Human stem cell research is plagued with the notion that stem cells can only be found from an unborn or dead fetus. This in fact is untrue. Since majority of the opponents of this research are religious and anti-abortion groups, it makes sense for these groups to attack the idea of stem cells coming from human embryo cells. Pope John Paul II, is among the stem cell protesters; he stated, “A free and virtuous society, which America aspires to be, must reject practices that devalue and violate human life at any stage from conception until natural death”.

The religious and anti-abortion groups use the argument that life starts at the moment of conception and killing an unborn baby is inhumane. Looking at this from this point of view does make anyone question the morality of stem cell research. Thinking this way without facts to support the statement is the most intellectual thing a person or group could do. One week old embryos are considered blastocysts still and not human; blastocysts are a cluster of cells that is all. A cluster of cells is by no means a human being. Majority of scientists do not consider embryos to be a person until at the very least two weeks old when it develops its primitive streak/ first evidence of a nervous system.

One can put the aborted fetuses argument to rest due to  a team at Advanced Cell Technology in Massachusetts. By extracting one cell from an 8-celled embryo, they were able to use that cell to create more through mitosis.  The 8 celled mouse embryos, now 7 celled embryos, were implanted into a female mouse; the same was done with another mouse, control group, but all 8 celled embryos were left alone. The female was still able to bare the 23 mice to full term the same as the control group from this experiment that had 8 celled mouse embryos. The single cell that was removed and multiplied created 100 stem cells. In this study no mice were harmed, the embryos were safe, and stem cells were still able to be collected without death to the unborn mice. The unborn mice were also viable and fertile offspring indicating no issues occurred during development even with the experiment being done.

Another way stem cells can be obtained without harming an embryo is called “altered nuclear transfer” or ANT for short. In the process known as ANT, the stem cells were extracted from cloned embryos. By extracting human eggs and emptying its nucleus, the group of MIT scientists were able to place donor skin cell nuclei into these cells. This forms something similar to Dolly the sheep that was cloned and produced in the 90’s. Since cloning is considered unethical, this group of scientists infected the donor skin cell with a virus. This virus blocked the action of the Cdx2 gene which is essential for formation of the placenta. Without the placenta, it is unable to be implanted back into the womb. This disqualified the embryo as a “true” embryo making it a “pseudo-embryo”.  As a result, the desired stem cells are able to be obtained without an aborted fetus being utilized. This does not refute the idea that life starts immediately following inception, but if the scientific theory that a cluster of cells is a blastocyte and not a human-being is accepted, research such as this can be done more easily and people can be treated using stem cells.

The American College of Obstericians and Gynecologists Committee on Ethics published what their opinion was on using embryos for stem cell research back in 2006. It stated, “If the preimplantation embryo is left or maintained outside the uterus, it cannot develop into a human being”. The main focus in this statement is the phrase “develop into a human being”. This word’s importance is so great, because in order for something to develop or transform, it must have been something else to being with. This indicates it is not a human being.

 

Sources:

“The Cases For and Against Stem Cell Research.” Fox News. FOX News Network, 09 Aug. 2001. Web. 2 Nov. 2016.

“Two ‘ethical’ Ways to Harvest Stem Cells.” New Scientist. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Nov. 2016.

“When Does Human Life Begin?” Council for Secular Humanism. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Nov. 2016.

Racial profiling still exists on the roads in today’s society. Nevertheless, there are many rebuttals that arise from this hot topic. To name a few, some may argue that many traffic stops including black drivers are just a coincidence that they are minorities and actually did something illegal to get pulled over. Others say that a large contributing factor into this issue is what race the officer is that is making the stop. For example, it could be considered to have less discriminatory intent if a black officer pulls over a black man. With all of this being said, both of these are legitimate points and do occur, but yet, they do not nearly account for the majority of stops with an African American in the car.

As far as the color of the police officer goes, it affects how society and the driver view the situation in a way that can seem less discriminatory, but still it is not that way one-hundred percent of the time. An African American officer can still discriminate against a man or woman of the same race. It may seem less suspicious seeing it, but it can not be overlooked. The color of a person’s skin does not always go hand in hand with their mindset and outlook on life. There is no saying that a black man and white man cannot share the same stereotypical mindset towards black people.

In addition to the rebuttal of same-race officers and drivers, people who disagree with the claim that racial profiling while driving is a real issue may counter the argument by saying any one of the stops that happen daily could be a coincidence. The thought is that these black drivers could be pulled over simply because they are breaking the law. While this may hold true for a fair amount of instances, it does not explain why nearly 2 percent more blacks (4.7%) are pulled over without a reason than whites (2.6%), according to Christopher Ingraham in his article titled “You Really Can Get Pulled Over For Driving While Black, Federal Statistics Show.” That statistic is unsettling because if somebody deserves to be pulled over for their driving, regardless of race, then so be it. But with that being said, minorities should not double the amount of whites in a category like this. They are called minorities for a reason, and that is because there are less of them in this country. Therefore, to lead substantially in that category leads to a much worse ratio than whites also getting pulled over without a reason.

Another example of the skewed ratios reported by Kim Soften in her article, “The Big Question About Why Police Pull Over So Many Black Drivers,” is that “a study of Connecticut traffic stops in 2014 and 2015 — among the states with the most recent data — found that 14 percent of traffic stops targeted black drivers, despite them making up only 9 percent of the state’s population.” Yet again, this supports the claim that these stops are not all simply coincidental. This is also a very recent study, so as we think we made tremendous progress with an African American president over the last 8 years, which we did to an extent, many people still continued to turn a blind eye to racism and discrimination in its various different forms.

In conclusion, there are logical and understandable rebuttals to this issue in society. Nevertheless, they can be refuted as well. People who pretend it is not real and deny certain statistics may be part of the problem. If more people in this country were open-minded and socially aware we would have a better opportunity to push for change, justice, and equality.

Works Cited

Ingraham, Christopher. “You Really Can Get Pulled Over For Driving While Black, Federal Statistics Show” The Washington Post. 09 Sept. 2014. Web. 30 Oct. 2016

Soften, Kim. “The Big Question About Why Police Pull Over So Many Black Drivers” The Washington Post. 08 July 2016. Web. 30 Oct. 2016

The Benefits of Failure

The public’s attitude toward standardized testing plays a large role in its implementation and development. Over the past few years, state education departments have faced increased scrutiny due to worries about high-stakes tests and their effect on education. Most recently, the achievement gap between lower class minority students and high class white students has been brought to the public eye and fought against.  However, there are still many that argue that standardized tests are actually beneficial to students, teachers, and education as a whole. In Latasha Gandy’s “Don’t Believe the Hype: Standardized Tests Are Good For Children, Families, and Schools,” she claims that standardized tests actually help minority or low income students by displaying the inequality of schooling. She argues that these tests are one of the most effective and convincing tools to use to fight for educational justice. Since she public is now aware of the achievement gap between minority and white students, schools will now be forced to answer to the inequality and eventually fight to fix it.

To begin, standardized tests are more than just one test taken and eventually forgotten about. The implications of these tests grow more and more over time and could follow the students for months even years after the final answer is circled on the paper. So yes, while standardized tests may be a tool to show the inequity of schooling for minority and low income students, that realization is not directly benefitting these schools, students, and communities. In fact, it is likely harming them. Low performing schools lose funding, low performing students are held back academically, and communities with low performing students are more susceptible to crime. Two studies, The Cambridge Study on Delinquent Development and the Pittsburgh Youth Study, both found links between low academic performance and adolescent delinquency. Although these tests are showing the score gap for the public to see, the students still have to suffer the consequences of the gap. The inequity that is shown in the test results ruin futures and lessens already scarce resources for schools. It is hard to find benefit in those student’s lower performance.

The constant failures and lower scores of minority and lower class students would be to overlook if they were not in vain. However, the “achievement gap” still exists and has existed since the beginning of standardized testing. According to the NAEP, National Assessment of Educational Progress, the Caucasian American and African American gap in mathematics for 17 year olds was 32 points in 1982 while in 2004 it was 28 points.  In reading achievement tests, the gap for 17 years olds in 1984 was 32 points and in 2004 it was 29. For hispanic Americans, the gap in mathematics was 27 points in 1982 for mathematics and 24 in 2004. In reading, the Hispanic gap 27 points in 1984 and then increased to 29 points in 2004. Therefore, to say that these tests are benefitting these students because it helps communities recognize the gap so that they can close it is just not true. That would be an excellent concept, if it were actually happening. In reality though, the gap still exists. Although it is narrowing in some cases, progress is slow. It took twenty years for the gap to narrow by three points. In that time, hundreds of thousands of students suffered the consequences of lower performance of standardized tests.

All in all, to say that standardized tests are benefitting minority students is insulting to the students who every year face the uphill battle of these tests and continued to be frustrated by the results. In theory, the concept of standardized tests being used as the tool to identify and abolish the achievement gap is amazing. However, in reality, that goal is just not being achieved. The achievement gap still exists today despite its existence being discovered over thirty years ago. There is now a lot more awareness for the problem but that is no consolation to the students who are failing and the schools that are getting less funding. To say that a racial achievement gap is beneficial is to undermine the effect it has on minority students.

Works Cited

“Education and Delinquency: Summary of a Workshop.” Linking School Performance and Delinquency. The National Academy of the Sciences, 2000. Web. 12 Nov. 2016.

Gandy, Latasha. “Don’t Believe the Hype: Standardized Tests Are Good for Children, Families and Schools.” Education Post. Education Post, 11 Jan. 2016. Web. 12 Nov. 2016.

“NAEP – Achievement Gaps.” NAEP – Achievement Gaps. National Center for Educational Statistics, 22 Sept. 2015. Web. 12 Nov. 2016.

Do Violent Video Games Translate to Violent Behavior?

Violent video games causing violent behavior in gamers seems like a reasonable thing to conclude. The evidence for such a conclusion is also seemingly concrete.  Such evidence includes studies showing that aggression does increase when playing violent video games, as well as testimonies from culprits. However, everything that this argument is founded on is incorrect. I have found that the evidence supporting violent video games as a catalyst for violence is taken for granted and interpreted incorrectly to favor that stance.

Firstly, the American Psychological Association’s research on video games finds that there is a correlation between playing violent video games and increases in aggression. This would seem conclusive at face value if it were not for the fact that there are various forms of aggression. Aggressive behavior takes the form of anything from lying and throwing tantrums to fighting and hurting people. It can be verbal or physical, subtle or noticeable. The studies done by the Association are not conclusive in pointing out a link between violent video games and criminal activity, but rather violent video games and a broad spectrum of aggressive actions. It may be possible that there is a connection, but according to data collected by the Entertainment Software Association, as general video game sales increase, the total number of violent offences has been decreasing over time. This shows that despite a larger population of gamers having played violent video games, there have been less violent crimes.

On another note, a critical point is that some criminals admit to video games playing a part in their crime. ABC News reported in 2003 that William and Joshua Buckner shot at passing cars on the Tennessee highway, killing a man and injuring a woman. After being apprehended, they claimed that they were inspired to do the crime after playing a came called Grand Theft Auto. There seems to be very obvious scapegoating in this situation. James Fleck explains in his essay Why We Blame Others, that people will blame another person or source for an action out of habit. When someone is under heat for their actions, it is a natural reaction to attempt to bring attention off of one’s self and onto another source. This instance is no different. Whether or not someone is trying to lessen their prison sentence or some other underlying goal, criminals will typically bring other people or another factor into their crime so that they do not get the full wrath of their apprehension.

In conclusion, the evidence that supports the argument of violent video games causing violent behavior is often misinterpreted. Just because games can cause aggression, does not mean it results in criminal activity, especially when violent crimes are decreasing as video games are becoming more and more popular. Even testimonies from criminals cannot be taken at face value since a criminal will say almost anything to lessen the consequences of their actions. In reality, for a perpetrator to blame video games only adds to the idea that violent video games are used as a scapegoat.

Works Cited

“APA Review Confirms Link Between Playing Violent Video Games and Aggression.” American Psychological Association. N.p., 13 Aug. 2015. Web. 30 Nov. 2016.

Entertainment Software Association, “Essential Facts About Games and Violence,” http://www.theesa.com, 2008

News, ABC. “Did Video Game Drive Teens to Shootings?” ABC News. ABC News Network, 06 Sept. 2003. Web. 23 Nov. 2016.

Fleck, J. R. (2011). Why we blame others: An examination of scapegoating (Order No. 1492807). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (862344967).

Is it really that hard?

Sandlot 2 is the biggest softball vs. baseball challenge of all time. In the movie, the Sandlot boys arrive at their usual playing spot, to their surprise, they witness three girls on their dirt. Dealing with intruders is hard enough when people are on any kind of property that has clearly been taken, but girls just make it worse. As the ball players begin to make a compromise, both boys and girls make some sort of bet. Winner takes the sandlot; loser leaves. Softball pitcher, Hayley Goodfairer, challenges baseball player, David Durgano, saying she can strike out him out with three pitches. Accepting the challenge, David faces an underhand softball windmill for the first time. Foul ball after foul ball, both began to get tired and weaker. In the end they call it a draw. During draws, there is no winner and no loser.  The symbolization here can indicate that neither sport is harder or easier than the other.

Softball and baseball, in general, are too different to be compared on their difficulties. Baseball players can’t hit a softball pitch effectively because they have never seen that kind of pitching before. This is equivalent to a professional badminton player to step onto a tennis court. Though these sports are very similar with the same kind of big idea, they are very different. With tennis, the net is low to the ground and the court is bigger. In badminton, the net is high and the court in shorter. Badminton players must focus on the speed and spin of the birdie, tennis focuses on power and timing of the ball.

Some researches say that softball hitters hit less than baseball hitters because the kind of pitching is more difficult to hit. The top three softball hitters in America, as of 2015, all have batting averages over .500, while the top three baseball hitters hit just over .420. If hitting a softball is harder, than these numbers do not add up to support that statement. Because of the smaller softball field, the infield and bases are both a shorter distance. The shorter distance will cause many more infield hits than baseball hitters can produce. There are aspects in both sports that make each have many different difficulties. The sports are just too different to judge whether one is harder than the other.

In both baseball and softball, batters succeed only when they can strike the ball with enough force and accuracy to place it where defensive players are not. The mechanics of successful batters differ, but they need to be equally skilled players who practice responding to pitches that behave differently in the two sports. On average, the hardball arrives sooner at the plate, giving the batter less time to react. Baseball players practice to reduce their reaction time, or to decide earlier. On the other hand, the softball arrives on an upward plane, startling to new players and very disconcerting to accomplished baseball players. But given enough time to practice, hardball batters could adapt to softball hitting, and vice versa. Neither sport is harder.

Let’s say a badminton player has played tennis for the same amount of time, we could see what sport that player has more success with. The player can give a better measure for what sport they have more difficulties in than the other. The same concept applies to softball and baseball. Very little to no baseball players also play fast pitch softball. If there were any that did, there is no analysis on them. Researchers have also done no recorded scenario where a softball hitter batted against a baseball pitcher. Overall, stating that one sport is harder than the other is too broad of a statement.

Works Citied

H. (2014). Difference Between Tennis and Badminton. Retrieved November 23, 2016.

Sullivan, S. (2016, February 05). Baseball vs Softball, Which is Harder? – Baseball Fam. Retrieved December 05, 2016

The Equal Opportunity State

America is a country where, a person can work their way out of poverty. There are equal opportunities for those who are wealthy, as well as those who are poor in America. If someone is living in poverty there are different assistance programs to help that person survive and get out of poverty. These assistance are labeled as government assistance. Some government assistance are, welfare, unemployment and financial aid. The government ties to set people up for success if they are willing to work for it. America was founded on creating a land where people can migrate, and create a successful living for themselves. Throughout America there has been people born into poor families who have worked their way out of poverty. Those who take advantage of the opportunities are the ones that succeed.

In present America, the US government makes it mandatory for children between the ages of 6 and 16 to attend school. Before this mandate children were put to work in factories. Education is a vital key to success. The US government realized this when there was an abundance of children were working and not attending school in the 19th and 20th centuries. According to the article Child Labor in U.S. History, children were preferred workers because employers saw them as more manageable, cheaper, and less likely to strike (Child Labor Public Education Project). Children were more likely to work in these factories their whole life because of the lack of education. With the help of child labor laws, the school mandate enabled children to get educated and end the child labor practices in the 19th and 20th centuries. Unions helped these harsh child labor practices come to an end. These employers paid very little and it was unlikely for the children to get out of poverty. Children were rescued by the Child Labor Committee when they fought for children to be provided with free, compulsory education. The Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938 set federal standards for child labor. America fixed its mistake and gave those children a chance to experience life after poverty.

For those children who would later want to achieve high education but didn’t have the financial resources, the government provides financial aid. Financial aid has been available since the 1600’s. In present day, there is a financial aid application called FASFA that is filled out to determine the amount of government funds a student can receive. Outside governmental assistance scholarships are given by private company to increase funds needed to attend school. In 1643, the first scholarship was established by Lady Anne Radcliffe Mowlson at Harvard University (Fin Aid). This scholarship was worth 1000 pounds (Harvard University). This helped someone attend school, who otherwise wouldn’t be able to attend without it. Harvard then awarded their first student loan in 1840. After the creation of the US Department of Education in 1867, student aid programs started to thrive. Many different student aids were created to help certain groups of people. In today’s world you can receive a scholarship of just about anything. There is a list of 100 unique scholarships on YesCollege.com and one of them is the Jif most creative sandwich contest. This scholarship is worth $25,000 and it comes with a Jif Peanut Butter Basket. Qualifications to receiving scholarships have evolved from simple education based qualifiers to fun and creative qualifiers.

Beyond educational help, the government has created ways to assist those who are living in poverty. The government created federally funded assistance programs in the 1930’s during the Great Depression (Welfare info). The Great Depression affected families financially in great numbers. Families with little to no income were the main beneficiaries of these welfare programs. The welfare system stayed in the governments hand for the next sixty years (welfare Info). States were granted the ability to control their welfare programs individually. States were given a grant called TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), which is the base of welfare. Families are given money and food stamps to take care of their families. Food stamps are food vultures for families to get food. If a family has a low income limit these food stamps helps families save their money for other needed resources. These are all attempts to help struggling Americans.

Every American has the right to be free and chase the American dream. This dream is to take advantage of the freedom and work hard to achieve financial stability. It is illegal to discriminate against someone based on race, gender and sexuality, therefore no one is denied the opportunity of financial stability. American is the land of opportunity it’s up to the citizens to choose their future and go get it. Many people try to migrate to America for its opportunities every day. America is thought to be the greatest country in the world.

 

Works Cited

“Radcliffe College Library Collection Relating to Ann Radcliffe, 1894-1977: A Finding Aid.” Radcliffe College Library. Harvard Library, n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2016.

Hawksworth, Scott . “100 Unique and Weird Scholarships.” YesCollege. Yes College, 14 Nov. 2016. Web. 30 Nov. 2016.

“History of Student Financial Aid.” FinAid | FinAid for Educators and FAAs | History of Student Financial Aid. Fin Aid, n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2016

 Michael Herring. “Child Labor in U.S. History.” Child Labor in U.S. History. Child Labor Public Education Project, n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2016.

“Welfare Reform – Social Welfare Change.” Welfare System Reform. Welfare Info, n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2016.

“US Welfare System – Help for US Citizens.” US Welfare System Help for US Citizens. Walfare System, n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2016.

Rock Stars- Harmless Individuals or Devil Worshipers

Rock and roll is not the music of Satan. It is a canvas of many different topics. Rock musicians do not have dark forces in their intentions. Many of their songs highlight positive values, life lessons, and random events. Performers like Jimmy Buffett, the Beatles, and Bruce Springsteen would never be thought of as linked with the devil. But like every debatable topic, there is always a rebuttal argument (which can be rebutted with the right evidence as well). In this case, the main rebuttal argument is that seemingly harmless Rock stars, including the ones listed above, have actually been involved with dark forces.

Yes, these singers do mostly sing about happy situations. But they have also dabbled with influences of Satan. Uncovering this truth will prove that Rock and Roll has darkness running entirely through it, even in the areas that appear the brightest. For example, Jimmy Buffett, the founder of Margaritaville, is beloved by fans for singing songs about relaxation, maritime life, and cheeseburgers in paradise. However, he does have one song that mocks God and promotes blasphemous behavior- “Too Drunk to Karaoke”.  As David J. Stewart explains, “Toby Keith and Jimmy Buffet encourage booze drinkers to drink, drink, drink… until you’re ‘TOO DRUNK TO KARAOKE.’ The video is a disgrace, encouraging alcoholism and irresponsible behavior.”Jimmy Buffett, with this one song, has gone against all that he is known for.

The same thing can be said for the not-so- Fab Four. John, Paul, George, and Ringo are known as the pioneers of the British Invasion. Millions of fans loved them, especially attracting the attention of girls as the four cute guys from Liverpool. But the quartet was not the innocent boy band that they appeared to be. The most blatant proof of this can be seen (and heard) in their infamous album, Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band.  The front cover of this album features the four Beatles surrounded by controversial figures from history- including Marilyn Monroe, Karl Marx, and Bob Dylan. The most unsettling figure included however is Aleister Crowley, a well-known English occultist. His inclusion is a clear sign that the Beatles were fans of occult rituals. Another indication that these men were not the most perfect of guys is the meaning of the song, “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds”. A close analysis shows that the Beatles in this song are glorifying the effects of taking a drug- LSD. These seemingly innocent men could not resist highlighting the influences of the Devil.

Unfortunately, New Jersey’s The Boss, whose music is loved by people of all ages, could not resist the sweet temptation either. This resulted in an unanticipated action by a popular coffee shop chain. As reporter Dave Lifton mentions,”Starbucks banned his latest album, Devils & Dust, from its stores, in part due to explicit lyrics in one of the songs.”

To really hit this point home, here are some lyrics from the track in question- “She slipped me out of her mouth/’You’re ready,’ she said/She took off her bra and panties/Wet her fingers, slipped it inside her/And crawled over me on the bed.” This song unabashedly promotes sex, one of Satan’s favorite values. Starbucks can’t have this song play in its shops, and it should not be play anywhere else either[, say rock’s critics]: even Rock and Roll’s brightest individuals have been motivated by darkness.

Now is the time to shoot this rebuttal argument down. Jimmy Buffett’s song “Too Drunk to Karaoke” is an attempt by him to connect to a younger audience, one that likes to listen to songs about “hardcore” partying. He enlisted the help of Toby Keith to write the song, as his music is known to promote wild behavior. So technically, the song is actually Toby Keith’s, with Jimmy Buffett’s name receiving top billing. Plus, the song is very much Country (Keith’s main genre), making it an entirely different beast than those of Rock and Roll. Moving on to the Beatles, it must be recognized that they are just rebellious young adults. They used controversial figures including Aleister Crowley in order to set themselves apart from other bands, and because they found these individuals to be memorable in history, which is what they wanted to become.

Concerning the song “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds”, there shouldn’t be any attempts at over-analyzing. As the website Shmoop explains,”John Lennon said in many different interviews that the song title was simply inspired by a drawing that his four-year-old son, Julian, brought home from school.”A little boy’s drawing inspired the song, not drug use.

With Bruce Springsteen’s song “Reno”, there is a similar situation as Jimmy Buffett’s “Too Drunk to Karaoke”- it is not Rock and Roll. The Boss’s whole album, Devils & Dust, was his attempt at being a Country star. And his song is not promoting sex with a prostitute. The final lyrics are “She brought me another whisky/Said ‘Here’s to the best you ever had’/We laughed and made a toast/It wasn’t the best I ever had/Not even close.” Springsteen is saying that his experience with this woman of the night was not that great.

A common thread in all of these rebuttals is that they all focus on only one song or album from each specific artist.  This means that the opposition has only been able to find only one instance that they could twist to their advantage in each performer(s)’ career. The opposition is in fact unintentionally endorsing the music of Jimmy Buffett, the Beatles, and Bruce Springsteen as being wholesome and not objectionable by only finding single questionable “faults”.

As a side note, it should also be mentioned that a popular offshoot of Rock and Roll is Christian Rock. This form of music centers on songs related to promoting faith and good lessons in a contemporary fashion. Many of these tunes are even used in churches today to liven up the crowds. If the rebuttal argument was true, then even Satan has tainted the supposedly harmless Christian Rock performers. And that revelation will make the church institutions look like hypocrites. And sure enough, there are a couple of scandals involving these performers. In  January of 2015, George Perdikis, a founding member of the popular Aussie gospel rock band Newsboys (which was notably featured in the film God’s Not Dead), came out as an atheist on a faith discussion website. Plus, as reported by Asher Bayot of Inquisitr.com, Perdikis went on to write that,“The Christian music scene is populated by many people who act as though they have a direct hotline to a God who supplies them with the answers to the Universe. There seems to be more ego and narcissism amongst Christian musicians than their secular counterparts.” Another notable scandal involves As I Lay Dying, a Christian death metal band ( an extreme subgenre of heavy metal, which is a prominent genre of Rock music). As Molly Lambert of Grantland.com has written, “Tim Lambesis, currently incarcerated lead singer of … As I Lay Dying, has admitted that the band had faked being Christian.” The band pretended to be Christian in order to make more money. One of Lambesis’ ex-bandmates, Nick Hipa echoed George Perdikis’ statement about Christian musicians by calling the former lead singer a “sociopathic narcissist”. Lambesis’ scandal also provoked talk about an industry wide issue- “How do you prove someone is really dedicated to Christianity and not just the lucrative record sales of the Christian market?”

The solution to this question is admitting the craziness in trying to hold Rock to an unattainable purity level. Not one single performer in Rock ‘n’ Roll is pure. This transcends all forms of the popular genre, including Christian Rock. It’s called being human, and Rock ‘n’ Roll should not be unfairly attacked for it.

 

Works Cited

Bayot, Asher. “Founding Member Of ‘God’s Not Dead’ Band Newsboys Comes Out As An Atheist.” The Inquisitr News. N.p., 24 Jan. 2015. Web. 07 Dec. 2016.

Lambert, Molly. “Pray for Pay: Jailed Christian Rocker Tim Lambesis Faked His Religion.” Grantland. N.p., 23 June 2014. Web. 07 Dec. 2016.

Lifton, Dave. “Why Starbucks Banned Bruce Springsteen’s ‘Devils and Dust’” Ultimate Classic Rock. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Nov. 2016.

Shmoop. “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds Meaning.” Shmoop.com. Shmoop University, Inc., 11 Nov. 2008. Web. 13 Nov. 2016.

Springsteen, Bruce. “Reno.” Azlyrics.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Nov. 2016.

Stewart, David J. ““Too Drunk To Karaoke” Hit Song Mocks God.” “Too Drunk To Karaoke” Hit Song Mocks God. N.p., Aug. 2013. Web. 13 Nov. 2016.

Races of different color aren’t protected by law enforcement but are targeted by them. Police using fire arms in a routine arrest has become more prevalent. It seems that instead of using their TAZE guns which according to Tim Dees an officer since 1979, “Few people can resist the stun of a TASER–I’d say far less than 1%.” Therefore, why do law enforcement officials use the deadliest technique more often than none? Reality is that many of these shootings actually turn out deadly for the non-officer which is most likely unarmed. Some crazy statistics show just how much cops abuse their privileges to hold a fire arm. It is said that officers killed nearly 102 unarmed African American civilians in 2015. That is nearly 2 each week. About 1 and 3 black people killed were identified later as unarmed. Out of all the unarmed people killed in 2015 37% were African American and that is despite the fact that African Americans only make up 13% of the entire population. Unarmed frican Americans were killed at a rate 5x faster than their white counter parts. With all the loss and carnage involved in these cases, rarely were officers arrested or charged of  crime. In fact only 10 of the 102 cases in 2015 resulted in an officer being charged. Only two of those 10 officers were convicted, and only one received jail time. The officer arrested cut a deal and got to serve his jail time for his full year sentence only on the weekends. We understand what justice is and this is not justice. The families of all those victims must now live without their son, daughter, father or mother. They have lost so much and the police have lost nothing. News reporting has opened our eyes to corruption and its our turn to act now. Protest groups such as “Black Lives Matters,” are so important to have to raise awareness. The corruption needs to stop, the evidence is there now it is up to us to convert change into society.

 

“Police Killed More than 100 Unarmed Black People in 2015.” Mapping Police Violence. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Nov. 2016.

https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-police-use-stun-guns-first-lethal-force-second-when-dealing-with-criminals-Why-dont-the-police-use-stun-guns-for-just-about-everything

 

 

DBT Doesn’t Fail- Therapists Do

 

Therapists whose patients don’t improve with DBT complain that it doesn’t work in extreme cases of BPD and emotional dysregulation. In one case, Shireen L. Rizvi had a patient named Barbara whose condition was not improved, and whose disorder may have been worsened, by the improper application of DBT. Barbara had BPD, social anxiety, severe depression, PTSD, and was an abuse survivor. Rizvi’s treatment was incompetent.

Over the course of six months, Rizvi struggled to treat Barbara, later blaming her failure on the “therapy-interfering behaviors” of her patient such as asking her therapist very personal questions, calling her in crisis daily, and not making eye contact. Rizvi’s response to these behaviors is what makes her argument that DBT didn’t work here completely invalid. Rizvi admitted to outright ignoring some of Barbara’s behaviors in many ways. She failed to indulge in and therefore validate the behaviors. The very basics of DBT state that a patient must feel validated in order to receive treatment. Maybe partially answering a question or asking her why she didn’t make eye contact would have been an improvement. Rizvi instead let them agitate her and obstruct her own practice.

While Barbara did overstep the patient-therapist line (she had had a romantic affair with a previous therapist, so she didn’t understand it in the first place) Rizvi’s response should have been one of understanding and willingness to help, not one of agitation and rejection. Rizvi admitted to being a “novice therapist”, but as someone who is not even a therapist yet, I can see that that is no excuse. She looked at Barbara and saw not a person but a set of symptoms: mistrust of authority, boundary blindness, disassociation, crippling anxiety. Well-administered DBT could have helped Barbara; her therapist did not.

Therapists need to take into account the state of their patients and how to best treat them. They cannot look at every patient as the same textbook set of symptoms, they have to see the patient as a whole person. Barbara may fit the criteria for rigorous DBT, but would not be able to handle it. She most likely would have done better under a less structured form of DBT, as one who has had little structure in her life to begin with. She is not familiar with such intense dedication to one thing, a thing which she is not even convinced is worthwhile yet. So, giving her small tidbits of DBT in her therapy sessions would not only have given the therapy more meaning to her, but made her more receptive to it.

Another example of DBT failure is one I found on a forum for people with BPD. This time, we see the patient perspective on the issue. A user we’ll call Cabdriver gave a list of explanations on why DBT wasn’t working for him and how it was flawed. The list consisted of a combination of him not practicing his skills and his therapist punishing him for it. He found the skills boring and unhelpful, and would lie to avoid punishment and say that he did them when he hadn’t.

Therein lies the problem: a therapist should never punish a patient. Apparently, Cabdriver’s therapist would become irreverent or even take breaks from therapy when Cabdriver didn’t practice his skills regularly. This is probably an extreme case, but it is troubling. Again, I reference that one of the key principles of DBT is validation, and a patient cannot possibly feel validated if he is constantly fearing punishment. A person can’t fear his therapist; therapy is supposed to be a safe space where someone can admit to anything without judgement. He may be held accountable for his actions, but he shouldn’t have to fear a slap on the wrist. Patients are adults; treat them as such.

The solution here lies in both the patient and the therapist trying a bit harder. The therapist needs to try to convince Cabdriver that the skills are worthwhile, as the punishment approach is ineffective and downright patronizing. Maybe Cabdriver needs a new therapist altogether. But he also must realize that the skills are there to help him, and they aren’t as black-and-white as they seem. Cabdriver often said things along the lines of “Have a problem? Practice your skills!” However, “practice your skills” can simply mean applying a new approach to a situation or changing thinking. It doesn’t always mean “sit and be mindful and all the world’s problems will disappear.” In the end, everyone involved with DBT just has to be open minded and accepting, and go from there.

Obviously not all college students are Barbara or Cabdriver and not all therapists are Rizvi. However, they may still have therapy interfering behaviors and not be the most eager to start DBT. That is why a very relaxed form of it is best. Reluctant patients shouldn’t be completely immersed in the therapy, or shut out like failures. Introducing DBT slowly in small pieces makes much more sense. The therapist doesn’t even have to officially declare “We’re going to do DBT now.” She can simply give skills that pull from DBT and mention the name, intriguing the patient. Patients who recognize the value of DBT are receptive patients.

Patients have to believe that the skills will help them, and that they can implement them successfully. Emotional validation, as Robins and Rosenthal say, is one of four core principles of successful DBT. The safer and more empowered a patient feels, the more likely they are to use therapy skills outside of the office, as I stated when giving cabdriver a solution. But of course, the person has to practice the skills in order for them to help. If someone completely ignores their skills and makes no progress, then what?  Successful therapists guide their patients through that process, from belief, to validation, to empowerment, to practice. The unsuccessful, who treat their patients like children throwing fits, drive patients away.

The bottom line is, it all comes down to the proficiency of the therapist. If they look at patients as textbook sets of symptoms who all need the same thing, no progress is going to be made. However, if they change their style to meet each patient’s needs, looking at them as a human being, it makes all the difference. This kind of care could benefit everyone, from the most resistant BPD patient to the scared college student. Therapists just have to be willing to try.

Works Cited

Rizvi, Shireen L. “Treatment Failure in Dialectical Behavior Therapy.” Cognitive and Behavioral Practice 18.3 (2011): 403-12. Science Direct. 2011. Web. 13 Nov. 2016.

Robbins, Clive J., and Zachary Rosenthal. “Dialectical Behavior Therapy.” Acceptance and Mindfulness in Cognitive Behavior Therapy. John Wiley & Sons, n.d. Web. 30 Oct. 2016.

User Cabdriver. “DBT: How Is It Working for You?” RSS. N.p., 19 Sept. 2010. Web. 23 Nov. 2016.