents are necessary so as to avoid unnecessary stress and anxiety. However, genetic counselors are present to translate the information from the test to the patients and to ensure that the information is understood; both prior to administering any test and once the results are available. The microarray test is quite detailed and provides information for over 200 genetic disorders, but its design provides results that are easier to read and interpret than most other genetic tests available, so this test would provide more information and less misinterpretation of results.

Some of the arguments against genetic testing are eliminated in using the DNA microarray test. This test detects more submicroscopic abnormalities that other genetic tests are unable to detect, thus being more thorough and eliminating the need for multiple tests to be run. This test is also safer, faster and more accurate than amniocentesis, which is a concern for many mothers. Microarray is non-invasive, so there is no concern with harming the baby or the mother. Also, this test can be performed earlier in the pregnancy than many other tests, so the parents can prepare for the child with the disorder or decide to terminate the pregnancy earlier. Although this test is somewhat costly because it is relatively new, as it becomes more commonly administered the cost should decrease and if genetic testing becomes more widespread it is likely that it will be covered by insurance. Therefore, while cost of the test is a present concern, it should be less of an issue in the future.

The concerns and fears presented here are not unreasonable, but I would argue that the benefits of pre-natal genetic testing outweigh the cons. And, as mentioned earlier, the DNA microarray test is particularly useful in genetic investigations because it does test for so many disorders in a short amount of time. The most obvious benefit to being tested is to be able to plan. If a fetus is diagnosed with a genetic disorder the parent can plan how to best care for the child once it is born and not be shocked in the delivery room (or perhaps later in the child’s life if it is not diagnosed for a few years). Genetic testing also provides peace of mind for some parents who know a hereditary disease runs in his/her family; to be able to determine if his/her child has the disease earlier provides some comfort. Again, it is important for the parents to know their choice in taking the test or not, because some would prefer to not know prior to birth. With the knowledge early in the pregnancy parents can make responsible choices if they are not able to care for a child that will have the limitations caused by the genetic disease. This means that the parents could choose to find alternate care for the child when it is born, change their lifestyles so they can provide the best care for the child when it is born, or choose to terminate the pregnancy if necessary. While termination of the pregnancy may seem cruel, it is the right of the parents to make that decision and if they know the child will not receive adequate care or the child will suffer terribly from the disease, it may be in their best interest to consider the option. Ultimately, the value in pre-natal genetic testing is to provide information to parents and allow them to make decisions prior to birth, which may have a significant impact on the lives of that family. Microarray testing provides a safer, more accurate, faster method for pre-natal genetic testing and is a valuable option if genetic testing is going to continue to be utilized.

References

Collier, R. (March 31, 2009). Prenatal DNA test raises both hopes and worries. Canadian Medical Association Journal. 180 (7): 705-706. PubMed.

Guay-Woodford, LM, Knoers, NV. (July 2009). Genetic testing: considerations for pediatric nephrologists. Semin. Nephrol. 29(4): 338-348.

U.S. National Library of Medicine and National Institute of Health. MedlinePlus: Genetic Testing. (April 2010). Retrieved from: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/genetictesting.html