In part II of The Omnivore's Dilemma, Pollan begins to talk about the organic food industry. He visits several farms including Gene Kahn's Cascadian Farm and Joel Salatin's Polyface farm. Before I go into the big organic and small organic industries, let me define "organic." If you're a chemist, the real meaning of organic is a substance that contains carbon, but another meaning of the word has evolved through pop culture: Organic also refers to a food that was not grown/raised with hormones/antibiotics and/or pesticides. It would be very difficult for CAFOs to have organic practices because if they did, most of their corn-fed cows would die. In addition, growing corn or other major crops without artificial fertilizer is a ton less efficient. As you can see, organic farms have a severe production disadvantage by abandoning conventional practices but have a superior advertising advantage because of the USDA Organic stamp printed on the labels of their products.
Cascadian Farm was founded in 1971 by Gene Kahn. At that time was the start of an organic movement; people were beginning to favor going "back to the land" by eating more so-called natural foods (144). Today, Cascadian Farm is among the organic giants that sell most of the organic products in stores. You would think that farms like these would feel more stereotypically farm-ish than CAFOs or monocultures of corn. Surprisingly, they are just as industrial-looking. Pollan describes Petaluma Poultry, one of the large organic farms:
The chicken houses don't resemble a farm so much as a military barracks: a dozen long, low-slung sheds with giant fans at either end. I donned what looked like a hooded white hazmat suit – since the birds receive no antibiotics yet live in close confinement, the company is ever worried about infection, which could doom a whole house overnight – and stepped inside...Running along the entire length of each shed was a grassy yard maybe fifteen feet wide, not nearly big enough accommodate all twenty thousand birds inside should the group ever decide to take the air en masse...This is one of the larger ironies of growing organic food in an industrial system: It is even more precarious than a conventional industrial system. But the federal rules say an organic chicken should have 'access to the outdoors,' and Supermarket Pastoral imagines it, so Petaluma Poultry provides the doors and the yard and everyone keeps their fingers crossed.
(171)
Some people would not even consider this organic. Some people would say that it is just as bad as CAFOs. But in the end, it is approved by the USDA as an organic practice. I believe that these "industrial organic" farms are much better (for people's health, for the environment, for the animals) than the conventional ones, even though they nevertheless treat the living animals more like products rather than animals. At least it is one step towards a healthier, better way to producing and selling food like this. The farm I found that is actually part of the environment and is perfectly humane to the animals is Polyface Farms.
Polyface Farms is significantly smaller than the industrial organic farms and sells food on a local level, which is how the food business should work in my opinion. The cows are free to roam about specified grassy areas until after they take the "first bites" of the grass. By only taking "first bites," the grass can grow back even thicker. Chickens are also free to roam around. They eat grubs that grow in cow manure and lay several eggs every day. The chickens here are hand-slaughtered by breaking an artery in the neck, which is apparently hardly painful for the chickens. The farm also creates their own compost from manure for fertilizer. The practices at this farm are all natural; they produce no waste, unlike CAFOs. In order to buy something from the farm, you actually have to go there or to one of the nearby stores where they send some of their food. I can't imagine how better our food system would be if everything was sold locally and people adjusted to eating seasonal foods. Today, it's encouraged that people buy organic foods, but many complain about how expensive it is. If you think about it, conventional foods are just as expensive as organic foods. What you don't pay in money for the conventional foods, you pay for in pollution, obesity, taxes, and disease.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Afterthoughts on "Deadline"
Over the past three days of class, we watched "Deadline," a documentary on the history of Illinois's prohibition of the death penalty. The film made me ponder about the issues that arise from the death penalty.
Concerning race and class:
Statistically, it is said that people of color and/or low income are more likely to be sentenced to death. For the low income people out there, it is probably because they cannot afford an attorney. Without an attorney, these people are much more likely to be sentenced to death. For blacks, I'm not sure if that is really the case. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, which was updated October 21, 2011, 713 whites have been executed and only 441 blacks have been executed. In pie chart form and totalling all deaths, whites take up 56% of the pie and blacks take up 35% of the pie. Thus, I do not believe that blacks are any more likely to be executed than whites. Yet people out there are still convinced that race has some part to do with sentencing these criminals, that we have not moved on from discrimination. These people, in my opinion, are just trying to find an excuse to point out a so-called "flaw" in the death penalty in order to try and get rid of it. I think that by now, judges are mature enough to set aside physical features and look at the evidence for the crimes themselves. It's frustrating that virtually every action these days can be called racist.
Concerning law and politics:
There are currently over 3,000 men and women sentenced to death in the United States. Approximately 65 percent of American voters approve of the death penalty in states where capital punishment is legal. Why is there so much support for the death penalty? There are several possible answers to this question. Perhaps people are in support of it because it is not as expensive as having someone rot in prison for life. A sum of the taxes that people pay go to funding federal prisons, where these convicted men just sit on their asses most of the day for countless years. There have been statistics stating that the death penalty is actually more expensive than a prison sentence, but it depends on the number of years these people rot in jail. I'm sure that a year in prison is cheaper than an execution, but thirty years in prison is definitely not. It's also a nice feeling for people to know that convicted murderers will never do any harm again because they'll be dead. When they have prison-for-life sentences instead, there is the chance that they will break out or cause even more harm. These murderers in prison are barely human, and they won't become any more human by just lying around all day. It is possible that political officials support the death penalty as well which influences the public to follow their opinions. Politicians are influential figures.
Concerning the bigger picture:
Deadline depicts two inmates who were wrongfully sentenced and later exonerated (David Keaton and Gary Gauger), and other inmates whose guilt was not in question. I believe that there is one position on the death penalty that is satisfactory in all cases (excluding exceptions like mentally retarded individuals): if you murder, you deserve to die. For crimes that do not involve homicide, the criminal has an option for restitution. However, when an individual murders, the only possible restitution towards the victim's family (the only way to somehow give back) is to take his or her own life. No matter what the murderer does to try to satisfy the victim's family, they won't be. The only way to truly satisfy a victim's family is if the murderer were eliminated. Though some families may feel some dissatisfaction, it is definitely a lot less dissatisfaction that would be felt than if the murderer were kept alive and unchanged in a prison. There is some possible error in the justice system that an innocent individual is executed, but with the procedures for these types of trials are becoming stricter and stricter, this chance of error is very minimal. I think that eventually the justice system will be able to devise a foolproof system that prevents innocents from being executed, with the way things are going now.
Concerning race and class:
Statistically, it is said that people of color and/or low income are more likely to be sentenced to death. For the low income people out there, it is probably because they cannot afford an attorney. Without an attorney, these people are much more likely to be sentenced to death. For blacks, I'm not sure if that is really the case. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, which was updated October 21, 2011, 713 whites have been executed and only 441 blacks have been executed. In pie chart form and totalling all deaths, whites take up 56% of the pie and blacks take up 35% of the pie. Thus, I do not believe that blacks are any more likely to be executed than whites. Yet people out there are still convinced that race has some part to do with sentencing these criminals, that we have not moved on from discrimination. These people, in my opinion, are just trying to find an excuse to point out a so-called "flaw" in the death penalty in order to try and get rid of it. I think that by now, judges are mature enough to set aside physical features and look at the evidence for the crimes themselves. It's frustrating that virtually every action these days can be called racist.
Concerning law and politics:
There are currently over 3,000 men and women sentenced to death in the United States. Approximately 65 percent of American voters approve of the death penalty in states where capital punishment is legal. Why is there so much support for the death penalty? There are several possible answers to this question. Perhaps people are in support of it because it is not as expensive as having someone rot in prison for life. A sum of the taxes that people pay go to funding federal prisons, where these convicted men just sit on their asses most of the day for countless years. There have been statistics stating that the death penalty is actually more expensive than a prison sentence, but it depends on the number of years these people rot in jail. I'm sure that a year in prison is cheaper than an execution, but thirty years in prison is definitely not. It's also a nice feeling for people to know that convicted murderers will never do any harm again because they'll be dead. When they have prison-for-life sentences instead, there is the chance that they will break out or cause even more harm. These murderers in prison are barely human, and they won't become any more human by just lying around all day. It is possible that political officials support the death penalty as well which influences the public to follow their opinions. Politicians are influential figures.
Concerning the bigger picture:
Deadline depicts two inmates who were wrongfully sentenced and later exonerated (David Keaton and Gary Gauger), and other inmates whose guilt was not in question. I believe that there is one position on the death penalty that is satisfactory in all cases (excluding exceptions like mentally retarded individuals): if you murder, you deserve to die. For crimes that do not involve homicide, the criminal has an option for restitution. However, when an individual murders, the only possible restitution towards the victim's family (the only way to somehow give back) is to take his or her own life. No matter what the murderer does to try to satisfy the victim's family, they won't be. The only way to truly satisfy a victim's family is if the murderer were eliminated. Though some families may feel some dissatisfaction, it is definitely a lot less dissatisfaction that would be felt than if the murderer were kept alive and unchanged in a prison. There is some possible error in the justice system that an innocent individual is executed, but with the procedures for these types of trials are becoming stricter and stricter, this chance of error is very minimal. I think that eventually the justice system will be able to devise a foolproof system that prevents innocents from being executed, with the way things are going now.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Blowin' In the Wind
This past Sunday, our high school auditorium was reserved for the day. Operation: Respect (the organization is self-explanatory) was there having an anti-bullying gathering of some sort, and someone managed to bring a special guest: Peter Yarrow, or as most people know, the Peter from Peter, Paul and Mary. Yarrow invited the choraliers (a high school dancing chorus group; I'm in it) to sing with him. All of us were initially thrilled about this opportunity. I thought, we are going to sing with history. It'll be cool to be able to say that I sang with Peter Yarrow! Apparently, the concert portion was only going to be a couple hours or so; that's what our choir director told us. He was incredibly wrong.
When I first saw Peter, of course the first feeling that embodied me was awe. I was only feet away from a musical legend! Then, starting at 2:00, we began practicing our songs with him. It took us forty-five minutes to get through rehearsing Puff the Magic Dragon, no joke. He would stop after every stanza to say something and play each stanza around three times each. He's seventy-three years old, and his voice is giving out. To someone with perfect pitch, listening to an old man try and hit the notes he used to be able to hit for forty-five minutes can be quite painful. The rest of the rehearsing took another forty-five minutes or so, and by then I was slowly losing my sanity. Then, the concert began, and he began to play some solo songs. Again, like in the rehearsals, he stopped mid-way in his songs to say something. I thought to myself, why would you do that? You ruin the persisting feelings of each song by cutting them mid-way through, and it's annoying anyways. Then came the worst part of the concert; he kept us sitting on the risers and began the so-called "conference" portion of the event.
The "conference" portion was more about his political agenda than anti-bullying. He went off on a tangent and boasted about how he sang in front of Occupy Wall Street-ers, and how they are in the pursuit of fairness and equality. The audience began clapping in his mid-sentences, probably trying to stop him from talking about it. By now, I was willing to hop off the risers and walk off the stage. Then he began talking about how people should look out for each other instead of pursuing money. "Money, money, money!" He said with a crazed expression, implying that people should be required to give away their money to the needy. I was tempted to blurt out, "Then give me your money." What a hypocrite, that Peter Yarrow. He's still living in his 60s hippy world where they believe in tree-hugging and holding hands and singing Kumba-ya. Yes, it is a great thing to be altruistic towards others; it is a value that no other organism on Earth has. However, philanthropy should not be forced on the people by the government in the form of taxes. If you work hard and rightfully earn lots of money and have an obligation to give it away to a charity, go ahead, that's great. But if the government forcefully takes money from you to give to charities, that is stealing. Peter Yarrow believes in working for the "common good," a Socialist principle and also a principle adopted by Jim Taggart, the antagonist in Atlas Shrugged. In reality, humans are conditioned to be selfish, and it has always been that way since the dawn of man. That one day where the whole world holds hands will most likely never become reality. So rather than being forced to give and work for others (which gives you no incentive to work), people should be provided with an option to give away their money. Anyways....
The rehearsal/concert lasted five hours; it went from 2-7 P.M. I was furious and disappointed afterwards. I totally misjudged Peter's personality, and it hurts me to say such negative things about him. As funny as he was in some moments, he does have a couple screws loose in that noggin of his. I think he's too old to do this stuff now, unfortunately. He was a legendary musician back in his day, but now it's time for him to move on, go retire and become a top-notch golfer. His psyche is "Blowin' In the Wind."
When I first saw Peter, of course the first feeling that embodied me was awe. I was only feet away from a musical legend! Then, starting at 2:00, we began practicing our songs with him. It took us forty-five minutes to get through rehearsing Puff the Magic Dragon, no joke. He would stop after every stanza to say something and play each stanza around three times each. He's seventy-three years old, and his voice is giving out. To someone with perfect pitch, listening to an old man try and hit the notes he used to be able to hit for forty-five minutes can be quite painful. The rest of the rehearsing took another forty-five minutes or so, and by then I was slowly losing my sanity. Then, the concert began, and he began to play some solo songs. Again, like in the rehearsals, he stopped mid-way in his songs to say something. I thought to myself, why would you do that? You ruin the persisting feelings of each song by cutting them mid-way through, and it's annoying anyways. Then came the worst part of the concert; he kept us sitting on the risers and began the so-called "conference" portion of the event.
The "conference" portion was more about his political agenda than anti-bullying. He went off on a tangent and boasted about how he sang in front of Occupy Wall Street-ers, and how they are in the pursuit of fairness and equality. The audience began clapping in his mid-sentences, probably trying to stop him from talking about it. By now, I was willing to hop off the risers and walk off the stage. Then he began talking about how people should look out for each other instead of pursuing money. "Money, money, money!" He said with a crazed expression, implying that people should be required to give away their money to the needy. I was tempted to blurt out, "Then give me your money." What a hypocrite, that Peter Yarrow. He's still living in his 60s hippy world where they believe in tree-hugging and holding hands and singing Kumba-ya. Yes, it is a great thing to be altruistic towards others; it is a value that no other organism on Earth has. However, philanthropy should not be forced on the people by the government in the form of taxes. If you work hard and rightfully earn lots of money and have an obligation to give it away to a charity, go ahead, that's great. But if the government forcefully takes money from you to give to charities, that is stealing. Peter Yarrow believes in working for the "common good," a Socialist principle and also a principle adopted by Jim Taggart, the antagonist in Atlas Shrugged. In reality, humans are conditioned to be selfish, and it has always been that way since the dawn of man. That one day where the whole world holds hands will most likely never become reality. So rather than being forced to give and work for others (which gives you no incentive to work), people should be provided with an option to give away their money. Anyways....
The rehearsal/concert lasted five hours; it went from 2-7 P.M. I was furious and disappointed afterwards. I totally misjudged Peter's personality, and it hurts me to say such negative things about him. As funny as he was in some moments, he does have a couple screws loose in that noggin of his. I think he's too old to do this stuff now, unfortunately. He was a legendary musician back in his day, but now it's time for him to move on, go retire and become a top-notch golfer. His psyche is "Blowin' In the Wind."
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Is the Death Penalty Dying?
The process in which a criminal is sent to be executed is definitely more complicated than I thought. There is the arrest, the preparations for a jury, the jury itself, the conviction, the clemency process, analysis of the case, and of course, the execution. The way the justice system works with these types of cases is extremely carefully, and in my opinion, that is sufficent enough to guarantee that only the guilty are convicted. The process for these types of cases has been so fine-tuned that it would be very difficult to convict an innocent person. The case is analyzed by several groups of people, including the highest state criminal courts and appellate courts; by having different sets of eyes analyze the case, a collective understanding begins to form. Then there is the clemency process, which is a way to give mercy to the accused. By having these cases laid out in this fashion, the prosecutors and defendants have equal power which allows for the best free expression of ideas and assertions.
There are a few ways the death penalty is carried out: hanging, firing squad, electrocution, gas chambers, and lethal injection. To me, the most humane of these executions is lethal injection. For every other method of execution, it is reported that extreme pain is felt by the victim. Anything involving asphyxiation is bound to be painful, because your body is essentially sending signals to the brain that you're deprived of a vital molecule, and to get your attention of this predicament, you experience a strong feeling of pain. The same goes with electrocution and firing squads. Electrocution fries your entire body, and I don't think anyone would consider that painless. The same can be said for several bullets that penetrate the heart. Lethal injection, on the other hand, is easy, seemingly painless, and not messy at all. The victim is strapped onto a table, is injected an anesthetic to knock them out, and is then injected with a series of chemicals that shuts down the heart and all other organ systems. However, I would not consider any of these executions "cruel and unusual," as stated in the Eighth Amendment. The men that have the noose around their necks, the men that are sitting in the electric chair, the men that are waiting to be shot at, all of them are murderers. They took the life from another human being or beings. Why should their death penalty be any more humane than how they murdered their victims? I say it's up to the state and the Courts to decide which death penalties to use for which victims.
After looking at some maps of the spread of the death penalty throughout the country, I noticed a couple trends. From the first view, it seems that all of the countries (besides New Mexico) that prohibit the death penalty are located in the northern half of the United States. My guess is that the reasons for this probably originate back to Civil War times; along with the abolishment of slavery, perhaps the Union developed stricter juries as well. Another thing to note is that most of the deaths from the death penalty come from California, and I'm not quite sure why. For the people that believe race has something to do with the death penalty, the data may portray that blacks are discriminated against when it comes to capital punishment. Personally though, I believe that Courts have moved past convicting persons because of race or prejudging based off of race. It is frankly chance that more whites have been executed than blacks.
After reading the Illinois statute on the death penalty, I realized that the Illinois death penalty is no longer in effect and it is not explained why in the statute. The reason for this is probably due to influence from adjacent states or some sort of financing problem (since Illinois is completely broke). However, I find that death as a punishment for the crimes listed in the statute is perfectly reasonable. Anyone who murders another human being deserves to die. Looking at this CHART, you can see that the number of annual death penalties in the United States has gradually decreased since 1999, and states like Illinois that are prohibiting the death penalty facilitate this drop in executions. It seems that according to the statistics, the death penalty is slowly becoming obsolete; part of it is because some people believe that it is not necessarily economical, and part of it is because of a rise of public opposition to it.
Looking at all the information on the death penalty, it seems that the Death Penalty Information Center has a bias against the death penalty. The way they explain some of the methods of execution is quite gruesome. Also, they seem to explain the oppositions more thoroughly against the pro-death penalty assertions. I have a feeling that the country is slowly moving towards anti-death penalty, which I believe is detrimental to American citizens. The citizens have to pay for those people that avoided the death penalty and are now rotting in jail, living aimlessly. Most of those people will never come close to being human again, so what's the point in keeping them alive?
For all those Dexter fans out there:
The show Dexter is my currently favorite show on television, and surprisingly enough, the question pops up as to whether or not Dexter should be executed if he happened to be caught. Unfortunately, I would say yes. Dexter has good intentions, essentially doing the Court's job and executing people that deserve to die. However, he makes a slip-up in Season 3 when he murders an innocent man. That one murder could justify the authorization of the death penalty for Dexter.
There are a few ways the death penalty is carried out: hanging, firing squad, electrocution, gas chambers, and lethal injection. To me, the most humane of these executions is lethal injection. For every other method of execution, it is reported that extreme pain is felt by the victim. Anything involving asphyxiation is bound to be painful, because your body is essentially sending signals to the brain that you're deprived of a vital molecule, and to get your attention of this predicament, you experience a strong feeling of pain. The same goes with electrocution and firing squads. Electrocution fries your entire body, and I don't think anyone would consider that painless. The same can be said for several bullets that penetrate the heart. Lethal injection, on the other hand, is easy, seemingly painless, and not messy at all. The victim is strapped onto a table, is injected an anesthetic to knock them out, and is then injected with a series of chemicals that shuts down the heart and all other organ systems. However, I would not consider any of these executions "cruel and unusual," as stated in the Eighth Amendment. The men that have the noose around their necks, the men that are sitting in the electric chair, the men that are waiting to be shot at, all of them are murderers. They took the life from another human being or beings. Why should their death penalty be any more humane than how they murdered their victims? I say it's up to the state and the Courts to decide which death penalties to use for which victims.
After looking at some maps of the spread of the death penalty throughout the country, I noticed a couple trends. From the first view, it seems that all of the countries (besides New Mexico) that prohibit the death penalty are located in the northern half of the United States. My guess is that the reasons for this probably originate back to Civil War times; along with the abolishment of slavery, perhaps the Union developed stricter juries as well. Another thing to note is that most of the deaths from the death penalty come from California, and I'm not quite sure why. For the people that believe race has something to do with the death penalty, the data may portray that blacks are discriminated against when it comes to capital punishment. Personally though, I believe that Courts have moved past convicting persons because of race or prejudging based off of race. It is frankly chance that more whites have been executed than blacks.
After reading the Illinois statute on the death penalty, I realized that the Illinois death penalty is no longer in effect and it is not explained why in the statute. The reason for this is probably due to influence from adjacent states or some sort of financing problem (since Illinois is completely broke). However, I find that death as a punishment for the crimes listed in the statute is perfectly reasonable. Anyone who murders another human being deserves to die. Looking at this CHART, you can see that the number of annual death penalties in the United States has gradually decreased since 1999, and states like Illinois that are prohibiting the death penalty facilitate this drop in executions. It seems that according to the statistics, the death penalty is slowly becoming obsolete; part of it is because some people believe that it is not necessarily economical, and part of it is because of a rise of public opposition to it.
Looking at all the information on the death penalty, it seems that the Death Penalty Information Center has a bias against the death penalty. The way they explain some of the methods of execution is quite gruesome. Also, they seem to explain the oppositions more thoroughly against the pro-death penalty assertions. I have a feeling that the country is slowly moving towards anti-death penalty, which I believe is detrimental to American citizens. The citizens have to pay for those people that avoided the death penalty and are now rotting in jail, living aimlessly. Most of those people will never come close to being human again, so what's the point in keeping them alive?
For all those Dexter fans out there:
The show Dexter is my currently favorite show on television, and surprisingly enough, the question pops up as to whether or not Dexter should be executed if he happened to be caught. Unfortunately, I would say yes. Dexter has good intentions, essentially doing the Court's job and executing people that deserve to die. However, he makes a slip-up in Season 3 when he murders an innocent man. That one murder could justify the authorization of the death penalty for Dexter.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Political (In)Correctness
In elementary school, when my fourth grade teacher would talk about Civil Rights, she would say, "These people with unequal rights were African-Americans. You might have heard the term 'black' for them, but that may be offensive. So, the correct term is African-American." With my young developing mind, I took that for granted and did what she said. In middle school, when my eighth grade teacher would talk about Civil Rights, she would say, "These people with unequal rights were African-Americans. You might have heard the term 'black' for them, but that's considered offensive today. So, the correct term is African-American." Although she didn't say exactly what my fourth grade teacher told us, it was like deja vu for me. With this notion of "African-American" revisiting my head, I began to question the purpose of it. Now, in high school, I am fully aware of the stupidity of political correctness (or should I say, incorrectness).
To start, the term "African-American" is simply too broad. Clearly, African-American is supposed to refer to the group of people with black skin. But what it means is an individual whose heritage originates from Africa, and that individual may have white skin. Technically speaking, Dave Matthews is an African-American because he comes from South Africa. "African-American" also may not apply to all black-skinned individuals, because not all people with black skin originate from Africa. Jamaicans are not African-Americans. So this whole ploy to not offend blacks by calling them African-Americans is a complete failure; in fact, it may offend even more of them because of the term's inaccuracy. And isn't that separating them more from the American population? By saying Chinese-American, Native American, Japanese-American, African-American, and the like, we separate Americans into different groups (even when the goal of those terms is to bring us together). Our country is called The United States of America for a reason. There are blacks, there are whites, there are people with yellow skin, there are people with red skin, there are people with big eyes and small eyes and big noses and small noses and long hair and short hair, but we are all Americans.
To start, the term "African-American" is simply too broad. Clearly, African-American is supposed to refer to the group of people with black skin. But what it means is an individual whose heritage originates from Africa, and that individual may have white skin. Technically speaking, Dave Matthews is an African-American because he comes from South Africa. "African-American" also may not apply to all black-skinned individuals, because not all people with black skin originate from Africa. Jamaicans are not African-Americans. So this whole ploy to not offend blacks by calling them African-Americans is a complete failure; in fact, it may offend even more of them because of the term's inaccuracy. And isn't that separating them more from the American population? By saying Chinese-American, Native American, Japanese-American, African-American, and the like, we separate Americans into different groups (even when the goal of those terms is to bring us together). Our country is called The United States of America for a reason. There are blacks, there are whites, there are people with yellow skin, there are people with red skin, there are people with big eyes and small eyes and big noses and small noses and long hair and short hair, but we are all Americans.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
The Randomness of Random Drug Testing
Today in my Issues class, we read over the case Board of Education v. Earls, which concerns the use of random drug testing on students participating in extracurricular activities. It is written, "Under the Policy, students are required to take a drug test before participating in an extracurricular activity, must submit to random drug testing while participating in that activity, and must agree to be tested at any time upon reasonable suspicion." A new implementation of this Policy is that not only is random drug testing a requirement for extracurricular sports, but it is also required for "any [competetive] extracurricular activity." The court holds that "...the invasion of students' privacy is not significant." The reasoning behind this holding was this: extracurricular activities are voluntary; drug abuse is a serious problem and the drug testing program is "designed to deter drug use"; random drug testing helps to keep the students safe; and "the Fourth Amendment does not require a finding of individualized suspicion.
These reasons are all entirely valid. I understand the safety concerns that come with simultaneously participating in an extracurricular and abusing drugs. However, the district is completely disregarding the students' rights to privacy and misinterpreting the Fourth Amendment. It is a shame that these authorities are trying to manipulate us so much as to control our life decisions that we make and learn from for ourselves. The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution with the notion that individuals have valuable minds and are responsible for themselves, that there should be as little governmental control as possible. People like Thomas Jefferson were aware of political power and its drug-like properties; once one man grasps political power, it is like an addiction. Political power is the will to encroach on an individual that has done no harm. When a man is provided with political power, he will use it more and more to his advantage. That is why the Founders established checks an balances: to prevent any one person from acquiring too much political power. Then, because the Constitution is based on the rights of the individual, the Fourth Amendment is based on the privacy and suspicion of the individual. What the school district is doing here is entirely negating invididual suspicion, a Constitutional right, and implying that their suspicions are towards every student participating in a competitive extracurricular activity. It is plainly unconstitutional. And because the school was granted this Policy, they will likely be granted more that encroach on students' rights. This random drug testing is another step towards "governmental thought control." Thank God there are organizations out there like ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) that agree with my viewpoints and help to preserve our constitutional rights as American citizens. As the ACLU asserts, "...[American] schools are not constitutional dead zones..." Just because we are students should not mean that we have lesser constitutional rights in a school environment. Students are just as American as Americans.
Another consequential concern to this issue is the use of drug-sniffing dogs. Do they encroach on students' rights to privacy? Let us analyze this: the Fourth Amendment states, "...unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause..." The probable cause, in this case, is the dog's sense of smell. Since warrants are not issued in schools, this gives authorities the right to search any private areas in which the dogs smell contraband. These dogs also do not attack students that have done no harm. They do not encroach on our individual rights as students, and they follow constitutional guidelines; thus, they should be okay to use. It would be reasonable to say that anything more enforcing than drug-sniffing dogs would most likely be a form of encroachment on our privacy rights.
These reasons are all entirely valid. I understand the safety concerns that come with simultaneously participating in an extracurricular and abusing drugs. However, the district is completely disregarding the students' rights to privacy and misinterpreting the Fourth Amendment. It is a shame that these authorities are trying to manipulate us so much as to control our life decisions that we make and learn from for ourselves. The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution with the notion that individuals have valuable minds and are responsible for themselves, that there should be as little governmental control as possible. People like Thomas Jefferson were aware of political power and its drug-like properties; once one man grasps political power, it is like an addiction. Political power is the will to encroach on an individual that has done no harm. When a man is provided with political power, he will use it more and more to his advantage. That is why the Founders established checks an balances: to prevent any one person from acquiring too much political power. Then, because the Constitution is based on the rights of the individual, the Fourth Amendment is based on the privacy and suspicion of the individual. What the school district is doing here is entirely negating invididual suspicion, a Constitutional right, and implying that their suspicions are towards every student participating in a competitive extracurricular activity. It is plainly unconstitutional. And because the school was granted this Policy, they will likely be granted more that encroach on students' rights. This random drug testing is another step towards "governmental thought control." Thank God there are organizations out there like ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) that agree with my viewpoints and help to preserve our constitutional rights as American citizens. As the ACLU asserts, "...[American] schools are not constitutional dead zones..." Just because we are students should not mean that we have lesser constitutional rights in a school environment. Students are just as American as Americans.
Another consequential concern to this issue is the use of drug-sniffing dogs. Do they encroach on students' rights to privacy? Let us analyze this: the Fourth Amendment states, "...unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause..." The probable cause, in this case, is the dog's sense of smell. Since warrants are not issued in schools, this gives authorities the right to search any private areas in which the dogs smell contraband. These dogs also do not attack students that have done no harm. They do not encroach on our individual rights as students, and they follow constitutional guidelines; thus, they should be okay to use. It would be reasonable to say that anything more enforcing than drug-sniffing dogs would most likely be a form of encroachment on our privacy rights.
Monday, October 3, 2011
"The Omnivore's Dilemma" - 2
In the second part of The Omnivore's Dilemma, Michael Pollan delves deeper into the food industry of today. He visits one of many Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO), a so-called "farm" where corn, carbohydrates (specifically including the isotope carbon-13), are converted into protein and fat, "meat." On several acres of land, cows are confined to pens in which they feed on around 40 pounds of corn per day. If you know anything about cows, they are creatures that have adapted to eating and digesting grass (cellulose). They have a special compartment in their digestive system called the rumen, where bacteria help to break down the cellulose from the grass. They poop out the grass, which in turn sends more nitrogen into the ground which fertilizes plants. Cows are not meant to eat corn. They actually get sick from it, and bad bacteria builds up in their body. Farmers give these cows antibiotics so they can survive long enough to gain the needed weight for slaughter. Their waste is strewn about the pens, unused; the floor of their home is covered in it. When there is too much of it, it is dumped into "lagoons" full of waste. In about 3/4 the time of a normal-dieted cow, these corn-fed cows quickly gain the weight needed in order to be slaughtered.
These CAFOs are not farms; they are industries. These cows are treated like products rather than animals; they are the vehicles in which corn is converted to meat. This is simply unethical. On a normal farm, the cows eat grass and poop it out, which in turn gives the soil sustenance, and chickens spread the manure around and eat the parasites within it, producing great-tasting eggs. In CAFOs, waste lagoons are produced, and they just sit there. I would never know if a cow lives a happy life in a CAFO, but my guess is no. There is so much corn that it has to be used somehow, and a CAFO is one of the places that utilizes it. Like I said before, the only way to break a system like this is to stop advertising it; stop the subsidies. These industries would not be able to function without subsidies from the government, and eventually they would perish. For a healthy posterity, these industries need to be indirectly removed.
These CAFOs are not farms; they are industries. These cows are treated like products rather than animals; they are the vehicles in which corn is converted to meat. This is simply unethical. On a normal farm, the cows eat grass and poop it out, which in turn gives the soil sustenance, and chickens spread the manure around and eat the parasites within it, producing great-tasting eggs. In CAFOs, waste lagoons are produced, and they just sit there. I would never know if a cow lives a happy life in a CAFO, but my guess is no. There is so much corn that it has to be used somehow, and a CAFO is one of the places that utilizes it. Like I said before, the only way to break a system like this is to stop advertising it; stop the subsidies. These industries would not be able to function without subsidies from the government, and eventually they would perish. For a healthy posterity, these industries need to be indirectly removed.
"The Omnivore's Dilemma" - 1
A few years ago, my dad told me about The Omnivore's Dilemma and how important of a read it was for him. I took it into consideration, but I never got around to reading it. Now that I chose it for my Issues class semester book project, I'm required to read it, although it feels more like an obsession rather than a requirement. The Omnivore's Dilemma is a sickly revealing book on the food industry of today, and I cannot stop turning the pages. It's one of those things where if you read something disgusting, you close your eyes for a second, but you can't help but continue. This informative book is so revolting yet so engrossing that I can't stop reading it. It is essentially a rude awakening.
The first chapter of this book talks about how corn is the essence of our food industry today. I know, you think, "Corn? I only have corn during cookouts!" But you never would have thought that corn is in virtually every processed food on the market, just in different forms. There is high fructose corn syrup, a seemingly cheap alternative to cane sugar, there is corn starch, there is corn oil, there is lechitin, there is citric acid (derived from corn), and there are several others. The question to ask here is: So what? So what if corn is used for virtually everything? The answer lies on the farms where the corn is mass-produced. Corn farmers compete for the higher yields of corn; the more bushels per acre, the better. This method of growing corn very close together, however, sucks the soil of its important nutrients. To replenish the nutrients, farmers use synthetically produced nitrogen fertilizer derived from petroleum. So essentially, 50 gallons of oil is required per bushel of corn. When the soil needs a break, farmers resort to soybeans, which are used interchangeably with corn. There is such a surplus of this stuff that the government subsidizes it and there are some state laws that require gasoline to contain ethanol (derived from corn), which requires more oil to produce than gasoline itself. And apparently, the farmers barely make profits from it, but they're stuck in the business. The fertilizer runoff from the farms seeps into bodies of water and water tables, affecting the ecosystem and our water system as well.
This system needs to stop to prevent us from reaching our doom, and in order to stop it, the government needs to stop subsidizing. If the government gets any more involved than it is already, freedom will be encroached upon. So if the government would just stop subsidizing these industries, the farmers would be at a loss. They produce so much corn, such a huge surplus, that it costs so little. They eventually would not be able to run their business anymore, and then they would have to revert to other agricultural products. This corn industry defies the agricultural cycle, creating waste rather than cycling it. It needs to stop, and the government needs to stay out of it.
The first chapter of this book talks about how corn is the essence of our food industry today. I know, you think, "Corn? I only have corn during cookouts!" But you never would have thought that corn is in virtually every processed food on the market, just in different forms. There is high fructose corn syrup, a seemingly cheap alternative to cane sugar, there is corn starch, there is corn oil, there is lechitin, there is citric acid (derived from corn), and there are several others. The question to ask here is: So what? So what if corn is used for virtually everything? The answer lies on the farms where the corn is mass-produced. Corn farmers compete for the higher yields of corn; the more bushels per acre, the better. This method of growing corn very close together, however, sucks the soil of its important nutrients. To replenish the nutrients, farmers use synthetically produced nitrogen fertilizer derived from petroleum. So essentially, 50 gallons of oil is required per bushel of corn. When the soil needs a break, farmers resort to soybeans, which are used interchangeably with corn. There is such a surplus of this stuff that the government subsidizes it and there are some state laws that require gasoline to contain ethanol (derived from corn), which requires more oil to produce than gasoline itself. And apparently, the farmers barely make profits from it, but they're stuck in the business. The fertilizer runoff from the farms seeps into bodies of water and water tables, affecting the ecosystem and our water system as well.
This system needs to stop to prevent us from reaching our doom, and in order to stop it, the government needs to stop subsidizing. If the government gets any more involved than it is already, freedom will be encroached upon. So if the government would just stop subsidizing these industries, the farmers would be at a loss. They produce so much corn, such a huge surplus, that it costs so little. They eventually would not be able to run their business anymore, and then they would have to revert to other agricultural products. This corn industry defies the agricultural cycle, creating waste rather than cycling it. It needs to stop, and the government needs to stay out of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)