Awful Writing Style failure...

Eng. 101-17 - Persuasive Research Paper - 16 April 2004

I’m not sure how I feel about this one, the introduction is just a bit sticky sounding, for some reason this instructor was not as stringent as those I had written for prior. The result is what I consider an unacceptable kitchy-colloquial writing style.

Stars, Stripes and Saddlebags

(And a Spare Tire with the Junk in the Trunk)

Over the past century, Americans have advanced and grew beyond all expectation. We have broadened our knowledge of both the earthly and the cosmic. We have solved problems once thought impossible and mapped everything from the stars to the human genome. America has grew and expanded in population, cultivated it’s understanding and fattened its…waistline? Wait a minute, just because there are more obese people in America today doesn’t indicate that America is on the fast track to fat camp, right? There exist more people total in the United States today, not just obese people, right? Wrong! Not only have we as a nation become fatter than we used to be, the problem is steadily rising and rising at an alarming rate. The problem is so staggering that James O. Hill, a physiologist with University of Colorado Health Sciences Center recently stated: “If obesity is left unchecked, almost all Americans will be overweight by 2050” (Critser 5).

When looking at the numbers on this one, such a statement doesn’t seem so outlandish. According to the latest statistics, over fifty-eight million Americans are overweight, which poses enough of a health risk as it is (Obesity Statistics 1). But on top of that it seems that 40 million, quite a large chunk, is obese; additionally, still another 3 million are morbidly obese (1). The term ‘morbidly obese’ is used to suggest that unless a subject takes radical steps to reverse their condition, then the excess weight will strain body structures until the point of failure and death. While staggering already, these statistics, experts say, are growing at an alarming rate; to the point where obesity will very soon be everybody’s problem because virtually everybody will be obese (Hellmich 2). This thought is scary to most citizens and downright traumatizing to health experts. If we as a nation, as a people, are to reverse this alarming trend, awareness must be raised. By understanding the problem of obesity, the behaviors that cause and contribute to it, and raising awareness of the issue, reducing the threat of obesity can become a possibility.

Why is being overweight such a big deal to everybody? If people want to smoke, let them smoke right? If it is what makes them happy then let them go. Why should a little overeating be an issue? Well, the fact of the matter is that a little casual overeating is one thing, but over time, pound after pound begin to add up to some serious health risks. In the year 2000, poor diet and lack of physical activity accounted for, or was directly related to 400,000 deaths (16.6% of all deaths in America) (Hellmich 2). This figure was comparable to the 435,000 deaths (18.1%) caused by lifelong tobacco use (2). Now what is really getting experts jittery is the decreasing trend of tobacco-related deaths and the increase in obesity in America (2). Statisticians say that by the year 2005, obesity may overtake smoking as the single leading cause of preventable death (2).

Obesity alone does not kill necessarily, rather obesity is the cause of a smorgasbord of dangerous health problems that reduce quality of life and ultimately can and will lead to premature death. One health problem which is really on the rise is the nefarious type-2 diabetes. Type-2 diabetes is usually most prevalent in adults and is a condition which a person develops or can sometimes be born with. Type-2 diabetes can appear after a pregnancy or a significant change of weight. Sometimes this condition can be improved or even reversed, other times it gets worse and worse, as with the case of type-2 diabetes caused by excessive bodily fat. A body that is overweight begins to develop a super-tolerance to a bodily substance called insulin, which is used in the breakdown of starches and sugars. In order to balance out this resistance, the body produces more and more insulin, the extraneous insulin turns around and instructs already bloated fat cells to store more fat, and the cycle gets worse and worse. This type of diabetes leads to blood clotting, hardening of the arteries and can lead eventually to death (Critser 10).

Not only is diabetes beginning to be more prominent, but obesity is also boosting rates of many diseases and conditions while cutting life expectancies way down. Arthritis, chronic back pain, hypertension, heart disease, all of which are being fed by this growing problem to the point where conditions usually not seen until late in life are beginning to creep up on the young. Hypertension and type-2 diabetes used to be problems that only adults had to think about. Now, medicine is seeing more and more adolescents and preteens with these problems (Leigh 2). Nine percent of adolescents and thirty percent of overweight adolescents developed a syndrome called “metabolic syndrome”, a syndrome caused by inactivity, increased body weight, and characterized by a dangerously high susceptibility to heart disease (3).

In San Antonio about five years ago, one of the most rapidly growing school districts in the nation faced a worrisome problem. A study by a local nonprofit health agency showed that unless serious changes were made, then by the end of a year, the district would house 3000 children with type-2 diabetes in its elementary schools alone (Critser 12). Nearly all of these children had a body mass index higher than 27, which is considered to be middle to upper range overweight (12). Many were over a BMI of 30, which is the clinical cutoff point for obesity. What is the worst part of this scenario? The results of this study pointed to the schools s being at fault, stating that the cafeteria staff had no training in preparing attractive, nutritious meals; moreover, the amount of “junk food” available in the lunchroom far outweighed the availability of more healthful alternatives (13).

What is the point to this particular story? For starters, it is a well-known fact that weight is partially governed by genetics, just as anything else revolving about the human body. But the sudden influx of obesity cases cannot be explained through genetics; the human genome just doesn’t change that quickly. So where does all this extra weight come from? It would seem that as a nation, this one is mostly our faults. Some people may be offended, but the fact of the matter is that Americans just eat way more than they need to.

One of the reasons for this problem could be related to the way we live our lives. Stress is a big factor in weight gain, the chemical signals sent out by the body during times of stress cause the body to store fat more easily. It is thought that this phenomena is due in part to prehistoric signals imbedded in the human genome from a time when survival was a bit harder and food didn’t come in boxes, but rather with claws and ran faster than us.

Another factor is time. Working 40-50 hours a week or more like many Americans do, and then going home to take care of the family and the house, doesn’t leave a lot of time for exercise. Not to mention, who wants to or has the energy for exercise after such a long and strenuous day? The truth is not many people do, and when running about all day like this, nobody has time to go and whip up a nice breast of chicken and sautéed mushrooms. Instead, we run to the vending machine where we pick up a 65 cent 2 pack of Pop-Tarts which fills us up just fine. It should at a whopping 430 calories. Whereas a banana costs about 75 cents, leaves you hungry in 15 minutes, and just doesn’t seem as appetizing to some. In a survey done by Context Marketing, 27% of respondents stated: “I am so busy I eat what I can, when I can”, hence the Pop-Tart example (Dolliver 2). This extraneous intake of simple sugars and lack of physical activity leads to poor insulin function, and poor insulin function leads us right to type-2 diabetes.

The problem is a little complicated because it is not only a fact of massive over consumption per se, a lot of the problem is just a consumption of the wrong types of food (Leigh 1). Grocery stores are much more likely to stock Twinkies than broccoli, sorry but they just sell more (2). The study done by Context Marketing also indicated that 68% of respondents said: “eating is one of the pleasures in life” (Dolliver 2), and I seriously doubt that these people are getting earthly pleasure from eating wheat grass and bean sprouts. Interesting how 61% of America is considered overweight (Critser 4), and 67% find that eating is a pleasure (Dolliver 2), correlation or coincidence?

Of course a lot of the issue really is overeating. People do not always eat when they are hungry. Many people are social gluttons, eating when others eat, hungry or not, and many eat due to emotional factors like stress, depression and fatigue (Holt 2). Sometimes, people just plain eat for no apparent reason, like in the experiment performed by University of Illinois professor Brian Wansink (Researcher…1). Prof. Wansink held a bogus ‘taste-test’ in which participants were given bowls of soup mounted to a counter, half were normal bowls and the other half were self-refilling bowls with tubes to a soup reservoir (1). Those with the regular bowls reported being full after finishing their bowls and some didn’t even finish the entire amount given to them (1). Those with the ‘bottomless’ bowls tended to eat up to 40% more than those with the normal bowls (1). It seems the more people are given, the more they will eat, this is kind of a scary thought in relation to “Super Size” meals and all-you-can eat buffets. The same man did a separate study involving giant and regular sized popcorn buckets at movie theaters. Subjects were given stale or fresh popcorn in one of either size and even though 82% of those with the old popcorn reported it tasted awful, those with the giant buckets ate 33% more than those with the smaller ones (2). Do people just eat because it is there? How do we solve a problem which doesn’t make sense?

The reason for all this mess, perhaps, is the fact that nobody really knows about the potential problem. Sure, everybody knows that people are obese, and that yes it is a problem to those people. But nationwide obesity is not talked about nearly as much as things like AIDS and tobacco companies. You never hear a story about a mob of people in front of a local food distributors headquarters with anti-obesity signs. People just don’t talk about being overweight, mostly because of all of the social stigma and sensitivity involved with being overweight. When asked, a group of baby-boomer parents said that they just don’t talk to their kids about being overweight because it leads to low self-esteem and eating disorders (Critser 22). This is tantamount to avoiding the “sex talk” because it will embarrass youths and make them self-conscious about their sexuality. If we never learn the correct way in the first place, then how will we ever know?

So what do we do? Well for starters, it seems of utmost importance that the parents of today take a little time out to teach their children the right way to eat and exercise so that they can start the right habits early. Just like cleaning behind the ears, children should be taught what to eat and how much is okay. It would be easy if they were raised already eating the right things in the first place.

Also, as for the general population, how many ads a day do you see telling you that the 99 cent cheeseburger has around 400 calories, and that if you eat two of them, then you have half of your calorie intake for the day and enough fat for the next two days? Is it completely unreasonable to think that a few public service announcements with celebrity personalities could save a few people from overfeeding their children at 10:00 at night?

What about foodservice too? Why is it that a can of tomato soup has a label with nutrition facts on it while a cup of deep fried potato strings does not? Perhaps like the nutritional facts that are mandatory on food labels, served food, menus, and little French-fry boxes should be tagged as well. Why not? Is it so difficult to put a few extra digits on a menu board alongside the price?

It may be a bit ridiculous sounding, but if overeating is going to kill nearly as many or more than smoking, should we perhaps put a surgeon-generals warning on certain foods that are especially bad? These things would make the average Joe on the street think a bit longer as to whether that 39 cent upgrade to their meal for another 550 calories is really such a good deal, or are they paying for it in the end? There is something to be said about knowledge.

No matter what, this is a problem that is not going to go away easily. On top of the fact that we are Americans, and we love our food, it is something that we all need to stay alive. When it is cheaper, easier and more desirable to keep around a box of doughnuts than a bundle of grapes, there is a predicament. It is time that the nation took a look at dangerous food and said enough is enough.

Works Cited

“Calorie Counter-Calories in Food and Calorie Counting to lose Weight.”

Caloriecounting.com Yahoo. Path: Directory; Health; Nutrition; Calories; Food

calorie counters.

Critser, Greg. Fat Land. New York: Houghton Mifflin. 2003.

Dolliver, Mark. “At Least Our Gluttons Are Eating Humble Pie.” Adweek. 8 March

2004.

Hellmich, Nanci. “Obesity on Track as No. 1 Killer”. USAToday. 10 March 2004.

1 April 2004.

Holt, Stephen. “Low Carbs and Syndrome X”. Better Nutrition. April 2004. 1 April 2004.

Leigh, Suzanne. “Too Much Food, Not Too Little, Plagues U.S. children.” USA Today.

10 Mar. 2004. 1 April 2004.

McVeigh, Gloria. “Your Weight is Aging Your Heart.” Prevention. Apr 2004. 1 Apr

2004.

“Obesity Statistics”. Anne Collins. www.annecollins.com. Path: Diet home;Weight Loss

Articles Index; Questions; Statistics

“Researcher Links Obesity, Food Portions.” The Miami Herald. 3 Jan 2004: Herald.com

Google. 1 Apr. 2004.Keyword: obesity and portions

Persuasive Essay "The Chair Gets the Hot Seat"

Professor Gayle Feng-Checkett’s Eng. Comp. 102 class. May 4, 2005. Persuasive essay with light research, in-text citations, works cited-MLA style.

The ‘Chair Gets the “Hot Seat”

By Nathaniel E. Kistner

Since the days of the earliest American colonies, and even longer before that, the classical, underlying theme of criminal law has always been something to the effect of: “an eye for an eye”, a life for a life. Laws like this were literally carved in stone (specifically diorite), such as the code of laws written by Hammurabi of Babylonia. This idea is perhaps most notably manifested in the spirit, if not the practice, of the death penalty. On the face, the concept of a penalty of death seems overtly logical. Taking a life begets punishment; the punishment for killing is death. Were it only that simple would a modern system of capital punishment be appropriate; however, these days are far more complicated. These days, the legal processes and legislature involving capital punishment in the United States have become so contrived, so inefficacious, that it has created a money draining, prison filling, court overwhelming, societal terror that reaps little positive benefits, if any. Some would argue that reform is possible and necessary. Unfortunately, in so litigious a society which holds human rights in such high regard as the United States, what could possibly be reformed without someday returning to its’ present unfortunate state of occlusion? Plainly put, the death penalty was once an effective deterrent, but in these complicated times, it simply doesn’t do much of anything anymore, literally. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that the death penalty has

become an outdated concept, which has proven an inefficient deterrent and a costly endeavor that ultimately yields only negative results for society as a whole.

The death penalty has become what experts would jokingly call somewhat of a “growth industry”. Due to the complex legislature and legal processes involving capital offenses, executions are rarely carried out and inmates sit on death row for years. This gives little credence to arguments for the death penalty as a means of removing dangerous offenders from society. In 2001, there were 3,581 inmates total awaiting execution in the United States (Table 6.76, Bureau...). Out of all of those inmates, only 66 of them were executed that year under civil authority (Table 6.76). So what became of the 3,515 who were not executed? Most of them are still there. Like killer Gary Alvord of Florida, who has been on death row since 1973, and is still using up some of his appeals in the courts (“Anger and Amb…”). Or the 109 death row prisoners of Georgia who have been guests of the green mile since 1980 (“Anger and Amb…”), a year in which no executions whatsoever were carried out under civil authority (Table 6.75). Murderer Duncan McKenzie was the first person to be executed in the state of Minnesota since FDR’s third term, after avoiding the needle for 20 years, and only losing his final stay of execution by a single vote (“Anger and Amb…”). Statistics show that for every one person executed in the United States, an average of 5 new inmates land on death row (Anger and Amb…). This system of punishment is creating a pileup which experts say could only be cleared up if states began to execute one person per diem until the year 2022 (“Anger and Amb…”), a solution which, suffice it to say, is unlikely by far. With

the system of capital punishment in such sorry shape, many arguments that proponents of the death penalty would offer are shoddy at best. The entire ‘incapacitation’ effect that was supposed to be the desired outcome of capital punishment is not being realized anymore, not by a long shot. The US Bureau of Justice Statistics stated that beginning in 1992 the number one killer of inmates on death row has been “Natural Causes” (Anger and Amb…”). This one fact is a sad irony, but successfully sums up the result of an ineffective system of punishment. Alex Kozinsky, a federal judge known for upholding death sentences, one of the most outspoken and conservative proponents of the death penalty out of all federal judges, calls the American system of Capital Punishment the “Worst of all worlds…” (“Anger and Amb…”), stating that: “We have constructed a machine that is extremely expensive, chokes our legal institutions…, and ultimately produces nothing like the benefits we would expect from an effective system of Capital Punishment.” (“Anger and Amb…”).

Further strengthening the perception of capital punishment to be a “growth industry” is a startling overabundance of data supporting the argument that capital punishment is an economic drain. As illogical as it may seem, a system of capital punishment is far and away more costly than life imprisonment for any offender in any state at any security level. De facto, in all jurisdictions with a death penalty, the aggregate cost of a single execution is, on average, double that of life imprisonment (“…Is an Ineffective…”). Supporters would claim that executing a prisoner gets them out of the system and off the books for good, and logically would cost less money than keeping them alive and imprisoned for the duration of their natural life. On the face, this

is a logical argument, but the fact of the matter still remains that a death penalty is much more complicated than a simple condemnation to death and the execution of such a sentence. New York’s average death penalty trial alone costs $1.4 million, more than double the cost of one life imprisonment (“…Is an Ineffective”). In Texas, one of the biggest and most active death penalty states, the average cost of one case of capital punishment is approximately 52.3 million dollars, three times the amount of one life-imprisonment in that state in a maximum-security prison (“…Is an Ineffective…”). So why, if capital punishment expunges the system of offenders has it become such an expensive measure? Truthfully, and as mentioned before, a death sentence is hardly a sentence to death, but rather a long sentence of internment with a threat of death tagged on the end. The real source of the extraneous cost incurred by capital punishment lay in the existence of the capital trial, and it is too often not just one capital trial, but a capital trial, a conviction, and a long string of appeals which can linger on for decades. With a capital trial, the stakes are clearly much higher, having a human life in the balance. Prosecutors and defense attorneys begin to pull out all the stops. Staff will be removed from other cases to help with a capital trial; money will be spent on expert witnesses, and extensive research will be done in order to make a case. The cost of the average capital trial tends to be many times that of any trial regarding a non-capital offense. In Kentucky, for example, the average capital trial costs within the range of $2-5 million, and in North Carolina, the state spends an average of $2.16 million more on one capital trial alone than it does on the average non-capital trial including the cost of life imprisonment (“…Is an Ineffective…”). These “normal cases” pale in cases like that of

Thurgood Marshall from Thurston County Washington, who in 1999 cost the state $346,000 dollars to condemn his to third death sentence (“…Is an Ineffective…”). He then racked up costly hospital bills while the state saved him from liver disease so that he could live until he made it to the chair, or at least of course to until he made his most recent sentencing hearing. That hearing alone ran the state another $700,000 legal bill (“…Is an Ineffective…”). Admittedly, the aforementioned is an extreme case, but it simply goes to show what kind of unexpected expenses can and do crop up in a seemingly simple system. The high costs of capital trials drain away valuable revenues from state budgets, leaving other state programs with their hands tied and their wallets empty. Police departments and other government departments are forced to make cutbacks, like New Jersey’s cutbacks in 1991, a year in which the state police department had to lay-off 500 officers in order to put into place a $16 million death penalty program (“…Is an Ineffective…”). The budget cuts of Florida and ten other states for the sake of capital punishment resulted in the early release of thousands of inmates who had only served an average of 20% of their sentences (“…Is an Ineffective…”). Perhaps the saddest and most ironic side effect of all of this misguided spending is the loss of funding for victim advocacy and recovery programs. Money for victim recovery programs such as counseling, therapy and other state-funded plans has become scarce to nonexistent. Such funding problems lead to a focus on retribution rather than reconciliation, a system in which all of the attention (and money) is spent on the perpetrators, and the victims are left in the dust. Where, in such a system, is justice being served?

Capital Punishment, in its current state of crippling mutilation has lost most of the effectiveness that it once had in days of yore. Public executions, while graphic and terrible, left their mark on society and instilled fear in the hearts of any malcontents, offering an “in your face” style of crime and punishment. Any executions performed these days are done somewhat under the radar; moreover, the fact still remains that the amount of death sentences actually carried out pale in comparison to the amount of sentences that aren’t. Proponents of the death penalty would argue for the deterrent effect of capital punishment, but to be blunt, a penalty of death that doesn’t usually kill anyone is not much of a deterrent at all. Instead of being made an example of, inmates are kept locked up indefinitely with a dubious threat of impending death. Forgotten about and “doomed” by the state, these inmates are left to rot using up appeal after appeal and never being rehabilitated or counseled, why rehabilitate a dead man? Once they are sentenced to death, what more have they to lose? This leads to increased prison killings, like the Graterford Pennsylvania prison guard who was murdered by an inmate who was already serving on death row for killing two infants and an elderly woman (“Capital Punishment Canards”). Or, take for example the two death-row inmates of the Florida State Penitentiary in Starkey who were killed in 1995 by a fellow inmate (“…Canards…”). How do you punish someone already on death row? Do you threaten to kill them again? Even if and when an inmate is convicted of a second or even a third offense, that does not expedite the implementation of their sentence. If those who kill rarely ever receive the punishment that they are meant to, then the deterrent effect of a death sentence is slim to none. Unfortunately, data regarding murder rates and the death

penalty is completely inconclusive. Oddly enough, data exist on both sides that show a correlation between murder rates and death penalty, some studies shows the relationship to be a direct one, while in others it is the inverse. While it is true that the United States is the only western democracy with a death penalty, and has the highest homicide rate (“…Is an Ineffective…”), there seems to be less correlation between homicide rates and capital punishment within the states than once thought. Instead, murder rates seem to be a product of region to some extent, with the southernmost U.S. states having a consistently high rate of homicide, (far above the national average) and the northeastern states having the lowest (“…Is an Ineffective…”). Still, the strongest determinant of homicide rates seems to be some identifiable, exogenous variable. Expert Steven Messner, a criminologist at the State University of New York at Albany explains:

“It is difficult to make the case for any deterrent effect by these numbers. Whatever the factors are that affect change in homicide rates, they don’t seem to operate differently based on the presence or absence of the death penalty in that state.” (“Capital Punishment Does Not Reduce Murder Rates”)

Capital punishment, in the face of its ineffectuality as a deterrent, and its awkward nature as a system of justice, still seems to have one major effect, albeit an incidental and regrettable one. Once thought to be a statistical fluke, the concept has gained enough steam that criminologists are now calling it the “brutalization effect”. Conclusive data shows that the public release of information regarding the actual carrying-out of an

execution seems to have a direct relation to murder rates in that region. Murder rates seem to rise in a region during the time period surrounding and following a publicized execution. Following an execution in Arizona, an increase in gun-related and spur-of-the-moment killings arose in 1999 (“…Is an Ineffective…”). Georgia reports an increase of an average of 26 homicides during the months surrounding most executions (“…Is an Ineffective…”). Pennsylvania and California have both reported threefold increases in homicide rates surrounding each execution (“…Is an Ineffective…”). Criminologists reason that this brutalization effect is the result of capital punishment desensitizing the public to killing to some extent. The argument also arises that it legitimizes killing for vengeance in the minds of prospective criminals, somewhat of an attitude of “if the state can do it, I can do it” (“…Is an Ineffective…”). Many would argue that this is an extremist point of view, assuring that any sane person would never draw a conclusion as such; however, the dangerous people in question are obviously not the most reasonable individuals.

Capital Punishment has existed in one shape or form since the very earliest period in America, and has undoubtedly seen our people through some tough times. Over the years though, issues of government, religion, right-to-live and numerous other debates have molded and changed the system of capital punishment into a mere shadow of what was once a useful structure. In the current days of increasing mental illness, drug abuse, and rising violence, times are getting tougher and more complicated by the day. Americans as a people know more now and have advanced beyond all previous expectation. Those beliefs and systems that have failed to prove themselves in today’s

world are being removed and replaced; perhaps it is time that some new ideas are brought to work on the American system of justice. Perhaps it is time for change.

Works Cited

“Anger and Ambivalence”. Kaplain, David A. Newsweek, vol. 126, no. 6. August 7,

1995. Reprinted by Permission. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. 29 April 2005.

“Capital Punishment Canards,” Insight on the News, vol. 190, March 4, 2003, p.52.

Reproduced by Permission. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. 29 April 2005.

“Capital Punishment Does Not Reduce Murder Rates”. By Raymond Bonner and Ford

Fessenden. Does Capital Punishment Deter Crime? Roman Espejo, Ed. At Issue Series. Greenhaven Press, 2003. pp 14-20.

“Capital Punishment Is an Ineffective Crime Control Policy” by Gary W. Potter. Does

Capital Punishment Deter Crime? Roman Espejo, Ed. At Issue Series. Greenhaven Press, 2003. Excerpted from Gary W. Potter’s statement before the Joint Interim Health and Welfare Committee, Kentucky legislature, Mar. 10, 1999. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. 29 April 2005.

“Table 6.76.” Bureau of Justice Statistics Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics-2002.

Kathleen Maguire, Ann L. Pastore Ed. 2003 The Hindelang Criminal Justice Research Center, University at Albany, State University of New York. Albany NY.

Virtual Violence, ENG 096, Oct. 2003

This essay, an early work, was assigned as part of Professor Lawrence Checkett’s ENG 096 class, October 15, 2003. Three pages, three part thesis.

Virtual Violence

Electronic entertainment has gone a long way since the early days of Atari and Nintendo. An epic battle between two glowing lines vying for control of a bouncing dot has now become a dizzying array of 3-dimensional polygons and stereo sound effects. The amount of options programmers have when building videogames is multiplied exponentially; games have become more and more realistic and diverse. From saving princesses to slaughtering zombies, there exists a wider variety of game content than ever. But, like movie companies, gaming companies must produce products for all demographics; therefore, games involving fighting or soldiers all out to kill are becoming more common. Games have become an emulation of reality through simulators, war games, and games with historically accurate content, and the fact is, reality is violent. Violence is on TV, in movies, and increasingly in our schools. Parents see increasing violence in schools and can’t help but wonder what gun fighting Playstation games in the living room are doing to their child. Videogames have become an easy scapegoat for experts and parents in spite of the violence already inherent in society, the recreational nature of videogames, and the abundance of nonviolent games.

Americans are violent. To illustrate, look back into history. How did Americans acquire the “new world”? Settlers did not pay Indians rent; natives were driven away by force. Americans won independence through battle, not negotiation. Violence has been used to settle land disputes, religious controversy, and general disagreements for centuries. Not to say the aforementioned could have been settled differently; however, video games were not always around to spark animosity between men. So, it would seem users promote the manufacturing of violent games. All humans will need to deal with violence at some point, whether directly or indirectly. For instance, youths are learning how to deal with terrorism and war simultaneously. Who knows what lies in the future? Perhaps, instead of trying to save generations from violence, the duty of society will be to teach children how to deal with violence in a constructive way.

Because of the need to feed, birth, raise, teach, clean, run, drive, and survive, life is difficult. Yet life must also be enjoyed. For this reason, games were invented. Games and competition have been around for centuries. Ancient Romans competed in Olympic Games much like the Olympics of today. Now, entertainment has leapt foreword and games are played in virtual reality. Players have the ability to log onto a computer and become an entirely different person for a few hours. But the fact still remains, video games are just that: games. No video game claims to be a supplement to reality. When boiled down, games are a novelty, and games ranging from Pac Man to NASA’s most scientifically accurate flight simulator all include a built in reality check: a reset button. So, when the lines between reality and recreation become blurred, the problem is not really games. Perhaps the issue lies in the inability of players to discern people from pixels.

Experts would claim that violence is increasing because violent games are increasing in the market. After visiting a gaming store, the preceding sounds unreasonable. Several gaming systems exist on the market today, and each offers a variety of games. To illustrate, Sony’s Playstation II offers many games with nonviolent undertones. Some nonviolent options include The Simpsons, Gran Turismo 3, and children’s games like Piglets Big Game, and Tony Hawks Pro Skater 4. Nintendo’s answer, the Game Cube, offers games like Spongebob Squarepants, Kirby’s Air Ride and Animal Crossing. Additionally, titles like Madden’s 2004, Tiger Woods 2004 PGA Tour and MLB 2004, are available for all systems, and offer no more violence than what one would find on Thanksgiving Day television. Consumers always have a choice when looking to find a game title to will fit their interests.

Violence in games is quite easy to come by, but violent games would not exist if not for the demand of such games. Society would not be drawn to violent games without being prone to violence initially. Whether it is a Playstation, a Game Cube, a PC, or any of the number of hand-held gaming systems available, a consumer always has a choice when purchasing a game title. A veritable plethora of nonviolent or low-violence games makes it difficult to blame violence on games alone.

Persuasive Essay: Welfare

This essay was assigned in a developmental writing class (ENG 096) at the community college by Professor Lawrence Checkett. This persuasive essay was limited to three pages in length, double spaced, and was obviously limited to the rudimentary three point thesis format.

Dec. 5, 2003

NO TITLE: Welfare Persuasive Essay

In these maddening days of rising prices, falling stocks, and closing job markets, making a living has become increasingly complicated. With the current unavailability of job offerings due to terrorism, the economy, and war, those without special skills or training now find it exceedingly difficult to eke out a living. So imagine if a citizen, without special skills, works to support a family as well? Now suppose said individual is a single parent. Given such circumstances, the situation becomes extremely complex. Fortunately, help does exist; a safety net of sorts, constructed by the American Government helps thousands of families nationwide: a system called welfare. The welfare system disperses relief funds to families and individuals unable to survive without monetary assistance. For the most part, the system seems to work; however, some individuals abuse the system in order to avoid having to work. Parents with no jobs who live off of welfare alone, live a life which may seem unacceptable and unfair to those sincerely trying to contribute to society. Parents abusing the system must be persuaded to work, otherwise, how is a family ever to get away from welfare dependency? In order to allow parents on welfare a chance to get off welfare, set a good example for youth, and to instill a sense of pride by contributing to society, parents receiving welfare should be required by law to work at least part time.

Citizens on welfare are usually on welfare because of an inability to maintain finances necessary to pay for the necessities of living. Such an inability stems from, usually, a failure to find gainful employment, often due to un-marketability and a low skill level. Though just because a citizen receives welfare to help to pay the bills, does not mean remaining at work is unnecessary. A worker also receiving welfare still stands a chance for advancement in the job world and a chance to get away from the welfare system. Those who do not work; however, stand no chance in ever taking care of finances independently and therefore the system becomes self-perpetuating. That is to say, once a citizen receives welfare and quits working, there is little chance of financial independence in the future.

A wise man once said: “the apple does not fall far from the tree”. In some cases, a statement as such is very clearly proven. Learned behavior in children is often subconsciously reproduced later an adult life. Now suppose a parent on welfare raises children on nothing but welfare funds, the children grow (never seeing their parents go to work), and are later expected to finish schooling and join the work force and contribute to society. Such an expectation conflicts with the upbringing of the new adult. Now another generation must receive welfare funds, so should said generation become parents while still on welfare, what happens next? The system again has become self-perpetuating. In order to teach children the way to live, an individual must display such characteristics; parents who work while still receiving welfare show a much better example.

For many, the failure to advance and live independently becomes a source of broken self-esteem. In some cases, a lack of self-esteem can become a debilitating lack of initiative. Such a lack of initiative can cause complete inaction. In order for a parent on welfare to feel good about living on welfare, they should still maintain at least a part time job. In this way, parents on welfare will feel a sense of accomplishment by still being a part of the working community and contributing to society.

Of all of the problems and potential problems inherent in American society, the alleviation of poverty is perhaps of the most difficult to solve. Aid to the needy can help the recovery of the underprivileged; too much aid can cause a lack of recovery. Many feel the welfare system does a poor job of evening out poverty, and perhaps such a statement is true. Any system has the potential of being abused, and the welfare system is no different. The answer does not lie in a single law or regulation, but if something is not done, there will unfortunately always exist a lower class which is dependent on welfare.