Blog 13 Jason Sylvester
The self assessment test shows that I am considered ENFJ, [extraverted intuitive feeling judging]. They have tremendous charisma by which many are drawn into their grand schemes. Many ENFJs have tremendous power to manipulate others with their phenomenal interpersonal skills and unique salesmanship. ENFJs generally believe in their dreams, and see themselves as helpers and enablers, which I believe to be quite true.
ENFJs are global learners . they see the big picture. Some can juggle an amazing number of responsibilities or projects simultaneously. Many have tremendous entrepreneurial skills.
ENFJs know and appreciate people. They are apt to neglect themselves and their own needs for the needs of others. They have thinner psychological boundaries than most, and are at risk for being hurt or even abused by less sensitive people. ENFJs often take on more of the burdens of others than they can bear.
The dynamic nature of their intuition moves ENFJs from one project to another with the assurance that the next one will be perfect, or much more nearly so than the last. ENFJs are continually looking for newer and better solutions to benefit their extensive family, staff, or organization.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
research paper
Jason Sylvester Research paper
Criminal Thinking.
What is it that causes a person to become a criminal? Central Florida Psychological consultants, Inc believe that there are eight criminal thinking patterns. Based on their research they find that offenders and ex-inmates do not think as a law abiding citizen would. Rather they engage in criminal thinking patterns. These patterns or thinking errors are the cornerstone to the foundation that offenders build upon.
The eight criminal thinking patterns are as follows. The first is mollification which means that lifestyle criminals seek to play down the seriousness of past criminal conduct or conflicts by blaming problems on external circumstances, making excuses for their behavior, pointing out unfairness in the world, or de-valuing their victims. The second criminal thinking pattern is called the “cutoff”. With practice, the lifestyle criminal eliminates normal feelings which deter the criminal action through a simple phrase [“forget-it”]. In some cases the offender will abuse drugs or alcohol to cutoff fear, anxiety, guilt, or other common deterrents to criminal activity. The third thinking pattern is entitlement. The lifestyle criminal believes that he is entitled to violate the laws of society and the rights of others by way of an expressed attitude of ownership, privilege, or by labeling wants and needs. The fourth is power orientation. Choosing power and control over self discipline and internal control, lifestyle criminals attempt to exert power and control over others. Consequently they feel weak and helpless when not in control of a situation, also known as [zero state] which consists of these beliefs, you are nothing, everyone else also believes you are worthless, your worthlessness will last forever and can never be changed. They attempt to alleviate this feeling by a style which criminals adopt called the power thrust which results in one of three things, manipulating, intimidating, or physically assaulting others. The fifth criminal thinking pattern is sentimentality like most people, the lifestyle criminal have an interest in being viewed as a nice guy. However this creates a serious dilemma, given the level of interpersonally intrusive activity they have engaged in. they may perform various good deeds with the intent of cultivating a heck of a guy or robin-hood image. Number six is super optimism experience has taught the lifestyle criminals that they get away with most of their crimes. This leads to a growing sense of overconfidence in which they believe they are invulnerable, and unbeatable. Ironically, this belief leads to their eventual downfall. Seven is cognitive indolence commonly known as mental laziness. As lazy in thought as in behavior, lifestyle criminals take short cuts through life which inevitably lead to failure, low self evaluation, and poor critical reasoning skills. The last is discontinuity. Lifestyle criminals have difficulty maintaining focus over time because of being easily influenced by events and situations occurring around them. As a result they have difficulty following through on initially good intentions. In addition to these thinking errors, specific criminal acts are affected by motives such as fear, anger/rebellion, excitement/pleasure, and greed/laziness. These motivations sometimes combine with criminal thinking patterns to produce a variety of maladaptive behaviors.
Criminal Thinking.
What is it that causes a person to become a criminal? Central Florida Psychological consultants, Inc believe that there are eight criminal thinking patterns. Based on their research they find that offenders and ex-inmates do not think as a law abiding citizen would. Rather they engage in criminal thinking patterns. These patterns or thinking errors are the cornerstone to the foundation that offenders build upon.
The eight criminal thinking patterns are as follows. The first is mollification which means that lifestyle criminals seek to play down the seriousness of past criminal conduct or conflicts by blaming problems on external circumstances, making excuses for their behavior, pointing out unfairness in the world, or de-valuing their victims. The second criminal thinking pattern is called the “cutoff”. With practice, the lifestyle criminal eliminates normal feelings which deter the criminal action through a simple phrase [“forget-it”]. In some cases the offender will abuse drugs or alcohol to cutoff fear, anxiety, guilt, or other common deterrents to criminal activity. The third thinking pattern is entitlement. The lifestyle criminal believes that he is entitled to violate the laws of society and the rights of others by way of an expressed attitude of ownership, privilege, or by labeling wants and needs. The fourth is power orientation. Choosing power and control over self discipline and internal control, lifestyle criminals attempt to exert power and control over others. Consequently they feel weak and helpless when not in control of a situation, also known as [zero state] which consists of these beliefs, you are nothing, everyone else also believes you are worthless, your worthlessness will last forever and can never be changed. They attempt to alleviate this feeling by a style which criminals adopt called the power thrust which results in one of three things, manipulating, intimidating, or physically assaulting others. The fifth criminal thinking pattern is sentimentality like most people, the lifestyle criminal have an interest in being viewed as a nice guy. However this creates a serious dilemma, given the level of interpersonally intrusive activity they have engaged in. they may perform various good deeds with the intent of cultivating a heck of a guy or robin-hood image. Number six is super optimism experience has taught the lifestyle criminals that they get away with most of their crimes. This leads to a growing sense of overconfidence in which they believe they are invulnerable, and unbeatable. Ironically, this belief leads to their eventual downfall. Seven is cognitive indolence commonly known as mental laziness. As lazy in thought as in behavior, lifestyle criminals take short cuts through life which inevitably lead to failure, low self evaluation, and poor critical reasoning skills. The last is discontinuity. Lifestyle criminals have difficulty maintaining focus over time because of being easily influenced by events and situations occurring around them. As a result they have difficulty following through on initially good intentions. In addition to these thinking errors, specific criminal acts are affected by motives such as fear, anger/rebellion, excitement/pleasure, and greed/laziness. These motivations sometimes combine with criminal thinking patterns to produce a variety of maladaptive behaviors.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
sylvester final
Final-Sylvester
Reading. Writing. Arithmetic. These have always been the great triumvirate of education and are still considered basic necessities. The skill of speaking could well have been added to these, but most of us were well on our way with our speech by the time we started school. The art of communication, whether it is through the spoken or written word, affects every aspect of our lives as humans. Through communication we can share and describe our experiences, ideas, thoughts, and feelings. We can become better critical thinkers and thoughtful listeners. We can improve our performance in school, on the job, in our interpersonal relationships, and we can learn to observe, appreciate, to question, and to suggest. Ultimately, we can shape and realize a more meaningful life. English Composition I, with its focus on reading and writing pertinent topical pieces, provides the necessary stimulus for one to think and write critically. Further, the course develops language, grammar, and punctuation skills and covers the various forms of writing, from creative to business.
We will be regaled with various forms of writing throughout our lives, and for this reason we need to be able to recognize these forms and understand their uses. We can witness someone’s personal writing, or create our own, and in the process examine the world around us. We can consume facts and be teased by the provocative thesis of a piece of academic writing. We can be entertained and educated by subject writing. We can view the process that blends fact and fiction and adds to that mix invention and imagination, and we will enjoy a piece of creative writing. We can self-study or discover other’s self-study in reflective writing, and we can communicate professionally with business writing. In all of this, we will take a journey, possibly to some place we have never seen.
While the written word can never replace face to face interaction, it can cement the understanding that comes from sharing our common struggle as humans. It has been well said that reading is to the mind what exercise is to the body. The use of words is one of the most effective ways of adapting to the ever changing human condition. It then stands to reason that the better control we have over our words, the better we can adapt and adjust in life. The words of the English language may be clothed in t-shirts, casual wear, or tuxedoes, but all have a purpose. Slang, informal English, and semiformal English all have their place whether written or spoken, and knowing the difference makes a difference. The combination and order of words along with the author’s voice can create clarity of understanding or perhaps a magical picture. Shakespeare described a leafless tree in winter as “bare, ruined choirs where late the sweet birds sang.” This is in direct contrast to a technical manual describing rack and pinion steering as “a small cogwheel gear, or pinion, that meshes with a larger cogwheel gear, or rack.” The knowledge of language will always help define the difference.
Robert Frost once stated, “Half the world is composed of people who have something to say and can’t and the other half who have nothing to say and keep saying it.” This course promoted critical thinking which allows understanding and free choice between good and not so good ideas. We were taught to read, listen, and write, and in the process we came to know something. We can take each good thought read, learned, and written and add it to the ultimate whole result of our lives. We will be well served by this experience of language, and if one were to disagree, just how would they do it?
Reading. Writing. Arithmetic. These have always been the great triumvirate of education and are still considered basic necessities. The skill of speaking could well have been added to these, but most of us were well on our way with our speech by the time we started school. The art of communication, whether it is through the spoken or written word, affects every aspect of our lives as humans. Through communication we can share and describe our experiences, ideas, thoughts, and feelings. We can become better critical thinkers and thoughtful listeners. We can improve our performance in school, on the job, in our interpersonal relationships, and we can learn to observe, appreciate, to question, and to suggest. Ultimately, we can shape and realize a more meaningful life. English Composition I, with its focus on reading and writing pertinent topical pieces, provides the necessary stimulus for one to think and write critically. Further, the course develops language, grammar, and punctuation skills and covers the various forms of writing, from creative to business.
We will be regaled with various forms of writing throughout our lives, and for this reason we need to be able to recognize these forms and understand their uses. We can witness someone’s personal writing, or create our own, and in the process examine the world around us. We can consume facts and be teased by the provocative thesis of a piece of academic writing. We can be entertained and educated by subject writing. We can view the process that blends fact and fiction and adds to that mix invention and imagination, and we will enjoy a piece of creative writing. We can self-study or discover other’s self-study in reflective writing, and we can communicate professionally with business writing. In all of this, we will take a journey, possibly to some place we have never seen.
While the written word can never replace face to face interaction, it can cement the understanding that comes from sharing our common struggle as humans. It has been well said that reading is to the mind what exercise is to the body. The use of words is one of the most effective ways of adapting to the ever changing human condition. It then stands to reason that the better control we have over our words, the better we can adapt and adjust in life. The words of the English language may be clothed in t-shirts, casual wear, or tuxedoes, but all have a purpose. Slang, informal English, and semiformal English all have their place whether written or spoken, and knowing the difference makes a difference. The combination and order of words along with the author’s voice can create clarity of understanding or perhaps a magical picture. Shakespeare described a leafless tree in winter as “bare, ruined choirs where late the sweet birds sang.” This is in direct contrast to a technical manual describing rack and pinion steering as “a small cogwheel gear, or pinion, that meshes with a larger cogwheel gear, or rack.” The knowledge of language will always help define the difference.
Robert Frost once stated, “Half the world is composed of people who have something to say and can’t and the other half who have nothing to say and keep saying it.” This course promoted critical thinking which allows understanding and free choice between good and not so good ideas. We were taught to read, listen, and write, and in the process we came to know something. We can take each good thought read, learned, and written and add it to the ultimate whole result of our lives. We will be well served by this experience of language, and if one were to disagree, just how would they do it?
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Blog#13-Campbell
Blog#13-Campbell
I found the results of the Jung Typology Test I took both interesting and informative. The results scored me as an ISTJ or as a distinctively expressed introvert, a slightly expressed sensing personality, a slightly expressed thinking personality, and a moderately expressed judging personality. According to the test, I am considered extremely dependable, highly responsible and watchful over those people and things in my domain. I am purported to be a rule follower, and I uphold and respect the standards of the day. I have no love for flourish or fanfare and am dedicated to my employers and family. And I accomplish all this in a quiet and purposeful manner.
On the positive side, I feel I am some of these things most of the time, but never all things all the time. I like to be in charge and follow SOP, but I can work under and take direction from some one I respect. I can be focused, organized, am able to work alone, like deduction, and have a clear work ethic. More than anything, I can most often see the whole, and because of this am realistic and exercise common sense.
On the negative side, I value common sense over feelings and often see that there is a right way, a wrong way, and then there is my way. I am often reluctant to accept new ways and ideas, and change frightens me. I am often very impatient, especially if processes stall or take too long. I rarely focus on future needs; I am the grasshopper to some one’s ant. I can be insensitive and have trouble adapting to other’s needs. A risk, even one carefully calculated, is a mine field of worry and stress for me. And there are times when I completely abandon the entire positive and just hunker down.
I have always turned to “doing” when I cannot easily get through a crisis; work your body and your mind will sort itself out. Well, I am not particularly happy with some of the findings. What I need to do is take a hard look, peel away some of the layers and compress the negatives into simple attainable goals. I will try to be open to possibilities, consider implications for other people, and embrace change. That seems like a good start.
I found the results of the Jung Typology Test I took both interesting and informative. The results scored me as an ISTJ or as a distinctively expressed introvert, a slightly expressed sensing personality, a slightly expressed thinking personality, and a moderately expressed judging personality. According to the test, I am considered extremely dependable, highly responsible and watchful over those people and things in my domain. I am purported to be a rule follower, and I uphold and respect the standards of the day. I have no love for flourish or fanfare and am dedicated to my employers and family. And I accomplish all this in a quiet and purposeful manner.
On the positive side, I feel I am some of these things most of the time, but never all things all the time. I like to be in charge and follow SOP, but I can work under and take direction from some one I respect. I can be focused, organized, am able to work alone, like deduction, and have a clear work ethic. More than anything, I can most often see the whole, and because of this am realistic and exercise common sense.
On the negative side, I value common sense over feelings and often see that there is a right way, a wrong way, and then there is my way. I am often reluctant to accept new ways and ideas, and change frightens me. I am often very impatient, especially if processes stall or take too long. I rarely focus on future needs; I am the grasshopper to some one’s ant. I can be insensitive and have trouble adapting to other’s needs. A risk, even one carefully calculated, is a mine field of worry and stress for me. And there are times when I completely abandon the entire positive and just hunker down.
I have always turned to “doing” when I cannot easily get through a crisis; work your body and your mind will sort itself out. Well, I am not particularly happy with some of the findings. What I need to do is take a hard look, peel away some of the layers and compress the negatives into simple attainable goals. I will try to be open to possibilities, consider implications for other people, and embrace change. That seems like a good start.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Final Exam-Wm Campbell
Final Exam-Campbell
What Are the Qualities of Good Academic Writing?
Writing is the most effective way to show that one really understands a subject and has made the subject a part of one’s thinking. Academic writing attempts to analyze collections of facts and thoughts, to organize the information, and to inform a particular audience. Good academic writing resounds with authority, or comes across as if the writer knows the subject. It speaks with a coherent voice, flowing from one point to the next. It also speaks with a clear voice as it must follow the standards of grammar, usage, and punctuation. In the end it is the product of a great deal of thought, understanding, careful planning, writing, and revising.
Careful study is to academic writing what imagination is to creative writing and what intuition is to reflective writing. The starting point of a piece, after choosing a particular subject, is the careful study and analysis of all the related facts. One must know and understand the facts well enough to tell the audience, “Here is what I understand.” One must know and understand the facts well enough to be able to ask the questions, Who? What? Where? When? Why? Why not? How? The answers to these questions should lead to a focus, a main point, or center of interest. Within the focus, the key problem or issue should come to the fore, and the direct way to approach the issue will become the purpose of the piece. This purpose should then be presented so as to inform, explain, compare, identify causes and effects, define, propose solutions, or argue for or against.
The form of the piece should be in traditional essay form, beginning with a thesis statement. The thesis statement should occur as early as possible in the introductory paragraph and should identify the specific part of the subject about which the piece is written. As stated previously, this will be the focus of the writing. This statement, or focus, should carry through the writing and should be a controlling vision that defines what will be said. The thesis statement should then be developed in successive supporting paragraphs in the essay body and must present details and explanations in an orderly way to make the often complicated ideas easily understood for the audience. The supporting paragraphs should make use of examples, facts, statistics, quotations, opposing views, and contrasting comparisons. They could also include judgment, criticism, persuasion, and argument. In a perfect world, the supporting paragraphs would answer the audience’s questions even as they form. The piece should end with a summary paragraph or conclusion which ties together all of the facts and might include solutions to issues. It should leave the audience with a clear and concise understanding of the topic discussed.
The writer’s voice and point of view should be consistent throughout the piece. The voice should be semiformal and avoid the use of slang terms or popular expressions. Words should be chosen for clarity and organized in an orderly and concise way. The third person point of view (he, she, they) should be used in all academic writing except when the writing focuses on personal experience.
Good academic writing does not happen by chance. It happens with a well conceived thesis, or focus, which comes from a well researched effort to identify, study, and analyze the facts of some appealing point of interest. It requires a holistic understanding of the related issues and the subsequent orderly, clear, and concise discussion of the purpose of the piece. It helps the audience to a deeper understanding of the topic and leaves them with something to think about and to question, perhaps keeping the premise of the piece alive long after it has been read.
What Are the Qualities of Good Academic Writing?
Writing is the most effective way to show that one really understands a subject and has made the subject a part of one’s thinking. Academic writing attempts to analyze collections of facts and thoughts, to organize the information, and to inform a particular audience. Good academic writing resounds with authority, or comes across as if the writer knows the subject. It speaks with a coherent voice, flowing from one point to the next. It also speaks with a clear voice as it must follow the standards of grammar, usage, and punctuation. In the end it is the product of a great deal of thought, understanding, careful planning, writing, and revising.
Careful study is to academic writing what imagination is to creative writing and what intuition is to reflective writing. The starting point of a piece, after choosing a particular subject, is the careful study and analysis of all the related facts. One must know and understand the facts well enough to tell the audience, “Here is what I understand.” One must know and understand the facts well enough to be able to ask the questions, Who? What? Where? When? Why? Why not? How? The answers to these questions should lead to a focus, a main point, or center of interest. Within the focus, the key problem or issue should come to the fore, and the direct way to approach the issue will become the purpose of the piece. This purpose should then be presented so as to inform, explain, compare, identify causes and effects, define, propose solutions, or argue for or against.
The form of the piece should be in traditional essay form, beginning with a thesis statement. The thesis statement should occur as early as possible in the introductory paragraph and should identify the specific part of the subject about which the piece is written. As stated previously, this will be the focus of the writing. This statement, or focus, should carry through the writing and should be a controlling vision that defines what will be said. The thesis statement should then be developed in successive supporting paragraphs in the essay body and must present details and explanations in an orderly way to make the often complicated ideas easily understood for the audience. The supporting paragraphs should make use of examples, facts, statistics, quotations, opposing views, and contrasting comparisons. They could also include judgment, criticism, persuasion, and argument. In a perfect world, the supporting paragraphs would answer the audience’s questions even as they form. The piece should end with a summary paragraph or conclusion which ties together all of the facts and might include solutions to issues. It should leave the audience with a clear and concise understanding of the topic discussed.
The writer’s voice and point of view should be consistent throughout the piece. The voice should be semiformal and avoid the use of slang terms or popular expressions. Words should be chosen for clarity and organized in an orderly and concise way. The third person point of view (he, she, they) should be used in all academic writing except when the writing focuses on personal experience.
Good academic writing does not happen by chance. It happens with a well conceived thesis, or focus, which comes from a well researched effort to identify, study, and analyze the facts of some appealing point of interest. It requires a holistic understanding of the related issues and the subsequent orderly, clear, and concise discussion of the purpose of the piece. It helps the audience to a deeper understanding of the topic and leaves them with something to think about and to question, perhaps keeping the premise of the piece alive long after it has been read.
Resume-Wm Campbell
William F. Campbell
149 Main Street, Edgartown, MA 02539
(508) 222-2222
_____________________________________________________________
Job Objective: Full time position as an Apprentice Plumber
Education: Chatham High School-Graduated, June, 1980
Cape Cod Community College (part time) 2002-Present
Mount Wachusett Community College (part time) 2006-
Present
Experience:
1999-Present County of Dukes County, MA
Maintenance, plumbing
Weekend and reserve cook
Responsible for job set up, ordering
Preparation of weekend and some weekday meals for
30 people, menu planning, ordering
1986-1999 Commercial Fisherman, Chatham, MA
First Mate aboard boat. Tended fish traps, weirs, long
Lines. Shellfished for clams, scallops, and quahogs.
Cleaned and prepared catch for sale to market
1984-1985 Ready Plumbing, Chatham, MA
Plumber’s helper
1982-1984 Whitely Plumbing, Chatham, MA
Plumber’s helper
1977-1980 Chatham Ford, Chatham, MA
Prep work and car detailer for new and used vehicles
References: Available upon request
149 Main Street, Edgartown, MA 02539
(508) 222-2222
_____________________________________________________________
Job Objective: Full time position as an Apprentice Plumber
Education: Chatham High School-Graduated, June, 1980
Cape Cod Community College (part time) 2002-Present
Mount Wachusett Community College (part time) 2006-
Present
Experience:
1999-Present County of Dukes County, MA
Maintenance, plumbing
Weekend and reserve cook
Responsible for job set up, ordering
Preparation of weekend and some weekday meals for
30 people, menu planning, ordering
1986-1999 Commercial Fisherman, Chatham, MA
First Mate aboard boat. Tended fish traps, weirs, long
Lines. Shellfished for clams, scallops, and quahogs.
Cleaned and prepared catch for sale to market
1984-1985 Ready Plumbing, Chatham, MA
Plumber’s helper
1982-1984 Whitely Plumbing, Chatham, MA
Plumber’s helper
1977-1980 Chatham Ford, Chatham, MA
Prep work and car detailer for new and used vehicles
References: Available upon request
Cover letter Wm Campbell
Cover letter-Campbell
149 Main Street
Edgartown, MA 02539
May 1, 2008
Mr. Peter Plunger
Plunger Brothers Plumbing
1632 Menhaden Pit Road
Oak Town, MA 02001
Dear Mr. Plunger:
I am a close acquaintance of your shop foreman, Bill Elbow, who mentioned in passing that you were looking for an apprentice who would like a long term job commitment. I am very interested in the position and have enclosed my resume which details my work experience.
I am aware that your business has and relies on an excellent reputation and word of mouth advertising for your customer base. My job experiences and references will describe my dedication to the tasks at hand and my ability to take direction.
Please feel free to contact me by phone (508-222-2222) any evening after 6:00 PM to arrange an interview. Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
William Campbell
149 Main Street
Edgartown, MA 02539
May 1, 2008
Mr. Peter Plunger
Plunger Brothers Plumbing
1632 Menhaden Pit Road
Oak Town, MA 02001
Dear Mr. Plunger:
I am a close acquaintance of your shop foreman, Bill Elbow, who mentioned in passing that you were looking for an apprentice who would like a long term job commitment. I am very interested in the position and have enclosed my resume which details my work experience.
I am aware that your business has and relies on an excellent reputation and word of mouth advertising for your customer base. My job experiences and references will describe my dedication to the tasks at hand and my ability to take direction.
Please feel free to contact me by phone (508-222-2222) any evening after 6:00 PM to arrange an interview. Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
William Campbell
Blog#14-Campbell
Blog#14-Campbell
The road to becoming a Master Plumber is a long one involving extensive on the job training and deep knowledge of local and state plumbing codes. The process begins with a willing interest in the craft and one’s subsequent hiring by a Licensed Master Plumber as a plumber’s helper. After the required trial period, a plumber’s helper can be considered an official Plumber’s Apprentice.
A Plumber’s Apprentice also must work under the tutelage of a Licensed Master Plumber for the required length of time. During this apprentice period, one must perform the day to day practical application of plumbing principles while learning the applicable local and state codes to prepare for the required written Journeyman Plumber’s exam. After the successful completion of the exam and license issuance, a Journeyman Plumber may take on work and apply for local permits independently but will be limited to no more than one employee working under him.
The Journeyman Plumber must again serve in that position for a period of time long enough to obtain a broad practical education in both residential and commercial plumbing practices and codes. After gaining sufficient knowledge, one may take the Master Plumber’s exam and upon successful completion, become a Licensed Master Plumber. A Master Plumber is not restricted to job types or to numbers of employees.
Plumbers are responsible for both potable water and waste water piping in residential and commercial applications. Potable water must be brought from the well or public water supply to the required fixtures in a structure and then piped out of the structure to an onsite septic system or public sewer system. Local and state codes dictate the types of materials and the attachment methods allowed. All plumbing must be inspected by local plumbing inspectors at the “rough in” stage first and a pressure test is conducted at this time to check for possible leaks. A final inspection is required when all the structure’s fixtures are hooked up to the supply and waste systems.
Today, most all homes are required to have a potable water system and a waste water system installed. People often wish to upgrade existing systems, and old fixtures and plumbing wear out necessitating replacement. There will always be a need for plumbers, and with their strong lobby and stiff licensing requirements, plumbers can earn an attractive living.
The road to becoming a Master Plumber is a long one involving extensive on the job training and deep knowledge of local and state plumbing codes. The process begins with a willing interest in the craft and one’s subsequent hiring by a Licensed Master Plumber as a plumber’s helper. After the required trial period, a plumber’s helper can be considered an official Plumber’s Apprentice.
A Plumber’s Apprentice also must work under the tutelage of a Licensed Master Plumber for the required length of time. During this apprentice period, one must perform the day to day practical application of plumbing principles while learning the applicable local and state codes to prepare for the required written Journeyman Plumber’s exam. After the successful completion of the exam and license issuance, a Journeyman Plumber may take on work and apply for local permits independently but will be limited to no more than one employee working under him.
The Journeyman Plumber must again serve in that position for a period of time long enough to obtain a broad practical education in both residential and commercial plumbing practices and codes. After gaining sufficient knowledge, one may take the Master Plumber’s exam and upon successful completion, become a Licensed Master Plumber. A Master Plumber is not restricted to job types or to numbers of employees.
Plumbers are responsible for both potable water and waste water piping in residential and commercial applications. Potable water must be brought from the well or public water supply to the required fixtures in a structure and then piped out of the structure to an onsite septic system or public sewer system. Local and state codes dictate the types of materials and the attachment methods allowed. All plumbing must be inspected by local plumbing inspectors at the “rough in” stage first and a pressure test is conducted at this time to check for possible leaks. A final inspection is required when all the structure’s fixtures are hooked up to the supply and waste systems.
Today, most all homes are required to have a potable water system and a waste water system installed. People often wish to upgrade existing systems, and old fixtures and plumbing wear out necessitating replacement. There will always be a need for plumbers, and with their strong lobby and stiff licensing requirements, plumbers can earn an attractive living.
Monday, April 28, 2008
blog 12 Jason Sylvester
Blog #12 Jason Sylvester
Should gay marriage be legal?
The issue of homosexual marriage has been hotly argued in recent years, as some states ban and others begin to permit same sex marriage. Supporters of gay marriage say that it is healthier for same sex partners and legitimizes relationships both socially and legally. The American public seems to be in the process of changing its mind toward a slightly revolted tolerance for the idea. It deploys two arguments. The first centers on principles of justice and fairness and may be thought of as the civil rights argument. The second is at once more personal and more utilitarian, emphasizing the degradation and unhappiness because of the denial of gay marriage, and also argues that once there is a legal establishment then there may be a social happiness that will flow from this. I personally am a heterosexual male and don’t know what it would be like to be a homosexual. I don’t understand what causes a person to be attracted to the same sex rather than the opposite. But this is not an issue of trying to understand sexual morality. It is an issue of whether two people of the same sex should be granted the same rights of marriage as those who are heterosexual. Some would like to believe that homosexuality is some sort of epidemic and that by legalizing gay marriage it may poison the minds of children. The truth is that homosexuality is not a new thing it did not just pop up out of nowhere because someone just decided to be defiant toward human nature. I am sorry but this is something that has been around since the beginning of time so I think its about time that we stop pretending that it will just eventually go away. Instead we should embrace homosexuality as part of our human nature and treat them as equals just as you would want all the same benefits in life if it were you who were born into homosexuality
Should gay marriage be legal?
The issue of homosexual marriage has been hotly argued in recent years, as some states ban and others begin to permit same sex marriage. Supporters of gay marriage say that it is healthier for same sex partners and legitimizes relationships both socially and legally. The American public seems to be in the process of changing its mind toward a slightly revolted tolerance for the idea. It deploys two arguments. The first centers on principles of justice and fairness and may be thought of as the civil rights argument. The second is at once more personal and more utilitarian, emphasizing the degradation and unhappiness because of the denial of gay marriage, and also argues that once there is a legal establishment then there may be a social happiness that will flow from this. I personally am a heterosexual male and don’t know what it would be like to be a homosexual. I don’t understand what causes a person to be attracted to the same sex rather than the opposite. But this is not an issue of trying to understand sexual morality. It is an issue of whether two people of the same sex should be granted the same rights of marriage as those who are heterosexual. Some would like to believe that homosexuality is some sort of epidemic and that by legalizing gay marriage it may poison the minds of children. The truth is that homosexuality is not a new thing it did not just pop up out of nowhere because someone just decided to be defiant toward human nature. I am sorry but this is something that has been around since the beginning of time so I think its about time that we stop pretending that it will just eventually go away. Instead we should embrace homosexuality as part of our human nature and treat them as equals just as you would want all the same benefits in life if it were you who were born into homosexuality
Research paper-CampbellResearch paper-Campbell
Research paper-Campbell
The Perfect Fish
In 1497, Giovanni Cabotto, better known as John Cabot, sailed to North America on a voyage of discovery at the behest of England’s King Henry VII. He landed on an island which he later called “New Found Land.” Cabot found the island quite desolate, but the offshore waters fairly teemed with fish. Because of Cabot’s glowing tales of the great quantity of fish and numbers of species off the northeast coast of the new world, European ship owners and investors would be ultimately rewarded with great wealth. (Mowat 182-183) Within a decade of Cabot’s voyage a seasonal fleet of fishing vessels plied the rich waters, and by 1517 there were reports of 150 European ships based in Newfoundland. These fishing vessels represented Breton, Norman, Basque, Spanish, Portuguese, and English interests. (Sedgewick 46) From Newfoundland, ships pushed west into the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, south east and offshore to the Grand Banks, then south to the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank, lying east of the land later to be named “New England” by Captain John Smith. During an exploratory voyage in 1614, Smith surveyed the coastline from the jutting peninsula, aptly named “Cape Cod” in 1602 by a previous British explorer, to the Penobscot Bay in Down East Maine. Smith was seeking gold and whales and found instead potential riches in the form of “an incredible abundance of most sorts of fish.” (Smith 9) Smith penned a book, soon after the voyage, describing his discoveries in detail. “Description of New England” was written largely to stimulate the colonization of “New England” and happened to be published at the time the Puritans, religious separatists, fled England to Holland and were searching for a new place to settle. Soon after hearing of Smith’s voyage, the Puritans petitioned King James to charter a fishing colony in the new land of Cape Cod. The Pilgrims sailed from Plymouth, England, landed on Cape Cod and established Plymouth Plantation in 1620. At the time, they possessed neither the tackle nor the skills necessary to take advantage of the teeming resources of fish and shellfish that surrounded them. Ironically, half the colonists died the first winter mostly of causes related to malnutrition. (Bradford 39)
The local Wampanoag Indians persuaded Tisquantum, or “Squanto” as he was known to the whites, to be an emissary to the Pilgrims. Captain John Smith brought Squanto, an ex-captive Native American, back from England who, upon his return, found his people completely wiped out by European diseases. Squanto, for his first mission in March of 1621, started teaching the colonists how to fish and forage, and by Thanksgiving “every family had their portion of cod, striped bass and other fish.” (Bradford, Winslow 26) What Squanto taught the colonists next set the stage for one of the most profound effects ever to impact the ecology of the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coastal waters. When the colonists began to establish gardens on what Squanto described as “old grounds,” he informed them they would have to plant fish as fertilizer along with their seeds in order to realize a successful production of crops. By the 1630’s the use of fish as fertilizer was common practice in the colonies. Thomas Morton, in “New English Caanan,” made a comparison of fish-fertilized crop production to non-fertilized production. He described a standard of a thousand fish per acre and stated, “An acre thus dressed will produce so much corne as three acres without fish.” (25) The identity of this fertilizer fish remained somewhat ambiguous for years and was often generally called “herring,” “shad,” “allize,” or “alewife.” It was not until the 19th Century that Europeans finally realized the fish was the Atlantic Menhaden, a separate and distinct species, and a fish by far the most abundant of all fish along the Atlantic seaboard.
The Atlantic Menhaden, Brevoortia tyrannus, received its common name from the Narragansett Indians, an Algonquin tribe. They called the fish Munnauhatteaug or “he who enriches the land.” (Williams 114) This name was later anglicized and corrupted to become the menhaden of today. The Abenaki Indians of coastal Maine called the fish “Pauhagen” which also means “fertilizer.” Pauhagen was soon corrupted to “Poghaden” then shortened to “Pogy” which exists today as one of the most common names for the menhaden in New England and along the Gulf coast. (Goode 11-12) Interestingly, the Dutch, as early as the 17th Century, recognized the menhaden as being different from other American fish probably for their knowledge of a fish of the same ilk that frequented the waters of the Netherlands. The Dutch referred to their fish as “Marsbanker” and attatched this name to the Atlantic Menhaden. This name soon became “Mossbunker” and was often shortened to simply “Bunker.” (Franklin 20) Bunker is the name still used extensively in the New York and New Jersey area where the Dutch first settled.
Menhaden are members of the herring family (Culpeidae) but are not true herrings (Culpea). They closely resemble the Atlantic Herring (Culpea barengus), the American Shad (Alosa scipidissima), the Alewife (Alosa pseudobarrengus), the Blueback Herring (Alosa aestivalis), and the Gulf Menhaden (Bevoortia patronus). (McPhee 16) The adult menhaden is a foot in length, blunt headed, with silver, brassy sides and belly, and a deeply forked tail. A prominent round dark spot behind the gill plate and irregular rows of smaller spots are key identifying features. All of these species are planktivores, meaning they feed exclusively on plankton. Each species has a multitude of rakers on their gills that strain and trap the plankton they feed on. The menhaden, taken as an individual, is not a particularly impressive fish. As H. Bruce Franklin aptly states, “Nobody will ever write a Moby Dick about a menhaden.” (34) What is impressive, though, is a huge school of menhaden. The school operates as a single entity, often far surpassing the biomass of the largest whale, as it swims, darts, dashes, and turns suddenly, all in perfect unison. While this schooling behavior serves as a confusing defense from predators, it is what makes the menhaden so vulnerable to the purse seine of today’s fishery.
Menhaden have four distinct differences that set them apart from herring, shad, and alewives. These differences combine to interact in a very complex way and define the importance of the menhaden.
First, and most crucial, menhaden consume phytoplankton or algae and bits of suspended vegetable matter. Almost all other related species forage on zooplankton or tiny drifting animals. The ecological significance of this is immense and only recently fully understood.
Second, huge amounts of phytoplankton are produced in the western Atlantic and in the Gulf waters, and menhaden have very little competition for this food source. This lack of competition and their extremely high biotic potential, or ability to produce young, allows menhaden to dwarf the populations of any other American fish. (Franklin 24) Female menhaden contain so many eggs that they have to continually spawn as they swim throughout much of the year, as their bodies would not be able to hold all the ripening eggs at once (Franklin 44)
Third, because of their abundance and richness of flesh, menhaden suffice as the primary prey for many species of predatory fish, birds of prey, and marine mammals.
Last, humans do not choose to eat menhaden as they do other members of the herring family. Menhaden are very bony, their flesh oily, and their outsides slimy and smelly.
It is probably ironic that the menhaden is found to be distasteful by humans. One must remember it was the Native Americans who first defined menhaden as “fertilizer” and used them to enrich marginal soils. Because of their abundance, and as America became more industrialized and grew away from subsistence agriculture, the menhaden was exploited by agribusiness as a commercial fertilizer. This new economic value and the fact they were not tasty gave them no status as a food fish, and the wholesale slaughter of their populations began shortly after the end of the Civil War. (Franklin 25) This population decimation was further driven as other commercial uses were discovered for the menhaden and the result had disastrous ecological consequences and created a complicated economical and cultural history. It would be the menhaden which ultimately led to the first awareness of the interdependence of species and their environment in the late 19th Century.
By the mid 1800’s the United States was the undisputed leader of the whaling industry and owned 75 percent, or over 750 vessels, of the world’s whaling fleet. Whale oil was needed to fuel the world’s dramatic increase in industrialism, and was used for illumination, lubrication, and a multitude of manufactured products. Baleen, the brush like filters found in the mouths of planktivore whales, was considered the plastic of the day and was used as corset stays and buggy whips (Franklin 56) During this period, whaling was the first truly industrialized fishery; yet, in less than 30 years it was dwarfed by the menhaden industry. (Goode 54) While there were many factors that contributed to the decline of whaling and the rise of the menhaden fishery, the bottom line was simply the bottom line. Whale oil was being replaced by recently discovered petroleum products and natural gas as early as the 1850’s. Then an ever cheaper substitute source became available, one who’s biomass far exceeded that of whales, whose proximity guaranteed short trips and not the protracted, dangerous whaling voyages that took years, and one that could be fully utilized unlike the whale whose carcass was discarded after oil from the blubber was extracted in the on board “try works.” The substitute was the menhaden, often referred to once as “the little whale,” whose flesh could be pressed for oil and the leftovers ground and dried for fertilizer. (Goode 56-57)
New Bedford, Massachusetts was the undisputed queen city hub of the American whaling fleet but was unable to carry this over to the menhaden fishery. In 1867, a long visioned sea captain, Elija Reed, was making a thriving living in the menhaden industry in the Penobscot Bay area of Maine. He sensed his local waters were being over fished, and as he was familiar with the Chesapeake Bay, he loaded his menhaden reduction equipment on two schooners and sailed to Virginia. Here he set up his business in the sheltered harbor of Cockrells Creek in the upper reaches of the Chesapeake. (Frye 34) In less than 20 years, there were dozens of menhaden oil and guano factories located at this site which had come to be known as Reedville and had grown into a major United States fishing port. (Frye 34) The relationship between Reedville and the menhaden does not stop here.
“I believe, then, that the cod fishery, the herring fishery, the pilchard fishery, the mackerel fishery, and probably all the great sea fisheries are inexhaustible; that is to say, that nothing we do seriously affects the number of the fish. And any attempts to regulate these fisheries seems consequently, from the nature of the case, to be senseless.” This shortsighted statement was made by Thomas Henry Huxley at The Fisheries Exhibition in London, England in the year 1883. Some nine years earlier in “The Earth as Modified by Human Action,” George Perkins Marsh sounded the alarm of the possible extinction of certain marine species and used the great slaughter of menhaden as evidence of man’s destructiveness. (!06-107) Interestingly, Marsh’s citation was used even before the menhaden reduction industry was going full force. That very same year and with the echoes of George Marsh’s dire warnings that we were dangerously modifying our environment still ringing, The New York times was extolling the amazing wonders of American technology with reference to the traps, pounds, heart-nets, weirs, fykes, and purse seines that were catching fish at alarming rates. (Franklin 74) Even at 25 years prior to the turnover to the 20th century, the question “Where have all the fish gone?” was being asked. (Franklin73) Commercial food fishermen of the time sided with recreational anglers and waged a verbal war with the menhaden reduction industry and the wealthy riparian landowners who owned the fixed nets and traps. The fishermen who plied the rivers for the rapidly disappearing anadromous species such as herring, alewives, shad, and salmon joined in the fight against the industry and riparian land owners. Over fishing, it has to be noted, was not the only culprit in the blatant depletion of these species. The blame had to be shared with industrialism’s dams and careless pollution of waterways. But, it was the battle between the food and recreational fishery and the menhaden reduction fishery and riparian landowners that spawned a new public consciousness of the interdependence of species.
As early as the 1840’s, there were literally no Atlantic Salmon south of Maine. In 1849, Henry David Thoreau mourned the loss of the once abundant shad, alewives, and salmon from the Concord River, and wished to hope that “Perchance, after a few thousand years, if the fisheries be patient…nature will have leveled the dams and factories and the river will run clear again.” (40-41) H. Bruce Franklin, in his book on the menhaden, “The Most Important Fish in the Sea,” responds to Thoreau’s sentiment, “Today, of course, the Atlantic Salmon of the United States are virtually extinct-except for those industrially produced with a diet consisting largely of cooked and ground menhaden.” (75)
It is interesting to note, if only to illustrate the attitudes and rationalisms of the day, that as the voracious menhaden industry was busy reducing populations and altering the entire marine ecosystem at the close of the Civil War, America was witnessing the destruction of two terrestrial species that were once deemed inexhaustible much as were the menhaden. These were the bison and the passenger pigeon. In the early 1800’s, more than thirty million bison roamed the country. At the close of the century less than a thousand survived. (Franklin 85) The passenger pigeon was once the most abundant bird on the planet. They were slaughtered for food and as agricultural pests throughout the 16th and 17th centuries. Even as late as 1813, John James Audubon witnessed a flock continually passing for three days at the estimated rate of one billion birds per hour. But by 1890, the passenger pigeon was extinct as a viable species. The last wild bird was recorded in 1900, and the last member of the species, Martha, died at the Chicago Zoo in 1914 at the age of 25. (Bryant 36)
It is of further interest to note that neither the bison nor the passenger pigeon were subject to any significant nonhuman predation. Human intervention was mostly the cause of their demise. Menhaden, on the other hand, are subject to intense nonhuman predation by fish, birds, and marine mammals. It only stands to reason that to add another predator with a voracious and single minded financial appetite and armed with great technology would have a profound impact on the balance of menhaden populations and those fish, birds, and marine mammals that rely on them for sustenance.
After years of back and forth arguments on the plight of the menhaden, G. Brown Goode published his broad study, “History of the Menhaden,” in 1880 after he was commissioned by the United States Fish Commission, the ancestor of today’s National Marine Fisheries Service. Though not completely holistic, the study presented the premise that the role of the menhaden was simply to be eaten by many predators. The argument was a fairly simple one to make and support, but the public conscious raising needed to enact rules and regulations to “protect” the menhaden to be eaten by predators became an issue. This issue was a seemingly difficult concept for a society that was of the mind to eradicate predators in order to save their domestic animals from becoming prey. To deflect attention, the menhaden reduction industry waged war for a time on bluefish and sharks as they were considered apex predators. It took the potent and vocal alliance of the commercial food and recreational fishermen to educate the public that it was the menhaden’s role in life to be eaten, and by the same token, it was the predator’s role in life to eat menhaden. This role extended to other fish, birds, crabs, lobsters, and marine mammals.
The often heard argument that all population fluctuations were simply cyclical acts of nature began to fade. It was agreed, though, that populations were indeed cyclical but were so due to the acts of man. The distinct pattern was always the same, “abundance, over fishing, crash, regulation, partial resurgence in one region, and then a repetition of the same story in another region.” (Franklin 111)
It was a story of too little too late for the northern menhaden fishery just prior to World War II, and the fleet placed its emphasis on the southern waters of the Gulf of Mexico and the fecund Chesapeake Bay. The Chesapeake is the largest tidal estuary in the United States and once produced more seafood per acre than any other body of water on the planet. This was true even as recent as 1975. (Boyle 78-84) Besides the amazing array of species and species biomass found in the Bay, two marine species, both filter feeders, once combined to keep Chesapeake waters healthy and clear, allowing sunlight to reach and nourish the seabed. These are the oyster and the menhaden, and they worked in consort, each expert in their niches.
“There is nothing in the Chesapeake Bay that can take the menhaden’s place-menhaden are king,” states Jim Uphoff, the stock assessment coordinator for the Fisheries Service of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Menhaden are king, and as a forage fish and as a filter feeder they have no peers. Sara Gottlieb, marine biologist and author of a groundbreaking study on the menhaden’s filtering capability, compares the menhaden’s role with that of a human liver. “Just as your body needs its liver to filter out toxins, ecosystems also need those natural filters.” She goes on to say that over fishing menhaden is like removing ones liver. (3) A single adult menhaden is able to filter a minimum of four gallons of water a minute, 240 gallons per hour, 5,760 gallons per day. Gottlieb estimated that before their decimation the menhaden population of the Chesapeake had the ability to filter the entire volume of the bay and its tributaries in two days. (45)
Life giving sunlight on the seabed encourages growth of aquatic plants which in turn release dissolved oxygen into the water while harboring a host of fish and shellfish. Waters in estuaries like the Chesapeake are directly subject to excessive nitrogen loading from run off fed by drain systems, paved streets, suburban lawns, farm fields, over fertilized golf courses, and industrial poultry and pig farms. Nitrogen loading generates deadly blooms of algae like red and brown tides which cause massive fish kills, then sink in thick mats to the bottom where they smother plants and shellfish. The decaying processes in these mats of algae suck dissolved oxygen from the water and leave dead zones that expand year after year. The only remaining checks on the phytoplankton that cause these deadly blooms and dead zones are the menhaden. But the menhaden populations have crashed to less than thirteen percent of their populations four decades earlier. (Franklin 9) The Chesapeake oyster, though a prodigious filter feeder in its own right, exist merely as one percent of its population of a century ago. (Franklin 137) Aquatic plants flourish on only twelve percent of the bottom area of the bay. (Franklin 150) Presently, the Chesapeake is suffering severe hypoxia, or oxygen depletion, in 40 percent of the bay. And, since first discovered in 1968, parts of the bay are being affected by a condition of anoxia, the total lack of oxygen. Usually this condition is found only in older eutrophic lakes and ponds. (Wood)
The Chesapeake is an ailing body of water, its balance tilted toward a point of irrevocable disaster, its animal populations showing stress from disrupted food webs. As example, striped bass, having lost the menhaden as a primary food source, are very thin and have begun to decimate the population of blue claw crabs in the bay. (Franklin 151) Other stressors are toxic pollutants, deadly algal blooms, and the variety of diseases that attack all stressed species. All of this, even today, with the better understanding of ecology, pollution, and clean water. All of this in large part because of a powerful and influential business monopoly still deeply committed to the menhaden reduction industry, Omega Protein, a Houston based corporation with a port and factory complex at Reedville, Virginia on the Chesapeake Bay.
In the last half of the 19th century, competition in the menhaden reduction industry led to bigger, faster, and more expensive ships and gear. This and the increased costs of fuel and crews and the high finances needed to build, run, and maintain multiple factories put the industry, according to an 1884 New York Times article, “in the hands of the capitalists.” (Franklin 87) This is exactly what happened. As time passed stocks were depleted, operating costs rose, companies started to fall by the wayside, and the industry consolidated. Beginning with the crash of populations in Maine in 1879, the industry followed the fish south shedding bankrupt companies as they went. By 1964, only two companies out of a one time high of fifty were operating out of Reedville, Virginia. Earlier that year, one of the survivors, the Standard Products Company purchased the Brunswick Navigation Company and conducted business alongside of century old Haynie Products. Prior to this, history was in the making when in 1953, George H. W. Bush co-founded Zapata Corporation, a wildcatting oil and gas company out of Houston, Texas. Bush sold his interest in Zapata in 1966, and Zapata took over Haynie Products, renaming the company Zapata Haynie. Malcom Glazer, real estate mogul, took over control of Zapata Haynie in early 1990, sold off the oil and gas interests to purchase the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. He then turned Zapata Haynie into a subsidiary shell and gave it a 21st century name, Omega Protein. In 1997, Glazer completed his monopolization of the menhaden reduction industry by taking over American Protein (the successor to Standard Protein), and a Gulf of Mexico company called Gulf Protein. (Franklin 126-129)
Omega’s fleet of 61 ships and 32 spotter planes annually capture billions of menhaden along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, the total weight of which exceeds the tonnage of all other fish species combined. The menhaden are processed at five production facilities in Virginia, Louisiana, and Mississippi. (Franklin 6) All the menhaden are reduced to oil, solids, and meal. The oil is used for cosmetics, linoleum, health food supplements, lubricants, margarine, soap, insecticides, and paints. The dried carcasses are ground up and shipped off to be used as feed for cats and dogs, farmed fish, and most of all, for poultry and pigs.
By 2001, all the states north of Virginia instituted bans in state waters on menhaden reduction industry fishing. Omega Protein now catches about 75 percent of its total landings from Virginia waters in the Chesapeake Bay. (Franklin 135) To make matters worse, only six percent of this catch of a quarter billion pounds a year are adult fish. Ninety four percent are juvenile fish, caught before they are of breeding age (breeding age is three years). (Franklin 135) Realizing the dangers of juvenile over fishing, Bill Matuszeski, the former director of the National Marine Fisheries Service, and then director of the EPA’s Chesapeake Bay Program, stated in 2001, “We need to start managing menhaden for their role in the overall ecological system.” He strongly advocated the immediate closure of the Chesapeake menhaden fishery saying, “That would be inconvenient for the industry, but it would be inconvenient for the species to be extinct.” (Franklin 136) Omega’s company spokesman, Toby Gascon, responded by saying, “We have compromised all we can. We have nowhere else to go.” (Blankenship) Those who advocate closure of the Chesapeake fishery wonder what Gascon meant by “compromise.” In a 2001 interview with H. Bruce Franklin, Hal Watters, who was once a spotter pilot for Omega Protein, felt if Omega actually had nowhere else to go, then, “The fishery has over fished their own fishery and destroyed it themselves. And they are still at it.” (191) So, Omega Protein, sole participant in the menhaden reduction industry, seeks to catch what is left of the menhaden in the Chesapeake and in the process, destroy the bay as well.
The battle with Omega continues with Virginia and North Carolina still holding out on any legislative bans to menhaden fishing because of the vested interest of Omega Protein in those areas. The ironies of this complex issue are too many to list here but for one. All the products made or enhanced from menhaden oil or meal can either be synthesized or found in non-threatened resources. We do not need menhaden oil or menhaden meal, but we do need menhaden to be allowed to perform their two assigned tasks, to be eaten and to filter and clean our coastal waters. The menhaden has long been touted by the reduction industry as a “cheap” commodity, but this vision is skewed and omits all the dark realities. A “cheap” commodity, perhaps when we slide our money across the sales counter to purchase a menhaden enhanced product, but a very dear commodity when the “real costs” of a destroyed coastal ecosystem are tallied. The question arises, “Have we gone too far with the menhaden to come back?” The jury is still out and will be for some time, but there are signs. In the summer of 2006, adult menhaden showed up for the first time in years in some numbers in one of their old and favorite northern haunts, the Narragansett Bay of Rhode Island.
Works Cited
Karl Blankenship, “Commission Proposes Cap for Bay’s Menhaden Catch.” Bay Journal, March, 2005.
Robert H. Boyle, “Bringing Back the Chesapeake.” Audubon, May-June, 1999.
William Bradford, “Of Plymouth Plantation.” Alfred A. Knoph, 1953.
William Bradford, Edwin Winslow, et al, “Mourt’s Relation.” London, 1622.
Stephen Bryant, “Martha’s Legacy.” Audubon Field Notes, November-December, 1975.
H. Bruce Franklin, “The Most Important Fish in the Sea.” Island Press, 2007.
John Frye, “The Men All Singing: The Story of Menhaden Fishing.” The Donning Company, 1999.
G. Brown Goode, “A History of the Menhaden.” Orange Judd, 1880.
Sara Gottlieb, “Ecological Role of Atlantic Menhaden in Chesapeake Bay and Implications for Management of the Fishery.” Masters Thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, 1998.
John McPhee, “The Founding Fish.” Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2002.
Thomas Morton, “New English Cannan.” The Prince Society, 1883.
Farley Mowat, “Sea of Slaughter.” Seal Books, 1989.
Ida Sedgewick Proper, “Monhegan: The Cradle of New England.” Southworth Press, 1930.
John Smith, “A Description of New England.” London, 1616.
Henry David Thoreau, “A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers.” James R. Osgood and Company, 1873.
Roger Wolliams, “A Key to the Language of America.” London, 1643.
Pamela Wood, “Chesapeake Bay Gets a ‘D’ on Annual Health Report Card.” Capital, November, 2005.
“Chasing the Bony-Fish.” New York Times, May, 1882.
The Perfect Fish
In 1497, Giovanni Cabotto, better known as John Cabot, sailed to North America on a voyage of discovery at the behest of England’s King Henry VII. He landed on an island which he later called “New Found Land.” Cabot found the island quite desolate, but the offshore waters fairly teemed with fish. Because of Cabot’s glowing tales of the great quantity of fish and numbers of species off the northeast coast of the new world, European ship owners and investors would be ultimately rewarded with great wealth. (Mowat 182-183) Within a decade of Cabot’s voyage a seasonal fleet of fishing vessels plied the rich waters, and by 1517 there were reports of 150 European ships based in Newfoundland. These fishing vessels represented Breton, Norman, Basque, Spanish, Portuguese, and English interests. (Sedgewick 46) From Newfoundland, ships pushed west into the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, south east and offshore to the Grand Banks, then south to the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank, lying east of the land later to be named “New England” by Captain John Smith. During an exploratory voyage in 1614, Smith surveyed the coastline from the jutting peninsula, aptly named “Cape Cod” in 1602 by a previous British explorer, to the Penobscot Bay in Down East Maine. Smith was seeking gold and whales and found instead potential riches in the form of “an incredible abundance of most sorts of fish.” (Smith 9) Smith penned a book, soon after the voyage, describing his discoveries in detail. “Description of New England” was written largely to stimulate the colonization of “New England” and happened to be published at the time the Puritans, religious separatists, fled England to Holland and were searching for a new place to settle. Soon after hearing of Smith’s voyage, the Puritans petitioned King James to charter a fishing colony in the new land of Cape Cod. The Pilgrims sailed from Plymouth, England, landed on Cape Cod and established Plymouth Plantation in 1620. At the time, they possessed neither the tackle nor the skills necessary to take advantage of the teeming resources of fish and shellfish that surrounded them. Ironically, half the colonists died the first winter mostly of causes related to malnutrition. (Bradford 39)
The local Wampanoag Indians persuaded Tisquantum, or “Squanto” as he was known to the whites, to be an emissary to the Pilgrims. Captain John Smith brought Squanto, an ex-captive Native American, back from England who, upon his return, found his people completely wiped out by European diseases. Squanto, for his first mission in March of 1621, started teaching the colonists how to fish and forage, and by Thanksgiving “every family had their portion of cod, striped bass and other fish.” (Bradford, Winslow 26) What Squanto taught the colonists next set the stage for one of the most profound effects ever to impact the ecology of the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coastal waters. When the colonists began to establish gardens on what Squanto described as “old grounds,” he informed them they would have to plant fish as fertilizer along with their seeds in order to realize a successful production of crops. By the 1630’s the use of fish as fertilizer was common practice in the colonies. Thomas Morton, in “New English Caanan,” made a comparison of fish-fertilized crop production to non-fertilized production. He described a standard of a thousand fish per acre and stated, “An acre thus dressed will produce so much corne as three acres without fish.” (25) The identity of this fertilizer fish remained somewhat ambiguous for years and was often generally called “herring,” “shad,” “allize,” or “alewife.” It was not until the 19th Century that Europeans finally realized the fish was the Atlantic Menhaden, a separate and distinct species, and a fish by far the most abundant of all fish along the Atlantic seaboard.
The Atlantic Menhaden, Brevoortia tyrannus, received its common name from the Narragansett Indians, an Algonquin tribe. They called the fish Munnauhatteaug or “he who enriches the land.” (Williams 114) This name was later anglicized and corrupted to become the menhaden of today. The Abenaki Indians of coastal Maine called the fish “Pauhagen” which also means “fertilizer.” Pauhagen was soon corrupted to “Poghaden” then shortened to “Pogy” which exists today as one of the most common names for the menhaden in New England and along the Gulf coast. (Goode 11-12) Interestingly, the Dutch, as early as the 17th Century, recognized the menhaden as being different from other American fish probably for their knowledge of a fish of the same ilk that frequented the waters of the Netherlands. The Dutch referred to their fish as “Marsbanker” and attatched this name to the Atlantic Menhaden. This name soon became “Mossbunker” and was often shortened to simply “Bunker.” (Franklin 20) Bunker is the name still used extensively in the New York and New Jersey area where the Dutch first settled.
Menhaden are members of the herring family (Culpeidae) but are not true herrings (Culpea). They closely resemble the Atlantic Herring (Culpea barengus), the American Shad (Alosa scipidissima), the Alewife (Alosa pseudobarrengus), the Blueback Herring (Alosa aestivalis), and the Gulf Menhaden (Bevoortia patronus). (McPhee 16) The adult menhaden is a foot in length, blunt headed, with silver, brassy sides and belly, and a deeply forked tail. A prominent round dark spot behind the gill plate and irregular rows of smaller spots are key identifying features. All of these species are planktivores, meaning they feed exclusively on plankton. Each species has a multitude of rakers on their gills that strain and trap the plankton they feed on. The menhaden, taken as an individual, is not a particularly impressive fish. As H. Bruce Franklin aptly states, “Nobody will ever write a Moby Dick about a menhaden.” (34) What is impressive, though, is a huge school of menhaden. The school operates as a single entity, often far surpassing the biomass of the largest whale, as it swims, darts, dashes, and turns suddenly, all in perfect unison. While this schooling behavior serves as a confusing defense from predators, it is what makes the menhaden so vulnerable to the purse seine of today’s fishery.
Menhaden have four distinct differences that set them apart from herring, shad, and alewives. These differences combine to interact in a very complex way and define the importance of the menhaden.
First, and most crucial, menhaden consume phytoplankton or algae and bits of suspended vegetable matter. Almost all other related species forage on zooplankton or tiny drifting animals. The ecological significance of this is immense and only recently fully understood.
Second, huge amounts of phytoplankton are produced in the western Atlantic and in the Gulf waters, and menhaden have very little competition for this food source. This lack of competition and their extremely high biotic potential, or ability to produce young, allows menhaden to dwarf the populations of any other American fish. (Franklin 24) Female menhaden contain so many eggs that they have to continually spawn as they swim throughout much of the year, as their bodies would not be able to hold all the ripening eggs at once (Franklin 44)
Third, because of their abundance and richness of flesh, menhaden suffice as the primary prey for many species of predatory fish, birds of prey, and marine mammals.
Last, humans do not choose to eat menhaden as they do other members of the herring family. Menhaden are very bony, their flesh oily, and their outsides slimy and smelly.
It is probably ironic that the menhaden is found to be distasteful by humans. One must remember it was the Native Americans who first defined menhaden as “fertilizer” and used them to enrich marginal soils. Because of their abundance, and as America became more industrialized and grew away from subsistence agriculture, the menhaden was exploited by agribusiness as a commercial fertilizer. This new economic value and the fact they were not tasty gave them no status as a food fish, and the wholesale slaughter of their populations began shortly after the end of the Civil War. (Franklin 25) This population decimation was further driven as other commercial uses were discovered for the menhaden and the result had disastrous ecological consequences and created a complicated economical and cultural history. It would be the menhaden which ultimately led to the first awareness of the interdependence of species and their environment in the late 19th Century.
By the mid 1800’s the United States was the undisputed leader of the whaling industry and owned 75 percent, or over 750 vessels, of the world’s whaling fleet. Whale oil was needed to fuel the world’s dramatic increase in industrialism, and was used for illumination, lubrication, and a multitude of manufactured products. Baleen, the brush like filters found in the mouths of planktivore whales, was considered the plastic of the day and was used as corset stays and buggy whips (Franklin 56) During this period, whaling was the first truly industrialized fishery; yet, in less than 30 years it was dwarfed by the menhaden industry. (Goode 54) While there were many factors that contributed to the decline of whaling and the rise of the menhaden fishery, the bottom line was simply the bottom line. Whale oil was being replaced by recently discovered petroleum products and natural gas as early as the 1850’s. Then an ever cheaper substitute source became available, one who’s biomass far exceeded that of whales, whose proximity guaranteed short trips and not the protracted, dangerous whaling voyages that took years, and one that could be fully utilized unlike the whale whose carcass was discarded after oil from the blubber was extracted in the on board “try works.” The substitute was the menhaden, often referred to once as “the little whale,” whose flesh could be pressed for oil and the leftovers ground and dried for fertilizer. (Goode 56-57)
New Bedford, Massachusetts was the undisputed queen city hub of the American whaling fleet but was unable to carry this over to the menhaden fishery. In 1867, a long visioned sea captain, Elija Reed, was making a thriving living in the menhaden industry in the Penobscot Bay area of Maine. He sensed his local waters were being over fished, and as he was familiar with the Chesapeake Bay, he loaded his menhaden reduction equipment on two schooners and sailed to Virginia. Here he set up his business in the sheltered harbor of Cockrells Creek in the upper reaches of the Chesapeake. (Frye 34) In less than 20 years, there were dozens of menhaden oil and guano factories located at this site which had come to be known as Reedville and had grown into a major United States fishing port. (Frye 34) The relationship between Reedville and the menhaden does not stop here.
“I believe, then, that the cod fishery, the herring fishery, the pilchard fishery, the mackerel fishery, and probably all the great sea fisheries are inexhaustible; that is to say, that nothing we do seriously affects the number of the fish. And any attempts to regulate these fisheries seems consequently, from the nature of the case, to be senseless.” This shortsighted statement was made by Thomas Henry Huxley at The Fisheries Exhibition in London, England in the year 1883. Some nine years earlier in “The Earth as Modified by Human Action,” George Perkins Marsh sounded the alarm of the possible extinction of certain marine species and used the great slaughter of menhaden as evidence of man’s destructiveness. (!06-107) Interestingly, Marsh’s citation was used even before the menhaden reduction industry was going full force. That very same year and with the echoes of George Marsh’s dire warnings that we were dangerously modifying our environment still ringing, The New York times was extolling the amazing wonders of American technology with reference to the traps, pounds, heart-nets, weirs, fykes, and purse seines that were catching fish at alarming rates. (Franklin 74) Even at 25 years prior to the turnover to the 20th century, the question “Where have all the fish gone?” was being asked. (Franklin73) Commercial food fishermen of the time sided with recreational anglers and waged a verbal war with the menhaden reduction industry and the wealthy riparian landowners who owned the fixed nets and traps. The fishermen who plied the rivers for the rapidly disappearing anadromous species such as herring, alewives, shad, and salmon joined in the fight against the industry and riparian land owners. Over fishing, it has to be noted, was not the only culprit in the blatant depletion of these species. The blame had to be shared with industrialism’s dams and careless pollution of waterways. But, it was the battle between the food and recreational fishery and the menhaden reduction fishery and riparian landowners that spawned a new public consciousness of the interdependence of species.
As early as the 1840’s, there were literally no Atlantic Salmon south of Maine. In 1849, Henry David Thoreau mourned the loss of the once abundant shad, alewives, and salmon from the Concord River, and wished to hope that “Perchance, after a few thousand years, if the fisheries be patient…nature will have leveled the dams and factories and the river will run clear again.” (40-41) H. Bruce Franklin, in his book on the menhaden, “The Most Important Fish in the Sea,” responds to Thoreau’s sentiment, “Today, of course, the Atlantic Salmon of the United States are virtually extinct-except for those industrially produced with a diet consisting largely of cooked and ground menhaden.” (75)
It is interesting to note, if only to illustrate the attitudes and rationalisms of the day, that as the voracious menhaden industry was busy reducing populations and altering the entire marine ecosystem at the close of the Civil War, America was witnessing the destruction of two terrestrial species that were once deemed inexhaustible much as were the menhaden. These were the bison and the passenger pigeon. In the early 1800’s, more than thirty million bison roamed the country. At the close of the century less than a thousand survived. (Franklin 85) The passenger pigeon was once the most abundant bird on the planet. They were slaughtered for food and as agricultural pests throughout the 16th and 17th centuries. Even as late as 1813, John James Audubon witnessed a flock continually passing for three days at the estimated rate of one billion birds per hour. But by 1890, the passenger pigeon was extinct as a viable species. The last wild bird was recorded in 1900, and the last member of the species, Martha, died at the Chicago Zoo in 1914 at the age of 25. (Bryant 36)
It is of further interest to note that neither the bison nor the passenger pigeon were subject to any significant nonhuman predation. Human intervention was mostly the cause of their demise. Menhaden, on the other hand, are subject to intense nonhuman predation by fish, birds, and marine mammals. It only stands to reason that to add another predator with a voracious and single minded financial appetite and armed with great technology would have a profound impact on the balance of menhaden populations and those fish, birds, and marine mammals that rely on them for sustenance.
After years of back and forth arguments on the plight of the menhaden, G. Brown Goode published his broad study, “History of the Menhaden,” in 1880 after he was commissioned by the United States Fish Commission, the ancestor of today’s National Marine Fisheries Service. Though not completely holistic, the study presented the premise that the role of the menhaden was simply to be eaten by many predators. The argument was a fairly simple one to make and support, but the public conscious raising needed to enact rules and regulations to “protect” the menhaden to be eaten by predators became an issue. This issue was a seemingly difficult concept for a society that was of the mind to eradicate predators in order to save their domestic animals from becoming prey. To deflect attention, the menhaden reduction industry waged war for a time on bluefish and sharks as they were considered apex predators. It took the potent and vocal alliance of the commercial food and recreational fishermen to educate the public that it was the menhaden’s role in life to be eaten, and by the same token, it was the predator’s role in life to eat menhaden. This role extended to other fish, birds, crabs, lobsters, and marine mammals.
The often heard argument that all population fluctuations were simply cyclical acts of nature began to fade. It was agreed, though, that populations were indeed cyclical but were so due to the acts of man. The distinct pattern was always the same, “abundance, over fishing, crash, regulation, partial resurgence in one region, and then a repetition of the same story in another region.” (Franklin 111)
It was a story of too little too late for the northern menhaden fishery just prior to World War II, and the fleet placed its emphasis on the southern waters of the Gulf of Mexico and the fecund Chesapeake Bay. The Chesapeake is the largest tidal estuary in the United States and once produced more seafood per acre than any other body of water on the planet. This was true even as recent as 1975. (Boyle 78-84) Besides the amazing array of species and species biomass found in the Bay, two marine species, both filter feeders, once combined to keep Chesapeake waters healthy and clear, allowing sunlight to reach and nourish the seabed. These are the oyster and the menhaden, and they worked in consort, each expert in their niches.
“There is nothing in the Chesapeake Bay that can take the menhaden’s place-menhaden are king,” states Jim Uphoff, the stock assessment coordinator for the Fisheries Service of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Menhaden are king, and as a forage fish and as a filter feeder they have no peers. Sara Gottlieb, marine biologist and author of a groundbreaking study on the menhaden’s filtering capability, compares the menhaden’s role with that of a human liver. “Just as your body needs its liver to filter out toxins, ecosystems also need those natural filters.” She goes on to say that over fishing menhaden is like removing ones liver. (3) A single adult menhaden is able to filter a minimum of four gallons of water a minute, 240 gallons per hour, 5,760 gallons per day. Gottlieb estimated that before their decimation the menhaden population of the Chesapeake had the ability to filter the entire volume of the bay and its tributaries in two days. (45)
Life giving sunlight on the seabed encourages growth of aquatic plants which in turn release dissolved oxygen into the water while harboring a host of fish and shellfish. Waters in estuaries like the Chesapeake are directly subject to excessive nitrogen loading from run off fed by drain systems, paved streets, suburban lawns, farm fields, over fertilized golf courses, and industrial poultry and pig farms. Nitrogen loading generates deadly blooms of algae like red and brown tides which cause massive fish kills, then sink in thick mats to the bottom where they smother plants and shellfish. The decaying processes in these mats of algae suck dissolved oxygen from the water and leave dead zones that expand year after year. The only remaining checks on the phytoplankton that cause these deadly blooms and dead zones are the menhaden. But the menhaden populations have crashed to less than thirteen percent of their populations four decades earlier. (Franklin 9) The Chesapeake oyster, though a prodigious filter feeder in its own right, exist merely as one percent of its population of a century ago. (Franklin 137) Aquatic plants flourish on only twelve percent of the bottom area of the bay. (Franklin 150) Presently, the Chesapeake is suffering severe hypoxia, or oxygen depletion, in 40 percent of the bay. And, since first discovered in 1968, parts of the bay are being affected by a condition of anoxia, the total lack of oxygen. Usually this condition is found only in older eutrophic lakes and ponds. (Wood)
The Chesapeake is an ailing body of water, its balance tilted toward a point of irrevocable disaster, its animal populations showing stress from disrupted food webs. As example, striped bass, having lost the menhaden as a primary food source, are very thin and have begun to decimate the population of blue claw crabs in the bay. (Franklin 151) Other stressors are toxic pollutants, deadly algal blooms, and the variety of diseases that attack all stressed species. All of this, even today, with the better understanding of ecology, pollution, and clean water. All of this in large part because of a powerful and influential business monopoly still deeply committed to the menhaden reduction industry, Omega Protein, a Houston based corporation with a port and factory complex at Reedville, Virginia on the Chesapeake Bay.
In the last half of the 19th century, competition in the menhaden reduction industry led to bigger, faster, and more expensive ships and gear. This and the increased costs of fuel and crews and the high finances needed to build, run, and maintain multiple factories put the industry, according to an 1884 New York Times article, “in the hands of the capitalists.” (Franklin 87) This is exactly what happened. As time passed stocks were depleted, operating costs rose, companies started to fall by the wayside, and the industry consolidated. Beginning with the crash of populations in Maine in 1879, the industry followed the fish south shedding bankrupt companies as they went. By 1964, only two companies out of a one time high of fifty were operating out of Reedville, Virginia. Earlier that year, one of the survivors, the Standard Products Company purchased the Brunswick Navigation Company and conducted business alongside of century old Haynie Products. Prior to this, history was in the making when in 1953, George H. W. Bush co-founded Zapata Corporation, a wildcatting oil and gas company out of Houston, Texas. Bush sold his interest in Zapata in 1966, and Zapata took over Haynie Products, renaming the company Zapata Haynie. Malcom Glazer, real estate mogul, took over control of Zapata Haynie in early 1990, sold off the oil and gas interests to purchase the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. He then turned Zapata Haynie into a subsidiary shell and gave it a 21st century name, Omega Protein. In 1997, Glazer completed his monopolization of the menhaden reduction industry by taking over American Protein (the successor to Standard Protein), and a Gulf of Mexico company called Gulf Protein. (Franklin 126-129)
Omega’s fleet of 61 ships and 32 spotter planes annually capture billions of menhaden along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, the total weight of which exceeds the tonnage of all other fish species combined. The menhaden are processed at five production facilities in Virginia, Louisiana, and Mississippi. (Franklin 6) All the menhaden are reduced to oil, solids, and meal. The oil is used for cosmetics, linoleum, health food supplements, lubricants, margarine, soap, insecticides, and paints. The dried carcasses are ground up and shipped off to be used as feed for cats and dogs, farmed fish, and most of all, for poultry and pigs.
By 2001, all the states north of Virginia instituted bans in state waters on menhaden reduction industry fishing. Omega Protein now catches about 75 percent of its total landings from Virginia waters in the Chesapeake Bay. (Franklin 135) To make matters worse, only six percent of this catch of a quarter billion pounds a year are adult fish. Ninety four percent are juvenile fish, caught before they are of breeding age (breeding age is three years). (Franklin 135) Realizing the dangers of juvenile over fishing, Bill Matuszeski, the former director of the National Marine Fisheries Service, and then director of the EPA’s Chesapeake Bay Program, stated in 2001, “We need to start managing menhaden for their role in the overall ecological system.” He strongly advocated the immediate closure of the Chesapeake menhaden fishery saying, “That would be inconvenient for the industry, but it would be inconvenient for the species to be extinct.” (Franklin 136) Omega’s company spokesman, Toby Gascon, responded by saying, “We have compromised all we can. We have nowhere else to go.” (Blankenship) Those who advocate closure of the Chesapeake fishery wonder what Gascon meant by “compromise.” In a 2001 interview with H. Bruce Franklin, Hal Watters, who was once a spotter pilot for Omega Protein, felt if Omega actually had nowhere else to go, then, “The fishery has over fished their own fishery and destroyed it themselves. And they are still at it.” (191) So, Omega Protein, sole participant in the menhaden reduction industry, seeks to catch what is left of the menhaden in the Chesapeake and in the process, destroy the bay as well.
The battle with Omega continues with Virginia and North Carolina still holding out on any legislative bans to menhaden fishing because of the vested interest of Omega Protein in those areas. The ironies of this complex issue are too many to list here but for one. All the products made or enhanced from menhaden oil or meal can either be synthesized or found in non-threatened resources. We do not need menhaden oil or menhaden meal, but we do need menhaden to be allowed to perform their two assigned tasks, to be eaten and to filter and clean our coastal waters. The menhaden has long been touted by the reduction industry as a “cheap” commodity, but this vision is skewed and omits all the dark realities. A “cheap” commodity, perhaps when we slide our money across the sales counter to purchase a menhaden enhanced product, but a very dear commodity when the “real costs” of a destroyed coastal ecosystem are tallied. The question arises, “Have we gone too far with the menhaden to come back?” The jury is still out and will be for some time, but there are signs. In the summer of 2006, adult menhaden showed up for the first time in years in some numbers in one of their old and favorite northern haunts, the Narragansett Bay of Rhode Island.
Works Cited
Karl Blankenship, “Commission Proposes Cap for Bay’s Menhaden Catch.” Bay Journal, March, 2005.
Robert H. Boyle, “Bringing Back the Chesapeake.” Audubon, May-June, 1999.
William Bradford, “Of Plymouth Plantation.” Alfred A. Knoph, 1953.
William Bradford, Edwin Winslow, et al, “Mourt’s Relation.” London, 1622.
Stephen Bryant, “Martha’s Legacy.” Audubon Field Notes, November-December, 1975.
H. Bruce Franklin, “The Most Important Fish in the Sea.” Island Press, 2007.
John Frye, “The Men All Singing: The Story of Menhaden Fishing.” The Donning Company, 1999.
G. Brown Goode, “A History of the Menhaden.” Orange Judd, 1880.
Sara Gottlieb, “Ecological Role of Atlantic Menhaden in Chesapeake Bay and Implications for Management of the Fishery.” Masters Thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, 1998.
John McPhee, “The Founding Fish.” Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2002.
Thomas Morton, “New English Cannan.” The Prince Society, 1883.
Farley Mowat, “Sea of Slaughter.” Seal Books, 1989.
Ida Sedgewick Proper, “Monhegan: The Cradle of New England.” Southworth Press, 1930.
John Smith, “A Description of New England.” London, 1616.
Henry David Thoreau, “A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers.” James R. Osgood and Company, 1873.
Roger Wolliams, “A Key to the Language of America.” London, 1643.
Pamela Wood, “Chesapeake Bay Gets a ‘D’ on Annual Health Report Card.” Capital, November, 2005.
“Chasing the Bony-Fish.” New York Times, May, 1882.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
blog 11
Blog 11 Jason Sylvester
Is fast food responsible for a crisis in public health?
Few people believe that fast food is a healthy food. But should fast food companies share the responsibility for America’s expanding waistline? And what about other possible sources for the obesity epidemic, such as a fundamentally flawed food pyramid, parents who fail to monitor children’s eating habits, and schools that provide easy access to sugary and fattening items in vending machines? While there may be many factors at work, fast food companies are the ones on trial. Are lawsuits the answer?
I believe that Americans need to take responsibility for what we consume. Why sue fast food companies and not the media outlets that carry their adds? How about the fork makers? Can’t we ever stop making excuses for ourselves? Americans tend to be extremely self-blaming and believe to an unrealistic degree that everything can be dealt with by willpower. I think that people should take responsibility for their own actions. I don’t think that anybody ate at McDonalds because they thought it was good for them. Food companies could make a very significant change that would have an impact on obesity. They could prominently disclose nutritional information about their products. If enough people had to face the fact that product was overloaded with calories then maybe they might make better choices about what they consume. But then again that would have to start with people wanting to discipline themselves and taking responsibility for what they consume. If everyone eats less and exercises more then we will all lose weight.
Is fast food responsible for a crisis in public health?
Few people believe that fast food is a healthy food. But should fast food companies share the responsibility for America’s expanding waistline? And what about other possible sources for the obesity epidemic, such as a fundamentally flawed food pyramid, parents who fail to monitor children’s eating habits, and schools that provide easy access to sugary and fattening items in vending machines? While there may be many factors at work, fast food companies are the ones on trial. Are lawsuits the answer?
I believe that Americans need to take responsibility for what we consume. Why sue fast food companies and not the media outlets that carry their adds? How about the fork makers? Can’t we ever stop making excuses for ourselves? Americans tend to be extremely self-blaming and believe to an unrealistic degree that everything can be dealt with by willpower. I think that people should take responsibility for their own actions. I don’t think that anybody ate at McDonalds because they thought it was good for them. Food companies could make a very significant change that would have an impact on obesity. They could prominently disclose nutritional information about their products. If enough people had to face the fact that product was overloaded with calories then maybe they might make better choices about what they consume. But then again that would have to start with people wanting to discipline themselves and taking responsibility for what they consume. If everyone eats less and exercises more then we will all lose weight.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Blog#12 Wm. Campbell
Blog#12-Campbell
To traverse the issue of gay marriage one first runs smack into the emotionally charged wall that surrounds it. This first obstacle is not as hard to scale as it seems. It requires a steady nerve, quiet nonjudgmental conviction, and an absolute lack of defensiveness. The next obstacle to be encountered will be the most daunting, the thorny hedge where marriage is being defined. Questions fly, answers come back, faces flush, and lips purse. The argument starts and circles around issues of love, consent, religion, and legality. Words like union, partnership, legally sanctioned, bond, and family are tossed back and forth. Again, it will take a steady nerve, no judgment, and a completely open mind to be successful here.
In “The M-Word, Why it Matters to Me,” Andrew Sullivan defines marriage as a way prove the dignity of a gay couple’s love. “This isn’t about gay marriage. It’s about marriage. It’s about family. It’s about love.” He feels the family values granted by marriage, “are not options for a happy and stable life. They are necessities.” (154) In her essay, “Same-Sex Marriage,” Laurie Essig disagrees rather emphatically. To her marriage is an institution “founded in historical material and cultural conditions that ensured women’s oppression.” (156) Essig also feels that granting the right to same sex marriage would open the door for other alternative lifestyle groups to try for recognition. Sam Schulman, in his, “Gay Marriage-And Marriage,” feels that any tinkering with the sanctity of marriage would change its definition and result in disastrous social consequences. He takes a rigid stance and defines homosexual males, radical gays, and any incestuous relationships as being unfit for marriage. “Those who seek to arrange a kind of marriage for the inherently unmarriageable are looking for those things in the wrong place.” (165 ) He then adds an exclamation point to this by debunking the existence of “romantic love.” In his editorial, “Abolish Marriage,” Michael Kinsley argues that government should have nothing to do or say of marriage and feels this view might be appealing to all sides of the issue of gay marriage. “The solution is to end the institution of marriage, to end the institution of government sanctioned marriage.” How would he do this? Simple, he says, “Privatize marriage.” (172 )
The possibilities here are exhausting. A quick peek at heterosexual marriage provides somewhat frightening insight. It seems not to work about as well as it seems to work. These would be considered lousy odds in any book. Would gays do it any better? Who knows without trying it. Should gays be afforded the same rights? Certainly.
Works Cited
Andrew Sullivan, “The M-Word: Why it Matters to Me.” TIME, February, 16, 2004.
Laurie Essig, “Same-Sex Marriage.” Salon.com, at www.salon.com, July 10, 2000.
Sam Schulman, “Gay Marriage-And Marriage.” Commentary, November, 2003.
Michael Kinsley, “Abolish Marriage.” Slate, July, 2003
To traverse the issue of gay marriage one first runs smack into the emotionally charged wall that surrounds it. This first obstacle is not as hard to scale as it seems. It requires a steady nerve, quiet nonjudgmental conviction, and an absolute lack of defensiveness. The next obstacle to be encountered will be the most daunting, the thorny hedge where marriage is being defined. Questions fly, answers come back, faces flush, and lips purse. The argument starts and circles around issues of love, consent, religion, and legality. Words like union, partnership, legally sanctioned, bond, and family are tossed back and forth. Again, it will take a steady nerve, no judgment, and a completely open mind to be successful here.
In “The M-Word, Why it Matters to Me,” Andrew Sullivan defines marriage as a way prove the dignity of a gay couple’s love. “This isn’t about gay marriage. It’s about marriage. It’s about family. It’s about love.” He feels the family values granted by marriage, “are not options for a happy and stable life. They are necessities.” (154) In her essay, “Same-Sex Marriage,” Laurie Essig disagrees rather emphatically. To her marriage is an institution “founded in historical material and cultural conditions that ensured women’s oppression.” (156) Essig also feels that granting the right to same sex marriage would open the door for other alternative lifestyle groups to try for recognition. Sam Schulman, in his, “Gay Marriage-And Marriage,” feels that any tinkering with the sanctity of marriage would change its definition and result in disastrous social consequences. He takes a rigid stance and defines homosexual males, radical gays, and any incestuous relationships as being unfit for marriage. “Those who seek to arrange a kind of marriage for the inherently unmarriageable are looking for those things in the wrong place.” (165 ) He then adds an exclamation point to this by debunking the existence of “romantic love.” In his editorial, “Abolish Marriage,” Michael Kinsley argues that government should have nothing to do or say of marriage and feels this view might be appealing to all sides of the issue of gay marriage. “The solution is to end the institution of marriage, to end the institution of government sanctioned marriage.” How would he do this? Simple, he says, “Privatize marriage.” (172 )
The possibilities here are exhausting. A quick peek at heterosexual marriage provides somewhat frightening insight. It seems not to work about as well as it seems to work. These would be considered lousy odds in any book. Would gays do it any better? Who knows without trying it. Should gays be afforded the same rights? Certainly.
Works Cited
Andrew Sullivan, “The M-Word: Why it Matters to Me.” TIME, February, 16, 2004.
Laurie Essig, “Same-Sex Marriage.” Salon.com, at www.salon.com, July 10, 2000.
Sam Schulman, “Gay Marriage-And Marriage.” Commentary, November, 2003.
Michael Kinsley, “Abolish Marriage.” Slate, July, 2003
Monday, April 7, 2008
William Campbell Blog#11
Blog#11-Campbell
To clone or not to clone? That was the question. Then along came Dolly the sheep in 1997, when researchers at the Roslin Institute in Scotland announced that they had literally made a ewe turn from the cells of a donor sheep. Per usual, genetic research past and present runs well ahead of scientific journal and press announcements, and when Dolly came to be, some scientists were prepared to answer “yes” as to whether humans could be cloned. The news of Dolly flamed the fires of the long standing debate between scientists and ethicists, and, now, with the human genome fully mapped, the meaning of what it is to be human has taken on a more involved significance. Nancy Gibbs, senior editor at Time, writes, “Our fierce national debate over issues like abortion and euthanasia will seem tame and transparent compared with the questions that human cloning raises.”(216)
Those against human cloning point to eliminating the random mixing of genes during normal reproduction. This could reduce human genetic diversity and even halt human evolution, irrevocably changing the human race. “It is the serendipitous mixing of genes that produces the Einsteins and the Mozarts of the world…”(Gibbs 216) Others feel that the “humanness” of man will be lost with cloning. “It’s not the personal challenge that will disappear. It’s the personal,” writes Bill McKibben of Middlebury College.(239) It appears that most opponents find the idea of “playing God” with reference to genetic manipulation distasteful and even frightening.
Those in favor of human cloning and genetic manipulation feel the quality of the human condition could be improved if genetic and reproductive technologies advanced. Some feel we could and should seize control of our evolutionary future. These proponents point to the past argument about in vitro fertilization (IVF) which is now broadly accepted as a legitimate method of conception. And, it is often noted that identical twins share identical genetic material and are actually natural clones, and certainly are not to be feared. Gregory Stock, the director of the Program on Medicine, Technology, and Society at the University of California School of Medicine, LA, writes of advancing genetic technologies, “Our collective challenge is not to figure out how to block these developments, but to best realize their benefits while minimizing our risks and safeguarding our rights and freedoms.”(232)
There exist certain hard realities with regard to these issues. A TIME/CNN poll found that 90 percent of the respondents were opposed to cloning humans.(Gibbs 216) The statistics of animal clonings to date show only a two percent success rate and a 98 percent morbidity rate at the implant, gestation, and birth stages.(Gibbs 218) Also, three years after Dolly the sheep was cloned, researchers found that her cells seemed to be aging faster than normal. This observation has been sometimes borne out with other cloned animals, too. It seems there are still inherent mechanical problems, as well as the moral and ethical ones, to overcome before human cloning becomes a reality. To clone or not to clone humans? This is now the question, and the answers of “if” or “when” have yet to be decided.
Works Cited
Nancy Gibbs, “Baby, It’s You and You and You.” TIME, February 12, 2001.
Bill McKibben, Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age, by Bill McKibben, Henry Holt and Company, 2003.
Gregory Stock, “The Last Human.” From Redesigning Humans: Our Inevitable Genetic Future, by Gregory Stock, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2002.
To clone or not to clone? That was the question. Then along came Dolly the sheep in 1997, when researchers at the Roslin Institute in Scotland announced that they had literally made a ewe turn from the cells of a donor sheep. Per usual, genetic research past and present runs well ahead of scientific journal and press announcements, and when Dolly came to be, some scientists were prepared to answer “yes” as to whether humans could be cloned. The news of Dolly flamed the fires of the long standing debate between scientists and ethicists, and, now, with the human genome fully mapped, the meaning of what it is to be human has taken on a more involved significance. Nancy Gibbs, senior editor at Time, writes, “Our fierce national debate over issues like abortion and euthanasia will seem tame and transparent compared with the questions that human cloning raises.”(216)
Those against human cloning point to eliminating the random mixing of genes during normal reproduction. This could reduce human genetic diversity and even halt human evolution, irrevocably changing the human race. “It is the serendipitous mixing of genes that produces the Einsteins and the Mozarts of the world…”(Gibbs 216) Others feel that the “humanness” of man will be lost with cloning. “It’s not the personal challenge that will disappear. It’s the personal,” writes Bill McKibben of Middlebury College.(239) It appears that most opponents find the idea of “playing God” with reference to genetic manipulation distasteful and even frightening.
Those in favor of human cloning and genetic manipulation feel the quality of the human condition could be improved if genetic and reproductive technologies advanced. Some feel we could and should seize control of our evolutionary future. These proponents point to the past argument about in vitro fertilization (IVF) which is now broadly accepted as a legitimate method of conception. And, it is often noted that identical twins share identical genetic material and are actually natural clones, and certainly are not to be feared. Gregory Stock, the director of the Program on Medicine, Technology, and Society at the University of California School of Medicine, LA, writes of advancing genetic technologies, “Our collective challenge is not to figure out how to block these developments, but to best realize their benefits while minimizing our risks and safeguarding our rights and freedoms.”(232)
There exist certain hard realities with regard to these issues. A TIME/CNN poll found that 90 percent of the respondents were opposed to cloning humans.(Gibbs 216) The statistics of animal clonings to date show only a two percent success rate and a 98 percent morbidity rate at the implant, gestation, and birth stages.(Gibbs 218) Also, three years after Dolly the sheep was cloned, researchers found that her cells seemed to be aging faster than normal. This observation has been sometimes borne out with other cloned animals, too. It seems there are still inherent mechanical problems, as well as the moral and ethical ones, to overcome before human cloning becomes a reality. To clone or not to clone humans? This is now the question, and the answers of “if” or “when” have yet to be decided.
Works Cited
Nancy Gibbs, “Baby, It’s You and You and You.” TIME, February 12, 2001.
Bill McKibben, Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age, by Bill McKibben, Henry Holt and Company, 2003.
Gregory Stock, “The Last Human.” From Redesigning Humans: Our Inevitable Genetic Future, by Gregory Stock, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2002.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
blog#9
Blog 9 race
Race is a modern idea. Ancient societies did not divide people according to physical differences, but according to religion, status, class, even language. Race and freedom were born together. When the U.S was founded, equality was a radical new idea. But our early economy was based largely on slavery. The concept of race helped explain why some people could be denied the rights and freedoms that others took for granted.
Race justified social inequalities as natural. As the race concept evolved, it justified extermination of native Americans, exclusion of Asian immigrants, and taking of Mexican lands. Racial practices were institutionalized within government, laws, and society.
Slavery predates race. Throughout history, societies have enslaved others, often as a result of conquest or war, but not because of physical characteristics or a belief in natural inferiority. In America, a unique set of circumstances led to the enslavement of people who looked similar.
Race has no genetic basis. Not one characteristic, trait, or, gene distinguishes all members of one so-called race from another so-called race. Skin color is only skin deep. Most traits are inherited independently of one another. The genes for skin color have nothing to do with the gene for hair texture, eye shape, blood type, musical talent, or athletic ability.
Race is not biological, but racism is for real. Race is still a powerful social idea that gives people different access to opportunities and recources. Our government and society have created advantages to being white. This affects everyone, whether we are aware of it or not.
Colorblindness will not end racism. Pretending race doesn’t exist is not the same as creating equality. Race is more than stereotypes and individual prejudice. To combat racism, we need to identify and remedy social policies that advantage some groups at the expense of others.
Race is a modern idea. Ancient societies did not divide people according to physical differences, but according to religion, status, class, even language. Race and freedom were born together. When the U.S was founded, equality was a radical new idea. But our early economy was based largely on slavery. The concept of race helped explain why some people could be denied the rights and freedoms that others took for granted.
Race justified social inequalities as natural. As the race concept evolved, it justified extermination of native Americans, exclusion of Asian immigrants, and taking of Mexican lands. Racial practices were institutionalized within government, laws, and society.
Slavery predates race. Throughout history, societies have enslaved others, often as a result of conquest or war, but not because of physical characteristics or a belief in natural inferiority. In America, a unique set of circumstances led to the enslavement of people who looked similar.
Race has no genetic basis. Not one characteristic, trait, or, gene distinguishes all members of one so-called race from another so-called race. Skin color is only skin deep. Most traits are inherited independently of one another. The genes for skin color have nothing to do with the gene for hair texture, eye shape, blood type, musical talent, or athletic ability.
Race is not biological, but racism is for real. Race is still a powerful social idea that gives people different access to opportunities and recources. Our government and society have created advantages to being white. This affects everyone, whether we are aware of it or not.
Colorblindness will not end racism. Pretending race doesn’t exist is not the same as creating equality. Race is more than stereotypes and individual prejudice. To combat racism, we need to identify and remedy social policies that advantage some groups at the expense of others.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Blog#9-William Campbell
Blog#9-William Campbell
Race is a relatively modern sociological concept manufactured by man to explain, justify, and condone social inequalities. It is a concept constructed from real social experiences, from value systems that were in conflict with circumstance, and it remains, even today, a concept that is driven by the historical imperatives that formed it. The concept of race has been so intricately woven into the fabric of our social policies, government, and laws it can appear as part of the “natural order” of life, even though there is no biological basis for this thesis. And the concept of race is intrinsically self-perpetuating as it provides the needed fuel, produced from its effects on whole populations, to drive the race machine forward. Ironies arise within this system from time to time, that can contradict, define, and teach.
While we often equate race with slavery, the existence of indentured servants and slaves far preceded the concept of race in history. Slavery was a part of life even before Medieval times. Race, as it applies to the United States, is an ideology that rose from a unique set of circumstances surrounding the birth of the nation. Our colonial economy was mainly slave supported, first with indentured whites and later with African slaves. The concept of freedom and free peoples was contradicted by the practice of slavery when we gained independence after the American Revolution. Science came forward in the late 1700’s with theories that were “fueled by preconceived notions of inferiority and superiority” and supported the birth of a racial philosophy by validating the belief that whites were of a higher natural order. (PBS) This new concept of race, or the separation of a population considered naturally inferior, allowed our fore fathers to explain, justify, and condone slavery. Views then evolved to include the premise that the superiority of whites was not only inevitable but was a moral responsibility. This attitude went beyond slavery to the taking of Mexican and Native American lands and the acquisition of overseas territories.(PBS)
“There is not one gene, trait, or characteristic that distinguishes all members from one race from all members of another.”(PBS) The two requirements for the development of a new species or subspecies are time and geographic isolation. Modern humans have only been around for a brief tic of time on the evolutionary clock, or about 150,000-200,000 years. This is not enough time to show any species altering recombinant or mutated variance. Humans are a young, adaptable and mobile species as animals go and have always been able to overcome the problem of geographic isolation. Humans evolved in Eastern Africa then quickly populated the world while mixing their genes, creating one large homogenous population. Thus, 94 percent of all genetic variation can be found in any continental population of humans. And, by comparison, the lowly fruit fly has ten times the genetic diversity of humans.(PBS) Certainly, there are obvious visual differences between populations, but these phenotypic, or visual traits do not guarantee certain underlying genetic traits. Humans simply do not have the groupings of genes that would result in what we want to define as races of people.
Biologically describing race, as discussed, lets one overlook the social factors that support discrimination. Turned around, though, the social reality of race does have biological impacts on persons of color. Native Americans have the highest incidence of diabetes in the nation, and African American males die of heart disease at five times the rate of white men.(PBS) The causes here are not genetic but social, such as access to health care, health insurance, decent living conditions, and, ironically, the stress of racism itself.
“Ideas of racial inferiority have been institutionalized-both explicitly and implicitly-within our laws, government, and public policies.”(PBS) This institutionalization of race has been historically applied to different groups in an inconsistent and arbitrary manner, and the definitions of what is race have often changed to match the political climate of the times. At one point, African Americans were classified by “blood” ancestry, an arbitrary percentage that varied from state to state. It was possible, ironically, to cross state lines and in the process, change ones race.(PBS) Existing laws and public policies are often constructed to be racially discriminating. Examples are the home lending system’s biases that view ones net worth as a major factor in granting a loan, and this can create a catch-22 riddle for persons of color. African Americans and Latinos are 60 percent more likely to be turned down for a mortgage.(PBS) George Lipsitz, a professor of Ethnic Studies at University of California, San Diego, points out that “net worth is almost totally determined by past opportunities for asset accumulation, and therefore the one figure most likely to reflect the history of discrimination.”(PBS) This ironic twist effectively bars many African Americans and Latinos from moving to desirable communities where they could gain real estate net worth. In other words, one needs a loan to own a home, but at the same time, one needs a home in order to get a loan. Another result of these discriminatory laws and policies is the separate and unequal segregation of wealth, opportunity, and living conditions. Whites are the most segregated of all groups and are 86 percent more likely to live in choice neighborhoods where 74 percent of them own their own homes.(PBS) Non-whites are forced to live in decaying urban centers or segregated at risk suburban areas where poverty becomes concentrated, further eroding the communities so affected. This vicious cycle of segregation continues as these areas decline and become home to violent crime, drugs, homelessness, poverty, and resource depleted schools. A culture of poverty is now associated with people of color, who are, ironically, the ones being blamed for the poverty, the crime, drugs, and homelessness, thus perpetuating the concept of race. John Powell, professor of ethnicity and civil rights at Ohio State University, states, “Not only have we racialized our space, but it is
through space that we do our ‘racing’ in the 20th century.”(PBS)
The gap between whites and non whites continues to widen. The dichotomy has been attacked with anti discriminatory laws, but because the issue of race is so deeply intertwined, it simply does not go away. In fact, some legal attempts have ended up perpetuating the same arbitrary categories they were enacted to combat.(PBS) There are those who urge affirmative action but vilify racial profiling and vice versa.(Kennedy) There are those advocacy groups who often feel that with free expression, someone might “hand hate a microphone.”(Ramirez) Randall Kennedy, a Harvard law professor, in his essay “Blind Spot,” reached only one conclusion, there was a real need for debate on the matter. “Although exasperating, this is actually good for our society: and it would be even better if participants in the debates acknowledged the simple truth that their adversaries have something useful to say.”(182) This conclusion was reached by the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity at Ohio State University. Their belief is that “colorblindness” as a solution, even with the best intentions, would be a huge mistake. They feel “The critical question is not whether to use race, but how to talk about race in a variety of contexts.”(Kirwan Institute) To them the question is an empirical one. And to support their fact based methods, it should be understood that the freedoms and rights fought for and won by the victims of discrimination have ended up being the freedoms and rights that everyone enjoys today.
Works Cited
PBS, “Race: The power of an Illusion.” http://www.pbs.org/race.
Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity, “Talking About Race.” http://www.osu.edu.
Randall Kennedy, “Blind Spot.” The Atlantic Monthly, April, 2002
Jessica Ramirez, “When Hate Becomes Hurt.” Newsweek, March 10, 2008.
Race is a relatively modern sociological concept manufactured by man to explain, justify, and condone social inequalities. It is a concept constructed from real social experiences, from value systems that were in conflict with circumstance, and it remains, even today, a concept that is driven by the historical imperatives that formed it. The concept of race has been so intricately woven into the fabric of our social policies, government, and laws it can appear as part of the “natural order” of life, even though there is no biological basis for this thesis. And the concept of race is intrinsically self-perpetuating as it provides the needed fuel, produced from its effects on whole populations, to drive the race machine forward. Ironies arise within this system from time to time, that can contradict, define, and teach.
While we often equate race with slavery, the existence of indentured servants and slaves far preceded the concept of race in history. Slavery was a part of life even before Medieval times. Race, as it applies to the United States, is an ideology that rose from a unique set of circumstances surrounding the birth of the nation. Our colonial economy was mainly slave supported, first with indentured whites and later with African slaves. The concept of freedom and free peoples was contradicted by the practice of slavery when we gained independence after the American Revolution. Science came forward in the late 1700’s with theories that were “fueled by preconceived notions of inferiority and superiority” and supported the birth of a racial philosophy by validating the belief that whites were of a higher natural order. (PBS) This new concept of race, or the separation of a population considered naturally inferior, allowed our fore fathers to explain, justify, and condone slavery. Views then evolved to include the premise that the superiority of whites was not only inevitable but was a moral responsibility. This attitude went beyond slavery to the taking of Mexican and Native American lands and the acquisition of overseas territories.(PBS)
“There is not one gene, trait, or characteristic that distinguishes all members from one race from all members of another.”(PBS) The two requirements for the development of a new species or subspecies are time and geographic isolation. Modern humans have only been around for a brief tic of time on the evolutionary clock, or about 150,000-200,000 years. This is not enough time to show any species altering recombinant or mutated variance. Humans are a young, adaptable and mobile species as animals go and have always been able to overcome the problem of geographic isolation. Humans evolved in Eastern Africa then quickly populated the world while mixing their genes, creating one large homogenous population. Thus, 94 percent of all genetic variation can be found in any continental population of humans. And, by comparison, the lowly fruit fly has ten times the genetic diversity of humans.(PBS) Certainly, there are obvious visual differences between populations, but these phenotypic, or visual traits do not guarantee certain underlying genetic traits. Humans simply do not have the groupings of genes that would result in what we want to define as races of people.
Biologically describing race, as discussed, lets one overlook the social factors that support discrimination. Turned around, though, the social reality of race does have biological impacts on persons of color. Native Americans have the highest incidence of diabetes in the nation, and African American males die of heart disease at five times the rate of white men.(PBS) The causes here are not genetic but social, such as access to health care, health insurance, decent living conditions, and, ironically, the stress of racism itself.
“Ideas of racial inferiority have been institutionalized-both explicitly and implicitly-within our laws, government, and public policies.”(PBS) This institutionalization of race has been historically applied to different groups in an inconsistent and arbitrary manner, and the definitions of what is race have often changed to match the political climate of the times. At one point, African Americans were classified by “blood” ancestry, an arbitrary percentage that varied from state to state. It was possible, ironically, to cross state lines and in the process, change ones race.(PBS) Existing laws and public policies are often constructed to be racially discriminating. Examples are the home lending system’s biases that view ones net worth as a major factor in granting a loan, and this can create a catch-22 riddle for persons of color. African Americans and Latinos are 60 percent more likely to be turned down for a mortgage.(PBS) George Lipsitz, a professor of Ethnic Studies at University of California, San Diego, points out that “net worth is almost totally determined by past opportunities for asset accumulation, and therefore the one figure most likely to reflect the history of discrimination.”(PBS) This ironic twist effectively bars many African Americans and Latinos from moving to desirable communities where they could gain real estate net worth. In other words, one needs a loan to own a home, but at the same time, one needs a home in order to get a loan. Another result of these discriminatory laws and policies is the separate and unequal segregation of wealth, opportunity, and living conditions. Whites are the most segregated of all groups and are 86 percent more likely to live in choice neighborhoods where 74 percent of them own their own homes.(PBS) Non-whites are forced to live in decaying urban centers or segregated at risk suburban areas where poverty becomes concentrated, further eroding the communities so affected. This vicious cycle of segregation continues as these areas decline and become home to violent crime, drugs, homelessness, poverty, and resource depleted schools. A culture of poverty is now associated with people of color, who are, ironically, the ones being blamed for the poverty, the crime, drugs, and homelessness, thus perpetuating the concept of race. John Powell, professor of ethnicity and civil rights at Ohio State University, states, “Not only have we racialized our space, but it is
through space that we do our ‘racing’ in the 20th century.”(PBS)
The gap between whites and non whites continues to widen. The dichotomy has been attacked with anti discriminatory laws, but because the issue of race is so deeply intertwined, it simply does not go away. In fact, some legal attempts have ended up perpetuating the same arbitrary categories they were enacted to combat.(PBS) There are those who urge affirmative action but vilify racial profiling and vice versa.(Kennedy) There are those advocacy groups who often feel that with free expression, someone might “hand hate a microphone.”(Ramirez) Randall Kennedy, a Harvard law professor, in his essay “Blind Spot,” reached only one conclusion, there was a real need for debate on the matter. “Although exasperating, this is actually good for our society: and it would be even better if participants in the debates acknowledged the simple truth that their adversaries have something useful to say.”(182) This conclusion was reached by the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity at Ohio State University. Their belief is that “colorblindness” as a solution, even with the best intentions, would be a huge mistake. They feel “The critical question is not whether to use race, but how to talk about race in a variety of contexts.”(Kirwan Institute) To them the question is an empirical one. And to support their fact based methods, it should be understood that the freedoms and rights fought for and won by the victims of discrimination have ended up being the freedoms and rights that everyone enjoys today.
Works Cited
PBS, “Race: The power of an Illusion.” http://www.pbs.org/race.
Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity, “Talking About Race.” http://www.osu.edu.
Randall Kennedy, “Blind Spot.” The Atlantic Monthly, April, 2002
Jessica Ramirez, “When Hate Becomes Hurt.” Newsweek, March 10, 2008.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Blog#8-WmCampbell
Blog #8-William Campbell
The First Amendment of our constitution guarantees each person’s right to freedom of expression, and most citizens consider this one of the cornerstones of our system of government. This freedom, though, can at times be a double edge sword. Certain views and beliefs and the way they are presented publicly may cause hardship and pain to others at some point. This issue runs headlong into another of our rights as free citizens, the legal right to be free from verbal abuse or harassment. Where do we draw the line and who defines what is or is not acceptable speech without undermining one’s guarantee to free expression? At what point might censorship be considered to curb offensive speech, or can censorship even be considered at all? These issues and questions have long been points of contention on university and college campuses across the nation.
Present law allows public academic institutions to limit the “time, place, and manner of speech.”(Silverglate 123) This means that it is not appropriate to hold a loud protest during sleeping hours in a dorm hall. Still, any regulations prohibiting students to speak or requiring them to speak only from places where they will not be seen or heard are considered unconstitutional. Also, broad content-based speech codes have universally been struck down by the courts.(Silverglate 123) The question of hate speech protection under the First Amendment is often in the fore front of campus concerns. Richard Delgado writes in an opinion article in “USA Today” that “Hate speech is rarely an invitation to a conversation. More like a slap in the face, it reviles and silences.”(127) Because of this, Delgato feels hate speech should not have First Amendment protection. During the past decade, schools have designated “free speech zones” on campuses in response to legal criticism of campus content speech codes. While this might seem a balanced solution to the problem, Harvey A. Silverglate, in his essay, “Muzzling Free Speech,” notes that “There is a growing recognition, especially by students and civil libertarians, that our entire country is a free speech zone, and our campuses of higher education, of all places, cannot be an exception.”(124) Free speech zones regulations have most recently come and gone and have often been simply rephrased in the face of multi-pronged challenges. What remains constant in all of this is the desire of schools to put regulations in place that will both protect free speech and satisfy their perceived moral obligation to create a respectful learning environment.
To which solution do higher education administrators turn? Certainly, censorship might stop speech in the moment but does nothing to change the attitudes or opinions behind the speech. Also, censure still remains unconstitutional. “Free speech zones” as a solution has come under attack and soon might go the way of content based speech codes. What is next? Denise Chaykun, in her editorial, “Free Speech Sucks!...But Censorship Sucks Even More,” feels the speech protection granted by the First Amendment is sufficient as it stands. She states, “Allowing free speech always sucks for someone,” (132) and she ends by defining what she perceives are the only available choices with regard to this issue. “We can choose to protect feelings or ideas. Hurt feelings can be mended by ideas, but lost ideas might never be recovered.”(132) Free speech, whether kind or unkind, supportive or hurtful, usually creates a discourse from which we can learn. In this time of carefully engineered “politically correct” and empathic responses to issues of the day, regulations abound, often sparsely disguised as thought reform. Perhaps a direct response, as written by Don Henley of “The Eagles” in his song of the same title, might sometimes work for those thought to be victims of free speech. He simply states, “Get over it!”
Works Cited
Denise Chaykun, “Free Speech Sucks!...But Censorship Sucks Even More.” Counterweight, March 27, 2003.
Richard Delgato, “Hate Cannot Be Tolerated.” Insight on the News, June 24, 1996.
Harvey A. Silverglate, “Muzzling Free Speech,” The National Law Review, October 7, 2002.
The First Amendment of our constitution guarantees each person’s right to freedom of expression, and most citizens consider this one of the cornerstones of our system of government. This freedom, though, can at times be a double edge sword. Certain views and beliefs and the way they are presented publicly may cause hardship and pain to others at some point. This issue runs headlong into another of our rights as free citizens, the legal right to be free from verbal abuse or harassment. Where do we draw the line and who defines what is or is not acceptable speech without undermining one’s guarantee to free expression? At what point might censorship be considered to curb offensive speech, or can censorship even be considered at all? These issues and questions have long been points of contention on university and college campuses across the nation.
Present law allows public academic institutions to limit the “time, place, and manner of speech.”(Silverglate 123) This means that it is not appropriate to hold a loud protest during sleeping hours in a dorm hall. Still, any regulations prohibiting students to speak or requiring them to speak only from places where they will not be seen or heard are considered unconstitutional. Also, broad content-based speech codes have universally been struck down by the courts.(Silverglate 123) The question of hate speech protection under the First Amendment is often in the fore front of campus concerns. Richard Delgado writes in an opinion article in “USA Today” that “Hate speech is rarely an invitation to a conversation. More like a slap in the face, it reviles and silences.”(127) Because of this, Delgato feels hate speech should not have First Amendment protection. During the past decade, schools have designated “free speech zones” on campuses in response to legal criticism of campus content speech codes. While this might seem a balanced solution to the problem, Harvey A. Silverglate, in his essay, “Muzzling Free Speech,” notes that “There is a growing recognition, especially by students and civil libertarians, that our entire country is a free speech zone, and our campuses of higher education, of all places, cannot be an exception.”(124) Free speech zones regulations have most recently come and gone and have often been simply rephrased in the face of multi-pronged challenges. What remains constant in all of this is the desire of schools to put regulations in place that will both protect free speech and satisfy their perceived moral obligation to create a respectful learning environment.
To which solution do higher education administrators turn? Certainly, censorship might stop speech in the moment but does nothing to change the attitudes or opinions behind the speech. Also, censure still remains unconstitutional. “Free speech zones” as a solution has come under attack and soon might go the way of content based speech codes. What is next? Denise Chaykun, in her editorial, “Free Speech Sucks!...But Censorship Sucks Even More,” feels the speech protection granted by the First Amendment is sufficient as it stands. She states, “Allowing free speech always sucks for someone,” (132) and she ends by defining what she perceives are the only available choices with regard to this issue. “We can choose to protect feelings or ideas. Hurt feelings can be mended by ideas, but lost ideas might never be recovered.”(132) Free speech, whether kind or unkind, supportive or hurtful, usually creates a discourse from which we can learn. In this time of carefully engineered “politically correct” and empathic responses to issues of the day, regulations abound, often sparsely disguised as thought reform. Perhaps a direct response, as written by Don Henley of “The Eagles” in his song of the same title, might sometimes work for those thought to be victims of free speech. He simply states, “Get over it!”
Works Cited
Denise Chaykun, “Free Speech Sucks!...But Censorship Sucks Even More.” Counterweight, March 27, 2003.
Richard Delgato, “Hate Cannot Be Tolerated.” Insight on the News, June 24, 1996.
Harvey A. Silverglate, “Muzzling Free Speech,” The National Law Review, October 7, 2002.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
blog#8 Jason Sylvester
Blog #8 do campus speech violate student rights
Some colleges and universities have designated ‘free speech zones’ on campus where students assemble to speak and protest. Students must request permission from the administration to use the free speech zones. The free speech zones movement present a major threat to the ideals of free thought and free inquiry to which colleges and universities should be devoted. College administrators have used every trick in the book to try to limit student speech. When college speech zones have faced a court test they will almost certainly be declared unconstitutional. The law requires that government infringements on first amendment rights be narrowly tailored to accomplish a specific, legitimate purpose-which speech zones are not. Although free speech zones may be a violation of student rights, in some cases it may be necessary to control what topics should be discussed publicly or privately, therefore I believe that free speech zones are necessary
Some colleges and universities have designated ‘free speech zones’ on campus where students assemble to speak and protest. Students must request permission from the administration to use the free speech zones. The free speech zones movement present a major threat to the ideals of free thought and free inquiry to which colleges and universities should be devoted. College administrators have used every trick in the book to try to limit student speech. When college speech zones have faced a court test they will almost certainly be declared unconstitutional. The law requires that government infringements on first amendment rights be narrowly tailored to accomplish a specific, legitimate purpose-which speech zones are not. Although free speech zones may be a violation of student rights, in some cases it may be necessary to control what topics should be discussed publicly or privately, therefore I believe that free speech zones are necessary
Monday, March 10, 2008
Blog# 7 WmCampbell
Blog # 7 William Campbell
The impact television has had on the culture of man for the past 60 years has certainly been greater than any other force. Television has become the source of almost everything for man. It reports news, entertains the masses, regulates commerce, dictates lifestyles, defines social issues, and captures our attention for close to fifteen percent of our lives. Because of the profound experience that is television, it is often blamed for all our social ills and for the general failings of western civilization. Violence in television and its effects on children has been rigorously studied for decades. There are experts who state with certainty that violent television breeds violent behavior in children in addition to other undesirable behaviors. Conversely, there are experts who feel any tampering with the art of television is in violation of our first amendment rights and is purely a form of censorship. These experts place the responsibility of programming and of what children view squarely on the shoulders of parents.
It has been 20 years since the National Institute of Mental Health informed the public of its field study findings that violent television programs led to violent behavior in children and teenagers. Later research has defined three specific responses to viewing violence. (1) “Children may become less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others,” (2) “Children may be more fearful of the world around them,” and (3) “Children may be more likely to behave in aggressive or harmful ways toward others.”(American Psychological Association 249) Later real-life studies seemed to back up the field studies especially with regards to long term responses. Leonard Eron, Ph.D., and his associates at the University of Illinois, discovered that those who watched a great deal of television violence as children showed more aggressive behavior upon reaching their teens. These same subjects were more likely to be arrested and convicted of crimes as adults.(American Psychological Association 250) While there are many reasons why children include violence in their day to day play and dealings, it is known “from both therapeutic and cognitive perspectives, children use play to work out an understanding of experience, including the violence to which they are exposed.”(Levin 254) In other words, children are constantly struggling to work out and understand the violence in their lives. One of the outcomes of this effort to understand violence often leaves the child out of control and frightened, and, thus diverted from the positive lessons we want them to learn.(Levin 255) Children tend to see bad guys and violent behavior as one dimensional and do not understand what may make them bad in the first place. Good guys, on the other hand, are allowed to do whatever horrible things that need to be done just because they are good.(Levin 255) Children tend to want to play the role of the good guy or the superhero and often imitate violent behavior, especially during popular war play. George Gerbner, in his essay, “Television’s Global Marketing Strategy Creates a Damaging and Alienated Window on the World,” describes television as being more than simple programming, “-television is a mythology-highly organically connected, repeated every day so that the themes that run through all programming and news have the effect of cultivating conceptions of reality.”(Gerbner 263) He goes on to say that growing up with television violence has three major costs, that when operating together creates what he calls the “mean world syndrome.” Viewed separately, the costs are (1) The programming “reinforces the worst fears and apprehension of people,” (2) The programming “desensitizes viewers to victimization and suffering,” and (3) The programming creates “the pervasive sense of insecurity and vulnerability” and people “are afraid of strangers and meeting other people.”(Gerbner 263) These costs closely resemble the three responses to violence the American Psychological Association defined earlier. Gerbner feels television violence is driven by the system of global marketing and in this form acts to censure what writers can write and producers can produce. He cites polls which list 85 percent of the participants as saying they want less violence in television programming. The problem is that the action of violent programming sells well on the world market, and in Gerbner’s opinion, within the marketing system of television “cultural decision making is now out of democratic reach.”(Gerbner 264)
While there is often general agreement that violence in television poses a potential threat to children, there are arguments as to how much of a threat it poses and disagreement with the methods of dealing with the threat. In his essay, “Stop Blaming Kids and TV,” Mike Males brings to light the often overlooked connection between children and parents. Males quotes James Baldwin from “Nobody Knows My Name,” “Children have never been very good at listening to their elders, but they have never failed to imitate them.”(Males 268) The contention is that violent behavior begins at home. While many point the finger at kids and the television programming that is claimed to corrupt them, federal reports show an increasing problem with alcohol and drug related crimes among adults who are the age group that are the parents of today’s children.(Males 271) Children do as parents do and react to violence as their parents react. The resolution of this issue becomes less complicated in theory than the TV violence and children connection. Males writes, “The inescapable conclusion is this: If you want to change juvenile behavior, change adult behavior.”(Males 271) Another school of thought focuses on the responsibility of parents to their children by taking action at home to “vote with the remote” or to simply turn the television off. “Don’t like it? Don’t watch it,”(259) writes Tim Goodman, a media critic, in his article for the San Francisco Chronicle, April 29, 2001. Goodman contends the attack on television programming is wrong, is pure censorship, and blames the media for lax parenting.
The issue of violence in television will continue to be debated for years to come. The two sides of the debate, without empirical evidence to decide the outcome, will continue to promote their theories. To some, television will always be the demon. Gerbner feels television should not have the power to “drive an entire culture,” and children have “the right to be born into a more diverse, more fair, more sane, more equitable cultural environment.”(265) Others feel the issues of violence begin at home. Goodman writes, “Television is not the problem in our society. It may always be the scapegoat, but it’s nothing more than a bastard machine, not half as disturbing as the real thing.”(260) Still others will straddle the argument and point out that we live in violent and threatening times as witnessed by September 11, 2001 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Levin feels any solution should “require adults to create a more peaceful world and limit children’s exposure to media violence.”(Levin 256)
Works Cited
American Psychological Association, “Violence on Television-
What Do Children Learn? What can Parents Do?”
www.apa.org/pi/pii/vio&tv.hmtl. Copyright by American Psychological
Association, 2003.
George Gerbner, “Television’s Global Marketing Strategy Creates a Damaging and Alienated Window on the World.” The Ecology of
Justice, Context Institute, (IC#38). Spring, 1994.
Diane E. Levin, “Beyond Banning War and Superhero Play:
Meeting Children’s Needs in Violent Times.” Young Children, May, 2003.
Mike Males, “Stop Blaming Kids and TV.” The Progressive,
October, 1997.
Tim Goodman, “Hate Violence? Turn It Off.” San Francisco
Chronicle, April 29, 2001.
The impact television has had on the culture of man for the past 60 years has certainly been greater than any other force. Television has become the source of almost everything for man. It reports news, entertains the masses, regulates commerce, dictates lifestyles, defines social issues, and captures our attention for close to fifteen percent of our lives. Because of the profound experience that is television, it is often blamed for all our social ills and for the general failings of western civilization. Violence in television and its effects on children has been rigorously studied for decades. There are experts who state with certainty that violent television breeds violent behavior in children in addition to other undesirable behaviors. Conversely, there are experts who feel any tampering with the art of television is in violation of our first amendment rights and is purely a form of censorship. These experts place the responsibility of programming and of what children view squarely on the shoulders of parents.
It has been 20 years since the National Institute of Mental Health informed the public of its field study findings that violent television programs led to violent behavior in children and teenagers. Later research has defined three specific responses to viewing violence. (1) “Children may become less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others,” (2) “Children may be more fearful of the world around them,” and (3) “Children may be more likely to behave in aggressive or harmful ways toward others.”(American Psychological Association 249) Later real-life studies seemed to back up the field studies especially with regards to long term responses. Leonard Eron, Ph.D., and his associates at the University of Illinois, discovered that those who watched a great deal of television violence as children showed more aggressive behavior upon reaching their teens. These same subjects were more likely to be arrested and convicted of crimes as adults.(American Psychological Association 250) While there are many reasons why children include violence in their day to day play and dealings, it is known “from both therapeutic and cognitive perspectives, children use play to work out an understanding of experience, including the violence to which they are exposed.”(Levin 254) In other words, children are constantly struggling to work out and understand the violence in their lives. One of the outcomes of this effort to understand violence often leaves the child out of control and frightened, and, thus diverted from the positive lessons we want them to learn.(Levin 255) Children tend to see bad guys and violent behavior as one dimensional and do not understand what may make them bad in the first place. Good guys, on the other hand, are allowed to do whatever horrible things that need to be done just because they are good.(Levin 255) Children tend to want to play the role of the good guy or the superhero and often imitate violent behavior, especially during popular war play. George Gerbner, in his essay, “Television’s Global Marketing Strategy Creates a Damaging and Alienated Window on the World,” describes television as being more than simple programming, “-television is a mythology-highly organically connected, repeated every day so that the themes that run through all programming and news have the effect of cultivating conceptions of reality.”(Gerbner 263) He goes on to say that growing up with television violence has three major costs, that when operating together creates what he calls the “mean world syndrome.” Viewed separately, the costs are (1) The programming “reinforces the worst fears and apprehension of people,” (2) The programming “desensitizes viewers to victimization and suffering,” and (3) The programming creates “the pervasive sense of insecurity and vulnerability” and people “are afraid of strangers and meeting other people.”(Gerbner 263) These costs closely resemble the three responses to violence the American Psychological Association defined earlier. Gerbner feels television violence is driven by the system of global marketing and in this form acts to censure what writers can write and producers can produce. He cites polls which list 85 percent of the participants as saying they want less violence in television programming. The problem is that the action of violent programming sells well on the world market, and in Gerbner’s opinion, within the marketing system of television “cultural decision making is now out of democratic reach.”(Gerbner 264)
While there is often general agreement that violence in television poses a potential threat to children, there are arguments as to how much of a threat it poses and disagreement with the methods of dealing with the threat. In his essay, “Stop Blaming Kids and TV,” Mike Males brings to light the often overlooked connection between children and parents. Males quotes James Baldwin from “Nobody Knows My Name,” “Children have never been very good at listening to their elders, but they have never failed to imitate them.”(Males 268) The contention is that violent behavior begins at home. While many point the finger at kids and the television programming that is claimed to corrupt them, federal reports show an increasing problem with alcohol and drug related crimes among adults who are the age group that are the parents of today’s children.(Males 271) Children do as parents do and react to violence as their parents react. The resolution of this issue becomes less complicated in theory than the TV violence and children connection. Males writes, “The inescapable conclusion is this: If you want to change juvenile behavior, change adult behavior.”(Males 271) Another school of thought focuses on the responsibility of parents to their children by taking action at home to “vote with the remote” or to simply turn the television off. “Don’t like it? Don’t watch it,”(259) writes Tim Goodman, a media critic, in his article for the San Francisco Chronicle, April 29, 2001. Goodman contends the attack on television programming is wrong, is pure censorship, and blames the media for lax parenting.
The issue of violence in television will continue to be debated for years to come. The two sides of the debate, without empirical evidence to decide the outcome, will continue to promote their theories. To some, television will always be the demon. Gerbner feels television should not have the power to “drive an entire culture,” and children have “the right to be born into a more diverse, more fair, more sane, more equitable cultural environment.”(265) Others feel the issues of violence begin at home. Goodman writes, “Television is not the problem in our society. It may always be the scapegoat, but it’s nothing more than a bastard machine, not half as disturbing as the real thing.”(260) Still others will straddle the argument and point out that we live in violent and threatening times as witnessed by September 11, 2001 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Levin feels any solution should “require adults to create a more peaceful world and limit children’s exposure to media violence.”(Levin 256)
Works Cited
American Psychological Association, “Violence on Television-
What Do Children Learn? What can Parents Do?”
www.apa.org/pi/pii/vio&tv.hmtl. Copyright by American Psychological
Association, 2003.
George Gerbner, “Television’s Global Marketing Strategy Creates a Damaging and Alienated Window on the World.” The Ecology of
Justice, Context Institute, (IC#38). Spring, 1994.
Diane E. Levin, “Beyond Banning War and Superhero Play:
Meeting Children’s Needs in Violent Times.” Young Children, May, 2003.
Mike Males, “Stop Blaming Kids and TV.” The Progressive,
October, 1997.
Tim Goodman, “Hate Violence? Turn It Off.” San Francisco
Chronicle, April 29, 2001.
blog32 corrections
Blog # 2 corrections
One of the most influential factors in a young persons’ life, I believe, is music of choice. In this day and age, teenagers are very impressionable. They think that by taking on the lifestyle that a musician pretends to have will help them be accepted. This lifestyle that musicians portray can be extremely enticing to a teenager, but kids fail to recognize that musicians are also actors who portray an image to entice the younger generation to buy their music so that they can boost their album sales.
I believe that the record labels selling the music are well aware of the impact that music has on the younger generation. If they take away the image of a musician, then it would be very hard to sell albums that are based on image. Gangster rappers need to act like they are gangsters and death metal rockers need that hard core, bad-to-the-bone image, or teenagers will not be as easily influenced by their music, and record sales would plummet.
It is sad to see all of these younger children who dress in dark clothing, makeup, and earrings all over them and other groups dressing in big clothes and acting like they come from the ghetto because they think they will fit in. kids need to be made aware of the fact that the lifestyle that these musicians portray are only to help sell albums, not to be confused with reality.
One of the most influential factors in a young persons’ life, I believe, is music of choice. In this day and age, teenagers are very impressionable. They think that by taking on the lifestyle that a musician pretends to have will help them be accepted. This lifestyle that musicians portray can be extremely enticing to a teenager, but kids fail to recognize that musicians are also actors who portray an image to entice the younger generation to buy their music so that they can boost their album sales.
I believe that the record labels selling the music are well aware of the impact that music has on the younger generation. If they take away the image of a musician, then it would be very hard to sell albums that are based on image. Gangster rappers need to act like they are gangsters and death metal rockers need that hard core, bad-to-the-bone image, or teenagers will not be as easily influenced by their music, and record sales would plummet.
It is sad to see all of these younger children who dress in dark clothing, makeup, and earrings all over them and other groups dressing in big clothes and acting like they come from the ghetto because they think they will fit in. kids need to be made aware of the fact that the lifestyle that these musicians portray are only to help sell albums, not to be confused with reality.
blog #6 rough draft essay #2
Blog # 6 rough draft essay # 2
Jonathan Alter is a senior editor for Newsweek and author of its ‘between the lines’ column, which examines politics, media, and society at large. He is also a correspondent for NBC News. ‘Who’s Taking the Kids’, is an article that appeared in the July 29, 2002, issue of Newsweek.
Jonathan Alter talks about how media hype is affecting the way we live out our every day lives. Some believe that it is no longer safe to send your child to the market or that it is dangerous to let their child play in the back yard. But where do we draw the line. Jonathan Alter asks us how much of our fear is common sense caution and how much is fueled by media hype, and is the media preying on our insecurities?
When I was a child my parents allowed me to do a lot of things that today might be considered dangerous. From the age of at least eight years old I was aloud to ride my bike alone as long as I stayed in the neighborhood. When we would summer on the cape we were aloud to take walks through woods or go to the beaches alone. My parents had no fear of us being abducted or lured by a sex offender. In fact they were more worried about us hurting somebody else.
Today there is so much media hype about child abductions that parents are being forced to fear for their child and their safety. I have an eight year old brother and for my parents to even think about letting him have the freedom that his older brothers had is forbidden. Maybe they are being overprotective and I can understand why. If I had children I would probably be just as paranoid about leaving them unattended as my parents are. I understand that the media has a huge influence on the way my parents are raising my brother. Although sheltering will keep him from harm it will also keep him from healthy childhood adventures like riding his bike with his friends or exploring the trails in the woods, or building forts. Sheltering him will most certainly keep him alive but it will also distance him from life.
The emphasis in recent years on child safety has most certainly been a tremendous life saver but sheltering your child from normal activities may, in some cases, do more harm than good.
Work cited,
Gary Goshgarian ‘What Matters in America’
Chapter 3 do the media promote a culture of fear
Jonathan Alter Who’s Taking the Kids
Newsweek Magazine July, 29, 2002.
Jonathan Alter is a senior editor for Newsweek and author of its ‘between the lines’ column, which examines politics, media, and society at large. He is also a correspondent for NBC News. ‘Who’s Taking the Kids’, is an article that appeared in the July 29, 2002, issue of Newsweek.
Jonathan Alter talks about how media hype is affecting the way we live out our every day lives. Some believe that it is no longer safe to send your child to the market or that it is dangerous to let their child play in the back yard. But where do we draw the line. Jonathan Alter asks us how much of our fear is common sense caution and how much is fueled by media hype, and is the media preying on our insecurities?
When I was a child my parents allowed me to do a lot of things that today might be considered dangerous. From the age of at least eight years old I was aloud to ride my bike alone as long as I stayed in the neighborhood. When we would summer on the cape we were aloud to take walks through woods or go to the beaches alone. My parents had no fear of us being abducted or lured by a sex offender. In fact they were more worried about us hurting somebody else.
Today there is so much media hype about child abductions that parents are being forced to fear for their child and their safety. I have an eight year old brother and for my parents to even think about letting him have the freedom that his older brothers had is forbidden. Maybe they are being overprotective and I can understand why. If I had children I would probably be just as paranoid about leaving them unattended as my parents are. I understand that the media has a huge influence on the way my parents are raising my brother. Although sheltering will keep him from harm it will also keep him from healthy childhood adventures like riding his bike with his friends or exploring the trails in the woods, or building forts. Sheltering him will most certainly keep him alive but it will also distance him from life.
The emphasis in recent years on child safety has most certainly been a tremendous life saver but sheltering your child from normal activities may, in some cases, do more harm than good.
Work cited,
Gary Goshgarian ‘What Matters in America’
Chapter 3 do the media promote a culture of fear
Jonathan Alter Who’s Taking the Kids
Newsweek Magazine July, 29, 2002.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
blog # 5 does media promote a culture of fear
Blog #5 does the media promote a culture of fear? Jason Sylvester
When I was a child my parents allowed me to do a lot of things that today might be considered dangerous. From the age of at least eight years old I was aloud to ride my bike alone as long as I stayed in the neighborhood. When we would summer on the cape we were aloud to take walks through woods or go to the beaches alone. My parents had no fear of us being abducted or lured by a sex offender. In fact they were more worried about us hurting somebody else.
Today there is so much media hype about child abductions that parents are being forced to fear for their child and their safety. I have an eight year old brother and for my parents to even think about letting him have the freedom that his older brothers had is forbidden. Maybe they are being overprotective and I can understand why. If I had children I would probably be just as paranoid about leaving them unattended as my parents are. I understand that the media has a huge influence on the way my parents are raising my brother. Although sheltering will keep him from harm it will also keep him from healthy childhood adventures like riding his bike with his friends or exploring the trails in the woods, or building forts. Sheltering him will most certainly keep him alive but it will also distance him from life.
When I was a child my parents allowed me to do a lot of things that today might be considered dangerous. From the age of at least eight years old I was aloud to ride my bike alone as long as I stayed in the neighborhood. When we would summer on the cape we were aloud to take walks through woods or go to the beaches alone. My parents had no fear of us being abducted or lured by a sex offender. In fact they were more worried about us hurting somebody else.
Today there is so much media hype about child abductions that parents are being forced to fear for their child and their safety. I have an eight year old brother and for my parents to even think about letting him have the freedom that his older brothers had is forbidden. Maybe they are being overprotective and I can understand why. If I had children I would probably be just as paranoid about leaving them unattended as my parents are. I understand that the media has a huge influence on the way my parents are raising my brother. Although sheltering will keep him from harm it will also keep him from healthy childhood adventures like riding his bike with his friends or exploring the trails in the woods, or building forts. Sheltering him will most certainly keep him alive but it will also distance him from life.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Blog #6 Wm Campbell
Blog # 6- William Campbell
The impact television has had on the culture of man for the past 60 years has certainly been greater than any other force. Television has become the source of almost everything for man. It reports news, entertains the masses, regulates commerce, dictates lifestyles, defines social issues, and captures our attention for close to fifteen percent of our lives. Because of the profound experience that is television, it is often blamed for all our social ills and for the general failings of western civilization. Violence in television and its effects on children has been rigorously studied for decades. There are experts who state with certainty that violent television breeds violent behavior in children in addition to other undesirable behaviors. Conversely, there are experts who feel any tampering with the art of television is in violation of our first amendment rights and is purely a form of censorship. These experts place the responsibility of programming and of what children view squarely on the shoulders of parents.
It has been 20 years since the National Institute of Mental Health informed the public of their field study findings that violent television programs led to violent behavior in children and teenagers. Later research has defined three specific responses to viewing violence. (1) “Children may become less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others,” (2) “Children may be more fearful of the world around them,” and (3) “Children may be more likely to behave in aggressive or harmful ways toward others.”(American Psychological Association, p.249) Later real-life studies seemed to back up the field studies especially with regards to long term responses. Leonard Eron, Ph.D., and his associates at the University of Illinois, discovered that those who watched a great deal of television violence as children showed more aggressive behavior upon reaching their teens. These same subjects were more likely to be arrested and convicted of crimes as adults.(American Psychological Association, p.250) While there are many reasons why children include violence in their day to day play and dealings, it is known “from both therapeutic and cognitive perspectives, children use play to work out an understanding of experience, including the violence to which they are exposed.”(Levin, p.254) In other words, children are constantly struggling to work out and understand the violence in their lives. One of the outcomes of this effort to understand violence often leaves the child out of control and frightened, and, thus diverted from the positive lessons we want them to learn.(Levin, p.255) Children tend to see bad guys and violent behavior as one dimensional and do not understand what may make them bad in the first place. Good guys, on the other hand, are allowed to do whatever horrible things that need to be done just because they are good.(Levin, p.255) Children tend to want to play the role of the good guy or the superhero and often imitate violent behavior, especially during popular war play. George Gerbner, in his essay, “Television’s Global Marketing Strategy Creates a Damaging and Alienated Window on the World,” describes television as being more than simple programming, “…television is a mythology-highly organically connected, repeated every day so that the themes that run through all programming and news have the effect of cultivating conceptions of reality.”(Gerbner, p. 263) He goes on to say that growing up with television violence has three major costs, that when operating together creates what he calls the “mean world syndrome.” Viewed separately, the costs are (1) The programming “reinforces the worst fears and apprehension of people,” (2) The programming “desensitizes viewers to victimization and suffering,” and (3) The programming creates “the pervasive sense of insecurity and vulnerability” and people “are afraid of strangers and meeting other people.”(Gerbner, p.263) These costs closely resemble the three responses to violence the American Psychological Association defined earlier. Gerbner feels television violence is driven by the system of global marketing and in this form acts to censure what writers can write and producers can produce. He cites polls which list 85 percent of the participants as saying they want less violence in television programming. The problem is that the action of violent programming sells well on the world market, and in Gerbner’s opinion, within the marketing system of television “cultural decision making is now out of democratic reach.”(Gerbner, p.264)
While there is often general agreement that violence in television poses a potential threat to children, there are arguments as to how much of a threat it poses and disagreement with the methods of dealing with the threat. In his essay, “Stop Blaming Kids and TV,” Mike Males brings to light the often overlooked connection between children and parents. Males quotes James Baldwin from “Nobody Knows My Name,” “Children have never been very good at listening to their elders, but they have never failed to imitate them.”(Males, p.268) The contention is that violent behavior begins at home. While many point the finger at kids and the television programming that is claimed to corrupt them, federal reports show an increasing problem with alcohol and drug related crimes among adults who are the age group that are the parents of today’s children.(Males, p.271) Children do as parents do and react to violence as their parents react. The resolution of this issue becomes less complicated in theory than the TV violence and children connection. Males writes, “The inescapable conclusion is this: If you want to change juvenile behavior, change adult behavior.” Another school of thought focuses on the responsibility of parents to their children by taking action at home to “vote with the remote” or to simply turn the television off. “Don’t like it? Don’t watch it,”(Goodman, p.259) writes Tim Goodman, a media critic, in his article for the San Francisco Chronicle, April 29, 2001. Goodman contends the attack on television programming is wrong, is pure censorship, and blames the media for lax parenting.
The issue of violence in television will continue to be debated for years to come. The two sides of the debate, without empirical evidence to decide the outcome, will continue to promote their theories. To some, television will always be the demon. Gerbner feels television should not have the power to “drive an entire culture,” and children have “the right to be born into a more diverse, more fair, more sane, more equitable cultural environment.”(Gerbner, p.265) Others feel the issues of violence begin at home. Goodman writes, “Television is not the problem in our society. It may always be the scapegoat, but it’s nothing more than a bastard machine, not half as disturbing as the real thing.”(Goodman, p.260) Still others will straddle the argument and point out that we live in violent and threatening times as witnessed by September 11, 2001 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Levin feels any solution should “require adults to create a more peaceful world and limit children’s exposure to media violence…”(Levin, p.256)
Works Cited
American Psychological Association, “Violence on Television-
What Do Children Learn? What can Parents Do?”
www.apa.org/pi/pii/vio&tv.hmtl. Copyright by American Psychological
Association, 2003.
George Gerbner, “Television’s Global Marketing Strategy Creates a Damaging and Alienated Window on the World.” The Ecology of
Justice, Context Institute, (IC#38). Spring, 1994.
Diane E. Levin, “Beyond Banning War and Superhero Play:
Meeting Children’s Needs in Violent Times.” Young Children, May, 2003.
Mike Males, “Stop Blaming Kids and TV.” The Progressive,
October, 1997.
Tim Goodman, “Hate Violence? Turn It Off.” San Francisco
Chronicle, April 29, 2001.
The impact television has had on the culture of man for the past 60 years has certainly been greater than any other force. Television has become the source of almost everything for man. It reports news, entertains the masses, regulates commerce, dictates lifestyles, defines social issues, and captures our attention for close to fifteen percent of our lives. Because of the profound experience that is television, it is often blamed for all our social ills and for the general failings of western civilization. Violence in television and its effects on children has been rigorously studied for decades. There are experts who state with certainty that violent television breeds violent behavior in children in addition to other undesirable behaviors. Conversely, there are experts who feel any tampering with the art of television is in violation of our first amendment rights and is purely a form of censorship. These experts place the responsibility of programming and of what children view squarely on the shoulders of parents.
It has been 20 years since the National Institute of Mental Health informed the public of their field study findings that violent television programs led to violent behavior in children and teenagers. Later research has defined three specific responses to viewing violence. (1) “Children may become less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others,” (2) “Children may be more fearful of the world around them,” and (3) “Children may be more likely to behave in aggressive or harmful ways toward others.”(American Psychological Association, p.249) Later real-life studies seemed to back up the field studies especially with regards to long term responses. Leonard Eron, Ph.D., and his associates at the University of Illinois, discovered that those who watched a great deal of television violence as children showed more aggressive behavior upon reaching their teens. These same subjects were more likely to be arrested and convicted of crimes as adults.(American Psychological Association, p.250) While there are many reasons why children include violence in their day to day play and dealings, it is known “from both therapeutic and cognitive perspectives, children use play to work out an understanding of experience, including the violence to which they are exposed.”(Levin, p.254) In other words, children are constantly struggling to work out and understand the violence in their lives. One of the outcomes of this effort to understand violence often leaves the child out of control and frightened, and, thus diverted from the positive lessons we want them to learn.(Levin, p.255) Children tend to see bad guys and violent behavior as one dimensional and do not understand what may make them bad in the first place. Good guys, on the other hand, are allowed to do whatever horrible things that need to be done just because they are good.(Levin, p.255) Children tend to want to play the role of the good guy or the superhero and often imitate violent behavior, especially during popular war play. George Gerbner, in his essay, “Television’s Global Marketing Strategy Creates a Damaging and Alienated Window on the World,” describes television as being more than simple programming, “…television is a mythology-highly organically connected, repeated every day so that the themes that run through all programming and news have the effect of cultivating conceptions of reality.”(Gerbner, p. 263) He goes on to say that growing up with television violence has three major costs, that when operating together creates what he calls the “mean world syndrome.” Viewed separately, the costs are (1) The programming “reinforces the worst fears and apprehension of people,” (2) The programming “desensitizes viewers to victimization and suffering,” and (3) The programming creates “the pervasive sense of insecurity and vulnerability” and people “are afraid of strangers and meeting other people.”(Gerbner, p.263) These costs closely resemble the three responses to violence the American Psychological Association defined earlier. Gerbner feels television violence is driven by the system of global marketing and in this form acts to censure what writers can write and producers can produce. He cites polls which list 85 percent of the participants as saying they want less violence in television programming. The problem is that the action of violent programming sells well on the world market, and in Gerbner’s opinion, within the marketing system of television “cultural decision making is now out of democratic reach.”(Gerbner, p.264)
While there is often general agreement that violence in television poses a potential threat to children, there are arguments as to how much of a threat it poses and disagreement with the methods of dealing with the threat. In his essay, “Stop Blaming Kids and TV,” Mike Males brings to light the often overlooked connection between children and parents. Males quotes James Baldwin from “Nobody Knows My Name,” “Children have never been very good at listening to their elders, but they have never failed to imitate them.”(Males, p.268) The contention is that violent behavior begins at home. While many point the finger at kids and the television programming that is claimed to corrupt them, federal reports show an increasing problem with alcohol and drug related crimes among adults who are the age group that are the parents of today’s children.(Males, p.271) Children do as parents do and react to violence as their parents react. The resolution of this issue becomes less complicated in theory than the TV violence and children connection. Males writes, “The inescapable conclusion is this: If you want to change juvenile behavior, change adult behavior.” Another school of thought focuses on the responsibility of parents to their children by taking action at home to “vote with the remote” or to simply turn the television off. “Don’t like it? Don’t watch it,”(Goodman, p.259) writes Tim Goodman, a media critic, in his article for the San Francisco Chronicle, April 29, 2001. Goodman contends the attack on television programming is wrong, is pure censorship, and blames the media for lax parenting.
The issue of violence in television will continue to be debated for years to come. The two sides of the debate, without empirical evidence to decide the outcome, will continue to promote their theories. To some, television will always be the demon. Gerbner feels television should not have the power to “drive an entire culture,” and children have “the right to be born into a more diverse, more fair, more sane, more equitable cultural environment.”(Gerbner, p.265) Others feel the issues of violence begin at home. Goodman writes, “Television is not the problem in our society. It may always be the scapegoat, but it’s nothing more than a bastard machine, not half as disturbing as the real thing.”(Goodman, p.260) Still others will straddle the argument and point out that we live in violent and threatening times as witnessed by September 11, 2001 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Levin feels any solution should “require adults to create a more peaceful world and limit children’s exposure to media violence…”(Levin, p.256)
Works Cited
American Psychological Association, “Violence on Television-
What Do Children Learn? What can Parents Do?”
www.apa.org/pi/pii/vio&tv.hmtl. Copyright by American Psychological
Association, 2003.
George Gerbner, “Television’s Global Marketing Strategy Creates a Damaging and Alienated Window on the World.” The Ecology of
Justice, Context Institute, (IC#38). Spring, 1994.
Diane E. Levin, “Beyond Banning War and Superhero Play:
Meeting Children’s Needs in Violent Times.” Young Children, May, 2003.
Mike Males, “Stop Blaming Kids and TV.” The Progressive,
October, 1997.
Tim Goodman, “Hate Violence? Turn It Off.” San Francisco
Chronicle, April 29, 2001.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Blog#5 WmCampbell
Blog #5-William Campbell
“Teen Missing!” “Huge Meat Recall!” “Road Rage Rampage!”
These frightening headlines scream at us from the front pages of newspapers, from the pages magazines, from the speakers of radios, and from television and computer screens daily. At every turn, we are beaten and influenced by mass media as they attempt to get our attention. Mass media is motivated by a massive marketing system that counts on our ears and eyes to survive. Hype, hooks, bias, and sensationalism are some of the methods used to grab our interest. One simple fact is we as human readers and listeners respond to the horrors of scary reporting. In her essay, “The Female Fear Factor,” Myrna Blythe quoted Los Angeles Times reporter David Shaw, “The media, after all, pays the most attention to those substances, issues, and situations that most frighten their readers and viewers. Thus, most every day, we read and see and hear about a new purported threat to our health and safety.”(Blythe, p.100) Blythe goes on to say, “When it comes to selling fear, television and women’s magazines live by one rule-there’s no such thing as overkill, no pun intended.”(Blythe, p.99) Problems occur when the media rely on hype to sell reporting. John Stossel, in his essay, “Extreme Reality: How Media Coverage Exaggerates Risks and Dangers,” quotes Bob Lichter, president for the Center for Media and Public Affairs, “[The media] stir up problems that really aren’t there…this…poses a real danger to the public.”( Stossel, p.91) Lichter also states, “Bad journalism is worse than no journalism, because it leaves people thinking they know something that is, in fact, wrong.”(Stossel, p.91) We watch, listen to, and read the news to be informed of the world around us, and we are often told that the world is a scary, ruthless, dangerous, and violent place. Often, this interpretation is nowhere near the reality we know. Jane Ellen Stevens, in her essay, “The Violence Reporting project: A New Approach to Covering Crime,” notes that “the media give much less attention and space to common violent incidents, those that involve people who are not famous, or those in which only one person is killed or injured by an acquaintance or relative.”(Stevens, p.113)
When confronted, corporate media responds by saying they are simply giving the public what it wants. Certainly, they feel this is true as we do watch, listen, and read what they present as newsworthy. In the short term we can combat this by looking at the news media in a critical way and try to separate the hype and bias from the reality. We need to resist becoming less sensitive and withdrawn as a method of coping with the horrors of today’s news. We need to turn to alternative and independent news sources and support and expand their healing efforts. Perhaps this can become a strong message to corporate media that we require a change …”to return to covering the important issues of our day and away from sensationalized hype.”(Phillips, p.106)
Works Cited
“Teen Missing!” “Huge Meat Recall!” “Road Rage Rampage!”
These frightening headlines scream at us from the front pages of newspapers, from the pages magazines, from the speakers of radios, and from television and computer screens daily. At every turn, we are beaten and influenced by mass media as they attempt to get our attention. Mass media is motivated by a massive marketing system that counts on our ears and eyes to survive. Hype, hooks, bias, and sensationalism are some of the methods used to grab our interest. One simple fact is we as human readers and listeners respond to the horrors of scary reporting. In her essay, “The Female Fear Factor,” Myrna Blythe quoted Los Angeles Times reporter David Shaw, “The media, after all, pays the most attention to those substances, issues, and situations that most frighten their readers and viewers. Thus, most every day, we read and see and hear about a new purported threat to our health and safety.”(Blythe, p.100) Blythe goes on to say, “When it comes to selling fear, television and women’s magazines live by one rule-there’s no such thing as overkill, no pun intended.”(Blythe, p.99) Problems occur when the media rely on hype to sell reporting. John Stossel, in his essay, “Extreme Reality: How Media Coverage Exaggerates Risks and Dangers,” quotes Bob Lichter, president for the Center for Media and Public Affairs, “[The media] stir up problems that really aren’t there…this…poses a real danger to the public.”( Stossel, p.91) Lichter also states, “Bad journalism is worse than no journalism, because it leaves people thinking they know something that is, in fact, wrong.”(Stossel, p.91) We watch, listen to, and read the news to be informed of the world around us, and we are often told that the world is a scary, ruthless, dangerous, and violent place. Often, this interpretation is nowhere near the reality we know. Jane Ellen Stevens, in her essay, “The Violence Reporting project: A New Approach to Covering Crime,” notes that “the media give much less attention and space to common violent incidents, those that involve people who are not famous, or those in which only one person is killed or injured by an acquaintance or relative.”(Stevens, p.113)
When confronted, corporate media responds by saying they are simply giving the public what it wants. Certainly, they feel this is true as we do watch, listen, and read what they present as newsworthy. In the short term we can combat this by looking at the news media in a critical way and try to separate the hype and bias from the reality. We need to resist becoming less sensitive and withdrawn as a method of coping with the horrors of today’s news. We need to turn to alternative and independent news sources and support and expand their healing efforts. Perhaps this can become a strong message to corporate media that we require a change …”to return to covering the important issues of our day and away from sensationalized hype.”(Phillips, p.106)
Works Cited
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Blog #4 Wm Campbell
Blog #4-Campbell
In his essay, “With these words I can Sell You Anything,” William Lutz analyzes how certain words and combined phrases are used by advertisers to sell their products and ideas to unsuspecting consumers. Lutz has chosen specific examples of words and phrases and calls them “weasel words.” (Lutz, p.31) With many like products on the market in today’s consumer world, advertisers go to great length to show how their products differ from those of the many competitors. Because of existing consumer protection laws, advertisers have to be careful how they word their ads and what claims they make about the target products. To avoid making false claims, certain “weasel words” are used and these words and phrases appear to make bold claims but when analyzed really make no claims at all. Lutz describes the most used “weasel words,” looks at the true dictionary meaning of each, and then shows how they are used connotatively to the advantage of the advertisers. He warns the consumer that each word in an ad is chosen carefully for a specific reason, and while “weasel words” are dangerous, all words must be looked at critically. He points out it is the consumer’s job to figure out what each word is doing in a certain ad.
Mr. Lutz has chosen the several familiar words most commonly used in advertising which mislead and deceive the consumer. These words are “help,” “virtually,” “new,” “improved,” “acts fast,” “like,” “magic,” “better,” “extra,” “fresh,” “clean,” “beautiful,” “free,” “good,” “clean,” “great,” and “light.” He shows in great detail how they “appear to be making a claim for a product when in fact they are making no claim at all.” (Lutz, p. 32) Lutz’s defines these words as “weasel words” which stems from the weasel’s penchant of raiding a hen house, piercing the eggs found there, sucking out the contents, and leaving the empty shells behind. An example of this would be the use of “helps relieve” in an ad. Consumers who read the ad often brush over the simple word “helps” and read the stronger word ”relieves”, and this dramatic word ends up being all that is remembered. Lutz shows that the word “help,” which he describes as the number one “weasel word,” only means to aid and does not promise to end or cure or solve. Likewise, the word “relieve” means only to ease and makes no promise to stop or end. “New and improved” is another example of advertising doublespeak. Lutz explains that while there are certain requirements placed on the manufacturer to have its products classified as “new” or “improved,” these requirements are small and often are never challenged. Because of this, “new and improved” only means slightly different and not necessarily better. It could mean that the product is more expensive, though. So, when translated literally, these ads are not really saying anything and are like the empty egg shells.
Lutz identified his subject clearly with the use of many specific examples of “weasel words” and their literal translation, and this helped the essay to be very instructive. His understanding of the world of language and visuals in advertising was presented in a convincing and factual manner. This essay of definition was written somewhat informally in the second person and was directed personally to the reader, often in the form of questions that the reader should ask when looking at an ad. This effectively draws in the reader and asks that as consumers we think about what we see and hear in ads. As any consumers are suspicious and critical of the ways advertisers use “doublespeak” and attempt to dictate values, Lutz suggests, “Only by becoming an active, critical consumer of the doublespeak of advertising will you ever be able to cut through the doublespeak and discover what the ad is really saying.” (Lutz, p.38)
Works Cited
William Lutz, “With These Words I Can Sell You Anything.” Doublespeak, HarperCollins, 1989.
In his essay, “With these words I can Sell You Anything,” William Lutz analyzes how certain words and combined phrases are used by advertisers to sell their products and ideas to unsuspecting consumers. Lutz has chosen specific examples of words and phrases and calls them “weasel words.” (Lutz, p.31) With many like products on the market in today’s consumer world, advertisers go to great length to show how their products differ from those of the many competitors. Because of existing consumer protection laws, advertisers have to be careful how they word their ads and what claims they make about the target products. To avoid making false claims, certain “weasel words” are used and these words and phrases appear to make bold claims but when analyzed really make no claims at all. Lutz describes the most used “weasel words,” looks at the true dictionary meaning of each, and then shows how they are used connotatively to the advantage of the advertisers. He warns the consumer that each word in an ad is chosen carefully for a specific reason, and while “weasel words” are dangerous, all words must be looked at critically. He points out it is the consumer’s job to figure out what each word is doing in a certain ad.
Mr. Lutz has chosen the several familiar words most commonly used in advertising which mislead and deceive the consumer. These words are “help,” “virtually,” “new,” “improved,” “acts fast,” “like,” “magic,” “better,” “extra,” “fresh,” “clean,” “beautiful,” “free,” “good,” “clean,” “great,” and “light.” He shows in great detail how they “appear to be making a claim for a product when in fact they are making no claim at all.” (Lutz, p. 32) Lutz’s defines these words as “weasel words” which stems from the weasel’s penchant of raiding a hen house, piercing the eggs found there, sucking out the contents, and leaving the empty shells behind. An example of this would be the use of “helps relieve” in an ad. Consumers who read the ad often brush over the simple word “helps” and read the stronger word ”relieves”, and this dramatic word ends up being all that is remembered. Lutz shows that the word “help,” which he describes as the number one “weasel word,” only means to aid and does not promise to end or cure or solve. Likewise, the word “relieve” means only to ease and makes no promise to stop or end. “New and improved” is another example of advertising doublespeak. Lutz explains that while there are certain requirements placed on the manufacturer to have its products classified as “new” or “improved,” these requirements are small and often are never challenged. Because of this, “new and improved” only means slightly different and not necessarily better. It could mean that the product is more expensive, though. So, when translated literally, these ads are not really saying anything and are like the empty egg shells.
Lutz identified his subject clearly with the use of many specific examples of “weasel words” and their literal translation, and this helped the essay to be very instructive. His understanding of the world of language and visuals in advertising was presented in a convincing and factual manner. This essay of definition was written somewhat informally in the second person and was directed personally to the reader, often in the form of questions that the reader should ask when looking at an ad. This effectively draws in the reader and asks that as consumers we think about what we see and hear in ads. As any consumers are suspicious and critical of the ways advertisers use “doublespeak” and attempt to dictate values, Lutz suggests, “Only by becoming an active, critical consumer of the doublespeak of advertising will you ever be able to cut through the doublespeak and discover what the ad is really saying.” (Lutz, p.38)
Works Cited
William Lutz, “With These Words I Can Sell You Anything.” Doublespeak, HarperCollins, 1989.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)