The Need for DBT on Campus

A freshman in college sits in her dorm, swallowed by assignments and wanting some kind of escape. She gets a text from her boyfriend; there’s a party going on. That’s perfect, she thinks, I need a night where I don’t have to worry about anything. At the party, both she and her boyfriend get a bit carried away. Six shots isn’t that many, she thinks, trying to rationalize her consumption.

Afterwords, she gets in a fight with her boyfriend. She barely remembers what it was about, she just knows that she was incredibly hurt by some of the things he said. He called her worthless, saying that he was the only one who would ever like her. She didn’t realize he could get so nasty. After all this, she is much more stressed than before that night, and all the assignments are still there waiting to be done. She comes out of the experience with a lot of regret and no progress at all.

What this girl experienced is actually quite common. As a college student, I hear stories like this all the time. I once heard a fight like the one described above get physical outside my dorm. It was obvious the two students were drunk. A night that was supposed to be fun had gotten very dangerous very fast. It’s a common problem; student’s don’t know how to deal with the stress of college so they turn to parties and relationships without thinking, and it can actually hurt more than it helps.

The point of these stories was to give an example of a very common issue among college students called dysregulation. This can occur in many forms, the most prevelant among students being emotional dysregulation and relationship dysregulation. Basically, these aspects of student’s lives become unhealthy and stressful, causing negative effects on student’s lives. But there is a way to treat dysregulation, called Dialectical Behavior Therapy.

In its original, most intensive form, Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) is very regimented and time consuming. Clive J. Robbins and Zachary Rosenthal describe the therapy, originally developed by Marsha Linehan, as requiring multiple group and individual therapy sessions weekly, skills training, phone coaching, and meetings among a person’s team of therapists. I do not subscribe to this definition, described in the DBT section of Acceptance and Mindfulness in Cognitive Behavior Therapy. DBT, when used most efficiently, is whatever dialectical behavior skills a person needs in order to improve her life.

Marsha Linehan (this information was relayed to me by Clearviewtreatment on borderlinepersonalitytreatment.com) found that five different types of dysregulation occur in patients with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). These are emotion dysregulation, interpersonal dysregulation, self dysregulation, behavioral dysregulation, and cognitive dysregulation. Each type reveals some sort of dysfunction in each aspect of a person’s life. DBT was created to treat this dysregulation, which, though commonly found in patients with BPD, can affect anyone at any time.

The website of Sierra Tucson describes four main principles of DBT: “1. The primacy of the therapeutic relationship, 2. A non-judgmental approach, 3. Differentiating between effective and ineffective behaviors, and 4. Dialectical thinking.” These principles, specifically the first two, apply to both patient and therapist, assuring that all parties are comfortable with and prepared for what is to come. The third and fourth dictate what the patient will learn. Dialectical thinking leads to radical acceptance by teaching patients to become aware of their own judgments and accept them, according to Rachel Gill of ilovedbt.com.

Four treatment modules go along with DBT’s principles: “1. Mindfulness, 2. Distress Tolerance, 3. Emotion Regulation, and 4. Interpersonal Effectiveness.” These go hand in hand with the principles, teaching patients through various methods to accept and handle the reality in front of them. Mindfulness leads to learning distress tolerance and so on, each skill building on the next, teaching patients how to handle their life’s dysregulation.

The workbook Don’t Let Your Emotions Run Your Life for Teens breaks down DBT perfectly to fit most people’s lifestyle. The book teaches individual skills and outlines which situations call for which skills, giving exercises on how a person is going to apply said skills. It builds upon itself, starting with the basics that apply to everyday life and getting more specific as it goes. That is how DBT should be, and that is how I learned to apply it to my own life.

People with BPD struggle enough with everyday life. The disorder is almost entirely made up of life-interfering behaviors such as impulsive actions, dysregulated relationships and emotions, and some symptoms of depression such as lack of motivation. We cannot expect such individuals to keep up a schedule like Robbins and Rosenthal require. However, we should supply them with the skills necessary to improve their daily lives.

College students who show many signs of dysregulation lead incredibly busy lives. None of us have time for class, homework, and a social life in general let alone when paired with multiple therapy sessions a week with phone coaching in between. Along with the lack of time, society still stigmatizes going to therapy as a sign of weakness, which may deter many college students from such a regimented form of DBT. Students will still need to go to therapy, but at a more relaxed pace, giving them more time for it and welcoming less judgement.

A less intense form of DBT is an effective compromise for all recipients of the therapy. Going to therapy once a week and working from a book like Don’t Let Your Emotions Run Your Life for Teens was enough to make a difference in my life, and could do the same for many others. For BPD patients, it requires less effort and is not as overwhelming. For college students, it takes up less time and welcomes less stigma. DBT can be redefined, and this new definition will help many people.

This relaxed form of DBT would be absolutely perfect for college students, as previously stated. They suffer from serious dysregulation. But why?

At college, new students experience immense change. According to Brian Harke of the Huffington post, students come to college “overly optimistic and confident in their ability to manage the challenges they will encounter at college.” They struggle to manage new, unprecedented stress. Students who attempt to cope by delving into extreme parties or unhealthy relationships radically dysregulate.

Of course, there is the academic side of college, the main cause of stress. Students think that they can handle college academics, and often get a reality check in the form of a failed test or paper. College academics can get so stressful that experts write entire books on how to deal with said stress, such as “College Success” created by the Extended Learning Institute and Lumens Learning. But stress is not limited only to academics in college.

Many students know only the positive stories they’ve heard from their parents about “The College Experience” of decades ago. Talking about the “College Experience” as if there is a standard for activities in college does not help students in the least. Instead, pressure is put on them to achieve not only academically but also socially. The wild and sometimes-exaggerated stories set even more expectations for students to fulfill, so forced relationships and parties with unfamiliar and possibly unhealthy people occur. Non-organic interactions can cause dysregulation, as they did not happen naturally, they are forced, and they are unhealthy. Obviously, not all relationships and parties are inherently unhealthy or cause dysregulation, but it is important to consider the related statistics.

82% of college students have admitted to using verbal violence against a romantic partner, often brought on by the use of drugs or alcohol. In that vein, 44% of college students have been classified as binge drinkers. In those relationships and parties seen as part of the college experience, a good amount of dysregulation exists.

The immense change that college students are undergoing, and the pressure felt by many of them causes the dysregulation described by the earlier statistics. Not only academic pressure, but that to somehow “succeed” socially, if that is even possible. A student under almost constant stress who is not recieving help is bound to suffer from dysregulation. This brings me to my original point; college students need DBT. Once we stop looking at dysregulation as a part of being at college and see it as a real problem that has a clear solution, we are on the path to fixing it.

But of course there are naysayers. 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.

So, with the right therapist, the correct form of DBT, and a little effort, college dysregulation can be a thing of the part. Obviously I’m not offering a magic way to make student’s problems go away; I simply want to offer them a healthy alternative to the common coping mechanisms. Parties and relationships can be great, but only when they are done right. Often they become stressful, defeating their purpose of trying to relieve stress. Teaching college students DBT would give them coping mechanisms that work for them and benefit them in every way. If the girl from the story had DBT, her life would be vastly improved. Hopefully in the future, we can give the proper help to her and all students like her.

Works Cited

@DbtPeers. “An Introduction to Dialectical Thinking According to DBT.” DBT Peer Connections. N.p., 18 Oct. 2013. Web. 21 Nov. 2016.

Clearviewtreatment. “Five Areas of Dysregulation in People with BPD – Borderline Personality Treatment.” Borderline Personality Treatment. N.p., 12 Oct. 2011. Web. 21 Nov. 2016.

“Dialectical Behavioral Therapy & Treatment – Clinical Excellence at Sierra Tucson.” Sierra Tucson. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Nov. 2016.

Ed.D., Brian Harke. “High School to College Transition, Part 1: The Freshman Myth.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 22 June 2010. Web. 06 Nov. 2016.

ELI (Extended Learning Institute at NOVA), Lumen Learning. “College Success.” Candela Learning. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Nov. 2016.

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.

Shook, Nancy J., Debora A. Gerrity, Joan Jurich, and Allen E. Segrist. “Courtship Violence Among College Students: A Comparison of Verbally and Physically Abusive Couples.” SpringerLink. N.p., Mar. 2000. Web. 06 Nov. 2016.

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

Van Dijk, Sheri. “Don’t Let Your Emotions Run Your Life for Teens.” Google Books. Instant Help Books, n.d. Web. 30 Oct. 2016.

Wechsler, Henry, George W. Dowdall, Andrea Davenport, and Sonia Castillo. “Correlates of College Student Binge Drinking.” American Journal of Public Health, n.d. Web. 06 Nov. 2016

Why Can’t We Choose Our Race, Too?

Self-identifying race has never been more important to Americans than it is now because it is more than a source of pride in ones’ history and family – it is a choice that allows people to access more opportunities in society. However, self-identification of race encounters more opposition than self-identification of gender in America. As a society, we accepted Bruce Jenner identifying as a woman in 2015. However, we simultaneously shunned Rachel Dolezal, a Caucasian-born woman, for identifying as African-American in that same year, resulting in her forced resignation as the President of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Half of the Millennial generation acknowledges the idea that “gender is a spectrum” instead of just male or female; cities and public establishments have created no-gender ID cards and bathrooms to accommodate for all genders. So what makes choosing our race so different when race and gender are ultimately very similar in regards to how they develop in people and the advantages gained from claiming to be one or the other?

We are constantly confused by censuses, college and scholarship applications, and work applications that require race identification. The reason being: How do we know what race we are?  Race can be based on whether a man looks African American or on the blood of his African American ancestors. According to D’vera Cohn’s article, “Millions of Americans changed their racial or ethnic identity from one census to the next,” applicants tend to change the race they identify as such as Americans who identified as Hispanic and “some other race” in the 2000 census, who then identified as Hispanic and White in the 2010 census. Determining a person’s race is only the beginning of the difficulties of racial self-identification. America’s diversity explains the reason for the 2010 census including an option to check multiple races and a final option for “some other race” if someone couldn’t choose one of the listed races. Race can’t be defined as easily as black and white because our nation is filled with so many colors. By solving this dilemma of racial identification, proper respect toward one’s race can be given and exploitation of racial benefits can be prevented.

Let’s begin with determining what race is. While race is characterized by the looks of the individual, it can also be determined by blood. In American history a man was deemed Black by society if they had even a drop of Black blood in them and didn’t have to look Black to be considered Black. This was called the “one-drop rule.” Even if a man had White parents, White grandparents, and White great-grandparents, if his great-great-grandmother or grandfather was African American, he was considered Black. Institutions such as schools or factories during this time of segregation had the power to identify applicants’ races despite the wishes or appearance of the applicants.

Contrary to the original use of “one-drop rule,”the rule could be applied by applicants to gain the societal benefits as a person of color in scholarships, college admissions, or work institutions. Massachusetts Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren claimed to be 1/32 Cherokee Indian which in some cases would allow her to have the same health care and education benefits Native American tribe members have, but she looks Caucasian. She, despite proof of her relations,  isn’t considered Native American by us because her appearance doesn’t match her Cherokee claim. Race isn’t just how we identify ourself, but also how society identifies us.

On the other hand are mixed-race college applicants who face the moral dilemma of selecting the race most likely to get them accepted. Natasha Scott, the child of an African-American father and an Asian mother, applied to the University of Virginia in 2011 solely as an African-American to improve her chances of being accepted, but felt guilty about it. By claiming to be solely Black, more educational and most likely monetary opportunities were open to her. When posting her dilemma on College Confidential, none of the commenters mentioned putting only Asian yet many either said to choose African American and Asian or just African American. She is both races, but in this case, chose to be the one most beneficial to her.

Self-identifying race shouldn’t be something that can be changed depending on the situation, but in cases like Natasha Scott,  she isn’t lying about her blood relations as she is part African American. While Natasha Scott can identify as either race, can non-mixed-race college applicants also have the ability to choose a race they have no relation to? Given the freedom to self-identify race, an applicant can earn college scholarships only eligible to certain races such as scholarships solely for African-Americans. We see this as unfair to real African-Americans who are eligible to the scholarships since no scholarship means no education. When we have the ability to choose our race we consider our family, our environment, and our situation.

Likewise gender has its advantages despite the benefit not being monetary. A man who is transgender is able to enter an otherwise prohibited area – the women’s bathroom. Transgender and intersex individuals can also gain an advantage in activities like the Olympics. In Layden’s article, “Is It Fair for Caster Semenya to Compete against Women at the Rio Olympics?” he mentions how intersex competitors may dominate in women competitions because of how the excess testosterone aids in certain muscular development. We feel that the glory and respect given to an Olympic medalist should be fairly rewarded and loathe competitors who cheat by claiming to be female.

Race and gender in general are similar by how they develop in humans.  Children don’t begin classifying people into different races until around 10 years old according to Art Markman in his article “Categories, Essentialism, Race, and Culture.” If the children grew up in a politically liberal area, they believed in classifying people into racial categories as oppose to children who grew up in politically conservative areas who believed that categorizing races was wrong. The development of racial identity in children stems from the environment and the members of society surrounding them. An example would be Lacey Shwartz, mentioned in the article “Family Secret and Cultural Identity Revealed In ‘Little White Lie,’” who grew up with white Jewish parents in a white community. Despite her African American features, she identified herself as white because of the community and people she lived with. Similarly, in the documentary Somewhere Between, four Chinese-American girls were adopted by Caucasian parents and grew up thinking of themselves as White. They compared themselves to a banana that was yellow on the outside and white on the inside.

Gender identity development is similar to the development of children’s racial identity because they both develop from their environment. Girls who grow up surrounded by princesses, dresses, dolls, and other female stereotypes are likely to identify themselves as female once they are old enough. If boys were surrounded by similar princesses, dresses, dolls, and such, they would also be likely to identify themselves as female if they weren’t told they were biologically males. Parents are encouraged to help their daughters or sons to develop a healthy gender identity by exposing their child to both genders’ activities, clothes, jobs, and to alternate gender roles such as male nurses or female firefighters. Gender identity in children develops through exposer to gender roles and activities in their community like racial identity.

We should be able to self-identify our race if we can self-identify our gender based on the similarities between race and gender. However, self identifying race and self identifying gender have a major difference. When self-identifying as a specific gender, people usually look like the gender they are identifying as. If a male identifies himself as female, he uses she, her, hers to describe himself and alters his appearance to appear female. In this case, the person matches his physical appearance and we accept her self-identification. On the other hand, claiming one’s race isn’t as easy because the rules for determining race are fuzzy, which allows institutions to dispute applicants’ choices. An example of this would be in Garcia-Navarro’s article “For Affirmative Action, Brazil Sets Up Controversial Boards To Determine Race.” 27-year-old Afro-Brazilian diplomatic applicant Lucas Siqueira was denied a Brazilian diplomatic position because the government “race commission” decided his looks made him Caucasian. Regardless of how he self-identifies, others will determine how he is treated in his neighborhood, at his school, and by prospective employers. The main point in the article was that his claim did not match his appearance. We aren’t confused when gender is claimed because the claim matches the looks, but since we can’t tell  if applicants  are the race they say they are if they don’t match the physical characteristics common to the race they identify as, racial self-identification is less accepted.

We can’t choose our race since society has to agree with the choice of the individual. Racial self-identification is important to us because there are benefits and opportunities available in our education and work institutions only accessible to specific races. Racial equality has a fine border now that most of America is mixed-race. Gender is considered a spectrum by many Americans and we are less inclined to place women and men into their stereotypical gender roles because of the concept of gender equality. If all genders are equal, then identifying as male, female, or otherwise matters little.

Works Cited:

“Millions of Americans changed their racial or ethnic identity from one census to the next.” Pew Research Center. 5 May 2014. Web. 31 October 2016.

“On College Forms a Question of Race, or Races, Can Perplex.” The New York Times. 13 June 2011. Web. 31 October 2016.

“For Affirmative Action, Brazil Sets Up Controversial Boards To Determine Race.” NPR. NPR, 29 Sept. 2016. Web. 11 Dec. 2016.

Layden, Tim. “Is It Fair for Caster Semenya to Compete against Women at the Rio Olympics?” SI.com. Sports Illustrated, 11 Aug. 2016. Web. 11 Dec. 2016.

Markman, Art. “Categories, Essentialism, Race, and Culture.” Psychology Today. N.p., 27 Oct. 2009. Web. 11 Dec. 2016.

“Minority Rules: Who Gets To Claim Status As A Person Of Color?” NPR. 16 May 2012. Web. 31 October 2016.

Norris, Michele. “Family Secret And Cultural Identity Revealed In ‘Little White Lie’” NPR. NPR, 23 Mar. 2015. Web. 11 Dec. 2016.

“On College Forms a Question of Race, or Races, Can Perplex.” The New York Times. 13 June 2011. Web. 31 October 2016.

Riben, Mirah. “Being Blackish: Race and Self-Identification.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 23 June 2015. Web. 11 Dec. 2016.

Wong, Curtis M. “50 Percent Of Millennials Believe Gender Is A Spectrum, Fusion’s Massive Millennial Poll Finds.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 2 Feb. 2016. Web. 11 Dec. 2016.

Foreign Affairs, Last concern for the United States?

Many people believe in lending a helping hand, until their lives are threatened. In today’s society many countries are getting involved with foreign affairs not realizing what negative outcomes may result. The US, as well as a few other countries, are well known for lending help that offer economic stability. But on the other side there are many enemies facing a problem as well, the help of foreign affairs. Which leaves us asking should the U.S get involved in, when it chances the a  American lives. When we see a friend struggle we feel bad and wish we could help and in fact may even help. But when countries see Syria struggle, such as the US they would like to offer help. But when we see terrorist involved it leaves us thinking should we help or stick out? An outcome of intervening may cause  an attack on our own nation. In today’s world many 3rd world countries as well as powerhouse countries fear terrorism. Many countries ask why these threats are happening, but when we look at it many of these attacks happen due to getting involved with foreign affairs.

The threats of terrorism is paralyzing to us. Because of past attacks, we fear of going to sporting events and other large social gatherings. A few examples of recent terrorist attacks that occurred, would be the Boston marathon and the bombing in the Germany vs France soccer game before the European Cup. The attack in France resulted in an unbelievable amount of security on all areas of France. These terroristic threats occurring in todays society causes major problems for the world. The people fear from experiencing some of the most entertaining events the world has to offer. By terrorists creating fear in the people, it helps terroristic groups achieve there ultimate goal, which is to cause chaos and fear.

The people of The US, have mostly agreed that the number one problem that we face in the US is terrorism, according to Rebecca Riffkin, in her article “Americans Name Terrorism as No. 1 U.S. Problem”.  Riffkin claims about one in every six americans feel terrorism is the biggest problem going on in the world. From these results terrorism should then be the first things we solve in America, rather than worrying about others issues. If the people agree on a problem, the government should react to the problem first before the issue increases to a bigger deal.

Terrorism is an on occurring problem in Syria. ISIS who is one of the most popular terroristic groups has been getting involved with Syria and creating chaos. Syrians fearing for there lives are deporting Syria and trying to make there way into other countries that are willing to accept them, which is creating more problems for countries letting in these refugees. ISIS is not a fan of the Syrians leaving, because if these Syrians leave and they are fleeing the country, Isis will have no one to terrorism which defeats the whole idea of terrorizing these people. By The US allowing these people to come into our country causes many problems for us, for which we do not know who they are or what types of ethics they believe in. The U.S could have many benefits by having Syrians stay in Syria in terms of defeating ISIS. By having Syrians stay in Syria it allow ISIS to be all in one area of the world rather than in all different countries, which will allow the counter terrorism programs to intervene and defeat ISIS easily.

First off by the U.S getting involved with ISIS will feel threatened by the U.S and will cause ISIS to do an unethical response such as another attack in fear of retaliation. The people of America feel unsafe already with terrorism, due to recent events that have occurred all over the world so, why should the government go looking out for more problems? The U.S should be fixing the problem and exterminating terrorism here in there own country first. Once the U.S do so, they can begin to offer help to other countries. By the U.S getting involved with these issues in Syria it results in the U.S national security to get into self defense mood. Which will result in more fear for the american people which is not something the people would look forward too.

Many problems occur with letting in these Syrian refugees in, such as we don’t truly know who is coming into the U.S. Many of these refugees are coming in with past crimes such as rape and murder. Now we are letting these Syrians in with who will continue with these lifestyles. By letting these Syrians in with these types of lifestyles they will inflict harm on our own people, because the government didn’t know who they were truly letting in. Another problem that occurs with these refugees is some of these Syrian refugees have forged papers and are really with ISIS which is a giant problem within itself, know we are letting in these people who we are trying to take out and defeat the U.S. Many believe that our government should have great knowledge of the refugees who are coming into the country, and if the government cant confirm who these refugees are then don’t let them in, that is how you create safety and hope for the people. By letting these Syrians into the U.S it is causing more problems rather than solving one. By just closing off the borders of American we are one step closer to defeating ISIS and are taking the fear out of the people. 

The best bet for the US to offer a great chance in safety for the people would be to let other countries take action on the problems that are occurring in Syria, and to just have the US worry about themselves. Even though other people and countries believe to stop terrorism the U.S should go attack ISIS head on, that would cause more problems rather then good. The US has many issues to deal with between its own countries and there problems, to go on and worry about how another country is doing. If it is such a big concern to the world why hasn’t anyone else stepped in and intervene?   

The U.S is acknowledged the top powerhouse in the world and a country that has the highest say in the United Nations, which has the likes of France, Britain, Russia, and a few other countries in the organization. But with that role that the U.S has they feel the need to always try to get involved and share their beliefs with the world.

The US is seen as a powerhouse nation with one of the strongest military power out there in the eyes of the people. But while having so much power can be beneficial in today’s world, it may cause more problems rather than good. Whenever a problem occurs, people believe the U.S should intervene since they have such a strong military and have been known for changing the tides in battle. People believe the U.S should intervene, go win the battle in Syrian and get out. But the people don’t realize there are many more problems that the U.S face when it comes to getting involved with foreign affairs. The United Nations was created for these types of problems, which is a reason why the U.S should stand back and let this organization do there job.

The United Nations was created to prevent wars and to intervene when necessary and to prevent any harm on countries. This organization was made after the world war to prevent wars. But other countries like Russia and China have different plans for how to settle the problem with Syria, that many other countries do not believe in. While other countries realize the problems that are going on in Syria and realize they have no need to be involved. President Obama felt upset that France and Britain are making no attempt to get involved. But understanding where France is coming from many wouldn’t want to be involved either after the attacks they received at Paris and bombing that occurred as well. The US as well has dealt with a lot of problems with terrorism speaking 9/11 and the bombing in Boston just occurred in these past years. Other countries such as France realize there is no need to get involved, the U.S should think about recent events before making there next move on Syria.

A major concern for bringing soldiers to another country to defend foreign people, as a country we shouldn’t be sending our own men to a place where they risk their lives in order to protect other countries citizens,  due to foreign countries having weak military strength.  Lt. Gen. Clarence E. McKnight, Jr believes a way to defend the Syrians is to send men in and risk their lives .“Only an overwhelming land force can impose order and peace on that tortured piece of real estate. We would lose people as would our allies, but the alternative is to simply stand idly by while this tragedy unfolds.” As he describes so in the article “The U.S. Should Intervene in Syria in a Big Way” I completely disagree with this statement, by sending in soldiers we risk there lives and create more chaos. As Lt. Gen. Clarence E. McKnight, Jr goes on to say “I don’t mean more bombing, more pathetic efforts at diplomacy and heaven forbid any more red lines.” to me bombing would be more of a reasonable idea rather then sending soldiers in. No matter what ISIS will feel threatened and strike back, they have shown that throughout the years and that they will not be hiding back and laying low. They will strike back to the ones who intervene with their battles. Either way by getting involved the U.S will cause problems so if that’s the case, blow off a few bombs take your men out and see how they react because either we sending our men into a death mission would bring back terror to our country. Due to the safety of our people and concern for there well being is why we shouldn’t even get involved, no good come out of getting involved. If the world saw this as a major problem others would be getting involved, but as you can see France and England are backing out because they got more problems to deal within there own country.

U.S has admitted to already attempting to bomb Syria even though they said the bombing was a failure. Many men working in the government believed that this bombing had helped ISIS rather than destroying them. In the article “U.S admits it Bombed Syrian Troops.” by Nancy Youssef, Youssef goes on to talk about,  “as the strikes intended, the coalition may instead been a boon for the terror group.” Now by U.S doing such an awful attack in bombing ISIS, not only did they set up a possible chance for a counter attack by ISIS they also made ISIS feel stronger. By doing these actions and failing, the government has now risked the lives of Americans in beliefs that ISIS will conduct a counter attack on the U.S. The government should next time realize there are more important things in life then bombing, and worry about the major concerns in America

The U.S should realize that there are plenty of mistakes that led that resulted in problems throughout the world. A matter of fact is that some of these problems were easily avoidable, such as the problems that occurred in France with the fake citizenship and how that one mess up caused so much suffering for the people. As well as realizing our soldiers are very important to us and that some problems that are going on around the world aren’t worth the fight and that we should leave our people out of the problem.

The United States has been known for helping out foreign countries in a time of need, starting back to the first World War. But when it comes to war should we rethink the idea of helping out a country or to go in with no hesitations. For when doing so there maybe repercussions for our acts, the U.S should worry more towards the protection of there own people before strategizing a plan to save other countries people. A question our government should ask themselves about foreign affairs is, what US should get involved in and what they should leave up to the United Nations or other countries to intervene with?

The threats we receive from terrorist groups should be our government’s top concern. Countries around the world that are helping out the issue in Syria, and that are bringing in some of the people of refugees are being hit by terrorist attacks. The US has been involved with many problems due to terrorists throughout time, the people of the U.S fear that their lives may be at risk. If The US is aware of the risks they put on there own people should they still get involved or let others step in and give Syria help?

Elected president Donald Trump has implanted his ideas of Syrian refugees and decided to take our men out of Syria as well as close off the gates and banning  these Syrians from coming in. Already many other countries are getting involved with this crisis, and have a strong handle on the situation. By getting involved we open up the doors to much bigger problems such as dealing with Russia. Which Trump goes on to say in The New York Times, “We end up fighting Russia, fighting Syria.” Now by doing so not only are we letting in refugees that we clearly have no idea who we are, but also would be going to war with another country just because of our beliefs and ethics on society and how these Syrians should be treated.  All that has happened by getting involved with these Syrian refugees throughout the world should have convinced the government that the people of America need to be safe and let others intervene and stay out of this disaster.

Since 9/11 there has been a significant amount of refugees that the US has let in. An article By Russell Berman, called “an ISIS Terrorists Really Infiltrate The Syrian Refugee Program?” Berman asks the question such as can ISIS ruin the refugee problem and stop refugees from deporting,  “And within that population, three people have been arrested for activities related to terrorism. None of them were close to executing an attack inside the U.S., and two of the men were caught trying to leave the country to join terrorist groups overseas.” Even though those numbers do not seem like a big deal, we still have to look at it in a different perspective such as that if they were caught doing a terrorist acts there are many more of them out there who may not have been caught. As well as we don’t have a perfect government as does no one else which leads to question are there still other terroristic groups out there in the U.S who haven’t been caught, that are planning an attack on the nation? 

A giant problem with countries letting in refugees is that these refugees are coming in with have fake passports for allowing these Syrians into the countries, and trying to realize the difference between fake passports and real ones. After the bombing in Paris the French had found a the passports from one of the bombers, that France had no information of from this man ever being allowed into the country. “The fingerprint was not in the French database, the senator said, and therefore officials believe the man was among a group of refugees and migrants.” France could have prevented this tragic accident from happening. The U.S should learn from Frances mistakes and realize many people in France that got very hurt by this attack. The U.S should protect their people and do whatever it needs to ensure the safety of the people and one way to ensure that is by cutting off the borders to these refugees.

America lives by good ethics, they believe in the pursuit of happiness and want to share the joy all over the world. America lives for peace, and believes in helping a friend out when they are in a time of need. But also the U.S should think about themselves first and there people when a threat can occur. We as people understand that people are in time of need, but also as people we should be more concern about ourselves first and make sure that are safety and protection are in good hands. Which when getting involved with Syria’s people, many problems occur. Many countries all over the world are willing to lend a helping hand and feel that they can make a difference. But the U.S has been dealing with terroristic attacks for years now and they should realize that they should just mind their own business for the safety of the nation as well as the safety of their own citizens.

Work cited

Lt. Gen. Clarence E. McKnight, Jr. The Huffington Post “The U.S. Should Intervene in Syria in a Big Way” September 2015. November 11 2016. Web

Youssef, Nancy. The Daily Beast “U.S admits it Bombed Syrian Troops.”  Sep 18 2016. Nov 20. 2016. Web

Riffkin, Rebecca. Gallup “Americans Name Terrorism as No. 1 U.S. Problem” November 3 2016. December 14 2015. Web

Rosenthal, Max. Mother Jones “Here’s What Republicans Don’t Get About Refugees” November 3 2016. November 17 2015. Web

Fantz, Ashley. CNN “ More than half the nation’s governors say Syrian refugees not welcome” november 3 2016. November 2015. Web

Sanger, David. The New York Times “Donald Trump Likely to End Aid for The Rebels Fighting Syrian Government.”  Nov. 18 2015. Nov 19 2016. Web

Berman, Russell. The Atlantic “Can ISIS Terrorists Really Infiltrate The Syrian Refugee Program?” Nov 18 2015. Nov 20 2016. Web.

Miller, Jake. CBS “How do Americans feel about U.S. involvement in foreign crises?” Sep 14, 2014. Oct 30,2016. Web

Amanpour, Christiane. CNN. ” Passport Linked to Terrorist Complicates Syrian Refugee Crisis” Nov 15 2015. Nov 20 2016. Web

Perceptions or Facts

“You play ball like a girl!” This used to be one of the worst insults of all time. It is quite a compliment. Softball seemed as only the girl version of baseball. The girls who couldn’t compete with “the big guys,” played softball. That underhand pitch, the size of the field, how much bigger the ball is easy. In reality it is harder. Recent studies shows how much harder hitting a softball is than hitting an overhand pitch of a baseball. The angle, speed, distance, and spin are just a few aspects of the windmill pitch’s difficulty. In reality, hitting a 95 mph overhand baseball pitch from 60 feet away is more difficult than hitting a 65 mph, windmill softball pitch from 43 feet away, as iSport.com tells us.

We all know that softball is simply the “girl version” of baseball. The field is smaller, the ball is bigger, and the uniforms are quite different. Most believe that these differences would make playing the game much easier. Girls are underestimated pretty often, but when it comes to softball, there is much empowerment. When baseball and softball get compared, most would always go into saying how much baseball is harder. The field is big, the ball is small and white, and the pitching is faster. All these descriptions are true but doesn’t make the sport any harder than softball.

Some sports can be very similar or different to each other, like softball and baseball or tennis and badminton. Sports like tennis and badminton are also a pair of sports that are modified towards each other. They both have the same concept, but many differences. The shape of the court, using rackets, hand/eye coordination, having a player on each side of the net, etc. are all aspects of the two sports that are similar. Softball and baseball both have the same general rules, like needing to get three outs and using a ball to pitch to a batter. They both have a first, second, and third base that runners run to so they can score. Though these basic and simple rules are a few aspects what these sports have in common, their differences are increased. For a badminton play to succeed in tennis would require extra skill practice and new coordinations to be formed. New skills would still be needed when a baseball hitter goes up against a softball pitcher and succeeds. The athletes, no matter how hight their skill level, are not prepared to face a kind of sport so similar, yet so different at the same time.

The sports, softball or baseball, have are countless aspects that can make one sport harder than the other. Just because the softball field is smaller does not make it any easier. In fact, distance and size make more difficulties to hit than a baseball. In baseball, the standard base distance is 90 feet from base to base, but in softball they are 60 feet apart. The fence in softball is usually about 220 feet or so. A baseball field fence is about 400 feet from home plate. The pitching distance from home plate is also different. They softball mound is only 43 feet from home, the baseball mound is 60 feet. The baseball mound is also higher because of the extra dirt under the mound, where-as in softball, it is flat.

The significance of these differences is how it changes difficulty. The softball rise ball, and the batter’s natural movement of dropping the bat when swinging. The batter’s effectiveness of hitting the ball productively go down tremendously. In softball, not only does the pitch rise, but it is also pitched at distance of only 43 feet. That is only where the mound is placed. After the big leap off the mound and the intimidating windmill, the pitcher ends up about 38 feet away from the batter. The reaction time the batter has to see the ball and to hit it short.

Baseball’s pitching has only a few difficulties, but the main one is the size of their ball. Because of its small shape, the ball has a better chance of movement. The pitcher can hold the ball a certain way and can make the ball do some crazy movements while approaching  the strike zone. The batter must make sure the ball won’t be out of the strike zone by the time it gets there.

It has been researched by an online myth buster channel, that the reaction time to hit a baseball is longer than softball by .045 milliseconds. If the baseball batter is pitching from 60 feet with the speed of 95 mph, the batter will have just about .395 milliseconds to react and hit the ball. A softball pitcher who pitches from 43 feet at with speed of 70 mph, only allows the hitter .350 milliseconds to react. Numbers like these can indicate that softball hitters will have a more difficult time hitting the ball.

Hitting a ball coming at the strike zone at 65 mph causes the batter to see the ball so quickly that they need to have amazing hand-eye coordination. The ciliary muscles in the eye takes time to contract and relax to see an object far, to close. During a baseball or softball game, this has to happen fast, and this takes time and finding the ball in the air takes time too. During both kind of pitching, the ball is blocked by the pitchers body at some point therefor the batter can’t see the ball until it is already in the air. This makes the eye muscles have to work even faster to see the ball and see it come closer.

To make this process quicker, the batter has to focus on a point in space that they assume the ball will come from. It can be easier to look at the pitcher’s release point. In baseball, this might be easier because the release point is next to their head, but in softball, the release point is by their hip.

The different aspects in each sport is focused on the view point of the player. A softball player might think that hitting a 90 mph, dropping pitch is harder, and vise versa for the boys. Let’s say that a badminton player tries to play tennis. They would believe that tennis is more difficult because of the bigger court and the size of the racket. A tennis player would think that badminton is difficult because of its higher net and the birdie.

Some viewers say that softball and baseball can’t be measured based off their difficulty levels. The two sports are too different for this to be stated. In the game of baseball and softball, pitchers dominate. The game is won bases off of who can make the other team’s hitters, hit less. Professional softball pitcher Jennie Finch is one who dominates every time she steps in the pitching circle. By nature, people love a good challenge, so professional baseball hitters like to face the all-powerful and mighty Ms. Finch. Professional hitter Albert Pujols accepted the challenge and stepped up to the plate. Because of Pujols not ever seeing a ball rise before, he couldn’t touch it. This got people thinking, if college players hit Finch before, then why can’t professional ball players touch her?

This doesn’t mean that the pros aren’t has good as they think they are because they truly are very good, but this just means they don’t practice hitting softball pitching as much as baseball pitching. This also could mean softball batters are pretty good in the fact that they can even touch this pitching. The movement of a softball pitch is completely different compared to a baseball pitch. Professional baseball hitters are not used to the angle. If they were, they would then be able to touch the ball more accurately. Due to the fact that it was Pujols first time ever to see this pitching, it was difficult for him. With more and more practice, there is a chance that he could perform better.

However, Finch is the best of the best, there is most likely a softball pitcher that Pujols can touch that is not Jennie. Another scenario was when Finch participated in the Pepsi All-Star Game in 2004; Finch faced more MLB hitters. “No sooner did Finch arrive at the mound the defensive players behind her sat down,” said Scott Tinley in his article, Why MLB hitters can’t hit Jennie Finch and the science behind reaction time. Though their assumptions are humorous, this states that Finch would go to strike out each MLB batter of the inning.

The batters reaction time to the ball has not been practiced enough to face a softball pitcher. Practicing this will allow a better timed swing to the ball. When athletes practice timing, they are making sure they can execute skills “without thinking.” By practicing how to come in contact with a pitcher’s rise ball, batters then will expect it at bat. Now that this a practiced, maybe even mastered, batters can then focus on whether the ball will be inside or outside.

This can prove that MLB hitters can be expected to not hit Finch on a first try, but being the professional athletes they are, they can practice and try to hit her the second time. Most hitters don’t see a second at-bat with Finch because they never want to go through that humiliation ever again. Therefore, trying to prove that a softball is harder to hit than a baseball is not reasonable. Studies can’t be accurate because the only way to prove this is if there were an athlete who practiced hitting both for an equal amount of time.

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 stepping 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.

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. The same concept applies to softball and baseball. Very little to no baseball players also play fast-pitch softball. If there were any who 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.

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, then these numbers do not add up to support that statement. Because of the smaller softball field, the infield and bases are both 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 if one is harder than the other.

Sandlot 2 is the biggest softball verses baseball challenge of all time. In the movie, the Sandlot boys arrive at their usual playing spot, and 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. The 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 movie symbolizes that neither sport is harder or easier than the other.

The most critical part of comparing two sports are the view-points. When saying a softball hitter has a tougher time than a baseball hitter, the judgements are based from the viewers skill levels and their indication of the sport. The softball pitch can seem that there are more difficulties because of the completely different kind of pitching. The angle of the pitch is more difficult to hit because of angle, distance, and speed. Overall, the conclusion comes from within the view of the athlete.

Works Cited

A Women’s Softball Pitcher vs. the Top Baseball Hitters…Who Wins? (n.d.). Retrieved November 06, 2016.

CK”s Baseball 4U, B. C. (2014, February 27). What’s the Difference between Baseball and Softball? Retrieved October 30, 2016.

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

Mann, B. A. (2011, September 30). Baseball vs. Softball. Retrieved October 30, 2016.

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

The Difference Between Baseball & Softball | iSport.com. (n.d.). Retrieved October 30, 2016

Tinley, S. (2014, July 24). Why MLB hitters can’t hit Jennie Finch and science behind reaction time. Retrieved November 06, 2016.

Research Revolution

Life is a beautiful gift. Too often may we take this gift for granted. As individuals, each and every one of us work extremely hard to earn a reputable reputation which we are reflected upon. Throughout life, one of the biggest assets to retain is undeniably our health. Like most dimensions of health, an individual can improve muscular strength, cardiovascular health, physical strength and mental strength. Of these dimensions, the mental state of the brain and mind takes the highest precedence. All throughout life, we each strive to better and advance our mental state. From the first year of school, teachers focus to advance our ability to utilize our minds, to become more mentally focused and prepared. Throughout grade school, we prepare for college so that we may have full potential to earn a degree. While we attend undergraduate and graduate school at a college or university, we prepare for what the rest of our young lives will hold. Our degree is the key to success, the key to open the door of opportunity. The amount of countless hours of work that we have sacrificed will forever to put into excellent use in our future. As we continue to better our lives, we have the utmost control in our mental health. As we may run into obstacles involving health, we have hope for that technology will always be there in times of need to heal and better us. For what ever curveball life throws at us, we have to ability to fight it off and hit a home run. As great that technology may seem, there is one crucial dark disease that we cannot control, and it happens to be a disease that technology cannot even cure. Through the 110 years of research since the discovery, Alzheimer’s Disease has had a tremendous impact on the lives of many individuals. As technology continues to advance, a cure to Alzheimer’s Disease has yet to be discovered. Alzheimer’s Disease affects the lives and wellbeing of family members, creates suicidal tendencies in patients, and it progresses through seven stages. Through the research of Alzheimer’s Disease, one position is prevalent; advanced research on Alzheimer’s Disease must be done. As stated in “Alzheimer’s Association”, “Alzheimer’s Disease accounts for 60% to 70% of cases of dementia.” Researchers must successfully develop a safe, effective treatment and cure for Alzheimer’s Disease.

Alzheimer’s Disease  is an irreversible, dynamic issue of the brain which gradually devastates memory and speculation aptitudes. This disease prompts to a battle while completing the easiest day-to-day tasks. Of the vast majority of individuals with Alzheimer’s, side effects first show up sometime in the 60s, depending on the individual. Alzheimer’s Disease is the most widely known form of mental diseases. The brain is made out of three primary parts, the cerebrum, the brain stem, and the cerebellum. These three parts make it the most intense organ. Despite that, the surface has a consistency of Jell-O while weighing in at just about three pounds. The cerebrum tops off the greater part of the skull which is included in recalling, critical thinking, considering, and feeling. The brain stem sits underneath the cerebrum before the cerebellum. It associates the cerebrum to the spinal rope and controls programmed capacities. For example, breathing, absorption, heart rate and circulatory strain. The cerebellum sits at the back of the head, under the cerebrum which is responsible for the control of coordination and adjust. The cerebrum is fed by one of the body’s wealthiest systems of veins. With every pulse, veins convey around 20 to 25 percent of your blood to your brain, where billions of cells use around 20 percent of the oxygen and fuel the blood traveling through vessels. MacGill includes, “Most of the thoughts processed in the brain occurs in individual cells. An adult brain contains about 100 billion nerve cells, or neurons, with branches that connect at more than 100 trillion points. Signals traveling through the neurons form the basis of memories, thoughts, and feelings.” In Alzheimer’s disease, neurons are the major cell that is destroyed.

The brain itself is a complex organ which works in phenomenal ways. The main function of the brain is to send signals that form memories and thoughts through an individual nerve cell as a tiny electrical charge. In turn, nerve cells connect to one another at synapses. When a charge reaches a synapse, it may trigger a release of tiny bursts of chemicals called neurotransmitters. The neurotransmitters travel across the synapse, carrying signals to other cells. Scientists have identified dozens of neurotransmitters. In other words, this is how the brain communicates with the body and allows the body to carry out the necessary functions. Based on “Plaques In Alzheimer’s Disease”, plaques are found between the dying cells in the brain from the build-up of a protein called beta-amyloid. The tangles created from these plaques are within the brain neurons from a disintegration of another protein, called tau(Medicine Plus 3). These built up protein clumps found around the neurons in the brain are the main cause of Alzheimer’s Disease. These clumps disrupt the way electrical charges travel within cells and the activity of neurotransmitters, making it difficult for the brain to carry out necessary actions.

The effects that Alzheimer’s Disease plays on the patient is huge, but the effects it has on the family of the patient can be even greater. When a loved one is diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease, the effects on the family can be overwhelming. The reality that someone you care for has Alzheimer’s Disease can trigger a range of emotions including anger, fear, frustration and even lead to depression. It is common to experience this range of emotion, along with feeling guilty. Emotions play a huge role in patients, and credited by “Definition of Alzheimer’s Disease”, “Guilt can come from the way the person with Alzheimer’s Disease was treated in the past, feeling embarrassed by their odd behavior, for the lost tempers or for not wanting the responsibility of caring for a person with the disease.” If the person with Alzheimer’s Disease goes into the hospital or into residential care, a family member may feel guilty for not keeping him or her at home for a longer period of time. The problem with guilt is that the diagnosis is out of any one’s control although an individual feels as if they could have done something to prevent such a thing.

Alzheimer’s Disease is one of, if not the most progressive diseases of the brain. Through the progression, there are seven stages of the disease which may be reached, each of the stages progressively becoming more severe. The first stage is fairly simple. During this stage, Alzheimer’s Disease is not detectable and no memory problems or other symptoms of dementia are evident. Though the disease has already began the process of developing, the patient does not show symptoms. In stage two, the individual, or in most cases the senior, may notice minor memory problems or lose things around the house. This is where short-term memory loss is apparent although it is not to the point where the memory loss can easily be distinguished from normal age related memory loss. The person will still do well on memory tests and the disease is unlikely to be detected by physicians or loved ones. The problem with this stage is the fact that it could very easily be age related which is why the lack of research in Alzheimer’s Disease is a growing concern(“Seven Stages” 1). In the third stage of progression, the friends and family members of the senior may begin to notice memory and cognitive problems. Performance on memory and cognitive tests are affected and physicians will be able to detect impaired cognitive function. At this stage, mild Alzheimer’s Disease is able to be detected. Individuals will also have trouble distinguishing certain words in conversations as well as remembering names to new faces. Also, the individual will have trouble organizing thoughts and planning for the day’s events as well as frequently losing personal possessions, including valuables. At the fourth stage, it becomes very clear and apparent that the senior is affected by Alzheimer’s Disease. He or she will begin to  have difficulty with simple arithmetic, have the inability to manage finance and pay bills. Memory is now greatly affected. The individual may also forget details about their life histories and short-term memory loss is progressing. For example, they may not recall what they ate for breakfast or what they did earlier in the day. “Alzheimer’s Disease: MedlinePlus” states, “Patients who are diagnosed with Stage 5 Alzheimer’s may not even comprehend that Alzheimer’s has affected the brain.” During the fifth stage of Alzheimer’s, patients begin to need help with many day-to-day activities. People in stage five of the disease may experience difficulty in the ability to recall simple details about themselves such as their own phone number. They will also have difficulty dressing themselves and finding appropriate clothing based on the weather as well as over all confusion at periods throughout the day. With stage six, an individual will experience a severe decline. Patients with the sixth stage of Alzheimer’s disease need constant supervision and frequently require professional care such as care provided in an assisted living facility. The patient will experience confusion or unawareness of the environment and its surroundings, major personality changes and potential behavior problems, the need for assistance with activities of daily living such as bathing, the inability to recognize faces except closest friends and relatives, the inability to remember most details of personal history, loss of bowel and bladder control, and wandering. In the final stage of Alzheimer’s Disease, patients experience a very severe decline. Because Alzheimer’s disease is a terminal illness, patients in stage seven are nearing death. In stage seven of the disease, patients lose ability to respond to their environment or communicate. While they may still be able to utter words and phrases, they have no insight into their condition and need assistance with all activities of daily living. In the final stages of the illness, patients may lose their ability to swallow and often suffer severe weight loss. Overall, the progression of Alzheimer’s Disease is very severe and is catching attention from all over the world. Too many families are suffering from the loss of loved ones due to this terrifying disease. The need for further research to discover a cure is urgent.

It is urgent that not only further research needs to be conducted, but education specializing in Alzheimer’s Disease must be more prevalent as well. More often than not, doctors whom have patients with symptoms of Alzheimer’s cannot correctly and confidently differentiate between dementia and Alzheimer’s Disease.  “Alzheimer’s Disease Center: Dementia Symptoms, Diagnosis, and Treatments” states that, “Dementia, also known as senility, is the name for a group of symptoms caused by disorders that affect the brain. It is not a specific disease.” People with dementia may not be able to think well enough to do normal activities, such as getting dressed or eating. They may lose their ability to solve problems or control their emotions. Their personalities may change. They may become agitated or see things that are not there. Memory loss is a common symptom of dementia. However, memory loss by itself does not mean you have dementia. People with dementia have serious problems with two or more brain functions, such as memory and language. Although dementia is common in very elderly people, it is not part of normal aging. The difference is that dementia is not a progressive disease like Alzheimer’s Disease, although Alzheimer’s is a common form of dementia. Due to the lack of screenings for Alzheimer’s, it can be difficult to successfully diagnose a patient with this disease. This can be alarming and worry-some for the family and loved ones of the patient. If a patient has dementia, there is hope. But for Alzheimer’s Disease, patients are at a race against time. Even if there comes a time when Alzheimer’s can be diagnosed in the early stages, current research has yet to discover a cure, leaving very little hope for the patient’s family and loved ones.

Currently, treatment by medication is the only hope patients with Alzheimer’s Disease may have. As Alzheimer’s progresses, brain cells die and connections among cells are lost, causing cognitive symptoms to worsen. “Medications for Memory Loss” summarizes the effect of the medications used for treatment by adding, “While current medications cannot stop the damage Alzheimer’s causes to brain cells, they may help lessen or stabilize symptoms for a limited time by affecting certain chemicals involved in carrying messages among the brain’s nerve cells.” Doctors often prescribe both types of medications together, while others also prescribe high doses of vitamin E for cognitive changes of Alzheimer’s disease. All of the prescription medications currently approved to treat Alzheimer’s symptoms in early to moderate stages are from a class of drugs called cholinesterase inhibitors. Cholinesterase inhibitors are prescribed to treat symptoms related to memory, thinking, language, judgment and other thought processes. Although it may seem promising, it does not prevent the progression of the disease. It is inevitable that a cure for this terrifying disease must be found.

The human brain is, without an unreasonable doubt, the organ with the utmost importance. What would life be without the brain? The importance of the brain is beyond any measurement, so why shouldn’t knowledge of the brain have the same importance? A cure from research must be found for numerous reasons. Alzheimer’s Disease has destroyed the lives of not only the individuals whom are diagnosed, but the family and loved ones of the patient as well. Patients live in fear; they fear for their lives as well as the fear that they may never remember who they are, or who their family is. Nursing homes and assisted living facilities are overwhelmed by patients with Alzheimer’s Disease. Suicides have been reported in patients diagnosed with Alzheimer’s Disease due to the fear of how their brain will affect their lives. Will we ever live to see a future without Alzheimer’s Disease? Picture the brain as the Earth. Alzheimer’s Disease is similar to an epidemic, the disease begins very small with little to no effects. Within time, it rapidly grows and multiplies until the entire brain has been succumbed with the disease. There must be a way to prevent and cure Alzheimer’s Disease. Awareness must be spread, and a cure must be found.

Works Cited

“Alzheimer’s Disease & Dementia | Alzheimer’s Association.” Alzheimer’s Disease & Dementia | Alzheimer’s Association. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2016. d

“Alzheimer’s Disease: MedlinePlus.” MedlinePlus. U.S. National Library of Medicine, n.d. Web. 17 Nov. 2016. d

Thompson, Dennis. “Alzheimer’s Disease Center: Dementia Symptoms, Diagnosis, and Treatments.” WebMD. WebMD, n.d. Web. 15 Nov. 2016. d

“Plaques in Alzheimer’s Disease.” Nature. International Weekly Journal of Science, 31 Aug. 2016. Web. 15 Nov. 2016. d

Park, Alice. “Alzheimer’s from a New Angle.” Time. Time, 11 Feb. 2016. Web. 14 Nov. 2016. d

“What Are the 7 Stages of Alzheimer’s Disease?” Alzheimers.net. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Nov. 2016. d

“Medications for Memory Loss.” Latest Medication for Memory Loss | Alzheimer’s Association. Alzheimer’s Association, 2016. Web. 17 Nov. 2016.

“Breakthrough Drug for Patients.” The Independent. Independent Digital News and Media, n.d. Web. 16 Nov. 2016.

“Definition of Alzheimer’s Disease.” Alzheimer’s Foundation of America – Definition of Alzheimer’s Disease. Alzhiemer’s Foundation of America, n.d. Web. 17 Nov. 2016. d

MacGill, Markus. “Alzheimer’s Disease.” Medical News Today. MediLexicon International, 29 Apr. 2016. Web. 23 Nov. 2016. d

 

Time for a New Standard

 

Standardized achievement tests are wolves in sheep’s clothing that are detrimental to the health of the education system. Many parents, students, and taxpayers falsely believe that standardized testing is just a short chunk of time, usually a week or several days, where students take a state-mandated test and then go back to normal curriculum. While the actual pencil-to-paper testing may only take a week, the test itself affects a student’s learning throughout the entire school year. From narrowing curriculum to devoting a great deal of classroom time to test preparation, teachers feel forced to devalue education to allow their class to achieve high test scores. Not only that, but the flaws in the tests themselves are staggering and continue to put countless children at a disadvantage every year. Scores are used to make immense decisions and one score can be used to decide whether a child is knowledgeable enough to move to the next grade or get into college. Achievement and intelligence are very complex concepts and presently they are being reduced to a score or percentile. This implies that the knowledge of a student is only as important as the score they achieve on a standardized test. In this way, standardized tests devalue the American education system.

Standardized tests, according to James W. Popham’s “Using Standards and Assessments,” are “any examinations administered and scored in a predetermined, standard manner.” The ultimate goal of these achievement tests is to understand the knowledge of any given student in a tested subject and to use this knowledge to make generalizations about schools and/or communities. In addition, the scores are often used to assess schools, track student progress over time, and provide feedback for teachers.

Understanding the way in which standardized tests are created makes it easier to uncover their flaws. First, the companies that create and sell achievement tests are large for-profit corporations. They, as most business people do, want to sell their product as much as possible to make as much money as they can. For that reason, they try to make a test that fits every region, because if they made a test too specific and accommodating then it would only sell to a few school districts. This is problematic because curriculum is substantially different in every region so there are tons of mismatches between what is being taught and what is being put on tests. Second, the way that test developers choose test items creates concern. Developers want testing questions that spread out scores, meaning they do not want 75% of test takers to get a particular question right or 75% of test takers to get a question wrong. They strive to get questions that are answered correctly by around 50% of students. That being said, developers often cut questions that a majority of students would likely get right. Students would likely get these questions right because that is what they were taught in school yet they are cut because that would allow students to perform too well. As James W. Popham in “Using Standards and Assessments” puts it, “the better the job that teachers do in teaching important knowledge, the less likely it is that there will be items on a standardized test mueasuring such knowledge.” This means if a lot of teachers stress, for example, long division, then it would not likely appear on a test since most students would then be able to answer long division questions correctly. Test developers will do whatever possible to make sure that scores are spread out because that is what is needed to create norm-referenced generalizations. This goal leads more test items to be devoted to outside knowledge. In other words, on every standardized test that are a handful of questions that are based on knowledge that is acquired outside of school. They do this because they know that some students will know the answer from their experiences and others will not and that will create the variance that they seek.

The effects of standardized tests reach far beyond the test itself and moves into the classroom. Standardized tests naturally change the way that many teachers choose to teach. With the burden of a high-stakes test looming, teachers feel pressure to change their methods to better fit the standardized test that their students will be given. One of the ways that traditional education is changing is by narrowing curriculum. Due to standardized tests increased emphasis on reading and math, studies have shown that teachers often exclude or limit topics that are not tested, particularly in elementary school. In the Center of Education Policy’s “Narrowing the Curriculum” study they found that many districts are cutting instructional time in areas like social studies, science, art, music, and physical education. The Center’s nationally representative study found that 27% of districts cut a portion of social studies instruction time to increase reading and math instruction, 22% cut science, 20% cut music, and 18% cut other subjects. On top of this, 71% of districts admitted that students at risk of failing standardized tests had other subjects cut for them particularly to make more time reading and math. For example, students at risk of failing the standardized tests would go to extra small group reading and math instruction while the other students went to music class or gym class. This means spending most time on reading and math while spending the bare minimum time on other valuable subjects. Although some may believe that emphasis on reading and math does not sound so bad, it is simply unfair to deprive students of valuable topics that help make them well-rounded citizens. Subjects like history and science are just as important in helping children discover their passions while obtaining knowledge.

Another way that standardized tests alter traditional teaching is through a process called teaching to the test. According to the Center for Public Education’s “High Stake Testing and Effects on Instruction,” teaching to the test is characterized by a variety of teaching practices but most commonly “narrowing the curriculum by excluding subject matter not tested, excluding topics not likely to appear on the test even within tested subjects, reducing learning to the memorization of facts easily recalled for multiple-choice testing, and devoting too much classroom time to test preparation.” Teaching to the test is not simply ensuring test readiness by covering tested subjects. The practice is a more deliberate attempt to base curriculum and class time on the sole priority of achieving better scores. With increased stakes for students and higher pressures from administrators who crave more school funding, teachers find themselves more and more in the position of teaching to the test. A study by Rand Corporation called “Standard-Based Accountability: Experiences of Teachers and Administrators” analyzed standardized testing in California, Georgia, and Pennsylvania. Results found that an average of 90% of principals in those three states implemented a strategy of “matching curriculum and instruction with assessments” to improve scores. That means that in those three states, and likely across the country, teachers are being instructed by their bosses to teach to the test.

This leads many to question why teachers would willingly devalue education by narrowing the curriculum and teaching to the test. Teachers devote their lives to a career that’s goal is to provide children with knowledge, so understandably it is hard to consider that they have a hand in devaluing student’s instruction. In some cases, they simply do not have a choice. As stated above, many teachers are being instructed by the principals of the school at which they teach to alter their teaching to better fit standardized tests. The principals that deliver that message are often instructed to do so by superintendents and so forth up the hierarchy. As much as the passions of some teachers may conflict with the orders that they receive from their superiors, it is still their job to listen to their bosses. If their bosses are saying that higher test scores must be achieved and teaching to the test is the only way to do it, they are more likely to teach to the test in their classroom. Another reason that teachers may willingly devalue education is the high-stakes nature of tests. In the same Rand Corporation study, “Standard-Based Accountability: Experiences of Teachers and Administrators,” results found that an average of 54% of schools in the states of CA, GA, and PA use tests to assess teacher performance and 53% use them to decide student promotion and retention. Teachers want their students to succeed and in an educational system where passing a standardized test equates to success, there are not many options for struggling educators.

As for the tests themselves, they too are flawed. Standardized testing allows administrators to compare students to a general standard. Therefore, in order to make a fair comparison, it is imperative that all test takers receive the same opportunity to achieve a high score. For example, imagine there are two people competing in a 100m race. Lane one has five hurdles but lane two does not have any hurdles. No matter who won or what the times were, it would be unfair to say that one runner is faster than the other based on this race because the races were not equitable. This applies to standardized testing. If some students face hurdles and disadvantages in testing that others do not, it is unjust to compare the two groups of scores. Students should take a test that matches their culture and lifestyle. Robert Green’s “The Impact of Standardized Testing on Minority Students” demonstrates how test inequity has always harmed minority students. Green argues that the method of giving every single student the same standardized test with little to no exceptions is not equitable. A minority student who speaks English as his or her second language is held to the same standard as a white child who has been exposed to only English since birth. A poor student is expected to have the same common knowledge as a wealthy student despite a clear difference in life experiences. James W. Popham’s “Using Standards and Assessments” gives a good example of common knowledge placing low income children at a disadvantage. The sixth grade test item reads “A plant’s fruit always contains seeds. Which of the items below is not a fruit?” The choices are orange, pumpkin, apple, and celery. The test item provides enough information to let the students know that they need to identify which of the choices does not have seeds. If a child has been exposed to all of these foods, then their outside knowledge would lead them to the answer easily. However, if a student for whatever reason, economic or just by chance, had never encountered one or more of the fruits, then they would be unable to answer that question. That is not their fault or their teacher’s fault yet they are being penalized for it.

Green’s article “The Impact of Standardized Testing on Minority Students” mentioned above was written almost thirty years ago but all his points above still apply to standardized tests today and show how little progress has been made in tearing down the hurdles of standardized testing. This slow and almost nonexistent progress is shown in the statistics of scores by race. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics’ “Achievement Gaps,” from 1984 to 2004 the gap between white and black standardized test scores only decreased four points in math and three points in reading. For Hispanic Americans, from 1984 to 2004 the gap between white and Hispanic scores only decreased by three points and the reading gap has increased by two points.

Some will argue that the achievement gap between minorities and whites is essential for the cause of educational justice. In Latasha Gandy’s “Don’t Believe the Hype: Standardized Testing is Good for Students, Families, and Communities,” she claims that despite receiving lower scores, minority students and schools benefit from standardized tests. Since the public is now aware of the achievement gap, she argues that there will be more of a call to action to fix the problems in lower performing schools. However, achievement gaps have been documented for decades, as shown in the aforementioned NCES achievement gap statistics and progress is still slow. The public has known about achievement gaps for a while but again progress has been at a crawl. To this day, there is not a proven method in place to eliminate the achievement gap. Some have proposed solutions but they have not been implemented into mainstream testing and are not proven to work. Gandy and other supporters of this argument fail to consider the high-stakes nature of testing. If standardized tests had low stakes, then using them as a tool for educational justice would be satisfactory. In reality, the implications of these tests grow more and more over time and could follow the students for months even years after the final answer in circled on the paper. Low performing schools lose funding, low performing students risk being 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, found strong links between low performance and adolescent delinquency. One test can ruin a student’s future and lessen already scarce resources for some public schools. So, to say that the achievement gap is benefitting minority communities is insulting to the students who every year face the uphill battle of these tests and continue to be frustrated by the result. There may be more awareness of the problem now but that is no consolation to the students who are currently failing and the schools that are struggling. Saying that the achievement gap is in any way beneficial is to truly undermine the effects that standardized testing can have.

To go more in depth about the dangers of high-stakes nature of testing, Kenneth H. Wodtke’s study “How Standardized is School Testing? An Exploratory Observational Study of Standardized Group Testing in Kindergarten” demonstrates how increased pressure influences test scores. The study observed ten kindergarten classrooms, classes 1-5 were from upper-middle class communities and classes 6-10 were from lower income communities who were also participating in a district-sponsored program to raise test scores. Teachers in low income communities that were participating in the program were seven times more likely to commit significant procedural variations, ten times more likely to allow unauthorized item repetitions, and thirty-nine times more likely to cue correct answers than their wealthier counterparts. This study shows that teachers who are pressured, especially by a funded program with the sole purpose of raising scores, are more likely to cheat which clearly devalues not only the test but the value of education as a whole. Wodtke, after observing what he had, deemed that the scores of these ten tests were incomparable to each other since there was mismanagement in one way or another which would ruin test vailidity in eight of the ten classes. Yet, some of the districts in this study used the scores from these very tests to place children into first grade classrooms. The mismanagement of test administration may now have horrible consequences for those students who may have been placed in the wrong classroom. This was just one study of ten classes who were aware that they were being observed. Imagine what happens in other classes around the country that are not being observed.

In addition to the flaws that tests have, there are also aspects that the tests lack altogether. Standardized tests fail to assess important characteristics of students such as but not limited to: creativity, critical thinking, resilience, motivation, curiosity, self-awareness, self-discipline, resourcefulness, and integrity. These characteristics are vital for success in almost any field or endeavor that students will face once they are out of school. Yet, they are judged so intensely based off a score that does not even assess these characteristics. The fact that standardized test scores are so valued and influential but do not assess any of the previously stated characteristics implies that those characteristics are not important which is simply not true. The lack of accountability for factors like critical thinking and resourcefulness have promoted shallow thinking. In Phillip Harris’s “Standardized Tests Do Not Effectively Measure Student Achievement,” he argues that there is “a statistical association between students with high scores on standardized tests and relatively shallow thinking.” Higher scores on tests were associated with copying down answers, guessing, and skipping difficult areas in school coursework. Low scores were more often associated with taking the time to go back over difficult areas, asking questions, and making connections. This is likely because standardized tests require quick answers with little time to think or reason. Therefore, students who perform that way on a day to day basis in class are more likely to do well on standardized tests. Standardized tests have unintentionally promoted shallow thinking by rewarding shallow thinkers with higher scores. This also creates a problem for teachers and parents. They see a passing test score and often assume that that means their child is intellectually developing in the ideal way. This could be true, but in some cases parents and teachers overlook a lacking in other important characteristics due to a high-test score. This could cause academic issues for the child in the future which could have been prevented had they been assessed.

All in all, high-stake standardized testing, which has become the norm in American public schools, is devaluing education by reducing success in school to a number. That alone is an issue but on top of that not every student has the same opportunity to receive a high score. Education suffers at the hand of standardized tests.  As a society, we want well-rounded knowledgeable students that will contribute to the next generation yet we create simple standard tests to measure their capability. We accept that a first grader from a low-income area in Detroit can be nationally compared to a first grader from an affluent area in Washington D.C. It is simply not justifiable and it is time for a change. It is time to create accommodating and specific tests that promote high-level thinking and allow every student the right and ability to achieve a high score. It is time to stop using a test score to define education. Tests should be used as educational tools for teachers that help them understand what topics students are struggling with and which they excel in. Tests should not be used to measure teacher quality, determine funding for schools, or to solely determine whether a child passes or fails a grade. Education is worth more than that and one high stakes test should never be used to measure the vast and brilliant knowledge that any given student possesses.

Work Cited

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.

Green, Robert L., and Robert J. Griffore. “The Impact of Standardized Testing on Minority Students.” The Journal of Negro Education, vol. 49, no. 3, 1980, pp. 238–252.

Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., Marsh, J. A., McCombs, J. S., Robyn, A., Russell, J. L., et al. (2007). Standards-based accountability under No Child Left Behind: Experiences of teachers and administrators in three states. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Harris, Phillip, Joan Harris, and Bruce M. Smith. “Standardized Tests Do Not Effectively Measure Student Achievement.” Standardized Testing. Ed. Dedria Bryfonski. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012.Web. 30 Nov. 2016.

Mitchell, Ruth. “High-Stakes Testing and Effects on Instruction.” Center for Public Education. Center for Public Education, 6 Mar. 2006. Web. 23 Nov. 2016.

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

“NCLB: Narrowing the Curriculum?” NCLB Policy Brief. Center on Education Policy, 1 July 2005. Web. 23 Nov. 2016.

Popham, James W. Using Standards and Assessments. 6th ed. Vol. 56. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1999. 8-15. Print.

Wodtke, Kenneth H. et al. “How Standardized Is School Testing? An Exploratory Observational Study of Standardized Group Testing in Kindergarten.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, vol. 11, no. 3, 1989, pp. 223–235.

Over the years, the United States citizens have been torn over the subject of gun control. Much of the confusion within this topic results from a lack of education pertaining to firearms. Within deliberation of accurate information comes positive reformation. Therefore, American citizens and legislation must be thoroughly informed in the complex subject of firearms.

Classifications of Firearms

The most basic classification of firearms is the machine gun classification. A machine gun is any fully-automatic weapon that may be either portable or mounted. Machine guns were outlawed in 1986, which made the sale or transfer of such firearms illegal under federal law.

Machine guns are then organized further as submachine guns, battle rifles, assault rifles, autocannons, automatic shotguns, and confusingly enough, assault weapons.

Assault rifles are classified as firearms capable of selective fire, utilizing an intermediate cartridge with a detachable magazine operating at an effective range of at least 110 feet. An intermediate cartridge is a bullet casing less powerful than battle rifle cartridges while a detachable magazine is an ammunition storage system and feeding apparatus attached to the rifle. Any firearm that fails to meet these requirements will not qualify as an assault rifle.

Differences Between Assault Weapons and Assault Rifles & Federal Assault Weapons Ban

The classification of Assault Weapons was created by legislation to expand the category of assault rifles. Assault weapons are classified as semi-automatic, rifle-style firearms that incorporate weapon modifications commonly affiliated militaristic weaponry. Assault weapons are required to accept a detachable magazine, and two of the following: a pistol grip beneath the weapon’s action, bayonet mount, folding/telescoping stock, suppressor/ suppressor capability, or a grenade launcher.

Assault rifles are authorized for military-use only. On September 13th, 1994, President Bill Clinton enacted the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. The bill was signed into action with the purpose to prohibit the manufacturing and civilian transfer, possession, and use of assault weapons, to expire in 10 years.

The National Rifle Association (NRA), stubbornly opposed the ban, reasoning, “Assault weapons are used in only one percent of all crimes,” which was then proven to be true by the 1999 crime statistics resourced by the Department of Justice. Further, the ban punished the transfer of possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices. In the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, large capacity ammunition feeding devices are defined as, “any magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after [September 13, 1994] that has the capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition,” this creates frustration in gun owners because most magazines carry more than 10 rounds. However, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban utilized a grandfather clause which allowed the possession or transfer of weapons, or ammunition, that was possessed lawfully before September 13, 1994. As a result of the grandfather clause, the same amount of weapons remained on our streets in the hands of others, capable of abuse.

The AR-15 “assault weapon” lacks the capability of selective fire. This forces the rifle to shoot semi-automatically, that is, one bullet per pull of the trigger. This fact alone proves the AR-15’s fire rate to be much lower than the M4A1 assault rifle, which is fully automatic and fires much faster than the AR-15’s maximum of 45 fired bullets per minute. David Kopel, a writer for The Wallstreet Journal expresses, “What some people call ‘assault weapons’ function like every other normal firearm- they fire only one bullet each time the trigger is pressed… Some of these guns look like machine guns, but they do not function like machine guns.” Here, Kopel asserts that firearms like the AR-15 function just as normally as a standard hunting rifle does. These firearms lack the capability to cause the havoc an assault rifle is capable of.

Assault weapons operate identically to all other firearms, such as a hunting rifle, shotgun, ranch guns, even pistols. However, it is the startling appearance of these firearms that affect the perceptions of the uneducated. For this reason, large publics within our social sphere insight a stigma around the object. According to a report released in 1998 by the Violence Policy Center, “The weapon’s menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons- anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun- this can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.” A fair portion of our society lacks in-depth knowledge towards the subject of firearms. These individuals can not recognize the difference between a “menacing” AR-15 and any machine gun.

Assault Weapons do not differ in any way from their semiautomatic counterparts. Aesthetically, these weapons are very intimidating, especially when compared to other firearms on the market. However, this does not mean they function differently. Any pistol holds almost the same capability for destruction that any assault weapon has. To claim assault weapons are just as dangerous as assault rifles is an illogical assertion.

In 1989, suspect Patrick Purdy entered the Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton California and proceeded to fire 106 rounds from his AR-15 in 180 seconds, wounding 32 and leaving 5 children dead. Following, Purdy took his own life with a handgun. In comparison, assault rifles hold the ability to fire 300-1800 bullets in one minute. Clearly, the situation could have been seriously worsened had the firearm been a fully automatic assault rifle. Theoretically, the entire situation could be avoided completely if both categories of guns were criminalized. However, this argument serves to analyze the major differences between the two classifications, rather than question the legality of the firearms.

Legal

It is often forgotten that official legislation of a law does not hinder one’s ability to commit a crime. The law allows governmental consequence if the individual is caught committing the crime and is later found guilty in a court of law. A perfect example to illustrate this point is the enactment of the War on Drugs. The War on Drugs was enacted by the Nixon administration and it ultimately focused on ending addiction by prohibiting the manufacturing, use, and distribution of illegal narcotics. As a result of this prohibition, 48.6 percent of all incarcerated inmates are serving time for drug-related offenses, addiction rates are at an all-time high, and crime rates rose perilously. As a result, our nation is now the global leader in the amount of incarcerated inmates. Although we had legislative policies designed to end the use of drugs, a large portion of society chose to do them. Applying this logic to the topic of gun control would cause American families to forfeit their natural right of self defense, ultimately resulting vulnerable targets. It seems counterintuitive that a plan geared towards an anti-violence movement could have the capability for such terroristic acts.

International Security

Terroristic threats are a credible fear and a real possibility, contrary to popular belief.

Right now, the Mexican Drug Cartel operates on large portions of the Mexican border. The cartel has littered our borders with underground tunnels, used as pathways for smuggling unregistered weapons and narcotics across our borders. Currently, the border that is shared between America and Mexico is not secure enough for such revolutionary regulation. The cartel forwards a constant flow of machine guns, pistols, assault rifles, and even grenades into our country. All of which, are untraceable- unable to be routed back to the original owner. If there were a nationwide-gun sweep that could theoretically eliminate all guns from our streets, these illegal weapons will still flood into our neighborhoods. As a result, criminals will be equipped with their firearms, while law-abiding citizens have no leg to stand on.

Further, studies have found that Americans use guns 1.3 million times annually to protect themselves from an intruder, rapist, or mugger. Without defensive firearms, there would have been roughly 1.3 million extra fatalities each year. Also, the possession of a firearm in a house can give the family a feeling of excess security. The situation is comparable to life insurance, as it serves as a social benefit even if the owner of the policy does not die. The family still has the overall feeling of safety.

Problems Arising From Gun Regulation

In order for gun control to be deemed a possibility, our government would be required to enact a nation-wide firearm collection program, attempting to remove all guns from all American houses. This expectation is ridiculous upon realization that there are over 300 million guns belonging to over 324 million gun-toting citizens. Some of which live in desolate, urban areas, out-of-reach and out-of-mind for our government to collect from. Further, the assumption that our 1.1 million law enforcement officers would be able to eradicate such a large amount of firearms within such a large, diverse land is an unreasonable expectation. In the unlikely scenario this nation-wide collection was imposed, the ritual would leave many guns behind; a danger for the defenseless families.

The stripping of firearms from American families would leave weapons in the hands of only two type of people: law enforcement and criminals. Whilst in possession of their illegally-obtained firearm, criminals will continue to commit their crimes against society. As the crime is being carried out, all individuals incorporated in the situation are unable to defend themselves. Law enforcement officers, the victim’s only form of defense, will then take an average of 7 minutes to arrive at the scene of the crime. Many dark events could take place within these 7 dire minutes. Especially upon realization that a fully automatic machine gun could fire up to 12,600 rounds within that timeframe. This is a perfectly reasonable situation that could become a reality following gun regulation.

Ethical Reasoning

The nullification of our second amendment cannot be warranted if there are actual uses for a firearm in a civil society.

For reasons regarding the survival of Alaskan families, the topic of gun control becomes an ethical dilemma. Most Alaskan citizens are gun owners who utilize their firearms for food and defense. Alaska is a largely untouched area of land, as a result, it is of great trouble to navigate, poses many dangers, and lacks a food commonplace. This means that Alaskans are subject to danger that the average American is privileged enough to never encounter, and these families must hunt and prepare their own food for survival. Without their firearms, the family will starve to death. To seize these family’s right to a gun when they have no other option for food is inhumane. Hypothetically, if gun regulation included a clause allowing the use of firearms within Alaskan families, this would open up buying locations for criminals to then transport their guns across the country.

According to philosopher, John Locke, no individual requires a democratic constitution to grant them the right to defend themselves or their families. This has been granted a natural right, as it is a right given to us by nature.

Lastly, our founding fathers granted us the second amendment not with self-defense or food in mind, but to protect our right to political dissent. The United States of America was originated by an American Revolution in which the citizens of the original 13 colonies formed a militia and fought against their tyrannical government to eventually form the advanced society of today. The original writers of the constitution wanted the American citizens to hold the same right to overthrow the United State’s tyrannical government if the situation ever arises. To give up the right to political dissent is to repeat history.

 

Works Cited

“Locke ‘N Load: John Locke d YOUR Second Amendment Rights.” Intro to Political Theory Blog. Sabalaba, 24 Nov. 2009. Web. 13 Nov. 2016.

Ghost Guns. Perf. Anonymous Performers. Underworld Inc. National Geographic Network, n.d. Web. 13 Nov. 2016. 

“Assault Weapon Truth: The Facts about Assault Weapons.” Assaultweapontruth. Assault Weapon Truth, n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2016. <http://www.assaultweapontruth.com>.

Lott, John R., Jr. More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws. Chicago, and London: U of Chicago, 2010. Print.

Lott, John R., Jr. The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You’ve Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong. Washington DC: Regnery, 2003. Print.

Jacobs, James B. “The Value of Firearms.” Can Gun Control Work? Oxford: Oxford U, 2002. 14-16. Print.

The Battle of Rock ‘n’ Roll

Rock ‘n’ roll is often misunderstood due to how it is commonly portrayed in our society. This genre of music is almost always associated with dark forces and the occult, which in reality, is a prime example of “judging a book by its cover”.  As an unknown writer once said, “We live in a very superficial society. It is very easy to fall into the trap of looking only at the surface of people, things, and ideas without taking the time and effort to delve deeper into them.” A seemingly unrelated topic that works nicely as an analogy for this misjudgment is the treatment of Blacks throughout history.  At its surface, Rock ‘n’ roll does show signs of being solely based around darkness. However, underneath that surface is a wide collection of songs pertaining to the most eclectic of topics. Black people are judged because of their skin color, even though they are human beings just like everyone else. Until people open their minds (or their ears), and truly pay attention to who Black people are as individuals and what Rock ‘n’ roll truly signifies, they are left with demeaning and unfair images that are nowhere near the actuality.

An in depth look into Rock ‘n’ roll shows a melting pot of widely unrelated topics, most having nothing to do with dark forces and the occult. The anti-war and anti-violence sentiment of the 60’s can be heard through songs like Creedence Clearwater Revival’s “Fortunate Son”, which attacked militant patriotic behavior and the individuals who supported the fight without getting their own hands dirty, and Bruce Springsteen’s “Born in the U. S. A.”, which addresses the harmful effects that the Vietnam War had on Americans. Rock ‘n’ roll also has quite few songs about love, some coming from bands that would not normally be associated with the theme- including “Forever” by Kiss (which details a man’s realization that his love for a certain girl will last forever), and “Sweet Child O’ Mine” by Guns N’ Roses (which was inspired by a poem band mate Axl Rose wrote about his girlfriend at the time). And one of the best proofs that Rock ‘n’ roll was not centered on darkness is a little song by Jimmy Buffet called, “Cheeseburger in Paradise”. This song has no double meaning, and is entirely about a man’s love for cheeseburgers. There is absolutely nothing dark forces in it, which can be said for a majority of Rock ‘n’ roll songs.

The misunderstanding of Rock ‘n’ roll can be paralleled with the unfair treatment of Blacks throughout history.  Opinion on them is commonly based on their skin color instead of who they are as a person. Take Solomon Northup, the free African- American who had to endure twelve years as a slave. As a few writers from the Encyclopedia Britannica have said, “Solomon received some education and worked on his family’s farm as a child. He married Anne Hampton in 1828. In 1834, after selling their farm, the couple moved to Saratoga Springs, New York, where they worked odd jobs to support their three children. Northup also established a reputation as a talented fiddler.” Contrary to the popular belief of the time that African-Americans were savages and naturally inferior to White Americans, Solomon Northup was a hard worker who was able to create a mostly stable lifestyle for his family, and even became a renown musician. Unfortunately, he was lured by two men who judged him based off of his skin to travel to Washington DC, where he was drugged and sold into slavery. For the next twelve years he worked as a slave for different masters, who did not believe that he was a free and educated African-American. He was being judged by his skin, not his true self. After finally securing his freedom, Northup ended up writing his memoir, which revealed to the world his side of the story. Another Black individual who was much more than he appeared to be on the outside was Thomas-Alexandre Dumas. The father of famed writer Alexandre Dumas, Thomas-Alexandre Dumas defied expectations and led an adventure of a life. As Tom Reiss, author of The Black Count: Glory, Revolution, Betrayal and the Real Count of Monte Cristo, says in an  interview with NPR’s Scott Simon , “He’s a black man, born into slavery, and then he rises higher than any black man rose in a white society before our own time,” and that, “He became a four-star general and challenges Napoleon, and he did it all 200 years ago, at the height of slavery.” In a time when Blacks were commonly found to be slaves, this one man was able to break expectations by becoming a respected general for the French army. And although his life story ended in an unfortunate manner, thanks in part to a ploy by Napoleon (who disliked Dumas for being successful and the opposite of him physically) to get rid of him, Dumas’ influence lived on, especially through some of his son’s most popular characters, such as Edmond Dantès and the musketeer d’Artagnan. Both Solomon Northup and Thomas-Alexandre Dumas highlight the “judging of a book by its cover” that took place in history,  which in turn mirrors the misunderstanding of Rock ‘n’ roll.

And yet, people still view Rock ‘n’ Roll as a type of music that highlights the worst qualities in human beings. When they think of it, these people picture scenes involving blood, darkness, satanic rituals, and vulgar movements. These beliefs are the effects of preachers’ efforts to denounce Rock ‘n’ Roll.  Why these religious individuals are acting against the popular form of music, and influencing people’s view of it, unsurprisingly involves more than one overlapping cause.

The most immediate cause of this attack on Rock ‘n’ roll is, of course, that the music genre highlights themes that are greatly looked down upon in religious groups. As two devoutly religious men by the names of Alan Yusko and Ed Prior have said, “The term ‘rock and roll’ means fornication. It is a street name for sexual immorality. It has wrecked the lives of many teenagers through suicide, drug abuse, immorality, perversion, satanism, etc.” These actions conflict entirely with the morals commonly taught in churches- including love, purity, morality, and respectfulness to the Lord. So, in the eyes of preachers, it would seem only logical to denounce the source of all this blasphemy.

Contributing to this cause is the way the media supports this portrayal Rock ‘n’ roll. It is no secret that the media will twist the truth and choose sides to produce eye catching news. Rem Rieder of USA Today once said, “Life is packed with nuances and subtleties and shades of gray. But the news media are often uncomfortable in such murky terrain. They prefer straightforward narratives, with good guys and bad guys, heroes, and villains. Those tales are much easier for readers and viewers to relate to.” Therefore, in this matter, it makes sense that God’s most devout followers are portrayed as the heroes. And it also makes sense that Rock ‘n’ Roll is portrayed as the villain, since it invokes dark forces and the Devil, as countless preachers have claim. The more interesting news story is not that Rock ‘n’ Roll has the power to make people’s lives better, but that it is a way for people to let their malevolent natures free. And through computers, TVs, tablets, and cell phones, the media is now always present in people’s lives. Our society is brainwashed into believing everything that appears news worthy, and rarely takes the time to search for the truth.

The most remote cause for preachers to denounce Rock ‘n’ Roll is the diminishing number of people attending church. According to Dr. Richard J. Krejcir of churchleadership.org, “Most of the statistics tell us that nearly 50% of Americans have no church home. In the 1980s, membership in the church had dropped almost 10%; then, in the 1990s, it worsened by another 12% drop-some denominations reporting a 40% drop in their membership. And now, over half way through the first decade of the 21st century, we are seeing the figures drop even more!” Each subsequent generation slowly drifted away from church. Many preachers, witnessing this loss of followers, decided to lay the blame on Rock ‘n’ Roll, using it as a scapegoat. They claimed that the music was connected to the blasphemous values of sex, drugs, and irresponsibility, which in turn would attract young people who were not educated enough to make the right decision. Their denouncement of Rock ‘n’ Roll would be publicized in the media, which would influence society’s view of the music, and which in turn they hoped would bring people back to church as protection.

There is a precipitating cause included, however. When Rock ‘n’ Roll truly hit the music scene and took the world by storm, it actually seduced the preachers. They had grown up in conservative lifestyles with very “tame” music, and with the emergence of Rock, they experienced types of sounds unlike any they had ever heard before. Eventually, the preachers realized that they had become attracted to something other than God, which they considered to be a great sin. They had fallen into temptation and did not want the public to find out. So, like their ancestral religious brothers did when confronted by the emergence of the scientifically-proven theories of evolution and the heliocentric system, they denounced it as the work of the Devil. And since new preachers were taught by those that came before, this thought process was passed down through the generations.

Even with all of these causes trying to prove otherwise however, Rock ‘n’ roll is not the music of Satan. 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 ‘n’ 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.

Even Rock ‘n’ 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 ‘n’ 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 ‘n’ 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 be mentioned that a popular offshoot of Rock ‘n’ 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.

Cole, Rachel, David Fiske, Rachel Seligman, and Clifford Brown. “Solomon Northup | American farmer and writer” Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d. Web. 20 Nov. 2016.

Krejcir, Richard J., Ph.D. “Statistics and Reasons for Church Decline” Churchleadership.org. N.p., 2007. Web. 06 Nov. 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.

Rieder, Rem. “Media got Zimmerman story wrong from start ” USA Today. Gannett, 14 July 2013. Web. 06 Nov. 2016.

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

Simon, Scott, and Tom Reiss. “‘The Black Count,’ A Hero On The Field, And The Page” NPR. NPR, n.d. Web. 21 Nov. 2016.

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

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

Unknown. “Don’t Judge a Book By Its Cover” Modern Day Adages. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Oct. 2016.

Yusco, Alan, and Ed Prior. “RELIGIOUS ROCK… The music of devils in the CHURCH” RELIGIOUS ROCK… The Music of Devils in the CHURCH. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Nov. 2016.

 

No Helmets In Football!

Over the years, the NFL has been under fire after the public has learned the consequences for NFL players during or after their careers. As a result, some parents are scared to put their children into a sport that could lead to brain disease. I have found that if football players tackle just like rugby players, safer tackling could cause fewer concussions for football, in general. However, tackling differently will only be effective if the NFL gets rid of the helmets. Football players think that since they have helmets and pads they are invincible, however, they can still get injury even with the helmets and pads on. Football helmets don’t help the players’ neck from being rotated if the football player was hit a certain way that can cause a player to break their neck. Players should play some of the drills in practice without helmets because that will force them to protect their head. Some players tend to lean into a tackle head first and by doing so they have a higher risk of concussions just because of poor tackling. Football player have been taught to lean in with their shoulder, however, if a player tries to lean in with their shoulder, the helmet will get in the way and cause the helmet to hit the other players’ pads first before the shoulder even makes contact with the other players’ body.

On Quora, Ryan Quirk answers the question, “Why does football have a much bigger concussion problem than rugby even though rugby players wear far less protection?” by saying “I think the helmets worn in American Football do more harm then [sic] good. The player relies on it to protect him instead of correctly positioning his head when tackling.” Football players have put their bodies on the lines because they have a misconception that when they have pads on they are safe from all hits that come their ways big or small. Their not because the helmets and pads don’t prevent concussions. Having no helmets will have players be more cautious of the way they tackle because it will be easier for them to receive a concussion if they use their head and cause a player to change the way they tackle. The NFL would probably have fewer concussion if the players just were very mindful of the body.

Rugby uses a different tackling method that causes fewer concussions than the NFL. People may think that Rugby having few concussions than football is weird because the NFL uses helmets and the Rugby does not. A football player is taught to us this shoulders to make a correct tackle but it is hard for the player to get around to using their shoulders when they have a huge helmet on their head. However, the way rugby players tackle is completely different because they have to lean in with their shoulder and put their head to the opposite side of the ball-carriers, wrap their arms around the other player and drive forward to make the tackle. Rugby players make an legal tackle by not wrapping their arms around the ball-carrier first before they drive them to the ground. Rugby players cannot hit a player from his side; that is an illegal tackle. Unlike rugby the NFL blind-side hits are legal. Blind side hits are the leading type of tackles which can cause concussions.  In the video, on A7FL website they talked how football players hit their helmet on every play even when they are not tackle someone. I read that players hit another players’ padding more than 1,000 times a season and adding a players’ average amount of years they play by the time they retire their brain is damaged.

American 7s football league (A7FL for short ) that doesn’t have their players wearing helmets. The number of players on the field is also a factor because the amount of players getting hit every play. The A7FL only allows 7 players on the field for each team, whereas, the NFL allows 11 players on the field. The A7FL has players tackle differently because they don’t use helmets. A defensive player has to wrap his arms around a players body before making a tackle.

Some people may think that if the NFL gets rid of helmets it would be like watching Rugby and their is no point in watching American football anymore. The NFL may be like watching Rugby but there will be similarities and differences just like other sports. For example, A7FL and the national football league. They have the same concept of score a touchdown, however, they are different because A7FL allow players to wear helmets and the NFL does so the way they tackle is different. The NFL may look like Rugby but their will also be differences, such as, The NFL will still have pads and the same number of players on the field as usually but the only thing that will change is that the NFL will be tackling the same as Rugby. The NFL may look like Rugby, but the football players would be less likely to receive concussions if they tackle the correct way like Rugby does. Rugby will still have the same rules as they do now.

A helmet is lined with thick padding all around the helmet. Helmet industries thought they solved the problem by adding padding inside the helmets. A helmets main responsibility (if not its only) is to protect the head from skull fractures, but head injuries do still happen. Even with all of the padding in a helmet concussions come from within the brain. While the padding protects from skull fractures, the brain is still moving around in our head banging against our skull and the more hits to the brain the worse it gets. Continuous hits that are making the brain hit against the skull cause the brain to function less.

People may think that I am crazy and begin to think of different ways to lessen the amount of concussions that the NFL has and also keep helmets in the game of football. Having players get rid of their helmet in a sport that is mainly about physical contact on every play is outrageous. Changing the way players tackle is the biggest factor because if a player is trying to tackle someone without a helmet the same way as NFL players tackle wouldn’t be effective.

Even now with how much padding a player has it is very hard for a player to tackle another player without hitting his head on any part of the opponents body at least once in a game. Adding more padding can cause the helmet to become bigger and harder for the player to avoid tackling without hitting the helmet of the other players’ body. Having a bigger helmets will cause a players’ to add pressure to his neck. The bigger the helmet the more the person could be vulnerable. Even the way the helmet is designed now it is hard for the player to avoid not getting his helmet to not hit the other players’ pads.

Another option, is to tackling differently but still have helmets on. That could do the trick, however, the best way to make a rugby tackle is to have the helmets off because the way Rugby players tackle is to lean in with their shoulder and the arms are the first to make contact to the other players’ body. If someone adds the same football helmet as American football has today and includes the same kind of Rugby tackling it wouldn’t work as effectively because the football helmet would be in the way of the player that is trying to tackle the opposing player. For instance, If a player leans his head to the side and wraps his arms around the player he would have almost got the tackle right but the only thing that is in the way is having the helmet on which can cause the defensive player to hit their head against the offensive players’ body.

In Dr. Warren King’s statement in the article by Alex Goff, “Concussions: Rugby Can Help Football” Dr. King states that “We’ve learning more and more that these small concussions over time in a variety of sports can have a serious, lasting effect later in life.” The multiple times a player gets hit in the helmet from a simple tackle can add up and become a very serious issue. Having their brain hit against their skull is very dangerous because the brain is the powerhouse of our body and getting hit every time a player is on the field can be very dangerous down the road in his life after his football career.

The brain is the most vital part of everyone’s body because it houses our neurons which allows us to walk, talk, and move. A single hard hit, or a series of smaller hits, can cause players’ to receive concussions, or a player being paralysis, or worse. Football is a sport that players can go into a game and after one very hard helmet-to-helmet hit it can cause them to end their career early. A collection of hard hit versus a one big hard hit can out weigh a hard hit because it can hurt a player later in his life. In the NFL, most of the players are getting hit in the head region every down because they have a big helmet that can get in the way of them trying to block their opponents from getting to their quarterback. In football, players with more than 1 concussion can be detrimental to their brain because their brain is getting worse, and worse with every hit to the head. Some players don’t tell their coaches that they have a concussion, but players should definitely let their coaches know because not letting anyone know can cause more harm than good. For example, what if the concussion is worse than what the player thought it would be. Sometimes a player doesn’t notify his coach when they have a concussion because they don’t want to be taken out of the game. A players’ brain may get worse over time and cause him to be mental rehabilitated. Thomas Drysdale talks about how football players suffer from Chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). He shows how doctors say that this disease can be caused by the repeated hits to the head and how this disease can lead to a football players’ death. He gave two examples of linebacker Junior Seau and Chicago Bears’ star safety Dave Duerson both suffered from CTE and need up ending their own lives.

Back then, players families sued the NFL for their negligence for a football players’ health. Over the years, NFL has taken better care of their players’ ever since the stories about the injuries that can occur after being in the NFL. For example, Junior Seau was one of the best linebackers in the league during his time in the NFL. He made headlines when the world found out that he shot himself in the chest at the age of 43. His family was devastated and sued the NFL after they found out about Junior Seau’s brain report . Studies showed that Junior Seau had “‘a degenerative brain disease linked to repeated head hits and brain trauma.” Junior Seau’s family won the case and ever since that came out people believe that the NFL has been trying to help make the game safer for the players.

Steven Laurey is Belgian neurologist who went on Ted talks to speak about the dangers of having hits taken to the head. Throughout his speech he uses Muhammad Ali (The greatest boxer of all time) as an example of what happen to a person that spend years in a sport that has athletes taking punches to the head and face. His main concept is that athletes that get hits taken repeatedly to their head can cause the nerves in their brain to stop working over time because of how many time the brain has hit against the wall of the skull. He shows the audience that after getting hit in the head some many times an athletes can form an abnormal prudent that is toxic to the brain and over time it gets worse and worse causing the athlete to slowly turn into an insane person. He states that there isn’t a cure for the disease. Our brain just continues to get smaller and smaller over time and causes for more diseases to occur.

Some people may think about the technology that doctors use today that study on the brains activity during football games. Doctors have come up with technology that shows the brain activity within the brain. Even with this study it doesn’t prevent the players from receiving concussions, rather, it just shows the doctors the measure of the impact, where the brain made contact with the skull, and how hard it hit the skull. The University of New Hampshire studied this technology. In Jenny Vrentas article, “Helmetless Football? It’s the New Practice at New Hampshire” she states that “at first the University of New Hampshire football players were skeptical when they started practicing without helmets, but this technique is not only making them more cautious about their heads, it is also helping them improve their game.” After having this research done their is a great number of teams that are having some practice drill without helmets. It makes the players rethink the ways they use to tackle another player to the ground.

If the NFL changes the way football players tackle and get rid of helmets it will lessen the concussion rate because players will be more cautious of their head. Tackling like rugby players do will decrease the number of times that the players hits their face against the other players’ pads. Studies will shows that players aren’t receiving any diseases after their years of football. Throughout my research, I was surprised that some people were on board to get rid of helmets in practice. Having players tackle without helmets will definitely change the game of football in a better and more safer way.

Work Cited:

A7FL. “Safety – A7FL.” A7FL. A7FL, n.d. Web. 06 Nov. 2016

Brain Concussion – Shake It and You Break It | Steven Laureys | TEDxLiège. Dir. Dr. Steven     Laureys. Perf. Steven Laureys. YouTube. YouTube, 2 May 2016. Web. 06 Nov. 2016.

“Concussion: Causes, Symptoms, Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prevention.” WebMD. ebMD, n.d. Web. 07 Nov. 2016.

Dawson, Peter. “Rugby Tries – How and Where You Score Tries in Rugby.” RugbyHow. RugbyHow, n.d. Web. 07 Nov. 2016.

Drysdale, Thomas A. “Journal of Legal Medicine.” Helmet-to-Helmet Contact: Avoiding a Lifetime Penalty. Taylor And Francis Online, 13 Dec. 2013. Web. 06 Nov. 2016.

Fawcett, Robert. “Pads and Helmets: Rugby vs. Gridiron.” Pads and Helmets: Rugby vs. Gridiron. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Dec. 2016.

Goff, Alex. “Concussions: Rugby Can Help Football.” The Post Game. RugbyMAG, 15 Oct. 2013. Web. 4 Dec. 2015.

Haislop, Tadd. “Football Helmets Are Creating More Problems than They Solve.” Sporting News. Sporting News, 28 May 2015. Web. 20 Nov. 2016.

Lemco, Tyler. Lemco: Why Football Needs Less Pads. Computer software. CBS Local Sports. CBS, 3 July 2015. Web. 04 Dec. 2016.

Quirk, Ryan, Jason McDonald, Meehawl Mofiodh, PJ Coward, Cameron Rudderham, Simon McCormack, and Gary Snook. “Re: Why Does Football Have a Much Bigger Concussion Problem than Rugby Even Though Rugby Players Wear Far Less Protection?” Blog comment. Quora. Quora, 13 July 2015. Web. 4 Dec. 2016.

Vrentas, Jenny. “Helmetless Football? It’s the New Practice at New Hampshire.” The MMQB. Muscles and Medicine, 4 Dec. 2014. Web. 04 Dec. 2016.

 

A Lower Sales Tax is Not Necessary for NJ

The current seven percent sales tax in New Jersey is a fair and non-regressive tax. The sales tax rate should not be lowered at all because it is a fair tax. According to Samantha Mactus, author of the article, N.J. Gas Tax Hike Deal: Christie Demanded a Sales Tax Cut, but Will You Notice It?, Marcus said that on the first of January in 2016 the sales tax will be lowered from seven percent to six point  eight seven five percent. This is an unnecessary reduction in the tax because this is a non-regressive tax. According to the New Jersey Sales Tax Guide, grocery items are exempt, prescription medication is exempt, luxury items are taxed, clothing is exempt, and there are ways to  avoid paying this tax. A regressive tax is a tax that disproportionately taxes people with a lower income more than those with a higher income. While one may say that people with lower incomes may feel that they pay more of their income towards this tax, they can choose to not pay this tax all together. If a tax can be made optional for some people, then they have the choice not to pay for it. Since essential items are not taxed, then this is not a regressive tax on the poor. If someone with a low income chooses to buy a McDonald’s milkshake, then they choose to pay the tax. People with lower incomes have to buy grocery items which are not taxed. If any tax should be lowered, it should be a tax that helps those with lower incomes because they are in need of a tax cut. Lowering a luxury tax on items that some people with lower incomes may not be able to afford does not help those with lower incomes.

In New Jersey groceries are not subject to the sales tax. The tax rate on grocery items is zero. All people need to buy groceries because they are essential to survive. While people obviously choose when to buy groceries, people have to eat to live. Those who do not make a lot of money or use EBT cards do not have to pay a tax on their grocery items. The  people with low incomes have to really budget their money and paying a tax on groceries is not something they have to do in New Jersey. Some States do have regressive sales taxes that tax grocery items. According to the article, State by State:Are Grocery Items Taxable, some examples of States that tax groceries are Kansas, Alabama, and Mississippi. It would be regressive to tax groceries because everyone needs to buy groceries and those with lower incomes would pay a higher percentage of their income towards the sales tax on groceries. Since New Jersey does not tax groceries people with lower incomes do not have to pay a higher percentage of their income on the sales tax towards groceries.  While prepared meal from restaurants are taxed, raw items are not. Some examples of exempt items are: milk, water,  juices with at least fifty percent juice, eggs, bread, raw or frozen vegetables, canned food, deli meat, and cheese. There are many other kinds of tax free food sold in stores, but by not taxing these essential items, there is no extra tax burden to buy essential items. People will do not have to pay any extra tax to buy their weekly groceries.

Everybody needs to have clothing. Clothing is clearly something that is essential for everyone to have and to wear. The winters in New Jersey can get very cold, so people have to especially buy heavy winter coats. These winter coats fall under the clothing category of the sales tax law, so they are exempt. People can buy tax free clothing in New Jersey. It is important to note that some winter coats can be expensive so this tax exempt item saves people money. This is clearly an example of a non regressive sales tax because  an essential item is not taxed. Clothing is something that everybody has to wear and lowering the sales tax will not make clothing cheaper since it does not tax clothing at all. 

While one may believe that sugary drinks or cigarettes are essential to some them, nobody can say that prescription drugs are not essential. At some point in their life, everybody has needed to buy a prescription medication. Another example of a tax exempt essential item is prescription medication. There is no tax on prescription medication because these medications can be life saving to people. Prescription drugs can be life saving in some situations, making the case that they are essential. It would be horrible if someone could not afford their medication because they had to pay a tax on it. If essential medications were taxed, then yes it would be regressive because those people with low incomes would have to pay even more for their medication. Since this is not the case in New Jersey, the tax is not regressive because people do not have pay sales tax on their prescription medication.  The tax would be regressive if prescription medication was taxed because people with low incomes would have to pay a higher percentage of their income and people with a higher  income would pay a lower percentage of their income on prescription medication if it was taxed. This is not the case in New Jersey since prescription medication is exempt from the sales tax.

The sales tax does apply to luxury items and non essential items that people buy out of luxury or convenience. Prepared meals at restaurants and fast food restaurants always charge the sales tax. Cigarettes and alcohol are clearly non essential items.  One can live their life without buying either, so if someone can not afford cigarettes or alcohol due to taxes, then they will just have to do without them.  Some other taxable items that are non-essential are: balloons, soda,cigars, dog food, and Halloween masks. These are all examples of taxed items that are non-essential to survive. The same cannot be said about grocery items or prescription medication. If someone chooses to go to a restaurant then they are choosing to pay that tax. This is clearly acceptable because people choose to go out to eat, but people have to buy grocery items. People with low incomes choose to pay this tax when they go out to eat, but they do not have to pay this tax if they only buy groceries, which are tax free. The fact that people have the option, regardless of their income, to avoid paying the tax makes it non regressive. 

The sales tax can also be avoided if people take certain measures. One example of how a person can avoid paying the sales tax is to make their own sandwiches instead of buying them prepared or made to order at deli’s. In New Jersey deli meat, bread, and vegetables are tax free. If someone went to a deli and ordered a ham and cheese sandwich, that sandwich would be taxed. A way one can avoid paying for the tax would be to buy a loaf of bread,ham, and cheese from the deli and then make the sandwich at home. Another example of a way one can avoid paying the sales tax would be buy home insurance to cover costs for labor if damages occur. Labor is taxed in New Jersey,  according to a letter written by the Division of Taxation-S&U Tax: Home Improvements. So if someone needs repairs due to damages the cost of labor is taxed. If someone has home insurance then the insurance company pays for the cost of labor and one can avoid the sales tax. A third way for someone to avoid paying the sales tax at a restaurant or convenience store would be to for somebody to buy coffee beans and brew their own coffee instead of going to a convenience store to buy already brewed coffee, which is taxed. The fact that this tax can be avoided means that people who may not be able to afford to pay the tax can avoid paying the tax altogether.

The sales tax does apply to luxury items that are non essential. Some taxable items are: cigarettes, alcoholic beverages, and prepared meals. On a chart posted by the New Jersey Department of Taxation, there is a list of the minimum price cigarettes can be sold at. On top of the minimum price, cigarettes are subject to the sales tax. Since cigarettes are not an essential item it is not a regressive to have a high tax on cigarettes. Though nicotine gum is tax exempt to try to help people quit smoking. There is a clear difference in taxing luxury items and taxing essential items. People can choose not to pay this tax at all because in a way it is an optional tax.

Let’s say someone makes three hundred dollars a week and they need to pay for groceries, rent, insurance, and clothing. None of the items they need to survive are taxed at all. Buying only bare minimum essentials means that one does not spend their money going out to eat, buying fast food, buy alcohol or tobacco, or anything that is not essential to stay alive. A person with a low income can buy everything they need to stay alive without paying the sales tax. A tax on anything for the working poor adds up quickly and can cause people to go into debt to afford thing they need to survive. People do not have to pay this tax on items they require just to get by and live.

The current sales tax rate of seven percent is currently acceptable and a fair tax. What makes the tax fair is that it is a convenience and luxury tax that people pay. This is not a  regressive tax at all because there are exemptions and ways to avoid paying the tax. The sales tax does not disproportionately tax a higher percentage of someone’s income, unless that person chooses to pay the tax out of their own convenience. I believe that this tax should not be lowered because it is a fair tax that brings in a lot of revenue to the State of New Jersey. Lowering this tax will not be a tax cut on the working poor. Tax cuts are meant to help people keep more of the money that they earn. There are likely other ways to cut taxes that would be a better solution for those with low incomes, instead of cutting a tax on luxury items. In brief, out of all the taxes the government imposes, the sales tax is one that is not a regressive tax and should be left at it’s current rate.

Works Cited

“New Jersey Sales Tax Guide.” (n.d.): Web. 30 Oct. 2016.

“Sales Tax By State: Are Grocery Items Taxable?” TaxJar Sales Tax Blog. N.p., 30 Aug. 2016. Web. 06 Nov. 2016.

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF TAXATION MINIMUM LEGAL PRICES ON CIGARETTES AS OF AUGUST 2, 2016  (n.d.): n. pag. Web. 13 Nov. 2016.

“NJ Division of Taxation-S&U Tax: Home Improvements” NJ Division of Taxation – S & U Tax: Home Improvements. N.p., 20 Oct. 2014. Web. 13 Nov. 2016. b. 13 Nov. 2016.

Samantha Marcus. “N.J. Gas Tax Hike Deal: Christie Demanded a Sales Tax Cut, but Will You Notice It?” NJ.com. N.p., 29 Oct. 2016. Web. 30 Oct. 2016.