Shakespeare Sonnets 116, 130, 138

Eng. Comp. 102 Contrast Essay - March 7, 2005

This Comparison essay between William Shakespeares sonnets 116, 130, and 138 was actually pretty decently constructed for what it was.

Comparison Between Sonnets 116, 130, 138

The human concept of love has meant many things to many people, and nearly the very meaning of the word has seemed to change with time. Every individual has his or her own idea of what love is or should be. Yet even within one mind it seems there is always some ambiguity as to the true meaning of the idea--the emotion--of love. Perhaps one of the many names that come to mind when on the subject of love is William Shakespeare. This was a man who wrote about love and romance as if he were an authority on the subject; however, his own portrayal of love seemed to differ between each of his works. Within his sonnets alone exists myriad different complex and well-versed ideas and emotions centered on the elusive concept of love. Each sonnet is written in its own distinct style with very different tones in regard to their common theme. Specifically, some very stark dissimilarities can be seen when contrasting Shakespeare’s sonnets numbered 116, 130, and 138; these three sonnets show extraordinary variance in not only the meaning of love as portrayed within the sonnets, but also in the style and attitude with which they are written. These powerful sonnets each define unique and contrasting concepts of love, which become bountifully clear when weighed against one another.

Kistner 2

The first sonnet within the group, Sonnet 116, is perhaps the more unique out of the three in question. To begin with, this Sonnet is written with a more classical, more somber tone than the other two. The concept of love as described in this poem is one very common to the time period in which it was written. Here, love is portrayed in it’s most romanticized, most infinite, most unyielding, (and perhaps most ridiculous) form, very common to Shakespearean drama. Love is defined as unbending and unchanging, an “…ever fixed mark,” (Sonnet 116, Line 5) which can never be altered or undone. Shakespeare fortifies this powerful image of love by comparing it to the North Star, and conjures up an image of a love “/That looks upon tempests and is never shaken;/” (6). Next, he defines love as timeless, asserting that although those in love may change in time, aging and coming closer to death (“…his bending sickle’s compass come;”), their love for each other will remain absolutely unchanged: “Love’s not Time’s fool, though rosy lips and cheeks/ Within his bending sickle’s compass come;/ Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,” (9-10). Finally, he caps off this absolute definition of love by dispelling all possibility of any other definition of love, saying: “If this be error, and upon me prov’d…no man ever lov’d.” (13-14), basically stating that if this definition of love were to be proven false then love does not exist.

The next sonnet within the group, Sonnet 130, is a complete change of pace. Written in a more comedic tone, the central idea of love is vastly different here when contrasted against Sonnet 116. Sonnet 130 is written in a most relaxed, more reader friendly tone and is perhaps less cumbersome than Sonnet 116. Sonnet 130 contains much more imagery and, in fact, the bulk of the poem uses imagery in an attempt to poke

Kistner 3

fun at those more classical, more rigid definitions of love that were common to works of the time. Instead of the writer comparing ‘his love’ to common images of beauty or strength, (the sun, stars, a strong tree, etc.) this sonnet contrasts these images with the love in question, arriving at a more realistic, and somewhat humorous, definition of love. Shakespeare begins simply, establishing directly the realistic tone of the poem, “My mistress’ eyes are nothing like the sun;” (Sonnet 130, Line1). He proceeds throughout the entirety of this sonnet in much the same manner—offering fourth handfuls of beautiful imagery and then contrasting his mistress to these images. Where Sonnet 116 described youthful love with the image of “…rosy lips and cheeks” (Sonnet 116, Line 9), Sonnet 130 goes the most realistic route: “I have seen roses damask’d, red and white,/ But no such roses see I in her cheeks;” (Lines 5-6). Though initially, this may lead the reader to feel disenchanted, it is simply realism; most people don’t have skin with coloration as vibrant as roses, his mistress doesn’t, and yet he loves her the same. Continuing on, Shakespeare contrasts the delightful scents of perfumes to “…the breath that from my mistress reeks.” (8). While entertaining indeed, this line is not to say that his mistress has some foul manner of dental affliction, it simply continues to build upon the view of this realistic love for a woman who is, indubitably, human. His lover is no goddess, and in fact, the speaker admits this openly in lines 11 and 12. Then in the closing lines, the poem takes a briefly honest and sincere tone. Lines 13 and 14 close the poem nicely, saying that although his mistress may pale in comparison to all of the aforementioned images of beauty (and, realistically, every human being does), he still loves her and thinks her a more rare specimen than any other. Compared to lines throughout the rest of

Kistner 4

the sonnet, these last two are the most sincere in tone and feeling, without so much as a hint of sarcasm; although, instead of so terminally describing his love here as the only possible love (as done in the closing lines of Sonnet 116), he simply says his love is “…as rare/ As any she belied with false compare.” (Sonnet 130, Line14). Simply put, his love (or beloved one) is just as unique a love as any other.

Sonnet number 138, the final sonnet of the three, is not entirely different from the preceding Sonnet. While this sonnet uses no imagery whatsoever, and Sonnet 130 utilized imagery in nearly every line, the attitude towards love in this sonnet is very similar to that expressed in the previous sonnet. Aside from style, the prime difference between these two sonnets is perhaps the time dimension of love to which this sonnet speaks. This sonnet focuses more on the concept of a timeless love; not only a blind sort of love, but a love which endures, withstanding the test of time. The lovers in Sonnet 138 are past the days of comparing their own love to love in the infinite sense, (age sees no practicality in these matters). Instead, the reader can assume that the lovers have been together for much of their lives and remain in love by allowing their love to change to fit their change in age.

Unlike the immortal love described in Sonnet 116--a rigid, unbending love like a rock (which is unrealistic to say the least), the love depicted in Sonnet 138 is a flexible, realistic love which changes as time progresses in order to survive. This love is a love which bends instead of breaking, to withstand the changes in the human condition through aging. The two lovers depicted in this sonnet suspend disbelief when around one another. Both are no longer young, and what’s more, they know it. The speaker

Kistner 5

elaborates in the first lines (Sonnet 138, Lines1-3) upon how he and his lover flatter one another, knowing full well that they cannot possibly be one-hundred percent honest:

“When my love swears that she is made of truth,

I do believe her, though I know she lies,

That she might think me some untutor’d youth,…”

These lines can be interpreted slightly differently; perhaps the speaker knows that his lover is flattering him by making him feel youthful and simply suspends his own disbelief, or perhaps when he says: “…I do believe her,…” (2) this means he believes that, because of her love for him, she sees him as youthful.

Throughout the bulk of Sonnet 138 there exists touches of the same aforementioned ambiguity in connotation. Does the speaker think that his lover’s words are simple flattery? Or does he think that her love for him causes her to see him in a different light than the light of reality? Whatever the case, he illustrates the practicality of this flattery in saying: “…Thus vainly thinking that she thinks me young,” (5) basically, she is making him feel good about himself, thinking that he is youthful (therefore attractive) in his lover’s eyes. He “…credit(s) her false-speaking tongue:” (7) appreciating her for the compliment, and perhaps returning it, knowing full well that on both of their parts it is simple flattery: “On both sides…simple truth supprest.” (8). Then, he earnestly reminds the reader that he never claimed himself to be young, she never claimed to be untruthful (9-10), and that there is no use in being realistic about exactly how old they really are, “And age in love…not to have years told:” (12); then in closing, alludes to the fact that their relationship is still alive with a sly double meaning using the

Kistner 6

word “with” instead of “by” or “to” in line 13: “Therefore I lie with her, and she with me,/ And in our faults by lies we flatter’d be.”.

These sonnets, so different in many ways, are still the work of one writer. What indistinctness revolves around the concept of love in other works? How many definitions of the word love are there; or are there any real definitions at all? After all, love is simply a word and only carries the descriptive power which we assign it. Perhaps, love could be the unchanging, unyielding, and powerful entity that bears the test of time through all. Or maybe love can change: bending and molding but never breaking or losing strength in order to withstand the onslaught of years. Is true love fleeting—or is it infinite? The answer to all of the questions about love are probably somewhere in between. The only real, assured truth is that there are as many ways of defining love as there are of feeling it; love is a human emotion—as difficult to define as it is to describe.

Works Cited

Shakespeare, William. “Sonnet 116.” Literature and Ourselves. Ed.Gloria M. Henderson, Bill Day, Sandra Stevenson Waller. Longman: New York, NY. 341

Shakespeare, William. “Sonnet 130” Henderson, Day, Waller. 342

Shakespeare, William. “Sonnet 138” Henderson, Day, Waller. 342

Research Paper on Nanotech for CPT 115

Date unknown-2005?

This was meant to be -and I use this term loosely- a group research paper for a data processing class I took early on. The teacher seemed to have no problem with letting me get stuck with the entirety of the work and giving everybody the same share of points. C'est la vie, another early entry... Compare this with my later research work... serious difference.

Starting Small

Building from nothing with Nanotechnology

Since mans first tools and buildings, crude as they were, man has always reveled in his ability to create. The ability to build great coliseums and towering statues which will long outlast their creators is indeed an awesome talent. But over the eons, mankind has become less interested in how big our ingenuity can build, and instead is more focused on how small a scale we can create.

The contrast between a pyramid and a processor is a grossly overloaded subject, and does something of a disservice to this time of great ingenuity and creativity: the new millennium. But the point is more one of comparison. From the tiniest chips of silicone to great, thundering battleships, mankind has always been forced to manipulate the matter of the world in the same fashions. Sure, there exists a myriad of new and highly sophisticated production methods that are far removed from the chipping, chiseling, and grinding of the past, or are they? The fact remains that no matter what, we must manipulate matter in relatively great heaps of atoms. Melting, shaping, forming, bending are the sort of manipulation techniques that man has been stuck with for eons; sure, we can more or less get atoms to group together how we want, but we cannot really snap together atoms with great complexity. The realm of a radical and amazing science still in it’s youth can change everything. The science of nanotechnology makes it possible to not only see things on the atomic level, but to actually build from this level, allowing us to put together, manipulate, and alter the states of matter entirely however we see fit; allowing us to build atom by atom if necessary, from nothing.

Nanotechnology is a manmade science and is actually built upon a combination of a strong knowledge of biology, chemistry, and physics and is most precisely defined as the science of materials measured in billionths of a meter (What is… 1).[1] The science of Nanotechnology is basically research and development on manmade structures that: have at least one dimension which is one nanometer in size, are designed through a process involving fundamental control over the physical and chemical attributes of structures, and structures which can be combined into other structures, like atomic building blocks (2).

This science allows us to exert a degree of control over matter like nothing ever seen before. By developing matter ourselves at the molecular level, scientists and developers can create matter that is stronger, more elastic, or reflects light differently than matter found in nature (2). In essence, tougher steel, built from individual atoms. Shinier jewelry that never tarnishes, protective coatings from spacecraft and machine parts, or smarter pharmaceuticals are all made possible by nanotechnology.

As far as sciences go, the science of nanotechnology is the newest kid in town. The first recognition of nanotechnology, at least on a broad scale, occurred after Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman presented a talk called “There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom” to the American Physical Society in 1959 (4). In 1988, Eric Drexler taught the first formal course on nanotechnology at Stanford University (4). It was there that the first realistic speculation about nanotechnology was made when he suggested the possibility of nano-sized robots that would roam the body killing off cancer cells (4).

The face and future of nanotechnology changed dramatically when Professor Richard Smalley won the 1996 Nobel Prize for discovering a new from of Carbon molecule consisting of 60 Carbon atoms (4). This “supercarbon”, as is was referred to, became one of an increasing number of scientifically-enhanced building blocks for newer types of nano-sized products including “smart” pharmaceuticals, electronic devices, and high-performance raw materials (4).

Today, nanotechnology has moved much farther than the dream which it once was; however the applications of this technology are still very limited (NNI 1). Besides a number of difficulties, there are a great many things about the nano-realm of which we just don’t know yet. Nanotechnology is still a very new science and is still growing out of it’s infancy, but already is providing a great many new things. Nanotechnologies primary uses to date include the atomic altering of raw materials, production of electronics in nano-sized pieces, and biological and medicinal engineering.

The ability to arrange atoms and snap one atom to another provide an entirely new spectrum to the world of design. Not only can we say what material a product is to be made of, but we are also able to determine, to some extent, the that a sample of raw material displays. Nanomaterials are substances which began as natural matter, like Iron or Lead and are re-vamped, as it were, to have different characteristics (NNI 2). These materials are usually purchased in dry powder or in liquid dispersions with water, or combined with other materials in order to improve product functionality (2). Engineering on the scale of a nanometer allows the redesigning of elemental materials found in the natural world to fit our needs. Instead of time-consuming chemical and physical processes, science can now improve the physical characteristics of metals or plastics by snapping a Carbon atom in the right spots here and there (What is… 4). Nanoscale materials draw greatest revenues to date from chemical-mechanical polishing, magnetic recording, sunscreens, optical fibers, and electro conductive coatings (NNI 1). Nanotechnological solutions are cropping up in a huge range of commercial products (What is… 5).

While the electronic applications of nanotechnology are not quite up to the point of tiny ingenious droids flying about and repairing mainframes from inside out, nanotechnology has already beefed up the world of electronics quite a bit as of late. In fact, the hard drive in any computer on the market today was put together with a few parts built and designed at the scale of one-billionth of a meter (NNI 3). Most computer hard drives contain a component called a Giant Magneto Resistance head (or a GMR) which utilizes nanometer-thin layers of magnetic materials to allow for increased memory capacity and improved functionality (3).

Very tiny automotive sensors are also making a debut; built on a base of nanotechnology, some of these sensors can give an output as to what is wrong with a particular component, and which component it is (3). Speculation would suggest that someday these sensors would include tiny robots which could actually do something to rectify the problem of a broken part. Nanotechnology also improves the electro- conductivity of parts used in electronic applications by altering the chemical properties of the metals used in building circuitry (3).

The world of medicine is also no stranger to the benefits of nanotechnology. Biologists and life-scientists are currently using nanotechnology to diagnose disease and to discover new drugs (4). Instead of trying to find a chemical which, for instance, takes the place of a neurotransmitter that is missing in the brain of a patient, drugs can now be designed to fit just so into the complicated world of the human body. New burn and wound dressings with nanoscale-designed coatings are saving patients from scars right now (4).

The birth of this new science may be a pivotal and wonderful point in our advancement, but there is no reward without cost, and nanotechnology stands to produce great rewards. The realm of nanotechnology has its own problems to overcome and challenges to meet, some of which are simply confounding, but others can be dangerous if left unchecked.

One rather minute problem facing nanotechnology is sort of a given. Scientists working with individual atoms have trouble seeing what is on such a tiny scale. How can one manipulate what one cannot see or feel? One amazing new development from the researchers of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico is called the “nanoantenna effect” (Casting Light…1). Researchers fire short bursts of liser light through fiber optics no larger than 100 nanometers wide, these bursts are reflected off of the object to be viewed and are captured by a computer (1). In this way, scientists can get a detailed image built onscreen and actually “see” atoms at their own level.

With every new scientific revolution, there has always been some negativity, misunderstanding, fear, and a lack of public acceptance. Nanotechnology, being a new and radical breakthrough like nothing before, is perhaps more subject to this sort of difficulty than ever. The reaction of the public to things like abortion, genetic mapping and any other radical breakthrough just foreshadows the type of difficulties facing nanotechnology. The novel by Michael Crichton entitled Prey describes a scene in which billions of nano-sized robots begin to go haywire and attack living creatures while also replicating themselves (1). While not exactly factual or even necessarily possible, it does show just the sort of reaction that could bring the world of nanotechnology to a screeching and devastating halt (1). In spite of a great many gifts that science has given to us, there have always been side effects to our own experimentation and creation. Nanotechnology is no different, and no matter how open-minded the populace of today seems in comparison to that of the past, there will still be those who fear new and revolutionary technology and this industry will simply have to deal with these prospective naysayers.

When changing the very building blocks of matter on such a tremendous scale, there is a bit of a trickle-down effect upon other matter. Studies have already shown, unfortunately that nanomaterials may have serious environmental side effects ( Social and…4). Nature works in such a precise manner, everything must work together just perfectly or balances are upset and problems occur. Like lines in a computer program, if one small part is changed, the rest of the program begins to break down and eventually fails. For instance, Carbon, an atom which is the basic building block of most solid matter and all living matter in our world works because of the way it is shaped, it has the right atomic structure to do its job and fits where it needs to. But change the way the atom fits together, or pair it with an atom that nature never intended and things begin to go wrong. It is somewhat like hacking the physics of the world, atom by atom.

Our world and our minds are changing so fast, the knowledge and data that we gain is increasing at an amazing rate. With the advent of nanotechnology, a radical new development, we stand at a crossroads of sorts. Some feel that tinkering with the building blocks of nature is in a sense ‘playing god’, others feel that the knowledge we stand to gain from this new invention is too vast to simply ignore just because we could have to pay a cost for it. Right or wrong nanotechnology is possible now and we have the beginnings of an amazing science which can change the future in amazing ways. Do we let this new beginning slide by and ignore it? Or will we embrace it and develop it? And should we choose to embrace it, will we know how to handle this power responsibly? Perhaps time will tell.

---

[1] The Latin prefix nano- is used when expressing one-billionth

Final Exam: Wasteful Americans, ENG 096, Dec. 2003

This entry stood as the Final Exam assigned for Professor Lawrence Checkett’s ENG 096 class of Dec. 2003. The prompt is obvious, as is the three page-three point thesis sentence format. Another rudimentary work.

English Department Final Exam

In the days of phrases like: ‘individually wrapped’, ‘disposable’, and ‘throwaway’ it seems like Americans could, at any moment, be literally buried in a heap of extraneous packaging and wrappings. Nowadays, most everything comes in an easy-open, collapsible, disposable container. Whatever happened to ‘use and reuse’? Even something as gargantuan as a piece of furniture comes with its own full complement of packing and wrappers. Waste receptacles shudder at the sight of a disposable paper grocery bag, chocked full of cardboard and plastic all waiting to be emptied and jammed into the nearest waste can. With the amount of disposable materials Americans use, the inaccessibility of recycling centers, and the American attitude towards waste management, the idea that Americans are wasteful is not altogether unreasonable.

A trip to the local grocer can be a perfect example of the amount of expendable packaging used in production. Shelves upon shelves of plastic pouches and bottles, all holding but a few servings line the walls. Aluminum cans and cardboard boxes which, once opened, have served a purpose and will fade happily into trash-compactor oblivion. Tiny little candy rolls or spheres of gum are all individually wrapped; however, each also hide in yet another brightly colored crinkly cellophane package. All of these wondrous, well-wrapped items were undoubtedly shipped in larger boxes, on large, rickety, throwaway skiffs, in a truck which, when retired, will end up rusting somewhere in a dusty scrap yard.

One answer to all of the mess is Recycling The sorting, shipping and reusing of old materials to create new ones has had proven results; however, this takes a little extra thought and time. Most citizens are so busy and so focused on what needs to be done, the extra second necessary to put an empty soda can into a bin marked ‘aluminum’, just doesn’t seem worth the trouble. Few realize paper bags which held groceries today may later be used to make insulation for houses tomorrow, a stretch for sure, but better than the alternative. Being buried under a trash heap should not be the future of society. Also, there are relatively few home-based recycling programs; programs which would cost slightly more do not seem to interest most individuals, unless of course said program is on pay-per-view. Moreover, no man, woman or child feels elated over the thought off rooting through household garbage and separating glass, paper, and plastic and then figuring out what t do with everything else.

Of course, not all citizens are unaware of the current waste problem. On the contrary, many are, but the problem is an unwillingness to be concerned with an issue that seems so very far away. The attitude of “it doesn’t affect me, I’ll be dead before this happens” is a very common attitude. Many citizens are of the feeling that, if the problem is not next door, it does not exist. Most do not see heaps upon heaps of waste; therefore some that the problem is not so big a deal. But waste management is a big deal. If the citizens of today do not feel the true effects, chances are the children of today will later on down the road. Do parents want their children to inherit a broken home?

The problem of waste management and recycling has been in public awareness for quite some time. Although steps are being taken, the change is not nearly radical enough to even slow the increase in waste production, let alone reverse the damage already done. With things like war, pestilence, outbreak, pollution and the ever-ominous terrorism, the amount of waste which America is sitting in seems little in comparison. Though time has told, time and time again, the little things are the ones which always seem to come back to haunt.

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.

Humerous / process essay. Second Date

Professor Checkett’s ENG 096 class. Nov. 2003, humorous-process essay.

Nothing Says Loving

Perhaps one of the most unnerving experiences ever in life is that of the first date. The above mentioned would explain the current endangerment of the genus and species: secondus datus. Such abstract ideas like manners, how to act or what fork to use, have haunted the existences of singles since the beginning of dating itself. Boring or downright idiotic conversations have been exterminating first dates for just as long. Many would say, “Just be yourself”; well, that may be wonderful for some who have a firm grip on social graces. But sadly, most individuals do not spend their time studying the usage of the ‘salad fork’. Fortunately, for said individuals, help does exist, and with a little help on how to maintain stimulating conversation, using good table manners, and treating a companion with respect, even the most dedicated bachelor or bachelorette can ensure a second date.

A wise man once said, “Time is money”. Well, if two individuals spend time together, either both entertain one another, or one is being paid. And unless the one has the assets and personality of Bill Gates, the latter option is to be avoided at all costs. So, the only recourse is to be entertaining. To start out, relax, be easygoing. No sane person wants to spend candlelit time with a piece of cherry wood, save of course for a beaver. So, calm down and breathe. Start by asking questions about a date, what they do, what their family is like, and when at all possible, make snide, horrifying remarks about whatever is said. Repeating and expanding on a conversation is a good way to prove attentiveness and remember what was said. For instance, “You like to go clubbing? Me too! I can’t stand baby seals!” would be a very acceptable reply, followed up of course with a cruel chuckle. Also, whenever possible, interrupt the conversation and attempt a complete takeover. Nothing says “I am interested in you” like pretending the only stimulating thoughts are ones own. One more good technique is teasing. How does a fisherman get a fish to bite? Tug on the line a bit! Pay little or no attention to the person across the table. Talk on a cell phone, or even better, make a scene by taking someone else’s. Or, flirt with a person across the restaurant; make your date struggle for attention!

Using good table manners is an excellent way to win the affinity of a date; moreover, table manners are an amusing and effective way of showing respect for the feelings of an individual. Good table manners starts, of course, at the table; begin by making eye contact and saying, “You know, I’m really glad to be here with you tonight, because I’m all out of cash, and I’m starving”, (every human being loves to feel needed).

Once a waitperson comes to take orders, do not allow them an introduction. Instead, jump ahead as soon as possible with a drink order. (No situation is more obnoxious than allowing a date to order first, putting them on the spot.) Continue with stimulating conversation and do not worry about proper tableware usage. A negligible agglomeration of the collective populace is aware of the astonishingly elusive fact that the justification for extraneous tableware is simply a preventative buffer for accidentally dropped or misplaced tableware throughout the course of a professionally prepared meal in an inordinately extravagant restaurant. Simply put, extra forks are extra. In fact, to respect a waiter or waitress, one is expected to always keep a server busy so as not to be boring patrons. So, should the opportunity present itself, absentmindedly sweep an article of tableware onto the floor. Wait until the server has picked the article up and is preparing to leave and then jettison another piece of tableware. Repeat as necessary until finally bursting forth into uproarious laughter. In the midst of all of this, try to look for the most opportune opening in which to pop the question that every date longs to hear. When the time is right, turn to them, look into their eyes and just let it come: “you gonna’ eat that?” If done right, the second date, and unfinished dinner portions, will be within reach.

As the great Aretha Franklin once said, “I’m about to give you all of my money and all I’m askin’ in return, honey, is to give me my profits, yeah baby, when ya’ git home”, a statement that holds as much power as the words of Buddha. A major missing ingredient in most date recipes is just a little respect, and any single who prepares a date without respect is cooking up a warm batch of disaster. Good advice on respecting a date is to remember one fact: people want to feel important. So whenever possible, make a companion feel in charge. Open a door for a partner and then, bow ridiculously saying, “right this way my liege” with a surly undertone. Or, when ordering, state an order and then ask “Is that okay with you?”. Another excellent technique is called the “open chest”. Pay attention for a time when a companion’s chest bone is left unguarded, then with a loud, almost primal scream yell, “open chest” and bash a closed fist into their bony upper section. If executed correctly, a victim will be left stunned and infectious laughter will ensue. Remember, if a technique works in the gym, the same will work on the dating scene as well. This somewhat elusive rule goes for flatulence as well.

Like anything involving the human person, nothing is for sure. Even the most well planned for and well-nurtured dating experience can go up in a burst of flames at a moments notice for any number of reasons. Two individuals must have chemistry in order for a date to go off without a hitch, and chemistry is simply something that either exists, or does not exist. Because of the uncertain nature of dating, the activity of dating is difficult and often intimidating for some; however with just a little help with finishing touches, any single can bolster the chances for a second date.