Bonding with Bondhus:
A Compendium of Concepts That
Concern College Citizens
By: English I Honors 2012
1
Committees
I am grateful to the students not only for submitting their essays but also for working hard
on committees to assemble this magazine. I myself had very little to do with it.
-Charlie Bondhus
Formatting Committee
Shaun Howe
Zach Hutchins
Cory Moloff
Stephanie Spies
Chris Wilson
Front Matter Committee
Emma Clasen
Devin McGuire
Megan Moore
Beth Tripod
Introduction Committee
George Jeffreys
Laureine Jeng
Gene Schaedel
2
Table Of Contents
Emma Clasen, Gender Roles in Spongebob Squarepants
3
Shaun Howe, America: Hit Hard By White Collar Crime
6
Zach Hutchins, Ignorance Killed the Next Generation
10
George Jeffreys, We Aren't That Bad Off
16
Laureine Jeng, The Right To Die
19
Devin McGuire, Why The Republican Party Needs
to Embrace Same-Sex Marriage
25
Cory Moloff, Are Businesses Controlling Our Lives?
30
Megan Moore, The Benefits and Importance of Miracle Blood
34
Gene Schaedel, Thunderstorms In Oklahoma City
42
Stephanie $pie$, Bad Investment
50
Elizabeth Tripod, Bobo and Burnham Agree with Me:
American is not a Post-Racial Society.
60
Chris Wilson, The Joys of Climate Change
65
3
Gender Roles in Spongebob Squarepants
By: Emma Clasen
How many men do you know who stay at home with the kids while their wives
are at work? Probably not too many. For ages, women have been forced to stay at home
with the kids doing the chores and housework. This occurrence is commonly
acknowledged by many feminists, authors, directors, and the general public. One
feminist, Pamela Stone, author of “The Rhetoric and Reality of ‘Opting Out,’” displays
husbands’ influence on women’s ability to hold a job while dealing with a rigorous home
life. Even children’s shows acknowledge the divide between the duties of husband and
wife. An episode of Spongebob Squarepants depicts the two main characters, Spongebob
and Patrick, as a couple with a similar issue. They adopt a baby clam, Junior, yet when
the roles of husband and wife are assigned, problems arise. In “The Rhetoric and Reality
of ‘Opting Out,’” Stone argues that husbands’ absence in family life and lack of
contribution to household duties results in women spending too much time and energy at
home focused solely on their family. This point is borne out by an episode of Spongebob
Squarepants called “Rock-a-Bye Bivalve” in the sense that Patrick spends all of his time
at work, he refuses to do any chores, and Spongebob is forced to pick up the slack.
In “Rock-a-Bye Bivalve,” Patrick confirms Stone’s argument that husbands are
absent from family life. Stone focuses much of her argument on the basis that husbands
do not take an active role in home life. For her essay, she interviewed several stay-athome mothers, most of whom placed some blame on their husbands for their hectic home
life. One woman stated, “He was leaving early mornings; 6:00 or 6:30 before anyone was
up, and then he was coming home late at night” (76). This occurrence is mirrored in the
episode of Spongebob Squarepants. After a day of playing and having fun with their new
son Junior, Patrick decides he must work to make a living for his family. Patrick leaves
for his job early in the morning and comes home late at night. Spongebob, tired and upset
from spending all day home alone with Junior, begs Patrick to come home at 6:00 and he
agrees. However, despite Spongebob’s pleas, Patrick spends all night at work and doesn’t
arrive home until midnight, infuriating Spongebob even more. This is consistent with
Stone’s assertions because it depicts the husbands’ absence at home due to long hours at
4
work and the negative effect this can have on women.
Stone’s claim that even when men are present, they do little to assist women
around the house is represented in “Rock-a-Bye Bivalve” when Patrick refuses to help
raise Junior. In her essay, Stone explains that men are very focused on their careers. This
is where they spend most time and what they put most thought and effort into. Stone
notes, “Husbands did little to share family responsibilities, instead maintaining their own
demanding careers full-speed ahead” (75). By this, she means that men put so much time
and energy into work, that they have little to spare once they get home. This situation is
paralleled in Spongebob Squarepants when Patrick arrives home from his first day at
work. Looking exhausted, Spongebob says with relief, “Oh great, you’re home. Now you
can help me with the baby.” However, Patrick responds with, “Gee Spongebob, I would
love to, but I’m totally beat from work.” Patrick’s display of apathy verifies the
legitimacy of Stone’s claim. In addition, a little later in the episode, Spongebob has a
breakdown after days without rest. He screams at Patrick, “You haven’t been helping at
all with Junior! We made a commitment and you’re not doing your share, you never do
anything!” This further demonstrates Stone’s argument that, “husbands’ absences, a
direct result of their own high-powered careers, put a great deal of pressure on women to
do it all” (77). In other words, men’s incapability to perform household duties has a
negative impact on women which is displayed when Spongebob has a meltdown.
Stone concludes that, as a result of men’s poor contribution, women must put a lot
of energy into home life which is illustrated in “Rock-a-Bye Bivalve.” In her essay, Stone
notes that women, “expend a tremendous amount of time, energy, and money in raising
their children” (74). She also adds that, “women had to deal with caregiving for sick
children and elderly parents, children’s developmental problems, and special care needs”
(78). The episode portrays these points similarly in the sense that Spongebob is
constantly working. Throughout the episode, he has seven arms that are cooking,
vacuuming, ironing, doing laundry, cleaning, and taking care of Junior. This equates to
Stone’s idea that women are always doing something for their family or home. In
addition, day after day, Spongebob asks for just one thing: a break. On multiple
occasions, Spongebob asks Patrick, “is it time for my break yet?” And every time, his
answer is the same: maybe some other day. Once Spongebob becomes fed up with
5
Patrick’s response, he shows Patrick how much work he really puts into raising Junior.
When Patrick comments, “He’s only this big, how many diapers can he use?” Spongebob
reveals the millions of diapers that have accumulated in the few days since they found
Junior. This is analogous to “The Rhetoric and Reality of ‘Opting Out’” because it
demonstrates how much work women really put into raising a child and how oblivious
men are to it all.
In her essay, Stone focuses on how husbands’ inability to be present and active
around the household can result in more pressure and work for their wives. These main
ideas are reflected in the episode “Rock-a-Bye Bivalve” of Spongebob Squarepants in
that Patrick gives Spongebob no assistance in doing chores or raising Junior during the
few hours he is home from work, which causes Spongebob to feel exhausted and
overwhelmed. In the episode, after Spongebob and Patrick’s argument really erupts.
While they are locked in debate, they hear Junior chirping from the second-story window
of Spongebob’s house. Since Junior hasn’t learned to fly yet, they immediately forget
their bickering and focus on saving their son. Once he falls and neither of them catches
him, Spongebob and Patrick break down and Patrick apologizes for the way he acted.
While this is occurring, they hear Junior chirping from above and realize he can fly and is
ready to live on his own. Although this episode of Spongebob Squarepants has a happy
ending, that is not often the case for couples in the real world. Many pairs who divide
their household based upon gender end up unhappy or divorced because they never
compromised and figured out a situation that made them both happy.
Works Cited
“Rock-a-Bye Bivalve.” Spongebob Squarepants. Perf. Tom Kenny and Bill Fagerbakke.
Nickelodeon. 29 march 2002. Television.
Stone, Pamela. “The Rhetoric and Reality of ‘Opting Out.’” Taking Sides: Clashing
Views on Social Issues. 17th edition. Ed. Kurt Finsterbusch. New York: McGrawHill, 2012. 72-80.
6
America: Hit Hard by White Collar Crime
By: Shaun Howe
White collar crime accounted for a loss of close to a billion dollars in 2006 and
that does not include half of the fees and bills that the victims are paying (Sharick qtd in
Bachtel 1). Our society is plagued with street crime in all parts of the country but an even
more dangerous crime that is on the rise is white collar crime. This type of crime is
present in workplaces where workers are being subjected to dangerous conditions and is
present in hospitals where medical professionals perform faulty surgeries. Almost
everywhere you look you can find forms of white collar crime because it is so prevalent
and easily done. Jeffrey Reiman takes this stand that white collar crime is more harmful
that street crime and I feel that he is absolutely correct. White collar crime is getting out
of hand in our society and is definitely a grave threat to our economy.
White Collar crime is a growing problem in our society and is present everywhere
from businesses mistreating employees to medical malpractice in hospitals. One
staggering statistic is that “some 800,000 people suffer from occupationally related skin
disease” (Reiman 314). To hear this is astounding enough and then to think that this is
only one of many diseases that occur from poor working conditions shows that it is
merely a small piece of a greater issue. This example also shows that corporations do not
really care about the employees enough to spend extra money for them to wear protective
clothing or to eliminate the harmful practice in the work environment. It is amazing
because we live in such a well developed society and these corporations are treating
regular people like animals. Practicing these types of business ethics only makes going to
work almost as harmful as walking around in a bad neighborhood. In contrast to this
Argument, Dr. Sidney Wolfe states that street crime is more harmful than white collar
crime.
Wolfe believes that street crime is more costly in regards to our society as a
whole. One aspect which is interesting to me in Wolfe’s article is that the US spends in a
year “$36 billion for corrections” (301). These are some pretty impressive numbers but
this argument is not the best to make for the case against white collar crime. It’s not like
street crime is the only crime punishable by imprisonment so this statistic is not very
7
strong. The government is also spending a lot more on white collar crime through hunting
down white collar criminals and trying the many cases that are coming up due to its rising
popularity. There is simply more money at stake with white collar crime and more
chances for money to be lost, even by the government. This take on white collar crime
helps present my stance on how I feel it harms America and where I feel it does the most
harm is through our wallets.
Mortgage fraud is growing even more popular along with white collar crime and
it is potentially the most costly. In an article by Andrew Carswell and Douglas Bachtel,
mortgage fraud is said to have a major affect on our economy to the point where the
government needs to intervene. This form of crime hurts our infrastructure, our
government, and our citizens because it has such a wide impact through the economy. All
three of these examples help to hurt our society and make white collar crime that much
more serious of an issue.
White collar crime is on the rise in America and the government is taking a big hit
from it. What is actually being done is people are inflating the prices of homes in order to
draw from the properties equity. Once the criminals have gotten what they want out of
that property, they get up and go leaving the property vacant. When mortgage fraud
strikes a community, it tends to take a big toll on that area. As stated in the article on
mortgage fraud “there is also a clustering effect involved with mortgage fraud that results
in several houses within one neighborhood ultimately going vacant and neglected” (6).
Often many houses are hit in one neighborhood and when the crime is over then the
community is left empty. This causes communities to go under because many people do
not want to stay in a neighborhood where most of the houses are foreclosed. These
houses tend to stay that way which is killing communities thus disrupting our
infrastructure. What is really happening is the foundations of our society are being rocked
by simple criminal acts such as mortgage fraud. This disrupts the system and leads to
large losses of money all over the United States. These communities are going under and
no money is going into real estate in these areas, local businesses in the areas, or back to
the government. Just because of one crime, the whole system is being affected and that is
very destructive as a whole. There is a break in the infrastructure which is far more
devastating than street crimes because instead of taking time for a good neighborhood to
8
become dangerous, it can happen in merely a few weeks. One part of the infrastructure
that takes the brunt of the losses is our government.
Mortgage fraud proves to be extremely problematic because local governments
are keeping records based on what the property owner had the house evaluated at and
these fraud cases are just providing faulty numbers. The government is under pressure
because they have “inconsistent and incorrect valuations” (5). This may seem good due to
the fact that it inflates neighboring housing prices but really hurts other properties when
they go to sell because the price stays high until fraud is discovered which then brings the
prices back to the levels they should be at or even lower. Because of this, the government
is now given more work to go find these criminals and research the proper prices for the
fraudulent homes. The government is already struggling to control this crime wave
because “there still exists many disincentives for conventional police forces to adequately
address such crimes” (Stotland qtd in Bachtel 6). My reasoning is that there is always talk
of how the government is spending so much on law enforcement and in order for them to
fight the growing tide of white collar crimes, more money needs to be spent to make task
forces and train officers. All of this spells out trouble regarding our budget and the
government is always struggling with it. Every cent trickles down through the system
helping to worsen our economy. White collar crimes are not limited to mortgage fraud
which means that our economy is under attack in many more ways due to white collar
crime. Not only is the government affected but the average citizens are too.
With the government taking such a hard hit when it comes to white collar crimes,
the citizens are bound to see the affects of it as well. The people being affected most by
mortgage fraud are definitely the average middle class citizens of the United States.
These are the people that experience the fraudulent inflation that comes about through
higher property taxes and lower home appraisals As stated by Bachtel “Mortgage fraud
victims…have been overwhelmed by the complexity of the challenges that emanate from
mortgage fraud” (6).They bear all the burdens because of this criminal activity and it is
too much. One way that average citizens are affected by inflated housing costs is through
living near foreclosed properties. This occurs because “some areas simply pass along the
costs or boarding up and maintaining these properties with fees and fines to existing
residents” (4). In essence they are paying for the white collar criminals wrongdoings just
9
because they live in close proximity to the property affected by mortgage fraud. Not only
do they have to pay fees for another person’s actions but when they go to sell their house
they face a contaminated market where buyers are skeptical to purchase in an area of
foreclosed houses. This causes homeowners to get less for their properties and thus
suffer monetarily. Middle and lower class individuals are the ones that see the effects of
white collar crime in all aspects and those are the people that can least afford it.
There has not been such a big emphasis on white collar crimes as there is now in
our society because of how dangerous they are. They are so dangerous that they shake
our infrastructure, harm our government and scar our citizens of the United States. If they
can have such a great affect on our society economically then our country is going to be
hurt in far more ways from it. Money is the center of the globe in our society today and
when there are money troubles then many more troubles follow suit. Street crime is a
very costly and dangerous crime to our country and the world but it is now taking a
backseat to white collar crime. Many would not believe that white collar crime could be
so dangerous but the reason why it is so dangerous is because it strikes in a different way.
It strikes in way that many people do not even know it is happening until it is too late.
With a crime that costly, it is safe to say that something needs to be done about it and
something needs to be done quickly.
Works Cited
Anderson, David A. "The Aggregate Burden of Crime." Ed. Finsterbusch, Kurt. Taking
Sides: Clashing Views on Social issues. New York: McGraw Hill, 2012. 301-308.
Andrew, T. Carswell, and C. Bachtel Douglas. "Mortgage Fraud: White-Collar Crime
with Long-Standing Community Effects1." Public Administration and
Management 12.4 (2007): 39-69. ABI/INFORM Complete; Banking Information
Source; Hoover's Company Profiles; ProQuest Central. Web. 7 Oct. 2012
Reiman, Jeffrey. "The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison: Ideology, Class, and
Criminal Justice." Ed. Finsterbusch, Kurt. Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Social
Issues. New York City: McGraw Hill, 2012. 309-317.
10
Ignorance Killed the Future Generations
By: Zachary Hutchins
Smallpox was one of the most deadly viruses in human history. It had a 30%
mortality rate and nearly killed the entire Native American civilization. But in 1796 we
humans stopped fearing the deadly diseases because we had successfully invented a
vaccine that would stop it. Since the first vaccine, we have continued to make many more
to battle deadly diseases and everyone got them because a scar on your arm was a lot
better than death. But if you look at society today you will find countless blogs, vlogs,
journals, and rallies of people talking about how you shouldn’t vaccinate. In this paper
you will find that I have used many different sources. My first source comes from the
College of Physicians of Philadelphia who made a website that gives free and reliable
information about vaccines. My second comes from a CQ Researcher article written by
Kathy Koch about Controversial Vaccines. My third source is the Centers of Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC). The CDC is one of the most reliable and up-to-date
sources for information of modern healthcare. My fourth cited source comes from
Doctor Blanca F who wrote a blog article on what would happen in a world without
vaccines. My fifth source is a report that Roman Bystrianyk did that used the history of
mortality rates in the United Kingdom and the United States to determine the
effectiveness of vaccinations. My sixth source is an article written by Rap
Sathyanarayana and Chittaranjan Andrade about why the infamous Wakefield report got
retracted. The seventh source I used was a survey that I conducted asking college
students if they believed that vaccines cause Autism. My final source was written by
Laura Eggertson who goes in depth on the aftermath of the Wakefield report. Based on
my research and my own thinking about the safety of vaccinations, I believe that these
protesters are wrong and that it would be stupid of us to not vaccinate. My first reason is
that, vaccines are the most safe and effective way of preventing diseases. Second, the
protection we get from the vaccine against diseases outweighs the possible side-effects.
Third, if we were to not vaccinate millions, if not billions, of lives would be at risk of
death. Finally, the research showing the dangers of vaccines are biased and not supported
by the scientific community.
11
Vaccines are not only the safest way to protect you from potential infectious
diseases they are the most effective too. Vaccines are “made from a killed, weakened, or
partial version of a pathogen” (“Top 20 Questions about Vaccination”); what this does is
it allows your body to fight off the virus without you getting sick. Then your body will
retain the antibodies that it used to kill the virus. Since your body has those antibodies in
its immune system it can then easily kill that virus whenever it comes in contact with it
before it can harm you (“Top 20 Questions about Vaccination”). Although sometimes a
vaccine will not be effective “Individual immune systems, however, are different enough
that in some cases, a person’s immune system will not generate an adequate response. As
a result, he or she will not be effectively protected after immunization.” (History of
Vaccines). Even if they will not work for 100% of the population it only has to work for
the majority. When most of the population is vaccinated it will protect the rest because of
the virus is more likely to come in contact with someone who already has the vaccine and
there it will be killed.
Wanting to keep your children safe is arguably the strongest instinct of a parent
and questioning the safety of vaccinations is understandable. Someone injecting a
weakened or dead virus into your child can be scary but all in all vaccinating is the safest
way to protect against diseases. Epidemiologist Roger Bernier agrees with me when he
says, “Vaccines are among the ‘safest pharmacological interventions for disease
prevention available’.” (qtd in Koch 645). In fact, vaccinations are probably the only
effective means of prevention we do. Yes we can eat healthy, exercise, and wear a mask
but it is not going to do much against a smart hungry virus. For example, Bobby Lea,
Olympic track cyclist, is one of the most fit and healthy athletes I know. When he was at
Beijing Olympics in 2008 he was one of the many American Olympians who wore a
mask but he still got sick. Another way people will try to bypass vaccinations and still
prevent diseases is to give your infant antibodies through breastfeeding. Well yes, this
does work but only for a little while. Those antibodies do not last forever. If
breastfeeding was a means to prevent illnesses then humans would have been disease free
for the past 200,000 years, but they weren’t, thus proving that method wrong.
One of the most controversial vaccinations is the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella
(MMR) vaccination. It was thought that the MMR vaccination causes Autism Spectrum
12
Disorder. This is the reason why millions of worried parents stopped having their
children get the MMR vaccination and sometimes all of their vaccinations. Now, Autism
is by no means a deadly disease, but Measles is. In fact Measles kills 200,000 a year and
causes miscarriages (“Overview of Measles Disease”). Even if the MMR vaccination was
linked to Autism, Measles is still linked to death and if we were to stop the use of the
MMR vaccination all we would see is the rise in preventable deaths.
Another controversial vaccine is the HPV vaccine which helps prevent cervical
cancer. Just ask Michele Bachmann, a republican congresswoman, and she will tell you
that this vaccination causes mental retardation. After one of the many Republican
Candidate debates congresswoman Michele Bachmann said that a sobbing mother came
to her and told her that the HPV vaccine gave her daughter mental retardation. Even if
she was correct, would that justify not getting this vaccine? No, “Every year in the United
States, about 11,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer and almost 4,000 die
from this disease.” (“Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccines”). So if you were to go on
the claim that the HPV vaccination causes mental retardation you would still be wrong to
not get it because even if this was true that would mean out of the thousands of women
who have received this vaccine only one was affected. But on the other hand out of the
11,000 women who contract cervical cancer 4,000 die. Math doesn’t lie and here it shows
the HPV vaccine heavily outweighs its “harmful” side-effect.
What if we were stop to vaccinating? Would the world go back to dark ages
where you didn’t know if you were going to survive the night because of all the diseases
around? Probably not, but it wouldn’t be pretty either. Doctor Blanca F writes in her blog,
“Can you imagine a world without vaccines? This would be a world where children
suffer polio, diphtheria, tetanus, meningitis. It would be a world where unborn babies are
infected by congenital rubella. This would be a world where newborn babies cough so
much with whooping cough that they suffocate to death?”. She then writes “What would
we see if our children suffered from any of these long gone infectious diseases? Not all of
them would be running in the park. Some of them would be deaf. Some of them would be
blind. Some would grow up to be adults who could not live independently due to their
disabilities.” This is a very terrifying image that no one wants to face. To think that not
all of the children living today would be alive is just horrific but that would be the result
13
if were to stop vaccinating. Some may say that this is extreme or dramatized but it isn’t;
these infectious diseases are real and they are still around. We have just been lucky
enough to live in a country where the majority of the population is vaccinated against
them. If we were to stop our vaccinations this dystopia would soon become reality.
No one knows the exact number of deaths that would occur if we were to cease
using vaccinations but I will do my best to paint you an image. In Roman Bystrianyk’s
report on vaccinations he shows the death rates of many diseases before their vaccine was
made in the United States and the United Kingdom: Pertussis 16 dead per 100,000,
Diphtheria 40 dead per 100,000, Typhoid Fever 31 dead per 100,000, Scarlet Fever 155
dead per 100,000, Whooping Cough 75 dead per 100,000, Measles 55 dead per 100,000.
When you add all of these up you get only .372%. You may think that this small but let
me remind you that this is all preventable and if you were to apply this to today’s
population you would get 26,040,000 dead a year and that is a conservative estimate.
These numbers would be much higher because these were taken from first world
countries. Countries that have poor access to medical care would have much higher
mortality rates and heavily increase this number. Furthermore, this does not contain many
other infectious diseases that we have vaccines for. Regardless this will be our baseline as
we add outbreaks. Throughout the course of history random outbreaks of viruses have
killed millions; these outbreaks have become extremely less likely because of the
vaccinations today. If we were to stop vaccinating these outbreaks could cripple
countries. Since we have easy access to travel all around the world we could easily turn
epidemics into pandemics. For example, the Spanish flu was contained in America where
it killed over 50,000,000 people. Today we have the technology to transport that deadly
virus around the globe killing exponentially more people. All of this is only a prediction
and it doesn’t have to come even close to reality as long as we continue to vaccinate.
Anti-vaccination fanatics will always find “evidence” showing how vaccinations
will harm your children and you should look for other methods. Well I am going to tell
you that you shouldn’t believe them because the research they are referring too is not
backed by the scientific community. The most common example of their “evidence”
comes from the Wakefield report where it was said that the MMR vaccine is linked to
Autism Spectrum Disorder. This report was retracted because “several elements in the
14
paper were incorrect,” and that they “were guilty of deliberate fraud . . . which appears to
have taken place for financial gain.” (Sathyanarayana 95). In other terms, everyone who
used this report to determine whether or not to vaccinate their children did it without
knowing that it was falsified for money. The crazy thing is that even after it was retracted
people still believe it. In a survey I conducted I asked 100 college students if they thought
that childhood vaccinations caused Autism: 57 said yes, 29 did not know, and only 14
said no. It is incredible how many people still believe the rubbish that Wakefield
reported. Laura Eggertson wrote, “When the original article was picked up by the general
media, the findings were fuelled by speeches and public appearances in which Wakefield
recommended single vaccines rather than the combined MMR. Many parents seeking a
cause for their children’s illness seized upon the apparent link between the routine
vaccination and autism,” (199). Here Eggertson explains how Wakefield’s report got
picked up so quickly and why many parents of autistic children backed Wakefield’s
findings. This report also came with harmful aftermaths. Eggertson writes, “In the United
Kingdom, the Health Protection Agency attributed a large measles outbreak in 2008 and
2009 to a concurrent drop in the number of children receiving the MMR vaccine.” (119).
Just as expected, when you tell the masses that it is harmful to take the MMR vaccine you
will get tons of people to stop vaccinating their children which then causes an outbreak in
the diseases it protects. Since we still do not know what causes autism it is
understandable why some parents might blame themselves or the vaccination, but it
doesn’t justify anyone blindly going along with false reports. If you are going to put your
child at risk by not getting vaccinated please research and do not go with what you have
read on blogs.
Vaccinations are here for our safety. We have created them to prevent us from
dying and I am sure that when they stop doing that we will stop making them. No
pharmaceutical company is trying to hurt its patients, yes they may try to cut corners but
that is why we have so many regulations in place. Due to people's distrust in vaccinations
we have put millions of dollars into their safety and the results show that they are safe
and it would be stupid not to use them. In conclusion, before you put the safety of our
future generations in jeopardy please do your research.
15
Works Cited
Bystrianyk, Roman. "Vaccines and Disease An Investigative Report." Vaccines and
Disease An Investigative Report. N.p., 18 Nov. 2002. Web. 26 Nov. 2012.
Eggertson, Laura. "Lancet Retracts 12-Year-Old Article Linking Autism To MMR
Vaccines." CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal 182.(2010): E199E200. Academic Search Complete. Web. 12 Nov. 2012.
F, Blanca. "A World Without Vaccines." Pediatrics in Paradise RSS. N.p., 31 July 2012.
Web. 26 Nov. 2012.
"Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 11 Oct. 2012. Web. 26 Nov. 2012.
Koch, Kathy. "Vaccine Controversies." CQ Researcher 25 Aug. 2000: 641-72. Web. 12
Nov. 2012.
"Overview of Measles Disease." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, 13 Apr. 2012. Web. 26 Nov. 2012.
Sathyanarayana Rao, T. S., and Chittaranjan Andrade. "The MMR vaccine and autism:
Sensation, refutation, retraction, and fraud." Indian Journal of Psychiatry Apr.
2011: 95+. Academic Search Complete. Web. 12 Nov. 2012.
"Top 20 Questions about Vaccination." History of Vaccines RSS. The College of
Physicians of Philadelphia, 2012. Web. 26 Nov. 2012.
16
We Aren’t That Bad Off
By: George Jeffreys
Have you ever seen a book with a really good title that you try to read only to find
that the book is terrible, only to attempt reading the book every time you see the title
because you really want that book to be good for the sake of its title? Immigration is one
of the biggest issues today in our country. People arrive every day from all parts of the
globe to try and live here, legally or not. Most are people who do not share what can be
thought of as traditional American values though. Is this a problem? Mark Krikorian says
that it is. According to him, “The conditions of modern society make such assimilation
increasingly difficult.” (28). In other words, the political nature of our country has
changed, and as such immigration becomes a burden. While it is true that things such as
transnationalism and multiculturalism make the successful assimilation of immigrants
harder, it is not true Kirkorian’s claim that because of these things “an overarching
American identity held by people of different ethnic groups and classes and regions and
religions [is what] modern societies have trouble developing.” (29). This is simply not
true, as Ralph W. Mathisen’s paper shows how the Romans were able to deal with such
problems as multiculturalism yet still maintain the national identity that transforms
immigration into a terrific boon. Jason L. Riley, on the other hand, shows how we still
have a solid national identity. This means that we are not being burdened by immigration.
Krikorian makes a good argument, almost. Compared to what we once had, it
does seem like it would be harder to form a national identity which, according to
Krikorian, seems vital. It is because of the technological specter ‘transnationalism’ and
the ideological specter ‘multiculturalism’ that this is true, he says (Krikorian 28 -9). As
he quotes, “Transnational communities are groups whose identity is not primarily based
on attachment to a specific territory. They therefore present a powerful challenge to
traditional ideas of nation-state belonging.” (Krikorian 28). As for multiculturalism, we
now “recoil from the idea that newcomers should even be required to adopt our
‘language, manners, and customs,’ let alone ‘be brought into complete harmony with our
ideals and aspirations.’” (Krikorian 28). This seems like a good argument, for obviously a
group of people who did not feel tied to this country and were not forced to accept our
17
values would be harder to assimilate than a group who did do those things. However,
now we have some proof that these things can be overcome with a powerful national
identity. While we Krikorian asserts that this identity would be difficult to maintain with
transnationalism and multiculturalism, Mathisen shows us an example of a time the
identity overcame these things.
Mathisen’s paper on citizenship and immigration in the Later Roman Empire
gives us a wonderful refutation of Krikorian’s ideas. There is evidence that the
barbarians, the greatest source of immigration in the Later Roman Empire by far,
maintained citizenship, to use a vague word, in both Rome and their native countries and
tribes, coming and going as they pleased, with all questions of loyalty being dealt with
via military oaths for soldiers and civic councils for civilians (Mathisen 1035). In other
words, the barbarians were allowed to live freely in both countries, transnationally,
because they were loyal to either the Roman Army or to the Roman Legal system.
Mathisen says that the people of Rome were also very multicultural, as in most cases if a
person was of two ‘groups’ with conflicting laws, for instance being a Roman or also a
Samaritan, or a Spaniard and Jew and Roman, they could choose from which legal
system they wanted to be tried in (Mathisen 1035). The Romans allowed many
competing and contradictory value systems alongside their own because it was ultimately
Roman Law that let this happen, meaning that all of these people with different values
were loyal to the Roman Law. I’ve brought up the law a few times now believing it to be
a major part of Rome’s national identity, and Mathisen agrees when he says “By making
their law available to all the Romans manifested their claim to rule all that mattered of the
whole world and established the closest thing ever known to a ‘citizenship of the world.’”
(1037). Since the barbarians, and indeed the majority of Rome, held together this loyalty
to Roman Law, or the Military that upheld it, transnationalism and multiculturalism were
no problem, with these policies lasting successfully for longer than the age of this
government.
We now know that while transnationalism and multiculturalism are killers, they
can be overcome with a powerful national identity. According to Jason L. Riley, we have
one. As Riley quotes, “The key to the success of the U.S. assimilation model [is that] we
put so much more stress on shared values rather than shared cultures.” (37). To rephrase,
18
immigration in America is working, not because we are forcing them to have our culture,
but because they come here to share our values. For “here, people can say what they
want, be what they want, do what they want,” and “foreigners like the fact that you can
make more money because you are hard-working or diligent or clever.” (Riley 37).
People don’t change when they get here, they only come here if they share our values
already. So, Our values of liberty and capitalism are apparently enough to unite us to the
point where transnationalism and multiculturalism don’t matter.
It’s true that the world has changed. We now more than ever before are a global
society. It does make sense that in a global society, immigration would be a process less
successful in assimilation. However, just because assimilation doesn’t work, doesn’t
mean immigration is a problem. We can look to the Roman Empire to see how a strong
national loyalty to Roman Law and Military kept a similar ‘global society’ together in the
face of transnationalism and multiculturalism. Plus, our national values are such that we
attract mostly immigrants who already hold those values. In such a world, how can
immigration be anything but a good thing?
Works Cited
Krikorian, Mark. “The New Case Against Immigration.” Kurt Finsterbusch, Taking
Sides: Clashing Views on Social Issues. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012. 25-31.
Print.
Mathisen, Ralph W. “Peregrini,Barbaria, and Cives Romani: Concepts of Citizenship and
the Legal Identity of Barbarians in the Later Roman Empire.” American History
Review. (006): 1011 - 1040. Web.
Riley, Jason L. “Let Them In: The Case For Open Borders.” Kurt Finsterbusch, Taking
Sides: Clashing Views On Social Issues. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012. 32 - 38.
Print.
19
The Right to Die
By: Lareine Jeng
In the Harry Potter series, a Horcrux is a device created by the darkest wizards
and witches. This is done by splitting the soul into two parts: one that is hidden in an
object, the Horcrux itself, and one that is in the physical body. This way, if the wizard or
witch’s physical body dies, the Horcrux still lives on, thus granting immortality for as
long as the Horcrux is unharmed. In the real world, modern medicine could offer us
temporary immortality in the form of life support. Life support can grant a terminally ill
patient up to several additional months of life. In a way, life support is a temporary and
expensive Horcrux. But would it be ethical create this Horcrux for someone who doesn’t
want it? In some places, terminally ill patients are given a choice of either staying on life
support of undergoing physician-assisted suicide.
A Gallup poll found that doctor-assisted suicide is the moral issue dividing
Americans the most, with 45% favoring and 48% against it (Saad). Not to be confused
with euthanasia, in which the physician administers a lethal dosage of medication to the
patient, assisted suicide is self-administered by the patient with a lethal dosage prescribed
by the doctor. This concern is even more controversial than the issue of abortion, one of
the most publicized topics, with 39% in favor of and 51% opposing. The issue of suicide,
on the other hand, was generally agreed by the public to be morally wrong, with 15%
versus 80% (Saad). As of 2012, Oregon, Washington, and Montana are the only states to
allow physician-assisted suicide, which was voted down in Massachusetts on Election
Day 2012.
“End-of-Life Issues Need to Be Addressed” calls attention to the problems with putting
patients facing imminent death on life support. In this article, Jane E. Brody argues that
although expensive, life support’s contribution to a human life is insignificant. At the end
of the article, she presents a cost-benefit analysis of the use of life support, which
substantiates that giving terminally ill patients choices other than life support may be the
best option for our society. In Finland, nurses responded to a survey concerning their
views on physical, emotional, and spiritual support for patients making the transition to
the terminal phase of their illnesses. A report, “Pain Management Problems in Patients’
20
Terminal Phase as Assessed by Nurses in Finland,” was written by Merja Kuuppelomäki
based on this survey. Benjamin Tallman’s article, “The Oregon Death with Dignity Act:
The Right to Live or the Right to Die?” is centered on a survey done on psychology
students at a large Midwestern university concerning this act. Henderson and Joseph
authored a paper titled, “Motor Vehicle Accident or Driver Suicide? Identifying Cases of
Failed Driver Suicide in the Trauma Setting.” This article discusses how to identify cases
of suicide attempts that are disguised as motor vehicle accidents. It concludes that the
prevalence of motor vehicle suicide attempts is underestimated because they are difficult
to identify, and they are usually passed off as accidents.
Based on my research and my own thinking, I found doctor-assisted suicide to
be beneficial under some circumstances and morally acceptable for four reasons. First, it
cuts health care costs that would have been wasted on a patient who has no chance of
recovery. Second, medical Horcruxes do nothing to improve the quality of life for these
patients, and assisted suicide allows these patients to die in dignity. Third, physicianassisted suicide is useful for reducing the amount of time the patient is tormented by pain
that medication cannot ease. Furthermore, it gives suicidal persons a chance to die
successfully and non-violently.
The medical director of Richard M. Ross Heart Hospital at Ohio State
University, Dr. Charles A. Bush, was interviewed by Brody concerning his views about
life support. With much prudence, he reasons, “This incredibly expensive end-of-life care
detracts from the health care system’s ability to finance preventive care”. Instead of
spending large sums of money to support patients whose lives would not be improved by
life support, we should spend it on preventing these illnesses. That way, the number of
people who fall to these illnesses will be reduced in the future. Preventive care would
naturally prolong the lives of individuals who would have fallen to these illnesses. For
those who are already afflicted with illness, doctor-assisted suicide can save money by
reducing the time spent on life support.
Brody also interviewed Dr. Jeff Gordon, a physician and author of A Death
Prolonged. He cites a study published by The New England Journal of Medicine that
found “that about 30 percent of Medicare dollars are spent during the last year of life, and
half of that is spent during the last 60 days” (Brody). According to Dr. Gordon’s
21
calculations, “[i]n 2009 dollars… that amounts to $70 billion a year, much of it spent on
futile care that prolongs suffering”. The fortune spent during this brief period has a
detrimental effect on our economy, and the legalization of assisted suicide could help
reduce this waste.
There is no doubt that medical technology can extend lifespans by months, how
much is the extra time really worth to the patient and family? Brody comments, “Most
measures taken when patients are terminally ill, including the use of feeding tubes,
ventilators and cardiopulmonary resuscitation, do nothing to prolong meaningful life.” I
strongly agree with Brody’s opinion that the extra time is pointless. I cannot imagine how
living in a hospital with feeding tubes and ventilators connected to my body, knowing
this is how I will spend the rest of my life, would feel any better than being dead. I don’t
see anything wrong with ending a life prematurely if it doesn’t affect its value. In A
Death Prolonged, Dr. Gordon further elaborates, “Today’s high-tech medical care can
sustain technical life – the beating heart – but utterly fails to restore real quality of life for
many. There comes a point when physicians can prolong dying, but not provide quality
living” (Brody). Like a Horcrux, life support only helps one stay alive, but there is no
point to the extra bit of life. In states that do not allow physician-assisted suicide, patients
are usually stuck in a meaningless life and not given a say in their end-of-life care.
The prohibition of doctor-assisted suicide constrains patients’ options
concerning end-of-life issues. For example, some patients do wish to undergo this
procedure, but in most states, there would be no use in communicating this to their
doctors. Physicians are fully aware of the cost and limitations of the medical Horcrux, but
they continue to use it nevertheless. “Lacking guidance from patients and families,
physicians who know better too often end up providing costly life support for the
terminally ill even though there is no hope for an improved quality of life,” Brody points
out. The legalization of assisted suicide could allow these doctors to provide care that
better appeals to their patients’ interests. Proponents of physician-assisted suicide also
argue that forcing patients to live through unmanageable pain is a form of torture.
The Horcrux not only fails to add value to a life, but in some cases, it could do more
harm than good. A survey on nurses was conducted in Finland concerning a sample of
terminally ill patients. “According to one-third of the nurses, the patients often had pain
22
that could not be alleviated in spite of all efforts,” Kuuppelomäki reports. Doctor-assisted
suicide could free these patients from this agony. However, without this option or
appropriate medication to subside the pain, these patients are essentially being tortured
simply by being alive. To deny a patient the option of assisted suicide is no more humane
than to throw someone to the dementors in Azkaban.
I don’t understand why we continue to spend money on creating Horcruxes for
people who don’t want them due to the misery they cause. Does the public not see that
we are wasting fortunes on something that causes suffering? “We’re torturing patients by
prolonging their deaths. And the cost to society is astronomical,” Dr. Gordon criticizes.
Giving these patients the option of physician-assisted suicide seems to be the most
reasonable approach. It could have double benefits, relieving the suffering and saving
money. As healthy humans, we are naturally evasive of death, but in reality, we can’t
know what we really want until we’re faced with the situation. “Given the opportunity,
most people would not choose a prolonged, painful death. Instead, they would choose a
natural, dignified death,” Dr. Gordon asserts. If I were faced with impending death, I
would be one of these people and choose to have my Horcrux destroyed over having to
tolerate a painful illness, even if doctor-assisted suicide were not available. If you knew
you’d be under the Cruciatus Curse for the rest of your fleeting life, would you make the
same choice?
Some suicidal individuals are in just as much distress as terminally ill patients.
Perhaps we could make physician-assisted suicide available to such individuals too.
According to Tallman’s survey, only 42% of respondents thought the option of doctorassisted suicide should be limited to patients with certain terminal illnesses (166). Giving
suicidal persons the option of assisted suicide as an opportunity to end their lives could
benefit society. Many suicides have caused personal injury to others or property damage
that could have been avoided if they had not been carried out so violently. Motor vehicle
suicides are a typical example “World Health Organization (WHO) has estimated 0.2%
of all cases of suicide are the result of motor vehicle crash,” cite Henderson and Joseph.
Although motor vehicle collisions are a rare method of suicide, suicidal intentions make
up a significant fraction of motor vehicle crashes. From the authors’ research, “the
current literature would suggest that at least 1 in 15 motor vehicle crashes are intentional
23
and remain largely unrecognised.” Bodily injury to other drivers, passengers, bikers,
pedestrians, and animals, as well as property damage caused by these suicides and suicide
attempts could have been prevented had physician-assisted suicide been an option for
these drivers. Motor vehicle collisions are not the only complications that could result
from suicide attempts. Accidental gunshot wounds, injury to bystanders and property
damage from falls, and a number of other problems could happen too. Leaving the option
of doctor-assisted suicide open for suicidal individuals could reduce these kinds of
“accidents.”
Without a doubt, the topic of assisted suicide generates one of the most
heterogeneous public opinions of all political, social, and medical issues today. However,
statistics and survey results affirm that physician-assisted suicide is appropriate in some
situations. It saves a significant amount of money and resources, which hospitals could
use for preventive care. Instead of creating Horcruxes that do not add any value to the
lives of these patients, doctor-assisted suicide could be used to let patients die naturally. It
serves as a last resort for patients in unbearable pain. Assisted suicide could reduce the
number of “accidents” caused by suicide attempts.
Because a life is the most basic possession anyone could have, I believe the
right to refuse that possession is the most basic right anyone could have. In my
perspective, it is more humane to let someone die in dignity than to put a dying patient in
anguish with artificial life-extending medical technology that prolongs suffering and
denies him or her a natural death. To force someone to live against their will under any
circumstance is simply inhumane, and I look at that in disdain. As a society, we need to
understand the true value of a human life; it is not priceless. Like Lord Voldemort, the
creator of the seven Horcruxes, we make the same grave mistake of doing everything
within our means to defer death. In the final showdown in Harry Potter and the Order of
the Phoenix, he was criticized by the sagacious Dumbledore for this: “Indeed, your
failure to understand that there are things much worse than death has always been your
greatest weakness –”
Works Cited
Benjamin Tallman. “The Oregon Death with Dignity Act: The Right to Live or the Right
to Die?” Journal of Loss & Trauma 14.3 (2009): 161-169.
24
Brody, Jane E. “End-of-Life Issues Need to Be Addressed.” The New York Times 17
Aug. 2009, New York ed., Health sec.: D7.
Henderson, Antony F., and Anthony P. Joseph. “Motor Vehicle Accident or Driver
Suicide? Identifying Cases of Failed Driver Suicide in the Trauma Setting.” Injury
43.1 (2012): 18-21.
Kuuppelomäki, Merja. “Pain Management Problems in Patients' Terminal Phase As
Assessed By Nurses in Finland.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 40.6 (2002): 701709.
Rowling, J. K., and Mary GrandPré. “The Only One He Ever Feared.” Harry Potter and
the Order of the Phoenix. New York: Scholastic, 2004. 814.
Saad, Lydia. “U.S. Perceived Moral Acceptability of Behaviors and Social Policies.”
Poll. 5-8 May 2011.
25
Why the Republican Party platform needs to embrace same
sex-marriage
By: Devin McGuire
Throughout the great history of America, Marriage has been key to building this
country up, from the Jamestown settlement to the 2012 election and beyond. Indeed, core
family values are the heart of this country, and President Obama recognized the impact of
helping Middle Class families during his re-election campaign. However, the status of
Marriage is declining, and according to a UK study, “married couples will be a minority
by 2050” (Silverman 1). This could potentially be detrimental to society, and especially,
to the Republican Party, which has fought for family values, liberty and personal freedom
since its inception in 1854. In order to preserve the family, we must adapt, and the
biggest adaption we can do is embrace same-sex marriage with open arms. Now, some
Republicans find this as taboo, and even some liberals feel the same way. However, just
under a century ago, interracial marriage was indeed considered to be illegal. Now, it’s
seen as perfectly fine, and members of my own family are happily in interracial
marriages. There is no doubt in my mind that the same light will shed upon same-sex
marriage decades down the road, and it starts now, with the Republican Party adding
approval of same-sex marriage to their platform. I believe that same sex marriage should
be legalized across America because prohibiting it is a violation of equal rights, because
it will stabilize the family, and because the majority of Americans are in support of it. To
aid in formulating my argument, I turned to scholarly articles by College Professors Steve
Sanders and Rory McVeigh.
The first primary reason that I feel that the legalization of same sex marriage
needs to be a priority is the issue of personal freedom and civil liberty. I especially feel
that if the Republican Party today wishes to maintain a strong voter turnout and bi
partisan compromise, they must take a second look of their platform to put civil rights
first. The Party, which had its roots in the Anti-Slave movement throughout the Civil
War, was at the time very liberal with its social ideals. However, today, with the issue of
same sex marriage, the party has done nothing but take a step backwards. In the 2012
26
United States presidential campaign, Republican nominee Mitt Romney stated, “I believe
that Marriage should be between a Man and a Woman” (CNN). Ultimately, he lost the
election by over 100 electoral votes. In the best interest of catching up with todays voters,
the party needs to open its eyes to the social issues once more, not only to win the votes
of Americans who prioritize social issues, but also to avoid being hypocritical, because
the Republican Party always stood for, and promised personal freedom.
However, with all this in mind, one may ask: why is same sex marriage a civil
rights issue in the first place? The most obvious answer to this comes straight from our
very own constitution. The 14th amendment states that it is illegal to “deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." However, civil unions, the samesex alternative to marriage in many states including my home state of New Jersey, are far
from equal. Take this example into mind: In Oregon, you can get married at 17.
However, in New Jersey, you must be 18. If a 17-year-old married couple were to move
to New Jersey however, the Marriage would be recognized because they are a married
couple. Now lets say two men enter a civil union in New Jersey. If they were to move out
of state to North Carolina, the union would not be recognized. In accordance to an article
written by Steve Sanders, “We live in a highly mobile country, and so we can assume that
many married same-sex couples have already changed states, or will do so, for jobs,
education, family, and personal reasons” (Sanders 2). Not only is this problem obvious
discrimination, but it is also inevidable because of the nature of American culture.
Another, not so obvious reason that Civil Unions are unequal is because the federal
government does not recognize civil unions. Therefore, the couples are not able to file
joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks the government affords to married couples,
forcing them to file single on their federal tax returns.
The preservation of the family is another reason that I feel that legalizing samesex marriage needs to be a priority in the party, and in this country as a whole. In a
scholarly article by Rory McVeigh, he states “communities where good-enough
marriages are common have better outcomes for children, women, and men than do
communities suffering from high rates of divorce, unmarried childbearing, and highconflict or violent marriages” (McVeigh 6). To paraphrase his points, when marriage is
an option for a couple, it not only comes with certain rights but also commitment: a
27
commitment to be good to each other and to be good to the community and country.
Now, this doesn’t mean that the Catholic Church (or any Church, for that matter)
needs to recognize same sex marriage, and in fact, it is quite okay if they do not. A
separation of church and state has served our nation well since its inception, protecting
religions from government and keeping religious influence in Government to a minimum.
In this country, Marriage serves more purpose than bringing two people of either sex
together; it opens up a world of opportunities such as Social Security and Medicare for
the couple as they grow. However, unmarried couples, even if they are living together,
just cant take advantage of these opportunities. One lesbian hailing from New York State,
Katie Wolfe, stated “When my late partner Anne was sick, I had on occasion had to
pretend to be her sister just to be able to visit her in the hospital” (Wolfe 2). Same-sex
couples cant collect the social security pension like a heterosexual couple would receive.
Wolfe emphasizes, “Having the right to marry is vital to being an equal citizen of our
nation”.
By giving Same-Sex couples the right to marry, it does more than give them
social benefits. It also increases the ease for same-sex couples to adopt. According to the
Adopt US Kids website, “More than 250,000 children in the U.S. enter the foster care
system every year” (Adopt 1). Legalizing same-sex marriage can and will help alleviate
this devastating problem.
The final reason that I believe that same sex marriage needs to be recognized by
the Republican Party is because today, the majority of Americans are in strong support of
it. In accordance to a poll conducted by ABC news in the last month, “51% of Americans
support same-sex marriages- the fifth consecutive poll taken by the news organization
that showed a majority of Americans in favor” (Sink 1). As the tables continue to turn on
the issue, the gap between those in favor and those who don’t continues to grow wider
and wider, and choosing to remain opposed to same-sex marriage, or even just neutral
about it, can have a magnitude of impact on swaying the votes of party unaffiliated
independents who are passionate in regards to the issue. Even though the article states
that two thirds of senior citizens are against the practice, as a new, open-minded
generation replaces them, many people anticipate the change that should and will come in
very little time at all.
28
The issue of same sex marriage is one that is very important to me personally.
Recently, a close friend of mine came out, and it is amazing to see the support, the
compassion, and the understanding that many of my fellow citizens have today towards
the issue. LGBT groups have been making statements towards voters and politicians alike
for decades, and now is the time that the Republican Party needs to recognize the impact
of the biggest civil rights campaign since the 1960’s. Although I did place a emphasis on
voting records throughout this article, ultimately, what’s at stake isn’t numbers, but the
personal freedom of millions of couples who long for nothing but the opportunity to live
their lives. From being denied access to social security pensions to wanting to raise a
loving family, there is a big piece of their lives that they are lacking because this Country
wont let them have it. They made their cries, and America needs to listen. As the
Republicans lose their advantages in congress with a Democratic President at the helm, it
is clear as day that the issue of same-sex marriage is undeniably important for some
voters. Now is the time to strike a positive change, and this is why I believe that in the
best interests of personal freedom and in the best interests of this country, the Republican
party should immediately embrace same-sex marriage, in hopes that one day, ALL of
America will as well.
Works Cited
McVeigh, Rory, and D. Diaz Maria-Elena. "Voting to Ban Same-Sex Marriage:
Interests, Values, and Communities." American Sociological Review 74.6 (2009): 891915. ABI/INFORM Complete; Banking Information Source; Hoover's Company
Profiles; ProQuest Central. Web. 12 Nov. 2012.
"Meet The Children." Adopt US Kids. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Nov 2012.
<http://www.adoptuskids.org/meet-the-children>.
Morgan, Piers. Mitt Romney On Gay Marriage. 2011. Video. CNNWeb. 26 Nov 2012.
<http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/07/mitt-romney-on-gay-marriage/>.
Sanders, Steve. "The Constitutional Right to (Keep Your) Same-Sex Marriage."
29
Michigan law review 110.8 (2012): 1421-81. ABI/INFORM Complete; Banking
Information Source; Hoover's Company Profiles; ProQuest Central. Web. 12 Nov.
2012.
Silverman , Rosa. "The Telegraph." Telegraph. (2012): 2. Print.
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9593369/Married-couples-will-be-inthe-minority-by-2050.html>.
Sink, Justin. "Poll: Majority of Americans support gay marriage." Hill 14 11 2012,
1 n. pag. Web. 26 Nov. 2012. <http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefingroom/news/267833-poll-majority-of-americans-support-gay-marriage>.
Wolfe, Kathi. New York Times [N.Y. same-sex marriage legalization step in the
right direction] 5 7 2011, 1 n. pag. Web. 26 Nov. 2012.
<http://www.progressive.org/node/165552/84809>.
30
Are Businesses Controlling Our Lives?
By: Cory Moloff
“The love of possession is a disease with them” (York, 60). No truer words could
have been spoken about the Americans. Chief Sitting Bull said this in 1877, but it still
holds true today. We are obsessed with getting the most bang out of our buck, so it seems
like a good thing that businesses are able to give us such great deals. However, the values
of the capitalist businesses undermine the core values of this country that were founded
on the principles of democracy. In “Manufacturing the Love of Possession” Richard York
summarizes a book called The Consumer Trap and emphasizes how businesses greatly
influence our lives through marketing and political marketing. In “How Capitalism is
Killing Democracy” Robert B. Reich makes the point that businesses don’t really care
about people, and that everything a business does is just to maximize profits. In
“Economic Freedom Underpins Human rights and Democratic Governance” Anthony B.
Kim argues that it’s better to have capitalism and democracy, than to just have an
oppressive government that controls everything. Businesses have a powerful presence in
politics and our private lives; as well as an unquenchable thirst to make as much money
as possible. They have a hold on congress which allows them to influence our lives
through the government. They constantly monitor citizen’s spending habits to guarantee
that all of our needs are fulfilled through their products. They cut corners and perform
risky, immoral actions to get more money. The capitalist values are taking over this
country and democracy just cannot keep up.
Democracy is supposed to be the voice of the people, but recently the people’s
voice is being drowned out. The fact that multi-million dollar companies can have any
sway in politics is ridiculous. This results in a nation that just caters to big businesses.
The problem with this is that companies are not looking out for the greater good of
society. All they want to do is increase their profits. Robert B. Reich explains how the
companies can sway congress when he says, “Democracy has become enfeebled largely
because companies…have invested ever greater sums in lobbying, public relations, and
even bribes and kickbacks…In the United States…the fights that preoccupy Congress,
those that consume weeks or months of congressional staff time, are typically contests
31
between competing companies or industries” (209). This basically means that businesses
pay congress to create laws and regulations that will benefit them. It’s as clear as day that
this undermines democracy. If issues about businesses and competing industries become
the top priority, then that means that we place capitalism on top of a pedestal while
democracy just collects dust in the corner. Furthermore, if Congress is wasting all this
time because the businesses keep throwing them money, then when are they able to
debate about other issues such as health care, environmental safety, etc.? I can say with
the utmost certainty that the average consumer is content with what we already have. It’s
time for congress to look at more serious issues like the previously mentioned ones.
Richard York gives a great example of one of these debates when he talks about the
Federal Aid Highway Act. “The passage of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 was a
boon for capital, in that it undermined public transportation and greatly expanded
marketing opportunities, particularly, and most obviously, for automobile manufacturers”
(63). He also notes that the passage of this act was “product of the strategic intervention
of capitalists into public policy” (63). This act created the interstate highway system, but
in order to fund it citizens had to pay new taxes on fuel and automobiles. While it seems
like this benefits citizens, the main focus was in the interest of the businesses because it
gave them more opportunities to get more money. People had to buy cars, fuel, and tires,
and the money spent on that went straight into the respective industries. To restate my
main point, democracy is being drowned out by capitalist businesses and their money.
The main source of their wealth comes from marketing.
Every day we experience marketing. Whether you’re watching television, going
on the internet, or even doing nothing can affect you. Television has the obvious example
of commercials, the internet has ads all over the place, and when you are not doing these
two things you get assaulted by telemarketers and junk mail. No matter what you do
marketing will find you. Our habits are recorded so that businesses can keep our needs in
mind when creating and selling products. Marketing allows “people’s behavior outside of
the workplace as conducive to capital accumulation as their on-the-job activities” (York,
62). This shows how deep this rabbit hole really goes. The surveillance of our private
lives allows businesses to create products specifically for you, and offer them at the best
price. This which ensures that they can maintain their wealth. York gives a good estimate
32
of how much money they invest into marketing when he says, “Big businesses in the
United States now spend well over a trillion dollars a year on marketing. This is double
Americans’ combined annual spending on all public and private education, from
kindergartens through graduate schools” (62). Businesses are able to do this because they
make from consumers pays for all of this with some to spare. It doesn’t make sense to
buy something at a higher price from a small business when you can get the same thing
from these huge companies. We’re forced into feeding the machine that is capitalism.
This just ensures that the businesses can keep using their wealth to get a bigger influence
on politics rather than the citizens. Once again, this completely goes against democracy.
The citizens are supposed to the focus of the government, not the companies. Businesses
only want to boost their income, and some of the ways that they do this disregard their
employees, communities, and of course, democracy.
Businesses are able to offer such cheap products because they cut a lot of corners.
Robert Reich explains this well when he says “we know the roots of the great economic
deals we’re getting. They come from workers forced to settle for lower wages and
benefits. They come from companies that shed their loyalties to communities and morph
into global supply chains… And they come from industries that often wreak havoc on the
environment” (207). Those works that settle for lower wages can also be laid-off in great
numbers. They have very poor job security. Reich talks about how in other democratic
nations jobs are cut by the thousands (207). It’s flat out wrong to treat your employees
that way. Job security should be a very high priority of democracy, but this just shows
how capitalism undermines it. Companies used to have a sense of community a long time
ago, but that fades away once they become afflicted with the disease of greed. It is just
going to continue to become more and more out of hand because these businesses are just
making rules for themselves. It really seems like no one can keep these businesses in
check. Anthony B. Kim thinks that this is good because it lets “independent sources of
wealth counterbalance political power” (213). But I think that’s completely wrong.
Political power should have the final say. In a democracy, where we elect our leaders, we
should be able to also present them with the issues that affect all of us as a collective.
One company should not be able to counterbalance political power, but a majority should
definitely have some pull in that area.
33
Ultimately, the ideas of capitalism and democracy end up conflicting with each
other in the end. It creates a bad distribution of wealth among society, and a poor system
of government. Businesses have too much influence in politics and our personal lives.
We really need to have some kind of political reform in this country. I doubt that this was
the vision that the founding fathers had for this country. People need to wake up and
really look at all the corruption around them.
Works Cited
Kim, Anthony B. "Economic Freedom Underpins Human Rights and Democratic
Governance." Taking Sides. Ed. Kurt Finsterbusch. 17th ed. New York: McGrawHill, 2012. 211-15. Print.
Reich, Robert B. "How Capitalism Is Killing Democracy." Taking Sides. Ed. Kurt
Finsterbusch. 17th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012. 207-10. Print.
Robert, E. Prasch. "The Consumer Trap: Big Business Marketing in American Life."
Journal of Economic Issues 40.4 (2006): 1162-4. ABI/INFORM Complete;
Banking Information Source; Hoover's Company Profiles; ProQuest Central.
Web. 15 Nov. 2012.
34
The Benefits and Importance of Miracle Blood
By: Megan Moore
What if saving a life started at birth? Families could be better prepared if faced
with a life-threatening illness. Cord blood banking is a once in a lifetime opportunity; it
can be lifesaving and life altering. Cord blood is the blood that remains in the umbilical
cord and placenta immediately after birth and is rich in stem cells that have been proven
to be beneficial to preserve after birth. By extension, The Cord Blood Registry is a site
that gives potential clients all the information they need to prepare themselves for
collecting and sending in the cord blood. In addition, there is an updated list of all the
diseases that can be treated with cord blood. Along the same lines, “Cord-Blood
Controversy” by Holly Peterson describes specifically how the cord blood procedure
works and a few of the benefits. She believes the blood is “biological insurance.”
Similarly, “Stem Cell Transplantation For Treatment Of Sickle Cell Disease: Bone
Marrow Versus Cord Blood Transplants” proves that the stem cells in cord blood are
biologically younger than other stem cells. Furthermore, transplantations of cord blood
have been proven successful in many individuals with sickle cell disease. On the
contrary, “Milestones In Umbilical Cord Blood Transplantation” states that with
advances in technology, cord blood research is more common and advancements are
being made. Several advantages that are addressed include no ethical controversy,
minimal engineering and a promising future. Additionally, “Umbilical Cord Blood
Banking” by Holly Wagner argues that there are more advantages to banking than not
banking. She also goes in depth about the costs of banking. Lastly, The National Cord
Blood Program is an informative site about cord blood and the benefits of banking. Also,
the site examines what the blood is used for, the downsides of not having enough cord
blood and why it is important to donate. The public used to think cord blood was useless
and could just be discarded after birth. But recently, scientific research suggests that it is
beneficial to harvest the blood and store until it is needed. These sources have led me to
believe that cord blood is a brilliant new break in the medical field and that it is an
excellent idea to bank the blood.
Based on my research and my own thinking about infant cord blood banking, I
35
believe that it is widely misunderstood and the misconceptions are contorting the public’s
views and as a result less people are banking. I feel this way for three reasons. First, the
procedure is simple and does not harm the mother or baby. Second, it has been proven to
be beneficial in the treatment of many diseases. And finally, cord blood does not require
a perfect match, so it can benefit a wide range of individuals. The public needs to be
better informed in order for this procedure to become a common practice. Ultimately,
what is at stake here is life saving technology for future generations. Individuals having
children and planning to preserve the cord blood do not have to worry about harm being
done during the procedure.
There have been many misconceptions about cord blood and the process in which
it is collected because the public is not properly informed of this technology. Many
individuals believe that there is harm done to the baby or mother and that it is
unnecessary. That is false; the collection process is simple, painless, and safe for both the
mother and child (Cord Blood Registry). According to the National Cord Blood Program,
“The New York Blood Center's National Cord Blood Program staff collects cord blood
from the delivered placenta, in a way that does not interfere with the care of the mother or
newborn baby. Collection, therefore, poses no risk to mother or baby.” Basically, there
are no dangers involved in collecting cord blood. This provides comfort to the families.
In addition, to prove that there are no risks, in “Cord-Blood Controversy,” Holly Peterson
describes how the procedure works. She discusses the procedure by stating, “Using a
simple kit, blood from the baby's umbilical cord is extracted immediately after birth, and
then returned to a private bank via special courier. …the stored blood's stem cells can be
retrieved, then isolated and injected into the patient's veins.” (56) From this description it
is evident that there are no adverse effects to the mother or child. After the cord blood is
collected it can be preserved two ways. They include private and public storage. With
private storage there is a fee and only the family who puts the blood on hold can use it. It
is peace-of-mind for the family to have this blood always readily available incase
something happens to someone in the unfortunate event of a catastrophic diagnosis of a
family member. It is biological insurance for the future of their family. On the other hand
with public storage, there is no fee and anyone has access to the blood. Both are great
ideas and should be thoroughly discussed by parents before they have children.
36
If individuals do not have sufficient funds to pay to bank the blood privately, the
next best option is to store the blood publicly so others can have access to it. By publicly
donating, individuals who do not have family members that match them can get a chance
to be a match to someone else. Since the process is harmless and simple to perform there
are no reasons why the blood should not be collected at every birth and stored for future
use. "Milestones In Umbilical Cord Blood Transplantation" agrees by saying, “The main
practical advantages of using cord blood as an alternative source of stem cells are the
relative ease of procurement, the absence of risk for mothers and donors, the reduced
likelihood of transmitting infections.” (Vanderson 441) The essence of this argument is
that there are no risks and that it can be used very quickly after being collected. It should
be made mandatory for the parents to decide if they want to keep the blood or donate it
rather than dispose of it has medical waste. The misconception of the procedure being
detrimental is negatively affecting the number of people that are keeping their children’s
cord blood. The connection to stem cells is also damaging cord blood image. Cord blood
cells are not like embryonic stem cells. No life is lost in collecting stem cells. It is crucial
to alert the public of the difference. The benefits of storing the blood are significant. If
more blood is stored, then more lives can be saved. Growing the banks is directly
connected to more people living longer and happier lives. Individuals can live these
healthier lives because of the diseases that can be treated with cord blood.
Cord blood has been proven to be beneficial in the treatment of many diseases.
Cord blood is filled with pristine stem cells. These stem cells are also biologically
younger and are easier to use to treat many patients (Cord Blood Registry). With all of
these benefits going for it, it is not surprising that there is much research being done
involving cord blood. Successful research has shown that is effective against many
diseases and cancers. “Umbilical Cord Blood Banking” articulates many of the diseases
that cord blood has been shown to treat, Studies have shown the success of using
umbilical cord stem cells to treat diseases such as leukemia, lymphoma, various anemias,
and genetic disorders. Umbilical cord blood is a hematopoietic tissue, meaning it contains
a mother lode of cells which give rise to the blood cells that carry oxygen, fight
infections, and form clots in injured sites. (Wagner 59). Basically, Wagner lists many
diseases cord blood treats and discusses how cord blood is more beneficial than other
37
treatment options like bone marrow transplants. A specific example of how cord blood
has been proven to work is a test that was done with sickle cell disease patients. “Stem
cell transplantation for treatment of sickle cell disease” describes what the outcome is
when stem cells from bone marrow and cord blood are transplanted into patients
suffering from sickle cell disease. The article states, “Current treatment options have
lengthened the lifespan of patients with SCD… although bone marrow, peripheral blood,
and cord blood transplantation has been successfully performed in patients with SCD”
(Thompson 1295). In other words, cord blood has been shown to be more effective than
bone marrow in treating sickle cell disease. Sickle cell disease is a very painful disease.
Being able to alleviate the pain of these patients would be extraordinary. The list of
diseases is only a glimpse of what is still to come and it is expected to grow.
One way or another, either privately or publicly, cord blood should be banked. It
should be banked in order to treat the millions of people that are affected by diseases
every year. Donating the blood also leads to research being done in order to more
effectively use the blood for additional diseases. In the future, I believe that most cancers
and diseases will be cured with this technology. By informing the public, more people
will be willing to donate their child’s cord blood. Using cord blood is not a common
practice because it is still new technology. More research needs to be done in order for
cord blood to be used more regularly. Cord blood treatment is not used often because it is
still new. The list of diseases is continuing to grow and it is hard to maintain a current
list. The individuals that are seeking treatment have a greater chance of receiving cord
blood than other treatments like bone marrow because cord blood has fewer criterions.
Cord blood transplantations do not require a perfect match in order for a
transplant to occur; partial matches can still lead to successful transplants. The National
Cord Blood Program has done significant research with cord blood and its ability to be
used by wide ranges of people. The National Cord Blood Program proves this by
stating,Studies have shown that cord blood transplants can be performed in cases that the
donor and the recipient are partially matched. In contrast, bone marrow grafts require 8/8
matching in most cases. Because partially matched cord blood transplants can be
performed, cord blood increases the patient’s chance to find a suitable donor.Basically
the National Cord Blood Program says that it is easier to match cord blood over bone
38
marrow. Additionally, the incredible numbers that were produced from this study is
outstanding. Being able to match 80-90% is amazing. These percentages could go up
even if more blood was banked. If it reaches 100% that means that the whole population
would be able to receive cord blood to treat their disease. This could lead to fewer
unnecessary deaths of people who were unable to find matches.
More individuals are likely to be matches to one sample of blood rather than any
other source of treatment like bone marrow. By banking the blood there is a larger
opportunity for individuals to use the blood and be cured. It is incredibly important to
donate cord blood. Not needing a perfect match opens many doors for people looking for
transplants. It is a common misconception that a perfect match is needed because most
other types of transplants need a complete match. Cord blood is more universal for this
reason. More doctors need to consider cord blood technology. Additionally, parents need
to do more research and consider cord blood as a reasonable treatment option. The
importance of public cord blood banking is seen in a statistic done by the Cord Blood
Registry. Their findings showed that, “In 2009, the National Marrow Donor Program®
facilitated more than 4,800 marrow and cord blood transplants for patients who did not
have matching donors in the family.” 4,800 lives were saved because of individuals
publicly storing their children’s cord blood. That is phenomenal and the number of
people with transplants will increase if more contributions are made. Privately storing is
also beneficial if a family has a history of certain diseases and would like to ensure a
healthy future for their child. Banking for other reasons is important as well.
To bank or not to bank is a question that is on the minds of parents before they
have children. In "Umbilical Cord Blood Banking,” Holly Wagner discusses the odds of
children using their own cord blood by saying, “Depending on which study you read, the
chance of a child using his or her own stem cells is estimated between one in 1,000 and
one in 200,000 by age 18, according to the American College of Gynecologists and
Obstetricians” (63). Wagner is insinuating that cord blood is not often used by the child it
was banked for. However, earlier in the article Wagner states that, “The stem cell sample
is for the whole family-brothers and sisters, fathers and mother and grandparents… more
than 25 transplants are done each month with allogeneic cord blood. A large number of
these transplants are among siblings.” (62) Ultimately, Wagner is giving statistical
39
evidence that supports private banking. I feel that it is up to the parents if they are willing
to pay to the money to bank the blood. The blood can be equally important when siblings
or parents use it too.
If parents stopped to think about the importance of cord blood, many of them
might simply assume that their child will never need the cord blood. However, my
findings show that not just the individual whose blood it is uses the blood. Many siblings
and other various family members have benefited from the blood. Cord blood is not just
banked for one individual; it is banked for a whole family. I am a supporter of cord blood
for many reasons. I feel that there are an abundance of diseases that can be treated and I
would want to do all I can to protect my children. My mother, Cathy Zehr banked my
sister’s cord blood for several reasons. In an interview she said, I know several people
who have children with different forms of cancer and some of them have been cured with
cord blood. The ones who did not bank were sorry they did not. Trying to find a match is
very difficult when it’s not your own or a sibling. I also lost a child in infancy so that
made my decision much easier to make (Zehr).
Knowing individuals who have cancer and having children that have passed
away, seem to make the decision to bank easier for parents. Parents have the final say in
if the blood is banked. The odds of using the blood yourself are not necessarily high, but
it provides peace-of-mind to the family. Families with histories of certain diseases should
greatly consider banking. The family history is just one of the many reasons that cord
blood banking is important.
After accumulating my findings and my own beliefs, I have concluded that there are
many advantages to banking cord blood either publicly or privately, rather than disposing
of it as medical waste. I have provided three supporting reasons for this claim. First, the
method of collecting the blood does not endanger the mother or baby. Second, much of
extensive research has proven that cord blood is successful in treating many diseases.
Lastly, it is not essential for a donor’s cord blood to be a perfect match to the recipient in
order to receive a successful transplant. These findings have important implications for
the broader domain of overall human health and growth of the medical field. There is a
promising future for cord blood technology. Researching is blossoming. Cord blood stem
cells are not embryonic stem cells and do not come with the extra baggage of being
40
controversial like normal stem cells. It is extremely beneficial to the public if at every
birth cord blood was donated publicly or privately. Disposing of it as medical waste is
improvident. It is impossible to determine if an individual will ever need the blood, but it
is better to have peace-of-mind knowing that there is a large bank of blood that you could
possibly use in the future. The misconceptions of cord blood can be cleared up a few
ways. More documentation should be provided to expectant parents and hospitals and
doctors should promote it more. The lack of public knowledge is correlated with the
medical field not effectively providing the public with enough information. If more
information is made available, then more individuals will bank and more lives can be
saved. Cord blood currently treats eighty diseases and the list is continuing to grow
(National Cord Blood Program). With the growing list more individuals are receiving
treatment. Being able to treat diseases that were once considered untreatable is a huge
advancement. The future of cord blood is outstanding. The process and treatment
involving infant cord blood does not seem unreasonable when comparing it to saving a
life.
Works Cited
"Benefits of Cord Blood Banking Questions." Cord Blood Registry. N.p., n.d.
<http://www.cordblood.com/benefits-cord-blood/cord-blood-faqs>. Web.
Peterson, Holly. "Cord-Blood Controversy." Newsweek 142.7 (2003): 56-58. Points of
ViewReference Center. Web.
Thompson, Lisa Marie, Maria Estela Ceja, and Sonal Patel Yang. "Stem Cell
Transplantation For Treatment Of Sickle Cell Disease: Bone Marrow Versus Cord
Blood Transplants."American Journal Of Health-System Pharmacy 69.15 (2012):
1295-1302. Academic Search Complete. Print.
Vanderson Rocha, et al. "Milestones In Umbilical Cord Blood Transplantation." British
Journal Of Haematology 154.4 (2011): 441-447. Academic Search Complete.
Print.
41
Wagner, Holly. "Umbilical Cord Blood Banking." USA Today Magazine 128.2658
(2000): 59-70. Points of View Reference Center. Web.
"What Are the Advantages of Cord Blood?" National Cord Blood Program. N.p., n.d.
<http://www.nationalcordbloodprogram.org/qa/what_are_advantages.html>.
Web.
Zehr, Cathy. Personal interview. 10 November 2012.
42
Thunderstorms in Oklahoma City
By: Gene Schaedel
WTF?!?! That was my initial reaction when I saw the news about James Harden
on ESPN. Being a huge fan of the Oklahoma City Thunder, I thought it would be a great
idea to write about what might happen to James Harden, one of the best young players in
the National Basketball Association. The Thunder had him under contract through the
2012-2013 NBA season and then after the season, Harden would become a restricted free
agent which gives the Thunder the option to match any contract that another team offers,
thus enabling the team to keep Harden. I was going to explore the team’s options but
before I could come up with my opinion, Harden was traded to the Houston Rockets
along with Cole Aldrich, Daequan Cook and Lazar Hayward and in exchange the
Thunder would receive Shooting Guards Kevin Martin and Jeremy Lamb, and two first
round draft picks in the 2013 NBA draft. For the purposes of this essay, we will not focus
on Aldrich, Hayward and Cook because they have not shown to be much more than
fringe players in their careers with at least two seasons per player. The trade was
surprising to many because the Thunder are coming off of a trip to the Finals last season
and seemed to have a strong core of young players with Kevin Durant, Russell
Westbrook, Serge Ibaka and Harden that could lead the team to great success for years to
come. Harden is coming off of a Sixth Man of the Year Award and an Olympic
appearance and seems to be a young star. While they received some solid talent in return,
it would appear that they gave up the best player and did not get equal value in return.
Before this season started, the Thunder had a negotiating deadline of October 31
to agree to a long term deal with Harden. The maximum they could offer was to be a 4
year deal worth $60 million dollars and when you combine his past success, strong
potential and the fact that inferior players (Eric Gordon and Roy Hibbert) have received
this deal, it would appear that Harden is worth the max deal (Simmons 4). If the Thunder
and Harden could reach an agreement, Harden would play out the 2012-2013 season for a
bargain at $5.8 million dollars and then be a restricted free agent after the season. As I
said, the Thunder would have the right to match any offer and retain him but Harden
would certainly receive the max deal from at least one of the 29 other teams. So
43
obviously the Thunder should sign him to the deal right? Well because of previous long
term deals for Durant, Westbrook and Ibaka, the Thunder were already committing a lot
of money toward the future and signing Harden would drastically restrict their ability to
improve their team through free agency while also ensuring that they pay the luxury tax
after this season which states that a team must pay $1.50 for every dollar over the tax
threshold ($70 million this season).
Zach Lowe, an NBA writer for Grantland.com estimates that Oklahoma City would have
payroll bills of over $100 million in 2013-2014 and beyond if they signed Harden. So
instead, General Manager Sam Presti tried to get Harden to sign a 4 year $53 million
deal. Harden balked at the offer, was given an hour to agree to the deal or be traded and
after saying no to the deal, was traded to the Rockets. Post-trade, NBA experts agreed
almost unanimously that the trade hurt them short-term. ESPN’s JA Adande in “West
Side: Deal will change outlook” and Bill Simmons in “The Harden Disaster” wrote that
the Thunder had cooked this year’s title chances as did Zach Lowe in “Thunder Bolt” but
Zach made the argument that it might have been smart to do what they did for the longterm outlook by improving their financial situation. The article “Did the Players Give Up
Money to make the NBA Better? Exploring the 2011 Collective Bargaining Agreement in
the National Basketball Association” by David Berri, the article from Simmons and
Forbes’ information shed some more light on just what exactly was the Thunder’s
financial standing. Berri also wrote a piece called “From College to the Pros: Predicting
the NBA Amateur Player Draft” which helps reveal how much the Thunder acquired in
their draft picks, considered a major positive in the deal. Based on my research and
thinking about the topic, I believe that Oklahoma City made a grave mistake in trading
away James Harden, considering what they got in return and I feel this way for three
main reasons. The first is that they became a worse team for this season and probably
beyond. Second, they shouldn’t use finances as an excuse to trade away Harden and
finally, they had alternatives to the trade that would have bettered the team.
Looking at how the trade changes the Thunder for the current season, James
Harden is basically being replaced by Kevin Martin as both are shooting guards and
Martin will be coming off the bench. Like Harden was last year, Martin is expected to
lead the bench and be the third scorer alongside Durant and Westbrook. Martin seems to
44
be a good man for the job based on his past seasons. Over seven season with Sacramento
and then Houston, Martin has averaged 18.4 points per game (ppg) which is actually
higher than any of James Harden’s past seasons. Martin, like Harden is adept at getting to
the free throw line for easy points and is also a strong three point shooter at 38% for his
career. Martin would appear to actually be a better scorer than Harden with those stats.
There are many flaws to this logic though. First, Martin was the primary scorer and
received more touches than Harden throughout his career while Harden had to share the
ball with two elite scorers, Durant and Westbrook. Harden was used to playing off the
ball and at the same time being able to take over when they left the game. It will be
interesting to see if Martin can mesh with Durant and Westbrook as well as Harden did.
According to Zach Lowe, “the Thunder’s offense reached historic levels of productivity
when the three stars [Durant, Westbrook Harden] played together” (1). It seems dubious
to think that this will happen when Martin plays. Another area on offense where Harden
separates himself from Martin is in pick and roll where Harden is deadly and showcases
his strong ball-handling and playmaking (Lowe 1). Martin is not considered as strong
with the ball and therefore cannot take over for Westbrook when he struggles like Harden
can. Harden is also much more efficient than Martin. Last season, Harden shot 49% from
the field, a number that Martin has never reached throughout his career.
Where Harden truly separates himself from Martin is in other aspects of the game such as
rebounding, passing and defense. Harden beats Martin in total rebounding percentage,
assist percentage, steals percentage, blocks percentage and turnover percentage. When it
comes to win shares which encompasses all major statistics into one and basically show
who helped his team the most, Harden is again better than Martin. Last season, Harden
had 7.5 offensive win shares, good for fifth in the entire league and better than wellknown stars like Dwyane Wade and Kobe Bryant. Kevin Martin could only muster up a
measly 2.7 win shares. So much for being relatively equal on offense huh? And then the
defense… Martin is known for being as Zach Lowe puts it, “a minus defender at best”
(Lowe 1) and his defensive win shares reflect that showing a total of .6 win shares while
Harden posted a respectable 1.8 . Clearly, there is no debating who is the better player for
the Thunder for this season and it will hurt them but by how much? We will address this
later.
45
In regards to the team’s long term standing, some people have made the argument
that this trade might have been good for the Thunder. They acquired a couple of draft
picks and a young rookie shooting guard with some potential in Jeremy Lamb. Before I
go into how valuable these guys actually are, I want to make note that as a 29-year old,
Kevin Martin has likely seen his best days, or at least most of them as players tend to
peak around the age of 27. Meanwhile James Harden is only 23 and seems to have his
best season ahead of him. As the principle players in this deal, I fell that it is pretty
relevant that the Thunder gave up the much younger player. Going back to the draft picks
and Lamb, the Thunder seem to have gotten back a nice haul at first glance. The first
draft pick was acquired by the Rockets from the Toronto Raptors in a separate trade.
Lowe estimates that the pick will be between 10 and 13 based on the Raptors projected
performance (1). On the surface that seems pretty solid asset, being that it will likely be a
lottery pick. In reality though, that pick might not seem so valuable. Looking at the
number 10 overall picks from 2002-2010, we see Caron Butler, Jarvis Hayes, Luke
Jackson, Andrew Bynum, Mouhamad Sene, Spencer Hawes, Brook Lopez, Brandon
Jennings, and Paul George. Some solid players are there for sure but only two of them
have been all stars (Bynum and Butler). Looking at number 13 overall picks we see it
gets much worse too with Marcus Haislip, Marcus Banks, Sebastian Telfair, Sean May,
Thabo Sefolosha, Julian Wright, Brandon Rush, Tyler Hansborough, and Ed Davis.
These players have combined for as many all- star games as you and I and none of them
are really even starting caliber players. Obviously with a pick this low, a huge return
should not be expected. Granted, the Thunder have demonstrated great drafting ability
with Durant, Westbrook and Harden but those guys were drafted much higher in the
draft. The other first round pick is expected to be even lower because it is dependent on
how Dallas does and they are considered likely to make the playoffs.
Draft projecting was analyzed by David Berri in a study to determine how effective
teams are in drafting. Berri finds that the drafting process is flawed and that college
scoring is relied on too much in drafting (34). He also says that decision makers tend to
“consider factors that are not relevant to player performance such as Final Four
appearances” (34). Berri seems to think that the draft is basically random when it comes
to whether or not players end up being good. Most evidence from estimated wins added
46
statistics conclude that the top five picks are indeed valuable but that immediately after
five, drafting is a crapshoot. Being that the Thunder likely will not receive a top-five
pick, they have not necessarily acquired any long term assets, especially considering
Jeremy Lamb was the 12th pick in his draft, right in the middle of the picks that I
discussed previously did not yield many great players. With all this said, it seems to be
murky logic in saying the Thunder got definitively better long term.
The main component in this trade is the financial aspect of this trade and in a
vacuum with no luxury tax penalties, the Thunder would have given Harden the contract
that he desired since we have established that he is a superior player. Of course this is not
the case and estimates like those from Zach Lowe have seen numbers upward of $100
million in contracts and taxes in terms of what the Thunder would pay next season (2). So
based on the difference between what the Thunder offered ($53 million) and the max
($60 million), we have about $7 million over four years. Most experts assume that the
Thunder would be luxury tax payers regardless so by multiplying the $7 million times
1.5, we find the difference between the two sides to be roughly $10.5 million. This seems
to be a pretty steep difference and because the Thunder play in the relatively small NBA
market of Oklahoma City, that would appear to be too much money. The Thunder
probably cannot afford to pay that much because they must not generate enough profit as
a small market team. And that’s where conventional wisdom is simply wrong. The
Thunder have been making consistent profit since they have had Durant, Westbrook and
Harden. They sell out every game, have seen merchandise upticks and made the playoffs
three years straight with one Finals appearance. Every playoff game brings in an
estimated $1.5 million revenue to the team and with Harden aboard, the Thunder would
certainly play more playoff games. By dealing Harden, they have cut into some of that
revenue. Harden is also extremely marketable with his unmistakable beard and affable
personality becoming hits with Oklahoma City. He sells jerseys and apparel more than
the less popular Martin could ever imagine. Looking at profit estimates, Forbes says that
the Thunder made $24 million in profit last year and that is after large player salaries. Bill
Simmons estimates it to be even higher from somewhere in the $30-35 million ranges and
adding that since they moved from Seattle in 2008, they have made over $75 million by
his estimates in profit (2). Even if we imagine they somehow stop making profit (highly
47
unlikely with the league and team’s increasing popularity) they still have made more than
enough in years past to compensate Harden to his wishes. And going further with the
model that they somehow stop making profit (again, highly unlikely) owner Clay Bennett
would have no problem making a huge profit by selling the team. David Berri cited a
conversation between Golden State Warriors owner Joe Lacob and a reporter as evidence
of this with Lacob saying “This is an incredible business opportunity... sports franchises
appreciate 10% a year on average” (Did Players Give Up Money 4). So if Bennett bought
his franchise for, say $300 million, in ten years he could sell it for well over twice the
value. With franchises increasing in value at that rate, if owners begin to lose money,
they can easily sell them for huge profits and recoup their money so the excuse of not
being able to afford Harden simply does not add up.
After showing how the Thunder made a poor move in trading away Harden it
would be time to show the alternatives that they could have and should have made. One
thought that is not truly an alternative, though interesting nevertheless is that Oklahoma
City should have given Harden more time to mull over their offer. Credible sources have
said that Harden was given one hour to think about the contract and I wonder if given
more time, he would have changed his mind. At the very least, his teammates could have
tried to convince him to stay and he could have more time to think about whether he
wants to play on a non-contending team. I see two options that would have been better
for the Thunder. The first is to have simply let the deadline pass and hold onto Harden.
This way they still have the better player and if they want to trade him, they still can and
maybe even get a better trade. They then could decide to let him become a free agent and
match him or let him go. The only downside to this is that some teams wanted him before
the October 31st deadline so that they could sign him without letting him become a
restricted free agent (Lowe 2). The route I would have chosen though was to extend him
with the max offer. Knowing full well the salary ramifications and how it would hurt the
team’s ability to sign more free agents, it makes sense from a basketball stand point to go
forth with Harden. By keeping, the Thunder could have had all-star production from three
players (maybe four depending on Ibaka’s development) for four years. The only teams
that might have a trio as good are Miami and the Lakers, seemingly guaranteeing the
Thunder to be in championship contention for years to come. Knowing that the Thunder
48
have made so much money in the past few years (and will probably continue to) makes
the decision to extend him much more palatable financially. Bill Simmons put its well
when he says that “the trade wasn’t about losing money, it was about continuing to make
money.” (3). Extending him would have been a good PR moves as well because now
Thunder fans are questioning why money is not being put into the team when they have
such high profit margins. It’s tough to sell to your fans that you are totally committed to
winning when you so obviously sacrifice talent for money.
Almost all NBA analysts predicted a Thunder- Heat NBA final rematch before the
season but that changed when the Thunder traded away Harden. Many thought they had
certainly blown any chance of beating Miami. Miami looked dominant in the Final last
season and their star, LeBron James (the reigning MVP) seems to have gotten even
better. It seemed difficult to project the Thunder to beat Miami when they made no
significant roster moves on the offseason and Miami added shooters Ray Allen and
Rashard Lewis to compliment LeBron’s inside scoring prowess. When Harden was dealt,
the experts for the most part thought that the Thunder could not even make it to the
Finals, and would probably be replaced by the Lakers. Bill Simmons writes that “they
have tossed away their 2013 title chances unless Durant makes a significant improvement
similar to LeBron James last year” ( 3). JA Adande agrees with Simmons saying that he
would much rather has the Lakers roster this year than the Thunder’s (2). One of the main
perceptions of the Thunder’s decreased title chances is that their continuity was
significantly sacrificed in the trade. The core of Durant, Westbrook and Harden had three
seasons playing together and were accustomed to each other. They were also seemingly
good friends off the court and enjoyed playing with each other on the Olympic team.
Even though it is difficult to assess how much team chemistry truly matters in sports, it is
obvious that Oklahoma City lost some of theirs by bringing in a new guy and disbanding
the strong triumvirate of stars. JA Adande says that continuity was the “key advantage
the Thunder had over the Lakers” (2). The Lakers added Dwight Howard and Steve Nash
and are facing significant adjustments on the fly and the Thunder could have taken
advantage of this in the playoffs if they played. Now, this season projects to be one of
major adjustments for the Thunder as well.
The main qualm with the trade is that it so clearly reduces the Thunder’s ability to
49
get what every team is chasing, a championship, in favor of saving some money. It makes
me wonder what the point of having a sports franchise is if you are not going to at least
put all profits made into fielding the best team. Being an extremely wealthy man that runs
a successful franchise, one would assume Clay Bennett is a pretty intelligent man. With
that in mind, I can only assume that Clay values maximizing profit over make a
champion and making a little less profit. Championship opportunities don’t come around
often. Since 1980, only 8 NBA teams have won titles. When the chance presents itself, an
owner should be jumping at it, not sitting back and playing it safe. Nobody remembers
the owner that had a team get to the second round and lose while making healthy profit
but they will remember when you did whatever it took to get the NBA championship,
costs be damned.
Works Cited
Adande, J.A. “West Side: Deal Will Change Outlook”. ESPN. ESPN. Web. 12 Nov.
2012. Basketball Reference. Basketball Statistics and History. Sports Reference
LLC. Web. 12 Nov 2012.
Berri, David J. "Did the Players Give Up Money to make the NBA Better? Exploring the
2011 Collective Bargaining Agreement in the National Basketball Association."
International Journal of Sport Finance 7.2 (2012): 158-75. ABI/INFORM
Complete; Banking Information Source; Hoover's Company Profiles; ProQuest
Central. Web. 12 Nov. 2012.
Berri, David J. Brook Stacey, and J. Fenn Aju. "From College to the Pros: Predicting the
NBA Amateur Player Draft." Journal of Productivity Analysis 35.1 (2011): 25-35.
ABI/INFORM Complete; Banking Information Source; Hoover's Company
Profiles; ProQuest Central. Web. 12 Nov. 2012.
Lowe, Zach. “Thunder Bolt”. Grantland. ESPN. Web. 12 Nov. 2012.
Simmons, Bill. “The Harden Disaster”. Grantland. ESPN. Web. 12 Nov. 2012.
50
Bad Investment!
By: $tephanie $pies
When chewing a piece of bubble gum, it is often common to try and blow a
bubble. With just one piece of gum in your mouth, you may find it difficult to blow a big
bubble, so you add another piece. The more pieces you add to your mouth, the larger
your bubble will get. Eventually though, you will reach the point where the bubble will
pop and the gum will get stuck all over your face. Although blowing the bubble may be
fun at first, once the gum gets into your hair and stuck on your eyebrows, it is no longer a
pleasurable experience. So the idea of blowing the bubble to begin with is not a good idea
at all because the risks of blowing the bubble are too great and can cause a lot of harm
and difficulties, especially when you have to try and pull the gum out of your hair. It may
seem like a bit of a stretch to relate a college education to blowing a bubble, but there are
many similarities. Just like chewing gum and blowing bubbles can cause gum to get stuck
to your face, the costs of paying for a college education exceed the benefits for the
majority of the population.
A large portion of the population agrees with the argument that college is too
expensive and that it is creating diminishing returns for students. My research has found
several sources that support this argument. Matthew McGuire discusses in his essay
“Subprime Education: For-Profit Colleges and the Problem With Title IV Federal Student
Aid,” that the financial aid system is not supplying aid to those who need it the most or
deserve it. Instead, McGuire argues that it is leaving them stuck in debt and proposes a
solution to the problem with colleges and their increasingly high costs. McGuire’s
proposed solution is to direct the investment of funds directly into the colleges
themselves, rather than through the financial aid of students; and as a result, tuition costs
will be lowered to a level that is much more affordable across the board for students in
general. In addition, to McGuire’s essay, Kevin Williamson also discusses the problems
with the current funding structure of higher education in his article “Debt or Equity.”
Williamson brings to light the problems with the funding of higher education including
tuition costs and wasteful spending by colleges. Furthermore, Megan McArdle argues in
51
“The College Bubble” that the college industry is very similar to the sup-prime mortgage
industry and that paying the exorbitantly high cost of college can no longer be justified.
And finally, Patrick Sullivan compares statistics to illustrate how the cost of college has
spiraled out of control, even for community colleges and can lead to large sum of debt
while at the same time restricting the ease of accessibility that students have to college in
his essay, “What is Affordable Community College Tuition?: Part 1.” These sources all
provide insight as to the impact that the costs of attending college have on students and
their future and taking into consideration the larger impact that the issue is having on
society as a whole.
Based on my research, and my own thinking about the costs of college, I believe
that the cost of attending college often outweighs the benefits. I feel this way for several
reasons. First, the structure of the financial aid system is extremely flawed. Second,
colleges continue to rake in huge profits while leaving students in massive amounts of
debt. Third, there is no guarantee of becoming successful and having a return on
investment. And finally, the cost of college education is having a negative effect on the
entire United States economy and finances. Ultimately, what is at stake here is the
financial future of the United States.
If you were to stand on a street corner of New York City handing out money to
everyone that walks by with no strings attached, you would be one of the most popular
people in town. People would walk extra distances and go out of their way to get the
money that you are handing out. People would all use this money for different things.
One of the things that it may help pay for is college tuition. Currently, the financial aid
system provides funding from the federal and state government to help make a higher
education possible for students all over the country. The government is handing out
money as easily as you were standing on the street. The government is willing to hand
out money to students so that they can ease the financial burden and costs of gaining a
higher education. This may seem like a great thing that would be beneficial to all
students, but it is actually extremely flawed and in great need of repair. For example,
Sullivan quotes the findings of a report by the United States Department of Education
that stated, “We found that our financial aid system is confusing, complex, inefficient,
duplicative, and frequently does not direct aid to students who truly need it,” (656-657).
52
The quote continues further to explain how there are multiple programs that distribute aid
and how the application for this aid may be too complex for the average student to
complete on their own (657). For example, in order to qualify for Federal Student Aid, a
student must complete the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), which is
often longer and can be more difficult to fill out then a family’s normal tax return. The
fact that the financial aid system is not functioning properly is a major problem because
that means that money is being wasted and spent in the wrong places; and with
consideration to how expensive college is, it is unacceptable! The financial aid system
needs to be restructured by removing flaws so that the students who need the aid the most
will be the students who actually get it.
On the same note, Sullivan also mentions earlier in his argument that “high
tuition, high aid policy works better in theory than in practice” (648) which emphasizes
the point that the financial aid system is not doing what it is intended to do. Perhaps the
whole practice of handing out money to students in general is where the problem starts;
maybe the government should just tell colleges that they have to keep their prices within
a range that is affordable to everyone. Since the government already regulates businesses
that receive government funding, why wouldn’t they do the same thing for colleges? If a
college is going to receive aid money from the federal or state government, why
shouldn’t they have to conform to certain standards and regulations? It is clear that the
government has the authority to do so since they are redistributing the hard earned tax
dollars of citizens to institutions. Williamson argues in his essay “the more money that is
available for financial-aid grants and loans, the more colleges will charge…financial aid
isn’t really aid to students but aid to university administrators” (58). The point is that
students will still be paying the same percentage of amount of tuition even though their
financial aid has increased substantially in terms of numbers. At what point will the
government step in and say that enough is enough and put a cap on the college tuition
rate, similar to a price ceiling. Now is the time for the government to step in and set
things straight before things get too out of hand. Another major problem with the system
is that “Affluent students pay more for tuition; additional revenue that this policy
generates can then be redistributed back to more needy students” (Sullivan 648).
Essentially, the tuition money that one student is paying is being used as a form of
53
financial aid directly from the institution to make higher education more affordable for
other students. The money that one student is paying out is the aid amount that another
student is receiving. This poses a big problem because shouldn’t the money from
financial aid be going towards paying for your own actual education and not the
education of someone else? Even though the student is getting their education, they are
paying much more for it than someone who is receiving financial aid. Schools are
discriminating against the students who are not receiving financial aid because their
family’s income is greater than others. Shouldn’t going to college be based solely on
merit and not on how much money your parents make? The purpose of the financial aid
system to make a college education more affordable is good, but the current system
structure causes it to fail at achieving this goal.
The higher education business is quite profitable. The administrators that work at
colleges get paid very well although their students are burying themselves further and
further into debt. It makes sense that the price of college would increase somewhat each
year because of inflation, but there is no reason that the cost of tuition should be
increasing by more than a hundred dollars a semester. McArdle is able to expand this
point by demonstrating that “the average price of all goods and services has risen about
50 percent [since 1995]. But the price of a college education has nearly doubled in that
time” (2). Why is it that the cost of college is going up at least two times as much as
everything else in society? Has the amount of income that students have increased by the
percentage as well? The answer is no. Because the costs of college have increased
astronomically, and continue to increase, students need to borrow more money in the
form of loans. While the cost of a college education has nearly doubled over the past
fifteen years or so, the amount of student-loan debt that is placed on the weight of the
student and parent has more than quintupled (McArdle 2). If the amount of debt keeps
increasing than why are prices continuing to increase as well since students cannot afford
the education as it is. Even though the students are in debt, colleges and universities are
still making a pretty penny off of them. For example, Richard Levin, the president of
Yale, was paid a salary of $561,709 in 2000, but by 2009 he made $1.63 million”
(McArdle 3). I’m sure that he does a lot of work and deserves a high paycheck, but over a
million dollars? That could pay the tuition of many students. Essentially, there should just
54
be a cut across the board in tuition rates for everyone if this man’s salary had the
potential to decrease.
Some might that think colleges do not make a lot of money since they give out so
much money in scholarships, loans, and aid, but their assumptions couldn’t be more
incorrect. Most of the revenue that colleges accumulate comes from the financial aid of
the students who are attending. McGuire explains how the revenue structure is broken
down for colleges. “The 90/10 rule, for example, requires that a school receive at least 10
percent of its revenue from non-Title IV sources. Federal and state aid from other
programs, such as veterans’ benefits or federal and state job training grants, actually
count toward the 10 percent, along with institutional loans offered to students by the
school itself”(127). So when everything is taken in account together, the school only
needs less than 10 percent of their revenue to be generated by themselves. This could be
through fundraising or donations. This policy is a complete slap in the face to every tax
payer because they’re indirectly paying for all of this financial aid money that these
colleges are getting. The money is going almost directly into the pockets of school
administrators. McGuire furthers his argument by examining schools that operate
specifically to make money: “The eight largest publicly held and the eight largest
privately held for-profit institutions earned a combined profit of $2.7 billion dollars in
2009” (130). For a group of 16 schools to be operating and making such a large profit
shows the decreasing amount of emphasis on learning and actual education and a shift in
emphasis towards profits and revenues which means that the student is not getting all that
they are paying for. Students are going more and more in debt to be able to pay for
college when they’re getting less education out of it.
Once you have completed your education it is assumed that you will get a job in
the field in which you have your degree and begin to make a pay check. Unfortunately,
with the difficult economic times that the country is facing, there are not always jobs
available for those who have graduated in a particular field. But students say to
themselves that they will be one of the students that are able to get a job in their field
with a starting salary on the higher side. They use this to help rationalize their decision to
attend college and spend a ridiculously exorbitant amount of money on it. McArdle
discusses this in her essay by saying, “Effectively, we’ve treated the average wage
55
premium as if it were a guarantee and then we’ve encouraged college students to borrow
against it,” (3). The point of this is that college students will pay large amounts of money
up front with the idea that they will be able to pay it back once they have a job; basically
they are borrowing against what they will be able to make in the future. Often times this
does not work out though because students will have difficulty finding a job and will
therefore have a high change of being underemployed or unemployed all together. The
students do not realize what they are getting themselves into when they sign for their
loans; they think that they are going to be able to get a job, but when they graduate
regardless of if they have a job or not, those loans are going to start requiring payment.
Students are borrowing money to get an education required for a job that they won’t most
likely get (McArdle 5). So why do students continue to take out loans when there is no
guarantee of a job? But even if you are lucky enough to get a job right out of college,
what are the chances of you retaining that job and becoming successful?
While having a degree can help someone get a job, it can’t guarantee any of it.
Having the credentials saying that you went to college “don’t increase value; they just
reallocate it” (McArdle 4). Pretty much your college degree does not even mean all that
much because all that a degree says is that you were able to pass the majority of your
classes in college. This degree doesn’t make you any more valuable in the workplace
necessarily but gives companies a reason to hire you. Instead of increasing your potential
in being successful, it only gives possible employers other reasons or excuses for hiring
you, instead of your ability. In addition, the number of students that are getting college
degrees continues to increase which means that more students who are applying for jobs
have degrees. McArdle uses that statistic that “Between 1992 and 2008, the number of
bachelor’s degrees awarded rose almost 50 percent, from around 1.1 million to more than
1.6 million,” (5). Since most potential employees have degrees, having a degree is not
something that really sets one individual out from another unless if it is something
extraordinary. Furthermore, since degrees have become so much more common and
ubiquitous in the workplace, they have lost their value. Too many students are going to
college today because the government has done nearly everything possible to help make
loans available. Students who would not have gone to college ten years ago are enrolled
in college today. College should be for the elite, the best and the brightest, not those who
56
can pay or are willing to pay for it; because at this point, that is what it has come down to.
I understand that most well-paying jobs require some sort of degree, but that does not
mean that students should have to mound on piles of debt to be able to get there. The
problem is that so much money is spend on students who are getting degrees that they do
not really need or will ever use in their job environment. For example, from my own
personal experience, my dad has a degree in criminal justice- since getting his degree he
has only held one job in that field. Clearly it was not the field for him, and I would argue
that he wasted a lot of time and money to get his degree that he does not even really use.
It is his hard work and determination, not his college degree that was able to get him a
well-paying job. While it is true that many high paying careers require a college degree, it
does not necessarily follow that all students need to go to college to become successful
and make a nice paycheck. Not only does college education have an impact on the
economics of the job market, but also on the economy as a whole.
College education has an enormous impact on the United States economy. Only a
few years ago the real-estate market completely crashed due to sub-prime mortgages that
resulted in a massive amount of foreclosures. College education is heading down a
similar path that can be seen by looking at the similarities between the two. These
similarities include: “the rapid run-up in prices, at rates much higher then inflation; the
increasingly frenetic recruitment of new buyers, borrowing increasingly hefty sums; the
sense that you are somehow saving for the future while enjoying an enhanced lifestyle
right now, and of course, the mountain of debt” (McArdle 2). The cost of college
education is just like buying a house that you can’t really afford. As long as you have a
job you may be able to get by with making the minimum mortgage payments, but if
things don’t go exactly your way you can end up in big trouble and without a home.
Since there are so many striking similarities between the market for higher education and
the housing market it makes sense to assume that it is only a matter of time before the
“college bubble” pops unless some drastic measures are put into place. When and if the
bubble does burst, there will be an outpouring of negative effects on the economy. For
example, it will become much more difficult to borrow money through loans, but at the
same time the cost of tuition will drastically drop which will mean that many students
will not need loans any longer to help them pay for tuition. But the whole country will
57
feel the shift because there will be an impact on taxes and income. Furthermore, fewer
people may then choose to attend college, which will then help a college degree regain
some of the value and prestige it used to have in the past. Not only does the cost of tuition
and student loans have parallels to the mortgage sector of the American economy, it also
has many other detrimental effects, such as preventing naturally occurring economic
controls from regulating the higher education industry.
In addition to the mortgage and loan industry, another economic impact that
should be looked at is that the natural principles of economics are being suppressed
through the use of financial aid. McArdle discusses this in her essay by explaining that in
an efficient market economy, prices would be restricted so that they fall within a certain
range because that is the amount of money that students have access to, to be able to fund
their college education. But, with the use of financial aid, there are no constrains on price
which causes the price to continue to increase. With loans, having the money to pay for
college now is not necessary, you don’t have to really worry about the costs until later on.
There is not really any replacement for education in the market, which is part of the
reason that students will pay through the nose for it. The demand for education constantly
increases, and as the demand increases so does the tuition costs. And since a price ceiling
does not exist, the price of college can keep increasing without any real problems.
Essentially the college industry is setting up the rest of the economy for a financial
disaster.
So how can the problem of high college tuition rates be resolved? First, the
government needs to stop supplying boundless amounts of financial aid to students. The
money should not be going to the students towards paying for their education, but
directly to colleges to help them keep their costs down from the start. In addition, since
the federal government is so proactive in getting involved with all other sorts of
education laws, why shouldn’t they get more involved in higher education? The
government needs to step in and limit the amount that colleges can charge students for
providing their services. While some may argue that this would decrease the quality of
education that students are receiving, they don’t even realize that even at the high prices
students aren’t getting the quality of education that they deserve so what difference
would it make if the quality decreased just a smidge more. The government also needs to
58
control the amount of debt that they allow students to take out to pay for their education
to help prevent it from becoming another mortgage crisis. In terms of debt, students
should be encouraged to attend community college if they cannot afford a four-year
school right away so that they can save up their money and not go into debt immediately.
Furthermore, more students should just be looking at community colleges in general as an
alternative to four-year schools because they are much more affordable, yet provide the
same education as a four-year school. The purpose of creating this better structured
higher education system is to help get Americans back on their feet again and make
higher education something that is actually possible and not just a dream.
If you’re not already in college, you may want to think twice before you decide to
commit yourself for the next few years of your life to school and much longer to be able
to pay for it. Because of the high tuition costs that are present in almost all colleges, a
problem with the financial aid system has erupted which has left many students in
massive mounts of debt. In addition, although you have a college degree, there is no
guarantee of getting a job in your field or even a job at all just to keep your head above
water. And the market for higher education is having a negative impact on the economy
by not being able to regulate itself properly because financial aid is preventing it to do so.
The costs of going to college can be rationalized by just about anyone, but there are very
few people who actually should be going to college to get a degree in some
specialization. The problem is that the government has made it so easy for anyone to
finance a higher education. This should be a major concern for taxpayers because it is
their money that is being used as aid to students, which is then paying the massive salary
of the president of Yale. The government needs to stop funding higher education because
at this point in time the costs of going to college outweigh the benefits. I have bright
hopes and outlooks for the future of America, but when I look at the higher education
system, I begin to worry just a little bit because of the impact that it has on the county as
a whole.
Works Cited
McArdle, Megan. "The College Bubble”. (Cover Story)." Newsweek 160.12 (2012): 2226. Academic Search Complete. Web. 7 Nov. 2012.
59
McGuire M. Subprime Education: For-Profit Colleges and the Problem With Title IV
Federal Student Aid. Duke Law Journal [serial online]. October 2012;62(1):119160. Available from Academic Search Complete, Ipswich, MA. Accessed
November 8, 2012.
Sullivan, Patrick. "What Is Affordable Community College Tuition?: Part I." Community
College Journal Of Research & Practice 34.8 (2010): 645-661. Academic Search
Complete. Web. 7 Nov. 2012.
Williamson, Kevin D. "Debt or Equity?" National Review 20 Oct. 2008: 58+. Academic
Search Complete. Web. 7 Nov. 2012.
60
Bobo and Burnham Agree With Me: America is Not a PostRacial Society
By Elizabeth Tripod
Many Americans would argue that they live in a post-racial society, free of
racism and segregation, however the reality is that America if still far from being able to
claim that title. Professor Lawrence D. Bobo argues in his essay “Somewhere between
Jim Crow and Post-Racialism: Reflections on the Racial Divide in America Today” that
even though Obama’s election was a step in the right direction, racism still prevails in
subtle ways. Bobo presents examples of how African Americans are still segregated in
many aspects of society, touching on a wide variety of subjects that include the wealth,
wage, status, mobility education and incarceration gaps between blacks and whites. He
covers racism and segregation from times of slavery to Obama’s presidency, and shows
that although America is changing for the better, it is still steeped in racism. Linda
Burnham argues a similar point in her article “Obama’s Candidacy: The Advent of PostRacial America and the End of Black Politics.” Instead of touching on several topics
briefly, Burnham chooses to select one, racism in politics, and concentrate on that,
extending the argument. Her article discusses the subtler segregation tactics that
politicians use. She bases her argument around refuting five major points that her
opponent would argue. Burnham shows that not only is there a wealth gap and other
inequalities, but also a gap in how people view African Americans in politics. She
continues her argument to say that it is too soon to call America post-racial because while
Obama’s election was indicative of change, it does not mean that Americans in general
have changed, or that the progress for some African Americans is progress for all. I think
Americans would like to believe that they are no longer racist, and that they have evolved
past petty prejudices. They do have some evidence that would support that claim, but
unfortunately, the idea of a post-racial America is still just that, an idea. Both essays by
Lawrence D. Bobo and Linda Burnham argue similar points about racism in American
society, and through statistics and legal terms, help prove that America still has a long
way to go before it can claim to be past its prejudices. In particular, they support the ideas
61
that the boundaries between blacks and whites are not collapsing quickly enough, that
racism is has only become less blatant than it used to be, not less prevalent, and the fact
that a divide at all between blacks and whites means that America is not a post-racial
society.
Although the boundaries between blacks and whites are breaking down, they
are not disintegrating quickly enough for America to be completely free from racism just
yet. Burnham argues that just because Obama was elected to the highest office in
America, “commentaries are heralding the advent of a post-racial America,” (43).
However Burnham goes on to argue in specific detail why this is not true. She claims that
progress for the highest class of Americans is not the same as progress for all Americans.
Politics are changing; there is no denying that. Only a few years ago it would be
unthinkable for a black man to hold such a prestigious position, so in this way politics
have become less racist. But less racist does not mean free from racism, and ever since
Obama came into office he has been bombarded with background checks, demands to see
his birth certificate, and attacks on his family ancestry. This would not, did not, happen to
white presidents. Bobo mentions this argument as well. He asserts, “racial boundaries are
not quickly collapsing” and that “inequality within the black population itself has never
been greater,” (132). At a time when people are heralding the coming of a new age, when
blacks and whites stand on equal ground, the difference in class has never been greater.
White people break down neatly into distinct class levels, the wealthy, the rich, the
middle class, the poor and the impoverished. However, black people tend to be either
extremely famous or wealthy, or so impoverished they starve and stagnate, with few inbetween the two extremes. Black people have made progress in improving their social
and political status, but until no gap exists between the class levels of black and white
people, America cannot claim post-racial status.
Despite the enormity of the divide between races, people don’t think of racism as a
problem anymore because they have lived with the divide for generations and because
racism has grown subtler over the years. Bobo provides several examples of newer,
sneakier types of racism, including “symbolic racism, modern racism, (and) colorblind
racism” (132). Burnham adds several more types of racism to the list, and argues that
they have been “skillfully manipulated to stoke fear and resentment, undermine black
62
candidates, confuse political allies, undercut the efficacy of racial justice organizing and
advocacy and silence the anti-racist vote,” (46). These types of racism are less detectable
in modern politics and manage to squirm their way in because they are not obviously
hateful and discriminatory. Bobo expands on this point by adding “The new form of
racism is a more covert, sophisticated, culture-centered, and subtle racist ideology,
quantitatively less extreme and more socially permeable than Jim Crow racism” (132133). Notice that although new racism is quantitatively less extreme, it is not qualitatively
any better than the Jim Crow laws. In that era of segregation, blacks had to go to specific
schools, bathrooms, and restaurants because law dictated that the do so. Now they are
separate because society dictates their behavior. Black people are statistically less
wealthy, less educated, less socially mobile, and more incarcerated than white people.
This limits how society views them where they live, and what jobs they take. That gives
the illusion that they live the way they do by choice, and not because they must. At least
when racism was blatant people could see what was wrong with the world and take steps
to change it. Authors such as Bobo and Burnham must take action to educate the public
about the dangers of living knee-deep in denial. They both explain how blatant displays
of racism have become unacceptable in American society, but that subtle nuances in
speech and actions can pass largely unnoticed by the general public while still oppressing
African Americans.
Bobo and Burnham both bring up interesting points as to why Americans
should not celebrate accomplishing post-racialism just yet, but by far the most interesting
thing to me is that they have to argue it at all. Although I would like to think that America
wants to be post-racial, and that is a step in the right direction, I would argue that just
having an African American president does not make us post-racial. In fact, people who
use that as evidence only serve to further support my claim. If we as a nation have to
obsess about the race of our president, we are clearly still looking at him with a racist
lens. In her essay, Burnham discusses many types of racism including dog-whistle
racism, colorblind racism, and visually evocative racism (46). These are policies still
used and abused in America today to degrade black people. A country that regularly
employs racist practices cannot, by definition, be post-racial. Burnham argues that
America will have no sign, no celebration, no “Ah Ha!” moment when everyone can
63
breathe out and say proudly that we are free from racism. We will have evolved past
racism when we no longer even think about race. Not that we don’t make an issue out of
it, but when we don’t even think to make an issue out of it. Bobo supports this in his
essay when he asks and answers the questions “In an era of wide-spread talk of having
achieved the post-racial society, do we have real evidence that attention to and the
meaning of basic race categories is breaking down? Has racial economic inequality
narrowed to a point where we no longer think or talk of black disadvantage?” (132).
Ultimately, Bobo answers “no” to both questions, and I would agree with him. America
still talks about how far blacks have come, how they overcome adversary to rise above
and succeed. We still discuss blacks in ways we would never discuss whites, and because
of that, racism still exists. The mere fact that we have to discuss post-racialism proves
that America is not post-racial.
Many Americans truly believe that they live in a post-racial society, and
because it is such a popular opinion, it must have some basis to stand on. I understand
how they have come to this conclusion, as we now have a black president running
America, and other African Americans have clawed their way into political positions of
influence. Alvin Poussaint argues in his interview with CNN “Obama, Cosby, King and
the Mountaintop” that Obama’s election to president and America’s acceptance of Black
people in the media signals a post-racial society. He maintains that this is “the beginning
of a post-racial era, because it made white people embrace this black family (The Cosby
Show) like a family of their own and fall in love with it,” (127). According to Poussaint,
a popular black family on television, portrayed in a non-racist light, is a sign that we have
reached the mountaintop, the end of racism. While I agree that this is a good sign, I don’t
agree with his premise. He is patting himself on the back for being a consultant on the
show that ended racism, but he doesn’t realize that he is proving the survival of racism
with his comments. If racism had truly been eliminated, Poussaint wouldn’t even have
had to talk about it, it would be an obvious fact. There will come a time when no-one will
even think about race anymore, when all people will just be equal people, when words
like “black” and “white” will never cross the mind except as colors in art class, and that is
when a society may be post-racial. Because Poussaint has to show people that The Cosby
Show means racism has ended, racism is still thought about, discussed, debated and
64
existing in America.
America is trying to eliminate racism, but still has not succeeded in eradicating
every aspect of it. Simply because I must argue this point proves that racism clings to
American society and politics. Racism and segregation still cause a great divide to form
between people in America, a fact that some people are unable to see because it is not as
blatant as the history books claim. Obama’s election to president notwithstanding, some
people would argue that America has learned to embrace everyone equally. I would argue
that America is learning, but still fails countless tests and therefore cannot pass as postracial. Bobo highlights the important points of this evidence with an emphasis how the
huge gap between two races in society means America is still far from being post-racial.
Burnham also supports this claim, taking the same argument and putting a political spin
on it. She focuses primarily on the political implications of having a racist society.
Racism in America is too large an issue to be covered in one argument, so Bobo and
Burnham each do heir parts to warn the public of the dangers in society and politics
respectively. People cannot change if they are unaware of the need to do so. Without
authors showing people how sneaky and subtle racism has grown, America may go on
thinking that racism has been eliminated, while in reality it lingers, waiting for the
opportunity to rise up and strike once again. The day we elect a leader who just happens
to be a person with Mexican, or Chinese, or African heritage, and we see him no
differently that our leaders with British, or French, or Italian heritage will be the day we
may re-consider our post-racial status.
Works Cited
Burnham, Linda. "A Black Scholar Readers' Forum On President Obama": Obama's Candidacy:
The Advent Of Post-Racial America And The End Of Black Politics?." Black Scholar
38.4 (2008): 43-46. Academic Search Complete. Web. 24 Oct. 2012.
Bobo, Lawrence D. “Somewhere between Jim Crow and Post-Racialism: Reflections on the
Racial Divide in America Today” Taking Sides: Social Issues. 17th ed. Ed. Kurt
Finsterbusch. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012. 129-138.
Poussaint, Alvin. “Obama, Cosby, King and the Mountaintop.” Taking Sides: Social Issues. 17th
ed. Ed. Kurt Finsterbusch. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012. 125-128.
65
The Joys of Climate Change!
By: Chris Wilson
Ah, climate change. A heated debate for politicians and private citizens alike;
frequently discussed but also quickly brushed under the rug when the media gets a whiff
of it. The only people who have universally agreed that human inability to accept climate
change is a problem of potentially apocalyptic proportions are certified scientists and
experts in the field of climatology. The only “debate” that surrounds this allencompassing world issue is from a group of politicians that decided they have special
interests elsewhere. These typically right-leaning politicians denounce it as a hoax and
only contribute further to anti-climate change efforts and stop the world from moving
forward. Regardless of these minority opinions, global warming is frequently claimed by
scientists to be the main force behind the increasingly dangerous and costly natural
disasters that occur and the species extinction that is beginning to show its truly global
repercussions. The evidence supporting global warming, which was already impressive
decades ago, is close to surmounting the lies that many politicians and media outlets push
out daily to the American public. The fact that many right-wing politicians influence the
media and the public into this false sense of protection from both the current and
impending climate crises is infuriating, and must not continue, for all our sakes.
Climate change is a very pressing and important global issue. Several factors, the
loss of biodiversity in our natural world chief among them, are threatening human beings
now and in the near future. Anti-environmental actions and inability to accept climate
change, natural disasters becoming more disastrous, and the extinction of many terrestrial
and marine animals are threatening to throw the entirety of our species into disarray that
will last for centuries.
Lobbying, smearing, misinforming, and denying are the main driving forces
behind the anti-environmentalist movement. Politicians use their copious funding to
commit libel against any studies, grassroots environmental movements, or other
politicians that disagree with their claims. This causes a large amount of American
citizens to believe that the environmental movement is just another liberal conspiracy. In
66
fact, in a 2010 study conducted by the Pew Research Center, “Only 32% of Americans
surveyed considered warming to be a ‘very serious problem’ and only 34% attribute it to
‘human activities.’” This hideous majority opinion shows the exact amount of influence
that slander and cover up of global warming evidence has done to the public as a whole.
A specific politician, Sen. James Inhof of Oklahoma, has even written a book about it
called “The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your
Future.” Throughout the book, Inhof quotes the Bible as his source of undeniable proof of
a liberal conspiracy. Misinformation similar to this spreads through the American
population and makes it impossible for any serious reform to change our environmentally
hurtful industries. These industries, like oil drilling, logging, automobile production, and
plastic creation, result in powerful companies that hold a lot of sway in politics.
Unfortunately, these products are used by most of the American population, and help
fund the corporations that lobby for anti-environmentalist groups and politicians that
agree with them. Funding from these businesses help to push anti-environmental
legislation through and propagate the ideology to the public (Lacey). According to Robert
J Antonio of the University of Kansas, “Many new Republican members of Congress
share the extreme views of their conservative base, which see climate change and
regulation of energy consumption to be a left-wing anti-capitalistic conspiracy.”
Circulating the idea that the green movement inherently has a political side to it is
ludicrous. There is nothing intrinsically selfish about the green movement and no parts of
the green movement have a political affiliation. That would be like calling the emergency
room part of liberal conspiracy to make people pay more taxes. Labeling global warming
a conspiracy is something that has helped blow up the distinct polarization of America
and what has stopped the green movement from continuing as it should. Without the
progression of the green movement, many other things are at risk, especially in areas that
are already prone to natural disasters.
In an article outlining natural disasters and their fast, steady increase in power
throughout recent decades, Hope Cristol states, “Rain intensities reached unique values,
marking all-time records. We have, once more, strong indications that global warming is
increasing and this will have a serious effect on societies and economies alike.” Increased
rain amounts may at first seem a blessing—but too much of a good thing is one all too
67
real consequence when dealing with global warming. Increased rainfall in temperate
zones that are prone to flooding is a curse that has killed thousands of people and caused
billions in damage, and according to various new studies on the subject, it is only getting
worse. One of these studies in Science magazine stated, “…since 1970 the total number
of hurricanes has not increased globally, but the proportion of category-4 and -5
hurricanes had doubled, implying that the distribution of hurricane intensity has shifted
toward being more intense.” Hurricanes are frequently called the most destructive and
costly of the natural disasters, save volcanoes. For their intensity, which was already
momentous, to continue to increase at a pace that disaster relief efforts and rebuilding
cannot keep up with would mean certain failure for the people living in the areas that are
hit the most often. Imagine a world where people can’t even live in hurricane prone areas
due to the intensity of the storm-surges, wind speeds, and intense rain that make up a
hurricane. For context, imagine the entirety of the Southeastern coast of the United States
(such as the area hit by Hurricane Katrina in 2005) having to evacuate. Where would all
of these people go? Would it even be possible to move everyone out of the danger zone in
time? Moreover, after the storm, what would they go back to? The necessity to look at
climate change and its obvious effects on destructive weather can also be applied to
recent events in the New England area. “Superstorm Sandy” was a storm that hit the
entire Northeastern United States, costing $50 billion dollars in economic damage, killing
199 people, and leaving many thousands homeless (Berkowitz). Aside from flooding, this
storm was also a test of the Northeastern United States’ power grid. It failed. On
November 1st, according to a CNN live blog, This Just In, “About 4.9 million customers
remain without power in 15 states and the District of Columbia.” This power outage
shows what could happen to our power grid, something millions of people rely on, in the
future. Personally, I doubt that the Eastern Seaboard would be able to deal with the
destruction of another “Sandy” every year. Sadly, without the green movement moving
forward to stop global warming in its destructive tracks, that is the future we are looking
at, except on a global scale.
Climate doesn’t just affect water levels and the weather, however. A distinct and
important problem that is starting to rear its ugly head is, sadly, the least studied of all the
problems that are created by our warming planet: biodiversity loss. When in grade school,
68
I learned about something called the food cycle, which was a natural cycle that showed
the distinct relationship between plants and animals, and how all of these things,
ultimately, depended on one another. My teacher, to show us how important and fragile
this cycle was, would explain to the class the repercussions of taking out a part of this
cycle. These repercussions varied, sometimes the cycle reformed and succeeded in
righting itself, and sometimes it spiraled out of control and led to mass extinction. The
current loss in biodiversity in both terrestrial and marine environments is starting to
become monumentally important to the question of how humans will continue to function
without main portions of the life on Earth. According to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF),
“The rapid loss of species we are seeing today is estimated by experts to be between
1,000 and 10,000 times higher than the natural extinction rate.” Deforestation, habitat
loss, rising sea levels, rising air and water temperatures, and poaching are among the top
reasons why the extinction rate of life is increasing. Of all the mass extinctions that have
occurred in our world’s past, this is the only one that is wholly caused by another species
of animal—the Homo sapiens. Without many of these species, which provide things like
clean water, breathable air, food, and medicine, human civilization as we know it will
cease to be. Sadly, this species extinction is largely undocumented in marine
environments due to the rapid and relatively new nature of the problem. Referring to
Tasmania as an example, Graham J. Edgar and his colleagues conducted a study of
biodiversity loss and came up with some startling results for the region. “Catch statistics
indicate that populations of most major fisheries species, most notably native oysters,
commercial scallops, southern rock lobster orange roughy, eastern gemfish, barracouta,
southern bluefin tuna, jack mackerel, school shark, and trumpeter have declined by >50%
over three generations—the IUCN criterion for endangered status—and many have
declined by >80% (IUCN critically endangered; Harries & Croome 1989; Kailoa et al.
1993; Edgar & Samson 2004)” A 50-80% decline in major commercial fish populations
in the Tasmania marine region is notable, to say the least. These fish populations are also
affected by steadily rising ocean temperature levels. This, combined with the increasingly
hungry human species, causes a decimation in fish populations. Taking these fish
populations out of the water and onto our dinner plates is both excessive and destructive
and represents a large chunk of our precious bio-diverse food cycle. This cycle cannot
69
continue losing species after species without collapsing in on itself and stopping
production of natural resources. Another example of how biodiversity is starting to
dwindle due to climate change is the bleaching of coral reefs in many of the world’s
oceans. Coral reefs are among the most important and most fragile environments on
earth. According to the Coral Reef Alliance, “Reefs cover less than one percent of the
ocean floor but support an estimated 25 percent of all marine life.” Reefs are being
exposed to a dangerous by-product of warming ocean temperatures called “coral
bleaching.” Coral bleaching is commonly caused by the increase of the temperature in the
water surrounding the coral, which disables the corals ability to reproduce and support
itself. This causes a chain reaction among the coral which ultimately results in ecosystem
collapse (Hoegh-Guldberg). With 25% of marine species and millions of human jobs
relying on coral reefs for sustenance, the rapid bleaching of coral reefs is a cause for
concern. According to Nick Middleton, author of a Geographical Journal in January
2004, “Other coral reef provinces have been permanently damaged by warm sea
temperatures, most severely in the Indian Ocean. Up to 90% of coral cover has been lost
in the Maldives, Sri Lanka, Kenya, Tanzania, and in the Seychelles.” The region in
question is a particularly bad case of coral bleaching, but is nonetheless a powerful image
of what could come to the rest of the coral reefs in our warming oceans.
Politicians who rally against environmentalism are blinded by a far-reaching
greed that is only surpassed by their ignorance of the common people who believe them.
The intensity of natural disasters has increased by a significant and noticeable amount in
the past few decades. Several of the worst hurricanes have formed in our oceans within
the 21st century to bring unparalleled destruction and pain to millions of people—and
they are only predicted to get more powerful in the coming years. Along with these
terrifying storms, another threat that is projected to snowball into global catastrophe is the
loss of biodiversity through species extinction. Both commercial and non-commercial
fish species are struggling to keep their populations up, which affects the entirety of the
ocean’s food chain. Coral bleaching doesn’t help these struggling fish populations, which
may depend on the coral reefs of our world for sustenance. All of this may seem
depressing, or even insurmountable, but I assure you it is not. In fact, a good example of
the success of the environmental movement is the Vienna Convention for the Protection
70
of the Ozone Layer, which was a multilateral environmental agreement that was ratified
by 197 countries in our world in 1987. It, along with its sister agreement the Montreal
Protocol, prohibited the production of numerous substances believed to cause ozone
depletion. It is believed that if the agreement is adhered to by all the countries that
ratified it, the ozone will recover by 2050 (Speth). Not all hope is lost, but people must
realize that even though many things are being done to stop this catastrophe from
continuing, many more problems must still be fixed.
Climate change has demonstrated its sizable grip on the future of both the human
species and the rest of the life on Earth. Whether it be in the form of intense natural
disasters, the rising sea levels, the melting ice caps, the increasingly long droughts, smog,
increasing global temperatures in both marine and terrestrial environments, coral reef
bleaching, acidification of the oceans, glacial retreat, a significantly smaller global corn
and wheat supply, or the extreme depletion of the biodiversity of the Earth through mass
extinction, global warming touches (affects?) everyone and everything on Earth. Try to
imagine every living thing, be it animal, plant, fungus, or bacteria, all being affected,
potentially lethally by one commonality. That commonality is global warming and it is
caused almost entirely by one species’ consumption. Many believe it is unfair that we
must change how we consume the things that the planet has given us. To them I offer an
ultimatum that no sane person can ignore: Does it matter what is fair and what is unfair
when the fate of the entirety of life on Earth is at stake? The Earth, the single spinning
rock in the universe that is even capable of creating life, so far as we know, and we
choose to squander it with our selfishness? No, I believe from the bottom of my heart that
the human race is capable of so much more.
Work Cited
Berkowitz, Ben, and Time McLaughlin. "Eqecat Sees Sandy Insured Losses up to $20
Billion in U.S." Reuters. Ed. Gerald E. McCormick, Claudia Parsons, and Diane
Craft. Thomson Reuters, 1 Nov. 2012. Web. 20 Nov. 2012.
Lacey, Stephen, and Jessica Goad. "ALEC Top Five Anti-Environment€ ™
Laws."ThinkProgress. Center for American Progress Action Fund, May-June
71
2012. Web. 20 Nov. 2012.
<http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/02/475270/alecs-top-five-antienvironment-model-laws/> n, Managing the Great Barrier Reef (Geography
Review, January 2004)
Fund, World Wildlife. "How Many Species Are We Losing?" WWF. World Wildlife Fund,
n.d. Web. 19 Nov. 2012.
<http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/biodiversity/biodiversity/>.
Hoegh-Guldberg, Ove. "Marine Freshwater Research." CSIRO Publishing, 1999. Web. 20
Nov. 2012. <http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=MF99078.pdf>
Lendon, Brad, and Josh Levs. "CNN POLITICS ON FACEBOOK » |CNN POLITICS
ON TWITTER »." This Just In RSS. CNN, 1 Nov. 2012. Web. 20 Nov. 2012.
Middleton, Nick. "Managing the Great Barrier Reef." Http://great-barrier-reefbiome.wikispaces.com/Resources. Tangient LLC, 16 Apr. 2012. Web. 20 Nov.
2012.
Speth, J. G. 2004. Red Sky at Morning: America and the Crisis of the Global
Environment New Haven: Yale University Press, pp 95.
"Why Care about Coral Reefs?" Welcome. Ed. Alliance Coral Reef. The Coral Reef
Alliance, 2012. Web. 20 Nov. 2012.
<http://www.coral.org/resources/about_coral_reefs/why_care>.