Rowan Counterintuitive

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.