Category: Authors FA17

Usernames for Fall 2017 students of Comp II

Definition Argument—TheAdmiral

On August 26, 2016, the announcer at Levi’s Stadium in San Francisco, California came over the loudspeaker, as before every game, and said, “Ladies and gentlemen, please rise and remove your hats for the singing of our national anthem.” At that moment, San Francisco 49ers quarterback, Colin Kaepernick dropped down to one knee and shocked the entire nation. From high school sporting events to the Olympic games, from ballparks around the country, “The Star-Spangled Banner” is a tradition Americans adopted at the commencement of great sporting events that serves as the pride of our great nation. What began as a simple gesture of patriotism grew into one of the greatest traditions at America’s beloved sporting venues. To some Americans, the rendition of the national anthem brings a tear to the eye and a chill to the spine. But, for others, “The Star-Spangled Banner” represents the hypocrisy of a nation divided on the idea all not Americans have equal rights in “the land of the free”. (Key)

After the NFL football game on the August 26, 2016, Colin Kaepernick released a statement,

“I am not going to stand up and show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football, and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder”.

Many Americans may not agree with Kaepernick’s statements, but they still hold some truth. In some parts of the United States, police brutality is still a serious problem, especially with the minorities such as black Americans. Police officers continue to outrage a nation with multiple incidences of unnecessary extreme acts of violence towards individuals of color.

This deep-seeded feud between black Americans and law enforcement roots itself in the race riots during the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s. The Civil Right movement in the 1960s caused America to ponder the question, “Are all Americans treated equally?” Police brutality ravaged the lives of black Americans across the nation which cause race riots in major US cities and on college campuses.  While some Americans resorted to violence, others peacefully attempted to display their distaste for the unequal rights with sit ins. Unfortunately, public demonstrations of racial inequalities resulted in violence and police brutality regardless of how they began (Anderson). As a nation, the United Stated made great strides to protect the rights of all Americans; however, many black Americans feel that police brutality is still thriving in our great nation similar to the race riots of the sixties.

Police brutality during the civil rights movement resulted in violent and public actions toward black Americans by public servants paid to uphold the law. While police officers vowed to serve and protect society, many Americans questioned who exactly the police protected and felt black Americans remained vulnerable in a nation progressing toward equality. Police continued to harass black Americans even while they participated in peaceful protests. On February 1, 1960, the Greensboro 4 staged their first “sit in” at the Woolworth’s because they were permitted to buy merchandise at the store; however, they were not allowed to simply sit and buy a cup of coffee at the lunch counter. Their first meeting ended with a prayer, but after their peaceful protest grew, it turned into violent acts of police brutality toward the black citizens.  (Anderson).

Some cases of violence cause extreme outrage and rioting, like the case of Philando Castile, a black American who was pulled over for a faulty headlight. When the police officer pulled Castile over, Castile explained to the office that he had a firearm in his car and was also licensed to carry. The officer screams “Do not reach for it! Do not reach for it!” The dash camera from the police cruiser shows the officer firing shot into the driver side window of Castile’s vehicle. While the officer shot and killed Castile, he was acquitted of all charges. Castile’s girlfriend, an eye witness to the violent and senseless murder, recorded and broadcasted the incident live on Facebook for the world to see.

Kaepernick’s protest gained major attention, and was the topic of all major sports, and news networks across America. Since then, the protests grew in popularity among NFL players while spreading to the collegiate and high school levels. But, has Kaepernick’s  meaning of the protest been lost along the way? NFL players, like Kaepernick state that they kneel in protest of  police brutality, which is fine if that is their sole purpose. When you see so many players in the NFL just following along in others footsteps and kneeling, it begs the question of do they really know what or why they are protesting? Even future Hall of Fame coach Tony Dungy stated in an interview “But just don’t do it (kneel) because other people are doing it. Don’t just do it because you think it’s going to make a statement.”

If Kaepernick was really trying to make a statement about police brutality, though possibly effective, this was the wrong time to do it. Like I previously stated, the National Anthem made its first appearance at the sixth game of the World Series in 1918 to honor all of the service men who fought overseas in the Great War, and that had made the ultimate sacrifice for the country they love so dearly. Military supporters, and military families across America understand the origin of the Anthem, and that is why a many Americans were so outraged.

Lee Greenwood’s song, “Proud to be an American,” is a great example that shows the love most have for this great country.  In the third stanza of his song, Greenwood states “, and I’m proud to be an American, where at least I know I’m free, and I won’t forget the men who died, who gave that right to me.”  His is statement is truly what being an American is all about. As an American, I love this great nation, because it is the land of opportunity. Not everyone may always agree with everything that is done, such as police brutality, but that does not mean that I do not love the nation that I call my home, and it does not mean that  Americans should take a knee for the things that we do not stand for.

Works Cited

Anderson, Terry H. Movement and the Sixties. Oxford University Press. 1995

Babwin, Don. “1918 World Series Started the U.S. Love Affair with National Anthem.” Chicagotribune.com, 4 July 2017, http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/ct-wrigley-field-national-anthem-20170703-story.html.

“God Bless the U.S.A. – Lee Greenwood.” Google Play Music. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Oct. 2017.
.are.org/files/The%20Groningen%20Sleep%20Quality%20Scale.pdf>.

Little, Becky. “Why the Star-Spangled Banner Is Played At Sporting Events.” Why the Star-
Spangled Banner Is Played At Sporting Events – History in the Headlines. N.p., 25 Sept.
2017. Web. 29 Oct. 2017. .

“Philando Castile Killing: Police Video Sparks Outrage.” Philando Castile Killing: Police Video Sparks Outrage | USA News | Al Jazeera. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Oct. 2017. .

“Tony Dungy Speaks Out on NFL Players Kneeling During National Anthem.” Intellectual Takeout, www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/tony-dungy-speaks-out-nfl-players-kneeling-during-national-anthem.

“The Lyrics.” NMAH | The Lyrics, amhistory.si.edu/starspangledbanner/the-lyrics.aspx.

Definition Argument– todayistheday

It’s a very unnatural occurrence when the prey becomes the predator. The hunter becoming the hunted, the victim stalking the killer. It crams individuals into a category they don’t fit into, they are forced to adjust or else they die. Orcas, also known as killer whales, are considered to be one of the most powerful predators in our ocean. Orcas stick together in pods, consisting of up to 40 killer whales.  They communicate with each other when prey is spotted, detecting the prey with echolocation, determining the size and location. Depending on the prey, they deploy intelligent designs of tactic based on species, their strategy is effective and deadly. With razor sharp teeth and dozens of killer whales, the odds are in the orcas favor.

Predators in an ecological sense are defined as being larger than their prey and killing their prey.  Predators and prey are a part of the same environment and evolve together.  The predator evolves to kill the prey; meanwhile the prey evolves to avoid being killed by the predator. Both are key to each other for survival. The categorizing of predator and prey relationships is defined by consumption, who is eating who.

Predators rise to the top of the food chain because of certain skills or characteristics they maintain.  Most predators are stealthy, they approach an attack with careful precision.  Predators have dominating physical features, their size is typically larger than their prey along with their sense of sight, smell, and taste that must be greater than their prey.

But outside of the animal kingdom, predators are still lurking in the shadows waiting for the right moment to pounce on unsuspecting prey. In society we categorize pedophiles as child predators.  They are larger individuals waiting to feed off a child’s innocence, killing their purity. We can see government as a dangerous predator with all the power.  The citizens are the pawns, individuals are so easy to sweep away and stomp out.  Predators are killers, feeding off the prey.

When a pedophile is arrested and locked away in prison they are no longer a predator.  They are confined behind concrete walls and shackled; they are cast away from their community.  They were caught and imprisoned; the predator then becomes the prey.  The predator than becomes the prison guards or the criminal justice system or their fellow inmates.  The pedophile’s fate is determined by the criminal justice system that sends him to prison.  The pedophile’s fellow inmates could have a distaste for perverts and beat him until he dies; he came the prey.

So, when orcas are captured and locked within concrete enclosures they are no longer the predator.  They’re ripped away from their food chain and placed in an entirely different environment.  Once at the top of the food chain, they plummeted to the bottom.  Their fate lies in the hands of SeaWorld.  They rely on their captures for their survival.

But SeaWorld doesn’t become the predator.  SeaWorld is something different entirely.  SeaWorld wouldn’t benefit from killing their prey. SeaWorld needs to feed off their prey and reap the benefits for as long as possible.  SeaWorld is a parasite.

Parasites leech onto their host, either clinging to the body or digging their way inside. They feed off their host, stealing from them.  Parasites harm their hosts, or prey, but rarely kill them.  And if they do kill them it wasn’t intentional. They can cause sickness in their hosts that can ultimately lead to their death.  Tapeworms, for example, live within the intestines of their host.  They feed off the partially digested food, robbing the host of that nutrients. Ticks dig their heads into their host and stuff themselves full of blood.

The Toxoplasma gondii, also known as the mind control bug, infects, most commonly, rodents.  It infiltrates the brain, erasing the fear of cats from the rodent’s brain.  This then causes the rodent to be captured and killed by the cat.  Toxoplasma godnii can also infect humans.  In severe cases, brain and organ damage occur.

SeaWorld leeches onto the orcas and refuses to let go.  True to parasite nature they cling onto their hosts until they, themselves, are exterminated or until their host dies.  SeaWorld, the ultimate parasite, opts for the latter. They ignore any suggestions of seaside sanctuaries where the orcas can live free.  Because without their host, they wouldn’t survive.

Like Toxoplasma, SeaWorld, slithers into the host’s brain and takes control.  It overrides the hosts natural instincts, instead, they insist on unnatural performances.

Parasites can cause several alarming symptoms in their host.  They can cause abdominal pain, fatigue, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, dysentery and weight loss.   Parasite’s are detrimental in the health of their host.

Orcas suffer from poor dental health from chewing on cement walls and metal gates.  Closed quarters lead to fighting amoung the orcas , which can cause raking (teeth on skin) marks.  They offer suffer from poor eyesight, due to increased light sensitivity. Orcas suffer greatly as the parasite continues to gnaw on their cash “cow”.

SeaWorld digs into the orcas, draining them of any nutrients they can.  The nutrients for SeaWorld would be money.  They push the orcas to perform tricks for audience members. They even force conception so that more baby orcas can be apart of the SeaWorld cult. SeaWorld’s best interest is to keep the orcas alive so that they can benefit from them.  They showcase the orcas and open their parks so that people can witness the blood sucking frenzy disguised as a family friendly marine park.

There is a player we didn’t factor into the game; the audience. The killer whales once predators now the prey. SeaWorld, a monstrous company, is the parasite feeding off the prey.  When factoring in the new addition the roles change slightly.  The orcas, stay prey to SeaWorld, also become bait to us.  We see happy faces on SeaWorld commercials has Shamu swims joyful laps.  We watch as children hug fluffy Shamu’s to their chests, holding it close to their heart.  That is when they we bite down onto the brillantly appealing bait.  We are hooked.  Their lure is embedded into our mouth, pulling us closer toward their open greedy gates, like open arms waiting for an embrace. We, the audience, buy tickets to walk through the gates of the park.  Wonder filled eyes gaze at tanks filled with animals more majestic than we could ever dream of. We clap, cheer and laugh as we watch the orcas flip out of the water and wave their fins.

One thing stays the same, SeaWorld.  SeaWorld continues to be the parasite feeding off any entertainment provided from their hosts and from the audiences gullibleness. They rely off of the orcas helplessness and the audience’s blindness. Without the orcas, there is no audience, and vice versa.  Seaworld chomps down onto any vulnerable flesh, and they suck, until their pockets stuff themselves with crisp dollar bills.

 

 

Sources

“Parasitic Relationships.” NECSI Evolution. 

“Predator-Prey Relationships.” NECSI Evolution.

Morell, Virginia. “How Orcas Work Together to Whip Up a Meal.” National Geographic.

 

Barrie, Nell. “10 Deadly Parasites.” Science Focus, 16 Aug. 2017.
 Holm, Gretchen, and Erica Roth. “Toxoplasmosis.” Healthline, Healthline Media, 10 Feb. 2016.

Schelling, Ameena. “SeaWorld Orcas Have ‘Alarming’ Number Of Injuries, Vet Reveals.” The Dodo, The Dodo, 11 Aug. 2015.

Definition Argument – Princess45

As we know, Donald Trump has noticeably become the talk of the town when it comes to  him saying and doing whatever he wants to and with whatever he wants, especially his twitter rants, but does he truly violate the First Amendment? Under the First Amendment, it protects individual’s rights to free speech, religion, press, assembly,  and the right to petition the government. So, was Donald Trump expressing his First Amendment when he tweeted calling the kneeling NFL player a “Son of a bitch”? Disappointingly the answer is yes. In a case called Garcetti v. Ceballos, the Supreme Court held that when public employees are not speaking as citizens — but instead in their official public capacities — the First Amendment does not protect anyone from being disciplined for their speech. (Wehle). But, it is important that when Trump tweets, he tweets as president, and he would not get the same first amendment protections as a private citizen would if their constitutionality were ever tested in a court of law. This is because he is not speaking as a private citizen he is speaking as a government official and not releasing “official statements”.

The question now is, should Donald Trump be disciplined for his speech? If I’m the one being asked I would say, yes, he should. He is the President of the United States and he should act as that at all times, which he does not. I, in my 19 years on this earth, despite not being very long, have never seen a President, or someone who is supposed to be the face, and example of our country act as the way Trump has. Now, why has no one stood up for this to be put into action? In fact, someone has and it has been put into action, Trump has actually found himself in a First Amendment violation. (Timm). Trump tweeted that NBC’s broadcasting license “must be challenged” and potentially “revoked,” based on a series of NBC news stories that embarrassed him. He also suggested the NFL’s tax status should be changed and raised if the NFL continues to allow its players to peacefully protest police brutality by kneeling during the National Anthem. (Timm). Trump is threatening NBC and/or the NFL not as a private citizen, but as the President of the United States, from his Twitter account, which the White House has previously acknowledged is a vessel for releasing “official statements”.

Deliberately, Donald Trump is very quick to tweet about all of the “fake news”, “Sons of bitches” and all of the things that could be viewed opposing or negatively affect him, yet he and his defenders simultaneously express outrage when liberal activists oppose speakers they believe publicly disrespect minorities. (Post). Attorney General Jeff Sessions, for example, proclaimed at Georgetown University on Tuesday: “Protesters are now routinely shutting down speeches and debates across the country in an effort to silence voices that insufficiently conform with their views.” (Post). This is a very accurate representation of what Trump is doing, vise versa, and not with private organizations. These people are expressing their first amendment while acting on others, however the outcomes of these situations will be for sure different, possibly completely opposite.

Continuously, Trump is making it obnoxiously clear that those who oppose him will be publicly punished.  “A recent example is his call for the firing of ESPN anchor Jemele Hill, who had the temerity to call Trump out as a “white supremacist” and a “bigot.” How do the constitutional standards of the First Amendment apply to such behavior on the president’s part?” (Post) The president has also engaged in a verbal campaign designed to suppress speech that offends him. Trumps angered dedication is clearly directed at core political speech protesting law enforcement’s unfair treatment of minorities. Trump’s allies have already begun organizing boycotts (for example, a “Turn off the NFL” campaign) to give teeth to the president’s intemperate attacks. (Post) There is no indication that he is invoking the law enforcement apparatus of the federal government to harass or sanction NFL players who are taking a knee.(Post). He is just making sure to publicly sanction those who are not truly punished in a court of law and anything, and/or anyone who has views other than his own. “Trump’s attacks on the political speech of private citizens are inconsistent with the requirements of his office. It is striking that Trump’s insistent and recurring political instinct is to appeal to his base by constructing enemies—the press, Jemele Hill and now football players who kneel during the national anthem. Enemies are by definition excluded from the American body politic. They are excommunicated from “We the people.” Trump can disagree with his opponents, but he must always convey respect for their right to dissent. By casting them out as enemies, he undermines the hard-earned and necessary integrity of “We the people.”” (Post)

Our president has numerously proved that he is unqualified to be president. He cannot imagine a country where people can agree to disagree, compromise, or freely express the first amendment. Trump may have not actually acted on these, but he is threatening these two organizations for expressing their rights to the first amendment, by trying to sensor their speech, threatening to penalize them for freely expressing what these organizations stand for.  If trump were to actually revoke the licenses of these companies because of freely expressing of the first amendment, a case may still be actionable. Donald Trump does have his own first amendment rights as president to opine about things he does and doesn’t like, but still as a government official, those rights are limited.As stated before, when Trump speaks, the government technically speaks, so he can continue to speak negatively and unprofessionally, yet there may inevitably be judicially enforceable limitations.

 

 

 

“Works Cited”

 

Contributor, Kimberly Wehle opinion. “Trump’s NFL tweets are not constitutionally protected free speech.” TheHill, 28 Sept. 2017, thehill.com/opinion/white-house/352534-trumps-nfl-tweets-are-not-constitutionally-protected-free-speech.

Post, Robert, et al. “Do Trump’s NFL Attacks Violate the First Amendment?” POLITICO Magazine, 27 Sept. 2017, http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/09/27/do-trumps-nfl-attacks-violate-the-first-amendment-215650.

Timm, Trevor.“Trump’s threats amount to a First Amendment violation.” Columbia Journalism             Review, http://www.cjr.org/covering_trump/trump-nbc.php.

 

Definiton Argument- Flyerfan1974

This week on Thursday Night Football,  a sudden play sparked a huge brawl between the Baltimore Ravens and Miami Dolphins. During the second quarter on third down, Ravens starting quarterback Joe Flacco scrambled out of the pocket and ran for the first down. As many quarterbacks do, Flacco slid feet first into the turf to avoid injury. There is a mutual understanding to avoid hitting the quarterback. As Flacco slid, Miami linebacker Kiko Alonso delivers an unnecessary hit to the sliding QB. After the hit, Flacco’s helmet comes off and he receives a concussion. Ravens players start to push Alonso down, sparking a brawl between each team. Sure this hit was extremely unnecessary and Alonso could have avoided Flacco, but he didn’t. There was nothing to stop the 6’3 233 lb linebacker, no barrier, nothing. The only thing protecting Flacco was his shoulder pads, and his helmet. As soon as the hit was received, Flacco received a concussion and his helmet came right off. How safe really was he? Would it have been better if he was not wearing a helmet?

Flacco’s concussion is just one of the injuries received in the 2017-2018 NFL season. This year has been one filled with injuries to big stars, teams losing vital pieces, and fantasy football team owners losing their minds. You can make a whole team with backups with the injuries that happened this year. This shows that no position is safe from the violence of football. Aaron Rodgers, a future hall of famer has a broken collar bone. Giants star wide receiver Odell Beckham Jr. has a broken ankle. Eagles future hall of famer LT Jason Peters has a torn ACL and MCL. These injuries just prove how violent the game is, it doesn’t matter if you are 5’11 and 170 lbs or 6’5 and 330 lbs, everyone gets injured. It is just the violence of the game.

The injured players all wore helmets and pads, yet still were injured. The pads may have absorbed some of the blow, but again the players were still injured. Helmets do nothing, they may seem like they do, but they really don’t. Many propose to take away tackling or just ban the game, but this is really not a solution. If we can not protect the players from this violent game, then maybe we might have to protect the violent game from the players. Im sure when Walter Camp changed the rules from Rugby into American football he did not want players to become seriously injured. The violent nature comes from the players, they don’t have to make an enormous hit, but they do anyway. These enormous hits, they cause injuries. Why do they do this, a concept called Risk Compensation. Protective equipment, like helmets and pads, may prompt users to act more aggressively and thereby increase the potential for serious injury. Im sure when a football player is on the field with no helmet he is not going to make a risky play, but give him a helmet and he will make that play knowing he is suppose to be protected. In the 1940’s, when there were no plastic helmets, players were taught the initial point of contact should be the shoulder. In the 1960’s when todays helmets made their first appearance, players were taught that the initial point of contact was the head due to it being protected. There was a noted increase in tackling drill fatalities between 1945 to 1954 and 1955 to 1964. The players in the 40s and early 50s had no helmets, but this time period has a significantly less number of tackling drill fatalities than when helmets were invented. Risk compensation is also found in other sports such as, baseball, hockey, skiing, snowboarding, and bicycling. Risk management is even found in rugby.

Rugby is the sport that started American football. Walter Camp changed the rules of rugby to create American football. It is an American tradition that cannot ever be taken away, that is why we need to fix it. Rugby is absolutely a violent sport, players are jumping, running, hitting, being put into giant huddles, and players are even being thrown, and they do this all without any protective equipment. If you ask many Americans, they may not understand the rules about Rugby. Rugby does not have as much injuries as it does in football. It is ironic that the sport with the most protective equipment has more injuries. In the British Journal of Sports Medicine there is a study about Rugby. In this study, scientists wanted to find out if headgear reduces the incidence  of concussions in Rugby. Sixteen under 15 rugby union teams were recruited from three interschool competitions in metropolitan Sydney and the adjacent country region. A prospective study was undertaken over a single competitive season. The study had two arms: a headgear arm and a control arm. Headgear wearing rates and injury data were reported to the investigators and verified using spot checks. “A total of 294 players participated in the study. There were 1179 player exposures with headgear and 357 without headgear. In the study time frame, there were nine incidences of concussion; seven of the players involved wore headgear and two did not. There was no significant difference between concussion rates between the two study arms.” The conclusion was that although there is some controversy about the desirability of wearing protective headgear in football, this pilot study strongly suggests that current headgear does not provide significant protection against concussion in rugby union at a junior level. As you can see risk management was present in this study. Out of the 9 players, 7 were wearing the head gear. Due to having protection, here players must have felt more safe, and make more riskier hits.

Risk management is all around us and is not just on a sports field. When you are driving, are you more likely to drive more risky if you have your seatbelt on than if you didn’t? When boating are you going to drive your boat more risky with your life vest? With the phenomenon of risk management defined, we can now determine how to fix the problem of concussions in football. With the definition of risk management in our minds we can safely say that taking away helmets in football will make it safer and reduce the number on concussions.

Works Cited

Hagel, Brent PhD*; Meeuwisse, Willem MD, PhD “Risk Compensation: A “Side Effect” of Sport Injury Prevention?” Clinical Journal of Sports Medicine.

A S McIntosh, P McCrory  “Effectiveness of headgear in a pilot study of under 15 rugby union football” British Journal of Sports Medicine http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/35/3/167.short

Brad Gagnon Nov 3, 2017 . “NFL 2017 All-Injured Team Is Loaded with Pro Bowl Players at Halfway Point of Season.” CBSSports.com, 3 Nov. 2017, www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-2017-all-injured-team-is-loaded-with-pro-bowl-players-at-halfway-point-of-season/.

 

Definition Argument – theintern

As the business world prospered and held higher standards, people’s moral ethics also took a turn as well as big well known firms. The world of business is bigger than we think it is; many people think that many businesses get away with fraud or any other kind of wrongdoings. Though I am here to prove that fact wrong, I can add that before the Sarbanes Oxley Act firms were not strictly controlled as they are now. Due to the incident that happened with Enron a huge natural gas company in Houston where they tricked the SEC (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) into thinking that all the money they were making were from actual profits. However, all that money was fake and in reality they were in debt and losing money. The only way that Enron was ever getting away with this scandal was paying auditors from Arthur Anderson to make Enron look better to the public; as a growing and upcoming business to consider working for. Arthur Anderson not only helped Enron with a better image to the business world but financially they wrongfully reported their books falsely to cover Enron of getting caught by the SEC. Eventually the SEC caught up with Enron because of their stock shares always rising up so high. The SEC had to do an investigation on Enron and found out that they were committing one of the biggest frauds in the United States. Enron could easily have done fine without lying about their profits and asking for help to improve them company. Though they decided to take the risky route and achieve greater money in the least amount of time by committing fraud, disobeying the rules, and not sticking to their business ethics of following the rules to success without cheating. Cause of cheating Enron shut down in 2001 after being 16 years in service, and these CEO’s whose income were like millions of dollars every year, were fined so much that whatever they had could not cover it plus one of them I know for sure had to serve time in jail and his name was Jeffery Skilling who was sentenced to 24 years in prison but was reduced to only 14 years in prison. He will be released in 2017.

Not only did the SEC investigate Enron they also investigated Arthur Andersen because the auditors job is to find any fraud or errors in books. Once the SEC found dirt on Enron, Enron called the auditors. “The fired partner, David B. Duncan, called a meeting of auditors at the firm’s Houston office and ordered ”an expedited effort to destroy documents” on Oct. 23, the day after Enron disclosed that the S.E.C. had begun its inquiry, the firm said. The destruction apparently did not end until Mr. Duncan’s assistant sent an e-mail message to other secretaries on Nov. 9 that said ”stop the shredding,” the firm said. Andersen had received a subpoena from the S.E.C. the day before.” Now why couldn’t Andersen just give in to the SEC and surrender that they helped Enron instead of trying to shred all the evidence. Andersen could have been given a less painful punishment but since they messed up they paid the consequences. Andersen was one of the big 5 auditing firms in the world next to Deloitte, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Ernst and Young, and KPMG. In 2017 Andersen is no longer in existence because after this great big scandal no other companies wanted to associate with a firm who were disloyal.

People say that business ethics and moral ethics are the same but they aren’t. Moral ethics are what you learn from your parents and every of course not everyone will learn how to behave the same because every parent is different especially the way they teach their children to be. While business ethics is more of a one way streak there we must follow it one way however the rules are of that certain company. There is no other way to follow it because of how your parents taught you differently that does not fall into place within the business world. If an employee does not want to follow the firm’s rules the outcome is being fired. That is when employees start realizing how the world really works and whatever moral ethics they had are gone because of how the business world has changed them to become something they aren’t or become successful.

 

Works Cited

“Moral Ethics Vs. Business Ethics.”

Berenson, Alex. “S.E.C. Opens Investigation Into Enron.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 31 Oct. 2001.

Richard A. Oppel Jr. With Kurt Eichenwald. “ARTHUR ANDERSEN FIRES AN EXECUTIVE FOR ENRON ORDERS.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 15 Jan. 2002.

 

Proposal +5 Rewrite – rainbow987

For my research paper, I will be discussing the thought that mental illness, specifically postpartum depression, has cause for blame in a person. Assigning blame to a mental illness such as postpartum depression as a method of reasoning does nothing but worsen possible symptoms and negative feelings that one may be experiencing. It does not make sense that a serious illness that is most often caused by traumatic events or biological hormonal changes can be one’s “fault” for having. The lack of knowledge that many have of the illness causes a stigma that those with postpartum depression are “crazy” and looking for attention. In addition, many women with the illness are assigned blame for their feelings, which may cause them to assign blame onto themselves as well. However, such thoughts are backwards and entirely counterintuitive. To be frank, the idea of depression as a whole makes people uncomfortable because it is not well understood. In response to this uneasiness, society attempts to “justify” depressive feelings on the basis of them being insincere. Depression, which includes postpartum depression, is not brought upon willingly or intentionally by any person, so it is counterintuitive that people feel the need to assign blame for the disorder. Therefore, my proposal is as follows: assigning blame for postpartum depression does nothing but worsen heavily stigmatized thoughts on the disorder as a whole.

Resource 1: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01612840701748698

“Stigma Towards Mental Illness: A Concept Analysis Using Postpartum Depression as an Exemplar”

Essential Content of the Article:
Stigmas are a large issue related to mental illness. The impact that negative stigmas have on a person is sometimes severe. People often do not seek treatment for serious health concerns, such as postpartum depression, due to the fear of being judged or accused of having self-inflicted their issues. The author discloses statistics and historical background related to the negative stigmas regarding mental illness and how people are affected by them.

What it Proves:
This article will assist me by providing statistical research that has been conducted regarding the social effects of stigmas against mental illness. I can apply this data to women that suffer from postpartum depression and how negative stigmas affect them and their health.

Resource 2: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033318298713556

“Hormonal Changes in the Postpartum and Implications for Postpartum Depression”

Essential Content of the Article:
Biological factors could lead to the possible development of postpartum depression in a woman. Preexisting factors such as genetic history or a predisposition to depression could lead to postpartum upon delivery of a child. However, in addition to this, there are dramatic hormonal fluctuations when a woman gives birth that could have a significant effect on mood, which could also cause postpartum depression.

What it Proves:
This article will provide concrete, quantitative evidence that postpartum depression is not entirely “in a person’s head,” as many believe. Therefore, if there is biological evidence supporting the cause of postpartum depression, a person cannot be blamed for inducing it. This argument supports my thesis well.

Resource 3: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/09540269609037816

“Rates and risk of postpartum depression—a meta-analysis”

Essential Content of the Article:
This article provides evidence of psychological factors that could lead to postpartum depression. It explains that traumatic and/or stressful life events can often be a cause for postpartum depression in women. Other causal factors could include socioeconomic status, marital life, and disturbance during pregnancy, all of which are related to high levels of stress.

What it Proves:
This article supports the claim that postpartum depression can develop due to traumatic events that occur in one’s life. This information supports the idea that women are not looking for attention by displaying feelings of sadness and emptiness. Moreover, the stress and psychological trauma on the body proved too powerful, leading to these justified feelings.

Resource 4: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306453098000225

“HORMONAL ASPECTS OF POSTPARTUM DEPRESSION”

Essential Content of the Article:
This article goes into specific detail about the hormonal changes that a woman goes through during pregnancy and delivery. The large fluctuation in hormonal levels during this time period have been known to cause postpartum depression in some women. The article chronicles this idea in a variety of ways through the use of detailed statistics and clinical experiments on test subjects over a vast time span.

What it Proves:
This articles gives my argument further support regarding biological factors that could lead to postpartum depression. The research gathered in this document will help to provide detailed information about hormonal fluctuations that are known to be a possible cause for postpartum depression. This idea proves that it is invalid to believe that women with postpartum depression are “faking” or looking for attention.

Resource 5: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=9ooMp53Sh5kC&oi=fnd&pg=PA3&dq=postpartum+depression+biological+causes&ots=cn7r5n-dEW&sig=6WR-n2Q9srWgzFQ_4fXjzhZtOtI#v=onepage&q=postpartum%20depression%20biological%20causes&f=false

“The Nature of Postpartum Depressive Disorders”

Essential Content of the Article:
This article provides general information about postpartum depression, including what the disorder is and symptoms that come with the illness. It provides the reader with information about a variety of different aspects of the disorder and how it can affect women initially and over time.

What it Proves:

I think that it is important to provide my reader with a general understanding of what postpartum depression is. It is not smart to assume that the reader has a background on the topic. Therefore, this article will help me to further my knowledge about the disorder and everything that it entails in order to provide detailed and accurate information to the reader.

Safer Saws- Killroy513

http://fcir.org/2013/05/16/power-tool-industry-circles-the-wagons-as-disabling-saw-injuries-mount/

11A. “Each year, more than 67,000 U.S. workers and do-it-yourselfers suffer blade contact injuries, according to government estimates, including more than 33,000 injuries treated in emergency rooms and 4,000 amputations.”-Myron Levin

11B. The claim is saying that 67,000 people are injured a year, 4,000 where amputees.

11C. The claim is factual and is based on statistics taken.

11D. The claim is backed up by the group fairwarning, a organization that investigates for public health and safety.

11E. I agree with the claim provided because it is factual based and is coming from a good source. the statistic used are backed up within the post itself.

 

http://toolguyd.com/sawstop-bosch-reaxx-table-saw-lawsuit/

9A. “They contend that Bosch, and their new ReaXX table saw, which also features flesh-detection and blade brake technology, is infringing on SawStop’s patented inventions.”- Mr. Gass.

9B. The claim states that the creator of the technology is suing a rival company for infringing on the patented design.

9C. The claim is factual because it is Gass who is suing the company because of the patented design.

9D. The claim is backed up because Gass is a lawyer and that it is his company who is involved with a lawsuit with Bosch.

9E. I agree with this claim because if I were Gass, I would sue the other company. This claim is backed by the creator of the product.

 

Click to access tenenbaum10052011.pdf

7A. “I was moved by what I heard from the victims of these injuries, whose lives were changed forever, due to one split-second miscalculation while using a table saw.”

7B. The claim states that the lives of the injured were changed forever because of a miscalculation.

7C. The claim is opinionated because it talks about how it was a miscalculation and not human error.

7D. The claim is opinionated as said, it is only backed by the logic behind one being injured and that they can not do everyday tasks that were effected by the injury.

7E. I agree with this claim because being hurt can effect a lot of things.

 

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/18/137258370/if-table-saws-can-be-safer-why-arent-they

1A. “They came back and said, ‘Well, we’ve looked at it, but we’re not interested because safety doesn’t sell,’ ” Gass says.

1B. The claim states that the industries refused the safety product because safety does not sell.

1C. The claim is an opinion because no facts or evidence is used to back up this argument.

1D. The claim is backed by the rival industries opinions on how product that are cheaper sell more rather than a product that can save people from horrible injuries.

1E. I disagree with this claim because of how it is not backed up by facts. In my opinion I would buy a product that is safer to use than just the standard one. This is because I would not want to risk any horrible injury that would put difficulties into my life.

 

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/table-saw-sawstop-safety-finger-cut/

3A. “A man took an Oscar Meyer wiener and pushed it into the blade of a table saw spinning 4,000 times per minute. As the hot dog touched the whirring saw, the blade came to a dead stop in about three one-thousandths of a second, leaving the dog with only a minor nick. ”

3B. The claim is that the safe saw is a better alternative to the standard saw. It is demonstrated and proven effective.

3C. The claim is factual based on the fact that the experiment was carried out and documented.

3D. The claim goes along with the known proposal that the safe saw works and is highly effective on its design to protect the user.

3E. I agree with the claim because it is a controlled experiment that was documented to prove the effectiveness of the product.

 

Safer Saws—jonhjelly

11A: The quote of the director: I spent two days earlier this month at the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), listening to the pros and cons of setting a mandatory safety standard for table saws. Ten people every day – according the CPSC’s own data – have their fingers amputated in power saw accidents. 10 a day!  I’ve wanted to push the CPSC for a mandatory standard ever since hearing a story on NPR in May of 2006.

11B this claim is stating that ten people lose a finger a day.

11C This claim is a factual claim because there are stating facts not giving there opinion.

11D This claim is facts because its getting its sources from CPSC( consumer product safety commission.

11E I agree with this claim because it sounds like that is accurate  given how easy it is to have your finger cut off.

2A: the quote of a consumer: Voluntary standards are working to enhance table saw safety.The injury data utilized by the Commission to justify moving forward with the ANPR included only data regarding saws with the traditional guarding system, which is no longer sold.

2B: The claim was voluntary workers are to enhance table saw safety.

2C This claim is factual because the have data to back up their claim.

2D This claim can be reasonable and logical because it makes senses in order to improve the device

2E I agree with this claim because it can better their product.

6A The quote : Their reason for requesting the extension is that “stakeholders need more time to evaluate updated injury information.” Consumer advocates submitted a petition in 2003 to the Consumer Products Safety Commission, asking them to require table saw manufacturers to include safety devices in their products. It has been nearly a decade, and the CPSC has not made a decision.

6B This claims that the stakeholder need more time to evaluate and update the injury information.

6C This claim seems like an opinion because it doesn’t seems like they have data to back to up.

6D This claim seems logical because they are basing this fact on reasoning

6E I aree with this claim because they are using reason with great logic to make their statement

8A quote for the news reporters: This week some of the nation’s biggest power tool companies sent their executives to Washington. They came to argue against tougher safety mandates for so-called table saws, the popular power tools with large open spinning blades. NPR’s Chris Arnold has this Reporter’s Notebook.

8B They came to argue against tougher safety mandates for so-called table saws, the popular power tools with large open spinning blades.

8C This claim is also opinion because it is being reported and has no other facts behind it.

8D This claim is based of logic and reason but still it doesn’t have any facts.

8E I agree with this claim because of the way they phased their article.

5AEvery year, thousands of people are severely injured after using table saws. For more than a decade, flesh-sensing safety technology has been available that could prevent almost all table saw injuries. Unfortunately, the manufacturers have refused to adopt it.

5B The claim this is making is that thousands of people are severely injured after using table saws.

5CThis claim seems like it is a fact although they have no data to back up this fact.

5D This claim can be back up from logic and reasoning.

5E I agree with this claim because with out safes saws it is really easy to have a limb hacked off.

Safer Saws—PlethoraGaming

Manufacturers

1A: “I’ve tried to be fair, but the more I hear about SawStop and Stephen Gass, the more of a bully and a jerk they seem to be.”

1B: This says Bosch was trying to cooperate with Stephen Gass, but as Bosch looked into SawStop they seemed like bullies

1C: This is an opinionated claim

1D: Does not really have any evidence behind it, but they did say they tried to cooperate and create a ‘safe’ saw. And ended up making a safe saw of their own

http://toolguyd.com/sawstop-bosch-reaxx-table-saw-lawsuit/

Amputees

11A: “Tom Corbett was helping remodel a home in Manchester, Massachusetts, two years ago when a piece of wood he was trying to cut jammed in his table saw and his hand was thrown into the blade. Four of his fingers were severed in an instant.”

11B: This amputee is saying he accidentally got injured.

11C: Proposal, seems like he wants safety to be more accessible.

11D: This makes complete sense logically, why wouldn’t someone who lost their fingers want better safety technology for their tools.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/table-saw-sawstop-safety-finger-cut/

Industry Spokespeople

3A: “The agency has been wrestling with the issue, on and off, for 15 years. So far, its most definitive act has been to give SawStop an award for safety innovation. It will be at least next year before the agency adopts a regulation, if it ever does..”

3B: There are ways to avoid getting injured with system like SawStop, but we are not having this as a mandatory quite yet.

3C: Proposal, they are trying to get safety to be a higher priority as it 15 years have gone by trying to push this.

3D: This is persuasive to push saw safety, 15 years is a long time and we still have not come to a resolve. With technology like SawStop theres a question asked why have there been no improvement on regulation for safety yet.

http://fcir.org/2013/05/16/power-tool-industry-circles-the-wagons-as-disabling-saw-injuries-mount/

Personal Injury Lawyers

6A: “Now these manufacturers are facing dozens of lawsuits brought forth by people whose injuries could have been prevented had SawStop or similar safety mechanisms been in place. People who have lost fingers, hands, and arms to table saws have been devastated by their injuries, multiple surgeries, and medical bills they may never be able to pay so long as they are unable to work.”

6B: SawStop could have prevented injuries, and still help people continue their jobs

6C: Fact, there are several people being injured and lawsuit brought to the manufacturers.

6D: This seems accurate because people can not work if they lose fingers or arms, SawStop could have kept people their jobs