The Background Topic:
Everyday in the US, people are put into jail for committing drug related crimes. According to The National Center for Victims of Crime, “Drug use is more closely linked to robberty and property crime than to violent crime. Many addicts commit crimes to get money to buy drugs.”
With that being said, chronic offenders of drug related crimes are only given the option of
Counterintuitive Note
Topics for Smaller Papers
Current State of the Research Paper
Background: Ever since Surgeon General David Satcher announced in 2001 that American obesity was becoming an epidemic and that the USA was the worlds most obese nation, there has been a rapid increase in the over all health of the American Public and a decline in the nations average body mass index (BMI). The BMI system measures the amount of fat a person has compared to their height and weight. Anyone with a BMI over 25 is considered overweight; according to a study conducted by one of the top medical journals, The Lancet, when national BMIs are compared, America is not even in the top 10. America has lost its perviously held number one spot to Nauru. Over the last decade or so, the push for government intervention and personal motivation to get fit, and healthy has paid off. While American men are rated 10th on the BMI scale, amongst men internationally, American women are ranked 36th with a BMI of 28.7. This is proof that, obesity can be sustained and maintained at its current levels and even prevented for the future.
Counterintuitive note: Are women merely loosing more weight as a result of “negative media spins” that promote thin women? But, is this a positive impact on society since, although this media promotes eating disorders, only one in 200 American women suffer from anorexia and three in 100 experience bulimia? About 25 percent of American women have begun to loose weight the healthy way, according to an article produced by Women’s Health Magazine (http://www.womenshealthmag.com/health/fat-acceptance). Maybe diet commercials, the recent promotion of exercise and fitness, and media influence on being thin, have positively influenced the female population of the USA.
How can the government influence the public sphere in the future to keep promoting positive eating habits, work out plans and other health tips without being redundant and simultaneously promoting eating disorders.
Government intervention:
Controlling “private behaviors”: One of the major issues in moderating obesity is influencing a persons private and personal behaviors. A government official cannot sit down with every family during every meal to make sure good eating habits are being enforced and proper exercise routines are being followed. One possible way of doing this, according Kersh and Monroe, is to create an even stronger sense of social disapproval. The idea is to alter social norms and have fast food chains and fattening foods be thought of as highly unacceptable. According to Kersh and Monroe, a step like this should be conducted similarly to the way things like marijuana and alcohol were deemed socially unacceptable and bad. Another way to influence public behavior is through medical-science which means allowing people to know facts about being overweight and what it means to be physically fit. However, according to the authors, the facts do not have to be entirely accurate; the idea is to convey the true message that being overweight is not good and will soon be socially unacceptable. Also, people should be able to get help outside of the gym, according to the authors, who want there to be group meetings similar to meetings set up for drug addicts. The demon user/ industry effect is to make Americans feel that people who eat poorly and industries that promote poor health habits are “demons,” or bad.
Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” helps promote healthy eating habits and exercise for children by targeting favored child media such as the Disney Channel and Nickelodeon. The basis behind this program is to influence children at a young age at the home.
According to The Lancet’s study, the government should be responsible for making healthy foods cheeper and affordable. They should be easily accessible at both private and public schools along with universities. A large portion of American citizens that are overweight are underprivileged and cannot afford top grade foods, especially since the price of produce and lean meats has risen significantly with the current economic recession and the decline in the American agricultural industry. So, a possibility to increase health in the general public would be to produce cheeper produce and for the government to fund more home-grown produce, such as establishing new farms and giving money to already existing ones.
Mass movement: Also suggested for government intervention is for there to be higher interest group activity. Interest groups would push for better fitness programs in schools and underdeveloped areas of the country while helping to get government funding of farms and health foods.
Healthy eating/ workout plans: One of the most popular and highly effective diets is the Scarsdale diet plan. Created by cardiologist Dr. Herman Tarnower, the plan allows for users to loose up to 20 lbs in two weeks. It is a healthier alternative to other popular plans such as Atkins because it includes what they consider to be “complex carbohydrates” such as bread and fruit. The basis is healthy eating: limiting your intake of most carbs and eliminating others. The diet works by using a strict two week diet plan, and considerable exercise, followed by a week span of not dieting.
This diet requests daily healthy exercise. Jillian Michaels 30 Day Shred is a diet video highly promoted by medical experts that targets abs, legs, arms and cardio for a span of 30 days. Accoring to many athletic experts, the workout video gives premium results for women looking to slim down and tone up. However, most experts suggest that women go to the gym for their daily exercise with a minimum of 30 minute cardio and at least a 15 minute abdominal muscle routine, and a rotation of working arms, legs, back and back muscles. Each day should include thorough stretching. It is key that anyone working out drinks plenty of water for hydration, muscle building and weight loss purposes.
An issue many people, especially women, have with working out is weight loss or gain. Muscle weighs more than fat, so, although a person may in fact be burning off their fat cells when working out, they are gaining weight through the obtainment of muscle mass. This can either: influence women to stop working out or develop an eating disorder.
Childhood obesity: Childhood obesity is a growing issue in American society. While many Americans are utilizing their time to a healthier lifestyle, it has become increasingly harder to prevent obesity in children. For whatever reason, parents and schools are failing at introducing good lifestyle choices into the lives of children and young adults. Childhood obesity has longterm effects that will have a negative impact on a child’s future such as a higher risk at developing type two diabetes, heart failure and other potentially dangerous diseases, harassment and a large risk at depression.
BMC public health has created the STOPP program that they believe will help eliminate and maintain the current rates of childhood obesity. The program targets schools, doctors and other public centers and wants to combat creating healthy, balanced eating habits, good sleeping patterns, and the development of good exercise routines.
Topics for smaller papers: Childhood obesity, the decline in the American BMI, government intervention.
Current state of research paper: Since I changed my topic last minute from the corruption behind Starbucks Coffee, to the prevention of obesity, I am still mainly in the research phase of my essay. However, I believe that I have found very reliable and resourceful sources so far. Also, this is a topic I have a great deal of prior knowledge to and a desire to further look into. So, I do not feel like I will have much difficulty with the furthering of my topic and future essays.
Your first paper is due THU MAR 08. It will make an argument essential to your Research Paper, which is not due until late April. You’ll write three short papers in total this semester, each proving something essential about your Research Paper. Here’s the schedule, taken from the course outline.
1000 words THU MAR 08 Definition Argument (or Evaluation Argument)
1000 words TUE APR 03 Rebuttal Argument
1000 words THU APR 12 Causal Argument
3000 words THU APR 19 Research Position Paper
This first Definition or Evaluation Argument will define a term or evaluate the quality of the sources you’ve selected to prove your thesis. Understandably, you may still be refining your thesis, still gathering valuable sources, still determining the exact parameters of your argument. That is understood. It is also understood that not everything can wait until the end of the semester, and that writing and refining a research paper is shooting at a moving target. What you’ll do in your short papers may be more or less relevant to your last, longer papers depending on how little or how much your thesis changes between now THU APR 19. What you’ll aim at in your short paper is today’s target, however shaped, wherever placed.
Works Cited
Whether the sources you cite in this first formal essay already appear in your earlier posts or not, you’ll need a Works Cited for this assignment. Check the links yourself to be sure they lead back to a page we can all access (even if it’s the page in the databases that “launches” the actual document).
I’ve posted a Sample Works Cited and linked it to the Resources category in the sidebar.
How Can A Definition Be An Argument?
Good question. Let’s say we’re reading an essay by a columnist who has just had to have her apartment wired for internet service for the first time, after years of casually, almost thoughtlessly, logging on to the non-password-protected networks of subscribers in neighboring apartments. She’s never thought of herself as a thief. She’s never thought much about her actions at all; as long as service was available, and free, and she could access it without paying a service provider, she did so, perhaps with gratitude, perhaps with a sense of entitlement.
When the day came that her neighbors locked her out with passwords or moved or migrated to smart phones and unplugged themselves from their own networks, this columnist reports, she awakened from her mindlessness and faced a new reality: the internet isn’t free in the way she’d grown accustomed to thinking of it. It’s a valuable service that costs billions to the providers who expect to be paid for it. She hadn’t been merely sharing what was offered out of generosity to the world. She’d been stealing. She had to re-define what “theft” meant and what “free internet” meant. The internet is a commercial service that somebody is buying (in this case her neighbors) and sharing with others. If they’re sharing willingly, the service is a gift or an inducement. If they’re sharing unwillingly, or without knowing they’re sharing, it’s theft of service.
A one-sentence definition of “free internet” from the author’s new perspective is a tiny little definition essay all by itself: The internet is free to anybody whose conscience doesn’t prohibit her from stealing service from somebody who’s paying for it.
We could argue about her definition. And that’s the point. Definition is argument. Your definition essay will argue for a particular definition and establish the terms under which the rest of your proof will be conducted.
As you work on your own research projects, stay alert to the terms you think are perfectly understood, but which in fact require your readers’ cooperation. I will offer some specific examples from your actual research topics in the section below called What About Me? But first, I want to offer another example of how short arguments must be proved before long arguments can be considered complete.
An Essay Desperately In Need of a Definition
Here’s an example you can examine in detail by reading the actual source. It’s about public sector pensions, a topic being hotly debated all across the country, and which has been particularly contentious in New Jersey since the current Governor took charge of a state scrambling desperately to balance its budget in a time of fiscal crisis.
The story is that former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman took money from the public employees’ pension fund and used it to lower taxes, then borrowed money and gambled it in the stock market to try to repay what she’d taken. Read the article now and then come back.
The article makes a persuasive argument that public sector employees are not responsible for current budget shortfalls. What it desperately needs, though, if it wants to make its broader point, that the state of New Jersey owes money back to the pension fund, is a clear Definition of the state’s fiduciary responsibility to that fund. Is the state obligated to keep those funds locked in a box, free from deflation or loss of any kind? Or is the state obligated to invest that money in instruments that will grow the money to pay future obligations? If so, is the state allowed to choose the stock market to invest in? In other words, did Governor Whitman play within the rules, or did she steal from the employees?
Notice we’re not defining the term pension fund, although the term might be a good candidate for a Definition Essay for a different research project. We’re not defining state, or fiduciary, or the fund. What requires clarification is the concept people like to toss around when they’re debating the topic: The state’s responsibility. “The Governor thumbed her nose at the state’s fiduciary responsibility to the pension fund,” they say, without ever defining that responsibility. There’s your essay.
What About Me?
Joe Mleczko is writing about Affirmative Action, first its accomplishments in achieving better parity in workplace hiring practices and college admissions, then the counterintuitive practices of discriminating against majority populations, genders, age groups, anyone in fact who doesn’t fulfill an employer’s or a college’s need to achieve diversity. He will of course have to define quite precisely what the law mandates as Affirmative Action. But he might also want to widen that definition to include actions taken by personnel and admissions offices that achieve institutional versions of Affirmative Action, such as Target hiring clearly incapable checkout clerks or colleges determined to achieve a particular type of diversity whether the law requires it or not.
Aime Lonsdorf is researching and writing about American obesity. In part, she proposes to examine ways government can influence social behaviors. To even consider whether this is at all appropriate, government would have to demonstrate that it had any business whatsoever trying to promote particular behaviors. (Of course, it does so all the time: speed limits, curfew laws, seat belt mandates, just to name a few). Just today I heard a radio show guest proclaim sugar to be toxic. That’s a very bold definition statement worthy of a 1000-word paper. If it’s toxic, sugar could be regulated like tobacco or alcohol. So there’s a lot riding on the persuasiveness of the definition.
Ashley Petit de Mange is researching the surprising finding that the divorce rate decreases during times of national economic uncertainty, high unemployment, stagnant wages. There may not seem to be much in that topic to require a Definition Essay, but Ashley’s White Paper provides a clue about terms that need clarification. Marriage is a romantic commitment without doubt, but it’s also a business merger, so divorce is both the end of a personal arrangement and a broken partnership. Maybe in tough times couples more deeply bond, maybe they continue to live together to save on expenses, or maybe one party moves out without filing any paperwork because divorce is too costly. How many divorce may be strictly an economic question. In other words, the divorce rate may tell us very little about the state of marriage.
Jon Gonzoph is studying the correlation between violent video games and the violent behavior of players. Everybody, Jon included, is uncertain whether there’s more than a correlation (maybe there isn’t even a correlation); but convincing evidence that one causes the other is certainly not available yet. Jon identifies a very intriguing angle that would certainly be worth a definition essay: What would constitute a convincing study? Should it be deep analysis of real-world numbers that connect violent gamers to violent lives? An experimental study that puts kids in front of Mortal Kombat 8 hours a day and then follows them to the schoolyard? Separating twins for a month to see if the one who was given access to violent games beats up the one who watched cartoons? Jon could define aggression if he wished, or violence for that matter, but I’m hoping he’ll define “best evidence that video games cause violent behavior.”
Bill Brooks will have an easy job finding terms and concepts to define since much of his paper will be an attempt to clarify our misconceptions about what the terms stem cell and embryonic stem cell and fertilized egg and umbilical cells and deceased “human” embryo mean. (I’m not sure I understand that last one as used in the White Paper.) Much of his argument hinges on how we use and abuse these terms to achieve political goals, so the Definition angle is a natural, essential component of his project.
Brett Lang has spent a good part of his White Paper preparing to define nutritional supplement. If he wants to craft a paper that demonstrates exactly to what degree his chosen supplement, Ephedra, meets the definitional criteria, and in doing so educates us about those criteria, I think the results would be just what the “doctor” at GNC ordered.
Tony Shilling is researching copyright law, more or less. His specific topic is the dispute between Marvel Comics Inc and artists who sell single drawings of Marvel superheroes to individuals for a profit. In particular, he finds it counterintuitive that a contracted “Marvel artist” who spends his workday drawing, for example, Iron Man for Marvel would be sued by Marvel for drawing Iron Man for a kid at a comics convention. He claims in his White Paper that “copyright laws are set in stone” by which he presumably means they’re both rock-solid and certain. But it’s certainly worth a definition paper to prove that everybody knows what uses of the image of Iron Man are protected and what uses aren’t. As the plaintiff in a civil suit, Marvel will have to prove that what its artists do on their own time violates Marvel’s property rights and in some way damages the company. If he doesn’t produce it for a comic book, can the artist claim to be producing a “portrait” of Iron Man for the kid at the comic show?
Ally Hodgson is researching the classification of marijuana as a Schedule One drug. In effect, her entire paper is a Definition Essay. Her job will be to compare marijuana to the criteria for Schedule One classification and see if they match. Within the criteria are several opportunities for short papers about terms. Opponents of marijuana legalization will want to claim that dependence is addiction, so a clear medical distinction between the two would be very helpful to Ally’s paper. She can also spend 1000 words explaining how behavior can be federally illegal but legal within a state. It’s entirely counterintuitive to claim that I can be upholding and breaking the law at the same time for the same behavior in the same country. Finally, although it sounds completely self-explanatory, what exactly is abuse? Can the government ban a substance on the basis of abuse without clearly defining what the term means?
Dale Hamstra is writing about walking. He has made me happy already by sharing with us a familiar description of walking as “controlled falling.” Ever since I heard this description, I have paid attention to my own walking, constantly falling forward and breaking my fall with my forward leg. I have a surprising recommendation for Dale that may also kick-start his research process into the question: Why can we not walk in a straight line? Maybe Dale could define what a straight line is. In a room the size of a gymnasium, blindfolded test subjects would probably deviate from a target destination by more than a few feet. Picture Pin-the-Tail-on-the-Donkey on a bigger scale and without the pre-walk spinning. If we can’t hit the donkey after walking just 100 feet, surely we are doomed to walk in circles? For a blindfolded journey of 1 mile, how critical is a 2-foot deviation from “straight” in the first 100 feet? He could do multiple trials with single subjects to see if they always fail to the right or left. He could add aural aids like a beeping watch somewhere in the room. If the subjects know where the sound is relative to the target, is their performance improved?
Tikeena Sturdivant is researching Adrian Peterson’s provocative claim that he is a “40 million dollar slave.” This is a particularly counterintuitive definitional claim, and Tikeena’s paper will succeed or fail to the degree she argues the definition. Peterson is off to a bad start when the evidence he offers is that players lost money in a profit-sharing negotiation, since slaves don’t negotiate and don’t share in profits. Tikeena further claims that Peterson could “transfer to another team.” Certainly no slave could effect his own transfer, but here Peterson may be on solider ground. Teams “own” players’ “rights,” which to some degree invokes comparison with ownership of one person by another. Tikeena makes a chilling comparison herself that makes a pre-draft physical sound especially unappealing. A crystal-clear definition of what slavery is will of course be the right choice for Tikeena’s Definition Essay. Does it require confinement or physical constraint? Does it permit the owner to transfer ownership right (sounds eerily like the NFL, doesn’t it?)? Does compensation of any kind break the category? Sadly, the world, including the United States, still offers plenty of examples of real slavery. Mr. Peterson’s bombast may have some validity (in addition to metaphorical value) and still be deeply insulting to people suffering true slavery.
Marty Bell is writing about anabolic steroids. His white paper covers a multitude of topics, all designed, he says, to support his primary thesis that steroid use, whether legal or illegal, creates benefits to the sport of baseball that argue in favor of their regular use. So far, the only benefit he has named is the production of more home runs, which result from batters with increased muscle mass. While the big bombs may create interest in many fans, Marty might want to devote a paper to defining the simple concept: benefits of steroids to baseball. Without a clear description of that concept, he won’t have much of a paper. Will widespread steroid use truly result in more homers? Or will beefed-up pitchers generate enough additional pitch speed to make them unhittable? Does a bulkier player field any better, or does he slow down and get clumsier on the diamond? If all we want is more home runs, why not do what we’ve always done: make things tougher on pitchers? Bring in the fences, lower the mound, tighten the strike zone, enliven the ball, permit enriched bats? How long will fans be enchanted with big home run numbers when the whole race seems like a big cheat? These questions won’t help Marty define “benefits of steroids,” but they need to be considered before he claims that steroid use will deliver advantages worth the health risks.
Jon Otero is writing about the specific dangers of Qnexa, a drug promoted to fight obesity. He rightly points out that, whatever the dangers of the drugs that await FDA approval, it’s certainly not safe to be obese. When he claims that Qnexa is a “serious drug” advisable only to reverse obesity, not for casual dieters, he’s beginning to focus attention on a critical question: what’s riskier? the disease or the cure? Apparently he’s preparing to argue that the significant risks of Qnexa outweigh benefits for people who want to shed a few pounds, but are worth chancing for those already at serious health risk from obesity. If the project were mine, I’d be considering a short argument on which choice is more likely to kill or benefit the patient? This proposal may sound like a category dodge that tries to pass off a comparison paper as a definition paper, but I’d try to convince my professor that I’m actually defining an essential concept for my readers: of the two bad choices, which one offers “acceptable risk”? I’ll need considerable factual evidence of the comparable risks of being obese and taking the drug, but that’s what a research paper is all about.
Tyson Still is writing about the effect of divorce as a contributor to young people joining gangs. So far, there’s no indication from his white paper that he’s found any data to support this thesis. He has plenty of theories to share about what sort of love and support might be lacking in the lives of young people who end up in gangs, but the trouble for Tyson is that 50% of American marriages end in divorce, so the causal connection will be really hard to prove. I do have a recommendation that might be more fruitful in helping him focus. What about the percentage of gang members who come from single-parent households, or homes without fathers specifically? It might yield more immediate, more specific, more tangible, more provable results than guessing which gender is more affected by the lack of sufficient help from which parent. One strong source that proves something really specific will make a world of difference—with luck, enough of a difference to build a paper around. Find that source, Tyson.
Eddie Jahn is investigating a practice made famous in the book and movie, Moneyball, that baseball teams overpay for players who rack up stats that don’t win games while teams that buy bargain players with less flashy but more important statistical characteristics improve their teams’ winning percentages without bloating their payrolls. (Why he wants to include on his list of such teams that won World Series with role-players one that didn’t make it to the World Series is beyond me.) I can’t tell from his description of the 2002 Athletics whether the players he names (all very familiar nowadays) were no-name bargain players when they were hired or not, but I should be able to. In fact, the same failure of analysis is apparent in all the descriptions and gives me an idea for a really good definition essay. What’s the “winning stat” that these teams used to beat the teams that had overspent for “useless stats”? Relative payroll is just a small part of what makes this topic interesting. What’s fascinating is that deep analysis of the numbers gives a team an advantage in building a competitive team for less. I can always get great players cheap if I’m the first to notice their specific talents. So, what are the surprising stats that predict they’ll help me win? What were they for these teams?
Tabitha Corrao is researching alternatives to jail time for drug offenders. It appears to be her theory, adopted from the legislative opinions of some well-intentioned and perhaps quite correct experts, that therapy and rehab are better solutions to solving our drug problems than locking people up. The theory is attractive for many reasons, but judging from her Proposal with 5 Sources, Tabitha hasn’t yet established who gets jailed on drug charges, and what the charges are. This essential fact is crucial to any persuasive argument about alternatives to jail. If drug possessors and users are the primary offenders, they may well benefit from rehab, therapy, medication, hand-holding, employment, a supportive family, NA meetings, a holistic approach to civilian life. But if the jails are clogged with dealers, distributors, manufacturers, trafficers, smugglers, and murderers convicted of bumping off rival dealers, rehab is beside the point. Tabitha’s obvious choice for a definition essay is to define “drug offenders.” Until we know who she’s trying to help, we can’t judge whether her solutions make sense.
But What About Me, Too?
Want my best guess about your own topic while you work on this paper? Leave a comment below and I’ll add you to the section.
ASSIGNMENT SPECIFICS
GRADE DETAILS
I have chosen to research American obesity. In my research I believe that I will be able to prove that thorough proper government intervention and increased personal motivation, obesity can be prevented and sustained at its current levels. One of the major problems with fighting obesity comes from the fact that it is directly related to private, personal behaviors, unlike other medical issues. Although there are already some mediocre preventive methods such as “get fit plans,” the projects that will be sure to work efforts have not even begun. Such products include increasing the quality of food produced and supplied at intermediate schools and universities along with getting higher funding for fitness and health programs. Obesity is a growing problem, but also faces steady declines in some demographics of the world. I believe it can become sustained.
I will use the following sources to prove that the American public is no longer the world’s most obese nation and that the rest of the world is increasingly gaining weight:
This is a segment of a four part study that was produced by The Lancet, the world’s leading medical journal. It examines what was known about obesity, at the time the study was conducted, the economic and health burdens of obesity, the psychology behind it and the actions that need to be taken to prevent and end it. Although there are already some preventive methods such as “get fit plans,” the efforts have not even begun. Researchers have calculated the effects of behavior and different levels of policy intervention to come up with a preventative method to global obesity. Such include factors that will “..improve the food and built environments, cross-cutting actions (such as leadership, healthy public policies, and monitoring), and much greater funding for prevention programmes. Increased investment in population obesity monitoring would improve the accuracy of forecasts and evaluations. The integration of actions within existing systems into both health and non-health sectors (trade, agriculture, transport, urban planning, and development) can greatly increase the influence and sustainability of policies.”
I plan to use this source as a guiding factor in my research to talk about some of the ways we can help stop obesity.
This article discusses a study produced byThe Lancet, the world’s leading medical journal, that proves that America is not the world’s fattest nation.For years, Americans have been believing that they have been living in the world’s most obese country but, according to a study conducted by one of the world’s leading medical journals, The Lancet, America was never even in the top ten of the world’s fattest nations. America is just the worlds most industrialized nation, home to many fast food chains and large portion sizes; there are a significant number of fatter nations that have become this way due to the sudden introduction of American based products such as fast food chains and other processed food items. Obesity is measured through the body-mass-index (BMI), a system that calculates the amount of fat a person should have compared to their weight and height. The BMI states that anyone with a BMI over 25 is considered overweight. The Average BMI for the USA as a whole is 28.4, ranked 20th internationally. A noticeable decrease in the amount of overweight American women was acknowledged throughout the study. (Could this be due to media spins? Are they in fact having a positive impact on society, as opposed to the negative image “being thin” currently has?:: a section of my counterintuitive note) But, unfortunately, while the BMI for the American population has dropped substantially, it is not enough to say that America is slimming down. Sadly, the rest of the world is merely getting fatter.
I intend to use this article to describe how America is no longer the world’s fattest nation, how the “fat scale” is determined, and why.
This source was found through a quick search on Academic Search Premier. The article discusses BMC Public Health’s main goal: the discussion of how childhood obesity is a prominent issue. Childhood obesity effects not only a child throughout his or her childhood, but follows them for years to come. Thats why, according to the article, preventing obesity early on is very important. The research team established a prevention method, STOPP which was based on a similar Swedish program, CHH, combats creating a balanced diet, encouraging physical activity, and evenly distributed sleeping patterns.
How I intend to use this source: to show one of the ways we are currently working to prevent obesity.
The Scarsdale Diet was created by cardiologist Dr. Herman Tarnower and is one of the most effective international diet plans that allows users to loose up to 20 lbs in two weeks. It is a healthier alternative to other popular plans such as Atkins because it includes what they consider to be “complex carbohydrates” such as bread and fruit. The basis is healthy eating: limiting your intake of most carbs and eliminating others. The diet works by using a strict two week diet plan, and considerable exercise, followed by a week span of not dieting.
I plan to use this source as an example of one way we can prevent obesity, such as dieting.
First Lady Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move Program” focuses on getting kids to get out and get active. She targets healthy eating, as well. Her program is centered through TV networks favored by children across America such as the Disney Channel and Nickelodeon. The idea is to influence American children at a young age of healthy alternatives.
I will use this source to describe another program that is geared towards helping children get active and get healthy.
The article, written by Rogan Kersh and James Monroe, describes the politics of obesity and the seven steps that the government should take to prevent it. Despite previous thoughts, the American government has always been highly involved with the regulation of obesity. It is not just a recent phenomena. In 2001, Surgeon General David Satcher’s called for the American government and public to help fight obesity by saying that the obesity rate has reached epidemic proportions. The problem with fighting obesity is that, unlike other health problems, it comes from private behavior. So, the government was faced with an issue: how can they influence the public sphere? (counterintuitive note). According to the article, you can control private, personal environments through social disapproval, medical-science, self help, media spins, and the demon user and industry concepts. Another way the government can help prevent and maintain obesity is through mass movements in the political sphere, such as the introduction of more interest group action.
I intend to use this source, along with source one, to discuss the ways the government can influence obesity rates in America.
The Effects of Violence in Video Games
Topic Background: Controversy over the possible negative effects of violence in video games has been around almost as long as the medium itself. The first game to cause a significant outcry from the public was the arcade cabinet Death Race released in 1976. Despite the morbid name, the content was fairly pedestrian, especially by today’s standards: an 8-bit car runs over stick figures that turn into a gravestone when hit. Referring to these figures as “Gremlins” did little to assuage the fears of the public, and the game was scathingly reported on in magazines like the National Enquirer and Newsweek. 60 Minutes even did a investigative report on the psychological dangers of video games.
The next major instance of video game controversy happened in 1993, with the release of the game Mortal Kombat. The use of digitized models for the characters meant they looked much more realistic then any previous games, and this combined with more graphic violence then had been seen in a game before did not engender it well to the press. The backlash was so bad against this game that a Congressional Hearing was held to determine whether the video game industry should be regulated. This led to the creation of the Entertainment Software Ratings Board, an organization designed to give details on content and restrict the sale of the more objectionable games to minors. Regardless, many other games have come under fire for being too violent, and the controversy doesn’t appear to be going away any time soon.
So, naturally one would assume that violence in video games had a proven negative effect on viewers. However, this would be at best unproven and at worst entirely incorrect. While there are some studies that state that video game violence has an effect on behavior, there are also others that contradict this claim. Other studies posit it is not violence that causes changes in behavior, but some other factor that other studies did not control for. There is even a subset of studies dedicated to explaining why various other studies conflict and which provide more reliable data.
Counterintuitvity Note: Why do video games get such a reputation for causing violence and ruining lives, when there is a substantial amount of data conflicting with this view?
Results from Video Game Violence: Increased Aggression – The most common finding from studies that find a negative effect from violence in video games is increased aggression. Generally, the model is to have one experimental group play a violent video game, another play a non-violent game, and then use some sort of test for measuring aggression and comparing the average results. The timeframe in the studies I’ve examined almost always ranges from a few hours to a few weeks, with only a few examining the effects of months or years of video game playing. Important questions related to this include the following:
Results from Video Game Violence: Physical Violence And Other Crime – Has playing a violent video game actually contributed to any physical violence? The problem in finding even an example is that the media has repeatedly shown to be biased in this area. For example, after the Columbine shooting, the press erroneously reported that the two perpetrators had played large amounts of the game DOOM, even though this was later proven false. This also runs into the problem of finding out just how much influence the video game play actually had on any potential crime. One study did suggest that children that played violent video games were more likely to end up in jail, but I do not know if it controlled for any other variables that might have led to this result.
Results from Video Game Violence: Other – At this point, having not done any research into what separates a good study from a bad one, I can’t really speak on the reliability of their conclusions, and thus whether other effects exist. However, a few examples include: greater hand-eye coordination from violent video games — since violent video games also feature the most action, a greater willingness to donate money, and dehumanizing oneself and others after playing a competitive game.
The Role of Gender: Though most studies did not take gender into account, the few that did indicated that males are more likely to see an increase in aggression, and that females did not see any increase. This raises the question of what outside factors influence video game playing – if games do not raise aggression on their own, but rather trigger aggression in only a specific set of people, then that’s an important difference that should be controlled for.
The Role of Bias: On a completely different note, one study suggests that bias is leading researchers to either change testing methods so that they draw the conclusions they want, or just manipulate how they examine the data they’ve gathered. This study finds that there is a no link between video game play and aggression, and that playing the more action-oriented games (which is also generally those considered violent) actually improves visuospatial recognition.
Current State of the Paper: Very confused. Every time a read a new study it contradicts with another one. For example, searching for increased aggression led me to a study that completely concluded that it happened and persisted for hours after, then one that concluded that after three weeks there was no real change, then one that concluded it happens but wore off in 4 to 9 minutes, then one that concluded the effect persisted throughout 30 months, and so on.
Because of this contradiction, I’m having some trouble stating any factual claims in any areas. The first thing I’ll need to do is establish which studies can be trusted and which I can ignore, but the danger here is removing the studies that conflict with my own biases.
The general flow will probably be something like the following: An intro to the controversies surrounding video game violence (not long) – Which studies on violence in video games are good/relevant and why – What these studies show about the effects violence in video games (likely all about aggression and maybe crime, but I’ll consider other results once I know which studies are more accurate) – How different groups (gender, race, age) are effected differently (if at all)
Topics for Smaller Papers
What makes a strong study: Due to the wealth of conflicting reports, a vital topic is which studies provide more accurate or usable results. This paper would consist of taking a number of different studies and comparing their methodologies, trying to find the strengths and weakness of each. Ideally, this would give me some key points to look for in other studies that will allow me to sort through them easier.
How is aggression measured: Since increased aggression seems to be the key issue of debate, knowing how aggression is measured will be a great boon in understanding conclusions. This might be more of a side topic that I can cover in the research paper itself rather then a full sub paper, it depends on the results of my first smaller paper.
How do the effects of violent video games differ on children and adults: At this point I am unsure if there actually is a significant difference in their effect, but considering the popular refrain for the restriction of games is always along the lines of “We must protect the children,” it is an area worth looking in to. The problem will be in determining which studies on adults and children can safely be compared, as the wild divergence in results would mean that I’d need to compare similar valid studies to not have other variables interfere.
Topic Background Information (embryonic stem cell research):
First passed in 1996, the Dickey-Wicker Amendment prohibited any federal funding to research which destroyed human embryos. In response to this amendment was the famous Sherley v. Sebelious case which used a two-step approach, called a “Chevron” approach to determine if the amendment was reasonable and lawful. The Dickey-Wicker Amendment, as well as the Sherley v. Sebelious case, seems to be well hidden by a veil of ambiguity and legal jargon which stems from the moral dilemma facing the use of human embryos in research. President Obama’s proposal, which would move to overturn this amendment, thus allowing for the utilization of human embryos to conduct stem cell research was met with heavy criticism and viewed skeptically under the pretense that viable stem cell research can be conducted without the use of embryos.
However, in this paper I will show that stem cells derived from human embryos are not only more easily accessible but also yield a higher potential for research capabilities. My sources confirm that embryonic stem cell research is currently the most reliable means in the field of regenerative medicine including many types of cancers, neurological diseases, spinal injuries as well as even regeneration of lost limbs. Many of the lawmakers have only noted the seeming gruesome nature of the field while overlooking the obvious benefits. Stem cells have been proven to have the ability to rejuvenate damaged tissue as well as the creation of entirely new tissues and it is widely believed that these methods are superior to conventional methods because they carry a far less mild “risk-benefit profile”.
Effectiveness of Embryonic stem cells:
The effectiveness of ES cells can no longer be argued, it has been proven countless times that embryonic stem cells have the unique ability to regenerate damaged or lost tissues. By placing these stem cells near the damaged or missing tissue, the patient’s DNA takes over the blank cell and instructs it to duplicate the surrounding cells with surprising accuracy. Embryonic stem cells are the most effective type of stem cells because they are able to duplicate any and all cells from any tissue in the body, including neural tissue which was previously thought to be impossible. In the nearly two decades since the ban was placed on this type of research regenerative medicine has made huge leaps in bounds in both technology and practical application of medical knowledge, the potential of ES cells is truly limitless.
Why Use Embryonic Cells:
There are many innovative ways to derive stem cells from tissues, including the derivation of cells from the living host, these methods are allowed according to the Dickey-Wicker Amendment but are not as effective as the derivation of cells from an embryo. These methods are considered moral because they do not destroy any tissue, coinciding with a crucial pillar of medicine which is “Primum non nocere” or “first do no harm”. However, embryonic stem (ES) cells are different from other stem cells in that they are far more pluripotent, in that they are able to give rise to all types of tissues across all three germ layers when allowed to differentiate. Other methods are harvesting stem cells do not yield these results and are therefore inferior to embryonic harvest.
Counterintuitivity Note:
The counterintuitive nature of the stem cell debacle is the fact that just because one stage of the research process destroys an embryo, it is not given adequate funding despite the potential to save millions of lives. Due to ill-informed congressmen involved and outdated morality we allow millions to die. It is counterintuitive that a deceased “human” embryo, which will be disposed of regardless, is protected in such a way that allows countless other humans to live with limited mobility or on the edge of impending death.
Results of Unjust Laws and Skewed Morality:
As I touched on earlier, the main reason for which embryonic stem cell research has been dismissed is the moral factor of using human derived cells. Not given the proper tools to evaluate the science behind this type of research, many reject embryonic stem cell research because it involves destroying a human embryo. However according to current abortion laws an embryo is not living and its role in research this may lead to saving lives. Embryonic stem cell research is viewed in an immoral light because its benefits versus moral implications have not been accurately evaluated.
Potential Uses of Embryonic Stem Cells:
According to US News Health, there is an incredible range of diseases and ailments that stem cells stand to cure in the very near future. Among these is heart disease which is currently the number one cause of death in this country. Also listed are diabetes, lung diseases and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig’s disease). Given the funding this field of regenerative medicine stands to cure or ease the burdens of almost everything ranging from arthritis to severe and debilitating spinal cord injuries.
Topics for Smaller Papers:
There are a few different directions that I could go with this, one of which is examine purely the argument whether or not destroying an embryo is destroying a human juxtaposed to the abortion laws which do not consider an embryo living. Another approach for a smaller paper is narrowing down my argument as purely moral or purely scientific. One other paper might be detailing the legal issues this type of research has faced.
Current State of the Research Paper:
My research paper is still mainly in the research phase, as there is so much conflicting information on the topic and I discover something new nearly every time I do more research. I do have the general format of my paper figured out which will flow from background information, to the legality of it, examining the morality of it briefly before delving into the necessity of embryonic stem cell research, noting the many diseases it stands to cure and why it is superior to other methods. I also still need more information on the legal side of things.
Pending your feedback I will start the full paper. As of now I have very few subtopics compared to the polio white paper but I will expand upon these thoroughly, I have tried to avoid “fluff” material which gave me a little less volume. I can howver always add more subtopics in exchange for some depth if that would be better.
THE TOPIC BACKGROUND: THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT
The Controlled Substances Act instated in 1970 is a piece of drug regulation legislation we still use today. This act organizes almost any prescription or illegal drug you can think of into categories. The categories are defined by the following terms: “A controlled substance is placed in its respective schedule based on whether it has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States and its relative abuse potential and likelihood of causing dependence.”
Marijuana is a schedule one drug. A schedule one drug is described as, “hav[ing] a high potential for abuse, have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and there is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.” Schedule one drugs may not be prescribed for any medical purposes. Examples of other schedule one drugs are: heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), peyote, and ecstasy.
Schedules 2-5 can be prescribed. Each schedule has different levels of potential for abuse. Schedule two drugs, for example morphine, have the highest potential that are still prescribed; while schedule five drugs, for example Lunesta, have the lowest.
MARIJUANA’S SCHEDULE ONE CONTROVERSY
Marijuana has been controversial since it was placed in the schedule one category in 1970. The Nixon administration said they did not think it could be something people could be dependent on and therefore not a schedule one or two drug. However, since substantial research had not been done about marijuana at that time, they placed it temporarily in schedule one.
SERIOUS EFFORTS TO RESCHEDULE MARIJUANA: TOPIC FOR A SMALLER PAPER
The Controlled Substances Act called for a commission to study marijuana. The National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse recommended marijuana be decriminalized.
The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws gathered a petition to reschedule marijuana. The U.S. Court of Appeals made the government properly process this petition after the government’s refusal to do so. The Administrative Law Judge ruled marijuana had accepted medical use and recommended it to be rescheduled to schedule two.
MARIJUANA HAS ACCEPTED MEDICAL USE
The Administrative Law Judge felt “therapeutic use of cannabis was recognized by a respected minority of the medical community.”
“The National Institute of Medicine and the World Health Organization have both concluded that the effects of marijuana are relatively benign and that there is ‘no convincing evidence of biological harm, psychological impairment, or social dysfunction.'”
Studies show marijuana can help with nervous system functioning, neuronal development, memory, learning, food intake, pain, and inflammation. Marijuana can also help protect the brain in cases of Parkinson’s, MS and even brain cancer.
MARIJUANA DOES NOT HAVE “HIGH POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE”
Marijuana is unlike many of the other schedule one drugs in that it cannot be overdosed. Marijuana can cause some dependence but it is less than that of alcohol and tobacco. It is also almost incomparable to the dependence users of cocaine or heroin experience. Studies do show marijuana activate reward pathways in the brain but they also show this is not addictive.
LEGALIZATION
Marijuana is legal in some states but it’s still federally illegal, therefore people “legally” buying and selling marijuana can be arrested.
COUNTERINTUITIVITY NOTE:
I believe this subject is counterintuitive because schedule one drugs portrayed as so bad but marijuana is not as bad as them.
Also, we see marijuana as this big, bad drug but it’s really not as bad as we think.
Topic Background: Dietary supplements are created and made to help better the users health in either muscle growth, weight loss, and many other different ways to better their health. The FDA doesn’t classify these dietary supplements as a drug, but as a special category in food. It’s manly its own actual category as a supplement For a supplement to be a supplement it must include certain characteristics. Based on the information given to me from the website from the National Institute of Health on their background information on Dietary Supplements and streetdrugs.org, A dietary supplement is intended to supplement the diet, includes one or more vitamins, minerals, herbs or other botanicals, amino acids, and other substances including enzymes, organ tissues, glandulars, and metabolites, or their constituents. They must also be taken by mouth as a pill, capsule, tablet, or liquid and be labeled as a dietary supplement on the bottle.
Since dietary supplements aren’t included as a drug then they don’t have to be tested before sale for safety. They can be produced and put on the market saying it helps in a certain way, but the manufacturers do not have to give actual evidence of this claim that the product makes. These rules give a very loose restriction to the manufacturers and can ultimately cause many problems to occur and for there to be hidden information about the product and its side effects. An example of one of these instances was the problem with the supplement Ephedra.
The Ephedra supplement was produced and sold to be a weight loss dietary supplement. It was very effective and caused great weight loss in the users at the cost of very severe side effects. The drug caused very damaging side effects such as strokes, heart attacks, high blood pressure, seizures, and has even caused many deaths. This drug was then completely banned in 2004 for its terrible side effects and dangerous consequences of use.
Counterituitive Note: Ephedra being a supplement that is suppose to help with weight loss and make people healthier is causing severe health issues and death to the users of the product. The health dangers of a product that is suppose to help make you healthier is quite head scratching.
Classifications and Labeling of A Dietary Supplements: Dietary supplements can be classified as including the characteristics I named before that must be included in its ingredients, labeling, or make, but there are some more rules to this classification. There are only three types of claims that a dietary supplement can make such as a health claim, nutrition content claim, or a structure/function claim. The labels on the dietary products must include the following information. They need to have its name stating it’s a supplement along with it, its quantity in the container, manufacturers name, and directions of use. It must also label the serving size, if it has a botanical property, proprietary blend, and other ingredients that are non dietary ones such as fillers and sweeteners.
Ephedra Ingredients: Epehdra comes from the plant Ephedra which is a shrub found in desert regions such as central Asia. Ephedra contains the herbal form of Ephedrine which is a drug used in asthma medicine. It contains the alkaloids ephedrine and psuedoephedrine which are amphetamines-like compounds. This causes the severe stimulant effect of the Ephedra. A supplement with Ephedra in it called 3-Andro Xtreme follows these ingredients: Serving size: 1 cap 2-3 times daily 100 milligrams 4-Androstenediol 100 mg 5-Androstenediol 100 mg 19-Norandrostenedione 200 mg Caffeine 400 mg Ephedra Extract 8% 100 mg L-Phenylalanine 100 mg L-Tyrosine. When checked it does meet the minimum requirements to be classified a supplement. If you notice though it contains Ephedra a high stimulation component along with caffeine another high stimulant.
Dangers of Ephedra: The high stimulant effect of Ephedra causes many dangers with the heart. the side effects including high blood pressure, irregularities in heart rate, insomnia, nervousness, tremors and headaches, seizures, heart attacks, strokes and even death. The mixture of this high stimulant product with such things as caffeine can also cause these same problems to occur because of the high stimulant effectiveness from it. Also mixtures with certain drugs can cause terrible problems that lead to death in the users. The over stimulation of the product leading to death is not worth the fifteen or twenty pounds you’ll lose. As in the product I used above 3-Andro Xtreme, it has been proven and stated that Ephedra alone is a dangerous stimulant and mixed with more stimulation is dangerous, this product has both caffeine and the Ephedra which is a heart attack or death just waiting to happen.
Helpful uses of Ephedra product: Ephedra may be a terrible product for weight loss, but it does have some pros. It is used in asthma medicine to help patients with breathing problems. It also can help with major weight loss. Those are the only two pluses to the use of Ephedra in any products, but it’s many harmful side effects aren’t worth it.
Loose Regulations of Dietary Supplements: The FDA doesn’t regulate the supplements and check them for safety before sale. They can be put out on the market without being tested for harmful side effects. The supplement manufacturers have to make sure what they say their product does actually does follow that claim, but there doesn’t have to be shown evidence of this. In this case it sounds like you could just lie about what your product does and not have to give visual tested evidence of your claim. The checking for safety after sales have been made is very hard when it was proven that manufacturers were hiding some of their reports of unwanted side effects from their supplements. also the loose regulation on labeling allows manufacturers to hide contents to their ingredients, and even some supplements have been confused to what is exactly in them based on multiple different ingredient labels.
Current State of Research Paper: Based on my research and findings on the dietary supplements I have found a couple of interesting points. The first being the loose regulations allows for a wide range of loop holes to be taken by the manufacturer to sell a possibly dangerous supplement. It can cause ingredients to be hidden from some users, by not exactly labeling all that is in the product. I have also found that from the banned supplement Ephedra, the products it was contained in met the loose qualifications and labeling that supplements have to meet.
The only problem is it doesn’t explain the dangers of how Ephedra is a very highly stimulant supplement and contains a strong amphetamine component. This amphetamine causes the high stimulation of Epehdra which makes the heart race and causes all the high blood pressure and heart attack problems. I can also see how the lack of warning about this high stimulation can be mixed with caffeine from drinks or other sources causing the heart to race faster and causing more drastic problems that have been seen. The high stimulation can be a cause for the insomnia, racing heart beat and eventual death from the heart being worked to hard and too fast especially when mixed with high caffeine or other high stimulated products, or even over the counter drugs.
i have overall found the source to the problem with the ephedra supplement, and even though met the requirements of a supplement when the manufacturers used it in their product, the amphetamine component in it caused the severe side effects. the amphetamine component along with the loose regulations of supplements made it easy for such a product to be out on the market and sold. Many Deaths and terrible heart problems along with other side effects were allowed to happen until later investigation of the supplement, due to these flaws in how supplements are created by the manufacturers and regulated by the FDA.
THE TOPIC BACKGROUND: AFFIRMATIVE ACTION:
The Affirmative Action Act was initially signed by John F. Kennedy on March 6, 1961. Its purpose was to lead the United States of America towards being a “discrimination free” nation. In the years to come policies advocating hiring without regard to race, religion and gender came out of the nation’s capital. For its time, Affirmative Action, it did what it was supposed to. Providing minorities with employment and acceptance to universities was the main goal. This was achieved through the use of quotas.
The quota system, which is still used today, ensures that in any establishment with open positions (whether it be a place of employment or one of higher learning), everyone is represented and has an equal opportunity to acquire that position(s). Therefore, these places are supposed to have certain amounts of different kinds of people.
When Affirmative Action was created, the nation was blanketed in racial tension. This racial tension needed to be addressed by the government, and the policies of Affirmative Action were the result.
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE POLICIES:
The ability of Affirmative Action to achieve greater parity in hiring is not disputed. In fact the “over action” of affirmative action is what many have problems with. Since its creation, positions have been filled by people of all sorts of backgrounds, from different races to different genders. However, this is where the complaints start. Now that employers and colleges are required to fill “racial quotas,” there have been many reported cases in which less qualified individuals have been chosen over more qualified individuals in an attempt to satisfy the affirmative action policies. And now the counterintuitive aspect of affirmative action surfaces…
COUNTERINTUTIVITY NOTE:
The initial need for affirmative action was spawned by the discrimination that ran the country. That means that the purpose of affirmative action was to eliminate discrimination. Unfortunately, many years later, affirmative action is causing the discrimination it once looked to destroy, but in the reverse. As a specific example, there was court case in which a student sued the University of Michigan for being denied based on her race. In short, the number of caucasians to be accepted for the term had been met, so even though she was well qualified for the position she was rejected acceptance. Instead the seat was given to a minority that the school needed to fill a quota. The term reverse discrimination was created to explain this occurrence. Instead of being denied because she was white, she was denied because she wasn’t a minority. Thus, discrimination is still in existence!
RESULTS OF REVERSE DISCRIMINATION: UNFAIR ACCUSATIONS
In the University of Michigan case, someone in the admissions office had to deny the girl a seat in the class. That unknown person, perhaps a black man, perhaps a white woman, was unfairly accused of racism against caucasians for correctly following mandated affirmative action policies. Energy wasted on attacking the person who implements the policy should be directed instead towards changing the policies to benefit everyone equally, not just minorities.
RESULTS OF REVERSE DISCRIMINATION: INCREASED RACIAL TENSION
In a source that can be found in my proposal post (number 5), racial tension that comes from reverse discrimination is outlined. The basic idea is that when people know they are rejected because a minority is needed to fill a quota, they might in return begin to dislike the minority that got the position instead. This can be the beginning of racist feelings that would never have came to be without affirmative action. In today’s society, being racist is not the “social norm” like it was when affirmative action was created. However, just like the paragraph above, animosity is directed at the wrong individuals. This time it is the alternative recipient of the position and not the one offering the position. In both cases this negative energy could be used to do something about what they find to be unfair on a political level.
OTHER NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION:
Reverse discrimination is only one negative aspect of affirmative action. In reality there are negative effects that affect even the minorities that the policies defend. In work environments it is common for minorities to be looked upon as inferiors by coworkers who believe they only got the position because of race quotas (of course not everyone feels this way). Unfortunately, the policies of affirmative action can also demean minority achievement. Of course many of these achievements came from hard work but it is common to see people discounting that work, claiming it was only done with the help of affirmative action. This of course was not a wanted result of affirmative action, but through the years, these suspicions have surfaced. I do believe that the end of affirmative action would certainly bring the necessary admiration for achievement in the minority communities.
Another negative side effect of affirmative action is the lowering of standards for minorities. For example, if the normal accepted GPA of Rowan University is 3.3 (I chose this arbitrarily) but a minority can get into the school with a 2.8, that student might not be as determined to succeed. Of course the standards of a university are gauged according to the work that will be part of the schooling, so someone admitted with a lower GPA may struggle with the workload to come.
Lastly (at least for this white paper, for now), is how incredibly hard removing the policies of affirmative action would be. Since many do depend on the laws set up through affirmative action, it would be virtually impossible to eliminate them from society. This leads me to my proposal…
PROPOSAL FOR THE FUTURE:
Obviously in the United States the affirmative action policies are based on race and gender. This forces us to acknowledge the differences in people, and make decisions based on those differences. Personally, I believe the policies should be based on economic standing. In France, for example, economic class is what determines how much representation an individual receives. This ensures all underprivileged people are helped, instead of just those that are minorities.
THOSE WHO BACK AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
I realize that in order to support my claims I will have to refute what the competition believes in an academic manner. Many that believe the policies of affirmative action do more good than bad. I, on the other hand, hope to prove the opposite through all of the topics listed above, and possibly more?
TOPICS FOR SMALLER PAPERS:
My overall topic out of the many negative effects of affirmative action is the reverse discriminating aspect. It would make sense that the first small paper be a definitional claim paper to set up later papers. That way I can introduce the topic and inform my reader. I would also like to write a proposal claim paper, where I would talk about implementing a system like the French. If any of these ideas end up not working out, an evaluation/comparison claim paper can also be written, where the United States system would be evaluated and compared to that of the French.
CURRENT STATE OF THE RESEARCH PAPER:
At the moment, I have only done research, the proposal, and now the white paper. However, as I have thought about this paper I have written ideas on how to organize and present my information. Just like this white paper, the research paper and overall conclusions to be drawn are all works in progress. I plan to begin writing as soon as I get a good amount of approval from this white paper.
Even while I write I will continue to read on the subject, and “tweak” my paper as necessary. For example, I need to do more research on those that back affirmative action. That research could yield a completely different view of affirmative action as a whole…
Church doctrine requires every temple baptism to be on record, however,”The Church has no way of knowing whether a person has accepted the baptism and thus does not consider such persons Church members.”
 | levixvice on Only Abuse |
 | Lunaduna on Only Abuse |
 | cfalover on Counterintuitivity |
 | chickendinner on Card Hypothesis |
| chickendinner on Card Hypothesis |
 | anonymousgirl116 on 02 Class WED JAN 27 |
| anonymousgirl116 on 02 Class WED JAN 27 |
 | davidbdale on PTSD Claims-JohnWick66 |
| davidbdale on Causal Rewrite- compIIstudent |
| davidbdale on Rebuttal Rewrite-CompIIstudent |
612119d
bluntwriting88
capched
cardinal7218
cfriery
chavanillo
Chris McGee
christianity19
clementine102
comicdub
compiistudent
corinnebuck1219
daphneblake25 davidbdale
dayzur
g903254
gabythefujoshi18
goldin92
gooferious
hailthegreat8
hazelnutlatte123
honeysucklelilac
icedcoffeeislife
imgoingswimming
iwantpopsicle
doorknob9
BabyGoat
jeffbezos123
jets1313
johnwick66
justheretopass
kobebryant32
kowiklinski
l8tersk8ter
aquarela
metro111c
mrmba1
mysterylimbo
nina525
nousernamefound1
nyaj32
oaktree1234
pardonmyfrench13
person345
pomegranate4800
Jessicariccio
rosekyd
rowanrat
rowanstudent24
runnerd4
shadowswife
SmilingDogTheProfWants
sonnypetro29
tcarter101
thecommoncase
wafflesrgud22
wazoo1234
yourfavoriteanon
Counterintuitivity 