The parameters of a family unit are changing. A family unit is no longer that of just a father, a mother and their children. It can now be a single parent and their children, grandparents and their grandchildren or even homosexual parents and their children. Which family unit is the “right” one? What constitutes right from wrong? According to www.dictionary.com, the standard definition of the word parent is one who gives birth to, or nurtures and raises a child; a father or a mother. The definition does not state that a parent must be of a certain race, creed, sexual orientation or financial status. Nor does it state that heterosexual parents are better than homosexual parents. All prejudices aside, any loving, supportive and dedicated adult can be a good parent.
There have been many arguments over children being raised by homosexual parents. Many extreme conservatives believe that homosexual people should not have children. According to an article found on the Evangelical Christian website www.focusonthefamily.com, “The traditional definition of the family is a group of individuals who are related to one another by marriage, birth or adoption – nothing more, nothing else.” This statement does not include grandparents raising their grandchildren, aunts and uncles raising their nieces and nephews or homosexual parents raising their children. This website prejudicially and arrogantly defines the word family by leaving so many people out. How can this statement be the “right” definition of the word family? Who gets to decide what is “right” and what is “wrong”?
Reading this statement I am reminded of many of the prejudices that have existed throughout History; two examples are the anti-Semitic Nazis in Germany and prejudice against African Americans prior to The Civil Rights Movement. These are extreme examples, but the underlying characteristics of hate, intolerance, superiority and ignorance of these examples are also found in the prejudice against homosexual parents. It is these characteristics that can damage lives, ruin families, and split America apart.
It saddens me to think of the moments in History when prejudice led us down a hateful path. I am reminded of Adolf Hitler and The Holocaust. During the Holocaust, Hitler and the Nazi party killed approximately six million European Jews during World War II because of hatred and ignorance. According to Hitler biographer John Toland, “Hitler carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of God. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of God.” Hitler believed that his actions were justified because he was eliminating Jews for God. He wrote “Hence today, I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” Aside from being crazy, we can clearly see that prejudice in any form does not have a positive outcome.
Another example of prejudice is the racial discrimination against African Americans prior to the American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968). Before 1955, African Americans were not entitled to the same rights that non-African Americans were. They were treated as second rate citizens because of the color of their skin. They were segregated from their fellow Americans and during this time, it was common for them to endure physical, verbal and sexual abuse at the hand of non-African American’s. One more time, I am reminded of the prejudicial characteristics of hate, intolerance, superiority and ignorance. One more time I am saddened for the victims of prejudice.
Placing our prejudices aside, the definition of the word parent states that a parent is one who gives birth to, or nurtures and raises a child; a father or a mother. It does not state that a parent must be heterosexual or that heterosexual parents are better than homosexual parents. In fact, I have only read positive statements and statistics regarding homosexual parenting. According to a report issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics “Children who grow up with one or two gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual.” What this means to me is a loving, supportive and dedicated adult; gay or straight can raise a well adjusted child.
Some will argue that children of homosexual parents will be emotionally harmed and sexually confused. This is not true. According to a statement from the American Psychiatric Association, “Numerous studies over the last three decades consistently demonstrate that children raised by gay or lesbian parents exhibit the same level of emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as children raised by heterosexual parents.” It appears that the only harm these children will face is the outside prejudices against their family unit.
I hope that we can all put our opinions and beliefs aside and focus on what is best for the children of homosexual parents. At the end of the day, they are the victims of prejudice against their family unit. If we discriminate against their parents, we are teaching our children to do the same and the innocent children of homosexual parents will suffer.
History has taught us that prejudice in any form is wrong. History has also taught us that we can move past the obstacle of prejudice and accept each other just as we are. The great Martin Luther King Jr. once stated "If we do not learn to live together as friends, we will die apart as fools." I would like to be your friend and I hope that you will be mine.
WORKS CITED
1. American Academy of Pediatrics, 2002. Technical Report: Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents, Pediatrics. [online]. Available from: http://equalitymaryland.org/issues/parenting/parenting_experts.htm
2. American Psychiatric Association, November 2002. Position Statement: Adoption and Co-Parenting of Children by Same-Sex Couples. [online]. Available from: http://equalitymaryland.org/issues/parenting/parenting_experts.htm
3. Hitler, Adolf, 1925. Mein Kampf. England: Secker and Warburg.
4. Should the definition of family be revised in the light of cultural changes? (article) [online]. Available from: www.focusonthefamily.com
5. Toland, John, 1991. Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography. United States of America: Anchor Books, a division of Random House, Inc.
Vegetarianism is one of the healthiest human diets. There is a lot more to being vegetarian than not eating meat; there are different classifications for vegetarian people depending on what they eat and what they do not. Another important factor on this classification is the reason behind being vegetarian; anything from religion to political views may make an individual decide to not eat animal products. According to www.wikipedia.com vegetarianism is a practice of a diet that excludes all animal, including poultry, game, fish, shellfish or crustacea, and slaughter by-products. This commonly known website also acknowledges the fact that classifying vegetarian people all under one group is not appropriate. There are vegetarians by religion, culture, ethics, political views, environment and/or health. I have been a vegetarian for 5 years now, which is a third of my life and considering that I was raised in a family that found animal products as their main source of food; this was neither an easy decision nor a well accepted idea by my family. I was born and raised in Colombia, and even though it has been called the “Vegetarian Country of South America” it does not have a vegetarian friendly cuisine. Most of its dishes include beef, chicken, pork and fish, and the preparation of these dishes makes it almost impossible to substitute for soy, tempeh or other vegetarian products. Vegetarianism keeps growing but the percentages are still too low, www.ecoportal.net is a website in Spanish created for eco-friendly Spanish speaking people, and in one of its articles about vegetarianism growth called “Vegetarianismo en la America Contemporanea” ( Vegetarianism in a Contemporaneous America) shows statistics: vegetarianism has grown only about 1.5% in the last ten years. I have heard all type of comments right after I announce the magical words: I am vegetarian; some of them are normal: “since when?” “Why?” “How hard is it?” Some of them really surprise me: “Oh! Eat a little bit of beef, we won’t tell anybody”, or “what it left to eat then?” So I decided that this is a good opportunity to really tell people why there are vegetarians and how we do it.
Vegetarianism is divided in different groups: lacto vegetarians, people who do not eat beef, poultry, fish and eggs but consume dairy; ovo vegetarians, vegetarian people who do not consume dairy but consume eggs; lacto ovo vegetarians, who consume both dairy and eggs; and vegans who are also divided in different groups; vegan people do not eat any animal products including dairy, eggs and even honey. Once again www.wikipedia.com states that most vegetarians also are aware of avoiding products that may use animal ingredients not included in their labels or which use animal products in their factoring. There are many different reasons why people decide to follow a vegetarian diet, but at the end all vegetarians agree on one thing: factory farming is very harmful, upsetting and very offensive. According to www.voiceless.org.au “factory farming is a system of raising animals, using intensive “production line” methods that maximize the amount of meat produced, while minimizing costs. Industrial animal agriculture is characterized by high stocking densities and/or close confinement, forced growth rates, high mechanization, and low labor requirements... Lately, the term has been extended to include farming practices that involve the use of transgenetic farm animals”. Industrialization has made us speed up every natural process; we have no time to wait until vegetables grow naturally so we have to add chemicals to the soil to get as much of the product as possible so we can plant the next harvest. The soil is getting tired, it is losing its nutrients and it is going to be harder to get the same results in less time, and this becomes a vicious cycle, we have to put more chemicals to get more products. When it comes down to animals I find the story even more dramatic; these animals do not see the day light, they walk on cement and that is if they are not in a cage that is exactly their size and which prevents the animal from moving during its life time. They do not eat, they are fed through a tube that holds a combination of hormones, because obviously we do not have time to wait for them to grow; some animals even die during the feeding process because the machine that pumps this mixture does not differentiate from smaller to bigger animals chocking some of them to death. There are also classifications of vegetarians that are not really vegetarians, in those you can find: pesco-vegetarians, pollo-vegetarians, semi vegetarians, and/or flexi vegetarians; this last category “flexi vegetarians” refers to people who eat less meat, however I share the opinion of Ryan, author of the blog in www.vegblog.org flexi vegetarians eat less meat than who? Most people? Themselves? Before?
Another of the issues that come up when people become vegetarian is their health. Met eaters think that a vegetarian diet lacks many of the nutrients and vitamins found in animals and needed by the body, and this could be true. Following a vegetarian diet is not just not eating meat there are other things that come with it that have to be under consideration, the body needs protein, vitamin B, zinc, calcium and the biggest source of these are in animal products; so it is true, if a person decides to become vegetarian but does not have enough information and follows a diet where he or she just removes animal products, the body will suffer an unbalance and ultimately will cause more problems to the person than eating meat would. Vegetarianism is not about eating just bread, pastas rice and potatoes. According to www.wikipedia.com “Studies by Harvard University as well as other studies conducted in the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and various European countries, have confirmed that vegetarian diets provide more than sufficient protein intake as long as a variety of plant sources are available and consumed.” Many legumes, vegetables, fruits and nuts provide vegetarian people with the right nutrients. Vegetarian diet has many advantages; studies have shown that vegetarian people have the longest longevity and that a diet low on animal fat decreases the risk of cancer.
Whatever is the reason for someone to be a vegetarian, there is a lot more to it than just not eating meat. Vegetarian people are not radicals or rebellious like I have heard and they are not trying to put a mask on to hide what they really are. Being vegetarian is something similar to choosing a religion based on different beliefs, and if we all learn to accept, tolerate and understand our differences we could all be a strong force. Together we do more than enough against each other, and in a world so full of diversity it is more interesting to talk to people who behave differently. Just like John F. Kennedy said: “If we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity.”
BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Wikipedia. Online encyclopedia. Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarian 2. Eco-portal. Online ecological and natural blog. Available from: http://www.ecoportal.net/content/view/full/53652 3. Voiceless. Online organization. Available from: http://www.voiceless.org.au/Get_Informed/Factory_Farming/Factory_Farming.html#fn1 4. Classifications of Vegetarians. Available from: http://www.vegblog.org/archive/2004/10/26/classifications-of-vegetarians 5. Wisdom Quotes. Diversity quotes. John F. Kennedy Quotes. Available from: http://www.wisdomquotes.com/cat_diversity.html
Matthew Lujan 7/5/08 English 1B Essay #3- Argument of Defintion Rough Draft
Homosexuality is a Psychological Disorder
Throughout our adolescence and into our teen years, family upbringing has proven to be vital in how we are shaped and formed today: for example certain toys we are able to play with, the television shows we can watch, or the certain kids we can hang out with. Certain Psychological factors have led to a direct correlation in homosexuality in humans leading to their embarrassment of their sexual orientation. The Western theories of sexuality and gender have proven to be problematic in relation to non-Western cultures. Homosexuality is a byproduct of various psychological and social factors that contemporary Western practices have shaped the sexual orientation of the individual at an early age and lead to the adverse effects of “staying in the closet.” People have always wondered where homosexuality stems from. This social debate is everlasting, and new evidence seems to be evolving every year. Research science has pointed to homosexuality being caused as a biological gene factor conceived at birth. "To date, no researcher has claimed that genes can determine sexual orientation. At best, researchers believe that there may be a genetic component. No human behavior, let alone sexual behavior, has been connected to genetic markers to date...sexuality, like every other behavior, is undoubtedly influenced by both biological and societal factors." (APS) The science journal has also stated a lack of insufficient evidence in the support of homosexuality directly linked to a particular gene. “The interaction of genes and environment is much more complicated than the simple "violence genes" and intelligence genes" touted in the popular press. Indeed, renewed appreciation of environmental factors is one of the chief effects of the increased belief in genetics' effects on behavior. The same data that show the effects of genes also point to the enormous influence of non-genetic factors.” (Science Many stories adapted from homosexuals are closely related. They felt repressed when they were young and how their parents, whether a single mom or dad, raised them to be a man’s man. For example, they were only allowed to play football instead of attempting an arts and crafts class or a slightly less physical sport. They were given only Tonka Trucks, watch Batman, and play with army men. All of these young men felt inferior to their parents, ashamed of what they are now because of how they were raised and how their parents will think of them. Ultimately this has kept many of the homosexuals in the closet for so many years. As a result, this leads to a repressed childhood thus shying away from the truth of their homosexual orientation. As the son grows into a young adult, the presence or absence of the father will either solidify or confuse his sense of identity, most especially his sexuality. If this is the case, depriving the son of the availability of the father will leave him in a vulnerable position of not having a confident and rich model of manhood, not having a clear and understandable model exemplifying culturally accepted male traits. (Moberly) Therefore certain environmental and psychological factors play a key role in the sexual orientation of the child. Dr. Steven Goldberg of the American Psychological Society testifies "Virtually all of the evidence argues against there being a determinative physiological causal factor and I know of no researcher who believes that such a determinative factor exists...such factors play a predisposing, not a determinative role...I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors." (Goldberg) This is true in that the majority of instances, parents of these homosexual boys end in divorce. The parents are usually not on talking terms and the family possesses poor communication skills. A parent who lacks the skills of teaching their child how to communicate their feelings is doing their child a disservice. Their child in turn is confused on the meaning of love and feelings as a whole, and turn to homosexuality as a way to repress their feelings of self-worth. Eventually they keep their homosexual orientation hidden in the hopes of not being cast off from their parents. Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover states, “Like all complex behavioral and mental states, homosexuality is...neither exclusively biological nor exclusively psychological, but results from an as-yet-difficult-to-quantitate mixture of genetic factors, intrauterine influences...postnatal environment (such as parent, sibling and cultural behavior), and a complex series of repeatedly reinforced choices occurring at critical phases of development.” (Satinover) A father who places that much burden and pressure on his son is repressing his child’s emotions. The father’s direct approach to a boy being a macho man can have damaging effects on the child. They will always feel in the shadow of their father, and not want to let him down. In conclusion, homosexuality is simply not a chosen lifestyle, but I believe one that is handed down from certain environmental and psychological factors that have kept homosexuals confused of their sexual orientation and in the closet for so long. Though science has not yet proven a particular gene traced to the explanation of homosexuality in an individual, we can only come to the conclusion that certain psychological and socioeconomic upbringing play a major role in homosexuality.
Works Cited Book: Signorile, Michael 2003 Queer in America. University of Wisconsin Levay, Simon 1999 City of Friends: A portrait of the Gay and Lesbian Community in America. The MIT Press J. Satinover, M.D., 1996 Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Magazine: C. Mann, 1994 "Genes and behavior," Science 264:1687, pp. 1686-1689 Website: www.the-aps.org, American Physiological Society
Ruchi Lamba (ruchi_lamba@hotmail.com) DW#8 Essay #3 - Argument of Definition
Internet is a Political Sphere (Rough Draft)
People who accuse today’s young generation of apathetic political attitudes are simply looking for signs in the wrong place. In the past, political activism was enacted through protest marches, college strikes and songs that united an entire generation. Today, political activism and participation, especially among the youth, occurs on the Internet. As a result, the very definition of the Internet has changed. It is no longer just a means of sharing files, and needs to be recognized as a powerful political sphere where intense political activity takes place (Freedictionary.com). Since the Internet allows its participants gather and engage in political dialogue, clarify social values, challenge power and mobilize political movement – all of which are intense political activities, it is clearly a political sphere.
Today, politics is a profession that aims to create and control messages instead of allowing for a participatory society. Outside the Internet, politics has become a process of closure, of exclusion through the control and manipulation of media messages. The natural formation of collective thought and the eruption of citizens into decision-making is a rare event in today’s stage-managed theatre of politics. This is an age where politics is a spectacle which might be a little entertaining at times, but it is certainly not enticing.
Internet does not have these barriers, and this equity helps it fulfill one of the major criteria of a political sphere. Internet allows for greater participation and therefore the politics on the Internet is real because it is somewhat protected from the orchestration of political kingmakers. Websites and blogs expand the scope of politics, allowing people to take up their own agendas, and highlight important issues. Political activism on the Internet is not partisan in the sense of being centered around support for a particular political party. It is more concerned with the administration of things rather than with class struggle or competing some social visions of capitalism or communism. It is a place where poltical question don’t just get reduced to economics, and new ideas and solutions find expression.
One of the other ways in which the Internet allows itself to be defined as a political sphere is that allows its participants to challenge power structures. On the Internet, the powerless and the powerful have an equal voice allowing the powerless to talk back to power, and challenge many of the tired myths which sustain the closed and self-referential world of politics. In the mainstream, social change is limited to shifts in social identity and the only way of making a change is by attempting to join a closed political process and putting the firewall up so nobody else can get in. Internet, on the other hand, allows the personal to become political giving its participants the right to push their private lives into the public sphere. This creates a whole new political dimension, a dimension that is much broader in scope and far more collective. It goes beyond the guarded and repetitive ideologies uttered at a Republican or Democratic party branch meeting in a college. It pushes new limits, and allows an almost complete freedom from censorship.
The interactivity feature of the Internet also fulfils one more criteria of being a political sphere and that is through allowing the greatest negotiation of social values. Unlike print, radio or television, the Internet allows for a sense of immediacy and anonymity making the political process more wired, interactive and increasingly, global.
It is time for the media, and for politicians, is to wake up to a social and political revolution that is well underway. It is not on the streets. It is on the new political sphere known as the Internet.
Felicia Lubienski English 1b DW#8 Argument rough draft Babybronco26@yahoo.com Cheerleading is a Sport When some people think of cheerleading, they think of dumb blondes, annoying girls who are at football games that yell “Go Team!” Have you every thought of it as a sport? Well many will argue whether it is or not. Here are some reasons why cheerleading should be a sport. First of all, word sport means: “Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged competitively,” according to dictionary.com. The question that needs to be answered is does cheerleading fit under that category? Cheerleading is however not considered a real sport. It is said to be a sport in the future, but not now because some squads do not compete, according to about.com. However, there are many types of cheerleading squads; such as an All Star Team, High School Team, Pop Warner Teams, All American Teams, Professional Teams, and even College teams. Cheerleading is not only for girls and women, but for boys and men. It is a co-ed “sport” that can be very competitive, so why would it not be considered a sport? According to Valerie Ninemire, a journalist for about.com, cheerleading is mostly defined as “Act of leading organized cheering, as at sport events.” In her article, she is giving the purpose of cheerleading and defines the word sport and uses criteria to show why cheerleading does not fit into the definition. She also states that cheerleaders have to be as strong as football players, as poised as a dancer, and as flexible as the best gymnast. “They are athletes by every word of the definition,” Valerie states. However she does not understand why cheerleaders need to be defined as an official sport. To most cheerleaders however, it is not about being defined as a sport, it is about being labeled as girls who just jump up and down yelling “Go Team!” This is wear the argument comes into play for cheerleaders because they are just as athletic as any other sport and want the respect every other sport gets. A few examples of competitive cheerleading teams are, All Star Teams, Co-ed College Teams, Pop Warner Teams, and even some High School and All Girl College Teams. The things that make these types of teams different from the others are that they are all very competitive types of cheer. When they compete, it is not once or four times a week, it is three or four months out of the year, however they can get into as many competitions as they would like. However it is not just those three or four months, they train all year long, until those months come along. It takes just as much hard work and dedication to be a cheerleader, just like it does in any other sport. These teams travel all over, just like any other sport. They have huge crowds, just like any other sport. They even have people cheering them on, just like any other sport. This is what makes it a sport. Cheerleading teams that do not fit into the criteria of being a sport are those who do not compete. Some squads are just made to make the crowds happy. For example professional football and basketball teams, they have cheerleaders; those cheerleaders don’t follow the definition of competitive because they do not compete against the other professional teams. Another example would be high school teams who just have the sport at their school to be a club and go to the football and basketball games just to entertain the crowds. Therefore, these few teams that are left are what are not allowing the rest of the cheerleading teams to be considered a “sport.” Although all cheerleading teams are almost the same, there are some differences. The similarities between an All Star team and a Co-ed College team, is that they are both very competitive and put long hard hours into every routine they come up with. The difference between the two is that the college team still cheers at football and basketball games; when the All Star teams do not, their main focus at all times are the competitions. The similarities between competitive and noncompetitive cheer is the same, but also so different at the same time. Just because a team does not compete does not mean they do not have the dedication and love for the “sport,” it just means they either cannot afford it, or their schools will not let them. A non competitive team could have worked on just as hard of a routine as a competitive one, they just use theirs for a halftime at the football or basketball games or even pep rally’s. The characteristics to be considered an athlete are, just like stated above in the definition, being a physical activity, having rules, and being competitive. Cheerleading has every part in being a physical activity. They run, stretch, warm up, just like any other team. They stunt, which is almost as physical as you can get. Throwing girls that are their same size in the air is not an easy task, it takes a lot of physical and mental strength. Although not all cheerleading teams are just all girl, they have some that are co-ed and have an advantage of having the guys be the ones to throw the girls in the air. However that is still physical shape. It does not matter that the guy is bigger than her, but they have to have a connection and trust one another in order to get a partner stunt to work safely. Cheerleaders also have rules just like any other sport. They have to go to all the basketball and football games if they are a school sport, they have to show up to every practice otherwise they will be booted off or not allowed to participate in that routine, and they have to be in good enough shape to do the things they do. They also have strict rules when being in uniform; which can be anything from not drinking alcohol to not holding hands with a significant other, which pretty much goes for every other sport as well, while in uniform. That leads to another rule, they have to be in the exact uniform at all times, everything from the ribbon in their hair to the shoes on their feet must be the same at competitions. When it comes to being competitive, cheerleaders are far worse than any football team and their rival. Even though most cheerleaders are not competitive, the ones that are, are very dedicated and proud of what they do. Cheerleading competitions are not like any other sport. There are up to one hundred teams going for the first place trophy. They have to go through preliminaries, sometimes even second preliminaries, Simi-finals, and finals, just like any other sport; they just go through it in a few days instead of six or eight months. The competitions are very strict on uniform and the members of each team being exactly the same. Competitions are intense and exciting to watch, there are even people cheering on the cheerleaders. Believe it or not, cheerleading is also available to watch on ESPN. They say everything on ESPN is considered a sport, so why is cheerleading on it if it is not a sport? In conclusion, cheerleading is a sport. It has every aspect in the definition “sport” and more. Cheerleaders are not getting the respect and support they need, and yes, maybe it is that word they need to be satisfied. Although every cheerleader knows he or she is an athlete, they just deserve to have the rightful world to show it. There are many different types of cheerleading teams which is great and it allows this “sport” to be very versatile. Cheerleaders are competitive, have rules and guidelines which they follow, and they are physical, just like any other sport.
Lara Hafen (larahafen@gmail.com) Argument of Definition - Rough Draft
Richard Nixon was Liberal
Everyone knows Richard Nixon. His presidency has surpassed the realm of textbooks and dry PBS biographies and seeped into popular culture: shaking hands with Elvis, “I am not a crook”, the arms upraised “double V”, Watergate, Hollywood movies. He is the prototypical bad republican, demonized as the downfall of the office of the presidency, the only president to have ever resigned. Most people would be surprised to find out that Nixon’s domestic policies would include him in a class of politicians along the likes of Hillary Clinton, Al Gore and Jimmy Carter. Richard Nixon was liberal.
First we must consider what it means to be liberal. Paul Starr, a self-described liberal and Professor of sociology and public affairs at Princeton University, declares that liberalism is concerned primarily with providing “broader social protections.” He defines these social protections as civil rights, environmental regulation, labor regulation. A liberal is concerned with human rights, civil rights, protecting the environment, and ensuring a basic standard of living for all Americans, including and especially, minorities, the aged, and the young. Political areas that are generally considered to be the area of liberals include protecting the environment, providing healthcare rights, economic policies to protect the aged, the young, and the poor, policies to assure basic human and civil rights.
Liberal politicians exhibit these ideals by pursuing specific public and political policies. While liberal politicians tend to have concrete records of uniformly supporting liberal ideals - such as promoting healthcare, protecting the environment, and supporting civil rights initiatives - certain politician’s best illustrate and embody different liberal policies. Hillary Clinton is famous for her national healthcare policies, both from her time as First Lady as well as during her 2008 presidential campaign. Al Gore is famous for his environmental policies. He starred in ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, a documentary which has been the defining movie for the environmental movement. In 2007, Al Gore was awarded half of the Nobel Peace prize for his efforts to fight global warming. The press release announcing his Nobel Peace Prize referred to him as “an environmental politician.” Jimmy Carter is a human rights advocate. He has made human rights his personal mission. The mission statement of his charitable foundation is, “Committed to advancing human rights and alleviating unnecessary human suffering. “All of these politicians’ policies have exhibited strong support of civil rights, environmental protection, broad healthcare access, and protection of the disadvantaged including the poor, the aged, the young and minorities.
It is fair to call Richard Nixon a liberal because of specific political policies he proposed and pursued. Many people would be surprised to find out that Richard Nixon proposed national healthcare. His was a comprehensive health care plan that would have mandated all American employers offer health insurance to their employees and would have provided government healthcare coverage to the poor, the young, and the self employed (Woolley and Peters) . Richard Nixon is also notable in his human rights efforts. Most notable is his policy on Native Americans. Nixon is the president who not only ended the policy of termination, but ended ethnocide against the Native Americans (Hoff 27-28). A leader of the Navajo Tribe has said of Nixon, he is the “Abraham Lincoln of the American people” (qtd. in Barra). He also began to make bold actions for redress – to continue federal aid to the Native Americans, to ensure self-determination for Native Americans to spend federal aid as they saw fit, and went so far as to return land to the Native Americans (Hoff 31-33). On the issue of civil rights, Richard Nixon successfully used busing to significantly decrease segregation in southern schools, and made advances in promoting affirmative action by proposing and implementing The Philadelphia Plan. Richard Nixon advanced environmentalism by creating the Environmental Protection Agency and adding important amendments to the Clean Air Act of 1970. He also signed into existence the Endangered Species Act (Small 198-200). Nixon created Supplemental Security Income that guaranteed an annual income for the disabled and elderly, introduced the Cost of Living Index to adjust Social Security payments for inflation and proposed a federal minimum guaranteed income in the form of the Family Assistance Plan (Wicker 532-533).
It is important to argue that Richard Nixon was liberal because it raises the question of whether labels are always accurate and whether the media is always honest and well-thought in its appraisals. We have to apply critical thinking skills and not rely on the popular media to tell us the truth. How well do political parties describe a candidate’s views and policies? I think we need to get past the ease of labels and begin to judge our politicians by their words and actions. Richard Nixon’s true presidential record was a surprise.
Some might argue that Richard Nixon was not liberal enough to be considered liberal. This statement suggests that being liberal is not only a quantifiable measure but somehow absolute; either you’re liberal or you’re not. I think this is as dangerous a statement as making good and bad quantifiable and absolute. If we look at Richard Nixon’s Domestic Policies we find a record that is qualitatively a liberal breakthrough. Many of his policies and proposals were groundbreaking and foundational to liberal beliefs. To deny Richard Nixon the definition of liberal is to deny a piece of his legacy. Many experts have gone as far to acknowledge Richard Nixon as a liberal.
Richard Nixon’s domestic policies put him solidly in the category of liberal. His policies as president significantly acted to protect the environment, provide economic protection to the disadvantaged, make healthcare a guaranteed and accessible right and further human and civil rights in foundational and significant ways. Hopefully this argument of Richard Nixon expands people’s view of politics, party labels, and media image. Richard Nixon was liberal.
Works Cited
Barra, Allen. “Nixon Knows Best.” Salon.com 15 June 2007. 8 July 2008. http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/06/15/richard_nixon/print.html.
Hoff, Joan. Nixon Reconsidered. New York: Basic Books, 1994.
Mason, Robert. Richard Nixon and the Quest for a New Majority. Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press, 2004.
Small, Melvin. The Presidency of Richard Nixon. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1999.
Wicker, Tom. One of Us: Richard Nixon and the American Dream. New York: Random House, 1991.
Wicker, Tom. To the Best of My Ability: The American Presidents. Ed. James M. McPherson. First American ed. New York: Dorling Kindersley, 2000.
Woolley, John, and Peters, Gerhard. “Richard Nixon: Special Message to the Congress Proposing a Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan.” The American Presidency Project. 8 July 2008. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=4337.
Tammy L Wood [dw#8] Essay #3 – Argument of Definition Rough Draft
Higher oil prices spur inflation which causes the stock market to drop. This leads to the Federal Reserve to push interest rates up, which in turn can cause credit cards, car loans and mortgages to become more expensive. With the cost of oil at an all time high, the stock market has taken a beating. In a report from ConsumerReports.org, it states the gas prices have risen from $2.96 per gallon in February of 2008 up to $4.08 in June of 2008. The high cost of gasoline has not just affected transportation, but also how much the population is going to be able to spend on other items which in turn will affect the economy. With inflation on the rise, the U.S. dollar is becoming less valuable. The depreciating U.S. dollar has pushed oil prices up, which are based in part on the dollar.
In an article written by Robert Siegel of the Hourly News Summary he states, “When oil goes up, bonds go up because growth slows.” However, this is not the same for stocks. “Higher oil prices are an unambiguous negative for the stock market.” Higher oil prices raise production costs and leave customers spending less on other items. Both of these issues undermine corporate earnings, which are the key to stock prices. He also said, “The U.S. financial markets took a tumble Friday on the news that the oil prices hit another new record high.” Our gas pump prices fluctuate daily which causes a constant rise and fall in the stock market. We witness this daily.
In an article on the internet site of Call Writer, John Brasher states that prior to 1970, oil prices remained stable throughout most of the twentieth century. This was due to the combination of production and price controls. Ever since the Yom Kippur War in 1973, petroleum production and prices shifted to OPEC. Since then, oil prices have been looked upon like the prices of other commodities.
So, why is there such an increase in oil costs? Worldwide demand for oil has increased. Wikipedia.org states that “World crude oil demand grew an average of 1.76% per year from 1994 to 2007, with a high of 3.4% in 2003 -2004.” When there are high demands, there are high prices. It is also stated the demand has increased because of human population growth. World population grew faster than oil production causing a great demand for more oil. Also, the oil supply has slowed down. More demand, less supply, thus rising cost of fuel.
The London Khaleej Time News on line states that the U.S. is not the only country whose stock market is affected by the rising cost of oil. They stated that European stocks fell as oil prices shot to record levels, but that there were greater losses in other countries due to the weak U.S. economy. It also stated that Asian trading in Tokyo was down. “The fall in the U.S. stock market caused by surging crude oil prices – brought on sell off in Asia. The market has been and will be reflecting in trading.” Here are the facts that oil does affect our stock exchange and will continue to do so, thus controlling our economy and our very livelihood. The Khaleej Times also said, “Concerns that the rising energy cost will fuel inflation and lead to higher interest rates worldwide, putting the brakes on global economic growth.”
I know that this is not something new or unheard of; I just feel that we are helpless in trying to be able to control it. Are we to just stand by and watch our economy continue to fall apart? Why do we allow other countries to control out destiny as a Nation? I find all of this very frustrating. As a nation, we need to develop immediate plans to force this downward trend to at least come to a plateau if not an upward climb. We need to take control once again and become a stronger nation. Jobs should be brought back to the states to support the much needed job pool. Perhaps if we can produce more in our country and keep our money here instead of overseas, our economy might just be able to turn around before it gets too late.
Bibliography 1. Call Writer. Online Available from: http://www.callwriter.com/newsletter/howiolaffectsstockprice.htm 2. Wikipedia. Online Available from:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oilpriceincreaseof2004-2006 3. Hourly News Summary of July 0, 2008 Available from:http://www.npr.ort/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91252459 4. Khaleej Time Online News, London Available from: http://www.khaleejtimes.com/displayarticle.asp?xfile=data 5. New York Times. Online Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/business/15cnd-econ.html?ref=business
Debbie K. Maxwell Eng 1B #12215 Essay: [dw#8] Essay #3 Argument of Definition July 9, 2007 Rough Draft
OVER THE LAST THREE DECADES, fast food has infiltrated every nook and cranny of American society. Citizens in our country eat too much, and are eating on the run. Statistics are showing that obesity is at an all time high. Fast-food restaurants are mob-scenes for breakfast, lunch and dinner and every moment in between. These restaurants seek to make a profit, doing as little as possible to provide a healthy diet for Americans. Most fast food is delivered to the restaurant already frozen, canned, dehydrated, or freeze-dried. A fast food kitchen is merely the final stage in a vast and highly complex system of mass production. IN-N-OUT Burger prides itself in supplying its customers with the highest quality in freshly prepared food, and is an idyllic example of a healthy fast-food restaurant. By defining what healthy fast food entails, examining the ideals that this company possesses, in addition to analyzing the basic foods that make up their menu, it will become clear that this company truly deserves the title of being a healthy fast-food restaurant. The concept of healthy fast-food is sometimes perceived as an oxymoron, but has actually become a reality in our nation. The characteristics that make up this ideal consist of freshly cooked products and high quality ingredients with the benefit of quick and efficient service. When consumers read about human fingers being discovered in chili, burgers being carelessly dropped on the floor, and a lack of hairnets in the workplace, it is comforting to know that there are still fast-food companies that aspire to a higher level of quality concerning the health aspect of their product. Providing fresh, pure ingredients prepared in a controlled environment that go over and above national health standards is one of the primary attributes of a healthy fast-food restaurant. This commitment to quality is becoming a rarity in this industry; however, there is still one restaurant in particular that maintains an ongoing desire to continually exceed expectations for healthy fast-food. IN-N-OUT Burger bases their belief system on the value that “quality is everything.” Quickly becoming one of the west-coast’s most prized tourist attractions, it has elevated itself to a position of respect within the fast-food eateries. Part of this commitment to quality involves a direct focus on the health aspects of the products served. Serving 100% pure beef “free of additives, fillers and preservatives” as well as old-fashioned buns made of slow-rising sponge dough consistently remain a high priority. The rest of the offered products are equally on the same high standard. Highest-grade potatoes shipped fresh from the farm are cut one at a time by dedicated employees and cooked in 100% pure, cholesterol-free vegetable oil. In addition, IN-N-OUT Burger takes the proper steps to ensure that the entire food process from beginning to end is completely controlled by highly skilled experts. At each restaurant location the quality continues where the ingredients are daily delivered fresh to the store and cooked individually as requested by each customer. It is commonly known that competitors of IN-N-OUT are able to provide the mass quantities of product that they do by using alternative means of storing food on site. It is only too common to see the glaring red heat lamps and microwaves always in use within these competitive corporations. This is where IN-N-OUT stands separate from others in its field. No one will ever find a freezer, heat lamp, or microwave being used within an IN-N-OUT Burger’s impeccable kitchens. While competitors are forced to deal with the prospect of aged and sometimes uneatable products, IN-N-OUT, as previously stated, keeps a commitment to freshness which helps ensure a certain level of healthiness in every served meal. Despite the popularity of this company, there are many who raise certain objections. Customers loyal to the competitors of IN-N-OUT may argue that the typical long lines of this fast-food restaurant detract from their ability to be quick, efficient with good service. In defense of this argument, the company puts as much emphasis on their employees as they do on their food. More specifically, each employee is well-trained to deal with the masses that frequent each location and consistently attempts to maintain efficiency. IN-N-OUT as a whole appears aware of the health crisis facing America and, like each individual employee, does their best to ensure that customers are provided with their food as quickly as possible. Another argument that has said against IN-N-OUT is the fact that their menu is limited to the point that it does not include products like salads that are typically used in healthy diets and served by its competitors. This argument has no basis whatsoever. Due to the fact that IN-N-OUT diligently strives to make the rest of their menu meet a certain healthy standard, they do not necessarily need to offer products like salads or fruit smoothies to make their menu more appealing. This also relates back to the argument criticizing the lengthy lines. By having a shorter menu, the process of purchasing food is able to be completed faster. Through specifically defining what healthy fast food consists of, going over the ideals that IN-N-OUT keeps in priority, and refuting arguments posed against this company, it has been made apparent that this particular fast-food restaurant deserves to be labeled as healthy. IN-N-OUT Burger remains a well-respected example in the fast-food industry of being a company that supplies only the highest quality of fresh foods.
Citations: Website: IN-N-OUT Burger. “Quality you can taste.” Copyright 2008 In-N-Out burger. http://www.in-n-out.com/freshness.asp
Newspaper on the Web: Schlosser, Eric. “The Dark Side of the All-American Meal.” (C) 2000 Eric Schlosser All rights reserved. ISBN: 0-395-97789-4 New York Times on the web, Fast Food Nation http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/schlosser-fast.html
Video game, this word is well known to every people around the world and it is the one thing that the parents despise. Video game has been around for quite some time, since 1950’s when a man named William Higinbotham introduced his first tennis game in 1958. After the first video game was produced, as the year went by, people have made dramatic improvement in the video game graphics, where today the graphics of the video games are realistic as they can get. Every specific movement of the human body can be mimicked by using a technology called the motion capture device. Although there were many games created, using video games for educational purposes was just recently created.
There are many games today that are educational in their own ways. One game in particular called “Brain Age” for the Nintendo DS, basically tests the player with common knowledge as well as testing their memory, sight, and calculations, to tell what the players specific age of their brain and each day, the game tests the player with different methods to see how far the player has progressed. Another game in particular is “Brain Academy” which is for the Nintendo DS and Nintendo Wii. This game allows the player to test their knowledge, sight, speed, and memory. “Brain Academy” tells the players balance at their specific area and tells the player their strength and weaknesses at a specific area and from time to time the player is able to take a test that tests the player at every field on one test to see how far the player has progressed.
There are many other video games that are educational, such as Sudoku, which is used in most math classes to test the student’s math, memory, and knowledge in order to complete the squares by inputting numbers in the right spot. Henry Kelly says, game “is not about virtual football or skateboarding. Games would have to be created and evaluated with the goal of raising achievement. There's already an audience: More than 45 million homes have video-game consoles. "If we can't make the connection, shame on us” (The Seattle Times: Scientists say video games can reshape education, By Ben Feller). Many people, especially parents, might say that video games cannot be educational. That assumption is not all true. Sure there is some games that requires no thinking, but majority of the games requires players mind to be active at all time to plan strategy in first-person shooter games and knowing which weapons or technique to use at a specific opponent. According to the research by University of Rochester in New York, video game such as “Medal of Honor” trains the brain to better process certain visual information. Also “action video gamers tend to be more attune to their surroundings while performing tasks like driving down a residential street, where they may be more likely to pick out a child running after a ball than a non-video gamer. The research also suggests that action game playing might be a useful tool to rehabilitate visually impaired patients or to train soldiers for combat” (Video Games Boost Visual Skills, Study Finds, By John Roach).
Video game allows the player to be much more alert toward the environment around them and gamers tend to have more active minds than non-gamers. Video games has been around for many years and now in the 20th century, video game is used for educational purposes to allow kids to have be entertained and have fun at the same time. Also video game designers has started to create video games that is not only oriented toward kids and teenagers, but adults who have no interest in video games, to encourage them to play games by using education to their advantage.
Work Cited
Scientists say video games can reshape education; By Ben Feller http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/education/2003309887_videogames18.html
The First Video Game; http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/history/higinbotham.asp
Video Games Boost Visual Skills, Study Finds; By John Roach http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0528_030528_videogames.html
Lauren Kulick DW# 8: Argument of Definition Essay (Rough)
“I will win the lottery. I can picture myself with the winning ticket, jumping up and down in my living room, throwing money in the air.” According to Rhonda Byrne’s The Secret, this dialogue could belong to you or me. It is not an uncommon idea, the power of visualization. Sports players use it all the time. “Be the Ball”. Philosophers like James Allen have touted the idea for years. Napoleon Hill applied the theory to finance. The Secret is a bestselling book that uses old ideas as its premise without asserting anything new. The Secret, by Rhonda Byrne is unoriginal literature.
The definition of unoriginal literature has two parts. The first, unoriginal, can best be understood by defining its opposite, original. To be original is to “belong or pertain to the origin or beginning of something,” to be “new, fresh, novel” (www.dictionary.com). For an object, person, or idea to be categorized or labeled as original, it would have to possess these qualities. In this case, involving a piece of literature, the piece of work would have to possess new ideas, unique thoughts on its particular subject and propose something new, even if it supports itself with something pre-established. For something to be defined as original does not place the restriction of absolute originality. A mathematical theory, for example, can use ancient principles of mathematics as support to form a completely original concept. Theories and advancements occur throughout the world daily. The aforementioned qualities being taken into consideration, the definition of unoriginal can be understood to be the exact opposite. Unoriginal things or ideas express nothing new, do not assert anything new, and are “trite” (www.dictionary.com).
The second part of the definition is literature. Literature can be defined as “writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features” (www.dictionary.com). The definition of literature requires written expression, but includes many forms. Literature can be type-written and bound or inked and tied. True literature also must embody an idea with “universal interest”. This requires that to be defined as literature, the work has to be understandable, interesting to at least some, and an idea lasting enough to be distributed over time. The definition of literature does not mandate certain subjects; it is not exclusive to fiction, poetry, or drama.
The Secret, by Rhonda Byrne, is a New Age book carried throughout the nation at most bookstores. It is an international bestseller and member of the Oprah Book Club. The Secret, despite its popularity, can be defined as a piece of unoriginal literature. The most obvious of the two part definition is literature. The Secret possesses the characteristics given by the definition of literature: written expression and connection with ideas that are permanent and universal (www.dictionary.com). The Secret is a bound piece of written expression. It is a book with cover and backing. It is an object that possesses Rhonda Byrne’s expression and ideas about the Law of Attraction. Her subject, the power of positive thinking and the Law of Attraction, are universal in nature. Many people enjoy, are interested in, and crave knowledge about how to better their lives. The Law of Attraction is a concept that appeals to people of all races, religions, ages and sexes, thus defining it as universal. It can also be considered a permanent idea. The need for self actualization and the desire to improve one’s being is a concept that will not change with time. The more abstract part of the definition is unoriginality. The criteria for unoriginality can be summed as: triteness, old ideas, and repetition. Byrne’s The Secret possesses all of these qualifications. The basic idea behind The Secret is the power of positive thinking. If you think positively and visualize something, then you can make it happen. Byrne suggests that if you think positively, you “become a magnet that pulls everything you want towards you” (http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2007-02-14-the-secret_x.htm). This concept, that Rhonda Byrne claims to be the “secret” that she discovered has been discussed in many other texts pre-dating her own. A few examples of these are As a Man Thinketh by James Allen (publication date 2006) and Think and Grow Rich, by Napoleon Hill (publication date ) (www.bn.com). Rhonda Byrne’s basic principle is that positive thinking will get you what you want. She makes no further assertion, no new thoughts about the subject. She simply repeats the previous thoughts about the Law of Attraction.
The Secret can be defined as many things: entertainment, a book, a bestseller, but original is not one of them. The Secret is a work of literature. It is a written expression of ideas. Rhonda Byrne’s ideas, however, are not new and do not expand on the original ideas for which her book is based. Based on the criteria and definition of the descriptors unoriginal and literature, The Secret can be defined as both. The Secret does not really have anything worthy of calling a “secret” since none of the thoughts are fresh, or unknown. Can you keep Rhonda Byrne’s secret? I guess it doesn’t matter because everyone already knows anyway.
With the newly introduced, more intensive regulations of tobacco smoking the lawmakers are violating people’s fundamental rights of freedom and decision making, because they will make nearly impossible for people to buy and smoke their tobacco legally, thus creating an under-the counter market for the product. And also, the smoking regulations are in fact prohibition regulations of tobacco, because some under-the-counter market has already started and it will probably bring the blooming of underground groups. There’s a lot of controversy on tobacco whether being a drug or just a plant, and on its harmful effects, just like during the alcohol during the prohibition. The difference between the characteristics of a fair-minded, righteous regulation and the issues behind the prohibition needs to be understood. If smoking becomes completely illegal it might cause the similar results that happened during the prohibition of alcohol, under-the-counter market and illegal groups that specializes in the tobacco market. The governments all over the world try to introduce the smoking regulations as just, fair regulations, but as a matter of fact they are on the right track on introducing the prohibition of smoking. Norway, New Zealand banned smoking in 2004, Italy in 2005, two years later Estonia, the United Kingdom and several other countries joined to the countries that prohibited the smoking of tobacco. The regulations are the prohibition of tobacco products, because it will make nearly impossible for people to buy and smoke their tobacco legally, thus creating an under-the-counter market for the product. Bhutan in South Asia was the first country that prohibited the sale and smoking of tobacco in early 2005. Ireland expanded their regulations of tobacco advertising to shops, which means that no tobacco advertisements can be placed in stores. It was also Ireland who was the first country in Europe passing a law which ensured that cigarettes are not visible in stores, thus creating literally the under-the-counter market of tobacco. One can read articles on smoking restrictions, which mainly agree in the harmful effects of smoking, but disagree on how the tobacco market should be controlled. According to a Globe and Mail article cigarettes will disappear by the end of the year in most part of Canada. Convenience stores across the country are facing new rules on displaying cigarettes that require them to keep the packages behind closed doors or in drawers out of public view. The under-the-counter market just started, thus the results might not be seen at this point. However, the history of prohibition of alcohol, which started in a similar way, can give us a hint on what is going to happen, what problems may occur. The regulations of tobacco smoking are also violating people’s fundamental rights of freedom. As an example, according to an Orange County Register article, the Laguna Beach City Council’s attempt to ban smoking from city parks failed because of lack of support. Mayor Tony Iseman wanted to broaden an ordinance already introduced by the council that prohibited smoking on public beaches, but according to another City Councilwoman, Elizabeth Schneider the new regulation “would infringe on people’s rights.” More and more county boards all over the United States and also in the United Kingdom approve strict ordinances against tobacco smoking. They say the new regulations are necessary for the health of the people, but they seem to forget about other issues, such as people’s fundamental rights of freedom, and making free decisions as long as they do not hurt anybody else of course. The City Council in Laguna Beach prohibited smoking in public beaches, which brought some great results in keeping the beaches clean and ensuring a healthy environment for everybody. In this case not just adults but children were involved, who must not be exposed to secondhand smoking. Many children are taken to the parks, and this can be a reason why city councils want to create wide non-smoking areas. Some regulations were in effect since the 1990’s to protect nonsmokers from the harmful effects of tobacco smoke, but the lawmakers became more rigorous regarding the issue under the pressure of activist groups in recent years. They are trying to ban cigarette smoke from everywhere which can be understandable because of the health issues. According to The Lancet, the medical journal of the United Kingdom, “tens of thousands of lives would be saved by making tobacco an illegal substance and possession of cigarettes a crime.” However, smokers group arguing against the proposed prohibition regulations saying that "like it or not, people choose to smoke, just as they choose to drink alcohol, eat certain types of food, or take part in extreme sports." Although the restricting regulations, such as the one in Laguna Beach might be introduced with good intentions, I think it will not be effective in the long run. More actions need to be taken to prevent people starting to smoke, to support institutes that can help smokers quit, and to educate both smokers and nonsmokers to respect each other’s attitudes and preferences towards smoking habits. I, as a nonsmoker do think that smokers must have the right to have areas designated for smoking, but most importantly people should be more perceptive with each other regarding not just this matter, thus we could live peacefully with one another.
Bibliography
"Effort to Ban Smoking in City Parks Lacks Support." Orange County Register. 18 Oct. 2007. 7 July 2008 Available from: http://www.ocregister.com/news/city-containers-motion-1895662-smoking-council.
"Smoking Ban Proposed for England." BBC News. 16 Nov. 2004. 8 July 2008 Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4014597.stm. "UK Ministers Urged to Ban Tobacco." BBC News. 5 Dec. 2003. 9 July 2008 Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3292979.stm. W, Julian. "Canada's Controversial Cigarette Ban Pits Corner Stores Against Health Advocates." Now Public. 30 May 2008. 9 July 2008 Available from: http://www.nowpublic.com/health/canadas-controversial-cigarette-ban-pits-corner-stores-against-health-advocates.
12 comments:
Tara Farry (tfarry1@cox.net)
[dw #8] Essay # 3 – Argument of Definition
Rough Draft
The parameters of a family unit are changing. A family unit is no longer that of just a father, a mother and their children. It can now be a single parent and their children, grandparents and their grandchildren or even homosexual parents and their children. Which family unit is the “right” one? What constitutes right from wrong? According to www.dictionary.com, the standard definition of the word parent is one who gives birth to, or nurtures and raises a child; a father or a mother. The definition does not state that a parent must be of a certain race, creed, sexual orientation or financial status. Nor does it state that heterosexual parents are better than homosexual parents. All prejudices aside, any loving, supportive and dedicated adult can be a good parent.
There have been many arguments over children being raised by homosexual parents. Many extreme conservatives believe that homosexual people should not have children. According to an article found on the Evangelical Christian website www.focusonthefamily.com, “The traditional definition of the family is a group of individuals who are related to one another by marriage, birth or adoption – nothing more, nothing else.” This statement does not include grandparents raising their grandchildren, aunts and uncles raising their nieces and nephews or homosexual parents raising their children. This website prejudicially and arrogantly defines the word family by leaving so many people out. How can this statement be the “right” definition of the word family? Who gets to decide what is “right” and what is “wrong”?
Reading this statement I am reminded of many of the prejudices that have existed throughout History; two examples are the anti-Semitic Nazis in Germany and prejudice against African Americans prior to The Civil Rights Movement. These are extreme examples, but the underlying characteristics of hate, intolerance, superiority and ignorance of these examples are also found in the prejudice against homosexual parents. It is these characteristics that can damage lives, ruin families, and split America apart.
It saddens me to think of the moments in History when prejudice led us down a hateful path. I am reminded of Adolf Hitler and The Holocaust. During the Holocaust, Hitler and the Nazi party killed approximately six million European Jews during World War II because of hatred and ignorance. According to Hitler biographer John Toland, “Hitler carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of God. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of God.” Hitler believed that his actions were justified because he was eliminating Jews for God. He wrote “Hence today, I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” Aside from being crazy, we can clearly see that prejudice in any form does not have a positive outcome.
Another example of prejudice is the racial discrimination against African Americans prior to the American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968). Before 1955, African Americans were not entitled to the same rights that non-African Americans were. They were treated as second rate citizens because of the color of their skin. They were segregated from their fellow Americans and during this time, it was common for them to endure physical, verbal and sexual abuse at the hand of non-African American’s. One more time, I am reminded of the prejudicial characteristics of hate, intolerance, superiority and ignorance. One more time I am saddened for the victims of prejudice.
Placing our prejudices aside, the definition of the word parent states that a parent is one who gives birth to, or nurtures and raises a child; a father or a mother. It does not state that a parent must be heterosexual or that heterosexual parents are better than homosexual parents. In fact, I have only read positive statements and statistics regarding homosexual parenting. According to a report issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics “Children who grow up with one or two gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual.” What this means to me is a loving, supportive and dedicated adult; gay or straight can raise a well adjusted child.
Some will argue that children of homosexual parents will be emotionally harmed and sexually confused. This is not true. According to a statement from the American Psychiatric Association, “Numerous studies over the last three decades consistently demonstrate that children raised by gay or lesbian parents exhibit the same level of emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as children raised by heterosexual parents.” It appears that the only harm these children will face is the outside prejudices against their family unit.
I hope that we can all put our opinions and beliefs aside and focus on what is best for the children of homosexual parents. At the end of the day, they are the victims of prejudice against their family unit. If we discriminate against their parents, we are teaching our children to do the same and the innocent children of homosexual parents will suffer.
History has taught us that prejudice in any form is wrong. History has also taught us that we can move past the obstacle of prejudice and accept each other just as we are. The great Martin Luther King Jr. once stated "If we do not learn to live together as friends, we will die apart as fools." I would like to be your friend and I hope that you will be mine.
WORKS CITED
1. American Academy of Pediatrics, 2002. Technical Report: Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents, Pediatrics. [online].
Available from: http://equalitymaryland.org/issues/parenting/parenting_experts.htm
2. American Psychiatric Association, November 2002. Position Statement: Adoption and Co-Parenting of Children by Same-Sex Couples. [online].
Available from: http://equalitymaryland.org/issues/parenting/parenting_experts.htm
3. Hitler, Adolf, 1925. Mein Kampf. England: Secker and Warburg.
4. Should the definition of family be revised in the light of cultural changes? (article) [online]. Available from: www.focusonthefamily.com
5. Toland, John, 1991. Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography. United States of America: Anchor Books, a division of Random House, Inc.
[dw #8] Essay # 3 – Argument of Definition
Rough Draft
Vegetarianism is one of the healthiest human diets. There is a lot more to being vegetarian than not eating meat; there are different classifications for vegetarian people depending on what they eat and what they do not. Another important factor on this classification is the reason behind being vegetarian; anything from religion to political views may make an individual decide to not eat animal products. According to www.wikipedia.com vegetarianism is a practice of a diet that excludes all animal, including poultry, game, fish, shellfish or crustacea, and slaughter by-products. This commonly known website also acknowledges the fact that classifying vegetarian people all under one group is not appropriate. There are vegetarians by religion, culture, ethics, political views, environment and/or health.
I have been a vegetarian for 5 years now, which is a third of my life and considering that I was raised in a family that found animal products as their main source of food; this was neither an easy decision nor a well accepted idea by my family. I was born and raised in Colombia, and even though it has been called the “Vegetarian Country of South America” it does not have a vegetarian friendly cuisine. Most of its dishes include beef, chicken, pork and fish, and the preparation of these dishes makes it almost impossible to substitute for soy, tempeh or other vegetarian products. Vegetarianism keeps growing but the percentages are still too low, www.ecoportal.net is a website in Spanish created for eco-friendly Spanish speaking people, and in one of its articles about vegetarianism growth called “Vegetarianismo en la America Contemporanea” ( Vegetarianism in a Contemporaneous America) shows statistics: vegetarianism has grown only about 1.5% in the last ten years.
I have heard all type of comments right after I announce the magical words: I am vegetarian; some of them are normal: “since when?” “Why?” “How hard is it?” Some of them really surprise me: “Oh! Eat a little bit of beef, we won’t tell anybody”, or “what it left to eat then?” So I decided that this is a good opportunity to really tell people why there are vegetarians and how we do it.
Vegetarianism is divided in different groups: lacto vegetarians, people who do not eat beef, poultry, fish and eggs but consume dairy; ovo vegetarians, vegetarian people who do not consume dairy but consume eggs; lacto ovo vegetarians, who consume both dairy and eggs; and vegans who are also divided in different groups; vegan people do not eat any animal products including dairy, eggs and even honey. Once again www.wikipedia.com states that most vegetarians also are aware of avoiding products that may use animal ingredients not included in their labels or which use animal products in their factoring.
There are many different reasons why people decide to follow a vegetarian diet, but at the end all vegetarians agree on one thing: factory farming is very harmful, upsetting and very offensive. According to www.voiceless.org.au “factory farming is a system of raising animals, using intensive “production line” methods that maximize the amount of meat produced, while minimizing costs. Industrial animal agriculture is characterized by high stocking densities and/or close confinement, forced growth rates, high mechanization, and low labor requirements... Lately, the term has been extended to include farming practices that involve the use of transgenetic farm animals”. Industrialization has made us speed up every natural process; we have no time to wait until vegetables grow naturally so we have to add chemicals to the soil to get as much of the product as possible so we can plant the next harvest. The soil is getting tired, it is losing its nutrients and it is going to be harder to get the same results in less time, and this becomes a vicious cycle, we have to put more chemicals to get more products. When it comes down to animals I find the story even more dramatic; these animals do not see the day light, they walk on cement and that is if they are not in a cage that is exactly their size and which prevents the animal from moving during its life time. They do not eat, they are fed through a tube that holds a combination of hormones, because obviously we do not have time to wait for them to grow; some animals even die during the feeding process because the machine that pumps this mixture does not differentiate from smaller to bigger animals chocking some of them to death.
There are also classifications of vegetarians that are not really vegetarians, in those you can find: pesco-vegetarians, pollo-vegetarians, semi vegetarians, and/or flexi vegetarians; this last category “flexi vegetarians” refers to people who eat less meat, however I share the opinion of Ryan, author of the blog in www.vegblog.org flexi vegetarians eat less meat than who? Most people? Themselves? Before?
Another of the issues that come up when people become vegetarian is their health. Met eaters think that a vegetarian diet lacks many of the nutrients and vitamins found in animals and needed by the body, and this could be true. Following a vegetarian diet is not just not eating meat there are other things that come with it that have to be under consideration, the body needs protein, vitamin B, zinc, calcium and the biggest source of these are in animal products; so it is true, if a person decides to become vegetarian but does not have enough information and follows a diet where he or she just removes animal products, the body will suffer an unbalance and ultimately will cause more problems to the person than eating meat would. Vegetarianism is not about eating just bread, pastas rice and potatoes. According to www.wikipedia.com “Studies by Harvard University as well as other studies conducted in the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and various European countries, have confirmed that vegetarian diets provide more than sufficient protein intake as long as a variety of plant sources are available and consumed.” Many legumes, vegetables, fruits and nuts provide vegetarian people with the right nutrients. Vegetarian diet has many advantages; studies have shown that vegetarian people have the longest longevity and that a diet low on animal fat decreases the risk of cancer.
Whatever is the reason for someone to be a vegetarian, there is a lot more to it than just not eating meat. Vegetarian people are not radicals or rebellious like I have heard and they are not trying to put a mask on to hide what they really are. Being vegetarian is something similar to choosing a religion based on different beliefs, and if we all learn to accept, tolerate and understand our differences we could all be a strong force. Together we do more than enough against each other, and in a world so full of diversity it is more interesting to talk to people who behave differently. Just like John F. Kennedy said: “If we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity.”
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Wikipedia. Online encyclopedia.
Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarian
2. Eco-portal. Online ecological and natural blog.
Available from: http://www.ecoportal.net/content/view/full/53652
3. Voiceless. Online organization.
Available from: http://www.voiceless.org.au/Get_Informed/Factory_Farming/Factory_Farming.html#fn1
4. Classifications of Vegetarians.
Available from: http://www.vegblog.org/archive/2004/10/26/classifications-of-vegetarians
5. Wisdom Quotes. Diversity quotes. John F. Kennedy Quotes.
Available from: http://www.wisdomquotes.com/cat_diversity.html
Matthew Lujan
7/5/08
English 1B
Essay #3- Argument of Defintion Rough Draft
Homosexuality is a Psychological Disorder
Throughout our adolescence and into our teen years, family upbringing has proven to be vital in how we are shaped and formed today: for example certain toys we are able to play with, the television shows we can watch, or the certain kids we can hang out with. Certain Psychological factors have led to a direct correlation in homosexuality in humans leading to their embarrassment of their sexual orientation. The Western theories of sexuality and gender have proven to be problematic in relation to non-Western cultures. Homosexuality is a byproduct of various psychological and social factors that contemporary Western practices have shaped the sexual orientation of the individual at an early age and lead to the adverse effects of “staying in the closet.”
People have always wondered where homosexuality stems from. This social debate is everlasting, and new evidence seems to be evolving every year. Research science has pointed to homosexuality being caused as a biological gene factor conceived at birth. "To date, no researcher has claimed that genes can determine sexual orientation. At best, researchers believe that there may be a genetic component. No human behavior, let alone sexual behavior, has been connected to genetic markers to date...sexuality, like every other behavior, is undoubtedly influenced by both biological and societal factors." (APS) The science journal has also stated a lack of insufficient evidence in the support of homosexuality directly linked to a particular gene. “The interaction of genes and environment is much more complicated than the simple "violence genes" and intelligence genes" touted in the popular press. Indeed, renewed appreciation of environmental factors is one of the chief effects of the increased belief in genetics' effects on behavior. The same data that show the effects of genes also point to the enormous influence of non-genetic factors.” (Science
Many stories adapted from homosexuals are closely related. They felt repressed when they were young and how their parents, whether a single mom or dad, raised them to be a man’s man. For example, they were only allowed to play football instead of attempting an arts and crafts class or a slightly less physical sport. They were given only Tonka Trucks, watch Batman, and play with army men. All of these young men felt inferior to their parents, ashamed of what they are now because of how they were raised and how their parents will think of them. Ultimately this has kept many of the homosexuals in the closet for so many years.
As a result, this leads to a repressed childhood thus shying away from the truth of their homosexual orientation. As the son grows into a young adult, the presence or absence of the father will either solidify or confuse his sense of identity, most especially his sexuality. If this is the case, depriving the son of the availability of the father will leave him in a vulnerable position of not having a confident and rich model of manhood, not having a clear and understandable model exemplifying culturally accepted male traits. (Moberly) Therefore certain environmental and psychological factors play a key role in the sexual orientation of the child. Dr. Steven Goldberg of the American Psychological Society testifies "Virtually all of the evidence argues against there being a determinative physiological causal factor and I know of no researcher who believes that such a determinative factor exists...such factors play a predisposing, not a determinative role...I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors." (Goldberg) This is true in that the majority of instances, parents of these homosexual boys end in divorce. The parents are usually not on talking terms and the family possesses poor communication skills. A parent who lacks the skills of teaching their child how to communicate their feelings is doing their child a disservice. Their child in turn is confused on the meaning of love and feelings as a whole, and turn to homosexuality as a way to repress their feelings of self-worth. Eventually they keep their homosexual orientation hidden in the hopes of not being cast off from their parents. Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover states, “Like all complex behavioral and mental states, homosexuality is...neither exclusively biological nor exclusively psychological, but results from an as-yet-difficult-to-quantitate mixture of genetic factors, intrauterine influences...postnatal environment (such as parent, sibling and cultural behavior), and a complex series of repeatedly reinforced choices occurring at critical phases of development.” (Satinover) A father who places that much burden and pressure on his son is repressing his child’s emotions. The father’s direct approach to a boy being a macho man can have damaging effects on the child. They will always feel in the shadow of their father, and not want to let him down.
In conclusion, homosexuality is simply not a chosen lifestyle, but I believe one that is handed down from certain environmental and psychological factors that have kept homosexuals confused of their sexual orientation and in the closet for so long. Though science has not yet proven a particular gene traced to the explanation of homosexuality in an individual, we can only come to the conclusion that certain psychological and socioeconomic upbringing play a major role in homosexuality.
Works Cited
Book:
Signorile, Michael 2003 Queer in America. University of Wisconsin
Levay, Simon 1999 City of Friends: A portrait of the Gay and Lesbian Community in America. The MIT Press
J. Satinover, M.D., 1996 Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Magazine:
C. Mann, 1994 "Genes and behavior," Science 264:1687, pp. 1686-1689
Website:
www.the-aps.org, American Physiological Society
Ruchi Lamba (ruchi_lamba@hotmail.com)
DW#8 Essay #3 - Argument of Definition
Internet is a Political Sphere (Rough Draft)
People who accuse today’s young generation of apathetic political attitudes are simply looking for signs in the wrong place. In the past, political activism was enacted through protest marches, college strikes and songs that united an entire generation. Today, political activism and participation, especially among the youth, occurs on the Internet. As a result, the very definition of the Internet has changed. It is no longer just a means of sharing files, and needs to be recognized as a powerful political sphere where intense political activity takes place (Freedictionary.com). Since the Internet allows its participants gather and engage in political dialogue, clarify social values, challenge power and mobilize political movement – all of which are intense political activities, it is clearly a political sphere.
Today, politics is a profession that aims to create and control messages instead of allowing for a participatory society. Outside the Internet, politics has become a process of closure, of exclusion through the control and manipulation of media messages. The natural formation of collective thought and the eruption of citizens into decision-making is a rare event in today’s stage-managed theatre of politics. This is an age where politics is a spectacle which might be a little entertaining at times, but it is certainly not enticing.
Internet does not have these barriers, and this equity helps it fulfill one of the major criteria of a political sphere. Internet allows for greater participation and therefore the politics on the Internet is real because it is somewhat protected from the orchestration of political kingmakers. Websites and blogs expand the scope of politics, allowing people to take up their own agendas, and highlight important issues. Political activism on the Internet is not partisan in the sense of being centered around support for a particular political party. It is more concerned with the administration of things rather than with class struggle or competing some social visions of capitalism or communism. It is a place where poltical question don’t just get reduced to economics, and new ideas and solutions find expression.
One of the other ways in which the Internet allows itself to be defined as a political sphere is that allows its participants to challenge power structures. On the Internet, the powerless and the powerful have an equal voice allowing the powerless to talk back to power, and challenge many of the tired myths which sustain the closed and self-referential world of politics. In the mainstream, social change is limited to shifts in social identity and the only way of making a change is by attempting to join a closed political process and putting the firewall up so nobody else can get in. Internet, on the other hand, allows the personal to become political giving its participants the right to push their private lives into the public sphere. This creates a whole new political dimension, a dimension that is much broader in scope and far more collective. It goes beyond the guarded and repetitive ideologies uttered at a Republican or Democratic party branch meeting in a college. It pushes new limits, and allows an almost complete freedom from censorship.
The interactivity feature of the Internet also fulfils one more criteria of being a political sphere and that is through allowing the greatest negotiation of social values. Unlike print, radio or television, the Internet allows for a sense of immediacy and anonymity making the political process more wired, interactive and increasingly, global.
It is time for the media, and for politicians, is to wake up to a social and political revolution that is well underway. It is not on the streets. It is on the new political sphere known as the Internet.
Felicia Lubienski
English 1b
DW#8 Argument rough draft
Babybronco26@yahoo.com
Cheerleading is a Sport
When some people think of cheerleading, they think of dumb blondes, annoying girls who are at football games that yell “Go Team!” Have you every thought of it as a sport? Well many will argue whether it is or not. Here are some reasons why cheerleading should be a sport. First of all, word sport means: “Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged competitively,” according to dictionary.com. The question that needs to be answered is does cheerleading fit under that category? Cheerleading is however not considered a real sport. It is said to be a sport in the future, but not now because some squads do not compete, according to about.com. However, there are many types of cheerleading squads; such as an All Star Team, High School Team, Pop Warner Teams, All American Teams, Professional Teams, and even College teams. Cheerleading is not only for girls and women, but for boys and men. It is a co-ed “sport” that can be very competitive, so why would it not be considered a sport?
According to Valerie Ninemire, a journalist for about.com, cheerleading is mostly defined as “Act of leading organized cheering, as at sport events.” In her article, she is giving the purpose of cheerleading and defines the word sport and uses criteria to show why cheerleading does not fit into the definition. She also states that cheerleaders have to be as strong as football players, as poised as a dancer, and as flexible as the best gymnast. “They are athletes by every word of the definition,” Valerie states. However she does not understand why cheerleaders need to be defined as an official sport. To most cheerleaders however, it is not about being defined as a sport, it is about being labeled as girls who just jump up and down yelling “Go Team!” This is wear the argument comes into play for cheerleaders because they are just as athletic as any other sport and want the respect every other sport gets.
A few examples of competitive cheerleading teams are, All Star Teams, Co-ed College Teams, Pop Warner Teams, and even some High School and All Girl College Teams. The things that make these types of teams different from the others are that they are all very competitive types of cheer. When they compete, it is not once or four times a week, it is three or four months out of the year, however they can get into as many competitions as they would like. However it is not just those three or four months, they train all year long, until those months come along. It takes just as much hard work and dedication to be a cheerleader, just like it does in any other sport. These teams travel all over, just like any other sport. They have huge crowds, just like any other sport. They even have people cheering them on, just like any other sport. This is what makes it a sport.
Cheerleading teams that do not fit into the criteria of being a sport are those who do not compete. Some squads are just made to make the crowds happy. For example professional football and basketball teams, they have cheerleaders; those cheerleaders don’t follow the definition of competitive because they do not compete against the other professional teams. Another example would be high school teams who just have the sport at their school to be a club and go to the football and basketball games just to entertain the crowds. Therefore, these few teams that are left are what are not allowing the rest of the cheerleading teams to be considered a “sport.”
Although all cheerleading teams are almost the same, there are some differences. The similarities between an All Star team and a Co-ed College team, is that they are both very competitive and put long hard hours into every routine they come up with. The difference between the two is that the college team still cheers at football and basketball games; when the All Star teams do not, their main focus at all times are the competitions. The similarities between competitive and noncompetitive cheer is the same, but also so different at the same time. Just because a team does not compete does not mean they do not have the dedication and love for the “sport,” it just means they either cannot afford it, or their schools will not let them. A non competitive team could have worked on just as hard of a routine as a competitive one, they just use theirs for a halftime at the football or basketball games or even pep rally’s.
The characteristics to be considered an athlete are, just like stated above in the definition, being a physical activity, having rules, and being competitive. Cheerleading has every part in being a physical activity. They run, stretch, warm up, just like any other team. They stunt, which is almost as physical as you can get. Throwing girls that are their same size in the air is not an easy task, it takes a lot of physical and mental strength. Although not all cheerleading teams are just all girl, they have some that are co-ed and have an advantage of having the guys be the ones to throw the girls in the air. However that is still physical shape. It does not matter that the guy is bigger than her, but they have to have a connection and trust one another in order to get a partner stunt to work safely.
Cheerleaders also have rules just like any other sport. They have to go to all the basketball and football games if they are a school sport, they have to show up to every practice otherwise they will be booted off or not allowed to participate in that routine, and they have to be in good enough shape to do the things they do. They also have strict rules when being in uniform; which can be anything from not drinking alcohol to not holding hands with a significant other, which pretty much goes for every other sport as well, while in uniform. That leads to another rule, they have to be in the exact uniform at all times, everything from the ribbon in their hair to the shoes on their feet must be the same at competitions.
When it comes to being competitive, cheerleaders are far worse than any football team and their rival. Even though most cheerleaders are not competitive, the ones that are, are very dedicated and proud of what they do. Cheerleading competitions are not like any other sport. There are up to one hundred teams going for the first place trophy. They have to go through preliminaries, sometimes even second preliminaries, Simi-finals, and finals, just like any other sport; they just go through it in a few days instead of six or eight months. The competitions are very strict on uniform and the members of each team being exactly the same. Competitions are intense and exciting to watch, there are even people cheering on the cheerleaders. Believe it or not, cheerleading is also available to watch on ESPN. They say everything on ESPN is considered a sport, so why is cheerleading on it if it is not a sport?
In conclusion, cheerleading is a sport. It has every aspect in the definition “sport” and more. Cheerleaders are not getting the respect and support they need, and yes, maybe it is that word they need to be satisfied. Although every cheerleader knows he or she is an athlete, they just deserve to have the rightful world to show it. There are many different types of cheerleading teams which is great and it allows this “sport” to be very versatile. Cheerleaders are competitive, have rules and guidelines which they follow, and they are physical, just like any other sport.
http://cheerleading.about.com/od/skillsandabilities/a/031002a.htm
Lara Hafen (larahafen@gmail.com)
Argument of Definition - Rough Draft
Richard Nixon was Liberal
Everyone knows Richard Nixon. His presidency has surpassed the realm of textbooks and dry PBS biographies and seeped into popular culture: shaking hands with Elvis, “I am not a crook”, the arms upraised “double V”, Watergate, Hollywood movies. He is the prototypical bad republican, demonized as the downfall of the office of the presidency, the only president to have ever resigned. Most people would be surprised to find out that Nixon’s domestic policies would include him in a class of politicians along the likes of Hillary Clinton, Al Gore and Jimmy Carter. Richard Nixon was liberal.
First we must consider what it means to be liberal. Paul Starr, a self-described liberal and Professor of sociology and public affairs at Princeton University, declares that liberalism is concerned primarily with providing “broader social protections.” He defines these social protections as civil rights, environmental regulation, labor regulation. A liberal is concerned with human rights, civil rights, protecting the environment, and ensuring a basic standard of living for all Americans, including and especially, minorities, the aged, and the young. Political areas that are generally considered to be the area of liberals include protecting the environment, providing healthcare rights, economic policies to protect the aged, the young, and the poor, policies to assure basic human and civil rights.
Liberal politicians exhibit these ideals by pursuing specific public and political policies. While liberal politicians tend to have concrete records of uniformly supporting liberal ideals - such as promoting healthcare, protecting the environment, and supporting civil rights initiatives - certain politician’s best illustrate and embody different liberal policies. Hillary Clinton is famous for her national healthcare policies, both from her time as First Lady as well as during her 2008 presidential campaign. Al Gore is famous for his environmental policies. He starred in ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, a documentary which has been the defining movie for the environmental movement. In 2007, Al Gore was awarded half of the Nobel Peace prize for his efforts to fight global warming. The press release announcing his Nobel Peace Prize referred to him as “an environmental politician.” Jimmy Carter is a human rights advocate. He has made human rights his personal mission. The mission statement of his charitable foundation is, “Committed to advancing human rights and alleviating unnecessary human suffering. “All of these politicians’ policies have exhibited strong support of civil rights, environmental protection, broad healthcare access, and protection of the disadvantaged including the poor, the aged, the young and minorities.
It is fair to call Richard Nixon a liberal because of specific political policies he proposed and pursued. Many people would be surprised to find out that Richard Nixon proposed national healthcare. His was a comprehensive health care plan that would have mandated all American employers offer health insurance to their employees and would have provided government healthcare coverage to the poor, the young, and the self employed (Woolley and Peters) . Richard Nixon is also notable in his human rights efforts. Most notable is his policy on Native Americans. Nixon is the president who not only ended the policy of termination, but ended ethnocide against the Native Americans (Hoff 27-28). A leader of the Navajo Tribe has said of Nixon, he is the “Abraham Lincoln of the American people” (qtd. in Barra). He also began to make bold actions for redress – to continue federal aid to the Native Americans, to ensure self-determination for Native Americans to spend federal aid as they saw fit, and went so far as to return land to the Native Americans (Hoff 31-33). On the issue of civil rights, Richard Nixon successfully used busing to significantly decrease segregation in southern schools, and made advances in promoting affirmative action by proposing and implementing The Philadelphia Plan. Richard Nixon advanced environmentalism by creating the Environmental Protection Agency and adding important amendments to the Clean Air Act of 1970. He also signed into existence the Endangered Species Act (Small 198-200). Nixon created Supplemental Security Income that guaranteed an annual income for the disabled and elderly, introduced the Cost of Living Index to adjust Social Security payments for inflation and proposed a federal minimum guaranteed income in the form of the Family Assistance Plan (Wicker 532-533).
It is important to argue that Richard Nixon was liberal because it raises the question of whether labels are always accurate and whether the media is always honest and well-thought in its appraisals. We have to apply critical thinking skills and not rely on the popular media to tell us the truth. How well do political parties describe a candidate’s views and policies? I think we need to get past the ease of labels and begin to judge our politicians by their words and actions. Richard Nixon’s true presidential record was a surprise.
Some might argue that Richard Nixon was not liberal enough to be considered liberal. This statement suggests that being liberal is not only a quantifiable measure but somehow absolute; either you’re liberal or you’re not. I think this is as dangerous a statement as making good and bad quantifiable and absolute. If we look at Richard Nixon’s Domestic Policies we find a record that is qualitatively a liberal breakthrough. Many of his policies and proposals were groundbreaking and foundational to liberal beliefs. To deny Richard Nixon the definition of liberal is to deny a piece of his legacy. Many experts have gone as far to acknowledge Richard Nixon as a liberal.
Richard Nixon’s domestic policies put him solidly in the category of liberal. His policies as president significantly acted to protect the environment, provide economic protection to the disadvantaged, make healthcare a guaranteed and accessible right and further human and civil rights in foundational and significant ways. Hopefully this argument of Richard Nixon expands people’s view of politics, party labels, and media image. Richard Nixon was liberal.
Works Cited
Barra, Allen. “Nixon Knows Best.” Salon.com 15 June 2007. 8 July 2008. http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/06/15/richard_nixon/print.html.
Hoff, Joan. Nixon Reconsidered. New York: Basic Books, 1994.
Mason, Robert. Richard Nixon and the Quest for a New Majority. Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press, 2004.
Small, Melvin. The Presidency of Richard Nixon. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1999.
Wicker, Tom. One of Us: Richard Nixon and the American Dream. New York: Random House, 1991.
Wicker, Tom. To the Best of My Ability: The American Presidents. Ed. James M. McPherson. First American ed. New York: Dorling Kindersley, 2000.
Woolley, John, and Peters, Gerhard. “Richard Nixon: Special Message to the Congress Proposing a Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan.” The American Presidency Project. 8 July 2008. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=4337.
Tammy L Wood
[dw#8] Essay #3 – Argument of Definition
Rough Draft
Higher oil prices spur inflation which causes the stock market to drop. This leads to the Federal Reserve to push interest rates up, which in turn can cause credit cards, car loans and mortgages to become more expensive. With the cost of oil at an all time high, the stock market has taken a beating. In a report from ConsumerReports.org, it states the gas prices have risen from $2.96 per gallon in February of 2008 up to $4.08 in June of 2008. The high cost of gasoline has not just affected transportation, but also how much the population is going to be able to spend on other items which in turn will affect the economy. With inflation on the rise, the U.S. dollar is becoming less valuable. The depreciating U.S. dollar has pushed oil prices up, which are based in part on the dollar.
In an article written by Robert Siegel of the Hourly News Summary he states, “When oil goes up, bonds go up because growth slows.” However, this is not the same for stocks. “Higher oil prices are an unambiguous negative for the stock market.” Higher oil prices raise production costs and leave customers spending less on other items. Both of these issues undermine corporate earnings, which are the key to stock prices. He also said, “The U.S. financial markets took a tumble Friday on the news that the oil prices hit another new record high.” Our gas pump prices fluctuate daily which causes a constant rise and fall in the stock market. We witness this daily.
In an article on the internet site of Call Writer, John Brasher states that prior to 1970, oil prices remained stable throughout most of the twentieth century. This was due to the combination of production and price controls. Ever since the Yom Kippur War in 1973, petroleum production and prices shifted to OPEC. Since then, oil prices have been looked upon like the prices of other commodities.
So, why is there such an increase in oil costs? Worldwide demand for oil has increased. Wikipedia.org states that “World crude oil demand grew an average of 1.76% per year from 1994 to 2007, with a high of 3.4% in 2003 -2004.” When there are high demands, there are high prices. It is also stated the demand has increased because of human population growth. World population grew faster than oil production causing a great demand for more oil. Also, the oil supply has slowed down. More demand, less supply, thus rising cost of fuel.
The London Khaleej Time News on line states that the U.S. is not the only country whose stock market is affected by the rising cost of oil. They stated that European stocks fell as oil prices shot to record levels, but that there were greater losses in other countries due to the weak U.S. economy. It also stated that Asian trading in Tokyo was down. “The fall in the U.S. stock market caused by surging crude oil prices – brought on sell off in Asia. The market has been and will be reflecting in trading.” Here are the facts that oil does affect our stock exchange and will continue to do so, thus controlling our economy and our very livelihood. The Khaleej Times also said, “Concerns that the rising energy cost will fuel inflation and lead to higher interest rates worldwide, putting the brakes on global economic growth.”
I know that this is not something new or unheard of; I just feel that we are helpless in trying to be able to control it. Are we to just stand by and watch our economy continue to fall apart? Why do we allow other countries to control out destiny as a Nation? I find all of this very frustrating. As a nation, we need to develop immediate plans to force this downward trend to at least come to a plateau if not an upward climb. We need to take control once again and become a stronger nation. Jobs should be brought back to the states to support the much needed job pool. Perhaps if we can produce more in our country and keep our money here instead of overseas, our economy might just be able to turn around before it gets too late.
Bibliography
1. Call Writer. Online
Available from: http://www.callwriter.com/newsletter/howiolaffectsstockprice.htm
2. Wikipedia. Online
Available from:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oilpriceincreaseof2004-2006
3. Hourly News Summary of July 0, 2008
Available from:http://www.npr.ort/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91252459
4. Khaleej Time Online News, London
Available from: http://www.khaleejtimes.com/displayarticle.asp?xfile=data
5. New York Times. Online
Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/business/15cnd-econ.html?ref=business
Debbie K. Maxwell
Eng 1B #12215
Essay: [dw#8] Essay #3 Argument of Definition
July 9, 2007 Rough Draft
OVER THE LAST THREE DECADES, fast food has infiltrated every nook and cranny of American society. Citizens in our country eat too much, and are eating on the run. Statistics are showing that obesity is at an all time high. Fast-food restaurants are mob-scenes for breakfast, lunch and dinner and every moment in between. These restaurants seek to make a profit, doing as little as possible to provide a healthy diet for Americans. Most fast food is delivered to the restaurant already frozen, canned, dehydrated, or freeze-dried. A fast food kitchen is merely the final stage in a vast and highly complex system of mass production. IN-N-OUT Burger prides itself in supplying its customers with the highest quality in freshly prepared food, and is an idyllic example of a healthy fast-food restaurant. By defining what healthy fast food entails, examining the ideals that this company possesses, in addition to analyzing the basic foods that make up their menu, it will become clear that this company truly deserves the title of being a healthy fast-food restaurant.
The concept of healthy fast-food is sometimes perceived as an oxymoron, but has actually become a reality in our nation. The characteristics that make up this ideal consist of freshly cooked products and high quality ingredients with the benefit of quick and efficient service. When consumers read about human fingers being discovered in chili, burgers being carelessly dropped on the floor, and a lack of hairnets in the workplace, it is comforting to know that there are still fast-food companies that aspire to a higher level of quality concerning the health aspect of their product. Providing fresh, pure ingredients prepared in a controlled environment that go over and above national health standards is one of the primary attributes of a healthy fast-food restaurant. This commitment to quality is becoming a rarity in this industry; however, there is still one restaurant in particular that maintains an ongoing desire to continually exceed expectations for healthy fast-food.
IN-N-OUT Burger bases their belief system on the value that “quality is everything.” Quickly becoming one of the west-coast’s most prized tourist attractions, it has elevated itself to a position of respect within the fast-food eateries. Part of this commitment to quality involves a direct focus on the health aspects of the products served. Serving 100% pure beef “free of additives, fillers and preservatives” as well as old-fashioned buns made of slow-rising sponge dough consistently remain a high priority. The rest of the offered products are equally on the same high standard. Highest-grade potatoes shipped fresh from the farm are cut one at a time by dedicated employees and cooked in 100% pure, cholesterol-free vegetable oil. In addition, IN-N-OUT Burger takes the proper steps to ensure that the entire food process from beginning to end is completely controlled by highly skilled experts. At each restaurant location the quality continues where the ingredients are daily delivered fresh to the store and cooked individually as requested by each customer.
It is commonly known that competitors of IN-N-OUT are able to provide the mass quantities of product that they do by using alternative means of storing food on site. It is only too common to see the glaring red heat lamps and microwaves always in use within these competitive corporations. This is where IN-N-OUT stands separate from others in its field. No one will ever find a freezer, heat lamp, or microwave being used within an IN-N-OUT Burger’s impeccable kitchens. While competitors are forced to deal with the prospect of aged and sometimes uneatable products, IN-N-OUT, as previously stated, keeps a commitment to freshness which helps ensure a certain level of healthiness in every served meal.
Despite the popularity of this company, there are many who raise certain objections. Customers loyal to the competitors of IN-N-OUT may argue that the typical long lines of this fast-food restaurant detract from their ability to be quick, efficient with good service. In defense of this argument, the company puts as much emphasis on their employees as they do on their food. More specifically, each employee is well-trained to deal with the masses that frequent each location and consistently attempts to maintain efficiency. IN-N-OUT as a whole appears aware of the health crisis facing America and, like each individual employee, does their best to ensure that customers are provided with their food as quickly as possible. Another argument that has said against IN-N-OUT is the fact that their menu is limited to the point that it does not include products like salads that are typically used in healthy diets and served by its competitors. This argument has no basis whatsoever. Due to the fact that IN-N-OUT diligently strives to make the rest of their menu meet a certain healthy standard, they do not necessarily need to offer products like salads or fruit smoothies to make their menu more appealing. This also relates back to the argument criticizing the lengthy lines. By having a shorter menu, the process of purchasing food is able to be completed faster.
Through specifically defining what healthy fast food consists of, going over the ideals that IN-N-OUT keeps in priority, and refuting arguments posed against this company, it has been made apparent that this particular fast-food restaurant deserves to be labeled as healthy. IN-N-OUT Burger remains a well-respected example in the fast-food industry of being a company that supplies only the highest quality of fresh foods.
Citations:
Website:
IN-N-OUT Burger. “Quality you can taste.”
Copyright 2008 In-N-Out burger. http://www.in-n-out.com/freshness.asp
Newspaper on the Web:
Schlosser, Eric. “The Dark Side of the All-American Meal.”
(C) 2000 Eric Schlosser All rights reserved. ISBN: 0-395-97789-4
New York Times on the web, Fast Food Nation http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/schlosser-fast.html
Masashi Suda(masashi_suikoden@myway.com)
[dw#8]- Rough Draft
Video game, this word is well known to every people around the world and it is the one thing that the parents despise. Video game has been around for quite some time, since 1950’s when a man named William Higinbotham introduced his first tennis game in 1958. After the first video game was produced, as the year went by, people have made dramatic improvement in the video game graphics, where today the graphics of the video games are realistic as they can get. Every specific movement of the human body can be mimicked by using a technology called the motion capture device. Although there were many games created, using video games for educational purposes was just recently created.
There are many games today that are educational in their own ways. One game in particular called “Brain Age” for the Nintendo DS, basically tests the player with common knowledge as well as testing their memory, sight, and calculations, to tell what the players specific age of their brain and each day, the game tests the player with different methods to see how far the player has progressed. Another game in particular is “Brain Academy” which is for the Nintendo DS and Nintendo Wii. This game allows the player to test their knowledge, sight, speed, and memory. “Brain Academy” tells the players balance at their specific area and tells the player their strength and weaknesses at a specific area and from time to time the player is able to take a test that tests the player at every field on one test to see how far the player has progressed.
There are many other video games that are educational, such as Sudoku, which is used in most math classes to test the student’s math, memory, and knowledge in order to complete the squares by inputting numbers in the right spot. Henry Kelly says, game “is not about virtual football or skateboarding. Games would have to be created and evaluated with the goal of raising achievement. There's already an audience: More than 45 million homes have video-game consoles. "If we can't make the connection, shame on us” (The Seattle Times: Scientists say video games can reshape education, By Ben Feller). Many people, especially parents, might say that video games cannot be educational. That assumption is not all true. Sure there is some games that requires no thinking, but majority of the games requires players mind to be active at all time to plan strategy in first-person shooter games and knowing which weapons or technique to use at a specific opponent. According to the research by University of Rochester in New York, video game such as “Medal of Honor” trains the brain to better process certain visual information. Also “action video gamers tend to be more attune to their surroundings while performing tasks like driving down a residential street, where they may be more likely to pick out a child running after a ball than a non-video gamer. The research also suggests that action game playing might be a useful tool to rehabilitate visually impaired patients or to train soldiers for combat” (Video Games Boost Visual Skills, Study Finds, By John Roach).
Video game allows the player to be much more alert toward the environment around them and gamers tend to have more active minds than non-gamers. Video games has been around for many years and now in the 20th century, video game is used for educational purposes to allow kids to have be entertained and have fun at the same time. Also video game designers has started to create video games that is not only oriented toward kids and teenagers, but adults who have no interest in video games, to encourage them to play games by using education to their advantage.
Work Cited
Scientists say video games can reshape education; By Ben Feller
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/education/2003309887_videogames18.html
The First Video Game; http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/history/higinbotham.asp
Video Games Boost Visual Skills, Study Finds; By John Roach
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0528_030528_videogames.html
Lauren Kulick
DW# 8: Argument of Definition Essay (Rough)
“I will win the lottery. I can picture myself with the winning ticket, jumping up and down in my living room, throwing money in the air.” According to Rhonda Byrne’s The Secret, this dialogue could belong to you or me. It is not an uncommon idea, the power of visualization. Sports players use it all the time. “Be the Ball”. Philosophers like James Allen have touted the idea for years. Napoleon Hill applied the theory to finance. The Secret is a bestselling book that uses old ideas as its premise without asserting anything new. The Secret, by Rhonda Byrne is unoriginal literature.
The definition of unoriginal literature has two parts. The first, unoriginal, can best be understood by defining its opposite, original. To be original is to “belong or pertain to the origin or beginning of something,” to be “new, fresh, novel” (www.dictionary.com). For an object, person, or idea to be categorized or labeled as original, it would have to possess these qualities. In this case, involving a piece of literature, the piece of work would have to possess new ideas, unique thoughts on its particular subject and propose something new, even if it supports itself with something pre-established. For something to be defined as original does not place the restriction of absolute originality. A mathematical theory, for example, can use ancient principles of mathematics as support to form a completely original concept. Theories and advancements occur throughout the world daily. The aforementioned qualities being taken into consideration, the definition of unoriginal can be understood to be the exact opposite. Unoriginal things or ideas express nothing new, do not assert anything new, and are “trite” (www.dictionary.com).
The second part of the definition is literature. Literature can be defined as “writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features” (www.dictionary.com). The definition of literature requires written expression, but includes many forms. Literature can be type-written and bound or inked and tied. True literature also must embody an idea with “universal interest”. This requires that to be defined as literature, the work has to be understandable, interesting to at least some, and an idea lasting enough to be distributed over time. The definition of literature does not mandate certain subjects; it is not exclusive to fiction, poetry, or drama.
The Secret, by Rhonda Byrne, is a New Age book carried throughout the nation at most bookstores. It is an international bestseller and member of the Oprah Book Club. The Secret, despite its popularity, can be defined as a piece of unoriginal literature. The most obvious of the two part definition is literature. The Secret possesses the characteristics given by the definition of literature: written expression and connection with ideas that are permanent and universal (www.dictionary.com). The Secret is a bound piece of written expression. It is a book with cover and backing. It is an object that possesses Rhonda Byrne’s expression and ideas about the Law of Attraction. Her subject, the power of positive thinking and the Law of Attraction, are universal in nature. Many people enjoy, are interested in, and crave knowledge about how to better their lives. The Law of Attraction is a concept that appeals to people of all races, religions, ages and
sexes, thus defining it as universal. It can also be considered a permanent idea. The need for self actualization and the desire to improve one’s being is a concept that will not change with time.
The more abstract part of the definition is unoriginality. The criteria for unoriginality can be summed as: triteness, old ideas, and repetition. Byrne’s The Secret possesses all of these qualifications. The basic idea behind The Secret is the power of positive thinking. If you think positively and visualize something, then you can make it happen. Byrne suggests that if you think positively, you “become a magnet that pulls everything you want towards you” (http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2007-02-14-the-secret_x.htm). This concept, that Rhonda Byrne claims to be the “secret” that she discovered has been discussed in many other texts pre-dating her own. A few examples of these are As a Man Thinketh by James Allen (publication date 2006) and Think and Grow Rich, by Napoleon Hill (publication date ) (www.bn.com). Rhonda Byrne’s basic principle is that positive thinking will get you what you want. She makes no further assertion, no new thoughts about the subject. She simply repeats the previous thoughts about the Law of Attraction.
The Secret can be defined as many things: entertainment, a book, a bestseller, but original is not one of them. The Secret is a work of literature. It is a written expression of ideas. Rhonda Byrne’s ideas, however, are not new and do not expand on the original ideas for which her book is based. Based on the criteria and definition of the descriptors unoriginal and literature, The Secret can be defined as both. The Secret does not really have anything worthy of calling a “secret” since none of the thoughts are fresh, or
unknown. Can you keep Rhonda Byrne’s secret? I guess it doesn’t matter because everyone already knows anyway.
Tobacco Regulations are Prohibition Regulation
With the newly introduced, more intensive regulations of tobacco smoking the lawmakers are violating people’s fundamental rights of freedom and decision making, because they will make nearly impossible for people to buy and smoke their tobacco legally, thus creating an under-the counter market for the product. And also, the smoking regulations are in fact prohibition regulations of tobacco, because some under-the-counter market has already started and it will probably bring the blooming of underground groups. There’s a lot of controversy on tobacco whether being a drug or just a plant, and on its harmful effects, just like during the alcohol during the prohibition.
The difference between the characteristics of a fair-minded, righteous regulation and the issues behind the prohibition needs to be understood. If smoking becomes completely illegal it might cause the similar results that happened during the prohibition of alcohol, under-the-counter market and illegal groups that specializes in the tobacco market. The governments all over the world try to introduce the smoking regulations as just, fair regulations, but as a matter of fact they are on the right track on introducing the prohibition of smoking. Norway, New Zealand banned smoking in 2004, Italy in 2005, two years later Estonia, the United Kingdom and several other countries joined to the countries that prohibited the smoking of tobacco. The regulations are the prohibition of tobacco products, because it will make nearly impossible for people to buy and smoke their tobacco legally, thus creating an under-the-counter market for the product. Bhutan in South Asia was the first country that prohibited the sale and smoking of tobacco in early 2005. Ireland expanded their regulations of tobacco advertising to shops, which means that no tobacco advertisements can be placed in stores. It was also Ireland who was the first country in Europe passing a law which ensured that cigarettes are not visible in stores, thus creating literally the under-the-counter market of tobacco.
One can read articles on smoking restrictions, which mainly agree in the harmful effects of smoking, but disagree on how the tobacco market should be controlled. According to a Globe and Mail article cigarettes will disappear by the end of the year in most part of Canada. Convenience stores across the country are facing new rules on displaying cigarettes that require them to keep the packages behind closed doors or in drawers out of public view. The under-the-counter market just started, thus the results might not be seen at this point. However, the history of prohibition of alcohol, which started in a similar way, can give us a hint on what is going to happen, what problems may occur.
The regulations of tobacco smoking are also violating people’s fundamental rights of freedom. As an example, according to an Orange County Register article, the Laguna Beach City Council’s attempt to ban smoking from city parks failed because of lack of support. Mayor Tony Iseman wanted to broaden an ordinance already introduced by the council that prohibited smoking on public beaches, but according to another City Councilwoman, Elizabeth Schneider the new regulation “would infringe on people’s rights.” More and more county boards all over the United States and also in the United Kingdom approve strict ordinances against tobacco smoking. They say the new regulations are necessary for the health of the people, but they seem to forget about other issues, such as people’s fundamental rights of freedom, and making free decisions as long as they do not hurt anybody else of course. The City Council in Laguna Beach prohibited smoking in public beaches, which brought some great results in keeping the beaches clean and ensuring a healthy environment for everybody. In this case not just adults but children were involved, who must not be exposed to secondhand smoking. Many children are taken to the parks, and this can be a reason why city councils want to create wide non-smoking areas. Some regulations were in effect since the 1990’s to protect nonsmokers from the harmful effects of tobacco smoke, but the lawmakers became more rigorous regarding the issue under the pressure of activist groups in recent years. They are trying to ban cigarette smoke from everywhere which can be understandable because of the health issues. According to The Lancet, the medical journal of the United Kingdom, “tens of thousands of lives would be saved by making tobacco an illegal substance and possession of cigarettes a crime.” However, smokers group arguing against the proposed prohibition regulations saying that "like it or not, people choose to smoke, just as they choose to drink alcohol, eat certain types of food, or take part in extreme sports."
Although the restricting regulations, such as the one in Laguna Beach might be introduced with good intentions, I think it will not be effective in the long run. More actions need to be taken to prevent people starting to smoke, to support institutes that can help smokers quit, and to educate both smokers and nonsmokers to respect each other’s attitudes and preferences towards smoking habits. I, as a nonsmoker do think that smokers must have the right to have areas designated for smoking, but most importantly people should be more perceptive with each other regarding not just this matter, thus we could live peacefully with one another.
Bibliography
"Effort to Ban Smoking in City Parks Lacks Support." Orange County Register. 18 Oct. 2007. 7 July 2008 Available from: http://www.ocregister.com/news/city-containers-motion-1895662-smoking-council.
"Smoking Ban Proposed for England." BBC News. 16 Nov. 2004. 8 July 2008 Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4014597.stm.
"UK Ministers Urged to Ban Tobacco." BBC News. 5 Dec. 2003. 9 July 2008 Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3292979.stm.
W, Julian. "Canada's Controversial Cigarette Ban Pits Corner Stores Against Health Advocates." Now Public. 30 May 2008. 9 July 2008 Available from: http://www.nowpublic.com/health/canadas-controversial-cigarette-ban-pits-corner-stores-against-health-advocates.
Post a Comment