E-Scriptor
An On-line Journal of Student Writing
Volume VIII – Fall 2010
1
Editors
Joseph Zeppetello
Angela Laflen
Students from The Fall 2010 Workshop in Editing and
Revision
Judges
Tommy Zurhellen
Gloria Brownstein
Lyza Zeppetello
Ginny Perrin
Cover Art
“Cinque Terre” By Joseph Zeppetello
E-Scriptor
Copyright ©2010 by
Marist College
3399 North Road
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
2
This journal of student writing is a collection of essays written for
College Writing II classes at Marist College for the 2009-2010
academic year. Each teacher of College Writing II was asked to
submit an outstanding essay from his/her class. Two editors then
reviewed the essays, and works were chosen from each semester to
be included in this volume.
3
Contributors
Fall 2009
Alex Gobright won First Place, and is currently a sophomore from
Queens, NY. He is a history major, who hopes to study law
someday, translating his local commitment to the planet into legal
advocacy for the environment. For now, however, he’s simply
enjoying his present college life here on campus. But even as he
resides in Poughkeepsie, his first love will always be New York
City and the many things to do in that vibrant, ever-changing
culture. He’d like to thank Professor Saunders for her insightful
recommendations in rewrites and editing on his essay “The Oak
Tree: A Historic Symbol of Strength,” and for graciously
submitting his work.
Jill Obrizok won Second Place for her essay, "The Health Care
Crisis: Is There a Cure?" written for Amanda Vladick's College
Writing II class. Jill grew up in Red Hook, New York where she
graduated from Red Hook High School in the top ten percent of
her class. Currently a sophomore, she is working two part-time
jobs while enrolled in the Honors Program and majoring in English
with a concentration in Literature.
Gabriella Necklas won Third Place for her essay “Generation ‘Y:’
do I have to Keep Researching Global Warming?” written for
Professor Luby?s College Writing II class. She is a sophomore
from Guilford, CT majoring in psychology. On campus, Gabriella
is involved in the Emerging Leaders program, Leo Hall peer
mentoring, Campus Ministry, Habitat for Humanity, and the
Student Booster Club. She would like to thank Professor Luby for
submitting her paper to the E-Scriptor Contest.
4
Heather Ayvazian won Fourth Place for “They Do, But They
Can’t: The Fight For Same Sex Marriage”, and would like to
thank Denise Loatman-Owens for submitting her essay to the
contest. She is a sophomore from Franklin, Massachusetts
Spring 2010
Daniel Turner, the son of Ed and Joann Turner, is currently a
Sophomore at Marist College. He is a Spanish and
Communications (Public Relations) double major with a Global
Studies minor. Daniel is a resident of Drexel Hill, PA and a
graduate of St. Joseph's Preparatory School in Philadelphia. His
hobbies include playing sports, watching movies, and working on
puzzles. Daniel's essay, "Foreign Languages to the Forefront"
placed first for the Spring 2010 semester and was written for
Professor Joseph Zeppetello's College Writing II Class.
Qu Ting Zheng won Second place with her essay “Enron
Prevented: Examination of How Enron’s Collapse Could Have
Been Prevented” written for Anne McCabe's College Writing II
class. Qu Ting is a 20-year-old sophomore at Marist from
Brooklyn, NY. She is majoring in Business Administration with
emphasis in Marketing with a minor in Global Studies. After
college she plans to work in a New York City firm for a few years
before going back to school in the states or China. She is currently
a member of a New York City organization for women on Wall
Street, The Women's Bond Club, as a scholarship recipient. She
would like to thank Professor Anne McCabe for nominating her
paper for the contest and for pushing her to work on her writing.
Elizabeth Kaufman is now a sophomore at Marist College. She
comes from Chatham, New Jersey, a small town in Morris County.
She is a Fashion Design Major and has always had a strong interest
in fashion and art. She also enjoys traveling and music. Elizabeth’s
essay, “Barbie World” won Third Place for the spring 2010
5
semester, and was written for Professor Ricci’s College Writing II
class.
6
Contents
FALL 2009
Alex Gobright
The Oak Tree: A Historic Symbol of Strength
Jill Obrizok
The Health Care Crisis: Is there a Cure?
8
34
Gabriella Necklas
76
Generation ‘Y’ Do I have to Keep Researching Global Warming?
Heather Ayvazian
The Do, But They Can’t: The Fight for Same-Sex Marriage
89
SPRING 2010
Daniel Turner
Foreign Language to the Forefront
103
Qu Ting Zeng
Enron Prevented
119
Elizabeth Kaufman
Barbie World
139
7
The Oak Tree: A Historic Symbol of Strength
By Alex Gobright
In the community of the forest, the mighty oak tree can be
seen to serve as a quintessential caretaker of surrounding wildlife,
a wise elder full of history, and a giving tree that keeps on giving.
In the creative cultural arts and literature oak trees are related to
themes of strength, longevity, and royalty. In nature, the oak tree is
often one of the oldest trees in the forest and additionally serves as
a habitat, source of food, and sustainer of surrounding life even in
its decay. The importance of the oak in ecology can be translated
into the significant place oak holds in history, as examples of this
prominence can be seen in societies as diverse and far apart as
Ancient Greece and seventeenth-century England. Throughout this
history, humans have also discovered the many uses of oak trees
8
and those discoveries have aided humans in some of their greatest
achievements. A common theme seen in all the aspects of the oak,
however, is the dominant strength – both physically and
metaphorically – of this magnificent tree as shown in nature,
history, and human culture.
Ecologically, the oak tree is the powerhouse of any population
it is found in. The population would have to be in the northern
hemisphere, however, as the oak is exclusive to the top half of the
planet. The tree ranges from cold latitudes to the northernmost
tropical zones, as different species inhabit different temperature
regions. While the species may exist in great varieties, these can be
narrowed down to either deciduous or evergreen types (“Oak”
Gale). The number of species is close to 600, but when we talk of
oak trees, the many species can generally be broken down into two
basic categories: red oaks and white oaks. In fact, what we call an
oak tree is more of a common term for the entire genus Quercus,
which is then classified as part of the even broader beech family
9
(Benson 350). Interestingly, the etymology of the word Quercus is
Latin, which was derived from a Celtic word meaning “fine tree”
(Kendall). Worldwide, the oak is known to be quite common, but a
closer look shows its magnificent strength and tremendous
usefulness in nature.
Some aspects of the oak may seem miniscule and unimportant,
but in fact, they are an intrinsic and essential part of the oak’s
reproduction as well as the nurture of surrounding organisms. Each
spring, the oak tree develops male flowers born in catkins, or a
long cluster of flowers that dangles from the branches and serves
to pollinate the singular female flowers. Pollinated by wind, the
female flower will – within a few weeks – develop into a fruit,
which is classified as a nut “seated in a woody cupule” called the
acorn (“Quercus”). In the fall these acorns will drop from the
oak’s branches and, now on the forest floor, can provide a source
of sustenance for more than 100 species of vertebrate animals,
including mammals such as “white-tailed deer, gray squirrels, fox
10
squirrels, flying squirrels, mice, voles, rabbits, raccoons,
opossums, gray foxes, red foxes, and wild hogs such as wild
turkey, bobwhite quail, wood ducks, mallards, woodpeckers,
crows, and jays” (Ober). The acorns, however, contain a bitter
compound called tannin that can interfere with an animal’s ability
to metabolize protein. To counter this, animals have evolved to be
able to digest the polyphenol, searched for acorns with less tannin,
or learned to wait to eat the acorns until sufficient rainfall has
rinsed most of the tannin out (Ober).
Additionally, other features of oak trees provide remarkably
useful resources for wildlife to use. The leaves of the oak tree
provide a food source for certain invertebrates and moths.
Furthermore, the oak tree itself, with its trunk and strong limbs,
serves as a habitat for surrounding wildlife such as birds, small
mammals, insects, and fungi (Magee and Ahles 409). The oak tree
provides excellent “places to hide, nest, and roost” for organisms
in the forest even after its leaves have fallen, as the leaves then
11
serve as cover for the small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians
that live in this dead layer beneath the tree (Ober).
The oak tree’s place in the forest is perhaps most clearly
demonstrated in its prolonged development and its characteristic of
surviving to be quite old. In a given forest, it is likely that oak trees
will be among the tallest. They can grow to heights of a hundred
feet, although other species remain about the size of small shrubs.
Oaks grow at a tremendously slow rate, however, and it is
estimated that one will grow only two feet in diameter every eighty
years. In fact, oak trees don’t even produce acorns during their first
twenty years (“Oak.” Gale). The tremendously tall and wide trees
do not reach their full height until their elder years. An oak could
live to be eight hundred years old, although the average lifespan is
closer to two hundred to four hundred years (“Oak.” Gale). There
is a common saying associated with the oak trees and its longevity:
“An oak tree grows for three hundred years, rests for three hundred
years, and spends some three hundred gracefully expiring”
12
(Cowan). Even after death, the decaying oak tree breaks down into
rich nutrients that sustain life for younger trees, animals and fungi,
for possibly three hundred years more (Cowan). Indeed, even
compared to other trees in old-growth forests, oaks are among the
oldest and most important trees impacting the environment. A
recent article in The New York Times reported on a six-hundred
year-old landmark oak in Douglaston, Queens, known as the Great
White Oak, that was in the midst of being taken down due to rot
and the potential danger to nearby homes. It was seventy feet tall
and eighteen feet around and was decidedly one of the few trees in
the region that could claim to be the oldest in New York City
(Sulzberger A25). At six hundred years of age, this awe-inspiring
tree predated the establishment of Dutch New Amsterdam and
even Verrazano’s discovery of the narrows that would later bear
his name.
The oak tree’s long life is one of its most defining traits and,
as such, references to its longevity and strength are common in
13
history and literature. On the eve of the French Revolution, general
and advisor to the Louis XVI, Marquis De Bouille, wrote about the
state of the French nobility in “Ancient Oaks Mutilated by Time.”
It was during this time that France saw the emergence of the
middle class, and the deterioration of the nobility. By the
eighteenth century, the French nobles had ceased to be the ruling
class, having squandered their prestige in favor of becoming
courtiers in Versailles seeking favors of the king (Rogers 124). As
a result, Bouille, a noble himself, reflected on this state of affairs
and compared the long decline of the nobility to the death of an old
oak tree. According to Bouille, the distraught nobles of his time
“resembled those ancient oaks mutilated by time, where nothing
remains except the ravaged trunks” (Rogers 124). While Bouille
may have been exaggerating the situation, he does draw an
accurate parallel between the strength of a might oak and the
strength of the once powerful noble class, and he accurately notes
that while they may both last quite a long time, eventually both the
tree and those who abuse their wealth become “mutilated by time.”
14
Crossing the channel to England, the philosopher, Sir Thomas
Browne illustrated the longevity of oak trees when he wrote,
“Generations passe while some tree stands, and old families last
not three oaks” (Hydriotaphia). Three consecutive oaks would
most likely span over a thousand years, as Browne contrasted the
long-lived oak with human family lineage. Another English writer,
Virginia Woolf, wrote a novel called Orlando, which she calls a
“biography” of a young man named Orlando whose life spanned
several hundred years. He experiences much of history and life,
and as times change, he finds that the one entity that remains
constant is an oak tree on a hill behind his ancestral home. In fact,
he starts a poem entitled “The Oak Tree,” in his younger years and
doesn’t finish it until centuries later. During this time Orlando
undergoes a miraculous sex change and lives as a woman from that
point onward. With all this change and the turbulence of life, she
considers the oak tree on the hill a backbone as she drifts through
the centuries. While sitting under the tree, “she liked to think she
was riding the back of the world. She liked to attach herself to
15
something hard” (Woolf 324). Revered as the oak tree is in
England, it is no surprise that these writers regard the oak as a
creative muse of old friendship and family. Indeed, examples such
as these emphasize the long-lived nature of the oak as well as its
admired place in society.
The long association between oak trees and the British Isles is
not a coincidental one, but historically significant. Many of the
allusions and references branch from the story of Charles II and the
Royal Oak. In 1603, James I became the unpopular successor to
the beloved Elizabeth I, and he ruled as an absolute, divine right
king. The establishment of absolutism in England meant that the
monarchy’s power was unlimited and could not be challenged
because it was sanctioned by God. As a result, a growing schism
began forming between the monarchy and Parliament that erupted
into a bloody civil war, during which Charles I was beheaded. His
son, Charles II, assumed the throne, yet the war with Parliament
was still active. The final blow to the monarchy came on
16
September 3, 1651, at the Battle of Worcester, with the victory of
the Parliamentarian army over the Royalist king’s forces (Rogers
36-38). Charles II, who took part in the battle, needed to avoid
capture after the defeat as he was sure to face the same fate as his
father if caught. It is believed that one of the ways he evaded
enemy forces was by hiding in a large oak tree, now known as the
Royal Oak, in the town of Boscobel, which was not far from the
battlefield. He then took shelter in the homes of various families
who were still loyal to the king until he could escape to France
where he stayed during Cromwell’s reign as Lord Protector. Upon
Cromwell’s death in 1658, Charles II returned from exile and was
greeted on the streets of London by Royalists waving oak branches
in reference to his legendary getaway (“Oak” Brewers).
The story of Charles II is the reason why the oak tree is known
as a symbol of royalty and continues to exert a powerful influence
on culture and tradition in Great Britain. The king’s birthday, May
29, which was also the day he returned to England and restored the
17
monarchy, was designated Oak Apple Day by an Act of Parliament
in 1664. In addition, a sprig of oak was added to the English coat
of arms and to the coins of the time. Perhaps less formal than
those, the term “Royal Oak” serves as the name of countless pubs
and inns throughout England, some claiming to be houses the
kings sought shelter in (Marsden). In addition to these customs,
certain pieces of art from the period also allude to the royalty of
the oak tree. One such example, on display at the Metropolitan
Museum of Art, is by Thomas Toft, a prominent potter in
seventeenth-century England who was well known for making
fanciful plates. One of his most famous artworks was a plate
dedicated to Charles II and made in 1680. It shows a lion and a
unicorn, which are symbolic figures of England, on either side of a
sprawling oak embracing a young face on top of the branches. This
young face is supposed to be that of the king, and in addition to
that, Toft inscribed the letters “CR” on the plate, which are the first
two initials of Charles Rex Stuart, the full name of King Charles II
(Toft). Another piece of art relating an oak to royalty is a famous
18
painting done by Sir John Everett Millais in 1853. The Proscribed
Royalist, 1651, as it is called, depicts a Puritan woman hiding a
young Royalist supporter inside the hollow of an oak tree in a
reference to the escape of Charles II (Millais). Fast-forwarding to
more modern times, a contemporary poet named Charles
Tomlinson shows even centuries later that an allusion to Charles II
and the royalty of the oak tree still fits. His poem, entitled “The
Tree House,” describes an optical illusion of sorts that makes a
house on the horizon appears to be embraced by the boughs of an
oak before it. The house could have been one of the places Charles
II stayed during his days in hiding, as the poem contains the lines:
“They say the King/ came here/ three hundred years ago/ bringing
– she called herself/ ‘the Protestant whore’ - / Nell Gwyn”
(Tomlinson). Furthermore, the oak’s “royal embrace” could be
argued to reference to the Royal Oak’s embrace of Charles II when
he took refuge inside of its trunk (Tomlinson).
19
However, England is not the only country to revere the oak as a
symbol of strength. Indeed, stories about the oak tree stretch back
even to Biblical times. In Israel, the oak tree is the most common
tree found in groves and deciduous forests, so it doesn’t come as a
surprise that oak trees hold a place of high regard in the Jewish
tradition. In fact, the Hebrew name for oak is allon which means
strong. The “Oak of Abraham” in Hebron is a particularly famous
oak in Israel and is said to be the place where Abraham pitched his
tent and received angels who promised him a son and heir (Feliks).
The oak tree’s ability to heal itself or renew itself when damaged
served as a metaphor for Isaiah when he talked about the Israeli
people: “As an oak whose substance is in them, when they cast
their leaves, so the holy seed shall be the substance thereof,”
meaning that though the Jewish people have been ravaged or “cut
down,” just like an oak tree, the “holy seed” will sprout new shoots
and leaves (Torrey).
20
The resilience and strength of the oak tree are recurring
themes in ancient mythology as well. In ancient Greece, the most
prominent and powerful god was Zeus, with whom the oak tree
was associated, and it was exclusive to only him. This association
reflects the belief that oak trees are more susceptible to lightning
strikes, coupled with the fact that Zeus was known as the god of
thunder (“Oak” Brewer’s). Interestingly, there is no evidence for
the belief that oak trees attract lightning more than other trees;
however, the fact that oaks are often the tallest trees and therefore
the first to get struck by lightning may have led to this
misconception. As a result of the pairing of Zeus to oak trees, there
are many Greek myths illustrating the association with Zeus or
depicting the oak as being long-lived, wise, and strong.
The ancient Greeks placed particular significance on oracles
that predicted the future or gave the correct actions to be taken in
future events. The oracles often existed as a part of nature and each
one had a god associated with it. The one that was associated with
21
Zeus was the Oracle at Dodona, which archeologists determined to
be the oldest oracle in Hellenistic mythology. It consisted of a
temple dedicated to Zeus and a sacred grove of oak trees, inside of
which priests and prophets would listen to the rustling of the leaves
to determine Zeus’s message or what the right course of action was
(Leadbetter).
Another myth involving Zeus and his association with oak
trees is the story of Philemon and Baucis. These two characters in
ancient Greece were poor married people who lived in a small
cottage. One day, Zeus disguised himself and went into the town
seeking a place to eat and rest. He was turned away time and time
again until he knocked on Philemon and Baucis’s door, and they
happily let him in. During the course of the meal, one of them
noticed that the wine carafe was refilling itself and realized that
their guest was a god. Zeus then revealed himself to them and told
Philemon and Baucis that since they had provided him with such
hospitality, he would give them whatever wish they wanted. They
22
wished that they might grow old together, and when it came time
for one of them to die, to die together. And so, one day as they
were walking, they magically turned into two trees, Philemon an
oak, and Baucis a linden, with their branches intertwined overhead
(“Philemon and Baucis” Brewer’s).
It was not only ancient Greek culture that held the oak tree in
high regard. The Druids in particular had a deep connection with
oaks. In fact, the word Druid comes from the Gaelic duir, which
literally means “oak tree” (Kendall). The Druids were also known
to have invaded Ireland, which at the time was plentiful with oaks.
The county Derry, or Londonderry – depending on the politics of
the day – means land of oaks (Kendall). Furthermore, the Celts,
who often have many similarities in customs and beliefs to the
Druids, believed that doors made of oak kept ancient spirits out
(Kendall). In all of these similar beliefs the common thread that
was that strength was appealing to these pre-modern societies, who
found symbolism in oak trees.
23
The ancient societies discussed here, as well as more advanced
societies, all discovered that the oak tree was extremely useful. It
was the Roman doctor, Galen, who first used oak leaves as
treatment for wounds (“Oak” Gale). Much later, in seventeenth
century colonial Massachusetts, Mary Rowlandson crafted one of
the classic pieces of American literature about her experiences
while kidnapped by Native Americans, and she presents further
evidence for the medicinal usefulness of oak leaves. Rowlandson
was wounded in her encounter with the Native Americans, and
after remembering a story of a friend who treated his wounds with
“oaken leaves,” she too “took oaken leaves and laid to my side,
and with the blessings of God it cured me also” (313). Though
Rowlandson attributes her sudden turnaround to God, in
accordance with seventeenth-century religious devotion, her
account offers additional evidence about the therapeutic usefulness
of oaks.
24
Another “use” of the oak tree is mentioned in a folk tale that
claims that one could predict how productive the year will be for
farmers using the tree. An Irish version of the tale states, “If the
oak before the ash,/ Then we’ll have a splash./ If the ash before the
oak,/ Then we’ll surely have a soak” (Kendall). As the tradition
goes, if oaks sprout leaves before ash trees, a fine and productive
year will follow, but if the ash precedes the oak in foliage, a cold
summer and unproductive autumn will follow. There is no
scientific evidence supporting this tale, however, and though some
data does exist supporting the fact that oaks sprouting leaves
earlier leads to favorable autumns, it appears to be merely
correlational rather than causational (“Oak.” Brewers).
Aside from medical uses or old wives’ tales, our society’s
modern ingenuity has churned out many more advanced uses for
oak and made it into an important resource. Its wood has
“distinctive, broad, compound rays,” that make it strong, flexible,
and good-looking enough to be made into furniture, wood flooring,
25
cabinet wood, and railroad ties (“Oak” Gale). Oak was also the
predominant wood of shipbuilding in the days before newer
materials, and made up some of the most advanced maritime
technology in the world that led to the discovery of the New World
(“Oak” Gale). Another use of oak trees is the wood in barrels
storing wine, and in fact, recent studies suggest these oak casks
increase the antioxidant activity of the wine stored in them and
also add the distinctive “oaky” aroma to some wines (“Oak” Gale).
The bark of the oak is also used to make corks, and contains
chemicals often used in tanning leathers (Benson). Oak bark is
additionally useful in medicine as it can be used as a bowel
astringent to treat diarrhea as well as an anti-inflammatory gargle
for sore throats (“Oak” Gale).
With the use of oak trees as a resource, however, comes the
responsibility of knowing that oak can only be a renewable
resource as long as constant populations of new oaks are planted.
The chopping down of oak trees for timber, especially in old
26
growth forests, is a problem that affects the whole forest, since we
now know the huge impact a single tree has on the ecosystem. One
particular example is what is currently occurring in the
southeastern United States on the Cumberland Plateau. Both
mountaintop removal in association with coal mining, as well as
the cutting down of trees for disposable paper products poses a
threat to the hardwood forests that are partially made up of oldgrowth oak trees (“Cumberland Plateau”). Furthermore, scientific
evidence exists that the effects of global warming are contributing
to oak die-off by speeding up the reproduction rates of beetles and
fungi, who can spread foreign diseases through forests (“Oaks”
Gale). Though oak trees may be fairly common trees in any typical
forest, it is evident that human behavior that is indifferent to the
environment of the planet is affecting the oak trees of the world–
along with polar bears and ice caps. This is not to say that the
characteristic strength of the oak has dwindled in more modern
times, but rather that because of the oak’s strength, history, and
usefulness, it is all the more worthy of protection. William Blake
27
may have summed it up best when he said, “The tree that moves
some to tears of joy, is in the eyes of others, only a green thing that
stands in the way” (qtd. in Cowan).
The natural caretaker, historical elder, and generous giver that
is the oak tree in the personified forest, has been seen throughout
history and cross culturally as a prominent symbol of strength.
Ecologically it is a long-lived centerpiece of habitats and of
nurturing surrounding life. From Biblical times to the English Civil
War the oak tree has stood by as a silent witness to some of the
greatest moments in human history. And as a resource, it has
played an active role in human civilization whether it is in making
up the hull of a boat crossing the Atlantic for the first time, or
making up the cabinets in our own kitchens. In the examples of
nature, history, and industry, from the different eons of human
civilization, and from the different corners of the world, the
prevalent theme present in all of these examples is the magnificent
and resounding strength of the old and mighty oak.
28
Works Cited
Benson, Lyman. Plant Classification. Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C.
Health and Company, 1959.
Browne, Sir Thomas. Hydriotaphia. 1658.
<http://penelope.uchicago.edu-/hydrionoframes/hydrio5.html>.
Cowan, Andrew. “Protecting our Ancestors’ Legacy for the
Generations of the Future.” ArborEcology Ltd. Summer 2004. 25
October 2009.
<http://www.arborecology.co.uk/article_ancient_tree.htm>.
“Cumberland Plateau: Fast Facts.” National Resources Defense
Council. 26 October 2009.
<http://www.savebiogems.org/cumberland/fastfacts.html>.
Feliks, Jehuda. "Oak." Encyclopaedia Judaica. Ed. Michael
Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. Vol. 15. 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan
Reference USA, 2007. 357-358. Gale Virtual Reference Library.
Gale. Marist College. 9 Nov. 2009 <http://go.galegroup.com.29
online.library.marist.edu/ps/start.do?p=GVRL&u=nysl_se_marist>
.
Kendell, Paul. “Mythology and Folklore of the Oak.” Trees for Life
Spring 2002. 25 October 2009. <http://www.
Treesforlife.org.uk/forest/mythfolk/oak.html>.
Leadbetter, Ron. “Dodona.” Encyclopedia Mythica. 4 April 1997. 25
October, 2009. <http://www.pantheon.org/articles/d/dodona.html>.
Marsden, Graeme. “The Royal Oak.” First Foot Guards. 25 October,
2009.
<http://footguards.tripod.com/06ARTICLES/ART26_royal_oak.ht
m>.
Magee, Dennis W., and Harry E. Ahles. Flora of the Northeast.
Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1999.
Millais, Sir John Everett. The Proscribed Roayalist, 1651. 1853. Royal
Academy Andrew Lloyd Webber Collection, London.
30
“Oak.” Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase ad Fable. 18th ed. Edinburgh:
Chambers Harrap Publishers, 2009.
"Oak." The Gale Encyclopedia of Alternative Medicine. Ed. Laurie J.
Fundukian. Vol. 3. 3rd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2009. 1619-1621. Gale
Virtual Reference Library. Gale. Marist College. 9 Nov. 2009
<http://go.galegroup.com.online.library.marist.edu/ps/start.do?p=GVRL&u=nysl_se_marist>.
Ober, Holly K. “The Value of Oaks to Wildlife.” University of Florida:
Institute of Foodand Agricultural Sciences. Extension Document
WEC248. <http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/UW292>.
“Philemon and Baucis.” Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase and Fable.
18th ed. Edinburgh: Chambers Harrap Publishers, 2009.
"Quercus" A Dictionary of Plant Sciences. Michael Allaby. Oxford
University Press, 2006. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford
University Press. Marist College. 9 November 2009
31
<http://www.oxfordreference.com.online.library.marist.edu/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t7.e5707>.
Rogers, Perry. Aspects of Western Civilization. Vol. 2. 6th ed. United
States: Pearson, 2008.
Rowlandson, Mary. “A Narrative of the Captivity and Restoration of
Mrs. Mary Rowlandson.” The Norton Anthology of American
Literature. Vol. A. 6th ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Company,
2003. 308-340.
Sulzburger, A.G. “A Towering Landmark, Reduced to Sawdust.” New
York Times 5 October 2009. A25.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/nyregion/06tree.html>.Toft,
Thomas. Charger. 1680. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.
Tomlinson, Charles. “The Tree House.” The Vineyard above the Sea.
Manchester, England: Carcanet Press Limited, 1999. 50.
32
Torrey, R. A. “Oak-Tree, The.” The New Topical Textbook. New York:
World Wide
Publications, 1970 c1897. <http://www.bible-
topics.com/Oaktree-The.html>.
Woolf, Virginia. Orlando. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,
1928.
“Zeus and the Oak Trees.” Aesop's Fables. A new translation by Laura
Gibbs. Oxford University Press (World's Classics): Oxford, 2002.
<http://www.mythfolklore.net/aesopica/perry
33
The Health Care Crisis: Is there a Cure?
By Jill Obrizok
Pick up almost any newspaper or turn on any television news
program and it is almost guaranteed that you will be bombarded
with information about today’s health care crisis. It’s affecting
nearly everyone from working families to elderly retired couples to
young adults, barely older than myself, who have just graduated
from college and are beginning their professional lives.
Unfortunately for these people, they will find that obtaining a
healthplan that covers all of their needs without costing a fortune
will be difficult, to say the least. Why is this so? Costs are
skyrocketing and health care providers are overburdened.
The U.S. health care system is financed by premiums, the
sum of money paid, usually at regular intervals, for an insurance
policy. At the same time, health care providers must be reimbursed
34
for services distributed. The responsibilities are shared by
insurance companies and the government. Individuals and
businesses pay premiums to insurance companies that pay claims
that have been made be the insured. In many cases, insurers make
payments directly to the healthcare providers instead of to the
person making the claim, but this depends upon the type of plan
chosen. Both individuals and businesses pay income taxes to the
government, which fund programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and
other government-funded health insurance programs. The
government also uses money from taxes to reimburse providers for
services to members of government programs. The federal
government significantly subsidizes employer-sponsored insurance
because employees receive this as a tax-free benefit, and
employers are able to deduct health insurance benefits as a cost of
doing business (Farrell).
The United States is the only developed country in the world,
except for South Korea, that does not provide health care for all of
35
its citizens (Farrell). Our system of health insurance is organized
into two main categories—private insurance and public insurance.
What is interesting about the health insurance of the United States
is that the private component dominates the public component.
Private health insurance is broken up into employer-sponsored
insurance and individual health insurance. Employer-sponsored
insurance is the main way Americans receive health insurance
coverage. Companies provide this as part of their benefits package.
These plans are administered by insurance companies both forprofit (Aetna, Cigna, State Farm, for example), and not-for-profit
(Blue Cross/Blue Shield) (Farrell). Some large companies choose
to pay the health costs directly while choosing a third-party
(usually an insurer) to administer the plan. Employer-sponsored
plans are financed partly by the employers who pay most of the
premium, and partly by employees who pay the remainder.
Individual health insurance covers people for whom insurance is
not provided through their employers, those who are selfemployed, and retirees (Farrell). Plans are provided by private
36
insurance companies and insured individuals often end up paying
the full health insurance premium.
Public health insurance is provided through the government
by programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare is a
program provided by the federal government which covers
individuals aged 65 and older, as well as disabled individuals. It is
funded through federal income tax, as well as by taxes paid by
employers and employees, and premium payments by those
enrolled. Medicare covers hospital services, physician services and
prescription drug benefits. Medicaid, on the other hand, is designed
for low-income individuals and those who are disabled. Many
states are required by law to provide coverage for children, the
elderly, the disabled, parents and low-income pregnant women.
Adults without children are not covered, as well as low-income
individuals who earn “too much” to be provided for. A
comprehensive set of benefits is offered by the program, including
prescription drugs. In spite of this, many of those enrolled still
37
have problems finding providers that accept Medicaid, because of
its low rate of reimbursement (Farrell).
In the United States, health maintenance organizations
(HMOs) became popular in the late-20th century as a way to
control medical costs through the use of pre-negotiated fees for
medical services and prescription medicines (Encyclopedia
Britanica). An alternative to the HMO is the preferred provider
organization (PPO), also known as a participating provider option,
which offers features of traditional fee-for-service insurance plans,
such as the ability of patients to choose their own health care
providers, but it also follows the lower-cost strategies of HMOs
(Encyclopedia Britanica). For example, those enrolled in a PPO
can see any medical provider at any time, without a referral from
their primary care physician; however, if one of the insurance
company's “preferred providers” is selected, the company
generally pays a higher percentage of the cost. In both HMOs and
PPOs, the insured is usually responsible for a certain portion of the
38
cost of the medical services, with a co-payment fee—paid by the
insured at the time of an office visit—being one of the most
common charges.
Many people who are fortunate enough to have any health
insurance coverage at all end up paying far too much. I work at an
eye doctor’s office, and one of my colleagues, a women who has
been doing medical billing for over a decade, reported that over the
years a higher and higher percentage of people don’t have any
health insurance at all and those who do are more often than not
unsatisfied. It is often the case that insurance companies don't
cover whatever procedure the patient needs. A lot of insurance
companies require the patient to get a referral from their physician
before they are able to come in for a routine eye exam, and if they
don’t, their exam won’t be covered. The whole system is far too
complicated; some patients have to pay their bill and then submit
to their health insurance company on their own if the particular
doctor is out of their network and they have out of network prices.
39
Other patients complain that their co-pays are way too high on top
of the already high price of their insurance.
The reasons for the high cost of care in the U.S. include
factors such as the rising cost of technology and prescription drugs,
and high administrative costs from the country’s complex multiple
payer system (Farrell). Another contributing factor to the high cost
of insurance is the shift from “non-profit” to “for-profit” healthcare
providers, such as the growth of for-profit hospital chains. In
addition, the large number of uninsured people is significantly
contributing to rising costs because conditions that could have
been detected, treated and prevented in their early stages go
undetected and later develop into full-blown crises. These then
require more expensive procedures that may even include intensive
care or emergency room treatment.
Due to rising costs, many employers have been forced to cut
back or drop their health insurance plans. As the number of
uninsured people grows, hospitals and other healthcare providers
40
compensate through shifting costs at the expense of taxpayers and
higher premiums for those with insurance. Even public programs
have been affected. The country’s aging population is increasing
spending on healthcare. It is estimated that one-half of Medicare
funds are being used to support sick people in their last stages of
life (Farrell). Experts have estimated that Medicare funds will be
exhausted by 2018 (Farrell).
All though the United States has the most expensive
healthcare system in the world, 47 million Americans have no
health insurance and millions more are underinsured. For those
who are insured, the cost of health care is rising at least twice as
fast as the rate of economic growth (Malhotra). Major companies
and municipal governments are passing more of the cost of health
care to their employees. Many small businesses, especially in the
service sector, do not even provide health insurance to their
employees. Most companies and city governments have not set
aside enough money to meet health care obligations to retired
41
employees. More and more companies have begun to shift their
manufacturing to other countries, as they will not be able to sustain
health care costs for their employees.
There is a steady rise in bankruptcies amongst individuals as
well as companies due to the cost of health care. There were over a
million bankruptcies filed by individuals in 2005 who could not
afford to pay their health care costs and now an ever-increasing
number of families are left drowning in debt from their medical
bills (Malhotra). The cost of prescription drugs is rising even faster
than the general rise in health care costs. Adding to the distress is
the fact that by 2015, the National Coalition on Health Care
projected that the government will double healthcare spending to
$4 trillion per year, or 20% of the nation’s budget (Farrell). With
millions of uninsured people unable to access suitable healthcare,
overstretched hospitals and escalating costs, America’s healthcare
system is coming undone.
42
For nearly a century presidents and members of Congress
have tried and failed to provide universal health care to Americans.
In fact, the cost of health care has continued to escalate, and in
2008 one in six dollars was spent on health care (Goodridge and
Arnquist). People often wonder how health care got to be as bad as
it is today, and the evolution of health care in the United States can
best be examined when broken down decade by decade, starting at
the turn of the twentieth century.
During this time, the American Medical Association became
a powerful national force. In 1901, the American Medical
Association was recognized as the national organization of state
and local associations. Membership increased from about 8,000
physicians in 1900 to 70,000 in 1910 as approximately half the
physicians in the country became members (PBS). This period is
considered to be the beginning of "organized medicine." At this
point, surgery became common, especially for removing tumors,
infected tonsils, and appendectomies and because of this doctors
43
were no longer expected to provide free services to all hospital
patients (PBS). Despite this, America lagged behind European
countries in finding value in insuring against the costs of sickness.
The Railroad industry was the leading industry to develop
extensive employee medical programs (PBS).
During the next decade American hospitals developed into
modern scientific institutions, valuing antiseptics and cleanliness
and using medications for the relief of pain. In 1912, during
President Theodore Roosevelt’s campaign, he promised our
country national health insurance. He said that “what Germany has
done in the way of old-age pensions or insurance should be studied
by us, and the system adapted to our uses” (Goodridge and
Arnquist). The American Association for Labor Legislation agreed
and organized the first national conference on “social insurance.”
At this conference progressive reformers argued for health
insurance which was gaining support (PBS). Opposition from
physicians and other interest groups as well as the entry of the
44
United States into World War I in 1917 undermined any efforts for
reform.
In the 1920s, consistent with the general mood of political
complacency, there was no strong effort made to change health
insurance. Reformers emphasized the cost of medical care instead
of wages lost to sickness—the relatively higher cost of medical
care was a new and dramatic development, especially for the
middle class (PBS). The growing cultural influence of the medical
profession was well underway during this time and physicians'
incomes were now higher and the prestige currently associated
with those in the medical profession was established. In spite of all
of these advantages, rural health facilities were still clearly
inadequate. Penicillin was discovered, but it would be twenty years
before it was used to combat infection and disease (PBS).
Dr. Ray Lyman Wilbur conducted a five year national
study in which he and his team discovered that in the 1930s the
average family spent a mere $5 a week and $250 a year on health
45
care (Goodridge and Arnquist). Starting at the beginning of the
1930s the depression changed priorities, with greater emphasis on
unemployment insurance and “old age” benefits. In the midst of
the Great Depression, President Franklin D. Roosevelt pushed for
health insurance and his working groups on Social Security and
unemployment security also discussed a national health insurance
program, but legislation was never seriously considered. The
American Medical Association continued its strong opposition to
such a plan, claiming it would increase bureaucracy, limit
physician freedom, and interfere with the doctor-patient
relationship (Goodridge and Arnquist). Against the advice of
insurance professionals, Blue Cross started to offer private
coverage for hospital care in dozens of states (PBS).
In the 1940s, following the Great Depression prepaid
group health care began, but it was seen as radical. During World
War II, wage and price controls were placed on American
employers. To compete for workers, companies began to offer
46
health benefits, giving rise to the employer-based system which is
still in place today (PBS). President Roosevelt asked Congress for
“economic bill of rights,” which included the right to adequate
medical care. In 1945, President Truman offered a national health
program plan, proposing a single system that would include all of
American society. Truman's plan was denounced by the American
Medical Association, and was labeled as a Communist plot by a
House subcommittee (PBS). In 1946, Congress funded a hospital
program which recognized the growing gap in access to medical
care between urban and rural areas. The Hill-Burton Act financed
hospital construction, most of which occurred in rural areas
(Goodridge and Arnquist). It required hospitals to provide charity
care and prohibited discrimination based on race, religion, or
nationality, but allowed for “separate but equal” facilities. This law
provides the foundation for most hospital regulation in place today.
The Health Insurance Council, an industry trade group,
estimates that 77 million Americans had purchased some type of
47
voluntary accident or sickness insurance by 1951 (Goodridge and
Arnquist). At the same time, President Truman made a second
attempt at health care reform after his reelection in 1948; however,
it was abandoned with the outbreak of the Korean War. America
had a system of private insurance for those who could afford it and
welfare services for the poor. Federal responsibility for the sick
and poor was firmly established. Many legislative proposals were
made for different approaches to hospital insurance, but none
succeeded. Many more medications became available at this time
to treat a range of diseases, including infections, glaucoma, and
arthritis, and new vaccines become available that prevent dreaded
childhood diseases including polio and the first successful organ
transplant was performed (PBS).
In the 1950s, the price of hospital care doubled. In the early
1960s, anyone outside the workplace, especially the elderly, had a
difficult time affording insurance. Over 700 insurance companies
were selling health insurance at the time (PBS). Although the
48
number of doctors reporting themselves as full-time specialists
grows from 55% in 1960 to 69%, concerns about a shortage of
doctors led to federal measures to expand education in the health
professions (PBS). Major medical insurance endorsed high-cost
medicine. In 1965, social reforms were at the front of President
Lyndon B. Johnson’s domestic agenda. He signed legislation
creating the Medicare and Medicaid programs, which provide
comprehensive health care coverage for people 65 and over, as
well as the poor and disabled (Goodridge and Arnquist). Despite
the creation of these programs, in 1968 health care costs began to
spiral out of control. With millions more Americans insured after
the passage of Medicare and Medicaid, health spending began to
increase sharply. At this point, rising health costs turn into a major
political issue.
In the 1970s President Richard Nixon renamed prepaid group
health care plans as HMOs, with legislation that provided federal
endorsement, certification, and assistance. Healthcare costs
49
escalated rapidly, partially due to unexpectedly high Medicare
expenditures, rapid inflation in the economy, expansion of hospital
expenses and profits, and changes in medical care including greater
use of technology, medications, and conservative approaches to
treatment (PBS). At this time, American medicine was viewed as
in crisis. In 1971, the competing plans of President Richard M.
Nixon and Senator Edward M. Kennedy were introduced and
America’s health care took a leading role once again in national
politics (Goodridge and Arnquist). President Nixon backed a
proposal requiring employers to provide a minimum level of
insurance to employees, yet maintain competition among private
insurance companies. President Nixon's plan for national health
insurance was rejected by liberals & labor unions. Senator
Kennedy, on the other hand, counter-proposed the “Health Security
Act,” a universal single payer health reform plan. Senator Kennedy
spent the rest of his career attempting to overhaul the country’s
health care. In 1973, President Nixon signed the Health
Maintenance Organization Act which set aside $375 million to
50
finance projects that would demonstrate the feasibility of HMOs
(Goodridge and Arnquist).
During the 1980s, corporations begin to integrate the hospital
system; which was previously a decentralized structure; enter
many other healthcare-related businesses, and consolidate control.
Overall, there was a shift toward privatization and corporatization
of healthcare. Under President Reagan, Medicare shifted to
payment by diagnosis (DRG) instead of by treatment. Private plans
quickly followed suit. In 1986 Congress passed the Emergency
Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which required hospitals
to screen and stabilize all emergency room patients, and the
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA),
which allows employees to continue their group health plan for up
to 18 months after losing their jobs (Goodridge and Arnquist). In
1988, the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act, the first major
health care bill in years, was approved by Congress and signed into
law by President Reagan. This act was created to protect older
51
Americans from financial ruin because of illness, and its benefits
included setting limits on Medicare patient’s payments for
hospitals, doctors and prescription drugs. The program was
supposed to be financed entirely by the 33 million elderly and
disabled Medicare beneficiaries; however, the act was repealed
when affluent, older Americans protested.
Throughout the 1990s, health care costs rose at double the
rate of inflation. The expansion of managed care helped to
moderate the increases in health care costs. In 1993, President Bill
Clinton started his reform effort in which the aim was to provide
universal health coverage based on the idea of “managed
competition” in which private insurers compete in a tightly
regulated market (Goodridge and Arnquist). In 1994, President
Clinton’s plan failed to pass in Congress. Numerous reasons are
cited for its failure including powerful lobbying by interest groups,
including doctors, drug companies and insurance companies;
Congressional distractions by other major issues; and the news
52
media’s failure to successfully explain the plan to Americans
(Goodridge and Arnquist). Regardless of this setback, in 1997,
President Clinton enacted the Children’s Health Insurance
Program, which provides subsidized insurance to children of the
working poor. These actions were not enough to mend the nation’s
health care problems, and by the end of the decade there were 44
million Americans, 16 % of the nation, with no health insurance at
all (PBS).
Since the turn of the 21st century, the changing demographics
of the workplace have led many people to believe that the
employer-based system of insurance can’t last, especially with the
current U.S. unemployment rate at 10.2%. Starting in 2002, the
cost of health care—which had stabilized in the mid-1990s with
the introduction of managed care—climbed rapidly again. On top
of this, the struggling economy made it harder for employers to
absorb higher costs, and therefore they pass the cost on to their
employees. In 2003, President George W. Bush expanded
53
Medicare to cover prescription drugs by signing the Medicare
Modernization Act
(Goodridge and Arnquist). However this program was
controversial because the benefits were offered entirely by private
insurance companies and include a financial gap in drug coverage.
Medicare’s prescription drug program, Part D, has created a lot of
confusion—causing people to sort through private plans, trying to
avoid the gap in coverage. In 2006, national health care spending
totaled $2.2 trillion, or$7,421 per person and 16.2 percent of the
economy (Goodridge and Arnquist).
In the months leading up to the presidential election of 2008
Senator Barack Obama promised drastic healthcare reforms as part
of his campaign—during a time when 46 million people were
uninsured, needless to say he was elected president. On July 14,
2009, the House Democratic leaders introduce a bill that would
expand health care coverage, rein in the growth of Medicare, and
raise taxes on high-income people and the next day the Senate
54
panel approved the health bill (Goodridge and Arnquist). On
October 13, 2009, after weeks of debate, the Senate Finance
Committee passed the last of the five bills in Congress. According
to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill would cost $1.05
trillion over ten years and provide coverage to 36 million people
(Goodridge and Arnquist). On November 3, 2009, Republicans
presented their own health care proposal, which would reward
states for reducing the number of uninsured people, limit damages
in medical malpractice lawsuits, and allow small businesses to
come together and buy insurance exempt from most state
regulation.
According to T.R. Reid; a longtime correspondent for The
Washington Post and former chief of its Tokyo and London
bureaus, as well as a commentator for National Public Radio; each
nation’s health care system is a reflection of its history, economy,
and national values. Canada’s universal program is notorious for
keeping patients on waiting lists because the government has
55
decided that they would rather keep patients waiting in line—so
long as everybody waits the same amount of time—than see some
people get treatment immediately and some not at all (Reid). The
British believe that no one should have to pay a medical bill. In
France, on the other hand, people must pay some fee for practically
every medical service, even though that fee will be reimbursed in
full or partially in just a matter of days by the insurance system
(Reid).
Reid asserts that there are four basic models of health care
used around the world: the Bismarck Model, the Beveridge Model,
the National Health Insurance Model, and the Out-of-Pocket
Model. Otto von Bismarck invented the welfare state as part of the
unification of Germany in the nineteenth century. In “Bismarck
countries”—Germany, Japan, France, Belgium, Switzerland, and
Latin American—both health care providers and payers are private
units. This model uses private health insurance plans which are
financed primarily by employers and their employees through
56
deductions in payroll. This plan covers everyone and no one makes
a profit off of it (Reid). Doctors’ offices are private businesses and
many hospitals are privately owned. Although this is a multipayer
model, medical services and fees are tightly regulated (Reid).
The Beveridge Model is named after William Beveridge who
inspired Britain’s National Health Service. In this system, health
care is both provided and financed by the government through
taxes. There are no medical bills because medical treatment is
considered to be a public service, such as the fire department or a
public library (Reid). In the Beveridge systems—found in Great
Britain, Italy, Spain, and most of Scandinavia—the majority of
hospitals and clinics are owned by the government. Some doctors
are government employees, but there are also private doctors who
collect their fees from the government. These systems often have
low costs per person, because the government, as the only payer,
controls what doctors are allowed to do and what they are allowed
57
to charge (Reid). This system is what most people are thinking of
when they talk about “socialized medicine.”
The National Health Insurance Model contains elements of
both aforementioned systems: health care providers are private, but
the payer is a government-run insurance program that every citizen
pays into (Reid). This system is found primarily in Canada because
its universal employment and its equal treatment “satisfies
Canada’s national sense of community” (Reid). The national
insurance plan collects monthly premiums and pays all the medical
bills. Due to the fact that it is the only payer and covers everyone,
the national insurance plan has significant power when it comes to
negotiating lower prices. Given that there is no need for marketing
and no profit whatsoever, universal insurance programs on the
whole are cheaper and much more simple in terms of
administration that the private insurance that we are familiar with
in the United States (Reid).
58
This leads to the last model: The Out-of-Pocket Model. Most
of the nations in the world, namely Africa, India, China, and South
America, are too poor and are not organized enough to provide any
kind of medical care for the public. In such nations, only the rich
receive medical care while the poor remain sick and often die. Rich
civilians and those with connections, such as government officials,
are able to find a doctor and pay for their care without much
trouble, especially in big cities. In rural areas, however, hundreds
of millions of people go their whole lives without ever being seen
by a doctor. The distinguishing feature of the countries without a
health care system is that most medical care is paid for by the
patient, out of pocket, without any insurance plan or aid from the
government to help.
Currently, the system of health care in place in the United
States contains aspects of all four of these models. And yet, we’re
like no other country because the United States has so many
separate systems for separate classes of people and because of the
59
fact that it relies so heavily on for-profit private insurance plans to
pay health care bills (Reid). Every other country has settled on one
model for everyone owing to the fact that it is believed to be
simpler, cheaper, and, of course, fairer. Every rich, developed
country, other than the United States, has included three crucial
aspects in its health care system: a unified system, nonprofit
financing, and universal coverage (Reid). Given our country’s
remarkable medical resources, the United States has the potential
to provide the finest health care in the world—perhaps we just
need other developed countries around the world to show us how
to do it.
When considering a national health care system for the
United States, many lessons can be learned from the British
National Health Insurance Model. Britain’s National Health
Service was established following World War II in the middle of a
broad consensus that health care should be made available to all.
However, the British only barely succeeded in overcoming
60
professional opposition to form the National Health Service out of
the prewar mixture of limited national insurance, various voluntary
insurance schemes, charity care, and public health services (Light).
Success arose from extraordinary leadership, a parliamentary
system of government that gives the winning party great control,
and a willingness to make major concessions to key stakeholders.
As one of the basic models imitated worldwide, the National
Health System—in both its original form and its current
restructuring—offers a number of important lessons for health
reform in the United States. These lessons are that healthcare
should be free at the point of service, healthcare should be funded
from income taxes, a strong primary care base should be
established for a healthcare system, general practitioners should be
paid extra for treating patients with deprivations, and all
subspecialists should be paid on the same salary scale.
One of the principles of the National Health Service is that
“health care should be free at the point of service” (Light). Even
61
though this is basically the opposite of the principle of American
employers and politicians who continue to increase co-payments,
the British stance is supported by both countries. Co-payments
create inequities, create obstacles to access, and usually do not
achieve their goals. They are not very effective in containing costs,
because patients have the freedom to choose only a small
percentage of elective choices. Most efforts aimed at minimizing
cost focus on minor costs related to the start of the process rather
than addressing major costs related to the end of the process.
Furthermore, co-payments challenge the goals of proper and
effective care and discriminate against the working and lower
classes.
“Whenever the British have reviewed the option of using
health insurance instead of income tax financing, they have found
evidence that an insurance-based health care system costs more to
operate, is more inequitable, controls costs less effectively, and
provides no basis for population-oriented prevention or public
62
health gains” (Light). In the United States, on the other hand,
employers are moving from large group insurance toward
individuals buying their own policies on a voluntary basis, which
has been known to be the most costly and undemocratic way to
structure health insurance because it has few ways to contain costs,
raise quality, or improve the health of the population.
In Great Britain, every citizen chooses his or her own
personal physician or practice. The system provides incentives to
practice in underserved areas and prevents new general
practitioners from setting up in areas that are already overwhelmed
or affluent (Light). The primary care base of the National Health
System is widely praised and has been consistently strengthened
over the last few decades. For instance, as employment in general
practice and morale decreased and sub-specialty medicine grew in
the postwar years, the British raised the lifetime incomes of
general practitioners to equal those of subspecialists. Other
changes were made to strengthen primary care by providing more
63
practice staff and nurses in order to encourage single practitioners
to join together into teams.
More recently, these teams have been expanded by bringing
together geographic clusters of practices into large Primary Care
Trusts that include all community health care services as well as
many social services (Light). For quite a while now, the British
have paid general practitioners significantly more for taking care
of patients who are more likely to have more problems and whose
care is more demanding. Here in America, however, health policy
researchers are still debating whether it can be done.
The policy of paying all subspecialists on the same pay
scale conveys the idea that “psychiatry is as important and
complicated as cardiology and pediatrics as challenging as
orthopedics” (Light). On what justifiable grounds should one
specialty be paid more than another? In addition to being just,
equal pay suggests to young doctors that they should specialize in
64
what they do best and enjoy. This decision has had many cultural,
organizational, and clinical benefits for Great Britain (Light).
There are many different proposed solutions to dealing
with the health care crisis in the United States. If broken down and
looked at simply there are three options: a system that is privately
funded, a system that is a combination of private and public
funding, and a system that is only publicly funded. The first choice
is not really an option because the health care system will become
money driven causing ever escalating health care costs. This
system would become unsustainable in a short period, even in the
richest economy in the world.
Therefore choices two and three are the only options—as
long as the health care system is not divided and it covers all the
population in America. A cost-effective American health care
system will evolve as long as politicians and policy makers do not
clutter up their search for solutions with their ideologies. They will
have to rise above simply preserving their personal power and take
65
a good look at the best practices of the health care systems of the
other rich nations. They must do this in order to develop and
implement a health care system that provides adequate and quality
healthcare for all people.
According to Professor William Hsiao, the Harvard
economist who has helped design healthcare systems for more than
a dozen nations; “before you can set up a health care system for
any country you have to know that country’s basic ethical values”
(Reid). He asserts that the first question that has to be answered is:
“Do people in your country have a right to health care?” If the
people believe that medical care is a basic human right, then a
system must be designed in which anyone who is sick can see a
doctor. All of the developed countries except the United States
have decided that every human has a basic right to health care
(Reid).
America has to start with a fresh approach to developing a
healthcare system, one that is superior and more cost effective than
66
existing systems in the world. America has the capability to
develop a newer and better healthcare system from scratch because
it has the finest health institutions and hospitals. It also has brilliant
minds and doctors who are wise and ethical, and it has a
bureaucracy for processing information already in place.
Fortunately, many of these minds are at work for President Obama
to help him develop a new health care system that will provide
superior health care to the millions of Americans who are currently
un or under-insured.
As President Obama pointed out in one of his recent
addresses to Congress, it has been “nearly a century after Teddy
Roosevelt first called for reform [and] the cost of our health care
has weighed down our economy and the conscience of our nation
long enough. So let there be no doubt: health care reform cannot
wait, it must not wait, and it will not wait another year” (The
White House). This statement may be true enough, but it doesn’t
mean anything unless Obama can make good on his promises.
67
The “Obama Plan” as it has been termed, calls for stability
and security for all Americans. This plan includes provisions for
people who already have health insurance as well as those who
don’t have health insurance. For those who have health insurance,
many changes will be made under the Obama Plan. This plan calls
for an end to discrimination against people with pre-existing
conditions and prevents insurance companies from dropping
coverage when people are sick and need it most (The White
House). It also calls for capping out-of-pocket expenses so people
don’t go broke when they get sick, as well as the elimination of
extra charges for preventative care like mammograms, flu shots,
and diabetes tests to improve health and save money (The White
House). Under this plan, seniors with Medicare will be protected
and the gap in coverage for prescription drugs will be eliminated.
For those Americans without health insurance, the Obama
Plan will provide quality, affordable choices for all Americans. It
aims to create a new insurance marketplace—the Exchange—that
68
allows people without insurance and small businesses to compare
plans and buy insurance at competitive prices (The White House).
New tax credits will be provided to help people buy insurance and
to help small businesses cover their employees. The Obama Plan
offers a public health insurance option to provide the uninsured
who can’t find affordable coverage with a real choice. It also offers
new, low-cost coverage through a national “high risk” pool to
protect people with preexisting conditions from financial ruin until
the new Exchange is created (The White House).
Whether uninsured or insured, The Obama Plan will rein
in the cost of health care for “our families, our businesses, and our
government”—for all Americans. In order to keep the new system
stable and secure, an independent commission of doctors and
medical experts to identify waste, fraud or abuse in the health care
system. It will order immediate medical malpractice reform
projects that could help doctors put their patients first, not on
practicing defensive medicine. And lastly, the responsibility of
69
reform will be shared through a requirement of large employers to
cover their employees and individuals who can afford to buy
insurance. The Administration believes that comprehensive health
reform should reduce long-term growth of health care costs for
businesses and government, protect families from bankruptcy or
debt because of health care costs, guarantee choice of doctors and
health plans, invest in prevention and wellness, improve patient
safety and quality of care, assure affordable, quality health
coverage for all Americans, maintain coverage when you change
or lose your job, and end barriers to coverage for people with preexisting medical conditions.
What sort of progress has been made in accomplishing
these goals that have been set? On January 29, 2009, the U.S.
Senate approved the Children’s Health Insurance Program
Reauthorization Act of 2009, better known as the State Children's
Health Insurance Program (The White House). Once signed into
law, this legislation will continue coverage for six to seven million
70
children and increase that coverage to four million more. The
President’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act protects
health coverage for 7 million Americans who lose their jobs
through a 65 percent subsidy to make coverage affordable. The
Recovery Act will invest $19 billion in computerized medical
records that will help to reduce costs and improve quality while
ensuring patients’ privacy (The White House). The Recovery Act
also provides $1 billion for prevention and wellness to improve
America’s health and help to reduce health care costs; $1.1 billion
for research to give doctors tools to make the best treatment
decisions for their patients by providing objective information on
the relative benefits of treatments; and $500 million for health
workforce to help train the next generation of doctors and nurses
(The White House).
Despite the progress that is being made and the steps that are
planned, there are many obstacles that could delay health care
reform such as lobbyists and their influence on officials and
71
legislators. Recently health care lobbyists have announced plans to
pour millions of dollars into fighting President Obama’s efforts to
create a universal healthcare system. Companies and groups hiring
lobbying firms on health issues nearly doubled this year as special
interests rushed to shape the massive renovation of the nation's
health care system now in its final stretch before Congress. About
1,000 organizations have hired lobbyists since January, compared
with 505 organizations during the same period last year, according
to a USA TODAY analysis of congressional records.
For what seems like decades now, the health care system
of the United States has been getting worse and worse. The critical
problems that urgently need a solution are the lack of access to
healthcare, the high cost, a perceived lack of fairness in the system
along the lines of race and class, and ineffectiveness in improving
the overall health of the populace. Other major contributing issues
include declining patient choices; the increased control in
healthcare decisions by managed care companies as they seek to
72
further limit access to care; and frustrated, and overworked
medical practitioners. There are many proposed solutions and none
of which are pleasing to everyone. However, one thing cannot be
denied—action must be taken soon to care for this health care
crisis.
73
Works Cited
Clark, Abigail. Interview. Jill Obrizok. 15 December 2009.
Encyclopedia Britanica. Health Insurance. 2009. 24 November 2009
<http://search.eb.com.online.library.marist.edu/eb/article9039703>.
Farrell, Robert R. America's Health Care Crisis - Is There a Solution?
3 February 2009. 1 December 2009
<http://www.realtruth.org/articles/090203-005-health.html>.
Goodridge, Elisabeth and Sarah Arnquist. A History of Health Care
Reform. 19 July 2009. 24 November 2009
<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/07/19/us/politics/2009
0717_HEALTH_TIMELINE.html>.
74
Light, Donald W. PhD. Universal Health Care: Lessons From the
British Experience. January 2003. 1 December 2009
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447686/>.
Malhotra, Umang. Solving the American Health Care Crisis.
November 2009. 24 November 2009
<http://www.eyeuniversal.com/eyeuniversal/HealthcareSolutions/s
ummary.html>.
PBS. PBS - Health Care Crisis: Health Care Timeline. 24 November
2009 <http://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/history.htm>.
Reid, T.R. The Healing of American: A Global Quest for Better,
Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care. New York: The Penguin Press,
2009.
The White House. Health Care: The White House. 21 November 2009.
24 November 2009 <http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/healthcare>.
75
Generation “Y” Do I have to Keep Researching Global
Warming?
By Gabriella Necklas
As a member of “generation y” (Rosenberg 1) and the global
community at large I would like to take this opportunity to act as a
representative and a liaison from one generation to another and from
young adult to adult. There is this common misconception that because
my generation doesn’t want to talk about global warming or listen to
another lecture about it we simply do not care about the environment
when, in fact, the opposite is true. We recycle more than any other
generation before us (Lancey 4), so it is not that we do not care. We are
instead tired of being told of the precarious future of our earth, we are
tired of hearing politicians make promises they will not keep, we
cannot stand to listen to people without a science background lecture as
76
if they are experts, and it baffles us when the most basic of solutions
are not being utilized.
For years now politicians have been promising to make changes
to protect the environment yet we have seen little to no progress. The
earliest presidency that my generation can remember with any real
clarity would have to be that of George W. Bush and that is why I will
focus on his policies and on their results. In his first presidential race
Bush gave his support to the Clear Skies Initiative which would make
changes to the Clean Air Act already in place from his father’s
presidency. According to George W. Bush the Clear Skies Initiative
would “bring cleaner air to Americans faster, more reliably, and more
cost-effectively than under current law. It would save Americans as
much as $1 billion annually in compliance costs, while improving air
quality and protecting the reliability and affordability of electricity for
consumers” (“George W. Bush on Environment” 1).
We know that air quality and smog is still an issue in America’s
major cities so clearly something must have gone wrong with this Clear
77
Skies Initiative. David G. Hawkins, director of the Natural Resources
Defense Council, testified before the senate in 2003 when this bill was
on the table for voting. He testified that “[The Natural Resources
Defense Council] examined the administration’s proposal and we
conclude it would harm public health, weaken current pollution
fighting programs and worsen global warming” (Hawkins 1). Hawkins
specified that the flaws in the bill would “allow power plant pollution
to continue to inflict huge, avoidable health damages on the public,
repeal or interfere with major health and air quality safeguards in
current law, and worsen global warming by ignoring CO2 emissions
from the power sector” (Hawkins 1). Either Bush was being deceptive
in his campaigning or somewhere along the way his sincere goals were
derailed by lobbyists.
This is not a partisan issue; democrats are no more immune to
these campaign lies than republicans. In this past election Senator
Clinton said that she wanted “to give oil companies the choice of either
investing in renewable energy or pay into a fund” yet Senator Clinton
78
received “$161,000” in donations from oil companies (Siegel 1).
Similarly Bill Richardson’s website proclaimed that “[he is] calling for
a New American Revolution-in energy and climate revolution” (Siegel
1). Yet Richardson had no issue accepting “$95,000” in campaign
funds from the oil and gas industry, while “Rudolph Giuliani, Mitt
Romney and John McCain received $889,468 from the oil and gas
industry” (Siegel 1). It is clear to see that the oil and gas industry is an
opportunistic organism imbedded in both political parties, and with
such a close relationship how can we possibly expect politicians to
cripple those that have driven their careers? When Barack Obama was
campaigning, my generation was excited to find someone who is an
eloquent speaker and seemingly more attune to our generation because
of his own youth and his children. We found ourselves forgetting all of
the wrongs done to us by previous politicians and put our faith behind
this man. In his campaign, in regards to global warming, Obama
proclaimed “now is the time to confront this challenge once and for all,
delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable
response. The stakes are too high; the consequences too serious"
79
(Hawthorne 1). Now almost through his first year as President the issue
of global warming has seemingly been pushed to the backburner,
apparently it is not as urgent of an issue as he once thought? Perhaps
with all politicians it is a case of “do as I say and not as I do”. We have
grown tired of getting our hopes up only to have reality come crashing
down so much so that we would rather not listen at all.
So many people will speak with an air of authority on the matter
of global warming when they are neither climatologists nor scientists of
any variety and this “know-it-all” attitude amongst members of the
older generation repels us even farther. George Mason University
polled the scientific community and found that “only 29% express a
‘great deal of confidence’ that scientists understand the size and extent
of anthropogenic [human] sources of greenhouse gases and only 32%
are confident about our understanding of the archeological climate
evidence” (Lichter 1). While “only 5% describe the study of global
climate change as a ‘fully mature’ science, 51% describe it as ‘fairly
mature,’ while 40% see it as still an ‘emerging’ science’” (Lichter 1).
80
The scientists were then asked what they thought of the media’s
coverage of global warming and “only 1% of climate scientists rate
either broadcast or cable television news about climate change ‘very
reliable’” (Lichter 1). Interestingly, Gallup polled the American public
and asked questions similar to those posed by George Mason
University to the group of scientists. The Gallup poll found that “80%
of Americans say they understand the issue of global warming”
(Newport 1). If 40% of scientists polled by George Mason University
felt that global climate change was an emerging science how is it
possible that 80% of the general American public feels that they
understand the issue? Perhaps more alarming is the fact that only 1% of
climate scientists believe that our news stations are a very reliable
source of information about climate change. So while the information
the public is receiving is at the very least skewed and unbalanced, it is
at its worst erroneous. Yet the public feels confident in their knowledge
of the subject. Perhaps it is because schools have forced my generation
to find our own information on the issue that we will hear adults, and
even members of our own generation, speak as though they understand
81
the science behind the issue fully, knowing they are misinformed and
that there is nothing we can do to change their opinion. We may try,
but we eventually realize that nine times out of ten it is a losing battle.
This is why my generation appears so uninterested in the topic of
climate change. We have been through this routine so many times we
know how it will end and we just wish we could fast forward through
time to the part where the adult at the front of the room tells us that
“This is your generation’s responsibility to fix, this is your future.”.
The second half of the statement is true, I will not deny it, but whose
actions started this chain of events? Who spilled the milk, and why
should we be the ones to wipe it up?
We have all heard of the push towards developing realistic
electric cars and trying to create vast amounts of energy from solar
panels and wind mills, but what about the common sense alternatives?
From our earliest days in science class we learned that light colors
reflect heat while dark colors absorb heat. We understand this concept
perfectly well when it comes to small situations, like which color shirt
82
will keep us cooler on a hot summer day, but why have our government
and industry leaders not made the leap and applied this concept to our
planet? Most of our roofs today use dark materials and reflect “only 10
to 20 percent of sunlight” (Chen 1). The rest of this sunlight is
absorbed into the building which in turn heats the home and increases
the amount of work the air conditioning system uses which typically
gets its energy from fossil fuel sources. An article published in the
journal Climate Change estimates that “an effort to reroof and repave
buildings and streets in the world’s urban areas with “cool” materials,
which reflect more sunlight than conventional materials, could offset
the global-warming effects of 44 billion metric tons of CO2 emissions”
(Chen 1). To put this into laymen’s terms, if the project was successful
it “would be the equivalent of taking the world’s 600 million cars off
the road for 18 years” (Chen 1). Those are staggering facts and perhaps
even more surprising is that these “cool” materials already exist and are
being produced by companies and regulated by an industry council
(Chen 1). It is absurd that something like this isn’t making headlines.
We have the technology available to make this a reality and it would
83
have such an enormous positive impact on our planet’s climate, yet the
government nor industry seem to be embracing this idea. Other
scientists, using the same principal, have come up with a plan to cover
deserts with reflective materials. Their calculations suggest that
“covering an area of a little more than 60,000 square kilometres with
reflective sheet, at a cost of some $280 billion, would be adequate to
offset the heat balance and lead to a net cooling without any need to
reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide” (“Fix for Global Warming?
Scientists Propose Covering Deserts with Reflective Sheeting”). We
have the technology available to cool our planet without asking the
average person to change their lifestyle, and we have the government’s
stated interest in solving global warming, yet we are not acting on this
information. This failure of logic is an altogether frustrating
conundrum. Once we know how simple the solutions really are it is
hard not to be discouraged that nothing is being done.
So I ask of this older generation one simple thing. I won’t ask you
to take initiative and fix global warming, because from what history
84
has told us, that is unlikely. I will not ask that you humble yourselves
and realize that you don’t necessarily know all of the facts about global
warming because I know that that too is unrealistic. I simply ask that
you give my generation some credit. We are not the inconsiderate,
selfish, and ignorant people that we have been made out to be. We care
about this earth, we give back when we can, and we know enough
about global warming to know that we do not know everything.
Hopefully, now our silence or our groans of annoyance at the mention
of global warming will not be misconstrued as a lack of concern or a
lack of understanding, but will be seen for what they really are.
85
Works Cited
Chen, Allan. "Cool World:A Modest Proposal to Cool the Planet
by Cooling the Neighborhood".
Lawrence Berkley National Labratory. 12/02/09
<http://newscenter.lbl.gov/feature-stories/2008/12/11/cool-world/>.
"Fix For Global Warming? Scientists Propose Covering Deserts
with Reflective Sheeting".
Science Daily.12/02/09
<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081222114546.htm>.
"George W. Bush on Environment". On the Issues:Every Political
Leader on Every Issue.
12/01/09
<http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/George_W__Bush_Environment.ht
m>.
86
Hawkins, David G.. "Testimony of David G. Hawkins Hearing on
S. 385, "Clear Skies Act of
2003"". U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public
Works. 12/02/09 <http://epw.senate.gov/108th/Hawkins_040803.htm>.
Hawthorne, Michael. "In the U.S., environmental change gets
green light: Obama's plans for
environmental legislation may have big impact. " McClatchy Tribune Business News 19 November 2008 ProQuest
Central, ProQuest. Web. 1 Dec. 2009.
Lancey, Stan. "Paper Recycleing Trends". American Forest &
Paper Association. 12/03/09
<http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/rcc/resources/meetings/rcc2008/sessions/msw/markets/lancey.pdf>.
Lichter, Robert. "Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree
on Dangers, and Don’t Trust
87
the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change". George Mason
University. 12/02/09
<http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html>.
Newport, Frank. "Little Increase in Americans’ Global Warming
Worries". Gallup. 12/02/09
<http://www.gallup.com/poll/106660/Little-Increase-AmericansGlobal-Warming-Worries.aspx>.
Rosenberg, Matt. "Names of Generations". About.com. 12/01/09
<http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/qt/generati
ons.htm>.
Siegel , Jeff. "Global Warming Politics". Energy & Capital.
12/01/09
<http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/global-warmingpolitics/537>
88
They Do, But They Can’t: The Fight for Same-Sex
Marriage
By Heather Ayvazian
A thief may be walking down the aisle towards a cashier right
now. Given only this information, you cannot conclude the race,
religion, politics, morality, or socioeconomic background of either
person. However, if the aisle is in a church and the context is a
wedding, then you do know that it is a female thief walking toward a
male cashier, and that the soon-to-be newlyweds are heterosexual. In a
country famous for its freedoms and diversity, one condition still
encroaches upon the right to marry: sexual orientation. Countless
homosexual couples do promise to love and care for their partners
forever, but they are not allowed to make this promise in a way
officially recognized by their church, government, or society. Right
89
now in the United States, only five states allow same-sex marriage; 39
have the Defense of Marriage Act or a similar legal ban on same-sex
marriage, and the remaining states allow civil unions or await
legislative and judicial decisions (Godoy). I will acknowledge and
refute the main arguments against gay marriage: semantics, beliefs, and
concern for society. Same-sex couples cannot be denied the right to
marry on sound legal or moral grounds; they should be able to enjoy all
the social and legal benefits of a legitimate marriage.
Instead of opposing same-sex marriage on moral grounds,
many consider it an argument of semantics. Adèle Mercier, a naturallanguage semanticist argues that because marriage is defined as the
union of a man and a woman homosexual couples simply cannot be
married because the very meaning of the word is limited to
heterosexual relationships just as the word “sisters” is limited to
females (1). Gay couples can therefore only get married if the
definition of “marriage” is altered. Therein lies the problem; in
expanding the boundaries of matrimony, some think society would set
90
the stage for the decline of the institution. Such legal slackening could
eventually lead to polygamous and incestuous unions or even between
people and animals (Furtenberg 77). A loose redefinition of marriage
could invite a society composed of unstable and immoral dyads that
diverge from our standards of morality and civilization. These
conclusions are quite obviously farfetched and unreasonable. There is a
clear line between a society that allows same-sex couples to officially
express their loving commitment and one that designs a line of
wedding dresses for goats; we will never be in danger of crossing that
line.
The semanticists build their opposition on technicalities that
ignore the complications of the actual issue; they try to reduce a human
rights argument to one of word choice. The point that the definition of
marriage excludes homosexuals is valid, so then the definition must be
changed to keep up with the evolution of the concept. Those that resist
a redefinition of marriage because they fear the unknown and value
tradition are forgetting the many dramatic changes marriage has
91
already undergone. Essayist George Chauncy points out that even after
marriage became monogamous, it was a bond used primarily for social
or economic advancement and property transfer. Since then, four major
changes have led to the modern idea of marriage. Spouses are chosen
regardless of family objection, gender roles within marriages have
loosened, marriage has become a source of legal and economic benefit,
and religion’s societal influence has declined (59-60). Gay couples are
already involved in committed, loving relationships comprised of all
the elements of a twenty-first century heterosexual marriage. You
cannot deny an entire subgroup of human beings its rights because of a
technicality of language. Laws and definitions are written with an
understanding that they may need to be altered in an unforeseeable
future: now is the time to officially redefine marriage to include
homosexual couples, many of whom only lack the title in already very
marital relationships.
This is a question of civil rights. Gay marriage court cases are
not without precedent; interracial marriage cases culminated into the
92
verdict at Loving v. Virginia, which broke through similar
discrimination and intolerance that now plagues the homosexual
community (Nussbaum 48). Many of the same arguments against
same-sex marriage, such as those that condemn it as immoral and
incapable of providing a good home for children, were used against
interracial marriage, showing how little we have progressed socially as
a society. No other standard of diversity, be it race, economic or social
position, religion, or politics remains a civil rights obstacle when it
comes to marriage. Dean asserts that “Marriage is an important civil
right because it gives societal recognition and legal protection to a
relationship and confers numerous benefits to spouses. In the District of
Columbia alone, there are over one hundred automatic marriage-based
rights” (112). He also points out that “[i]n every state in the nation,
married couples have the right to be on each others’ health, disability,
life insurance, and pension plans” (112) and they “receive special tax
preferences for exemptions, deductions, and refunds” (112). Property,
inheritance, and next of kin are three more legal aspects affected by
marital status (Dean 112). In denying same-sex couples the right to
93
marry, the government is denying them all these legal and economic
rights and benefits as well. This truly is a crucial civil rights issue and
needs to be approached thusly.
Some oppose same-sex marriage because of personal beliefs that
homosexuality is unnatural and immoral. During the court cases Egale
v. Canada and Halpem v. Canada, Margaret Somerville argued that
homosexuality diverges from nature and thus should not be supported
by society (Mercier 409). These arguments are completely unfounded
and irrelevant in terms of law; you cannot deny people civil rights
because you personally do not believe in or understand their
preferences. Maguire, a scholar of the morality of homosexual
marriage, concluded “[i]f homosexuality is an illness requiring cure, if
it is an orientation to sin, it is because it is harmful to persons. If that
harm cannot be pinpointed, the charge of sin or illness must be
reconsidered” (58). Essayist Nussbaum criticizes the insufficient and
contradictory nature of religious opposition. Those who cite the Bible
as a model of how marriage should be, between a man and a woman,
94
overlook its support of polygamy. Those who contend that same-sex
marriage should be illegal because it is immoral and digresses from the
sacred definition of marriage forget the founding of this country.
Separation of church and state allows licensed butchers to kill pigs for
food, evolution to be taught, and children over fourteen to attend
schools. These practices disagree with certain sects of the Jewish,
Christian, and Amish faiths respectively, but are not outlawed for
society as a whole because each view is respected and accommodated
within its respective religion (Nussbaum 49-50). Each religion is free to
believe in and practice its own faith, but these beliefs cannot be written
into law and imposed on society as a whole.
Mercier addresses the concerns of those who oppose same-sex
marriage because homosexual couples are incapable of procreation, a
key component of marriage on which the idea of the American family
is built. Some fear that the basis for parenthood will switch from
biological to legal, and that adoption and unnatural conception will
replace sexual reproduction as the norm. Many heterosexual couples,
95
however, do not have children because they are sterile, too old,
separated geographically, or decided upon not having children. Others
have children through the same means homosexual couples will, some
of which include in vitro fertilization, adoption, and surrogate
motherhood. Arguments concerning the ethics of unnatural birth are
misplaced in the gay marriage debate. Bioethics are not valid
disagreements with gay marriage because heterosexual couples also
can, and do, use means of reproduction other than natural sexual
reproduction. Since fertility checks are not a required precursor to
heterosexual marriage, procreation is obviously not a necessary
component of marriage (409-420).
A good portion of those who accept homosexuals’ right to be
parents doubt their ability. Gerald Mallon interviewed gay male fathers,
who have “challenge[d] our old assumptions about nurturing, about
gender, and about families” (1). One of Mallon’s interviewees
addressed the stereotype that homosexuals have multiple partners at
one time and are incapable of stable, long term monogamous
96
relationships: “My life as a parent is very similar to the lives of other
people who are parents. Being gay or not has almost nothing to do with
it. I laugh when people think that gay people have these wild, exotic
lives” (1). The man “insists that his gayness does not define him as
much as fatherhood does” (22). Even so, some worry that children of
homosexual parents are teased and miss out on having a role model of
each sex. These are some of the very reasons we need to legalize gay
marriage, not ban it. A more accepting society would welcome children
of homosexual parents and contribute to their upbringing, providing
children with multiple role models of both sexes and all backgrounds
extending beyond the home. Teasing would be markedly less cruel in a
society that accepted homosexual couples. These men proved to be
capable, loving fathers, as have many other gay couples, despite their
lack of legal rights (Mallon 78). Allowing these parents official
recognition of their relationship and government benefits would
emotionally and economically help their children. One social worker
comments; “We cannot continue to discriminate against gay people
who would be loving and adoptive parents. In fact, the children need
97
them” (Mallon 141). While the heterosexual community decides
whether or not homosexuals would make good parents, some children
are already living happily with their same-sex parents while other
children live without any.
Some opposition is based on concern for the legitimacy of
current marriages and the well-being of society and mankind
(Nussbaum 46). Many feel that allowing same-sex marriage will
cheapen current marriages and ruin the sacred bond, nullifying
heterosexual couples’ marriages (Furtenberg 77). A few have expressed
concerns that in accepting homosexuality, more members of society
will become gay and endanger the reproduction of the human race
(Mercier 421). This last fear is completely unreasonable, especially
seeing as the world is overpopulated. More people may come out as
being gay, but so what? Society is not negatively affected by gay
people, just by the intolerant attitudes towards them.
America needs to take action and grant this civil right,
bettering society in the process. Jonathan Rauch explains that same-sex
98
marriage would benefit society by strengthening the currently
crumbling culture of marriage and expanding the American civil rights
tradition. A more stable, loving community would be created by the
legalization of same-sex marriage. He presents that gradual change is
the key so that societal acceptance can be gained along with legal
rights. He explains that same-sex marriage must be accepted by the
community, not just the legislature, for it to be truly legitimate, and that
experimenting with state laws is the best way to achieve the right of
gay marriage (Rauch). I agree with the goal, but not the means; state
laws and court cases have proved ineffective in the past, and I feel a
national law is necessary. The country cannot be divided on the issue,
so the legislation must be national and based on the Equal Protection
Clause of the Constitution. Court rulings have become ineffective; one
couple was turned away from a judge who cited three pages of the
Bible (Dean 113). State laws are better than no progress, but a national
law allowing same-sex marriage, not just civil unions, is what America
should be aiming for. “‘It is always wrong to put basic rights up to a
popular vote,’ said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National
99
Gay and Lesbian Task Force. ‘In the end, the U.S. Supreme Court will
decide on marriage equality and it will base its decision on the U.S.
Constitution, not anything in any of the state constitutions’” (qtd. in
Peterson).
Anyone can get involved in the fight for gay marriage.
Students can join Gay Straight Alliance clubs at school, and adults can
support their gay colleagues. Everyone can support their gay friends
and participate in events such as the Day of Silence, in tribute to the
silence of closet homosexuals. Individuals can also get involved in the
politics by appealing to their state senators or joining in rallies and
parades for gay rights, usually held in major cities. Taking such steps
can help an entire subgroup of Americans gain civil rights, benefiting
society by bolstering the love and commitment in this country.
100
Works Cited
Chauncey, George. Why Marriage? New York: Basic Books,
2004.
Dean, Craig R. “Gay Marriage: A Civil Right.” Gay Ethics:
Controversies in Outing, Civil Rights, and Sexual Science. Ed. Murphy,
Timothy F. New York: Harrington Park Press, 1994. 111-115.
Furtenberg, Frank. “Can Marriage be Saved?” Dissent 52.3
(2005): 76-80. 2009
<http://web.ebscohost.com.online.library.marist.edu/>.
Godoy, Maria. “State By State: The Legal Battle Over Gay
Marriage.” NPR on the Web 1 Sep. 2009. 24 Nov. 2009
<http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112448663>
Maguire, Daniel. “The Morality of Homosexual Marriage.”
Same-Sex Marriage: The Moral and Legal Debate. Eds. Baird, Robert
M. and Rosenbaum, Stuart E. New York: Prometheus Books, 1997. 5771.
101
Mallon, Gerald P. Gay Men Choosing Parenthood. New York:
Columbia University Press, 2004.
Mercier, Adèle. “On the Nature of Marriage: Somerville on
Same-Sex Marriage.” Monist 91.3/4 (2008): 407-421. 9 Oct. 2009
<http://web.ebscohost.com.online.library.marist.edu/>
Nussbaum, Martha. “A Right to Marry?” Dissent 56.3 (2009): 4355. 2009<http://online.library.marist.edu>.
Peterson, Kavan. “50 State Rundown on Gay Marriage Laws.”
Stateline.org: State Policy & Politics, Updated Daily 3 Nov. 2004. 25
Nov. 2009
<http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&lang
uageId=1&contentId=15576>
Rauch, Jonathan. “An Argument For Same-Sex Marriage: An
Interview with Jonathan Rauch.” The Pew Forum On Religion and
Public Life. 24 April 2008. Pew Forum. 1 October 2009
<http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=179>.
102
Foreign Languages to the Forefront
By Daniel Turner
“Bilingualism is usually recognized as the sign of an educated
and cosmopolitan elite” Padilla Fairchild Valadez reminds us when
he comments on how society has shunned foreign language studies
(Bilingualism Education 20). “I don’t speak a foreign language.
It’s embarrassing,” President Barack Obama is quoted as saying
(Gavrilovic).. This topic came up at a town hall meeting in Canton,
Ohio, prior to Obama’s election at which he was encouraging
parents to have their children study a second language. Shortly
after this comment was made, many Americans felt that Obama
was simply reacting to the increasing number of Spanish-speaking
immigrants and still more felt that it ought to be the immigrants
who should learn English and not the other way around. When did
Americans start asking government officials, let alone presidential
103
candidates, to apologize for promoting the education of children?
That is embarrassing. President Obama has the right idea—foreign
language education needs to have a more prominent role in the
education system here in America. There are arguments for each
side of this issue;however I believe that foreign language classes
ought to be implemented into the curriculum of each grade school
in America as soon as possible, offering diverse languages which
should be taught by more highly-educated, native-speaking
teachers. The study of modern foreign languages is highly
beneficial to the development of well-rounded young men and
women and so with these three steps, the United States will
become a better educated, more cultured country.
It is important to first understand what bilingualism is.
Bilingualism means that one is able to speak two languages with
the facility of a native speaker. Obviously, this is not a realistic
goal for everyone; however, one does not have to be fluent in a
language to reap the benefits the study offers. This is an important
104
concept that few Americans appreciate, especially those who who
are a part of the “English-only” movement.. With regards to the
“English-only” movement, Fairchild Valadez eloquently expresses
my thoughts on the matter concisely when he writes, “although
there is nothing wrong with a policy that advocates English as the
language of education and commerce, a policy that does not
recognize the inherent value of other languages and people is
short-sighted” (Bilingualism Education 20). We expect other races
and ethnic groups to speak our language when they come into our
country but make little effort of our own to learn their languages
for when we travel to their countries. What type of double standard
is that?
In order to understand completely the importance of the
subject, it is imperative to see both sides. There are several
arguments that critics would pose against the idea of implementing
foreign languages into the grade school curriculum. One argument
is that there is no necessity for students to know more than English
105
in this rapidly-changing, technology-driven, country. Others will
claim that this will only result in students studying for the sake of
fulfilling credits. They believe that if it is forced, students will
have less of an interest and will only study it for as long as they
have to. A third argument against my grade school proposal deals
with practicality. Many maintain that modern foreign languages
are not applicable for many jobs. They will assert that many
careers such as teachers, scientists, computer scientists, and
athletic trainers require little or no proficiency in a language other
than English. Therefore, how does a second language come in
handy? How can it be applied? These cases all have merit;
however, they are not substantial enough to convince me.
With regards to those critics who side with our quick-paced,
impersonal styles of communicating in today’s world, I pose a
question: Why are we satisfied the direction we are headed? Less
communication is not a good thing. The United States is an
increasingly diverse country and communication between cultures,
106
along with the understanding among different ethnic groups has
failed due to the lack of the ability to speak to one another. More
benefits that are gained are explored through the writing of
Kathryn Speck of the Edmonton Journal:
The latest research on language acquisition reveals that learning a
second language not only benefits students by enhancing their job
prospects, travel experiences, and cross-cultural skills, but also
improves their cognitive abilities resulting in improved grades in
their first language and mathematics. (Speck)
Change in the ways we communicate is also one of the very
reasons modern foreign languages are so important. To emphasize
this point, Coy Randolph of the Charleston Gazette describes the
very real necessity when he writes:
Spanish is of major importance to us because of the ever-growing
Hispanic population in our nation. French is important to industry
since America's largest trading partner, Canada, is partially French
107
speaking. Also, French is widely spoken in the fashion industry,
for those of you interested in a fashion degree (Randolph).
In response to those who think that students will take the
classes in grade school and be done with them, I would reiterate
the fact that studying language has more benefits than the ability to
speak it. There are very real, neurological profits to be made from
learning a language at a young age. Professor Ellen Bialystok at
Toronto's York University has stated that, “bilingual children
develop problem-solving skills earlier than children who speak a
single language” (Bialystok). Furthermore, it is more likely that
students will have more ambition to continue studying a language
since it is easier to learn it at such a young age.
For those who do not think that language study renders
practical knowledge, I would like to know what job market they
are sending their résumés to? In the increasingly competitive job
market and declining economy, anything and everything that an
applicant can add to his or her résumé will help. Employers prefer
108
workers who can communicate in other languages because they
don’t have to hire a translator, so a second language may not only
solidify a job opportunity but also open up others. Clients from
other countries will appreciate it much more to speak with
someone in their native tongue than with in a language they are
less fluent in. Therefore, with the help of an employee that is
bilingual, business can be run smoother and more deals can be
made.
My second step is the diversification of the courses offered to
students. This brings up controversy because people do not see the
point to studying languages like Latin, Greek, and Arabic. Many
others will ask whether or not government monies ought to be
spent on something more beneficial. And still more will question
what type of diversification will happen. Which languages and
why?
“Dead” languages such as Latin and ancient Greek are not
spoken but are still studied. The two languages prove to be
109
extremely helpful with sentence structure in English and the
derivatives of all the Romance languages. With these two basic
language roots, a student can apply that knowledge to better
comprehend vocabulary in all of the Romance languages as well as
write better in them. I personally saw a significant boost in my
SATs score after having studied Latin and Greek.
A language like Arabic, on the other hand, has real time
applications. This language has proved vital given our country’s
heavy involvement in the Middle East. In 2003, G. Jefferson Price
from the Gazette wrote, “Among Arabs it makes an enormous
difference, for knowledge of the language implies knowledge of
the culture and its political and religious traditions. In Iraq these
days, that knowledge could save a life.” This was in reference to
“the shortage of Arabic translators which [had] caused a backlog of
untranslated Arabic materials collected from electronic
surveillances of suspected Islamic terrorists conducted in the U.S.”
(Price). In a time during which the majority of the alleged terrorists
110
that we as a country were hunting spoke Arabic, one would think
the United States would be prepared.
Obviously, our nation’s security ought to be the government’s
number one priority. Not far behind that should be education. And
since our nation’s security was impacted by the lack of education it
seems fair to say that money should not be an issue. The education
of young boys and girls is priceless. It is a privilege; why not give
our students everything they can benefit from in the future. Plus,
the sooner a designated system is installed, more teachers will be
hired and more students will become educated to apply their
knowledge for the good of the country like all other graduates.
The debate about which languages to choose from is not
difficult. First off, the most popular languages of the world would
be offered to students such as French, Spanish, Chinese, etc. From
there it will be easier for people to pick up a third or fourth
language because their minds will have molded to a more cognitive
understanding of languages. Although, Chinese, Korean, and
111
Japanese are the fastest growing languages, teaching those will be
difficult because teachers will be difficult to find. However, West
Virginia is already creating programs to integrate the three into
local elementary schools (Speck). Discriminating certain languages
because of use should be an option, however. The only reason a
language ought not to be taught is if there is a shortage of teachers.
High schools and colleges are constantly boasting about how
diverse they are but what does that really mean? Does it mean that
twenty percent of their students are African American? Does it
mean they have a ten percent Hispanic population and four percent
Asian population? Aside from discouraging segregation what other
value than color of skin is present if we do not take the time to
learn about each other’s culture and language?
I would now like to consider potential objections to hiring
more highly educated, native-speaking teachers. The idea of native
speakers teaching students in grade school raises the problem that
they may not mesh well with American students. Many would
112
argue that the language barrier is a problem, coupled with different
cultural norms that a native teacher might bring to the classroom.
Other issues are that schools might not be willing to pay overlyqualified teachers to teach elementary language courses—why
would teachers like that want to waste their time on young kids
anyway? Issues they may be, but of the issues that present, these
are problems that can be resolved with ease.
By affirming that native speakers will not be appropriate for
students just demonstrates more American ignorance and/or
arrogance. Where do we draw the line between protecting the upbrining of one’s child and racism or stereotyping? The most
important part of school is the education aspect and their
knowledge gained from learning from a native speaker is
invaluable. Native speakers are the most proficient and have the
most experience with the language and can offer a cultural
dynamic to the course that other teachers can not.
113
The idea that teachers of such high qualification would not
want to teach lower level classes is based purely on assumptions
and speculation. Teachers could very well be just as upset about
the lack of bilingualism in the country. In fact, a teacher at St.
Joseph’s Preparatory School in Philadelphia, Fernando Mendes,
teaches elementary Spanish I. Mendes has no need to teach the
language for he has worked as the Spanish translator for NFL
Films and has a show on Telemundo called En Portada. Having
done the two for several years Mendes is financially comfortable
and teaching offers him no other perk than to enlighten the minds
of high school students. This is just one example; however, it
proves that there are teachers that are willing.
The amount of money use to hire teachers will be money well
spent. This implementation opens up jobs for teachers who spend
money which stimulates the economy. They teach students who
will capitalize on their language knowledge by landing a job and
helping out with the economy. All of the money spent will
114
eventually create revenue. The goal should be to invest time and
money into the children of today. It should not be to save money
today so that the older generations do not have to pay as much
now. In fact, as a piece of encouragement, according to the Korea
Herald:
A study conducted by researchers at the University of Miami
reveals that linguistic knowledge among Hispanic families
drastically affects family income. Families who spoke only
Spanish had an average income of $18,000; those with only
English $32,000; and those with Spanish and English $50,376.
(Herald)
The article goes on to maintain that:
To be successful in the global economy, American companies
need internationally educated employees who possess
knowledge of other cultures. Designing and eventually
marketing products all over the world requires a knowledge
115
that can only be gained by studying world languages, the key
to entering cultures. (Herald)
With that in mind, it is clear to see that the money that the
government would put into the schools would be well worth it.
Life as a bilingual has far too many benefits to continue to be
ignored. The luxury that is the knowledge of more than language
should no longer be left with the immigrants and second generation
families. Instead, bilingualism should be earned by students
through the study of modern foreign languages from an early age.
116
Work Cited
"Benefits of Learning a Second Language." Korea Herald [Seoul]
4 Nov. 2001: 1. Print.
Fairchild Valadez, Padilla. Bilingual Education. 1990.
Gavrilovic, Maria. "Obama: "I Don't Speak a Foreign Language.
It's Embarrassing!"" Online
posting. CBS News. 11 July
2008. Web. 21 Apr. 2010.
Price III, G. J. "Not Knowing Arabic Impedes Americans in
Iraq." Gazette (2003): 9. ProQuest.
Web. 25 Apr. 2010.
Speck, Kathryn. "Multilingualism Is a Noble and Useful Goal; Our
Schools and Children Are
Equipped for the
Task." Edmonton Journal (2008): A. 18-.18. ProQuest. Web.
23 Apr. 2010.
117
Sperry, Paul. "Homeland Inusecurity: FBI Chokes on Backlog of
Untranslated Arabic, Reams of Key Material Pile up as Bureau
Faces Shortage of Linguists, Loyalty Issues." Online
posting. WorldNetDaily.com. 11 Aug. 2003. Web. 23 Apr.
2010.
118
Enron Prevented: Examination of How Enron’s Collapse
Could Have Been Prevented
By Zheng, Qu Ting
When Enron collapsed, it was considered the largest
bankruptcy in history, but according to William R. Bufkins and
Bala G. Dharan, writers of Red Flags in Enron’s Reporting of
Revenues and Key Financial Measures, that was based on “its
illusory revenue size” after its accounting frauds. The Enron
Corporation, a manager of United States natural gas pipeline
networks, was formed by Ken Lay when he merged Houston
Natural Gas and InterNorth. Originally Enron made its profits
from transporting natural gas. It was not until Enron started
trading energy that it became the seventh largest corporation in the
United States. Enron employed 21,000 people in over 40
countries. According to Bethany McLean, a journalist for Fortune
119
Magazine and co-author of the book, Enron: The Smartest Guys in
the Room, “By almost every measure, the company turned in a
virtuoso performance: Earnings increased by 25%, and revenues
more than doubled, to over $100 billion” (McLean). Before the
collapse, Enron was the leading American oil corporation, setting
records that brought envy from many competing corporations. But
after its collapse, Enron was nothing less than the biggest failure in
corporate America.
How did this fall from grace to bankruptcy start? When
McLean went through Enron’s financial reports and noticed that
the numbers were extraordinary, she requested an interview with
Jeffrey Skilling, former CEO of Enron. However, Skilling declined
and said McLean was unethically questioning the company’s
finances. Then on August 13, 2001, Skilling resigned from Enron.
As stated in an email by former Enron executive, Sherron Watkins,
to former Enron Chief Executive Officer, Ken Lay, “Skilling’s
abrupt departure will raise suspicions of accounting improprieties
120
and valuation issues” (Watkins). In this email to Lay, Watkins
brought attention to the accounting frauds within Enron: Raptor
and Condor deals were made in 1999 and 2000 to hide debt when
Enron stock price sky rocketed to $126 per share. The Raptor and
Condor deals were used to hide Enron’s losses and might have
been compensated with Enron stocks in the future (Watkins).
However, Enron filed for bankruptcy in December of 2001, before
any compensation occurred. There were hundreds of other
transactions with special purpose entities like Raptor and Condor.
These transactions and accounting scandals were made easily
because of the negligence on the part of private and public
watchdogs, including Enron’s Board of Directors, Arthur
Andersen, and The United States Securities and Exchange
Commission. Had these watchdogs examined Enron closelythe
Enron collapse could have prevented or minimized.
All firms want to maximize profits. As stated in the CRS
Report for Congress headed by Mark Jickling, Coordinator
121
Specialist in Public Finance Government and Finance Division,
“Enron’s reported revenues grew from under $10 billion in the
early 1990s to $101 billion in 2000” (Jickling 1). How did Enron
maximize its revenue? It used misleading and confusing
accounting practices to conceal its financial information.
According to Dr. Bala G. Dharan, Certified Public Accountant and
J. Howard Creekmore, professor of Accounting at the Jesse H.
Jones Graduate School of Management, Rice University; and
William R. Bufkins, CCP and managing director of Organization
Analytics, Enron used a merchant model tactic of reporting
revenues. Merchant model is when a company reports the whole
trade value as revenue instead of just reporting the brokerage fee
(Bufkins and Dharan 7). Neal F. Newman, a professor at Texas
Wesleyan Law School, suggests that when the utilities industries
were deregulated, Enron lost its rights to pipelines, so it was harder
for Enron to get its products to customers. So Lay hired Skilling,
who developed a new plan for Enron. He suggested that Enron
buy gas and resell it to consumers with a small transaction fee.
122
During this time, Enron was trading energy like stocks, so this
enabled Enron to state a whole transaction as revenue.
Traditionally, financial firms like Merrill Lynch and Citigroup
used the agent model; it reports the brokerage fee as revenue. By
using the merchant model of revenue report, Enron made its
revenue appear bigger than it really was.
Another way Enron made its revenue appear higher was the
use of mark-to-market (MTM) accounting. According to the
documentary Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room, this
reporting allows companies to report earnings even before
providing the service. Gharan and Bufkins state that in order for a
company to report earnings, it must have provided the good or
service, and the payment received from that good or service must
be current. However, MTM allowed Enron to consider revenue as
the initial estimate of the future action. With MTM, Enron entered
into an agreement with customers to provide a utility in the future
for a set price for a fixed period of time, and it would report that
123
price as revenue without providing the service yet. According to
C. William Thomas, J.E. Bush Professor of Accounting in the
Hankamer School of Business at Baylor University, “Companies
having these derivative instruments are free to develop and use
discretionary valuation models based on their own assumptions
and methods” (Thomas 4). There was no set way of determining
the price of the utility in the future, so Enron was permitted to
determine the prices of these contracts and list those prices as its
revenue.
Enron did not only fake its earnings and revenues, but
accounting tactics also hid Enron’s liabilities and losses. Enron
created special purpose entities (SPE’s) to do so. SPE’s are
entities created by companies that bear the debts of the sponsored
company and are not included in that company’s financial
statements. Also, the sponsoring company would be able to record
the assets transfer as revenues. Enron abused this form of lesser
known accounting. Raptor and Condor (mentioned in Watkins’
124
email to Lay) were special purpose entities. According to
Newman, “Enron completed hundreds of SPE transactions of
various forms and sizes which accounted for a significant portion
of their reported revenue during that period, right up until Enron
filed for bankruptcy in December, 2008” (Newman 26).
One way for Enron to take advantage of this accounting tactic
was the Financial Accounting Standard 140 (FAS 140). The FAS
140 sets the accounting guidelines for asset transfers. This
increased Enron’s net income by $351.6 million, reported funds
flow by $1.2 billion, and kept $1.4 billion of debt from Enron’s
balance sheets (Newman 26). This was legal because the Topic D14 Transactions Involving Special Purpose Entities requires that if
three percent of the equity of the SPEs was owned by outside
equity holders, so it did not need to be consolidated or come
together into a single unit with the sponsoring company, Enron.
With these forms of accounting, and its liabilities off the balance
sheets, Enron was able to report $100.78 billion in revenue when
125
its real revenue was only $6.2 billion. “The adjustment for revenue
would have pushed Enron down in the Fortune 500 list from
number 7 to number 287” (Dharan and Bufkins 10). In the end,
then, the Enron collapse should not have been named as America’s
biggest corporate bankruptcy.
A USA Today article, “Senate Report Blasts SEC’s Enron
Oversight,” states that “The SEC and Wall Street research analysts
[allowed] ‘the greed of a few’ at Enron to go ‘unchecked and
unchallenged’” (Valdmanis). Shareholders buy company stocks
after evaluating what analysts recommend and the company’s
financial status. They rely on the company’s board of directors,
privately owned independent auditors, and the SEC to provide in
dept analysts of the financial standing of the company. They also
rely on financial analysts to make sense of everything for them.
However, Enron stockholders were led to believe that the company
was in “unsinkable” shape. Enron did its part to lie to the public
and the government about its wellbeing, and it went unchallenged.
126
After the Enron scandal broke, Enron’s Board of Directors
launched an investigation into the transactions made with the
supervision of Enron’s former Chief Finance Officer, Andrew
Fastow. The Enron Board is supposed to authorize activities in the
company and supervise those movements. If the movements
appear to be harmful to the company and investors, the board is to
investigate and report it. In the report titled Report of Investigation
by the Special Investigative Committee of the Board of Directors of
Enron Corp, the committee found that Enron’s Board of Director
approved of Fastow’s supervision of special purpose entity LJM
(Lea, Jeffrey, and Michael – names of his family members)
transactions and implemented standards for those transactions.
The Board did not understand the dangerous effects of these
transactions, so they failed to make precise and tough standards so
that fraud is not easy to commit.
The auditors, Arthur Andersen LLP, should have been the first
watchdogs that protected investors and stakeholders’ interests and
127
ensured that Enron was in compliance with the Generally Accepted
Accounting Standards set by the American Institute of Certified
Public Accountants. The Special Committee Report by the Board
states, “Andersen did not fulfill its professional responsibilities in
connection with its audits of Enron's financial statements, or its
obligation to bring to the attention of Enron's Board (or the Audit
and Compliance Committee) concerns about Enron's internal
controls over the related-party transactions” (Special Investigative
Committee 24). As the auditors, Andersen should have reviewed
and inspected Enron’s transactions. But it assisted the frauds: it
structured many of Enron’s special purpose entities, one of them
being Raptor. Andersen also assisted with the shredding of
evidence that could have led to answers for the investigators after
the scandal surfaced. For an in-depth and objective financial
report, auditors are required to remain objective and
uncompromised. That was not the case in the Enron-Andersen
relationship; in fact, between 1997 and 2000, “Enron paid
Andersen $5.7 million in connection with work performed
128
specifically on the LJM and Chewco transactions” (Special
Investigative Committee 5). In 2000 alone, Andersen received $57
million, $25 million for audit work, and $27 million for consulting
work. This fee created great conflict of interest for Andersen, so it
was unable to maintain its independence. Having been bought and
paid for by Enron, Andersen did everything Enron wanted.
The Senate criticized the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC), an independent agency that
enforces federal securities policies and regulating industries for its
Enron oversight. After the stock market crash that led to the Great
Depression of 1929, people lost all confidence in the banking
industry and hid their money. That led Franklin D. Roosevelt and
Congress to pass the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, which created the SEC (SEC Website:
About Us). The Securities and Exchange Commission website,
states that, “The mission of the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission is to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly, and
129
efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation” (SEC Website:
About Us). The SEC is to protect the interests of the investor and
provide them with the confidence that the company they are
investing in is safe under SEC guideline. It does so by requiring
publicly traded companies to file annual reports that would become
available to the general public and would be review by the SEC for
anything that is out of the ordinary or that does not add up.
However, in order for the SEC to find faults in financial reporting,
it must review them first. According to Watchdogs Report, the
SEC simply just reviewed complaints regarding Enron (Watchdogs
Report 32). Aside from these complaints, the SEC only fully
reviewed Enron’s 1991, 1995, and 1996 filings and briefly
reviewed all the other years. So of course, the SEC did not find the
faults in the 1997 – 2000 filings, which were the years when Enron
completed most of its special purpose entities transactions. This
lack of review led the SEC to overlook changes in Enron’s
accounting practices, leaving Enron space to report its finances the
way it wanted. Due to its manipulation of privately owned
130
watchdogs and the SEC’s negligence, Enron was able to report
what they wanted (assets and revenues) and hide what was harmful
to the company’s “innovative” image (liabilities).
The Enron collapse could have been prevented or at least
minimized. Based on the problems outlined that allowed Enron’s
wrongdoing, it can be concluded that the SEC could not have
depended on the private watchdogs (the Board and Andersen) to
provide valid and accurate reporting of Enron’s finances, and
investors and other stakeholders could not depend on the SEC for a
thorough and rigorous review of those filings provided by Enron
and its auditors. To protect the Enron stakeholders, there should
have been careful review of Enron’s finances, the auditors should
be government issued or have remained objective, the Board
should have implemented rigorous standards, and government
agencies should have followed up on whether Enron complied with
regulations issued.
131
The Enron Board of Directors allowed Fastow to supervise
transactions between Enron and its special purpose entities without
implementing standards that would have prevented the former
CFO from making transactions without the approval of the Board.
In order to know what standards to put into practice, the Board
needed to know the danger of SPE transactions. The Board could
have done many things to prevent the Enron scandal. For example,
the directors should have reviewed the risks and rewards of SPE’s
and the transactions performed regarding them before allowing
Fastow to make any moves. As mentioned in the “Fraud Made
Easy” section, the Board approved LJM transactions thinking it
was safe for Enron. Many of those transactions could have been
stopped or altered if the Board understood the risks and stopped
Fastow from finalizing the deals.
Arthur Andersen collapsed along with Enron because of its
accounting misconduct. Andersen structured SPEs and hid
evidences of Enron’s frauds. In the “Report of Investigation,” the
132
Special Investigative Committee states that, “[Arthur Andersen]
failed to provide the objective accounting judgment that should
have prevented these transactions from going forward” (“Report of
Investigation” 24-25). With an objective eye on Enron’s finances,
Andersen would have seen that Enron was reporting $100.78
billion in revenue when its real revenue was $6.27 billion, then
realized that Enron’s numbers did not add up. But due to clouded
judgment by the $5.7 million it was paid by Enron, Andersen
decided to ignore it. This suggests that the auditors should have
been assigned from government agencies without financial ties to
Enron.
The SEC should have implemented its own audit procedures
and follow up with companies or auditing firms to make sure
companies were complying with the procedures and standards set.
During the Enron scandal, the SEC allowed the American Institute
of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) to set its accounting
standards for public filing and financial statements. But the
133
standards did not prevent the failure of a well-known accounting
firm, McKesson & Robbins. According to the Watchdogs Report,
“[It] failed to prevent senior officers of one of its audit clients from
embezzling millions, while overstating inventory and accounts
receivable and reporting profits from a non-existent business”
(Watchdogs Report 21). Because the AICPA came up with
accounting and auditing standards, the McKesson & Robbins
accounting firm was able to let its client steal money for personal
reasons. Therefore, auditing standards should be set by the SEC.
But in setting those standards, there must be followup with the
company to make sure it is abiding by those standards. When the
SEC approved of Enron using the MTM accounting method, Enron
abused it by recording earnings even before providing the service.
If the SEC had followed up with the company it could have
stopped the aggressive use of MTM accounting.
Lastly, the SEC should have reviewed Enron’s filings more
closely and wisely. After its review of Enron’s 1997 filing, the
134
Commission did not do a full review of Enron filings. It only
looked into Enron when there were explicit concerns regarding its
finances. The Watchdogs Report states that when Margaret
Ceconi, a former employee of Enron, emailed the SEC’s Office of
Investor Education and Assistance in July 2001 regarding Enron
Energy Services losses being transfer to an SPE, the Commission
staff that assisted her did not ask for specifics. Ceconi never
reviewed what company she was calling from until after the
collapse, when all evidence was relinquished. The SEC could have
looked into that issue if it had asked for specifics and stopped it
from going any further. The SEC could have taken a closer look at
Enron’s practices to prevent or limit the effect of the collapse.
Enron Corporation was the “# 7 Corporation” in the United
States, but that was only possible because of its inflated revenue
and hiding of liabilities in special purpose entities like LJM,
Raptor, and Condor. Due to negligence by watchdogs and the
SEC, Enron was able to pull accounting frauds without questions.
135
It was able to report earnings even before the company provided
any service. Enron was also able to report a full trade as revenue,
whereas, traditionally, companies only report transaction fees as
revenues. Lastly, Enron hid many of its liabilities in SPEs. All
these actions went unnoticed. Had Anderson, Enron’s Board of
Directors, or the SEC done their jobs correctly, Enron’s collapse
could have been prevented or the effects of the collapse
minimized.
136
Works Cited
Bufkins, William R. and Bala G. Dharan. “Red Flags in Enron’s
Reporting of Revenues and Key Financial Measures”. (March
2003).
Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room. Dir. Alex Gibney. Jigsaw
Productions. 2005.
“Financial Oversight of Enron: The SEC and Private-Sector
Watchdogs.” Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. 8
Oct. 2002.
McLean, Bethany. “Is Enron Overpriced?” Fortune Magazine: 05
Mar. 2001.
Newman, Neal F. “Enron and the Special Purpose Entity. Use or
Abuse? The Real Problem – The Real Focus”. Bepress Legal
Series. 2006: 1-50.
137
Oppel Jr., Richard A., and Andrew Ross Sorkin. "Enron Files
Largest U.S. Claim for Bankruptcy." New York Times
12/03/01, Print.
Powers, Jr., William C., Raymond S. Troubh, and Herbert S.
Winokur, Jr. "Report of Investigation by the Special
Investigative Committee of the Board of Directors of Enron
Coporation." (2002): Print.
Sherron Watkins. Email to Kenneth Lay. 14 Aug. 2001.
Thomas, C. William. “The Rise and Fall of Enron: When a
Company Looks Too Good to be True, It Usually Is.” Journal
of Accountancy April 2002.
Valdmanis, Thor. "Senate Report Blasts SEC's Enron
Oversight." USA Today. USA Today, 06/10/02. Web. 24 Apr
2010. <http://USAToday.com>.\
138
Barbie World
By Elizabeth Kaufman
When thinking of America’s most iconic toys, one will
always stumble upon Barbie. Barbie has been the perfect
representation of America’s history from the 1950’s to the present
day. Through the progression of her careers, outfits and the look of
her face, she has been the perfect mirror into the lives of women,
politically, culturally, and socially. Although this is the case, the
doll is often criticized for being too perfect. The tall, blonde, and
fashionable doll has made it into the homes of numerous young
children, and has become a valuable collector’s item to many
adults. Barbie, who was created from a simple idea, developed into
a multi-million dollar brand with an array of products. Barbie does
it all: she has the best clothes, the most handsome boyfriend, and
the nicest house. Every girl wants to be like Barbie, and every guy
139
wants to have a girlfriend like Barbie. Although the creators of
Barbie have faced a lot of controversy concerning the image and
storyline surrounding the doll, they have made it past her fifty year
anniversary, and the sales are still going strong today.
Perhaps one of the reasons the Barbie doll is such a success
story is because she was modeled after a real family. The Barbie
story starts with what many would call a typical American story.
Growing up, Ruth Handler, the creator of the Barbie doll, was
often constrained by her mother. Ruth’s mother did not want her to
attend college, and just wanted her to settle down and raise a
family. Defying her mother’s wishes, Ruth went off to college, got
married to Elliot Handler, and had two kids, named Barbara and
Ken. At the time, her husband, Elliot Handler was a co-owner of a
wooden frame making shop with his partner Harold Mattson.
Together, they would make the wooden products, and Ruth would
market them. With the extra wood, they would make doll furniture.
In the late 1940’s, they joined to create the world renowned brand
140
“Mattel,” which was the fusion of Elliot’s first name and Harold’s
last name. Later, under the Mattel name, the first Barbie doll would
be produced.
In the 1950’s, after traveling to Europe, Ruth Handler
obtained the inspiration for a new product. While in Europe, she
came across a shapely German fashion doll, named the Lilli doll,
which was named after a German cartoon. The Lilli doll was
originally based on a promiscuous and sassy newspaper comic
strip character. The doll was made with hard plastic and stood
eleven and a half inches tall. It was sold with clothing and
accessories. This made Ruth think back to Barbara growing up,
and when she would observe her playing with her dolls. She
noticed how the post World War II era only offered either baby
dolls or paper dolls, and she imagined that her daughter wondered
what it would be like to be older. Ruth took the concept of the Lilli
doll, and developed her own doll. This doll would resemble a
trendy older woman that would perform adult-like tasks. She
141
would make these dolls three dimensional, which would be much
better than the cardboard and paper ones of the time. She also had
the idea of selling doll clothes separately from Barbie, unlike the
Lilli doll where you could not buy clothes without buying the doll.
Of course, her doll would be named after her daughter, Barbara,
and the doll’s husband would be named after her son, Ken. At first,
her ideas were dismissed by her husband. When she presented the
idea to him for the second time, he agreed to produce the Barbie
dolls. Ruth brought her new product to the New York City toy fair,
and Barbie became a huge hit. By 1958, Ruth obtained a patent for
Barbie. Many girls wanted the doll, which sold for three dollars
apiece. Within the next ten· years with the help of television
commercials, they became swamped with orders and had a very
hard time keeping up with the demands. At the time, an estimated
300,000 girls bought into the dream of Barbie. Later on, the Mattel
Company expanded due to the popularity of the Barbie doll.
142
Barbie was first introduced as a fashion doll with only one
outfit. Three dollars could buy you Barbie with her blonde hair in a
ponytail, the zebra striped bathing suit, sandals, earrings and
sunglasses. Young children commonly would own one Barbie doll,
and buy multiple outfits for her. Charlotte Johnson, a fashion
designer, was hired to design Barbie’s wardrobe. She received a lot
of criticism because Barbie was called a “fashion model,” but few
women owned clothes like hers. She wore skimpy clothes, sheer
undergarments and miniscule accessories. As time progressed,
Charlotte Johnson, along with many other designers, came out with
many more outfits for Barbie. Even though her look has changed
many times, Barbie is said to love high- fashion and haute couture.
It is no wonder she has all of “the names” in fashion designing new
look for her. In the 1960’s Johnson traveled to Europe to obtain
inspiration for Barbie’s clothes. Famous designers such as
Christobal Balanciaga, Jaques Fath, Hubert de Givenchy, Christian
Dior, Alix Gres, Elsa Schiaparelli, Pierre Balmain and Yves St.
Laurent were the first designers to create looks for Barbie. She was
143
always a mirror of what the famous looks were at the time. In the
late 1990’s and continuing in the 2000’s, designers such as Ralph
Lauren, Calvin Klein, Vera Wang, Reem Acra, Oscar de La Renta
and Kate Spade are designing extravagant looks for her. Barbie
clearly has a fabulous wardrobe with all most expensive names and
brands making her clothes. In 2010, during the Mercedes Benz
fashion week, Dianne von Furstenberg and Donna Karan put on
Barbie’s first fashion show. It is no wonder that Barbie, with all of
her fabulous designer outfits and accessories has become a huge
collector’s item. Everyone wants to own a piece of a famous
designer, even if it is in miniature form.
The consumer market has learned that Barbie isn’t Barbie
without all of her famous counterparts. Together, Barbie and her
friends and family live in an ideal world in a large “Barbie Dream
House Mansion” with their miniature matching furniture and
perfectly groomed puppy. In 1960, Barbie’s doll family kick starts
when her husband, Ken entering the scene. He is a male adult doll
144
who stands a little taller than Barbie, and has brown curly hair
sprouting from the top of his head. Later, in 1964, Barbie’s little
sister, Skipper, was introduced. After all the racial commotion
facing Mattel had subsided, her African American friends Christie
and Francie were introduced in 1968. These dolls created a lot
more problems because Mattel used the same mold of the
Caucasian Barbies to make their faces, and just darkened their
skin. They did not actually take into account that African
Americans have different facial features, and coarser hair. In an
effort to make their brand more diverse, in 1976 Mattel created a
line of Black, Hispanic, Oriental, Italian, Persian and Royal U.K
Barbies, and later followed up in 1993 with the Native American
Barbie. Although Mattel has faced an abundance of scrutiny, they
have avoided a lot of their problems by making new improvements
to their dolls.
Barbie, who was once a simple plastic doll, has become the
mirror to how much society has progressed technologically. Her
145
first technological advancement was in 1965, when Mattel started
producing Barbie’s with bendable legs. Shortly after that, in 1968,
Barbie began to speak with a miniature speaker and the push of a
button. Later, a huge controversy stemmed from this advancement
when the Teen Talk Barbie was introduced in 1992. The Barbie
said 4 out of a total 270 phrases, so no two Barbies were likely to
say the same thing. The controversy started when the American
Association of University women started criticizing the doll for
one of her phrases. Along with saying many phrases related to
shopping and makeup, she also said “Math class is tough!” Many
feminists had a huge problem with this doll for making women
seem intellectually inferior to men. Mattel eventually discontinued
the Barbies that said the phrase and offered an exchange for
anyone that already owned her. In 1970, there was another
advancement in her structure that made her more realistic. Barbie
now came with bendable elbows, knees, and ankles, and Barbie’s
head, waist, arms, hands and legs swiveled. Going along with
making her more realistic, Barbie’s sideways glance was turned
146
into a more full on stare. Barbie became to be the spitting image of
a real life person in her doll form, and became more realistic when
the “My Size Barbie” was made. They were targeted to be thirtythree inches tall, which was the same height and weight as a young
child. The Barbie doll clearly became more life-like with all of the
advancements Mattel made.
Perhaps one of the reasons the Barbie doll is so famous is
because of the controversy she has sparked. The most talked about
argument concerning the production of Barbie dolls is her
unrealistic size. Barbie stands eleven and a half inches tall and is
made at a 1:6 scale, which is a play scale. If Barbie were to be
rendered into a full figure, she would be five foot, nine inches tall
with a thirty-six inch chest, eighteen inch waist and thirty-three
inch hips. A girl that tall would be dangerously skinny and would
lack the capability to menstruate properly. Many mothers object to
keeping Barbie dolls in their house because they think their
daughters will want to be as tall and skinny as them. They think
147
Barbie gives their daughters a false impression of what a woman
should actually look like. Many mothers have complained to
Mattel that Barbie has led to their child developing eating disorders
and self esteem issues. One of the most famous arguments
concerning this issue stems from a specific doll. In 1963, the
Slumber Party Barbie was introduced that came along with a
pretend slumber party guide, and plastic scale. The guide read
“How to lose weight: don’t eat,” and the scale forever read 110
lbs., which is 30 pounds too light for a woman Barbie’s height. In
response to all of the complaints, Mattel widened Barbie’s waist in
1997, saying that it would better suit contemporary fashion
designs. Although it has taken them long enough to make a
change, the general public seems to be happier about her size, and
will continue to purchase them.
As the years progressed, Barbie became exceedingly
controversial. Along with having the perfect body, she also had the
perfect lifestyle. Barbie did it all: she mastered every occupation
148
and always had a stylish outfit to wear while doing it. In her early
years, Barbie was an Olympic athlete, doctor, surgical nurse,
ballerina and a flight attendant. In 1965, four years before the first
American landed on the moon, Barbie came with an astronaut suit.
This, along with her Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps
outfits in 1989, and her presidential campaign in 2000, signified
that women could do anything that men could do. Barbie also had
quite a knack for the entertainment industry. In 1985, Barbie
starred on stage with her band, “Barbie and the Rockers” right after
the release of MTV, and in 1990, she sang with her short-lived
band, “Barbie and the Beats.” In 1992, Barbie was a rapper with a
gold medallion, and in 2002, she was the miniature form of Britney
Spears. In 2001, Barbie successfully starred in her first movie,
Barbie in the Nutcracker. Like many famous celebrities, Barbie
was starting to get involved with the media. In 2004, she and Ken
had an infamous breakup similar to that of a lot of Hollywood
couples. The fantasy romance disaster got a lot of unnecessary
coverage in the media. In 2005, Barbie was a reporter along with a
149
handful of other occupations. It is no surprise that in the course of
fifty years, Barbie has had 108 careers. Undoubtedly, this has led
children to have unrealistic views on the achievements in their
lives.
The controversy surrounding Mattel was not over. Along
with the criticism based on Barbie’s look and lifestyle, there was a
lot of controversy surrounding how she was made. Barbie dolls
were reported to be made by legions of Japanese women.
Apparently, they were being held long hours, in a cramped factory,
straining their eyes to stitch Barbie’s tiny clothing. Afterwards,
their handwork was inspected for flaws, and were later stitched
into tiny boxes. Although Mattel quickly changed this outdated
method of production, more controversy surrounded Mattel in
1997, when the band Aqua came out with their hit single “Barbie
Girl.” In their song, they used the names of Barbie and Ken in a
degrading manner. Mattel decided to sue them because their song
infringed upon their trademark rights. Aqua gave Barbie a bad
150
name when they referred to her as a “Blond Bimbo,” in the lyrics,
“you can do my hair, and undress me anywhere.” Another event
that happened in 1997 was when Mattel got sued for making a
Barbie that went against racial standards. They made an “Oreo
Barbie” that was based off an African American woman. Even
though they never thought this was a bad name for the Barbie,
many people were offended. More racial controversy swarmed
Mattel in 2003 when Saudi Arabian and Jewish communities
outlawed the sales of Barbie. They thought the image surrounding
Barbie and the way she dressed was too immodest. Mattel
remedied this situation by creating Muslim looking dolls in
conservative clothing. It seems as if Barbie could never dodge
controversy.
Throughout history, Barbie has come a long way. The word
Barbie has become synonymous with young, blond and beautiful
young women. She has been the mirror of many societal issues and
the plaything of many young children. Today, Mattel has expanded
151
the name of Barbie to an array of products. Currently, the brand
offers products spanning from miniature vehicles, to movies,
clothing and accessories with the Barbie trademark on it. Without a
doubt, Ruth and Elliot Handler did not know how successful their
original idea would be. Because Barbie has become a classic toy
and collector’s item, it is very likely that she will never be
eliminated from the shelves of stores and the homes of young
children.
152
Works Cited
BillyBoy. Barbie: Her Life and Times. New York: Three Rivers
Press, 1992. Print.
Gerber, Robin. Barbie and Ruth: The Story of the World’s Most
Famous Doll and the Women Who Created Her. New York:
Harper Collins, 2009. Print.
Lord, M.G. Forever Barbie. New York: Avon Books, 1995. Print.
Moore-Henecke, Deb. Rethinking Barbie. University of Northern
Iowa. Web. 25 Apr. 2010.
Mitchell, H. Ruth Handler, The Barbie Doll. Jan 1999. Web. 25
Apr. 2010.
Stylelist Staff. Barbie Fashion Evolution. 2 Feb 2009. Web. 25
Apr. 2010.
153