the "f" word- Cas Young

Ladies and Gentlemen, whoever is reading this, you’re going to hear me rant about feminism for the next few minutes, so please keep all eyerolls to a minimum.

About 1 out of every 5 Americans consider themselves to be a feminist. You may think that’s pretty good, but compare that to the fact that 4 out of 5 Americans believe in gender equality (Swanson)(PerryUndem). There’s clearly a disconnect here- why don’t those three people identify as feminists?

People think feminism is a bad thing. If you look up “feminism,” just the one word on YouTube, it will take you some serious digging before you can find a video about why feminism is a positive movement. Trust me, I tried last night. I’m still looking.

Contemporary feminism’s goal is to bring about equality for everyone in all aspects of life regardless of race, gender identity, sexuality, or religion, it’s that simple.

And I’m going to try to make this as simple as possible, too.

Why do people hate feminism? 

“Feminism is a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, and become lesbians.” Okay, Pat Robertson you got us! 

In all honesty, there are more people who share this worldview. I recently stumbled across the anti-feminism movement called “Women Against Feminism,” you may be familiar with it. It mostly consists of women taking pictures of themselves holding up written signs saying “I don’t need Feminism because…” These people are part of the reason for the discrepancy between the amount of feminists and the amount of people who believe in equality. I think most of you guys already are feminists, but it’s time to own up to it.

“I don’t need feminism because I’m not a man-hater!” This is my favourite argument because it’s almost funny. Despite our cold outward appearance, we are all rather soft and squishy on the inside, we don’t hate men, I promise. Feminism isn’t a movement of hatred. I’m not saying there aren’t women and girls who don’t belittle men in order to empower women, there are, but they’re not part of the true feminist movement. It’s not about collectively hating men and hoping they’ll magically cede us our rights. It’s about recognizing other women who do cool things. Feminism, real feminism mind you, is actually really supportive of men’s issues too, and we’ll get more into that in a second. We put women on a pedestal so they can stand beside men, not the other way around. I need feminism because I am a woman who believes she ought to have the same rights as men.

“I don’t need feminism because it emasculates men.” This is the result of a simple misunderstanding. As Femen founder Anna Hutsol once said, “It’s not a case of men versus women. It’s a masculine system working against women and not just against women. It’s against all of humanity. The patriarchy is against men, too” (Margot, Je Suis Femen). For example, why is “man up” synonymous with “toughen up”? Likewise, why is “kicking like a girl” still something people say? Feminism isn’t trying to pry the masculinity out of the hands of every man on this earth hoping to bring him down to the lowly level of the female. Part of feminism is recognizing that people of all genders can be as masculine or feminine as they very well please and their gender is no less valid. It’s knowing that femininity isn’t a weakness or a negative trait and that girls don’t need to drop the lace to be powerful just like men don’t need to man up to be a real man. I need feminism because masculinity doesn't equal strength.

“I don’t need feminism because I don’t want to be shamed for my domestic role.” Clearly, this person is friends with some horrible feminists. Contemporary feminism is all about freedom of choice, today women have tons of opportunities for education, post education, dating and marriage. We have the power to choose to do what we want with our lives contrary to what our parents may have told us or despite what typical gender roles dictate. Women can choose to be engineers and live single in a city apartment and have casual sex on the weekends. And as feminists, it’s our job to respect her decision. To quote feminist icons Salt N’ Pepa, “If she wanna be a freak and sell it on the weekend, it’s none of your business.” Likewise women can choose to get married early and be a stay-at-home mom with 3 kids who likes to cook. More power to you, I can’t cook to save my life! Contemporary feminism is really and truly about support for the independent decisions of women no matter what they may be. Feminism is like religion. You know you found a good denomination when you feel good after church, and you know you’re a good feminist when you feel a sense of pride in the decisions and diverse lives of other women. I need feminism because I deserve freedom of choice.

“I don’t need feminism because I do not blame men for an action I’m responsible for.” This one particularly scares me. This statement is rather vague, but it leads me to believe they think women are responsible for being sexually assaulted. This is a problem that we see a lot in the news, on Facebook and Twitter. A state prison clerk was choked and raped for 27 minutes by an inmate with a history of sexual assault and a senior deputy attorney general wrote that her actions somehow contributed to her rape (Ganim). Women are never the cause for their sexual assault or harassment regardless of the way they’re acting or the way they’re dressed. Still, one out of every six women is sexually assaulted. That’s around five of us girls in the room. And the most common method of rape prevention you see now is “How to not get raped,” not “Why you shouldn’t rape.” Ladies, how many of your parents have told you to carry pepper spray or to use your keys as a weapon, or even just encouraged you not to walk home alone at night? This is an unintentional type of victim blaming, rather than focusing on teaching men and women alike not to sexually assault people, it usually ends up with teaching girls how to avoid it. I need feminism because sexual assault is a crime that too often goes unpunished.

“I don’t need feminism because catcalling isn’t oppression.” Two years ago I was walking from dance practice at a hotel to a restaurant where my family was eating, I only had to walk a couple blocks down some main roads. I figured if I could walk the streets of New Orleans alone, walking through Chattanooga, TN would be fine. Two times I was honked at and catcalled. I was fourteen years old and multiple grown men stopped me on the street. What if one of them wasn’t in a car or if one of them decided to get out? Then I would probably just be another story on the news. Catcalling is the result of centuries of women’s bodies being seen as purely sexual objects. The fact that those people had the audacity to stop a kid, a teenage girl, and harass her on the street because they felt entitled to her body is sick and twisted and I want no part of it. I need feminism because nobody deserves to be treated like that. 

The way I see it, feminism is perhaps the coolest and most diverse movement that’s carried into the 21st century, and it’s so disappointing that so few people are willing to call themselves feminists because of a small handful of people with distorted viewpoints. 

So next time you hear Emma Watson give a speech at the UN, or the next time your mom shows you a video of Malala Yousafzai and her stellar speaking skills, know that you’re a part of that movement. You’re giving yourself, the women of this country, and future generations a huge service. I hope you know we’re the new face of feminism, we’re going to be the ones to bring about true, unparalleled equality.

We are feminists because we need to change the world.

RICK MARINO SPEECH!!!

I would like you to meet my friend Joe Smith. Joe was raised in the South side of Gangtown, a rough tough neighborhood stuffed fat with violence and poverty. Growing up, young Joe was trapped in a culture of bums, slums, crumbs, and guns. However, this resilient fella overcame his tribulations and, like little bright Remy in Ratatouille, he escaped the restraining clutches of his foul nest. He flowered into a brilliant mind, and for his scholarly achievements, he received a sizeable 40,000 dollar ride to local college U. Joe absorbs knowledge like a dry sponge and works like a steaming freight train. You don’t know it but, Joe is destined to change our world. He will be the conqueror of cancer, the terminator of world hunger, a peace maker with invading aliens.

Now, acquaint yourself with John Johnson, an impressive hoops star at college U, who hails from the same shady area as Joe, and is allocated the same 40,000 dollar scholarship. Both men dedicate identical hours perfecting their crafts. Now imagine John, the basketball player, receiving an additional paycheck and Joe, the scholarship student, receiving nothing. Goose egg. Nada. The colleges turn their backs on the one that will confront daunting world problems. And, instead, they celebrate and reward the one that simply provides public entertainment. That would be Preposterous. Ludicrousness. Blasphemy. Despite their assiduous, diligent, sweat-producing physical vigor, collegiate athletes should not be instituted into a salary system.

The issue, on the other hand, is not merely a to-be-paid or not-to-be-paid scenario. College sports are dictated by the big bellied, corrupted, sly organization that is the NCAA. A resolution to the complex feud of athletics is to maintain the status of student-athlete, and to conduct a major reformation of the NCAA and its operations.

The sports in contention for money are the big guns. The most boisterous and vociferous. The hot shots, football and men’s basketball, are not only on revered on their campus, but are drowned in the adulation of hard-core fans across the nation. A recent movement has called for a monetary earnings for these players because the vast attention they draw to the universities and because of their devotion and commitment to greatness. The proposal is spear-headed by collegiate legends such as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Shane Battier. And, although they carry gravitating respect and veneration among the community, their argument is flaccid and flimsy. They exclude from the picture the overwhelming myriad of other college sports. Tennis players. Volleyball players. Soccer player. Baseball players. Softball players. Women’s basketball players. Swimmers. Divers. How could football and basketball be acknowledged monetarily, while the majority of athletes, who equally drive and dedicate themselves, are left the shadows? It isn’t ethical. If the NCAA was the U.S., this would be like only paying the entertainers of Hollywood.

Those in favor of issuing players a wage are also overlooking the blunt notion of student-athlete. It seems to be forgotten that those players we watch on the field and on the court are first and foremost students. A handful of athletes will go pro in their respective sports, and handful is almost an overstatement.  The NCAA estimates that the numbers for professional occupation are 1.4% for men’s soccer, 1.6% for football, 1.2% for men’s basketball, and .9% for women’s basketball. Aside from the selective few who will play professionally, players must be able to provide for their future after college. They are honored with the priceless privilege of education, and as trite as it may seem, knowledge is power. They can take a bite out of the succulent fruit of knowledge and gather its seeds in order to reap future success. A salary for the student-athletes would divert their attention away from the pungent and powerful opportunities of their education.

College sports are the actors that dramatize on the big stage, and behind the curtain is the nefarious and manipulative acting company manager, the NCAA. Jay Bilas, an incredibly respected member of the college athletic community, is a former college champion  and announcer for ESPN. Wielding a law degree from Duke, Bilas is apt to tap into knowledge and fame, and likens the NCAA to a cartel. This organization is innocent and harmless in the eyes of fans. But its dastardly deeds are unknown, camouflaged, masked, and cloaked by the spectacle of its sports. The NCAA executives can be characterized as greedy, Mr. Burns-like characters, laughing malevolently as they scratch gold together next to their old ears. They sit atop their money thrones like lardy Jabba the Huts, dictating with guile. Once the concealing thicket is disentangled, the numbers are astonishing and jaw-dropping. The NCAA racks up billions and billions each year off the backs of athletes. The top heads of the organization earn combined six million annually alone, not to mention, they operate in a grandiose 35 million dollar complex. And, recently, college football and basketball coaches have become the highest paid government officials in most states. Isn’t this absolutely repulsive?  This disgusting corruption is related by some to a grossly lucrative sweat shop. The answer to this rather obscured problem is to streamline the profits back to players in some way shape or form, while avoiding paying them with hard cash. A near entirety of NCAA profit needs to be utilized neither as a means of paying the officials or players, but as a source to provide basic amenities for the athletes to improve the sports and educational facilities of the universities that the athletes represent. If the players earn money, it should be properly returned to the colleges that have fostered the growth and development of the players.

So the next time, you catch a collegiate game on ESPN, think about the great injustice being waved upon the athletes. We must seize that elusive justice and deliver our college athletes a proper and due resolution. The immense profits absconded by NCAA officials need to be redirected so as to benefit those that sweated for. But recall our dear comrades, Joe Smith, the exemplary scholar, the one who will alter the world and John Johnson, the mere basketball star. The cash cannot be coolly slipped into the players youthful pockets, therefore molesting the sacred student-athlete relationship. It is necessary though that this dough returns to those truly earned it, in the form of player amenities and university sports and educational buildings. The naïve mask must be ripped off, revealing the vile vice to a previously ignorant public and a suitable solution delivered.

If You Like It, Buy It- Jodi Kirkner

            Raise your hand if you play music. Keep them up. Now raise your hand if you have music on your phone, even a single song. Alright, I’m assuming everyone has their hands raised at this point, but even if you don’t, I’m confident you at least know what music is. What you may not think about is that music is someone’s job. If employment is everyone’s issue, then the problem with music is definitely everyone’s issue, because countless jobs are inside your phone right now. Every artist’s name inside your iTunes app is a human being, somewhere in the world, making a living, and you have the power to supply their wages with the tap of your screen. Sadly, every day, artists are cheated out of their paychecks by means of unfair contracts, streaming, and illegal downloading.

There’s a little saying I read online over the summer. Someone’s advice to new artists. They said something along the lines of, “There are three entities in this world. There’s music, the music business, and the music industry. You’ve got to love the first, learn the second, and outsmart the third.”

To understand exactly what this means, it is important to first understand the types of contracts most artists get from record labels. Artists start out fighting for a contract from the pool of other artists the company has shown interest in. They could have been handed a business card on the street or gotten a message on social media about their music, asking them to come in and chat about a deal. At this point the company tells them, “We’ll choose whoever shows the most potential.” The artists end up basically wrestling each other on the floor of the record company for the contract, and in the end, the decision really comes down to something as menial as, “Well, which group already has the most likes on Facebook?” (Swift). The chosen artist is then told, as if they hadn’t already done enough, “We need to see you work even harder before we can take this chance on you.” After weeks, and months, and usually years of working harder and harder, the artists are finally presented with a contract, and they don’t think twice before scrawling their names on the lines and going home to take a much-needed rest. If you had worked for this single opportunity for years, would you think twice before singing? Of course not. It’s only later that artists realize the unfair and often completely ridiculous terms of their contracts. These are referred to as 360 contracts. They often include terms for the company to oversee all sales, distribution, scheduling, and manufacturing, as well as an annual net output for the artist and inflated interests rates on everything. After some more extensive “tweaking” of the artists style and image, they may finally be allowed a single, or if they’re lucky, an album. And if they’re really, REALLY, lucky, they might to go on a tour. But no matter how lucky they are, by the end of the year, based on the terms of their contract, they’ve made about half of what a minimum wage worker at McDonald’s would make in that same year. After contributing millions of dollars to the music industry with their art and hard work alone, they make, on average, one-hundred and seventy-five times less money than their label does off their own music ("The Problem With Music").

These same types of contracts are just as prevalent in other world music industries. One example being South Korea’s music industry, commonly referred to as “K-Pop.” This industry relies on even stricter versions of the 360 contract which usually depend on children being recruited as young as age 10 and training for five to ten years before being allowed to debut. K-Pop contracts can even include their label making decisions on their personal relationships, as well as their body image. Yes, body image. In fact, K-Pop companies often ask artists to get plastic surgery or lose unhealthy amounts of weight as terms of their contract. In 2010, three members of K-Pop group TVXQ sued their label for the unfair terms of their 13 year contract, and ended up leaving their band and the company. Later, one member released a single called “Song Without a Name,” talking about his treatment at the entertainment company. I’d like to share the translation of one verse.

“Hearing that we had finally struck gold and brought in results so unimaginably astronomical,

I walked into the office with a spring in my step to receive my pay.

Our team members were looking at each other with excited gazes.

We complimented each other on how hard we had worked.

But the statement of accounts we received said we were at a deficit

Everything was listed under expenses

Damn it, how could all that money have gone towards paying expenses.

What kind of expenses were there to make that much money vanish?

I couldn’t believe my eyes, so I asked them to show me the detailed statement of accounts, something I had never seen before.

They told me they would show it to me, but I ended up never seeing those few sheets of paper as all I did was work…

Are the things we do for the company

Really and truly things that are for the company?

One of the workers told me the company would make it hard for us to survive if we left.

Those words refuse to leave my mind.” (Kim, Kim, and Park)

Obviously, this don’t apply to artists like Kanye West and Taylor Swift who own everything, including their own label, but for the other 900,000 musicians in the United States alone (Thomson), this is so often the case.

But while we’re talking about Mrs. Swift, it’s important to note that even she still faces challenges as an artist. Last year, she removed all of her music from the popular streaming site, Spotify, because she felt their service didn’t value her rights as an artist, as it let anyone stream her music for free. In an interview with Time Magazine, she said, “I think there should be an inherent value placed on art… people should feel that there is a value to what musicians have created” (Swift).  She also expressed that free streaming is one of the main reasons album sales are decreasing. If someone can listen to music for free, why would they bother paying for it? Spotify does pay artists for their contribution, but in 2014 they admitted to paying on average less than one cent per play (Engel). And that’s only to the label. By the math of the typical contract that I mentioned before, artists would be earning one cent for every 200 plays of their song on Spotify. Lady Gaga’s “Poker Face” was the most popular song on the site for five months straight, with over a million plays. How much do you think she received from Spotify at the end of that year? A hundred thousand dollars? Ten thousand? One thousand? No, Lady Gaga received 167 dollars for more than a million plays on Spotify. As one producer puts it, “That’s barely enough for a meat dress” (Tod).

Earlier this year, other artists were having the same troubles with the new streaming service “Apple Music”. Apple offered its members three free months of the service, without ever consulting the people who actually owned the music. During this three-month period, artist’s music could be played for free, with no compensation from Apple or the listener. Independent label Beggar’s Group said this could be detrimental to independent artists who release albums during that time, because they need the revenue from sales. Some artists that refused to play their music on the service are Adele, Basement Jaxx, Radiohead, The Strokes, and our favorite artists’ rights advocate, Taylor Swift. In fact, she even released an open letter to Apple telling them exactly what she told Time Magazine about Spotify. She values her music, and she wants others to do the same, and for this reason, she would not put her new album, 1989, on Apple Music. In response, Apple released a letter saying they would pay all artists’ royalties, and many then agreed to have their music added to the service, Swift included.

Although streaming is a huge hurdle to artists’ revenue, even more detrimental is the illegal downloading and piracy of music. I know most of us have gone on one of those sketchy online sites that gives you free downloads, or used the “YouTube to MP3” converter to strip the audio from some music video we. And with music from artists like Justin Bieber who earn millions a year, the effects of our actions may never be felt or realized. But for any regular artist, this is a little like “being mugged every day, very gently.” Or at least, that’s how producer and TV-film composer Felix Tod puts it. He says that we should stop illegally downloading music, because it’s just as simple these days, if not simpler, to just click and purchase on iTunes. The digitalization of music was supposed to make it easier for artists to sell their music.

Brian McTear and Steve Albini, both producers and former musicians, argue that it has. McTear says that the best thing for the music industry is for artists to build their fanbase through personal interaction with their fans, and that the internet makes this interaction entirely more possible through email and other social media. And Albini agrees, saying that the access the Internet gives fans to artists, and artists to fans eliminates the problems of music contracts completely, and allows independent artists to showcase, advertise, and sell their music without the help of a label. Which should be true, right?

But it isn’t. YouTube, for years, has been the biggest site on the internet for music video sharing. Almost every musician around the world shares their music videos through YouTube, even K-Pop artists. But do any of you remember the day that you got on YouTube and started seeing ads before you could watch your video? That was the beginning of Google’s reform of the site, after they bought rights from the original owner. Around the same time you started seeing ads, independent artists started having their music taken down from YouTube. This was a result of their refusal to sign less than fair contracts with Google, offering them very little compensation for their work. If independent artists can’t share their music on YouTube or Spotify without being strong-armed out of fair compensation, how is it supposed to be a benefit? In effect, it isn’t.

If there’s one thing Tod, Albini, and McTear can all agree on, it’s that artists don’t ever deserve the maltreatment of 360 contracts. But independent artists can’t be successful without dedicated fans. Dedicated fans, meaning people who will attend their concerts, buy their merchandise, or at the very least, pay 99 cents on iTunes to own a copy of their song.

The last lines of TVXQ’s “Song Without a Name” say,

“My heart it at ease now.

I’m happy because we have our fans as family,

We’ll work hard forever, so please stay by our side.

For we, who you made, are worth only what you made.” (Kim, Kim and Park)

The members of TVXQ realized that their devoted fans had made their independent career, after splitting from SM Entertainment, possible. The type of devotion shown by fans of K-Pop to the artists is what made South Korea’s music industry one of the few that has experienced an increase in physical music sales since the general industry plunge in the 2000s (Tsai). If we showed this same type of support and devotion to artists we like, as opposed to streaming and downloading their music for free, they may all be able to break free of the chains of the 360 contract and have the successful career they deserve.

            I want to leave you with the short, but still sweet slogan of the Independent artists’ movement. If you like it, buy it.

Works Cited

Albini, Steve. "Keynote Address: Steve Albini." Face the Music 2014. Melbourne, Australia. Web. 28 June 2015. Speech.

     

Albini, Steve. "The Problem With Music." Baffler No. 5 Nov. 1993: n. Web. 28 June 2015.

Engel, Pamela. "Taylor Swift Explains Why She Left Spotify." Business Insider. Business Insider, Inc, 13 Nov. 2014. Web. 12 Dec. 2015.

England, Lucy. "Artist Rebellion against Apple Music Grows as Independent Labels Say They Won't Participate in the Launch." Business Insider. Business Insider, Inc, 19 June 2015. Web. 13 Dec. 2015.

Kim, Jae Joong, Yoo Chun Park, and Jun Su Kim. 이름없는 노래 Part 1. JYJ. 2011. MP3.

Written by TVXQ’s revival group JYJ, 이름없는 노래 Part 1 (Unnamed Song Part 1) is the story of how their music label, SM Entertainment, violated their rights with the 360 contract and wouldn’t pay them although they worked constantly. This song was a part of the album Essay Songs. Unnamed Song was written after the group sued SM Entertainment and is a message to the company and their fans that they will not give up although they are facing difficulties. It is uncommon for individuals to speak out against a label that has money and influence to ruin their career, so this is a unique message. This source is credible because is it a firsthand account from the perspective of a group member involved in the dispute. 

McIntyre, Hugh. "YouTube Is About To Delete Independent Artists From Its Site." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 18 June 2014. Web. 11 Dec. 2015.

McTear, Brian. "A Modest Proposal for Fixing the Music Industry." TEDxPhiladelphia. Philadelphia. 28 June 2015. Speech.

Swift, Taylor. "For Taylor Swift, the Future of Music Is a Love Story." WSJ. The Wall Street Journal, 7 July 2014. Web. 13 Dec. 2015.

Swift, Taylor. "Taylor Swift Talks Business." Interview by Jack Dickey. TIME. Time Magazine, 13 Nov. 2013. Web. <http://time.com/3578249/taylor-swift-interview/>.

Tod, Felix. "How to Save the Music Industry." TEDxBermuda. Bermuda. 30 June 2015. Speech.

Tsai, Patricia. "Discovering the Full Potential of the 360 Deal: An Analysis of the Korean Pop Industry, Seven-Year Statute, and Talent Agencies Act of California." UCLA Entertainment Law Review 20.2 (2013): 324-48. eScholarship: University of California. Web. 27 June 2015. 

Williamson, Lucy. "The Dark Side of South Korean Pop Music - BBC News." BBC News. British Broadcasting Channel, 15 June 2011. Web. 30 June 2015.

Lauryn McNair Assignment 16

For us global warming has existed as the talking man behind the curtain. The master behind all of our troubles that none of us are really aware. Living in America, or a least a It’s not all about you. Growing up with three, eventually four, siblings with a single mother, this, while not explicitly stated, was always implied. No we can’t have your birthday party at Gatti-Town because the other kids want to have theirs at Champs. No, we can’t go to the bookstore because your sister has a four hour dance competition in another state. Or my personal favorite, no you can’t get braces because we have bills to pay. All of my life has been characterized with individual sacrifices, which when looking back, weren’t really that bad, but at the time were unfathomable to me. These sacrifices that I made, or was forced to make, were all done for the overall well being and happiness of my family, whether I was aware of it or not. And I’m truly happy I made them. The older I get, the more I realize that “It’s not all about you” does not just exist in the comfort of my home, but in a global context as well. That every I action I choose or choose not to make, extends beyond just me. That I am not merely an independent body, but a strand in an impossibly interdependent web. This gradual realization that we are all connected, has led me to change how I view the world, or more specifically, how we interact with it. Global issues, like global warming, have become more than a name in the news, or a phrase thrown around in politics to gain votes. While researching I’ve discovered that the everyday things I do have a significant impact on other people. That the amount of energy I consume affects the lives of those a few hours away in eastern Kentucky. Or the amount of pollution I release into the air carries its weight thousands of miles across the ocean, to affect the lives of developing African nations. While I’ve just scratched the surface with my research, it’s become evident that global warming is a global issue. An issue that affects the social and economic livelihood of every human and can’t be simply solved with hardcore recycling or reusable plates. Limiting the impact of global warming and exploitation requires patience, education, and the ability of all of us to step outside of ourselves.

suburban part of it, has allowed me to not be affronted by the problems of global warming. For a long time I didn’t know that just as bad as the effects of global warming are the things that lead to it. Coal mining, mountaintop removal, oil drilling. These frequent practices which lead to the perils of pollution, are also harmful themselves. The most obvious affects are seen in the environment. Take surface mining for example. First plants, animals, and topsoil are cleared from the area. Then a layer of Earths surface is removed. This clearly has several implications. Entire populations of plants and animals are killed.  The disruption of land leads to soil erosion, ruining it for future agricultural purposes. The air is polluted with the large amount of dust released into the air. As horrible as these things sound, most people don’t care. We understand that these things are bad and in some distant way affect us, but the effects are so abstract, they have no meaning in most of our everyday lives. And by most of us, I mean middle class Americans in urban areas. Not too far away in our neighboring coal counties, this deals with their everyday lives very much. One of the biggest defenses for the continuation of exploitative practices, coal mining specifically, are the economic benefits. It supplies tons of workers with jobs all over the world in areas that are relatively economically impoverished. This large trade of extracting and producing energy further fuels the global economy and further feeds our ever growing industrial world. Even being the die-hard liberal that I am, I completely understand the economic depression that would result from removing coal mining and coal usage alone. I’m neither asking nor wanting that to happen. What I am asking, however, is that we take a look at how everybody is affected by coal mining. Unfortunately for us, environmental exploitation doesn’t just hurt the environment. It hurts us too. Outside of asking people to voluntarily dig themselves under the ground for $20 an hour, or ignoring the fact that it disproportionately preys on people in poverty with little education and few economic opportunities, coal mining still...well...sucks. While coal mining is an unbelievably lucrative business, a lot of the money generated doesn’t touch the hands of the communities it disrupts. Yes coal miners make a nice living, but even that lofty $20 an hour isn’t enough to make up for the damage done. Little to none of the money goes into the actual development of local communities. Already places plagued by poverty, coal mining further destroys the land and restricts future economic opportunities. The pollution released from the sites, while big on a global scale is even worse when it’s right beside you. Even efforts to make energy cleaner has made it dirtier for some. For instances, clean carbon is a proposed alternative energy source that overall removes or reduces the harmful products that are released when carbon is burned, thus reducing the amount of greenhouse gases emitted. Great, right? Wrong. In one case, all of the impurities that were removed from the coal were released in the local streams, further polluting and poisoning the local communities. While this doesn’t completely outweigh the benefits it provides, the lives it hurts can’t be discounted either. As mentioned before, global warming is a global issue and thus has global implications. India, one of the biggest users and producers of coal, epitomizes the social and environmental effects of coal mining.  An often overlooked effect of coal mining, is noise pollution. Noise pollution is now considered a “major health hazard” and it’s effects range from “partial hearing loss” to  “permanent damage to the inner ear.” Noise pollution, while most damaging when mining underground, is seen from other mining activities, such as blasting and being around loud equipment. The effects of noise pollution isn’t just limited to the coal miners in India. “According to the World Health Organization's Guidelines for Community Noise, noise is an increasing public health problem.” Among the effects of Conserve Energy Future’s list of causes of noise pollution are “hearing problems, health issues, sleeping disorders, effects on wildlife,” and even “cardiovascular issues.” Among the causes are “industrialization, social events, transportation, household chores, and construction activities.” If consequences that big are able to be derived from causes that seemingly small, imagine how coal miner, who are trapped underground with the reverberating sounds of deafening machines are affected. Outside of physical effects, coal mining has also contributed to social corruption in India. Illegal mining has become a more common occurrence in India. Illegal mining defined as “unethical and illogical cutting of coal seams beneath the Earth’s surface without prior permission.” Basically, average citizens mine for coal in abandoned mines, which increase the pollution and land disturbance of a legal mining job. It has also fostered mafia like crime in India. While this isn’t so much of a problem in the United States, developing nations face problems analogous to people in developing countries, further hurting the environment and living creatures. What you may be asking now is so what? A little hearing loss and increased crime on people we can’t really see for the economic viability of our nation? But as we continue to further industrialize, these problems only deepen. Think about how much you use the internet alone. The power to charge your device, the power to fuel the internet servers which provide internet to millions of people, all of this requires the constant burning of coal. We are consuming an unprecedented amount of energy. Meaning an unprecedented amount of coal mining and coal burning. Resulting in a toll the earth nor its inhabitants are used to. The examples provided are few out of a pool of many. The more we research, the more we learn of the size of the price we’re paying. A price, we’re just beginning to realize, we can’t afford.

    Of more common knowledge are the effects of actual global warming. We’ve all seen the pictures of stranded polar bears floating on miniscule pieces of ice in the arctic. We’ve all heard of the giant hole in the ozone. But how does that really affect us? I mean how bad is an extra foot or two of snow or wearing more sunscreen? Well it wouldn’t be all that bad if that was the worst of our problems. to fully understand the effects of global warming, we once again have to step outside of our comfortable ignorance. Stepping into Tangling, China we are affronted by the horrors of pollution. When a carbon burning power plant was running their city, 40 tons of ash was produced. The consequences of this was astounding. Tangling children when compared with children who had been exposed to less pollution, scored lower in intellectual test. Tangling children also had smaller head sizes, indicating a decrease in brain development. Even at birth, Tangling children were already at higher risk for cancer. We could chalk it up to these people being dumb and malnourished and move on. But just a year after the power plant being removed, all of the previous mentioned areas of said children, increased. That’s huge. Even the U.S. with all of it’s lovely restrictions and protective laws, can’t escape the harm. In the U.S. alone, 24,000 premature deaths related to coal-fired power plants occur each year. The damage done by pollution occurs before we’re even able to take our first words. Our first breaths. Not only does it harm us physically, but economically as well. Take Africa for example. Africa. The one word that immediately conjures up images of poor, starving black babies living in dirt shacks. We send our prayers, our money, our bibles. Anything to help those poor, uncivilized people. But what’s one of the best ways to help them? You guessed it. Combating global warming. Most people are hopefully aware that Africa contains countries that are modern and developed and isn’t a place of desistude and despair. But even with that being said, it still contains many developing countries, which are trying to get on their feet, while fighting through the legacy left by years of purposeful exploitation. In Southern Africa, for example, many Africans are small farmers. Which is logical since there is a lot of open land available. What isn’t logical, is why developing countries, such as those in southern Africa, who have had very little to do with emittance of greenhouse gases are being affected the most by them. But that’s exactly what’s happening. Global warming includes “gradual sea level rises, stronger cyclones, warmer days and nights, unproduction, and larger and longer heatwaves”, according to The Guarding. What does that mean exactly? Well, in developing countries that are based around agriculture, crop production would decrease, further increasing global hunger. In a study that predicted plant habitat change in response to global warming, they concluded that “nations of southern Africa are likely to experience greater economic hardships in coping with vast habitat changes..unless they achieve great economic development in a very short time.” So countries who were impoverished in order for other countries to industrialized are further crippled due to this industrialization. Unless we choose to act on global warming, a nasty cycle of poverty will continue to be fed.

So what do we do? Do we ban mining, drilling, and using of fossil fuels? Do we abandon our cars and computers and recede into the primitive days of face-to-face communication and walking? The answer is simple. We educate. We educate ourselves. We educate our peers. We educate future generations. Until we learn about global warming and how it affects all of us, we will never make the right decision about it. Until we learn about alternative sources and how to balance them with contemporary uses, either or environment or our economy will be suffering. And when we educate ourselves, we must do so with an openmind. Don’t be afraid to sacrifice for your 7 billion brothers and sisters. Don’t be afraid to take away some of the stress of your single mother earth; she’s the only one you have. And you’ve filled your head with knowledge and your heart with compassion, and you begin to care for each individual on this Earth, don’t be afraid to do what you feel is right. Even if it makes you less comfortable. Especially if makes you less comfortable. Because remember, it’s not all about you.

Sources:

Goswami, Sribas. "Impact Of Coal Mining On Environment." European Researcher 92.3 (2015):   185-196. Academic Search Complete. Web. 30 June 2015

Dirty Business. Dir. Peter Bull. Perf. Jeff Goodell. Virgil Films, 2010. Web.

Division On Earth And Life Studies. Climate Change: Evidence, Impacts, and Choices. S.l.: National Academies, 2012. Print.   

  

Park, Chang-Eui, et al. "Regional Variations In Potential Plant Habitat Changes In Response To Multiple Global Warming Scenarios*." Journal Of Climate 28.7 (2015): 2884-2899. Academic Search Complete. Web. 30 June 2015.

Osborn, Tom. "Why Developing Countries Are Disproportionately Affected by Climate Change -- and What Can They Do About It." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 22 Mar. 2015. Web. 14 Dec. 2015

Assignment #16 Liz Graves Speech

Elizabeth Graves

Logsdon

AP Language and Composition

13 December 2015

            I won’t ask you to close your eyes, but for a moment I want you to picture a fifteen by seven foot cell. The floors are a dank gray concrete. The walls are sterile white cinder block. In the front left corner, as you walk into the cell, there is a shiny metal toilet built into the wall; there’s no seat cover, just an open bowl. Almost directly to the left there is a tall, thin metal cabinet that reaches the top of the ceiling. There is a drain in the middle of the floor. Walk two and a half steps back, and you see a neatly-made-up army cot. You turn around and see that the door is incredible. Standing nearly 8ft tall, it is a solid, steel barricade. It has a massive bolt, about the thickness of three grown man’s fingers, and in the dead center, on the exterior of the door, is key hole. On the left is a small metal handle, which looks ridiculously thin compared to the size of the door, that allows you to slide it into the surrounding wall. There is a small window, about a 18 by 9 inches, and below the window is a similarly sized slot for food to be delivered through.  of fresh, crimson blood cover the floor of the cell. A red, dripping hand smear blocks the light from the window. Several pairs of red boot prints fade as they trek from the front of the door down the hallway.

            This, ladies and gentlemen, is an everyday scene in Maine State Prison solitary confinement.

            Maine State Prison is one of hundreds of penitentiaries around the United States that use solitary confinement-or administrative segregation as it is commonly referred to-as a form of discipline, usually for violent or dangerous inmates, but it’s not necessarily limited to those who exhibit bad conduct. Many inmates have been put in solitary confinement for their own protection. Transgender and homosexual inmates are often put in solitary because they have been raped repeatedly or are being attacked by fellow inmates. The inmates are typically kept in complete solitary confinement anywhere from 22-24 hours a day. Sometimes they are taken out for “recreation” where they’re allowed to walk around for an hour in solitude. Otherwise they experience little to no human contact or conversation in those 22-24 hours (“Torture: The Use of Solitary Confinement in U.S. Prisons” 2). The total amount of time an inmate spends in solitary confinement largely depends on the severity of the crime he or she commits. While most are in solitary for only a couple weeks or months at most, several inmates in California Pelican Bay prison suffered being cut off from any real human contact for more than a decade (Cannon 1). I want to pause on that. A decade. Ten years. With no conversation, no social stimulation. Most of us in here are 16 or 17 years old. Imagine being cut off from the world 22-24 hours a day for more than three quarters of your life. Not only is this currently legal in the US it is a common occurrence. That is unacceptable.

“They are nowhere restrained from inventing the most cruel and unheard-of punishments, and annexing them to crimes; and there is no constitutional check on them, but that racks and gibbets may be amongst the most mild instruments of their discipline.” --Patrick Henry, on the ratification of the 8th amendment.

            Patrick Henry, along with the rest of the founding fathers, sought to protect the people of the United States from violation of their freedoms by any form government with the creation of the 8th amendment. It is designed to protect every member of society, even convicted criminals, from torture or excessive punishment. The eight amendment to the US Constitution states “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” (Stevenson, Stinneford 3). There is, of course, some ambiguity to the last clause of this amendment. What defines cruel? What defines unusual? Dr. Bryan Stevenson and Dr. John Stinneford attempt to explain how the U.S. government interprets the 8th amendment today by employing the 14th amendment. They say, “Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from abridging ‘the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States’ and from depriving ‘any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,’” and go on to explain that any violation of the 14th amendment can also be argued to be in violation of the 8th amendment. There have been several law suits in the past couple of decades over the issue of solitary confinement. In May of 2012 the issue of prolonged confinement in the Pelican Bay prison was brought to California Supreme Court, and is supposed to reach the US Supreme Court this month, December 2015. Virginia State Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy recently ruled solitary confinement is unconstitutional based on the cruel and unusual clause of the 8th amendment (Field 1). Peoples v. Fischer challenged many policies about solitary confinement in New York, ruling this form of punishment cannot be used on inmates under 18 years of age (New York Civil Liberties Union 1). Many more lawsuits like this have been brought to court in the past decade, but why just now?

            The damaging effects of solitary confinement go largely unnoticed because they are not physical. It’s extremely difficult to convince a jury of the severe injuries an inmate has suffered when those injuries are not plainly visible. That of course doesn’t mean the damage is nonexistent. In fact, “researchers have demonstrated that prolonged solitary confinement causes a persistent and heightened state of anxiety and nervousness, headaches, insomnia, lethargy or chronic tiredness, nightmares, heart palpitations, fear of impending nervous breakdowns and higher rates of hypertension and early morbidity. Other documented effects include obsessive rumination, confused thought processes, an oversensitivity to stimuli, irrational anger, social withdrawal, hallucinations, violent fantasies, emotional flatness, mood swings, chronic depression, feelings of overall deterioration, as well as suicidal ideation” (“Torture: The Use of Solitary Confinement in U.S. Prisons” 1). Prisoners are suffering very real physical pain and chemical imbalances from extended solitary confinement. According to the same researchers, this psychological harm is irreversible. Even when inmates are reintroduced to the normal prison population, their symptoms do not subside, and many are in need of medical attention and psychological therapy (“Torture: The Use of Solitary Confinement in U.S. Prisons” 2). By any standards, this is in violation of the 8th and 14th amendments. Prisoners, even after serving their sentence, will face the life-changing psychological damage, which could very easily prevent them from becoming productive members of society. Why on earth then is solitary confinement still legal?

            So here is my call to you. You’ve been presented with the facts. Solitary confinement is not effective; it will not make prisoners less violent, it is not a safe way of protecting inmates from violence from others. Solitary confinement is cruel; it has been proven to cause extreme psychological harm, and it leaves inmates with debilitating mental illness that make it extremely difficult, if not impossible to become functional members of society. Talk to your congressman, to your district councilmen, to your family and friends, spread awareness. One of the most beautiful qualities of the United States of America is that ordinary people have the power to effect change, to call for reform and to be successful in their protests. By voicing the injustices inmates face in the current prison system, you are giving a voice to people that are either too beaten down simply unable to speak for themselves. Criminals, like you and me, are just people. Granted, people that have made mistakes, and yes even sometimes inexcusable ones. But that in no way justifies the torture, yes, torture, that those in solitary confinement are currently subject to. We have an obligation, a moral duty, to fight for those who cannot fight for themselves, especially those who have been cast off as societal rejects. We are members of a new generation, one that should set an example by saying that no one is worth giving up on. Absolutely no one deserves to be cast off. So stand with me, because I fight for the constitutional rights of everyone in this nation. 

Works Cited

Butterfield, Fox. "Mistreatment of Prisoners Is Called Routine in U.S." The New York Times n.             pag. The New York Times. 8 May 2004. Web.

Cebula, Jan, and Bureau of Justice Statistics Prisoners Series. "U.S. State and Federal Prison             Population, 1925-2012." Global Sisters Report. N.p., n.d. Web.

Edge, Dan, dir. "Frontline: Locked Up in America." Frontline: Locked Up in America. Public             Broadcasting Service. 22 Apr. 2014. Television.

"Inside the Landmark Court Case That Will End Indefinite Solitary Confinement in California."             Mother Jones. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Dec. 2015.

"Peoples v. Fischer (Challenging Policies Governing Use of Solitary Confinement in New York's             Prisons) | New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) - American Civil Liberties Union of             New York State." Peoples v. Fischer (Challenging Policies Governing Use of Solitary             Confinement in New York's Prisons) | New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) -             American Civil Liberties Union of New York State. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Dec. 2015.

Pike, Georgia. "Yoga Lowers Inmates' Aggression and Anxiety." Scientific American Global                 RSS.             N.p., 1 Mar. 2014. Web.

Stevenson, Bryan A., Dr, and John F. Stinneford, Dr. "Amendment VIII Excessive Fines, Cruel             and Unusual Punishment." National Constitution Center. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Dec. 2015.

            "Torture: The Use of Solitary Confinement in U.S. Prisons." Center for Constitutional             Rights. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Dec. 2015.

Tsai, Tyjen, and Poala Scommegna. "U.S. Has World's Highest Incarceration Rate." U.S. Has             World's Highest Incarceration Rate. Population Reference Bureau, Aug. 2012. Web.

Vazquez, Eva. "Solitary Confinement Is Cruel and Ineffective." Scientific American. N.p., n.d.             Web. 13 Dec. 2015.

"Virginia Case Could Send Solitary Confinement to the Supreme Court." Constitution Daily.             N.p., 15 July 2015. Web. 13 Dec. 2015.

Assignment 17: Horray for Hollywood

It's Oscar season,  that time when movie studios parade out their Oscar contenders.  So for this post I'd like you to go to the movies over the break.

Actually you can just watch at home but I like the idea of you telling your parents that you HAVE to go for a homework assignment. 

Please pick one:

1. I'd like you to pick a genre or director and watch two films by that director and then compare/contrast the two in whatever way you deem appropriate.

2. Go see a film and submit a review of that film on rotten tomatoes.  Once you post, link the post in your blog so I can read it.  Be sure I have access to your post.


Minimum of 150 words - due Sunday, January 10th at 11:59 pm

(Last day to submit posts 17-20 will be February 21)

Assignment 16- Blog Noah Tapp

Noah Tapp 

Mr. Matthew Logsdon 

13 December 2015 

Hour 1 

One of the current conflicts our nation faces  dealing with the our overpopulated prisons.  According to the United States Bureau, America incarcerates 4.4 of the worlds population and 22 percent of the worlds prison population. With these extreme  incarnation rates the federal government is having difficulty providing enough funds to the criminal justice system.  The justice system includes the law enforcement, the courts, and the correctional institute. The main purpose of the government and in particular the criminal institute is to protect its citizens. When people violate the law the justice system either sentences them to probation or incarceration. Because we have over 2 million people in prison or jail the federal government has been searching ways to reduce the  cost instead of raising taxes(U.S Bureau of Justice System). Private prisons or for profit prisons have often been the resolution. 

Private prisons are prisons that are contracted by a government agency. The debate is whether or not it is just to have the private sector control one part of the public justice system. Advocates of the private prisons state that the free market results in the best balance for an effectively governed prison. If the prices are too high, the competition will reduce the prices. If the quality is too low, the  competition will raise the quality.  

However Private prisons run their business like a corporation. The desire for money tends to make these prisons reduce  essential costs that affect the quality of prisoners.  A government agency priority is the people while a private corporation priority is its shareholders. When it comes to handling the correctional institution of our criminal system we should resort to public prisons.  Because of the profit motive, the quality of life for the prisoners, the danger the private prisons cause, private prisons should be illegal.  

Private prisons, as I said before,  receive compensation by the number a people who are imprisoned.  According to the Security Exchange Commission "the rate of construction of new facilities and the Company's potential for growth will depend on a number of factors, including crime rates and sentencing patterns in the United States ( Cheung 4)”    So the more people  for the longer amount of time they have in prison,  the more money they make. Although they can not determine the length of a sentence these prisons can lobby for extended sentences on crimes . In the past decade three of the major private prison companies  spent $45 million on campaign donations and lobbyists to push legislation at the state and federal level( Shen 1) . .  The study goes on to conclude  that the "private prison industry spent millions seeking to increase sentences and incarcerate more people in order to increase the industry’s profits (Shen 1) ." Other private prisons have actually been found to bribe judges so they can extend their sentence time (Shen 1) . As an industry, private prisons strive to make the most money they can. This conflict of interests should show that making money and public policy do not mix well,. 

To me one of the most scary things about private prisons is their upregulation. These prisons have no accountability. These companies are not audited by federal government nor are they made sure their staff is trained and treats the prisoners how they should be treated... like human beings. According to the PBS documentary Prisons for Profit a woman actually chose a smaller wage to work at a private prison because it was easier to for her to get hired. She said that private prisons required less training and often hired new inexperienced staff.  When prison guards are not trained tragic things happen. The documentary states there are 49% more staff assaults and 65% more prisoner assaults in for profit prison ( Prisons for Profit) . The for profit motive causes a more dangerous situation for the prisoners an the staff. 

Not only are the prisons and staff affected but so is society. With the reduced cost often the overall security is lower which causes more breakouts to occur. In one  of the MTC prison cooperation in Arizona three prisoners escaped. The inmates kidnapped two people and killed two others. Upon review they found that 80% of the staff was new and that the prison itself had no working lights, no working alarm systems, and no one patrolling. This is just one of the many dangerous situations private prisons cause. 

Proponents of for profit prisons often claim that these prisons offer more quality of service. However according to a Austin and covert study it is just the opposite. That claim assumes that CEOs of a company are willing to invest more in the quality of the prisoners life instead of more returns for their stockholders.  The study questions that giving untrained staff low wages will definitely not cause improved care for the prisons. 

In conclusion  it is clear to me that  private prisons should be banned.  Their profit motive and the danger the that they outweigh the benefits of the free market. For me personally I believe that we should leave many things to  the free market. But I am damn sure freedom is not one of them. In 2013 with reforms to prisons and drug treatment opportunities, Kentucky was private prison free for the first time in 30 years.  I encourage all of you, as we soon turn 18, to vote for a national representative that will do the same- ban for private profit prisons.  

Works CIted 

Shen, A. (2012), Private Prisons Spend $45 Million On Lobbying, Rake In $5.1 Billion For Immigrant Detention Alone, ThinkProgress, Aug 3, 2012, accessed 11/12/2014: 

Cheung, Amy. 2004. Prison Privatization and the Use of Incarceration. The Sentencing Project, accessed 11/3/2014 

Jurisdiction Where the Freedom of Information Act Is Applicable. Digital image. Citizens for Ethics, n.d. Web. 

Prisons for Profit. Public Broadcasting Service. PBS, n.d. Web.