War on Terror Matthew Lichtenstein

War On Terror

The Patriot Act and The Affects of Global Issue

Matthew Lichtenstein

5/15/10

Term paper on the United States of American’s War on Terror and the harm it has cause not only the US’s image but has hurt people worldwide.

Matthew Lichtenstein

Professor Felipe De Brigard

4/27/10

The War on Terror:

The War on Terrorism is a term created by former President George W. Bush after the 9/11 attacks on the United States, it is a term that has brought great criticism towards the United States in the manner that they have handled the situation in both Iraq and Afghanistan from both the outside the United States and from the citizens within. The War on Terrorism is not just United States issue but it is a global issue that affects all countries even if they are not physically involved in the fighting. The Patriot Act has hurt this country and it’s citizens more than it has helped fight the war on terror.

The Patriot Act (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001) the act of that was put into place one month after the horrific attacks on our world trade center on September 11^th 2001. The reason behind the act is to prevent terrorist acts like this to ever occur on US soil again. The Patriot Act stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. Many Americans have come out and said that Patriot Act has violated their right to privacy and has invaded on their basic rights as US citizens. The Patriot Act has done nothing of the sort in fact. Instead it has tightened our boarders, stopped acts of terror in the sky, and has improved the safety of US citizens in a post 9/11 era. The Act has had its greatest impact in these four areas since it was put in place, it has enhanced the federal government’s capacity to share intelligence; it has strengthened our criminal laws against terrorist and terrorism, it has removed obstacles investigating terrorism and has updated the law reflect the new technologies used by terrorist today. The Department of Justice has used these improvements in the law to better combat terrorism and continues to work to enhance the coordination, information sharing, and other investigative efforts the USA PATRIOT Act has made possible.

The Patriot Act has enabled governmental agencies the capabilities to communicate with each other, and made investigation and surveillance into illegal activities less cumbersome for our agencies. The USA PATRIOT Act equips federal law enforcement and other intelligence officials with the necessary resources to have an effective and coordinated campaign against this nation’s terrorist enemies. The Act has simplified and has gotten rid of the counterproductive legal restraints that have impaired our law enforcement’s ability to gather, analyze, and share critical terrorism-related information and intelligence. As of May 5^th 2004 there have been 310 arrests made due to the Act, 179 of those arrests had already led to convictions by May 5^th 2004. Through the Act the Justice Department and other intelligence agencies have made the United States a safer place for all US citizens because of the Act.

The Act has also created more resources for families that have been affected by terrorist attacks, families that lost members of their families in 9/11 lost millions dollars that their families had potential to earn. The Act now is able to help those families in need, and a family suffering doesn’t have to come both physically and emotionally anymore because the Act has given people financial security. It has also developed financial funding to help restore the businesses that are also affected by terrorism; besides insurance the Act is a security blanket for businesses in the United States.

Although many people have because of the invasion of privacy power the Act has and the belief that it has given too much power to government agencies, people have criticized it saying it has hurt more citizens then have helped. The counter argument is that if you are an everyday law abiding citizen then the average American citizen should have nothing to hide from our government. It is just a preventive measure against citizens who are doing illegal activities to support terrorism around the world The only thing that the US Government is doing is protecting the freedom and the real rights of the US citizens. If your neighbor or co-worker is sending information to terrorist groups or they are sending financial contribution to anti American, terrorist organizations wouldn’t you want the US agencies to step in and monitor their emails and their financial accounts to protect you and your family. The right to privacy is something we Americans hold true to our hearts but we are not have nothing to be concerned with then Americans should really be concerned with the war on terror in the US.

The countries that are allies with the US have urged the US to have more precaution and more concern for the well being of others, and the citizens of the US have cried out against the War on Terrorism and what it has put the troops through. Although President Obama has not used the phrase outright he has stated that this country is at war with a “far-reaching network of violence and hatred.”[1] Obama with sending in more troops into Afghanistan is standing by the War on Terrorism even if the outside world doesn’t think he should. The British Government has been our strongest supporter on the “War on Terrorism”. Although many countries have told the US to not send troops into Iraq because there was no actual proof after the UN had sent in a team to find the “weapons of mass destruction”, the United Kingdom still supported the US’s decision to enter Iraq. This being said the British don’t believe in the “War on Terrorism” altogether. The Director of Public Prosecutions and head of the Crown Prosecution Service in the United Kingdom, Ken McDonald said, “London is not a battlefield. Those innocents who were murdered...were not victims of war. And the men who killed them were not, as in their vanity they claimed on their ludicrous videos, 'soldiers'. They were deluded, narcissistic inadequates. They were criminals. They were fantasists. We need to be very clear about this. On the streets of London there is no such thing as a war on terror. The fight against terrorism on the streets of Britain is not a war. It is the prevention of crime, the enforcement of our laws, and the winning of justice for those damaged by their infringement”[2] Even our most trusted allies don’t defend our notion on the “War on Terrorism”, the rest of the world and especially the Middle East must see this as American policing and the isolation of the United States and our power from the rest of the world.

From the onset of this new defined war by President Bush he had his objectives clearly stated. He wanted to “Defeat terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and destroy their organizations, identify, locate and destroy terrorists along with their organizations, defend US citizens and interests at home and abroad and Implement the National Strategy for Homeland Security”[3] The objectives seem reasonable because they are foremost in protecting the citizens of the United States, and to rid the world of two the most radical terrorism leaders in the world, which most of the world agrees is a necessary good.[4] What has occurred though starting with the Bush Administration and now has carried on through President Obama’s first year is that the leaders of the world have criticized the US and its policies. For example, the French’s opposition to the war in Iraq which fell under the “War on Terrorism” because President Bush was convinced that Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were working together. After the United Nations passed a resolution saying the US could not invade Iraq, the British and US pushed again for another resolution to allow them to, but France and German delegates from two of the US strongest allies stood ground and gain support from multiple nations in the fact that US had no right to invade Iraq. Even members of the British Government spoke out against the invasions of Iraq especially Robin Cook former member of Parliament and served in the Cabinet as the Foreign Secretary stated that, “Our interests are best protected not by unilateral action but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules. Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are weakened: the European Union is divided; the Security Council is in stalemate. Those are heavy casualties of a war in which a shot has yet to be fired.”[5] Cook foreshadowed the future which has divided the European Union even more and has created thousands of soldier’s lives, Germany and France still have not sent troops into Iraq and nor will they and the opposition to the US has grown stronger the longer we are in Iraq and the more troops are lost. With such opposition to the war, Bush and his British ally pushed on and invaded Iraq, which not only had a negative effect on US relationship with many countries, but there were many officials and citizens in the United States that were angered by the lack of evidence Bush should before he sent troops overseas again.

The Oxford Research Group has put out information saying that the “War on Terrorism” or the “War on Terror” has been counterproductive to the efforts of actually ending terrorism in the world. They say not only has the United States isolated itself from the rest of the world it has now made terrorist attacks more likely on US soil as well as the this war has created more material from Al Qaeda and other organizations to recruit young men. The Oxford Research Group states, “Al-Qaida and its affiliates remain active and effective, with a stronger support base and a higher intensity of attacks than before 9/11. ...Far from winning the 'war on terror', the second George W. Bush administration is maintaining policies that are not curbing paramilitary movements and are actually increasing violent anti-Americanism.”[6]

To the critics of the war on terror, US citizens today feel safer due to the fact the Act was put into place and although US has made many enemies abroad, the governments main concern is at home and home land security. The Act has brought out both good and ugly in people, but the belief in the US today is it is safer than it has ever been. The war on terror has hurt people abroad and the US image for many people but the Act has made our lives a better place due to the security measures put in place. Al Qaeda will always be a threat to United States if countries do not help us with our fight against them, US can not afford to do it alone, but the Patriot Act will help secure the US boarders for the time being.

Citations:

"BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Cook's resignation speech." BBC NEWS | News Front Page. Web. 25 Sun. 2010. .

"Patriot Act Report." Department of Justice. Department of Justice. Web. 27 Apr. 2010.

Oxford Research Group. Web. 25 Jan. 2010. .

"President Obama Inauguration Speech Transcript - ABC News." ABCNews.com - Breaking news, politics, online news, world news, feature stories, celebrity interviews and more - ABC News. Sun. 25 April. 2010. .

"President Bush Releases National Strategy for Combating Terrorism." Welcome to the White House. Sun. 25 April. 2010. .

"There is no war on terror in the UK, says DPP - Times Online." Business News, Market and Financial News | Times Online Business. Sun. 25 April. 2010. .

---

[1] President Obama ABC NEWS

[2] There is no war on terror in the UK

[3] President Bush Releases National Strategy for Combating Terrorism

[4] BBC UK

[5] BBC UK

[6] Oxford Research Group

Circus Elephants

Circus Elephants

When one thinks of an elephant, it should be on the plains of Africa… not clad in tacky decorations under a tent full of hungry circus-goers. Yet this is the image many minds conjure at the word elephant. Sadly, behind the glitz and glamour of the circus, exists a cruelty equal to that of human slavery. Elephants are highly intelligent creatures and very human, yet they are treated as property. Captive elephants are whipped, stabbed, kicked, scalded… the list goes on and on. How can a creature, proven to possess emotions and cognitive abilities equal to that humans, be treated in such a manner? The many violations of humane rights of elephants can be seen in each aspect of circus elephants’ lives. Abuse occurs from the moment a baby elephant is captured, throughout transportation and training, during performances, and until the day the elephant dies an untimely death due to captivity. By first examining the uncanny similarities between humans and elephants, one is able to understand the effect of the inhumane treatment of elephants. The use of elephants in circuses is inhumane and should be illegal.

Extensive scientific research proves that elephants are uncannily similar to humans, both cognitively and behaviorally, and experience similar emotions. For example, in the wild elephants reside in herds, much like a family, led by the eldest female. (Vargas) Elephants are one of very few species that live in permanent family groups. (Meyer 14) Much like humans, herd members are affectionate toward one another through touch and speech. Baby elephants depend on their mothers for the first four years of their lives, but remain long after weaning to learn basic skills, including social and survival skills. (Meyer 14) One of the most remarkable behaviors exhibited by elephants is grief. When a herd member dies, fellow elephants gather to pay respects and often return days, months, and even years later to revisit the bones. (Vargas) Elephants also experience a broad spectrum of emotions including joy, fear, and helplessness. Unfortunately, the later two permeate every aspect of a circus elephant’s life.

To obtain an elephant, groups of hired men and circus employees hunt the plains of Africa for a herd. In what is known as a cull –the mass slaughter of an elephant family- the men extract a frightened and traumatized calf. (Vargas) During a cull, entire herds are wiped out while an infant stands by and watches the murder of its family. The newly orphaned calf experiences trauma displays exactly like those of humans: nightmares, screaming, inability to sleep, and sudden acts of violence. (Vargas) Gay Bradshaw, a lifetime elephant researcher, drew parallels of these behaviors to human Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. (Vargas) By diagnosing elephants with PTSD, Bradshaw has helped the world recognize that elephants are emotional and receptive creatures, exactly like humans. As Bradshaw asserts, “science says elephants are just like people-they feel like people, they think like people, they act like people, they have a sense of self like people-“ and we are compelled not to treat them as property. (Vargas-Bradshaw 1)

The next step on the road to a life of circus slavery is transportation. As if the elephants are not traumatized enough, they suffer harsh and inadequate transportation conditions. In the wild elephants walk an average of 25 kilometers per day foraging for food and water, accounting for about 18 hours of the day. (Meyer 14) Elephants in transportation endure thousands of miles of traveling per day, confined to a small crate for hours on end. The elephants become frustrated, stressed, and restless as a result of their lack of activity. This leads to abnormal behaviors such as excessive nodding, swaying, and rocking. Transportation also puts the elephants at risk of injury, especially from car wrecks or derailments. Such drastic negative effects are signs that elephants most certainly belong in the wild, where they are healthy and able to thrive.

The worst is yet to come for elephants. After being transported, elephants are thrown directly into training. Training occurs behind closed doors so the public does not discover the unimaginable abuses inflicted on the elephants. Trainers use crude tools such as bullhooks (sharp hooks), pitchforks, whips, sticks with nails, and electric shock devices to coerce elephants into obedience. When the elephants are not undergoing violent training tactics, they are chained and confined to small areas, where the most movement possible is a mere shuffle. Confinement causes “physical discomfort, behavioral stress… severe psychological harm…and interferes with their normal postural and social adjustments.” (Meyer 17) Trainers also routinely beat the elephants in order to gain psychological control. One testimony of a former elephant handler recounts the trials of an elephant named Sadie:

“Sadie just could not grasp what we were trying to show her. In frustration she attempted to run out of the ring. We brought her back and began to punish her for being so stupid. We stopped suddenly, and looked at each other, unable to speak. Sadie was crying like a human being. She lay there on her side, the tears streaming down her face and sobs racking her huge body.” (Animal Circus)

Sadie, like all circus elephants, will never know the joy of the Plains of Africa, nor the unbreakable bonds that exist between mother and daughter elephants. Instead, their lives are full of sorrow and pain, restriction and abuse.

The final leg of a circus elephants’ life is no leg at all… it is the remainder of their life. In addition to the horrors of extraction, transportation, and training, elephants suffer a life of humiliation. They are used solely for entertainment purposes and exploited for economic profit. Elephants are forced to stand on a colorful stage supported by one leg, balance a ball with their trunk, and appear excited. In reality, performances are both physically and mentally painful for elephants. Outside of the ring, elephants “appear sad and beaten down, devoid of their spirits, and extremely stressed.” (Meyer 8) Because elephants are so similar to humans, it makes no sense that society continues to treat them as property. Human slavery is outlawed and elephant slavery should be as well. There is no excuse for the demeaning and inhumane treatment of elephants. The act is completely selfish and immoral.

Elephants who suffer violent extraction from the wild, harsh transportation, abusive training, and demeaning performances are psychologically damaged and unstable. These elephants suffer the same traumatic responses as humans do, a fact that cannot be ignored. These human-like behaviors demand that elephants be treated with respect and left to live a full life in their natural habitats. There is no cure for the violence circus elephants suffer, but there is a cure for the practice itself: outlaw circus elephants.

Works Cited

Meyer, Katherine. American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus. 1:03CV02006. US District Court for the District of Columbia. 2003. FindLaw. 28 April 2010.

Vargas, Elizabeth. “The Sanctuary.” Sixty Minutes 17 September 2008. http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/stories/634126/the-sanctuary Accessed 28 April 2010.

“Animal Circuses, Animal Suffering.” June 2001. www.captiveanimals.org/circuses/circus.htm Accessed 28 April 2010

Medical Marijuana

Tom Whyel

Medical Marijuana

Irvin Rosenfeld, who is a 56-year-old stockbroker from Florida, has lived with multiple congenital cartilaginous exostosis, which is a bone disorder that causes bone tumors to grow throughout the body. At one point Irvin lived with over 250 bone tumors, these tumors would have rapid growth rates that put Irvin in excruciating and often debilitating pain. By age 22, he was taking 140 Dilaudid (a derivative of morphine) tablets, 30 Sopors (Quaaludes), and dozens of muscle relaxants each month. Along with the pain he had to deal with the terrible side effects of the medication he was taking, that made it difficult to function normally. Then one evening in college he experimented with marijuana while playing a game of chess. About an hour later he realized that he was still sitting down playing chess, which would never of happened before because the tumors would force him to stand up every ten minutes or so. After consulting his doctor, who was out of options to help him, Irving continued to smoke marijuana for the next six months. He noticed a great enhancement in his quality of pain relief, and also, he drastically decreased his dependence on opiod narcotics and sleeping pills. Though he still lives with the many bone tumors spread throughout his body, he has finally been able to lead a normal life as a stockbroker. Now he is one of four US citizens who receives 300 marijuana cigarettes from the United States government each month to cope with chronic pain (Grinspoon 94-101).

Medical marijuana has become legal in 13 US states to treat “chronic pain (particularly nerve pain caused by diabetes, AIDS, and hepatitis); manage movement disorders and muscle spasticity (especially for multiple sclerosis patients); as an anti-nausea and anti-vomiting agent (for people undergoing chemotherapy); and as an appetite stimulant for people with wasting diseases like AIDS and Cancer” (Parloff 142). Legalization of medical marijuana will allow thousands of people like Irving Rosenfeld, living with chronic pain and disease, to have access to normal and productive lives without the harmful and debilitating side effects of other pharmaceutical drugs, such as Valium and Vicodin. This legalization of medical marijuana in the United States will drive down health costs and potentially contribute to health care reform.

People living with chronic pain and many other diseases are often prescribed many powerful drugs, such as opiates and anti-depressants that lead to harmful side effects, such as liver damage and addiction. In many of these cases, marijuana can be a substitute for these powerful drugs offering comparable relief with less harmful side effects, such as possible respiratory problems and loss of driving skills if smoked in excess, and is not chemically addictive, so people can lead normal lives. Such as Irvin Rosenfeld, who goes to work 5 days a week as a stockbroker, and who without marijuana probably could not continue working in such a stressful atmosphere due to his severe pain. Medicinal marijuana is a cheaper alternative to expensive drugs sold by big pharmaceutical companies. Stephen DeAngelo, chief executive of Harborside Health Center, a medical marijuana dispensary in Oakland, California, says, “many of these patients had drug bills of several hundred dollars a week before they began using medical marijuana, and now they are about $40 or $50 a week” (Smerd). So for a person paying, for example $200 a week on pharmaceuticals versus $50 a week on medical marijuana, excluding people that have insurance, in a year will have costs of $10,400 compared to $2,600 on medical marijuana. This drastic decrease in health bills is an excellent incentive to opt for marijuana for medical use. Also, with the combination of marijuana being a safer alternative to powerful and potentially chemically addictive drugs and the decreased health costs, there will be a substitution effect. Therefore, since marijuana can be used as an alternative, or substitute, at a lower cost than powerful pharmaceuticals, the demand for high priced pharmaceuticals will decrease, causing a decrease in the price pharmaceuticals and health care in general.

Legalizing medical marijuana will allow people to relinquish their dependence on powerful and harmful drugs. This will allow thousands of Americans to have access to normal lives because the side effects of these drugs often cause people to be limited in daily activities. Irving Rosenfeld commented on what he dealt with when he was on his prescribed pharmaceutical drugs, “I felt burned out and often walked around in an uncomfortable state. It was difficult to function normally; if I took enough to control the pain, I had difficulty concentrating on my work” (Grinspoon 96). In an interview with John MacLaughlin, who suffers from chronic rheumatoid arthritis, which “is an inflammatory form of arthritis that causes joint pain and damage” (Mayo clinic), discussed how his arthritis can cause just simple activities to be problematic, such as taking a walk or going up steps. When diagnosed he was put on naproxen, an anti-inflammatory drug. After continued use, he developed acid reflux disease because the naproxen damaged his esophagus and stomach. So now he lives with both arthritis and acid reflux, for which he has to take Prilosec, a heartburn medication. His doctor eventually took him off naproxen, and put him on some other pain medication. This just shows how these powerful drugs can limit normal habits and lead to other diseases and medical problems.

One way to compensate for the negative effect on people that oppose medical marijuana is for the government to levy a tax on the sale of medical marijuana. The tax will result in tax revenue for state and federal governments. Due to the current problems with the health care system and the need for reform, this added tax revenue could go to public health programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Also, this added revenue could be used to invest in a new and innovative way to improve health care in the United States. The question is how much added revenue is going to be generated? In the state of California, where medical marijuana is legal, “there were gross statewide medical marijuana sales approaching $2.5 billion in 2008, which generated tax revenues of around $220 million” (Parloff 50). If medical marijuana was legalized in the all of United States, it is possible to have billions of dollars in tax revenue that could go toward reforming our health care system. Although, in reality the government would end up using the revenue for a variety programs due to government special interests, in principle, though, it is an efficient and effective way to improve health care in the United States.

Medical Marijuana allows people that are dependent on powerful and expensive pharmaceuticals to access a drug that has a variety of effective properties, from stimulating appetite for Cancer patients to reliving chronic pain for people like Irving Rosenfeld. For these people, medical marijuana acts as a substitute good to pharmaceuticals. So people that are candidates for medical marijuana benefit in more savings and people that still need pharmaceuticals will have more savings, due to decrease in price, providing financial and pain relief to both parties. Legalizing medical marijuana provides a basic model and small-scale experiment for legalizing marijuana for recreational use in the United States. This provides benefits because it allows policy makers to analyze the effects medical marijuana has on marijuana use and its effects on society, without fully legalizing marijuana for recreational use.

The State's Regulation of Underground Storage Tanks

The state if North Carolina currently has over 100,000 inactive leaking underground fuel storage tanks (USTs) that were previously associated with home heating systems. These residential tanks are currently not regulated by the State and are potentially causing an enormous amount of contamination to the underlying soils and groundwater. During the 1950s most homes utilized oil heat, which commonly involved buried oil tanks. These tanks are now hidden, ticking time bombs. Human nature is “out of site out of mind”, and with that mentality our water system is being affected. In this blog I will be presenting reasons why the State should be regulating these underground storage tanks and why they are currently not doing so.

After about twenty to thirty years most of these underground tanks, which are made of steel, will begin to corrode and leak. This leakage contaminates the surrounding soils and in some cases the leakage may migrate downward and intersect the groundwater table, making the groundwater toxic to human consumption. Once the groundwater has been contaminated it will no longer be suitable for human utilization for generations. By having the State regulate these tanks, it would minimize incidence of leakage through regularly scheduled monitoring and by removing tanks that are no longer in service. (Payne)

When people decide to switch from a heating oil system to a more current alternative heating system (i.e. natural gas, propane, electric), the oil tank no longer in use would usually be left in the ground to corrode and inevitably leak. By the State regulating these USTs, the State could impose annual tank operating fees, which the owner of a property with a UST would be responsible for paying. The funds generated by such a regulatory program could be used to assist with environmental cleanup associated with leaking USTs. The State currently has such a program for commercial USTs called the North Carolina Leaking Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund commonly referred to as the “UST Trust Fund”. (NC State Trust Fund) Requiring annual operating fees from private individuals having a UST would encourage said homeowners to have their inactive USTs removed or face having to pay annual fees for keeping them in the ground. This, in effect, would expedite the removal of leaking tanks, which would help to minimize the negative impact on the environment. If they aren’t in the ground, they can’t corrode and leak oil into our natural water systems.

Legally, if a homeowner has the knowledge of an existing underground storage tank they cannot sell their house without informing the buyer that the property has one. A seller has a legal responsibility to disclose all known environmental conditions to a perspective buyer. This includes asbestos, lead paint, and the presence of a UST. This legality has been the source of a very stressful situation for a lot of people wishing to sell their home. It is not uncommon for someone to purchase a property without the knowledge of an existing underground storage tank, only later to find out that one was there. When the time came for the house to be sold again, a perspective buyer may request an inspection only to find the existence of an underground tank. The next step is to have an environmental consultant or a licensed geologist perform an inspection of the tank and the underlying soils to determine if the tank has leaked causing significant contamination. Statistical evaluation of home heating oil USTs has shown that about 80% of inactive USTs have leaked. (FAQ) If it has, the seller is put into a situation where they are legally bound to take care of the problem before they can sell their house. If the homeowner still wishes to sell their house, they will have to incur great expense to take care of the problem by removing the tank and all associated contamination.

After contamination has been confirmed, the state of North Carolina requires that the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) be notified within twenty-four hours of the release discovery. DENR will require the release be abated as soon as possible by having the tank and its contents removed. Following the abatement of the release, remediation of the release must occur by removing as much of the contaminated soils as possible. Once the removal of contamination has been completed, the seller has fulfilled their legal obligation. The cost for the removal of these tanks and associated contamination may range from between $10,000 to more than $15,000. (FAQ) It is not uncommon for people who have never used an on-site UST to be the responsible party to incur the expense of a UST cleanup.

Having home heating oil USTs regulated by the State would better protect innocent buyers from having to be responsible for someone else’s problem. This could be accomplished by incorporating mandatory UST inspections for all homes built prior to 1960 as part of the regulatory framework, which would effectively identify greater numbers of hidden USTs prior to a property’s conveyance (Payne). Focusing on and understanding the liabilities commonly associated with USTs will make the general public more aware to the potential impact USTs can have on the environment. Homeowners would be held accountable for protecting the environment and preserving our community’s natural resources for future generations (i.e. drinking water). The “out of site out of mind” mentality would no longer be able to be applied to this situation.

One may wonder why the State is not currently regulating these tanks. There are a number of factors that may influence the State’s decision not to regulate these tanks at this time. One reason involves an organization called the Petroleum Marketers Association of America (PMAA). The PMAA has a strong lobbying presence at the State level and one of their main goals is to make it as easy as possible to sell fuel, maximizing profit for their members (fuel distributors). They want to minimize the costs that may inhibit said sells such as tank operating fees and taxes. The PMAA doesn’t want tanks to be regulated because if they were, homeowners would be charged tank operating fees and may decide to switch to a cheaper heating alternative other than oil. Doing this would lessen the sells and profit of the PMAA. Another reason influencing the State’s decision not to regulate home heating oil USTs is that the State currently may not have the personnel to manage such a program. The increased workload that overseeing such a program would entail would be too much for the State’s budget to compensate for. (Payne)

In summary, by regulating these tanks, homeowners wouldn’t be stuck with a huge expensive problem and our community’s groundwater supply would be cleaner. It appears that the State’s current position to not regulate home heating oil USTs is influenced by the desire of some in the private sector to make money while on the other hand not wishing to allocate the necessary funds at the State level required to manage such a regulatory program. The lobbyists want more money, and value that more than the cleanup and removal of leaking tanks that are contaminating our groundwater making it toxic and inconsumable for future generations.

Works Cited

(FAQ) Frequently Asked Questions. Cedar Rock Environmental. 22 DEC 2009. Web. 17 MAY 2010. http://www.cedarrockenvironmental.com/faq.html#faq1.

NC State Trust Fund. Cedar Rock Environmental. 22 DEC 2009. Web. 17 MAY 2010. http://www.cedarrockenvironmental.com/trustfund.html.

Payne, Robert A. Personal Interview. 17 MAY 2010.

Video Game Violene and by Bethany Neeb

The issue of whether violence in various video games actually translates to their consumer’s behavior has been an ongoing topic, especially regarding children. There is no question that video games have become increasingly popular among all ages. The subject matter of some video games, however, has transformed from innocent Pac-Man to graphic and overly violent scenarios such as killing cops. It is the latter that has been in question after multiple aggressive and violent acts committed by children and teenagers, ranging from physical fights to school shootings. The connection between violent acts and violent video games is supported by evidence based on child and adolescent behavioral and cognitive patterns. Due to children’s susceptibility to imitation, as well as their desensitization to violence and intake of mixed messages in today’s society, violent video games have a tendency to elicit aggressive and violent behavior in children and therefore should be monitored and limited among child participation.

Most people have seen or known a child, who tends to rough house with his friends and family. The child might jump on their parents when they are sitting on the sofa, they might kick and punch their friends while playing, or they might pretend to hold a gun and make noises as if they were shooting at someone. Unless the child has received some kind of special physical training, it is usually safe to assume that they have picked up these violent moves from something they have seen. While the media in general is a common source to blame, there is a new, more specific factor that provides points or a winning score when players succeed in performing these violent acts. Video games have evolved into aggressive killing, war, and theft competitions, and it is no coincidence that children and adolescents have picked up some of the same acts of violence that they have perfected while playing these video games. This “monkey see and monkey do” pattern stems from a young person’s susceptibility to imitation (Wood, “The Effects of Violent Video Games on Children”). This is the same phenomenon that causes young girls to apply their older sister or mom’s makeup or stumble around in their mother’s high heels after watching the elder female do the same thing. Marco Iacoboni explains this pattern in his article, Imitation, Empathy, and Mirror Neurons. The article discusses how imitation is automatic in humans and that when it is looked at through psychological models, imitation that results from a connection between perception and action come from mirror neurons (Iacoboni 15). The article supports the claim that children are more likely to imitate what they see in the games on television, by providing the psychological evidence behind the human tendency to imitate. Iacoboni defines mirror neurons as, “neurons with motor properties in premotor and posterior parietal cortex that fire not only during action execution, but also while observing somebody else performing the same or a similar action” (7). One journalist explained the effect of imitation in terms of resulting behavior saying:

“During the games, children will solve conflicts in a violent manner. This is different from just seeing a violent movie, the child is actually initiating and responding to violence with their own actions. These actions might bleed into their daily interaction with peers or authority figures. Their brains are being trained to use violence to solve problems rather than words.” (Wood, “The Effects of Violent Games on Children”)

In application to this issue, in general, all humans are prone to imitation from video games based on their mirror neurons that come into play while they are both playing the game themselves, or watching another character in the game.

Referring back to the above example of a child who rough-houses with their peers and siblings, the child does learn the aggressive moves from games they may have played, but they were not born without the filter for violent actions. The increasingly prevalent actions result from continued playing of violent games. It is well known that desensitization is a recurring result of continual exposure to a stimulus. Aside from this serious issue of violence, people frequently use desensitization in positive aspects of life like overcoming a fear of spiders or heights. Desensitization is a common form of therapy for phobias, as they expose the affected person to their fear in increasing amounts until they hardly notice or experience fear. In an even more casual example, people experience desensitization without even noticing sometimes, such as the adjustment that takes place when a person moves into a warmer or cooler environment. Other psychological examples are seen in the normality of fighting to soldiers, doctors’ tolerance for blood, and teenagers’ acceptance of profanity. With the constant blood, fighting, and killing in video games, the player slowly stops noticing any of the gore or violence. While a parent or friend may watch the game for a short time and cringe at the realistic looking scenes, it is shocking how a child does not think twice about it. This gradual tolerance translates into real life, making the child or adolescent automatically answer to daily, accidental types of contact with violence. Evra explains this psychological tendency:

“Long-term effects of exposure to violent media result primarily from the development, rehearsal, and eventual automatization of aggressive knowledge structures such as perceptual schemata (Was this bump accidental or intentional?), social expectations (Are other people expected to be cooperative or vengeful?), and behavioral scripts (insult retaliation).” (Evra 204)

Other experts in the field point out that while desensitization is not always a bad thing, as it helps people overcome tragedies, children are very vulnerable in this area (Kutner and Olson 104). Kutner and Olson suggest that after repeated instances of a child watching violent images in a video game and learning how to perfect different fight moves, the child may not be able to hold back violent tendencies among their peers (104). It is known that children are especially susceptible to any stimuli during the critical period of their childhood, when outside influences have the greatest effect. However, studies have shown that young adults are affected the same way after constant exposure to a stimulus. One study conducted had young children watch a clip of a violent western film and then monitor other young children playing. As the second set of children began to get aggressive with each other, the children who watched the clip did not seem alarmed by the fighting (Signorielli 43). The same effect was shown in another study discussed by Signorielli, where young males watched a series of “slasher” films for a week and rated them less and less violent as the week went on (43). Violent video games are not beneficial to children and adolescents in any manner, but constant participation in the games produces the potentially tragic and dangerous result of tolerance to violence.

Today’s society is full of anti-war and peace campaigns, as well as non-violence movements everywhere. Parents raise their children to get along with their siblings and ask nicely for things instead of kick and push a friend. In schools, teachers rightly report and punish students who turn to violence when resolving conflicts with their peers. However, children and teens get a completely different message from the media, especially video games. Not only do violent scenes glorify fighting and make the aggressor seem tough, but in video games, the child receives points and superiority in the game for their shooting, fighting, and other skills in criminal activity. This extra interactive aspect makes violent video games all the more exciting to children. It is no wonder children and teenagers are drawn to these competitive and brutal games with the allure that the media portrays video games and television violence in. At the very least, children are confused by the mixed messages they receive in school and at home as opposed to what they see on TV.

Aside from the psychological and cognitive research that shows the effects of violent video games on children and adolescents, there are multiple real-life, grave, and tragic examples of the connection as well. Nany Knickerbocker discusses a striking story when in 1997; a Kentucky student took a gun to school and shot eight of his classmates. The especially frightening part of the story is that with just eight shots, the boy hit three people in the chest and five people in the head (Knickerbocker, “BCTF Supports Campaign Against Video Game Violence”). After looking into the case due to the strange accuracy of the shots, investigators found that, “He had never used a real gun but he had logged more than 10,000 hours on a first-person shooter video game. That particular game gives bonus points for head shots.” (Knickerbocker, “BCTF Supports Campaign Against Video Game Violence”). One of the most well-known school shootings also stemmed from video games. When Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold shot over thirty students at Columbine High School, a terrifying connection to video games was found in the killers’ diary (“Columbine Diaries Contain Video Game References”). Harris and Klebold reference two shooting video games, Doom and Duke Nukem 3D repeatedly and even include a sketch of the game Doom on one of the pages (“Columbine Diaries Contain Video Game References”). Harris wrote, “It'll be like the LA riots, the Oklahoma bombing, WWII, Vietnam, Duke and Doom all mixed together. ... I want to leave a lasting impression on the world.” (“Columbine Diaries Contain Video Game References”). Another reference to the games that Harris included in the diary says:

“...everyone should be put to a test. an Ultimate Doom test. see who (unreadable) an environment using only smarts and military skills... Put them in a Doom world, no authority, no refuge, no BS copout excuses. If you can't figure out the area of a triangle or what (unreadable) means, you die! If you can't take down a demon w/a chainsaw or a hell prince w/a shotgun, you die!" (“Columbine Diaries Contain Video Game References”)

From these two quotes alone, it is evident the type of effect violent video games, where the competition is killing, can have on young people. If any video game controls somebody’s life enough to influence a violent act, especially a school shooting, the content of the game should be reviewed. If the extent to which the video games took over the two boys’ lives was not convincing in the above excerpts from their diary, this third quote by Harris, describing a characteristic that makes him different, settles any debate:

“My love for a computer game called Doom. Doom is such a big part of my life and no one I know can recreate environments in Doom as good as me. I know almost anything there is to know about that game, so I believe that separates me from the rest of the world... Doom is so burned into my head my thoughts usually have something to do with the game... the fact is I love that game and if others tell me, "hey it's just a game" I say "hey, I don't care." (“Columbine Diaries Contain Video Game References”)

More popular and recent video games that contain similar content are Grand Theft Auto and Halo, both rated M, for ages seventeen and up. Kutner and Olson review the content of these and several other games with different ratings to show exactly what “scenarios” kids are playing in. While Halo contains “blood, gore, and violence,” Grand Theft Auto (the more popular game) displays and overwhelming show of “blood and gore, intense violence, strong language, strong sexual content, and use of drugs” (Kutner and Olson 91). Even more references are made to violent video games in today’s society in crime-solving television shows such as “Law and Order.” These are just a few examples of how this issue of video game violence has come into play in real life.

Many people believe that there are positive effects to playing video games such as, “introducing children to information and computer technology, providing practice in following instructions, some practice in logic, problem solving, and fine motor coordination” (Evra 202). It is important for children to learn how to use and be familiar with computer equipment, as they will have to use it through their schooling and into their adulthood. Some may even cling to a study that was done at the University of Rochester, which found that “individuals who played games like Grand Theft Auto regularly showed better visual skills” (Evra 202). However, an interesting statistic shows that video game violence is the second most influential risk factor out of the fourteen listed, for violent behavior, falling short just of gang membership as of 2001. (Anderson, Gentile, and Buckley 143) Therefore, when other video games rated E for all ages, as well as educational computer games exist, there is no reason why children should receive technological experience from playing overly violent games like Grand Theft Auto, especially when the deadly consequences have been shown.

It is no mystery that video games have become one of the most popular crazes among children, teens, and even adults. What some people might be neglecting, however, is that some of these games can have a very negative impact on their players. From violent thoughts and tendencies, to planning and following through with school shootings, games that contain killing, fighting, and other aggressive competitions can affect people of all ages. Games with excessive graphic content should be limited to older populations and absolutely not allowed for young children.


Works Cited
Anderson, Craig A., Katherine E. Buckley, and Douglas A. Gentile. Violent Video Game Effects on Children and Adolescents: Theory, Research, and Public Policy. New York: Oxford University Press, USA, 2006. Print.

Evra, Judith Van. Television and Child Development (Lea's Communication Series). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004. 197-208. Print.

Iacoboni, Marco. "Imitation, Empathy, and Mirror Neurons." Annual Review of Psychology 60.1 (2009): 653-670. Academic Search Premier. Web.

Knickerbocker, Nany. "BCTF Supports Campaign Against Video-Game Violence." British Columbia Teachers' Federation. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Apr. 2010.

Kutner, Lawrence, and Cheryl Olson. Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth About Violent Video Games and What Parents Can Do. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 2008. Print.

Signorielli, Nancy. Violence in the Media: A Reference Handbook (Contemporary World Issues). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2005. 29-54. Print.
Wood, Kristin . "The Effects of Violent Games on Children | eHow.com." eHow | How To Do Just About Everything! | How To Videos & Articles. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Apr. 2010.
"gamepolitics: Columbine Diaries Contain Video Game References." Game Politics. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Apr. 2010.

Tiger Woods Roller Coaster - Kevin Simon

It was the crash heard ‘round the world. In the late evening on November 29^th, 2009, the most famous athlete in the world, Tiger Woods, crashed his car near his suburban home outside of Orlando. On the surface, it seemed harmless…Tiger accidently swerved off the road and hit a tree suffering minor injuries. However, questions were being asked and dirty details started arising. The most famous golfer in the world was now under criticism that even Superman himself could not handle. And now, me and millions of Americans have considered Tiger as a great golfer, but not a role model.

The details stated that Tiger Woods got into an argument with his wife, Elin, of over 5 years thus causing Tiger too flee from the home in his SUV. He began refusing to speak to police turning his “minor” accident into a national story that needed to be dug into. Suddenly, word came out that Tiger had an extramarital affair with a nightclub manager in the past year (Dahlberg). The rumors did not stop there as more and more women decided to reveal their dark secrets to the national tabloids. Woods image began getting tarnished by all these accusations. Two weeks later nearly a dozen women told their stories, many being very intimate and passionate (Dahlberg). Though the accusations were stopping, his ordeal was just beginning. Tiger remained silent, refusing to speak to the media, police, and even his own friends. This turned into the media story of the year as nearly every tabloid featured Wood’s incident in their articles.

Finally, Tiger decided to speak. He uttered the words many of us were waiting for, for weeks. Tiger explains, “I am deeply aware of the disappointment and hurt that my infidelity has caused to so many people, most of all my wife and children,” (Dahlberg). He was finally asking for forgiveness, but in his mind he knew his image was already ruined.

Then he said something that shocked the sports world…Tiger Woods would be taking a leave of absence from golf to fix his fractured family life. Just in the previous year, Tiger Woods captured 7 tournament championships and many sports writers considered he was playing his best golf that he has ever played (Dahlberg). He was prepared to go into 2010 on a mission, and “three of the four major championships were at courses he had won majors in previous years,” (Dahlberg). But, Tiger was taking a break, leaving many to wonder when his inevitable return would be. Many hoped he would come back for the first major championship, The Masters, in mid April, while others believed he might miss the entire year. Luckily, for sports fans, sports industries, and Tiger himself, he returned to The Masters and finished in an impressive fourth place (CBS Sports).

However, the damage was still there. There was no reversing his past; he could only focus on his future career in golf and with his family. But there was still a major concern in the whole incident: How did his sponsors react to the whole situation? Well, for one, before the incident, Tiger Woods was making an estimated 100 million in endorsements each year, more than any other athlete (KCRA). However, due to the recent troubles, Tiger’s sponsors decided to make some changes. For one, Gatorade, the leader in sports drinks, ended their sponsorship with Woods, making not only Woods, but also the Gatorade shareholders lose a lot of money. This downfall continued when Gillette and Accenture, two major sponsors of Tiger, were going to suspend or permanently cut Tiger from their advertisements, citing that “he was no longer the right representative,” (KCRA). Though Tiger’s money is not an issue, the lists of stockholder’s in his sponsors are suffering. In a study done by two UC Davis economics professors, it was predicted “the scandal reduced shareholder value in the sponsor companies by 2.3 percent, or about $12 billion,” (KCRA). Usually, an incident like this by any athlete creates only minor problems, so this goes to show us how important Tiger Woods is in every aspect of life.

Another problem the affair cost was the television ratings for the upcoming golf tournaments. Even though Tiger was lucky enough to play in The Master’s this year, the Nielsen ratings predict that viewership is 50% higher when Tiger is playing in a tournament (Lipsey). Many were worried this would take a major toll on the $75 billion dollar golf industry. If Tiger were not to play in a major tournament, the networks would lose a good amount of sponsors that want to advertise during commercials, because the fear of less viewership and thus the advertisements would mean much less. Though no one is certain what may have happened if he didn’t play this past spring, golf experts feared the worst for the sport they love so much.

Though he played in the major, he did miss a few tournaments in the winter causing a crush to the economy in those local towns that expect a huge boom whenever their tournament is played. Tiger’s big event, the Buick Open, was held out in San Diego and is always a big event, even though it is not a major tournament. Tiger’s presence at this event always brings spectators from around the area and brings serious golf fans that want to see Tiger. However, this years tournament turned our differently. For one, the previous two Buick Open’s attracted nearly 50,000 spectators to the events and generated $30 million for the city (Lipsey). However, this year the impact of an absence of Tiger caused the city of San Diego to generate only about $12 million, a reduction of nearly 60% from the previous year (Lipsey). As he says in the article, it looks like Tiger may also need to apologize to the city of San Diego.

The fall from grace that Tiger experienced this past winter will take a while for him and the rest of us to recover from. I’m sure that whenever we see Tiger, or at one point during a round, we will think about what that man went through and how he betrayed his family and fans. Surely by now most of us have somewhat forgiven him for what he did, but no one will forgive him for the way he handled the whole situation. In my opinion he acted childish and immature when dealing with the media and police. Also, for being the most beloved and famous athlete today, he acted so scared and feared. He should be smart enough to have a sense of handling the public, or at least hire an advisor to help him. Though the situation has seemed to blow over, now that Tiger is back on the course, his reputation as a role model diminished in my opinion. Everyone makes mistakes, but he should know better as a human being to act responsibility when he has everything he could possibly want, and well that in itself might just be the problem. Greed can be a dangerous thing, and Tiger Woods was guilty of that.

Dahlberg, Tim. "Two Weeks That Shattered the Legend of Tiger Woods." San Francisco Bay Area — News, Sports, Business, Entertainment, Classifieds: SFGate. 12 Dec. 2009. Web. 28 Apr. 2010. .

Lipsey, Rick. "Economic Impact of Tiger Woods Absence Might Not Be Severe, Golf Industry Experts Say - Tours & News - Golf.com." Golf News, Instruction, Equipment, Travel, Courses and More | Golf.com. 15 Dec. 2009. Web. 28 Apr. 2010. .

"Woods Scandal Cost Shareholders Up To $12B - Project Economy News Story - KCRA Sacramento." Sacramento News, Stockton, Modesto Breaking News, Weather & Sports - KCRA Sacramento's Channel 3. 28 Dec. 2009. Web. 29 Apr. 2010. .

The Death Penalty

Caroline McKinley

Critical Thinking Blog

Is the purpose of the death penalty to remove someone from society who could cause more harm? Or is the purpose of the death penalty to have vengeance for the sake of the victim? Is the death penalty justified? According to ReligiousTolerance.org, about 13,000 people in the U.S. have been legally executed since colonial times. The death penalty should not and never should be justified. A human life is too sacred, and a lot of times, a jury could make the wrong decision and claim an innocent man guilty. Also, executing capital punishment can often be more expensive than keeping a person in prison for the rest of his or her life (Hinton).

Capital punishment, also called the death penalty, is the pre-meditated and planned taking of a human life by a government in response to a crime committed by that legally convicted person. Amnesty International believes that "the death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights. It is the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state in the name of justice” (White). It violates the right to life. The death penalty is a cruel punishment, and there can never be any justification for this extreme cruel punishment. To me, taking away ones life is one of the only punishments that I think is too cruel for a person. Indiana Prosecuting Attorney writes that, "There are some defendants who have earned the ultimate punishment our society has to offer by committing murder with aggravating circumstances present. I believe life is sacred. It cheapens the life of an innocent murder victim to say that society has no right to keep the murderer from ever killing again. In my view, society has not only the right, but the duty to act in self defense to protect the innocent."

Putting someone to death violates the “cruel and unusual” part of the Bill of Rights. Plus, I think living a long life in prison is more suitable for a harmful person than being put to death because one would have to stay in jail with little freedom and a poor quality of life. It is very possible for someone to be put to death without even committing a crime because the jury does not always know what is right and wrong. If the jury assigns a person to prison for life without parole and the jury is in actuality wrong and makes a mistake, at least the person is not being killed. Many U.S. states have chosen to use life imprisonment instead of the death penalty. One main idea of imprisonment is to rehabilitate the person, and with the death penalty, rehabilitation of ones character and judgment is impossible.

It has been proven by some criminologists that when an execution is publicized, more murders occur in the few days or weeks following (Ornellas). Publicity of the death penalty may encourage crime instead of preventing it for an inexplicable reason, and statistically speaking, fear of the death penalty does not reduce crime. Even motives like revenge can come from the death penalty. For example, if someone was wrongfully put to death, a friend or family member could want revenge on the jury. The death penalty is tricky because it is hard to prove someone is guilty.

With the additional price of extra hearings and trials, as well as paying for the actual execution, most times it is more expensive to put someone to death than to keep them in prison for their whole life (Hinton). The punishment of having to be in prison for 40 plus years is a bad, but stripping ones life is the ultimate cruelest thing. The death penalty would just be taking the pain right away from that person without a chance to rehabilitate. The two main types of capital punishment are lethal injection and electrocution, but lethal injection is by far the most popular current form of capital punishment. From 1977 to 2007, there were a total of 929 lethal injection executions and 154 electrocutions (White).

Having someone be put to death may make the family members of the victim feel a little better, but most times, family members of the victim would rather want to know that criminal is hidden away in the dark cave called prison. Also, the most controversial aspect of the death penalty is whether the convicted criminal is in fact guilty. If someone is put to death, but the convicted is actually innocent, that would cause so much unneeded grief, pain, and money.

The reasons that capital punishment should not ever be justified in America are based on morality, the lack of deterrence of more crimes, the cost of death vs. life in prison, and constitutionality. The death penalty should never be used in America again.

Works Cited:

Hinton, Patrick. "The Pros and Cons of the Death Penalty." American Affairs (2009): n. pag. Web. 2 May 2010.

Ornellas, Lori. "Death Penalty Arguments: Deterrent or Revenge." (2001): n. pag. Web. 2 May 2010.

"Top 10 Pros and Cons. Should the Death Penalty be Allowed?" procon.org (2009): n. pag. Web. 1 May 2010.

White, Deborah. "Pros & Cons of the Death Penalty." US Liberal Politics (2009): 1-2. Web. 1 May 2010.