Research- yourfavoriteanon

Posted on April 22, 2019 by yourfavoriteanon

Growing Up Through Video Games

When I was little, video games were becoming more and more popular in society. Of course, my parents and many other adults would tell us about how much of a waste of time they were or how they were going to turn our brains into mush. I never listened to them because I felt passionate about video games and I couldn’t just give them up. Balancing school work and playing video games never gave me a hard time. Studying would have been a good way to spend my time but I wasn’t much interested in school or what work we had to do. Starting high school, I knew I wanted to find something other than video games to focus on during my free time and what better to do than sports.

 

Being physically active was something that I wanted to start trying because before that I was just a couch potato. Blaming video games for my laziness would be silly because that was all I knew and all I was interested in. I really wanted to play a sport but I didn’t know which one to play. My final decision of football was finalized on me wanting to learn the game because I knew it was so popular. Football was very competitive and it was a long and hard journey for me because I knew if I wanted to become great, I would need to be assertive. The beginning two years for me consisted of me getting stronger and learning the game.

 

Something new was a great change for me but I never could drop video games completely. I believed they helped me escape into my own worlds and sparked my imagination. Not only that, they helped me learn valuable lessons that would help me throughout my football career and life and showed me how to compete. Game designers could easily relate that to staring a new video game. A consistent strategy I would use to learn how to play a video game would be to test out all the buttons to understand the controls to learn as I go before advancing into the game. This is also what I used during football because I would test out certain exercises that would show me limitations and help me narrow down on which position I would play.

 

Outside linebacker became my favorite position and the grind was hard but rewarding. Whenever I was stuck on a level or mission, on a video game, I’d think it over and keep trying till I beat it. This resiliency helped transition me into the challenges I faced during football. I started small and skinny but I pushed through till I became bigger, faster, and stronger. For the OLB position, I needed to be quick with reaction time or I would be blown off the ball by a lineman. Playing shooters and fast-paced video games helped me react quickly without having to think. Being able to shoot out of my stance as soon as the ball was snapped was important to every play. Multiplayer games helped me with better team communication and gave me the confidence to create better chemistry with my team. A team with great chemistry is a team not to be reckoned with.

 

Single player games show players different lives and emotions that are reflected in the real world. Multiplayer games and cooperative games promote teamwork and the importance of trusting in your teammates. These skills needed and gained for playing video games originated and real games like dominoes or card games. According to Dr. Randy Kulman, “Researchers in Italy, led by Sandro Franceschini, found that 12 hours of playing action video games (selected action-based mini games from Rayman Raving Rabbids ) resulted in more improvement in reading fluency than 1 year of traditional reading training.” Children can learn basic skills way faster through video games rather than traditional methods. The big difference that not many people acknowledge or see in videos games and board games is that video games are a lot more expansive in critical thinking. Board games are super limited to what the player can do and what decisions you make and video games can be the same. Although, video games add more of a pressure to think about what’s to do next because video games can range from the most linear storylines to the most open world, “the player decides” games.

 

Choosing from the first person games to the third person games all depends on preference. Those aren’t the only two types of games but they have proved to be the most popular. Choosing either third or first person, changes making decisions for the character either for the story or to gain rewards. Rewards come in experience points, in-game currency, or even more content to play. The entertainment value of gaining a reward is a big part of why video games are popular but what’s not always acknowledged is what the player can learn from it all.

 

The common mindset adults preach to kids and people becoming more responsible is to work hard for what they want. The decisions one makes in life can not only affect them but the people around them. Nobody’s perfect, as much of a cliche that is, but what helps us is learning from our mistakes and failures to become better or stronger as a person. Video games have a mutual connection to these lessons by making a player grind for what they want. Boiling video games down to the simplest of concepts, the objective is to get better at the said game as well as progress further.

 

Goals and checkpoints in the games work as milestones for the player to show them where they are at and how far they are to the end. Some games, such as some multiplayer games, don’t have a definite end because the developers want gamers to keep on playing. The obvious reason for this is because it brings them more money but that doesn’t mean consumers can’t take anything out from it. A popular single player/multiplayer game, Destiny, gives the player a story but also allows them to continue playing in multiplayer raids and other missions. This gives players the want for better loot and to play more.

 

Since Destiny is a single or multiplayer game, it encourages people to play with others to play for better chances of loot drops and to make the mission easier. Destiny greatly promotes the importance of teamwork. Explained in the Chicago Weekend, “Team work. The game contains threeplayer strikes and six-player raids, requiring communication and teamwork.” Simple lessons like teamwork can help a kid learn to work with people. As long as there is something to play for, there will be something to gain. People don’t just play video games to learn about life but they are great representations of outlets that teach kids and any other gamers important things in life.

 

Growing up as a frequent gamer, I have heard all the excuses for me to stop playing. Whether it was about how video games will fry my brain to how video games will hurt my eyes, but no matter what I kept playing. At the time, I never thought about the big picture and how video games affected me physically, mentally, and emotionally. All my friends played video games, but we had a healthy dose of outdoor play as well. My diet wasn’t great, but I was a kid. Schoolwork wasn’t a big priority when I was little so as long as I had decent grades (C’s and B’s) I didn’t think too much about video games affecting my school work. What I never realized until I was older was the way video games shaped me and what they taught me about life. As we mature growing up, we start to see how our upbringings affected who we are today. Playing video games frequently not only causes an increase in better decision making but it allows the player to learn different values from each game. Not all games have this effect, but most storytelling or multiplayer games do.

 

After completing a day of hard grinding on Ubisoft’s first-person shooter game, Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six Siege, I know I have honed my skills in the game and also, it’s a reflection of the real world. Whether on the attacking or defending side, the player has to be mindful of every movement they make and what strategy they decide. Working with teammates is the key to survival and victory. One false move and the team could be taken care of by the enemy team or the clock could run down until there’s no more time left. I was able to learn more on competitiveness, teamwork, attention to detail, and deciding what should be the next move under pressure. Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six Siege is one of the thousands of game titles that keeps people sharp, on their toes, and ready for the unexpected. I was able to translate the skills learned from video games to my football career in high school. Daphne Bavelier and her colleagues at the University of Rochester, New York, have been able to test and show results of how action video games improve decision making compared to non-players. “The researchers asked 11 video-game players and 12 non-players to determine the overall direction of a group of randomly moving dots. In another experiment, the volunteers had to identify with which ear they heard a tone concealed in white noise. In both cases, the players gave accurate answers faster than the non-players. According to the authors, this enhanced ‘probabilistic inference’ explains why video games, unlike other activities that train for specific tasks, can improve performance in tasks not specifically related to gameplay.” This explains how video games can improve our skills without us specifically focusing on a certain skill to work on. The evidence also shines the light towards gamers having better reaction times and quicker perceptions.

Developers create video games from their own creative image and take inspiration from others. Video games were made for entertainment and something to do in the free time so it comes as a surprise that we can learn from them and apply what we learned to real life. Whether it’s a multiplayer shooter or an action-adventure telling a story, lessons can be learned from those experiences in the game. It simulates living a different life in another world and changes perspectives from the character and player in the game. Living through another person’s experiences allows the player to learn from their mistakes and define what should be the right and wrong thing to do in life through interactions. Some could say that playing video games can allow us to learn from our failures without true real-world consequences. I agree with that because anybody can translate what they’ve learned from the virtual experiences and apply this knowledge into the real world. Killing bad guys and saving the world can’t really help someone learn or get smarter but it is the skills they use to actually complete the game itself that does.

 

Communication is a skill that is used all the time in the real world and in multiplayer games. Headsets or microphones aren’t actually required but they are very helpful for talking to teammates. Also, talking to teammates isn’t always necessary in the game to communicate. Nowadays games are implementing default callouts that the player can activate via button inputs or pinging systems that allow the player to mark a certain area of interest. These are substitutions for talking but nothing beats voice communication when a gamer is focused on the objective. Talking and working with teammates strengthens and reflects communication in the real world whether it is working with classmates, teachers or coworkers at a job.

 

Completing levels or grinding to level up isn’t always as easy as it seems in games. It can get frustrating and being able to be adaptive to situations will help greatly. If the team captured the flag and the player was eliminated while holding the flag, the player has to be able to change the strategy and adapt to win. The real world throws various challenges around in different ways and it is necessary to have an adaptive attitude to overcome them. Video games allow us to test situations out to understand the outcomes so we can reflect on them and learn for the real world. Green & Bavelier explained perfectly how positive video game learning doesn’t just happen in a snap. “Game playing may not convey an immediate advantage on new tasks (increased performance from the very first trial), but rather the true effect of action video game playing may be to enhance the ability to learn new tasks.” Learning new skills from video games is definitely different from getting better at the skills someone already has. Although, being able to learn something new when playing is even greater. From Xbox to PlayStation to PC, all these consoles hold the capacity to enhance someone’s capability in this world without them even noticing. All it takes is one try at video games and anyone could be branched off into another universe. No matter how fictional the game is there could always be something gained from playing.

Expectations are a bunch of risky beliefs. Lending trust into something in which the result is unknown isn’t the smartest and could lead to unexpected failure. If I were to expect that everyone would believe video games improved life skills and decision making, I’d be a fool. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, as the cliché saying states, but facts clear up opinions. Some could say video games deteriorate one’s decision making by causing impulsive reactions that cause the gamer to act rather than think before. People could also say that they separate the player from reality, resulting in the inability to remember life skills or to utilize them correctly by causing addiction and nonstop play. However, these are both wrong inclinations about video games and though someone can find some truths to these arguments, they are incorrect. The process is all affected by the player’s actions and what they choose to improve on from gaming. When playing video games, we use a multitude of skills and thoughts while we are moving through the storyline or trying to win the round. Every game has something to take from it, but the prospect of addiction comes in when these games are played too much, and the player is no longer capable of dissociating themselves from the games and real life.

This is where the person’s choices come in as to how they wish to use their time to benefit from these games. Many of the games that are labeled as addictive also have good things that allow people to take aspects of the game and implement things that they took from them into their daily lives. This doesn’t include any of the violent matters that video games can be known for, this consists of the concept of learning life lessons that wouldn’t have been learned easily in life. In strategy games, it is necessary to be able to think under mass amounts of pressure and after a while of learning how to do that in a video game, one’s brain soon implements that into its abilities, allowing for that person to then be able to make decisions under pressure normally, without having had to go through that lesson in their life. Gabbiadini & Greitemeyer explain how the decisions made in the video game will help us with decisions in real life by learning harmless consequences. “Playing strategy video games encourages setting clearly defined goals, thinking ahead and choosing strategic methods to achieve specific outcomes. Players have to evaluate and compare results with their goals, and evaluate their actual and future actions.” Think about how someone may improve on a certain skill. They have to keep working on it until they get better at it, right? Correct, but people also need to dissociate themselves from training on that skill for their brain to subconsciously mull over the subject for improvement. Problems will always arise with not being able to use skills learned from a video game if we never stop playing. Having the correct mindset that it’s only a game will help disconnect from it but also reflect on how we can improve on it.

Effective decision making is important in the world because it’s what helps land that perfect job or the future could turn out. When playing a strategy video game, deciding what the next move is can cost the game. Saying that video games cause impulsive decisions is incorrect. At the start of a game, one might be impulsive because they are learning the ropes but after they start to catch on to the game’s mechanics, they start to think on when or where they should take that knowledge to next in the game. In games that force the player to decide what their choice of action is next, players usually learn to think before they act so they don’t mess up their game. Multiplayer games are a big example of games that force the player to decide wisely on what their next action is. Playing with a team makes the players think about what is best for their team and what will lead them to a win.

It is common knowledge that hasty decisions making doesn’t always create efficient outcomes. This can include how people spend money, or the increased impulsiveness or aggression in social environments due to not thinking through how to deal with certain issues. This is how some people think video games will affect people, but the truth is the increase in decision-making time doesn’t actually affect the significance of the decisions made. We have seen that despite the lessened amount of time that has been seen in the gamer’s decision making they are still using good judgment to make adequate choices. Mohan et al. conducted a research to see the difference in results given by educational video games versus traditional educational apps to conclude whether or not the tested physicians would have improved decision making in a trauma triage setting. “In this randomized clinical trial, physicians exposed to a video game intervention were more likely to follow clinical practice guidelines in the triage of simulated trauma patients than physicians exposed to a traditional educational program” They are learning faster and deciding quicker without negative repercussions. The physicians showed positive results to the video games adding an easier way for them to improve on their triage decision making. Decision making in a clinical setting is of obvious importance, but we need it for most of our daily interactions.

Playing games for too long is obviously unhealthy. In order for the brain to improve or get something out of playing video games, it needs to step out of it. It is up to the player to decide where or when to stop in their game and that should be their disconnect to reality. The only way the player can reflect on the game they play and take something important from them is to stop playing. Playing all the time will give them no improvement because all they will become is better at the game. Video game addiction is a real thing and it does messes up schedules, relationships or even jobs but that addiction isn’t unlike an addiction to drugs. Drug abuse and video game abuse is the cause of addictions to these outlets but with the correct knowledge and handling, addiction will not be an issue. It’s always important to plan out the day and if there is free time to play video games, set a certain amount of time to play, so getting carried away isn’t a problem. After the amount of time is up, check to see if it would be alright for the schedule or healthy to continue playing before jumping in.

References

A date with destiny: Video games teach kids life lessons. (2017, ). Chicago Weekend.https://bit.ly/2XNvQTH

Gabbiadini, A., & Greitemeyer, T. (2017). Uncovering the association between strategy video games and self-regulation: A correlational study. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 129-136. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.07.041  https://bit.ly/2CMnkvj 

Gaming the brain. (research about action video games’ effect on a person’s decision making ability)(brief article). (2010). Nature, 467(7313), 254.  https://bit.ly/2HH11eO

Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2012). Learning, attentional control, and action video games.Current Biology, 22(6), R197-R206. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2012.02.012 https://bit.ly/2IROuFb

Kulman, R. (2014). Playing smarter in a digital world: A guide to choosing and using popular video games and apps to improve executive functioning in children and teens, based on the LearningWorks for kids model. Plantation, Florida: Specialty Press/A.D.D. Warehouse.  https://bit.ly/2F4tCIp

Mohan, D., Farris, C., Fischhoff, B., Rosengart, M. R., Angus, D. C., Yealy, D. M., . . . Barnato, A. E. (2017). Efficacy of educational video game versus traditional educational apps at improving physician decision making in trauma triage: Randomized controlled trial. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 359, j5416. doi:10.1136/bmj.j5416 https://bit.ly/2uBudez

Posted in Portfolio YourFavoriteAnon, x Research Position Paper, yourfavoriteanon | 4 Comments

Research- doorknob9

Posted on April 22, 2019 by doorknob9

Loyal fans, and those followers that may stay true to a team for no apparent reason, will often support their quarterback under any circumstances. Painting one’s face blue and cheering shirtless in 20 degree weather is quite a noble act. This, however, does not change a team’s facts and statistics, nor does it define their quarterback. Take the LA Rams, for example. They made it to the playoffs in January 2019 and there are some that would say it was the quarterback, Jared Goff, that got them there. When they made it to the Superbowl, this gave those loyal fans even more bragging rights, but it is clear that Jared Goff is the worst NFC West quarterback to make it to a Super Bowl.

In Super Bowl 53, the Rams tied up the record for fewest points earned in a Super Bowl. They share this title with the Miami Dolphins from Super Bowl 6. It takes a pretty weak quarterback to make that happen. It was Jared Goff’s myriad of mistakes during the Super Bowl that caused such an embarrassing low score. For example, when Cooks was wide open, Goff throws the ball half a second too late and the pass is incomplete, Riley McAtee tells us in their article “Jared Goff Had the Worst Game of His Life on the Biggest Stage”, written only a day after the game on February 4th, 2019. Then he did some sort of head bob that landed him a false start. There were so many mistakes made in that game, that even the biggest and most loyal Rams fan must succumb to the facts and admit that Goff is the worst NFC West quarterback to make it to a Super Bowl.

Some loyal fans may use Jared Goff’s young age to defend his underwhelming and embarrassing Super Bowl performance. He is 24 years old, which is a prime age for an athlete. This past Super Bowl was his chance to shine, and he failed miserably. There have been many quarterbacks in their mid twenties to make it to the Super Bowl and complete passes without making crucial mistakes. Take a look at Ben Roethlisberger’s Super Bowl win against the Seattle Seahawks in 2006. He was only 23 years old when he won his first of two Super Bowl rings. Tom Brady was only 24 years old in 2002 when the Patriots defeated the St. Louis Rams. Now even though age doesn’t define how great a player can be and comparing them to great quarterbacks at a young age may sound ridiculous to some, it does give us the input that Goff will never be able to be considered as great as the quarterbacks listed simply because they beat him to the task. They were able to accomplish something that Goff couldn’t, and that’s prove yourself as an established, franchise quarterback who can make big time plays in big time situations such as the Super Bowl.

Although his college career at Cal was considered amazing to some, and was able to land him a position as a first round draft pick, this did not carry through to his Super Bowl performance. Carl Stone tells us in his article “Top 50 College Quarterbacks Who Didn’t Pan out as Pros”, written on April 1, 2012, that Ryan Leaf, Vincent Young, Matt Leineart, and Johnny Manziel were other great college quarterbacks who failed to transition their talent at the NFL level. Although Goff has seemed to cement himself in the Rams offense, much like the quarterbacks listed above to their respected teams, only time will tell how the rest of his career pans out. Goff is still young, and may have a good career ahead of him, but the odds are that he will be less successful than most people believe. Manziel, for example, was able to break the starting lineup in Cleveland. After a short 2 year tenure, he was waived because of reckless behavior. Goff has shown no signs that his career will be plagued by off field activities, but his might be ruined due to poor play and not being able to step up during big times in big games.

A quarterbacks play is a vital component to the success of an American football team. And it shows. The Los Angeles Rams are a perfect example of this. Their defense ended up in fifth in the league during the playoffs for total yards allowed per game by an opposing team with 335 total yards let up, and fourth in the league during the playoffs for total rushing yards allowed per game by an opposing team with 84 yards let up. They were also ranked seventh in the league during the playoffs for pass yards allowed with 251 yards per game. They didn’t need to rely on Goff exceeding expectations because their defense was able to hold off offenses from running or passing all over them, for the most part. Now let’s discuss Goff’s help on offense. Running back Todd Gurley led the league in rushing touchdowns, finding the end zone 17 times during the regular season, and placed third in total rushing yards with 1,251 yards. This allows the offense to open up the field and makes the defense worry about stacking the box, giving Goff a better opportunity to throw the ball. During the post season, back up running back CJ Anderson placed sixth in rushing yards per game with 63 yards and found the end zone twice throughout all of playoffs, the same amount of touchdowns lead back Todd Gurley had during the post season. Goff had a lot of help this post season from his defense, and even more help in the regular season thanks to Gurley. In regular season yards per game, the Rams had 2 out of the 3 top spots in yards per game with CJ Anderson at 149.5 yards and Todd Gurley at 89.4 yards per game. 

We can look at statistics all day long, but more information to this argument proves numbers don’t matter. Worries about how Goff is expected to perform in the 2019 season are rising, and that is effecting how much he will be getting paid. In the article “Signing Jared Goff to an extension this offseason would be a mistake” on RamsWire by Cameron DaSilva posted on March 4th, 2019, DaSilva goes on to explain just how much the team gave up to acquire 1st overall pick Jared Goff during the 2016 draft. They coughed up two first-round picks, two second-round picks and two third-round picks to the Titans just to get their hands on him. But the question of the article is what should they do with him moving forward. That questions his play and value. Another reason for pushing off his extension is because they need to get cap room to re sign free agents in their defense, like pass rusher Dante Fowler Jr. DaSilva also explains how much of a drop off Goff had throughout the last 8 games, completing less than 60 percent of his passes and throwing more interceptions (8) than he had touchdowns (7). That is a great concern for a team, especially if they were considering giving him a pay day because of the way he performed earlier in the year. More reasoning as to why DaSilva doesn’t think Goff should get an extension to his contract is because the Rams have plenty of time to give him a payday at a later point and time; no reason to rush paying him when time is on their side.

In another article “If Jared Goff is their future, the Rams are running out of time” pulled from USA Today written by Steven Ruiz on December 17th, 2018, Ruiz explains how the Rams won’t win anything with Goff under center. Sean McVay, the Rams head coach, was quoted saying, “He’s got to make better decisions, especially when we end up falling out underneath the center on third-and-1. You know, sometimes the only play is to just eat it and take that sack.” This goes to show in crunch time McVay is questioning his own quarterback’s abilities. Ruiz also goes on to talk about just how lucky Goff is to be on this team. He says, “Goff has everything a quarterback could ask for — a great scheme, good receivers, a consistently productive running game and a tremendous offensive line — and we still aren’t quite sure if he’s good enough to lead this Rams team to a Super Bowl. That’s with him accounting for about 4% of the team’s cap. What’s going to happen when that number jumps up to 15%? His line won’t be nearly as good, the defense will give up a few more points and his receiving corps will take a hit, which has already seems to be having an effect on Goff.” This is exactly what will happen to the Rams. His current contract doesn’t make up for a ton of the teams cap space, which allows them to get other assets of the team they need to let Goff succeed. Right when they take away these other components of the team, he’s doomed. He needs a good offensive line to protect him, he needs a good defense to limit the other team from scoring, he needs a good running back to open up the field, and he needs good receivers to catch the ball and turn up field. Even with all of these things, he’s still being questioned if the team actually needs him. Not only that, but when these parts of the team he needs to flourish leave (if they give him the extension that is) then Goff will be carried no more. Everything will be on his shoulders and he won’t do as well as he is doing now. If this does happen, he’ll be exposed for the embarrassment of a player he is. When by himself in an offense, he will collapse. We saw this in his rookie season, and he was gifted multiple weapons because he can’t do it himself. Now, it’s not like him not having help and playing poorly defines who he is because a lot of players go through the same struggles, but seeing how he had an awful first couple seasons then chokes in the biggest game of someone’s life, it would certainly define the type of player he is. Not to mention the coaching he has been aided. Sean McVahy turned that team around from nothing after Jeff Fisher drove it into the ground, taking them far into the playoffs then to the Super Bowl in his first and only 2 seasons as the Rams head coach, he does’t get the credit he deserves.

Back to the numbers, how good were Goff’s pass catching options? Two of his receivers, Brandin Cooks and Robert Woods, ended up at the thirteenth and fourteenth ranked receiving yards leaders raking in 1200+ yards in the regular season. Woods had 86 receptions in the regular season and Cooks had 80 receptions, leaving them outside of the top fifteen in receptions yet inside the top 15 in total yards. That is very good efficiency. Goff had tons of help on practically every end of the spectrum. The only problem in that offense is him, and there is plenty of statistics that prove this.

Jared Goff being the worst post season quarterback to represent an NFC West team in the Super Bowl is something that can’t be defined through sports writers opinions, but rather something that needs to be proved through numbers. Numbers that define his performance, his efficiency, and what he contributes to his team. The regular season statistics are irrelevant to his play in the post season, and will be ignored. In his 2 playoff appearances, I know that Jared Goff is the worst post season quarterback to represent an NFC West team in the Super Bowl.

The first thing to look at is Goff’s efficiency in the most recent post season, that just ended a little more than a month ago. Out of all 12 quarterbacks who took snaps, Goff placed 10th with a quarterback rating of 45.6. Quarterback rating is a statistic used by sports analysis’ that measures the entire performance of a quarterback, from how he’s done passing, rushing, the amount of turnovers he’s committed, and how many penalties have been called against him and is on a scale from 0-100. To put his 45.6 into perspective, Phillip Rivers led the league in post season QBR with a 78.4. Now with his 45.6 QBR, his best QBR this post season was against the New Orleans Saints with a 75.1. To put that into perspective, the best QBR in a game this post season was Tom Brady against the Los Angeles Chargers with an 87.2. Goff’s worst QBR in the three game post season span was an awful 13.5 in the Super Bowl against the New England Patriots. What these statistics show is that although he had the 4th best QBR in a single post season game, he had the 2nd worst in a single post season game. Although he was able to make it all the way up to the Super Bowl, he seems to be nothing but a liability on a talented team, who shows signs of decency but is ultimately holding them back.

It’s time to focus on Goff’s Super Bowl performance, and how it relates to past quarterbacks performances. For starters, he threw 38 passes and completed 19 of them, averaging 4.7 yards per pass. Just in a quick comparison to his opponent that game, Tom Brady threw 35 passes and completed 21 of them averaging 7 yards per pass. Although the attempts and completions are relatively close, the ‘yards per pass’ show us that Goff was tossing up much safer throws for significantly less yards. Neither quarterbacks threw a touch down in the contest, but Goff managed to commit a turnover with his 1 interception that was thrown with less than 5 minutes in the game, down 10-3, and on his opponents 27 yard line. The Rams were forming a comeback drive late in the game and he choked. Brady hauled the ball for 262 yards and Goff threw for 229 yards. Enough of comparing the two that competed against each other, lets take a look at the worst Super Bowl appearances by NFC West quarterbacks. The NFC West has represented the NFC in the Super Bowl 14 times. The Niners have 6 appearances, the Rams have 4, the Seahawks have 3, and the Cardinals stand at one. It’s only fair to compare Goff with the 2nd worst NFC West Super Bowl performance by a fellow Ram in quarterback Vince Ferragamo, who threw 25 passes for 15 completions, 212 yards, and 8.5 yards per pass with an interception during Super Bowl XIV against the dominant Pittsburgh Steelers. Although these stats seem very close, the thing you have to look at is the fact that Goff threw 13 more passes while only completing 4 more, and the fact that Goff’s yards per pass is nearly half of Ferragamo’s. Another brutal NFC West quarterback’s Super Bowl performance we can look at is Matt Hasselbeck’s in Super Bowl XL for the Seattle Seahawks. In a face off against the Pittsburgh Steelers, Hasselbeck threw a whopping 49 attempts while completing 26 of them for 273 yards on 5.6 yards per pass, an interception, and a touchdown. With the amount of attempts Hasselbeck threw, he still managed to stay above 50% on completions at 53%. One thing Goff, Ferragamo, and Hasselbeck all have in common is that they all lost. But Goff’s loss to the Patriots is something both record breaking and embarrassing: he was the quarterback for only the second team in Super Bowl history not to find the end zone throughout the entire contest, and took part in the lowest scoring Super Bowl ever with a total of 16 points scored.

Finally, comparing Goff to a plethora of other quarterbacks may not seem like the best way to prove his worth to some people. So, instead, let’s define greatness and what it means to be “great”. James Arthur Ray tells us in his article “WHAT IS GREATNESS”, which was published on July 5th, 2015 that, “True greatness is the ability to achieve what you choose to achieve in the area you choose to achieve it; and to achieve it with excellence and a level of mastery.” This is truly something that Goff has not been able to accomplish. Both years that he’s made it to the playoffs, he’s either lost in the first round or sneaked into the Super Bowl and gotten embarrassed. Even in his rookie season the Rams couldn’t make it to the playoffs, but not all the fault can be put on Goff. Even with their team today, having one of the best young coaches the NFL has ever seen in Sean McVay, a top rushing yards back in Todd Gurley, and one of the most feared defenses in the league, Goff lacks to prove his greatness and more so shows his weakness. He has certainly not achieved any sort of greatness in his poor performances and most definitely has not achieved anything with excellence and absolutely no sort of level of mastery. He has achieved weakness in the fact that he makes it to the Super Bowl and posts one of the worst QBRs during that post season with a 13.5 and even proves it in the minutes that matter, throwing his interception with just under 5 minutes left in the game while trying to host a comeback drive. Jared Goff is not elite, and is certainly not worthy enough to be starting for an NFL team after the kind of performance he had on February 3rd, 2019. He is the worst quarterback to represent the NFC West in a Super Bowl.

References:

Ray, J. A. (2015, July 05). WHAT IS GREATNESS. Retrieved on March 10 2019 from https://www.jamesray.com/w0hat-is-greatness/

Maske, M. (2019, February 03). Patriots beat Rams, 13-3, for a record-tying sixth Super Bowl championship. Retrieved on March 10 2019 from https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/patriots-beat-rams-13-3-for-a-record-tying-sixth-super-bowl-championship/2019/02/03/10992a8c-27f6-11e9-984d-9b8fba003e81_story.html?utm_term=.3970ea663fa9

50 Top College Football Quarterbacks Who Didn’t Pan out as Pros Stine, Carl https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1126774-50-top-college-football-quarterbacks-who-didnt-pan-out-as-pros

McAtee, Riley February 2019 Jared Goff had the Worse Game of his Life on the Biggest Stagehttps://www.theringer.com/nfl/2019/2/4/18210099/jared-goff-los-angeles-rams-super-bowl-liii

/https://www.profootballhof.com/news/super-bowl-starting-qbs/

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tabSeq=0&statisticCategory=PASSING&qualified=true&season=2018&seasonType=REG

DaSilva, C. (2019, March 4). Signing Jared Goff to an extension this offseason would be a mistake. Retrieved from https://theramswire.usatoday.com/2019/03/04/nfl-rams-jared-goff-contract-extension-offseason/

Ruiz, S. (2018, December 17). If Jared Goff is their future, the Rams are running out of time. Retrieved from https://ftw.usatoday.com/2018/12/nfl-rams-jared-goff-future-contract

Posted in doorknob, Portfolio Doorknob9, x Research Position Paper | Leave a comment

Research- NYAJ32

Posted on April 21, 2019 by nyaj32

Should known Performance Enhancing Drug Users be Incorporated into the National Baseball Hall of Fame.

To begin, there are many people believe that the Hall of fame is only for people who did not use Performance enhancing drugs and people that were all natural all the way throughout their career. These people may not realize that they are mistaken. It is not their fault, but it is a common misconception. They believe that the Hall of Fame is exclusively for clean players and that it will stay that way forever. And part of players who used PEDs not being in the hall of fame is focused on the criticism they they get for doing it and the hatred they have acquired by many others. The Baseball Hall of Fame is not what many people think it is. Yes, it is mostly full of great accomplishments and legendary players and performances and it is something every baseball fan should see at least once in their life, but there is more underlying all of it than most people may believe.

The Baseball Hall of Fame is not totally clean like many people believe it currently is. It actually has multiple players who are known to have used substances to improve their performance on the field. One great example is in the article, “How Should the Baseball Hall of Fame be dealing with PED users,” by Cathal Kelly. He writes, “Guys like Whitey Ford, Don Sutton, and even Gaylord Perry all fiddled with the rules a little during their playing time. Ford once said, “I didn’t cheat in 1964 when I won 24 games….. Well, maybe a little,” The article also states, “Sutton joked that he’d used so much sandpaper in his career that he “ought to get a Black & Decker commercial out of it.” Sandpaper was not allowed to be used to increase the grip on the ball for a pitcher. The only thing you were, and still are, allowed to use is rosin. Sandpaper was a huge advantage that made those pitchers so great. It is probably able to give you even better grip than pine tar which is how some pitchers try and cheat now. Those players that cheat with pine tar are suspended for a big portion of the season, yet some legends who have done worse are beloved and praised and put into the Hall of Fame and they have done even worse than some of these other guys. The reason these other guys are in is because of their accomplishments.

Someone else who who cheated their way is Tom House. This one is a little worse than the other pitchers because House used something more similar to PEDs than sandpaper. He used something called greenies. Greenies are amphetamines. Players utilize them to be more alert and aware of what is going on. It makes players be more focused in on the game. The article from USA Today titled, “Former major league pitcher Tom House used steroids during his career and said performance-enhancing drugs were widespread in baseball in the 1960s and 1970s,” states, “House, 58, estimated that six or seven pitchers per team were at least experimenting with steroids or human growth hormone. He said players talked about losing to opponents using more effective drugs. “We didn’t get beat, we got out-milligrammed,” he said. “And when you found out what they were taking, you started taking them.” This proves that many players were taking some type of PEDs  at that time and many of those players are now in the hall of fame.

It is so hard to exclude other players with similar accomplishments like Barry Bonds. In a Heinonline.com journal titled “Barry Bonds and the Baseball Hall of Fame” the author writes, “Bonds has a record setting seven Most Valuable Player awards and also a record setting four Most Valuable Player award in a row.” This is not to mention he is the all time single season and career total home run champion. He has a solid case to be argued as the greatest baseball player who ever lived; Yet because he did steroids he is not acknowledged as so. Meanwhile other players who fiddled with the rules and accomplished less than Barry Bonds are sitting in the hall of fame while Bonds is still excluded to this day.

It almost seems like the only thing that proves whether some players are Hall of Fame worthy is if they are frowned upon by the general public. Hank Aaron is someone that is beloved by almost everyone, yet he almost certainly used PEDs. He once come out saying that he did in fact use greenies, but he said it once he was already in the hall of fame and it did not matter anymore. So many people believe that the baseball hall of fame is a totally clean environment and that is why they do not think that guys like Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez and Roger Clemens should be inducted. Meanwhile, It is a known fact that it is not a clean environment and there are many, many player in the Hall of Fame who used PEDs and cheated in other ways such as pitchers using sandpaper to get a better grip on the ball when pitching. The Hall of Fame is not all rainbows and unicorns like people think it is. It is easy to see the conclusion that it is not the fact that they used PEDs that keeps them out, but instead it is the fact that they have acquired so much public hatred that they are not in the Hall of Fame. They have done no worse than so many other players in the Hall of Fame, but because the general public knows about their actions causing hatred, which is generated by the media, they are not in the Hall of Fame while others who have used PED’s and were either never caught or admitted after they were already in are sitting above the others who did the same thing.

Many players used some type of PEDs in the 60s and 70s. It was a very common thing that more than half the players were using it. Have any of them ever been suspended or banned from the Baseball Hall of Fame? The answer is no. Much less players have used PEDs in the modern Era (Last 25 years). Some still do, but almost nothing compared to the 60s and 70s. Have any of the modern players been suspended or banned from the Baseball Hall of Fame? The answer is almost all of them. It is clear that there is something that caused the MLB to take a stand and start disciplining their players for using PEDs. What could have been the trigger? Why did Major League Baseball ignore it for so long and then all of a sudden start taking charge and giving players consequences?

It is believed by some that they did not ignore it at all. It is very possible that the MLB had no idea it was going on. There would have definitely been suspicions in the 60s and 70s, but nobody really knew what PEDs were so they did not investigate. As time went on, and more players were inducted into the hall of fame, guys like Hank Aaron and Tom House admitted to using “Greenies,” a form of PEDs that made a player more focused. They were amphetamines. Tom House said, “If other guys were beating you with what they were using, then you moved up and found something better.” It is known that more than half of the Braves team and most likely most of many other teams were all utilizing some form of PEDs at the time. With this information, it is prevalent that many guys that are in the Baseball Hall of Fame have used things like “Greenies” or other forms of PEDs. Yet there has never been any kind of sanction for them. They are allowed to be in the Hall of Fame, yet guys from the Modern Era who have used PEDs are not allowed into the Hall of Fame. It does not make much sense to allow the older guys, but not the newer ones who all cheated. Why is it like this? Why are the newer guys no longer allowed in?

Some people may say that the older guys that used PEDs ruined it for the new Guys. The baseball hall of fame is chock full of guys who cheated their way along, but not a lot of that is known by the general public. That is because media was not as big and easy to access back then as it is now. The media make the newer guys who used PEDs look much worse than the older guys. The MLB does not want a bad rep on themselves or the Hall of Fame so the baseball writers do not want the newer guys who used PEds to be in the Hall of Fame. A lot of people believe that it should be as clean as possible so the known PED users should not be in the Hall. It is sad that he older guys ruined it for the new ones. Guys like Jim Thome and and Trevor Hoffman are in, “But the two guys who combined for 15 MVP and Cy Young awards – 13 more than the combined total of the six previous inductees 2 years back  – will be sitting home for the sixth and seventh consecutive years,” said Bob Nightengale in a USA Today Article.

It is a common conception that if someone completed an accomplishment are achieved a milestone than it should be recognized. The MLB is in a weird spot where they are counting records like Bond’s home run record, yet they will not allow him to be in the Hall of Fame. Many people believe that Hank Aaron’s home run record should be the real record, buy he used PEDs as well as Bonds did. People just do not know very much about Hank Aaron’s because he is a beloved player so the media decides to rip on Bonds and ARod and Clemens instead of admit the truth that so many players that are already in the Baseball Hall of Fame are known cheaters just like guys like Bonds, ARod, and Clemens. It is evident that the media plays a factor and that the guys who used PEDs in the 60s and 70s may very well have ruined it for the newer guys because Major League Baseball does not want anymore known users in the Hall of Fame. They want to keep it as clean as they possibly can. And at this point, it is just wrong to segregate them from other players who have also used PEDs.

Something else that many people do not realize is that around the time that Mark McGwire used steroids, is the same time baseball got popular again. Even though the players were not supposed to take them, they brought in many more fans because it was so much more fun to watch the game. In “Yearning for a Past that Never Was,” and article by Ron Von Burg, Burg discusses the benefits of steroids in baseball. He writes how steroids saved the game. Baseball was losing a lot of interest from fans and when players used steroids they started breaking records. Fans wanted to come out and see these records being broken. Steroids added to the game. Fans were electrified.

Steroid users in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Everyone already knows that they are there, but it seems that nobody will let more in if they are known to have used steroids. The continuous question so far is why? Many people will arugue both ways and both sides will have good points, but one side has flaws that can be answered by the other. There has been this huge dispute over whether known steroid users should be in the Baseball Hall of Fame or not. To be honest, there is a good argument for both sides here, but one side has to get the edge. A very big baseball player, named Joe Morgan, expressed his concerns regarding known steroid users in the baseball hall of fame. He is 100 percent against it happening. His reasons are that it is “not right,” “they take away from other players who did not use,” and “already established hall of famers with no longer come to Cooperstown.

First off, Joe Morgan’s first point is obvious, but there is no reasoning for it. Obviously we know that it is not right to go against the rules. Nobody said it was right. But many people believe that known steroid users should still be in the Baseball Hall of Fame whether it is right or wrong. Joe Morgan stated “They cheated. Steroid users don’t belong here. It’s not right.” Right there when he says “Steroid users don’t belong here” is right where you can stop him. That is because there are already cheaters in the hall of fame. Clearly they do belong there if there are already some of them in the hall of fame. Yes they may have cheated the rules along the way, but they did still accomplish what they did and it should be recognized. That is why the solution of putting an asterisk on a players name who did something wrong would be the best way to go.

Next, Joe Morgan’s second argument does seem to catch the eye and make someone think a lot about it. Morgan states, “By cheating, they put up huge numbers, and they made great players who didn’t cheat look smaller by comparison, taking away from their achievements and consideration for the Hall of Fame.” This is actually very true. There most likely are other players that are not in the Hall of Fame that would be if some other players did not cheat and use steroids. Obviously we can not say this for sure but the probability is very high. With that being said, it is still very hard to not put some crazy accomplishments in the hall of fame, such as Barry Bonds with his Home run Records. Like it was stated before, known steroid users should be in the hall of fame with an asterisk next to their name because there are already cheaters in the hall of fame. Some we know about and others we do not. Eventually there has to be a solution and this is the most fair way to do it. There is no perfect way.

Lastly, Joe Morgan makes the argument that some previously established hall of famers will no longer go to Cooperstown. Many of them believe it is unfair since they did not use steroids or cheat in any way. Joe Morgan says, “It’s gotten to the point where Hall of Famers are saying that if steroid users get in, they’ll no longer come to Cooperstown for Induction Ceremonies or other events.” For this all we can say is that they are missing out. Who would not want to be there for the induction of Barry Bonds or even Roger Clemens? It does not matter if it goes against your beliefs because that is such a historic moment that everyone would want to be there for. Arguably one of the most successful baseball players getting inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame is something we do not want to miss.

Overall, there are many points to both sides of why known steroid users should or should not be allowed into the Baseball Hall of Fame. It turns out the benefits of known steroid users being in the hall of fame just outweighs the costs in the end. Guys like Joe Morgan may say it is not fair, but it really is when you think about how many players that are already in the Baseball Hall of Fame have cheated and used steroids or other performance enhancers throughout their careers. Steroids also helped the game become more popular and with that comes bigger, better fanbases. The game was mire fun to watch It only makes sense to find a way to include the newer guys that did the same things that older guys from the 60s and 70s did. After all, it helped the game more than it hurt it.

References:

Burg, R. V. (n.d.). Yearning for a Past that Never Was: Baseball, Steroids, and the Anxiety of the American Dream. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15295030903176641

Mather, Victor. “Joe Morgan: Keep Steroid Users Out of Baseball Hall of Fame.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 21 Nov. 2017, http://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/21/sports/baseball/joe-morgan-hall-of-fame-steroids.html

Nightengale, B. (2018, January 22). Nightengale: It’s past time for Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens to earn Hall of Fame induction. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/columnist/bob-nightengale/2018/01/22/barry-bonds-roger-clemens-hall-fame-steroids/1053787001/

(n.d.). Retrieved from https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2005-05-03-steroids-house_x.htm

Kelly, C. (2017, November 21). How should the Baseball Hall of Fame be dealing with PED users? Retrieved from https://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/baseball/how-should-baseballs-hall-of-fame-be-dealing-with-ped-users/article37043700/

Young, W. A., Holland, W. S., & Weckman, G. R. (2013, April 02). Determining Hall of Fame Status for Major League Baseball Using an Artificial Neural Network. Retrieved from https://www.degruyter.com/dg/viewarticle/j$002fjqas.2008.4.4$002fjqas.2008.4.4.1131$002fjqas.2008.4.4.1131.xml

Smith, C. (2012). Why It’s time to Legalize Steroids in Professional Sports. 1-2. Retrieved April 28, 2019.

Hart, A. (n.d.). Barry Bonds and the National Baseball Hall of Fame. Retrieved from https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/swulr40&id=178&men_tab=srchresults

Grossman, M., Kimsey, T., Moreen, J., & Owings, M. (n.d.). Steroids and Major League Baseball. Steroids and Major League Baseball,1-21. Retrieved April 28, 2019.



Posted in NYAJ32, Portfolio NYAJ, Research | 8 Comments

Research-Chavanillo

Posted on April 21, 2019 by chavanillo

Teens Obsession With Sneakers!

The fashion industry is one of the fastest growing industries in the world. This trend is led by footwear companies. Footwear has become an increasingly obsessive. The increasing social dependence on social media and blogging; the emotional dependence on sneakers for well-being; the dangers of giving value to sneakers; the consumer’s fault at creating this danger, and the values given to sneakers as a society aggravate the issues related to sneakers. Because of the increase of online social interactions, the obsessive nature of shoes has seen a drastic increase. Nowadays, teens freely post their identities and personal lives onto the internet. In the article by Chittenden, Tara she talks about ten girls that are obsessed with blogging. Bloggers record their day to day activities and post personal information to boost their social status. However, today bloggers can see feedback from viewers and edit their behavior to increase their popularity. Many teens will often change their lifestyle just to get people to talk to them or be the “famous” on Instagram. I believe that bogging has seen a rise in popularity because of the values teens have. For teens on of the most important things is how other people see them. Many don’t take a minute to realize what they really like and enjoy and hide it to fulfill other people’s desires. I also believe blogging is gaining popularity because it’s a way for teens to escape negative emotions that could be symptoms of depression. However, blogging has created a new level of peer pressure, specifically with shoes. Teens can be seen showing off their new shoes for compliments and a sense of accomplishment. While blogging decreases the solidarity of teens it creates a value to flaunting in society.

There are teens who get depressed or sad because they can’t afford those sneakers that would make them “fit” into the environment. Sneakers have become the identity of teens. What he or she wears defines who are they as a person and what they like to do. It’s insane how a piece of clothing can define who you are as a person. Children are receiving peer pressure from the people around them because they get use desiring what they see at home and what is trending. As a result, they take in account their peer’s favorite products and learn to like that too. This means that when they are looking for clothes, or in this case sneakers, their peers influence push them toward buying sneakers form a big brand. For example, the quote “Dime con quien andas y te dire quien eres.” Which translates to “Tell me who your friends are, and I’ll tell you who you are.” People, especially teems, will be influence by their surroundings because that is what they are familiar with. People always want to buy from the most known brand. Due to this, teens have more Nike sneakers than any other brand. Kevin Smith is an American filmmaker, actor, comedian, comic book writer, author, and pod-caster, which believes that we must see the good side of sneaker obsession and believes it’s not a big problem. In his 2014 article, “The Science Behind Our Sneaker Addiction” Smith reminds the readers that course of generation to generation sneakers had been an obsession that teens can’t resist. Smith argues that sneakers being a big part of teen’s lives these days is beneficial and normal. Smith claims to let teens stay with their sneaker obsession because it makes them be more sociable and more confident to themselves. Smith says that being obsessed with sneakers is actually a good thing because it increases personal value to the person who buys the sneakers. Even Dan Cherry. An advertising executive in New York, says that shoes express teens individuality that allows other teens go approach him or her and get to know them better. The teens are “cool kids”. However, the parent network “Family care” in 2019 article “What’s up with your son and sneaker obsession” as a recent study they state that “{…} boys often have judgments about who has the right to wear these shoes. As in, if you wear them but you can’t hold your own athletically, boys are going to make fun of you to your face or ridicule you behind your back.” This is concerning because teens are increasingly vulnerable to bullying and danger due to shoes. The victims of this tragic circumstances are mostly young African American black males.

Increasingly, about 1200 people die every year because of sneakers according to according to a video posted Nov. 14 by GQ magazine. This figure is supported by Marc Bain a Fashion reporter which said his article “1,200 people are killed each year over Sneakers” his article. The reasons involved robbery, jealousy, hate, and safety. “Source Statistics Canada/ Staff illustration by Richard Johnson/ Charges double: *Violent-offence charges against youths increased to 855 per 100,000 youths in 1991, up from 415 in 1986. *Police laid 632 assault charges per 100,000 youths in 1991, up from 300 in 1986. *Much of the violence by children is against children – victims were aged 12-17 in almost half of all minor and aggravated assaults, and in about a third of sexual assaults and robberies. *Children under 12 accounted for 60 percent of victims in sexual assault cases. People over 65 were victims in one percent of violent youth crimes. Colin Price/ Lower Mainland teens face a new fashion risk: Violence. Vancouver’s Mirik Nowak (92-6804) (right) has dodged one attempt to steal his 49ers jacket. Fellow teens Rav Panesar, Zahra Khoja and Shelly Halliday (92-6804) (left) all have, or know of, similar stories. As for police, they blame a craze for status insignia’s, like the Bulls logo above. (92-6804);” Sneaker company owners have tried different ways to reduce the amount of deaths by changing release times. The first releases came out at midnight but were changed to the mornings. They believed this would cause significant change in the deaths, but owners then realize that deaths are happening after the purchases. Sneakers are becoming increasingly valuable for teens. Today teens are obsessed with clothing and shoes. Fights happen on the streets and school yards. Teens gangs are a big part of this. “It’s principally an ego-trip thing.” This means that for them the “cool way” of being in a gang is to have expensive things, so they steal. For example, what occurred to Mirik Nowak, “I was just coming out of a young driver’s course when I was jumped. Fortunately, I got away,” he said. “They ask for your jacket, they ask for your hat. It sorts of starts things off and leads to them beating you up.” Wearing things with a high value leads to thugs keeping a close eye on unsuspecting victims. There are no answers of when this is going to stop from affecting millions of lives, or even if it they could because there is no method to reduce the amount of violence and death. Parents are afraid their kids might be robbed, while teens are just focus on not getting bullied at school or in the street. They say that “at the end of the day a thug and getting beat up in school is the same thing, so for them is better to get robbed by someone than being bully every single day by the same people.” The danger associated with sneakers is something we really must worry about; Americans are killing each other for a piece of apparel. What does that say about what people find valuable? This has become a mental issue. Even though sneakers express our individuality, teens must put serious thought into which shoes to buy or wear. In this case teens must always be aware who is around them and the good or bad effect having certain pairs of sneakers may bring.

I don’t believe that the fault is in the shoes but individuals. The consumers made it valuable to the point where they became dangerous. Due to the teen life is focusing on a “visible” fake world and because it is away teens connect with each other to feel part of a group, a tremendous value has been added to footwear. Based on the previous information we know why teens are obsessed with sneakers. However, what gives sneakers the value they hold? I believe is all on the consumer on the importance they give it. Paper money is a great example. Money is valuable because as a society we all agreed that the paper is worth a certain amount. If society didn’t believe in money or paper currency it won’t have any value. Anything people consider valuable becomes valuable, even paper printed as money, making stone or minerals like gold, or even a piece of unique fabric. The point is that what is valuable and trending now is because society has given it value. Society is responsible for the dangers associated with clothing now and society together is the only way to correct it. In addition to this, sneakers are now posing a significant economic burden on lower income families. Since teen do not have a proper grasp on financial responsibility, they may waste a lot of money on sneakers just to “fit in.

I have personally experienced some of the struggles of not following trends. When I was in 7th grade I really didn’t care about what shoes I was wearing. I was more concerned with my clothing and often other students would bully me and say things behind my back, they even made rumors to start fights with me. To add on, sneakers these days openly show your personality and that is worrying because you wear a pair of sneakers but could face rejection rather than being welcomed. I have also experienced the danger of having trendy items.  It was a summer day and I was riding bike by myself. That day in the afternoon I saw a big group of like 10 young teen boys, 4 with bikes and the rest were walking. I started to wonder why they were looking at me so much and why they were separating and going different directions in a sneaky way. I started wondering that they going to beat me up and I started riding towards home. When out of nowhere I see two boys start running towards me. I knew at this moment they were trying to steal my bike. I started ride faster and finally I got home before they could catch me. As an older teen, I prefer and love $20 shoes that are comfortable rather than a $160 pair of shoes that are uncomfortable.

In conclusion, the sneaker obsession is more harmful than beneficial. While Smith’s does point out that sneaker obsession is beneficial when it comes to socializing and showing teens individuality, I found his argument is misguided. I say this because he is too focus on teens emotions and what others think about them, instead of focusing on what’s happening in the world. Deaths, bullies, thieves, suicide because of depression and more. This didn’t have to be an issue, we could have the shoes that make you feel like we are a part of something, but it doesn’t have to turn into an obsession that could change the way you are living. By control your own life and not letting fashion and trends control you.


References

Bain, Marc. “1,200 People Are Killed Each Year over Sneakers.” Quartz, Quartz, 23 Nov. 2015.

Family Circle. “What’s Up with Your Son and His Sneaker Obsession?” Family Circle, Family Circle, 16 Apr. 2015.

Intelligence For Your Life. “Teenage Boys Are Obsessed With Sneakers.” Intelligence For Your Life, Intelligence For Your Life, 5 July 2017.

Smith, K. (2016, October 20). The Science Behind Our Sneaker Addictions. Retrieved January 30, 2014, from https://www.complex.com/sneakers/2014/01/science-behind-sneaker-addictionain, Marc. “1,200 People Are Killed Each Year over Sneakers.” Qartz, Quartz, 23 Nov. 2015.

Grindlay, L. A. (1992, October 20). Dying to be this fashionable: Price tag for status clothing climbs to grim new high for students: [1* Edition]. Retrieved November 11, 2017, 

Elliott, R., & Leonard, C. (2004). Peer pressure and poverty: Exploring fashion brands and consumption symbolism among children of the ‘British poor’. Journal of Consumer Behaviour,3(4), 347-359. doi:10.1002/cb.147     Chittenden, T. (2010, August). Ebscohost. Retrieved 2019, from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.rowan.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=0bca6faa-4f79-4fa0-82f5-22f890bec515@sdc-v-sessmgr04&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ==#AN=52062897&db=aph  

Posted in chavanillo, Portfolio Chavanillo, x Research Position Paper | Leave a comment

Research Essay- pomegranate

Posted on April 21, 2019 by pomegranate4800

The terms, “money laundering” and “mattress stores” don’t necessarily spark an interest for readers. However, once the meanings are explained and it is clear how they go hand in hand, it then leaves readers with a jaw dropping type of realization. Money laundering is not a well-known term. Not many cases are found in which money laundering is involved. This is because the people who are committing this crime are successful. When these people become successful and find themselves becoming successful, they continue to pursue this act. Money laundering is the act of taking “dirty money” and putting it through legitimate businesses to later have it become “clean.” Putting the money that one receives and putting it into a bank right away may look suspicious if it is a significant amount of money. If the money is used in small amounts at a time, it will be easier to put through businesses to make clean and then will, without suspicion, have the ability to be put into the bank without question. All of the extra money that is not being used right away, where does it go? Back in the day, when people didn’t have banks to put their money in, they would hide it in a now-a-days more obvious spot in their homes. This hiding place is a mattress. The two tie together in a way to make a steep, yet believable, conspiracy theory.

            When driving past a mattress store, it is easy to notice the signs in the windows and the lack of people inside. Buying a mattress is a once in a decade event. Theref0re, there cannot be such high demand on mattresses. The solution in which many people find believable, but it has yet to be proven, is that mattress stores are money laundering scams. This simply means that while the owner of this business is holding the mass amounts of money, they can hide it in these stores without question. No one would suspect there to be money in the mattresses in these stores. In the back, there is never an abundance of the mattresses that are on the floor, they must be ordered. The back contains a few mattresses and if this conspiracy is true, a bunch of money. The assumption continues; they have been laundering money for years but they would not like to get caught doing it so the one place many people look, but is so obvious not to see, would be in the mattresses of a mattress store. It is steep, but it makes sense. The cause of these mattress stores having no one in them, but they continue to stay open, would be simply because they are money laundering scams. The money must be spread, however, which explains why there is an absurd amount of mattress stores within a mile radius of each other.

                A study done in Houston; Texas showed that there were 133 Starbucks stores. This does not include the number of Starbucks’ in the suburbs. Yet, the number of mattress stores seems to outnumber the amount of Starbucks’ in Houston. This doesn’t make any sense. Let’s get this straight. Starbucks, which has over hundreds of customers every day, has less stores than say a Mattress Firm, which maybe one hundred people go in within a month. No one will say that it is money laundering causing the number of mattress stores to increase. It is an arguable fact that the owners of most mattress stores are guilty of money laundering. The only reason no one would first guess this is because people are getting something out of it, a mattress. Owners, and this is going out on a limb, have to make themselves look innocent and actually give you what you’re there to get. They won’t see you in the next 10 years so they’re going to make sure you get what you want so you get your mattress.

                The CEO of Mattress Firm, when he was asked the question of, “why are there so many stores?” was stuck on trying to find an answer too. He explained that for every 50,000 people, there is one store. In the Chicago area alone, there are about 235 mattress stores. In other areas, like Houston, there are more than 235 mattress stores alone. It leaves you stumped as you think about the possible reasons as to why on earth there would be this many mattress stores. However, when the idea of money laundering is brought up, you are left to question any other thought you had before. All of the pieces seem to fit right in when thinking about the relationship between mattress stores and money laundering. To reiterate, it is eye opening when you think about the number one hiding spot for money that is not in a bank. Yes, a mattress. Someone who is very familiar with this idea thought they should and did take it to the next level. This means country- wide money hiding in mattress stores here, and maybe there. It will never be traced because it is simply not easily traced. There are hundreds of thousands of mattress stores and not that many people who believe the number one reason for all of them has to do with money laundering.

               To make a long, complicated argument short, mattress stores are an example of a money laundering scam. It may sound steep, and it might be a stretch, but it is actually convincing. There are tons of loose ends that tie together and it only seems logical when all of these loose ends are tied. The fact that there are over 235 mattress stores in the Chicago area alone, makes people wonder how many other stores there could be in bigger cities, or even just more populated areas. It only makes sense for one who is afraid to get caught for money laundering to try and spread out as much of the money they are trying to hide as wide as possible. Like said before, there is no way there is this high of a demand on mattresses, for they are a once in a decade type of purchase. Studies show that there are too many mattress stores, and the CEO of mattress firm himself cannot express or explain himself why there are so many mattress stores, for he was baffled as well. Mattress stores being over built and no one inside of them is sketchy, and is almost proof that this is a money laundering scam.

                A recent article by Trent Hamm explains why he, Hamm himself, hides money underneath his own mattress at home. “I keep a small amount of twenties in my home as my ultimate emergency fund.” See, most people do hide their money in case of emergencies. However, then it is also easy to believe that if there is money in a mattress it is most likely just for emergencies and not money that is being laundered. Many examples in the article such as hurricane Katrina and many other storms which had wiped homes and towns away, along with power and heat and many other living necessities, were reasons to why keeping emergency money in your house would be found as unbeneficial, because it is ruined. However, you could find this as beneficial because you can use this money to leave and go find other shelter for these storms. The point here is that most people wouldn’t suggest that the mattresses in stores were not being used to hold money for emergencies, for they are being sold. In the back of laundry stores, there are empty rooms, with limited mattresses. This is why most times it takes a few days for your mattress to come to you. However, the ones they have the back are the ones easiest to assume that they have money being hidden in them. Once again, a stretch but it makes sense. They want to be as slick as possible so there is no way they can be caught doing this federal crime.

           
Criminals launder money because, well, they can’t spend huge wads of cash at legitimate businesses, or deposit them in banks, without raising a lot of suspicion. Flashing a big roll or spending lavishly without a legitimate source of income is a good way to land in jail. Instead, by operating legitimate businesses that could reasonably receive large amounts of cash (laundromats, car washes, small retail stores, for example), criminals create the appearance of having legal access to the funds they deposit into bank accounts. According to Julia Layton and Oisin Curran, the global effects of this shadow economy are “staggering in social, economic, and security terms.” As the authors make clear, law enforcement,”stretched beyond their means,” are unable to keep up with the illegal activities of criminals who successfully conceal the source of their profits. And the consequence of being able to avoid detection is “more fraud, more corporate embezzling, more drugs on the streets, more drug related crimes.”  It’s no surprise, say Layton and Curran, that “legitimate business people who don’t break the law and don’t make nearly the profits that the criminals do,” are discouraged to see the criminals prosper, apparently without consequence.

The economic effects are a little more confusing to understand. Countries that are in the process of being built often “bear the brunt of modern money laundering” due to the fact that the governments are still in process of “establishing regulations for their newly privatized financial sectors.” An example of this would be in the 90s, when banks from the developing Baltic states had gotten many deposits of “dirty money.” People continued to withdraw their own “clean” money with the fear of maybe losing it if the bank were to go under investigation. This would result in insurance being lost. As a result, the banks did end up collapsing. “Massive influxes of dirty cash into particular areas of the economy that are desirable to money launderers create false demand, and officials act on this new demand by adjusting economic policy.” This is jaw dropping. The words, “create false demand,” make so much sense when talking about mattress stores. The owners have enough money to keep the stores open, but end up having no customers because there shouldn’t be such high demand on mattresses, and there isn’t. It is a false demand, and it is easy to believe this, along with the fact that the owners are money launderers.

The local problems are easier to understand, and can affect people personally. Problems like this can relate to an include taxation, and “small- business competition.” When money is laundered, it is usually not taxed. This ultimately means that people who do not launder money, have to make up for the taxes that are not written off, make up the loss in tax revenue. Real, legit small business do not have the ability to compete with money laundering front businesses who can afford to sell a product for cheaper because they do not have the purpose to make a profit, their purpose is to simply clean the money. The amount of cash they have in these businesses is more than most so they might even have the ability to be able to sell a product below cost.

There are many consequences to money laundering, some in which can affect people that have no business in money laundering. It is unfair to the people that don’t. However, this can open our eyes to the fact that many businesses can in fact be money laundering and we, as people who do not launder money, have to make up for it. Many of these reasons and consequences can all route back to mattress stores. They could just be one of the guiltiest businesses for a crime like this. The way they tie hand in hand, mattress stores and money laundering, is jaw dropping and eye opening.

Mattress stores being money laundering scams is easy to believe when all of the facts are presented. After explaining this idea to many people, they were very surprised. This idea is easily believed and people are very impressed with the ideas that are fed to them. The argument I hear most is, “How do you know?” and “Why don’t I hear anything about this?” There is a simple answer for this, they are successful. Money launderers who are successful, they continue to money launder. These people never get caught so it is actually very unlikely to hear anything of this if these money launderers are, in fact, successful. The main reason people hold this money is so they do not have to put it in the bank and be deemed as “suspicious.” However, when you want to hide money, but not have any trace of it, old fashioned people usually have the tendency to hide it in their mattresses. The person in charge of this could be old fashioned, and think their idea of hiding it in a mattress is clever. It is, however, should be and soon will be discovered.

                Money laundering would, for most, be hard to understand because it is not commonly detected. It is not a crime like murder, robbery, or rape. Furthermore, it is a crime of motive more than activity. This is why people do not believe this accusation to be true. For example, two people could be doing the exact same thing, and one could be charged for money laundering and one could not. If there is money laundering happening somewhere where someone is actually getting something out of it, there is no denying that anyone wouldn’t say anything about these money laundering scams even if they were suspicious. It is not a popular idea, but it is not completely false either. The way to argue back with people who do not believe the idea of mattress stores being money laundering scams because they deem it as “false” or “too much of a stretch,” is to tell them the facts that aren’t really facts because this idea has not been yet proven true. We cannot say it is false but we cannot say it is true. However, we can prove it to be more true than false. There are more points to argue that this idea is true.

                The question we are all left to wonder after hearing the points on how this idea could be true is, “Why still are there so many stores? Why still is there no one inside?” Like said numerous times, a mattress is a once in a decade purchase, and people every so often are going to need a mattress store. However, there shouldn’t be this much demand on mattresses. There shouldn’t be these many stores within a hundred-foot radius of each other. Once again, they have the money to keep these stores open with the limited number of customers they get each day. The way they have this money, you might be wondering, is from the amount of money they are laundering inside of these stores. The sales on the window is so they draw you in and take your money. They don’t want to look too desperate for money. They want more so they can hide more, but with sale signs to draw you in, they will sooner than later meet their money goal.

                Many people do in fact wonder how these people do not get caught so quickly. From much research, it is not hard, but it is also not easy to track a person involved in money laundering. People who are involved in money laundering are actually very smart and can think of ways to safely, quickly, and secretly clean their money without, obviously, getting caught. People who look for money launderers are looking between the hours of 9 to 5. However, people who do in fact money launder are schemers, and try to work after hours to clean their money so they have less of a chance of getting caught. They always try to find new techniques to “put old wine in new bottles.” To explain, they try and take this dirty money, and make it look like it is not suspicious nor dirty. The whole idea of money laundering is actually a lot more serious and thrilling to someone who is a money launderer rather than a law enforcement employee or a banker.

                Money launderers, like said before, are actually some of the smartest people. They use many tactics to get away with this crime. Some tactics include the idea of “trade based” money laundering. This actually is when smaller companies make money and give it to their parent company after the money is made and the parent company launders it. This, in terms of mattress stores could mean this. Let’s say Mattress Firm is the parent company, and there are many, smaller non-branch mattress stores that are working for Mattress Firm. For example, we know of Mattress Factory and The Mattress Place. These two smaller stores can be teamed up with Mattress Firm and have sales and signs just like Mattress Firm so that they could make more money for the parent company to essentially launder.

                It used to be a lot easier for money launderers to launder money, and now, after 9-11, when money launderers used to be able to put money through commercial banks no problem, it is a lot harder to deposit certain amounts of money without it being looked at as suspicious. Today, it is not nearly as easy, so that’s why it has become much harder to find and stop a money launderer. Money launderers have now moved from commercial banks, who now are more secure and aware of their deposits, to smaller corporations who won’t question the transaction. There could be many things a person could say to argue against the fact that mattress stores are money laundering scams, but actually, it is quite easy to persuade these people because there are so many facts to prove this idea true.

References:

Reuter, Peter, and Edwin M. Truman. “Chasing Dirty Money: The Fight Against Money Laundering.” Google Books, Nov. 2004, books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=0AVwjC9TDSMC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=money%2Blaundering%2B&ots=v4Msj-C2Rd&sig=9KHesretWcyK0Vcdza2L1xJOlWA#v=onepage&q=money%20laundering&f=false.

Dion, Michel. “Is Money Laundering an Ethical Issue?” Journal of Money Laundering Control, 2015, http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/JMLC-06-2014-0018.

Gilmour, Nicholas. “Everyday Vulnerabilities – Money Laundering through Cash Intensive Businesses.” Journal of Money Laundering Control, 2015, http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/JMLC-06-2014-0019.

Gilmour, Nicholas. “Understanding the Practices behind Money Laundering – A Rational Choice Interpretation.” International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, Elsevier, 29 Mar. 2015, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1756061615000385.

Posted in pomegranate, Portfolio Pomegranate, x Research Position Paper | Leave a comment

Research-G90

Posted on April 21, 2019 by g903254

 

How shall we battle income inequality? According to Emmanuel Saez, of UC Berkeley, The top .1% took in as much as 188 times as the bottom 99%. This is a ghastly statistic that almost seems unbelievable. A large part of this income disparity has to do with automation. Cheaper labor equals larger profits. So when a corporation can find a way to cut costs they will. Whether that be lowering wages or turning to automation. This greed by corporations hurts workers within the private sector. Having to compete with machines by taking lowered or stifled wages make living comfortably extremely difficult and/or impossible.

According to the EPI (Economic Policy Institute) the incomes of the top .1% has gone up by 157% since 1979 while the bottom 90% has only grown by 22.2%. Which if just looking at the percentage for the bottom 90% looks great, however comparing it to the top .1% you can see just how outrageous it really is. In 1979 the average income for the bottom 90% was $29,608 while the top .1% earned $622,018. In 2017 on average the bottom 90% made $36,182 while the top .1% made $2,756,865. This ridiculous growth within nearly half a century has created more problems for the average U.S citizen.

When corporations find ways to cut costs through stifling wages creates a huge benefit for consumers. Lowered prices on goods and services allow for consumers to have a surplus of income. This is great from the consumer’s point of view, however from the worker’s point of view, the view from beneath the boot starts looking quite bleak. For the worker, stifled wages has made it quite difficult to live a comfortable life like the well off consumer.

Now A UBI (or a Universal Basic Income) would help redistribute the money from the very top to the very bottom. How does a UBI work? How a UBI works is that it gives every citizen within a country a certain amount of money for people under a certain wage line. This (in theory) would help those who are on the bottom survive and thrive in the ever growing economy. This extra income could be used for food, gas, public services, etc. This extra income would help those on the bottom more economically free to invest and better themselves while the job market changes. A UBI could be used to help put one through college or through a trade school. A UBI could be extremely useful for those on the bottom of the income ladder.

There are many ways to battle income inequality. Whether it be through a larger welfare state like the scandinavian countries or a UBI like Finland. Finland at this moment has a study on a UBI using a lottery and randomly selecting individuals to be apart of this trial. This trial has concluded and the results for the first year have been published. These results show that those who received the money have become less stressed, more confident in finding work, and healthier in life according to Finland’s Labour Institute for Economic Research.Now only the first half of the study has been published so nothing can be confirmed. With the second half of the research not being published until 2020 we have to look at what was published and the results aren’t the best results. Though they aren’t the worst results.

These findings show partially what was thought what a UBI would do. It did increase happiness. This could be for a multitude of reasons. It could be because they had a little more financial freedom, as in, they could pay bills they were worrying about, repay debts, eat healthier, etc. This is great in a democratic sense that these people were able to feel less hopeless and hopeful and confident for the future, but in a capitalistic sense it would be seen as a negative as the participants of the study’s job prospects didn’t really improve. According to Finland’s Labour Institute for Economic Research compared to the control group those who did receive money they worked on average .4 days more in 2017 and earned $24 less. This would show that nothing has changed in a capitalistic sense, but we also have to remember that this is just a one year chunk of a two year study. We won’t know until 2020 for the full results.

Now those who align their thinking among the right wing will say that income inequality isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Right wing ideology aligns itself among a hierarchy, while left wing ideology aligns itself among an egalitarian mode of thinking. Right wingers generally believe that billionaires are on top and those who are impoverished are on bottom is the correct way because of how hard those billionaires worked. However, this can easily be dismissed as those who have more money have a much easier time making money than those who have less. Fixing income inequality is scary for those on the right wing because those on the right wing tend to be richer, older, white men who would be affected by this. A UBI, no matter how scary it may be, does make it easier for those who are more impoverished and allow for more financial freedom to compound wealth. Although an egalitarian mode of thinking may clash with those who align their thinking to that of a capitalist mode of thinking it still is a benefit to fight income inequality because it would be beneficial to the market. From a simple supply and demand thinking we can see that if more people have more money to spend within a country’s market than the richest hoarding wealth then the market would be less active.

Fighting income inequality is a very difficult task within the United States. With many challenges to get past within the United States government we will be able to combat income inequality. A UBI would be the best way to do so as it would level the playing field and create a diverse market of an increased amount of consumers.

When we look to combat income inequality and unemployment with essentially giving people free money we can see the lunacy that comes from that surface explanation. How can just giving people money fix income inequality and unemployment? With a UBI a government is setting a ‘negative income’ for those beneath a certain income line. Capitalists will ask how the government would pay for this and the only answer would be taxing the rich. This will make many people upset and I can understand why. Many people on the right will see any profits as those executives income, but Adam Smith’s Labor Theory of Value would say that the income made by the worker for the company is the material expense and compensation for the work put in. Many other philosophers would disagree however.

Philosophers such as Karl Marx or Edmund Burke would disagree. Edmund Burke would say that the actual value comes from the consumer rather than the labor itself and that the price of a good was the same as the value of the good, while Marx tried to flip Smith’s Labor Theory of Value on capitalists by trying to portray it as an exploitation of workers as the only way business owners could make a profit is to squeeze profit out any way they could. In Kapital, Marx believed that the only way for the worker to earn their true value was to seize the means of production from the capitalists. This line of thinking would lead to a communist society where workers earn their true value and all own the means of production allow for a freer society, however a UBI would not necessarily fall under this system. Within a capitalistic society a UBI would be implemented sort of as a compromise between these two ideologies. A UBI would give the workers more value when it came to the development of goods and decrease income inequality between the different economic classes, while the capitalists still own the means of production and still make a profit, however at a much lower rate and at a more equal rate to the income of the workers. Marx would argue that this would still be exploitative for the worker. The surplus labor value that the worker would make in a given day would still be more money in the pockets of the business owners rather than the workers themselves, but I see it differently.

I come from more of a capitalistic household with a majority of my family on the right wing. I, however, fall on more of the left wing and see things more democratically and see a UBI as the best of both worlds without doing much to change the economic landscape entirely. Capitalism has many problems and a UBI would be a better way to fix capitalism without a violent revolution. Any peaceful solution is preferred over a violent overthrow of the capitalist machine thought process today.

Now am I saying that a UBI is the one answer to fix the issues within capitalism itself? No, but it is certainly the first step to changing the base ideology of our economy. The exploitation of workers within our economy is a serious issue and this all amounts within the income inequality in the United States. It’s just that trying to get a UBI into action within the U.S to combat income inequality will be extremely difficult. Lobbying has held back the advancement of a UBI within the U.S by making donations to candidates campaign fund. This in turn promotes the ideals of whoever is paying the lobbyists which is most likely the top 1% and the top .1%. It would be highly unlikely, but the ban of lobbying and PAC’s within the U.S would help in the progress of more democratic ideals such as a UBI. Without the influence of the richest people in the U.S in our representatives ear’s we would find it much easier to get radical change completed.

With any economic policy there will always be opposition. As long as any sentient being exists there will always be opposition and conflict. Opposition to a Universal Basic Income (UBI) is no different when it comes to the U.S political machine. Republicans will say its too expensive and that handouts don’t work, while the democrats won’t support it in fear of losing their base and the next election cycle. This system for the U.S political machine is a large problem for the everyone within the U.S. Republicans can get their bills and laws pushed through while democrats can’t get much done on a federal level. A UBI would be no different if it entered the congressional floor, but taking a look at the capitalistic arguments against a UBI one can see the flaws within their points.

One of the first arguments against a UBI is that it’s too expensive. This is true funding a UBI would require a raise in taxes and a rise in the U.S deficit, however this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. A raise in the U.S deficit can in many ways be beneficial. Many countries invest money and provide loans that make up the U.S deficit. Those countries want the best in the U.S as if the U.S defaults on these loans then the other countries will lose money on their investment. This is what keeps the U.S and many countries at peace and afloat. Most countries have invested within the debts of other countries. This encourages trade as a prosperous economy increases the purchasing power of that economies currency. This, in turn, increases the worth of the loan held by the foreign country. This enclosed system is one of the best ways of keeping peace. You wouldn’t want to attack a country that holds a lot of your loans. That would be a loss for you. So claiming that a UBI would be expensive is very true, but this does not mean that it wouldn’t be worth it for the betterment of humanity. This is the fundamental flaw within republican ideology. This tunnel vision on the idea of the individual is extremely toxic for anyone thats not in the upper middle class or beyond. You can’t pull yourself up by your bootstraps if you’re living paycheck to paycheck. It is unrealistic to believe that will ever be possible.

Another talking points that those along the capitalistic thought process is that a UBI is a handout rather than an incentive. This a strawman plain and simple. A UBI is never meant to be a permanent solution for a permanent future. No one can predict how the future will turn out. This is impossible. If we look to what was predicted for today one hundred years ago everyone would laugh. A whale bus for underwater travel is ridiculous in the lense of today. If you look at a UBI in what studies have been conducted you can see that this isn’t enough money to live off of. The ideology behind a UBI is to allow for more economic freedom within a changing landscape with the rise of automation. Most participants in these studies anyway are also on welfare programs. To keep taxes lowered it would be logical to change where taxes are spent. Whether that be taking from the military and/or welfare programs a change in spending would be made. A UBI is a complex issue to just write off as a handout especially when it isn’t meant to be a handout. It is meant to allow for the economic freedom to better themselves. If you look at the trial in Canada that was cut due to regime change you can see just how little they were actually getting. Participants received $12,600 to live on in a year. Now yes you could live off of $12,600, but the life that you would have would be disingenuous. You would be just living above the poverty line. To maintain a healthy life would be impossible to achieve. This money is just a cushion. Not to live off of, but to allow for the creation of mistakes in economic ventures. The straw man built by those of the capitalistic mindset would be impossible given the current economic system.

The final point to be brought up is that welfare, as it is right now, isn’t going anywhere and this is the strongest of the three points. With automation on the rise the biggest challenge to solve is the older population. The older population will have a harder time adapting to the new economic landscape. Specialization training into fields such as computer science and many public service jobs are extremely difficult and mentally taxing. For a large part of the trucking business the truckers don’t have high school diplomas. This is a large obstacle to overcome and a UBI would not solve this. This isn’t what a UBI was meant for and these obstacles won’t be easy to defeat. This is what the future holds in store for us. These challenges will be the forefront of policy making in the given future. There are solutions to these problems however. One could be that we halt the technological advancement of mankind and this is unlikely. Doing so would require state violence and this would not be put up with. The most likely situation would be for some people would fall through the cracks while politicians try to figure out what to do to fix it.

With all these we can only see that one has any real merit. How to solve that problem will require great effort and sacrifice. Whether that be moving towards a more socialistic/communistic economic system or the halt of technological advancement we won’t know. Only the future can provide answers as we move towards further automation. Although a UBI isn’t a permanent fix it is a great step towards the imminent future. The sands of time stop for no one.

References

Saez, E. (2018). Striking It Richer: The Evolution of Top Incomes in the United States. Inequality in the 21st Century,39-42. https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2017.pdf

Top 1.0 percent reaches highest wages ever-up 157 percent since 1979. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.epi.org/blog/top-1-0-percent-reaches-highest-wages-ever-up-157-percent-since-1979/

Preliminary results of the basic income experiment: Self-perceived wellbeing improved, during the first year no effects on employment – News archive for customers. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.kela.fi/web/en/news-archive/-/asset_publisher/lN08GY2nIrZo/content/preliminary-results-of-the-basic-income-experiment-self-perceived-wellbeing-improved-during-the-first-year-no-effects-on-employment

Smith, A. (2010). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Charleston, SC: Bibiobazaar.

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1971). Capital by Karl Marx. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Hunter, B. (2017, September 08). The Top Three Arguments against a Universal Basic Income | Brittany Hunter. Retrieved from https://fee.org/articles/the-top-three-arguments-against-a-universal-basic-income/

https://ticdata.treasury.gov/Publish/mfh.txt

Canada’s Ontario government cuts basic income project short. (2018, August 01). Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45023510

Canada’s Ontario government cuts basic income project short. (2018, August 01). Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45023510

Posted in g903254, Portfolio G90, Research | Leave a comment

Research–DaphneBlake

Posted on April 21, 2019 by daphneblake25

It is clear in our society today that ecologically, the world needs saving. But, to save the environment, we must first save ourselves from the chained mentality that tells us humans don’t contribute to ocean pollution. Pollution is a concept that seems easy to grapple with at first glance, an environmental issue that involves plastic or other waste in places it shouldn’t be. But the system of pollution and how it actually works has so many different components that people never even think of. It involves more than just the individual person throwing recyclable material such as plastics and metals into areas where they don’t belong. The idea of pollution branches out to many different prongs and levels to create the elements of the word as a whole. Ocean pollution is a specific, more in depth aspect of pollution that got overlooked in previous generations and still doesn’t receive the correct amount of attention in society today. It’s more than just people throwing their trash into the ocean. The questions that have to be evaluated are “how does that trash end up there in the first place?” or “does every piece of human trash or waste count as pollution?” These questions and others all work as the components to answer the question of what defines ocean pollution.

In retrospect, it’s clear that ocean pollution is a severe problem because of how directly it impacts sea life which in turn affects everything from personal loss of popular desired dishes to the world’s economy. One important aspect of ocean pollution and how it contributes to the reduction of sea life is the process of how macroplastics are broken down into microplastics. In response to many ocean pollution concerns, many people have brought how large plastic are easy for sea creatures to identify and avoid but that argument is flawed and is not accounting for issues such as the adaption to environment and  microplastics. According to “the national geographic”, animals such as sea turtles, sharks, and swordfish eat small sea animals such as jellyfish and crustacean. In its environment, it is true that these animals are able to detect their prey easily, but with the interference of human waste, it becomes increasingly difficult. If there is a floating trash bag in the ocean, to a hungry sea turtle, this could come across as jellyfish.

Also, microplastics are the real leading cause to the intake of plastic from sea life. It is true that it is easier for an animal to detect a large piece of plastic such as a two-liter empty soda bottle, but what about after a few months when that soda bottle deteriorates and becomes unnoticeable to fish and other sea animals. “OceanService.noaa.gov” states; “Plastic debris can come in all shapes and sizes, but those that are less than five millimeters in length (or about the size of a sesame seed) are called “microplastics.” These are the most harmful to sea life because they are the hardest to see and fish don’t even realize they’re consuming them. So the people who think their large plastic trash is not a distraction to sea life are sadly mistaken because all plastic and other decomposing materials are all harmful to sea animals.

The factors that cause  ocean pollution vary, but each one contributes to the issue significantly in different ways. The most common one is when people just randomly throw plastic other recyclable material on beaches, riverbanks, or anywhere near large bodies of water. But then it spreads to large corporations dumping toxic chemicals into oceans. This is something that’s done regularly without any oversight or checks. Ocean pollution should be reported about on a higher level because so many people contribute to it without even realizing it. For instance, not recycling plastics, papers, and metals contributes to ocean pollution because regular things in the trash either gets dumped in junkyards on land or floating islands of trash in the ocean. By using material that gets broken down into microplastics is making an impact because we all know where it’s going to end up, but this may not be a problem solved at the general public level since it’s a flawed system embedded in our way of living. “Conserve Energy Future” lists all the causes of ocean pollution. They include: sewage, which enters the ocean directly, toxic chemicals from Industries, Land Runoff, Large Scale Oil Spills, Ocean Mining, and Littering. All of these factors contain human interference, but the human participation for the advocacy of the depolluting of oceans is very minimal.

Many people believe that it’s not their fault regarding ocean pollution, or any pollution, because they’re not intentionally throwing trash and plastic on the floor and unintentionally, or if they are, it’s not with the intent to harm the environment or sea life. But as aforementioned, even using plastic is contributing because it’s a material that never breaks down completely and most of its remains end up in the ocean or in junk yards. Also, not advocating against ocean pollution is a form of contributing to it as well because if there aren’t people trying to make a difference and show actual concern for the environment, no changes are going to be accomplished. Another reason for not recycling is always the cost. The cost and time refurbishing used material is too expensive and there is little to no profit in it for clear plastic material. But the cost for a building a new planet is definitely more expensive and time consuming than recycling. So ocean pollution is a combination of a variety of factors. It initiates at the individual level, but other factors such as oil spills and toxic chemical dumps from large companies make a lot of damage in a little bit of time. Ocean pollution can be defined as anything placed in the ocean environment that is considered harmful, but unpacked, it means so much and is encompassed with many aspects and levels that aren’t always taken into consideration when evaluating ocean pollution, and all other pollution, and its causes.

But us throwing our trash on the ground and silently watching it get transported to the ocean affects more than just the poor helpless sea animals, the U.S economy is also at stake. The first image that enters the mind at the thought of the phrase “ocean pollution” probably isn’t a destroyed economy, but that’s exactly what the result will be. Everyday, millions of people litter the ground with plastic, paper, and metals that get transferred into the ocean or into massive areas of land. This process is what ultimately will lead to a destroyed economy. Initially, the first negative effect of ocean pollution will be the decreased population of sea animals due to the fact of microplastics being broken down from larger plastic materials. Microplastics are a bigger cause of the reduction of sea life because it’s harder to detect by sea animals. It may be easy for fish and other sea creatures to detect a two liter bottle or a large plastic bag, however, the material of plastic doesn’t ever fully break down back into the earth, it just reduces into smaller and smaller sizes. These are called “microplastics.” These microplastics become difficult to see, especially for hungry fish searching for something to eat. These fish that intake the pollution in the ocean get eaten by bigger fish and when these sea animals wash up on land, they have things like bottle caps and straws inside them that never fully got digested into their systems.

The average person might just shrug and wonder how the negative impacts on sea life has anything to do with them, let along lead to a destroyed economy, but the two are directly correlated. For one, seafood is a huge market. According to Worldwildlife, “Approximately three billion people in the world rely on both wild-caught and farmed seafood as their primary source of protein. As the largest traded food commodity in the world, seafood provides sustenance to billions of people worldwide.” There aren’t going to be anymore people consuming seafood if all the sea animals are either dead from ocean pollution or have hundreds of bits of plastic inside them. Ocean pollution serves as a direct hit to the seafood market which in turn hurts the economy due to the fact that all those people who were once redistributing their money into society will decrease because the seafood market will not exist anymore. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration states the extreme benefits that the fishing industry give to the economy. Not only did it generate over two-hundred billion dollars in sales, but it also creates 1.6 billion jobs. Without the fishing industry, not only will this be detrimental in economic matters, but the total unemployment line will increase. Both money and jobs will be lost. And these factors are at stake from the steady rise in ocean pollution.

The seafood market is an example of a direct correlation to how detrimental ocean pollution can be on the economy, but there are other examples that aren’t as blatant. The beach market is also a huge contributor to the economy. The beach is one of the most desired locations for vacations. The endless stretch of sand, the beautiful vast and relaxing waves, and the feeling of excitement and satisfaction as the two come together before one’s very own eyes. These year long dreams will be slowly diminished if ocean pollution stays at a steady increase. The National Geographic reports that “Every year, tens of thousands of people worldwide volunteer for the Sisyphean chore of picking up trash from beaches. The largest effort is conducted every September by the Ocean Conservancy, which in 30 years of cleanups has collected 300 million pounds and more than 350 types of items.” They go on to quote Nicholas Mallos, the leader of these cleanups who says,I have been on beaches in Hong Kong, Saint Helena in the South Atlantic, and Indonesia where you can watch plastics and debris in the barrel of each wave crash onto the beach. Literally, the trash starts getting replaced as soon as you pick it up.” According to the U.S Census Bureau’s Statistical Abstract of the United States 2012, Table 1240, 58.67 million people went to the beach in 2010. These numbers are going to drastically drop after the beaches become so filled with plastic that no one wants to visit them anymore. Again, the question may arise of how this affects the economy, well, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration points out how Tourism and recreation account for 72 percent of the ocean economy’s total employment and 31 percent of its GDP. These numbers prove how ocean pollution causes various harsh results for our world economically.

The beach and the seafood market both contribute greatly to the economy, but what about the costs of ocean pollution that the world may not have to pay right now, but in the future. Based on the current state of our planet, the future of mankind is at state, all due to ocean pollution. Planetaid.org presents the information that the ocean “provides over 70 percent  of the oxygen we breathe and over 97 percent of the world’s water supply.” But everyday the ocean is the unfortunate recipient of man made pollution. The world is essentially destroying itself. Because of the road us humans are going down now, there are going to be a plethora of environmental costs the world is going to try to fix when it becomes close to too late. There are a lot of things humans hold as significant to life. People say tangible objects such as technology and clothes are essential to living, but when we don’t have a planet to live on, we’re really in deep water. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimates how much it will cost to clean the oceans. They state that “At a cost of $5,000-20,000 per day, it would cost between $122 million and $489 million for the year. That’s a lot of money—and that’s only for boat time. It doesn’t include equipment or labor costs.” But that’s just the cost of it today, who knows the estimated costs in the future if people continue to pollute the ocean. Ocean pollution is a direct causal problem to a destroyed economy, from seafood to beaches to later on repairs. This is a serious detriment to the world’s finances, recreation, and most importantly, to our lives.The constant barrier that remains in the way between ocean pollution and its solution is the cost factor. The fact that the world is so consistently worried about how much it will cost to keep oceans clean is the main reason why it’s not a work in progress at the moment. It’s similar to when one puts off an essay because of how much time it will take as the deadline approaches. The problem never goes away, in fact it becomes more prominent and continues to manifest as the time spent procrastinating it is extended. The problem with ocean pollution is never going to disperse on its own, human intervention is needed and costly drastic measures need to be taken to ensure the problem doesn’t reach a point where even money can’t solve it. My hypothesis of creating edible straws is a step in the right direction of reducing the amount of plastic that enters into the ocean. The drawbacks include the cost and time it would take to make them, but the fact that there needs to be a breakthrough in solving ocean pollution denounces those claims.

The relationship between the world in the environment is one of negligence and ignorance. We as a community disregard the necessity of a healthy and well nurtured area for us to inhabit. The American philosopher and ecologist Aldo Leopold once said, “We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it for love and respect.” The initial steps in living up to Leopold’s words is giving up the ideology that fixing the problem is too much money. That isn’t a solution and it only works in setting the earth deeper and deeper into a polluted black hole. To begin, taking small steps is a way to try to help the situation. Littering has a huge impact on ocean pollution. According to the National Ocean Service, “Eighty percent of pollution to the marine environment comes from the land.” This trash on land travels to the ocean in rainstorms which ultimately creates ocean pollution. Not littering, especially at beaches, will be a massive help and it literally costs nothing but maybe a longer walk to throw something away or recycle. So, the idea that cleaning the oceans is a massively expensive task is not true at all, taking small steps is one way to make an impact, however small, to stop the pollution in oceans.

Small individual tasks such as not littering, picking up trash, and recycling are ways to pave the way for a solution, other methods the world can take to ensure safer and cleaner oceans is by governments around the world using other material besides plastic to create necessary items. Items such as straws and water bottles are made with plastic because it’s cheaper to make and producers know people are only going to use these things once. Making objects like bags and silverware only in metal and creating a culture of reusing things is a step the government can take to prevent the huge amounts of plastic that flood the oceans each year. Based on research reported by CNBC news, it only cost half a cent to produce each straw, but it cost 2½ cents to make paper straws which are safer for the environment. Why hasn’t the world switched over yet? Because “it’s too expensive.” A young nine-year-old boy engaged in an environmental project where he calculated how many plastic straws Americans use a day. His estimates were around 500 million a day. Some people have even declared that number is “too low”, (Money magazine, 2018). What number has to be “too high for the world to open their eyes and acknowledge the problem we face today with the large amounts of plastic in the ocean?  

Bangladesh already stepped on the path of reducing ocean pollution in 2007 by banning plastic bags. New Zealand has followed suite and banned them as well. The “New Scientist” newsletter reports that the Prime Minister of New Zealand states, “New Zealand currently uses over 750 million single-use plastic bags per year, which is equivalent to about 150 per person. “A mountain of bags, many of which end up polluting our precious coastal and marine environments and cause serious harm to all kinds of marine life.”While this switch from plastic to more recyclable material is costly, counties such as New Zealand and Bangladesh recognize the immediate need to reduce the amount of plastic in the ocean. Small individual steps and bigger governmental intervention can help out the situation in numerous ways regardless of the cost. The cost of not having a sustainable planet to live on is even higher than any efforts to solve the problem can ever be.

While there may be a society of people, especially major production companies that benefit from making cheap single-use items, may be against reducing ocean pollution and/or the steps that have to be taken to reach that point, the world can’t ignore the problem that much longer. Not only is ocean pollution wrong, it literally effects the whole world. The economic downfalls are clearly evident, no sea life, the fish and seafood market plummets. According to the “United Nations Environment Programme,”“Over 1 million seabirds and 100,000 sea mammals are killed by pollution every year.” Right now, the United Nations Environment Programme estimate that the “price tag on the environmental damage done by the millions of tons of plastic floating around the world’s oceans: $13 billion a year.” If the environmental cost is thirteen billion dollars right now, the future costs will be nothing but higher. If we keep complaining about the issue and not acting on the current problems at hand, we’ll just be bystanders to the self-destruction of our earth. The change starts within, we can start small and work our way up. Efforts as small as not littering, beach cleanups, and governmental interventions similar to Bangladesh and New Zealand are all ways the world can get involved, the cost shouldn’t be the determining factor for our decision to save our earth.

References

National Geographic

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2019/01/many-ocean-creatures-surprisingly-eat-jellyfish/

Ocean Service

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/microplastics.html

Conserve. Energy. Future

Worldwildlife

https://www.worldwildlife.org/industries/sustainable-seafood

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

https://www.noaa.gov/media-release/us-fishing-generated-more-than-200b-in-sales-in-2015-two-stocks-rebuilt-in-2016

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/oceaneconomy.html

https://dev1.orr.noaa.gov/about/media/how-much-would-it-cost-clean-pacific-garbage-patches.html

National Geographic

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/10/greenpeace-beach-cleanup-report-highlights-ocean-plastic-problem/

Planet Aid

https://www.planetaid.org/blog/how-ocean-pollution-affects-humans

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/pollution.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/09/paper-straws-are-better-for-the-environment-but-they-will-cost-you.html

http://money.com/money/5343736/how-many-plastic-straws-used-every-day/

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2176417-new-zealand-becomes-the-latest-country-to-ban-plastic-bags/

https://www.dosomething.org/us/facts/11-facts-about-pollution

http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/06/30/ocean-plastic-pollution-costs-13-billion-year-and-your-face-scrub-part-problem/

Posted in daphneblake, Research, x Research Position Paper | Leave a comment

Visual Rewrite- MysteryLimbo

Posted on April 21, 2019 by mysterylimbo

0:00-0:01 The animation is Disney and each character is either based off of Disney show or videogame. Then scene open with the joy of a team hand stack. Sora, Goofy, and Donald Duck beginning with unity.

0:02-0:03 The scene of the hand stack quickly vanishes and the character group of Sora, Goofy, and Donald Duck are joined by Rex and Woody. Woody and Sora are shaking hands, throughout the scene while their friends are watching the handshake from behind Sora.

0:04-0:07 The next section of the film is grim both in pace and colors compared to the of the first 3 seconds which were happy and about unity. The scene begins with Riku comforting Sora who is sad and Sora got done crying by the look in his eyes. Rapunzel is now in the film she also looks sad with her head down sighing with no other context other than she’s in a room alone with her head down.

0:08-0:11 The source of agony and sorrow are made apparent in the next 3 seconds of the film. With our antagonist, Pete walking away into a purple portal leaving Sora crying and his friends Goofy and Donald Duck fluttered.

0:11-0:14 After the scene of Pete and his demeaning/Unwanted presence. Then a scene of Mike Wazowski, James Sullivan, and Boo from Monsters Inc. begins. James and Mike are standing across from one another with Boo in the middle of the two of them. The final scene with the three of these characters is with James giving boo a head pet. Boo is ecstatic from the reinforcement from James.

0:15-0:16 With the film picking up with positivity once again. The next scene is of Rapunzel crying under a tree in a forest. When Rapunzel picks her head up she is met by her love Eugene and the original trio of friends Sora, Goofy, Donald Ducks. One could see the joy fill in Rapunzel’s face.

0:17-0:18 After the tree scene is swift changes into the Icy tundra of Frozen. Elsa and Ana are passionately hugging in the scene as if they overcame an obstacle of some sort. Olaf shows the significance of this hug by his excitement by picking up his head off his body.

0:19-0:20 The next two scene are very similar to the last one. Jack Sparrow and a child steering a ship. Jack places his hand on the child’s shoulder showing support and reassuring the child. Also apart of this scene is Hercule and Megara dancing then hugging after a split second of the two of them dancing.

0:20-0:22 The next two second is with Sora, Goofy, Donald, Rex, Buzz Lightyear, and Hamm. It seems that they are in Andy room or another child’s room because one can see the full sized chair behind them and toy chest in the background. The entire scene is of Rex hugging Sora and rubbing his face against Sora’s.

0:23-0:24 This is the last scene of positivity being given to others. After all of what Sora endured Sora is able to stay positive giving some Winny the Poo reinforcing words of his own and a light-hearted touch to end their conversation leaving both of them happy.

0:25-0:30 The last thing we’re left with Sora, Goofy, Donald Duck, and 6 other unknown characters. All of them are wearing headgear with visors attached to the front of them. It breaks with Sora speaking to the camera and all of his companions siling in the background. The uniform similarities are showing their unity to one another.

Posted in mysterylimbo, Portfolio MysteryLimbo, Visual Rewrite | Leave a comment

Research- hazelnutlatte

Posted on April 20, 2019 by hazelnutlatte123

The idea of not guilty by reason of insanity has been in play in America’s legal justice system since the discovery of the many mental disorders. Not guilty by reason of insanity is determined by the capacity of the perpetrator at the time of the crime. It is in place, according to Cornell Legal Information Institute, because of society’s balance between believing “…that criminals should be punished for their crimes…,” but also believing that “…people who are ill should receive treatment for their illness.” There has been a line between the mentally ill and the criminally evil or criminally insane for ages, but nobody has ever seemed to easily decipher who lies above that line and who lies below that line. This defense sets in motion the help that victims of mental illness need to ensure that they are no longer a threat to themselves or society. When found not guilty by reason of insanity, those who are compelled by their illness to commit these crimes are sent to a psychiatric facility instead of sent to a maximum security prison where they would receive absolutely no help. Many perpetrators involved in crimes of passion attempt to use this defense by stating that they were mentally ill, even though their judgement was simply just clouded by anger, and it does not create an excuse for the heinous crime they have committed. Although, in some cases the perpetrator is actually suffering from a mental illness, and require the help that is needed in order to help with the illness and decrease the chance of that person hurting someone else ever again. The question still remains on both sides, whether someone is mentally ill or not, does it excuse or at least give a little bit on insight into why they committed the crime that has been put into question?

One of the biggest cases in history that emphasizes this question, was the trial of Andrea Yates. In the case of Andrea Yates, she was found guilty for the murder of her five children, until the verdict was eventually overturned in 2005. She was then found guilty by reason of insanity due to her multiple mental illnesses that she had been suffering from throughout the time of the crime, and throughout the trial. According to Diamond, in the article from Psychology Today, “Sympathy for the Devil,” Yates was suffering from postpartum depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and bulimia, which was the cause of her “…pathological guilt regarding herself and her performance as a mother.” These mental illnesses took over Yates’ life and eventually led her to murder her five children by drowning them each one by one in their family bathtub. Yates had constant thoughts and delusions of the devil being inside her head, controlling her entire life. The thoughts of the devil in her head were telling her that the only way to save her children from her insanity was to kill them. With the defense of not guilty by reason of insanity, Yates was sent to a psychiatric hospital where she continues to receive the help necessary to decrease her symptoms instead of being sent to a lifetime in prison, where no help is distributed to the inmates.

Not guilty by reason of insanity is used by thousands of lawyers all around the country. The time old question remains, is this a reasonable and logical defense to use for perpetrators who are, in fact, mentally ill? The defense, when coming to a verdict, allows those, who truly need help, get the proper treatment needed. Without this defense prisons would be flooded with hundreds of criminals who are mentally ill and maybe cannot ask for the help required for them. As said by Cornell Legal Information Institute, criminals with the defense of not guilty by reason of insanity are set to the standard of the “McNaughton Rule” which applies the accusation that the perpetrator “…does not know right from wrong.” The criminals who are involved in crimes of passion know the difference between right and wrong, but are so overcome with their emotion that it leads them to commit a crime such as homicide, kidnapping, robbery, or whatever the case may be. These perpetrators are the ones who should not be found guilty by reason of insanity because there is no actual illness present that cannot be stopped. Prisons should be filled with those who choose to commit their legal acts rather than those who are controlled completely by the mental illnesses that seem to define them. Many defendants who have a history of mental illness cannot control, are not aware of, or are too compelled by their mental illness to do anything about it. Not guilty by reason of insanity is a way for the mentally ill to be set apart from the criminally evil or criminally insane, and receive the help they need while paying for the crime they have committed.

The term “mentally insane” usually sparks a common thought in everyone’s mind. We usually refer to the criminally insane as those who commit heinous crimes with the intent of hurting someone, but when referring to the mentally insane we think about illnesses that cause the criminal to have trouble understanding why what they did was wrong. These criminals could have an abundant amount of different illnesses, but each illness tells a different story for each criminal. The biggest question in our minds is why? Why do those who are convicted of crimes and are mentally insane commit the crimes that they do? There is a simple, yet extremely complex reason for this: mental illness has the ability to control a person’s entire mind, body, and life. The mental illnesses that many of the criminally insane suffer from causes various neurological effects within the person. Whether it is cognitive dysfunction, delusions, hallucinations, or feelings of being possessed by the devil, many of these convicted murders have a story of being compelled to commit the crime. It seems so simple to grasp the concept of mental illness when relating it to the criminally insane, but there is a much bigger idea that we do not quite fully understand.

Many victims of mental illness are drawn to darkness and evil due to the “voices” they hear in their heads. Many mental illness’ cause people to hallucinate or have delusions of things and voices that are not really there. This is most common in schizophrenic patients. As proven by Michael Brook, Robert E. Hanlon, and John Stratton, in “Murder and Psychosis: Neuropsychological Profiles of Homicide Offenders With Schizophrenia,” patients with this illness are “…2.5-7%” more “…at risk for violence perpetration…” This is due to the negative neurocognitive effects that this illness has including problems with attention, working memory, executive functions, and verbal memory. The study conducted by Brook, Hanlon, and Stratton supported the hypothesis that those with this disorder are more susceptible to falling to violent actions when they feel threatened, endangered, or as if it is the only way to fix the problem at hand. This could be whether a major problem in their mind, or a minor predicament that simply manifests and leads them to snap. Many of us cannot understand what it is like to have a constant voice in our minds telling us that something we were taught was wrong, is right in that moment. Having someone constantly repeating to you that murdering a loved one was the only way to save them, and save yourself, much like Andrea Yates had dealt with, is not a concept that is in the slightest bit considered by an ordinary person, but to some of the mentally insane, this concept is just an everyday occurrence.

The phrase “not guilty by reason of insanity” was put into place because of this concept that many people cannot understand because their mental health is not on the same wavelength as these criminals. Mental illness does not excuse the behavior of these criminals, but it gives us a closer look into the minds of the murderer. In the justice system we try so hard to figure out why the crime was committed. Many cases are not a case of who did it, but they are cases of why did this person do it? Often times, the justice system is presented with people who commit crimes with the intent of getting something out of it. A branch of criminals could be those who we see as mentally insane due to their pleasure of committing the crime, but that would not fall under the defense of not guilty by reason of insanity. Many cases involve murders resulting from revenge, crimes of passion, or someone who likes the thrill of committing the crime. In patients of schizophrenia and many other mental illnesses and disorders, they feel that the crime at hand must be committed in order to save themselves or someone close to them. Often times, they do not understand why they have done what they did, but they know that in their mind it was a necessary task.

Andrea Yates was on of these patients diagnosed with schizophrenia, who felt that the murder of her five children was necessary to save them from the devil. She was not only a patient with schizophrenia, but also multiple other mental illnesses. Through suffering with all the mental illnesses that she was diagnosed with, she felt that the devil would talk to her and tell her what a horrible job as a parents she was doing. This led to her to believe that her parenting would result in her children having issues when they get older, or it would result in childhood trauma, even though she was not a horrible, or abusive parent to her children. With her diagnosis of schizophrenia came the constant regret of having children, constant worry she was emotionally hurting them, and the constant fear that something bad would happen. Her reasoning, as Roche described in “Andrea Yates: More to the Story,” from “The New York Times,” was “[Her] children weren’t righteous. They stumbled because [she] was evil. The way [she] was raising them they could never be saved…” The reasoning behind the horrible crime committed was because her mental illness led her to believe that the only way to save them from “[perishing] in the fires of hell” was to kill them. In reality, we know that this idea is not plausible and doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, but to Andrea, this was the only escape from the voices and the only way to protect her children from herself and the devil.

The biggest dilemma in these cases is trying to decipher who is mentally insane and who is the criminally insane. The intent to commit the crime at hand versus the compulsion that is forced upon the individual who does not know right from wrong is an issue that continues on today. Mental illness causes people to do many things, because of it affecting and deteriorating their cognitive abilities. Andrea Yates was one person that was affected by many mental illnesses that led her to commit a crime that we cannot even wrap our heads around doing. As diagnoses continued to pile up, she continued to get treatment, but never fully recovered. This is just one person in the mix of thousands of people convicted of homicide and put in prison. Many people are given the help required to make them better, but even more convicted criminals are put into prisons and neglected of the help that they need. Prisons could be much less populated if mental illness was found in many of the cases that have been overlooked. Many people are found guilty for their crime, but how many of those people are guilty by reason of insanity?

In the case of Andrea Yates, the crimes that she has been convicted of have been determined to have been caused by her diagnoses of mental illness, which includes the diagnoses of schizophrenia. Many people tend to ask the question, is this really the case? Schizophrenia has been diagnosed in hundreds of thousands of people across the country, but the amount of people who commit crimes with this disease is much less than people would think. Schizophrenia leads those who suffer from it to have trouble easily processing the relation between thought, emotion, and behavior which can lead to inappropriate actions and feelings, and can lead to a complete withdrawal from reality and the person’s entire life and family. It’s main distraction from life is caused by the excessive hallucinations and delusions that take over the sufferer’s cognitive functioning. It may also cause them to do things they usually wouldn’t if they feel they are being threatened or endangered. However, the chance of someone turning to a violet crime or action is much more prevalent in people who abuse drugs while they are suffering from this mental disorder.

The risk of attack by someone with schizophrenia is much less in those who do not abuse drugs. When a person with this mental disorder uses drugs, the drugs stimulate the brain and heighten the effects that the schizophrenia has on a person. The study described by Rebecca Syed, in “Are You Really at Risk of Attack by Someone With Schizophrenia,” has shown that those who do not abuse drugs alongside the disease are only “…1.2 times more likely…” to commit a violet act than those who do not have a mental disorder. Although the chances for someone who does misuse drugs alongside having this disease doesn’t show a major increase in risk of violent crimes, “…the studies don’t tell us how much violent offending is actually caused by the mental disorder itself.” Those who are convicted of being not guilty by reason of insanity have been questioned to actually have been insane. This concept seems insane in itself. It is extremely difficult to determine the real impacts of mental illness on a crime. There is always room for dramatic emphasis on the effects that a criminal could try to use, just to help get a shorter sentence for the conviction they are facing. How can you tell who is actually mentally ill, and who is trying to emphasize an illness for their own benefit? Or even if the person is mentally ill, how can a jury decide if it was the mental illness that caused a person to commit a crime?

In the case of Andrea Yates, she was originally found to be guilty of the murder of her five children. Later on, she was found not guilty by reason of insanity. This case had many controversial conversations about whether she committed the crime due to this mental illness, or due to other factors. As explained by Gary Kesling, in “Andre Yates: Ask the Expert,” there could be explanations that “may come from clusters of factors, such as family/social and psychiatric history, perpetrator characteristics such prior family history of conflict and an ongoing history of contact with social services and health and mental health providers.” This raised many questions about whether Yates actually believed the devil was telling her to murder her five children, causing her to think that this would be the only way to save them from herself. There is no way to tell if Yates truly thought she was saving her children, or if she is using this mental illness as an escape. Not only is this a major debate in the Andre Yates case, but it becomes a problem in thousands of cases each year in the justice system.

Homicide involving mental health raises many questions and involves complex maneuvers when determining the actual cause or reason for the homicide. Schizophrenia is just one of the many mental illnesses that continue to be questioned when brought into play in the court room. Mental health must be thoroughly researched and diagnosed to fully determine if someone is actually as mentally ill as they claim to be. When the perpetrator pleads not guilty by reason of insanity, it turns the case around and brings up many issues within the jury. This continues to be a major debate, as some people believe the mentally ill still deserve jail time, but others believe they need the help required to get them better instead.

Andrea Yates was convicted of murder until the defense of not guilty by reason of insanity was put into question after she was already in prison for multiple years. The illnesses she suffered from do not excuse the crime committed that led to the loss of five innocent young lives, but Yates is now receiving the treatment needed in order to better herself and ensure that another crime is not committed. Mental illness in the justice system is a serious and complex subject because it requires sufficient evidence to prove that someone is actually suffering, or suffered from a mental illness at the time of the crime. To this day, not guilty by reason of insanity is something that is not taken lightly in the justice system, but is always under a fine microscope to ensure that criminally insane get put away, and the mentally insane receive help.

References

“Andrea Yates Fast Facts.” CNN, Cable News Network, 21 June 2018, http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/25/us/andrea-yates-fast-facts/index.html

Cornell Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/background/insane/insanity.html

Diamond, S.A., (2008, May 2). Sympathy for the Devil. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/evil-deeds/200805/sympathy-the-devil

Kesling, G. (2006, September 1). Ask the expert: The Case of Andrea Yates. Retrieved from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=5&sid=fe9d653a-63d8-4d3b-b270-20f26b85b43b%40sessionmgr102

Poyatos-Leon, R.; Garcia-Hermoso, A.; Sanabria-Martinez, G.; Alvarez-Bueno, C; Cavero-Redondo, I.; Martinez-Vizcaino, V. (2017, June 6). Effects of exercise‐based interventions on postpartum depression: A meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/birt.12294

Roche, T. (2002, March 18). Andrea Yates: More To The Story. Retrieved from http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,218445,00.html

“Schizophrenia.” National Institute of Mental Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/schizophrenia/index.shtml.

Stratton, J.; Brook, M.; Hanlon, R.E. (2016, February 10). Murder and Psychosis: Neuropsychological Profiles of Homicide Offenders with Schizophrenia. Retrieved from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=10&sid=b13e729e-d665-41b4-9734-94c9ecff5647%40pdc-v-sessmgr03

Syed, R. (2013, June 19). Are You Really at Risk of Attack by Someone With Schizophrenia. Retrieved from http://theconversation.com/are-you-really-at-risk-of-attack-by-someone-with-schizophrenia-14656

Posted in 123 Uncheck this Box, hazelnutlatte, Portfolio Hazelnutlatte, Research, x Research Position Paper | Leave a comment

Casual Rewrite-Chavanillo

Posted on April 18, 2019 by chavanillo

The Worldwide Sneaker Trend

Fashion these days has been one of the most trended companies in the world, especially sneakers. We know that almost everything that comes with obsession there are issues, the same thing is happening with shoe wear.  The internet is causing this obsession. Teens these days post their personal life and identities especially on what is fashion when it comes to shoes and clothes. In the article by Tara Chittenden she talks about these ten girls that are obsessed with blogging. They post their identity and private life making them “good friends” for other people. This is a way teens would get feedback and play with another’s comments judging on what they are doing right or wrong. So, basically, they are doing what other people want them to do for views and have people believe that we are living the best life. It’s so astonishing that teens will change their lifestyle just to get people to talk to them or be the most famous on Instagram because if you are not, then you are a “dork.”  These kinds of blogging and web apps are the reason murder involving sneakers is controversial in this generation. Blogging will also be controversial in the next generation. Teens showing off their new shoes in the web for people could say he is cool and get that compliment that every teen wants. With a blog teens can brag about their new shoes to the whole world.

For teens the most important thing is how other people see us. We don’t even take a minute to realize what we really like and enjoy, and almost all the time we hide it to fulfill what people want to see. Also, I believe this has been like this because is a way for teens to get out of depression, or when they feel alone. This is some of the few reasons why online a blogging is a big trend in this world. There even teens who get depress or sad because they can’t afford those sneakers that would make them “fit” into the environment. I don’t believe that the fault is in the shoes but in us. The consumers made it that important that it became dangerous. The teen life is focused on a “visible” fake world because it is away teens connect with each other to feel part of a group. Think about the real problem here that is the obsession with sneakers. What is really the whole reason for getting hyped? If the sneakers were gold the teen that has them is the coolest one in the world while the other teen that doesn’t have the sneakers is bad, seen as crazy, and doesn’t know fashion at all. You could compare this to everyday life. If you don’t have a job and you are 20 years old, you are seen as a crazy and lazy person that doesn’t want to do anything. But, the whole point is that teens were the ones that started and began this obsession of sneakers and the importance of it in their minds.

Sneakers has become an identity of teens. What he or she wears defines who are they as a person an what they like to do. It’s so crazy how something or what you wear defines who you are as a person. Children are taking peer pressure from the people around them because they get use to the liking of what they see t home and what is a trend now. So, they take in account the favorite things their peer love of a product and they take that with them. Meaning when they are looking for clothes or in this case sneakers their peers are the one influencing making sneakers a big brand. The real issue is that anything that you do, or buy is what is around your peers. Is like the phrase “Dime con quien andas y te dire quien eres.” Meaning “Tell me who your friends are, and I’ll tell you who you are.” You will be influence on what is around you because that what you know. We always want the most known brand to buy. Teens have more Nike sneakers than any other brand because is more known and expensive. The problem here is that, why teens are really making sneakers so important? What’s the unique thing about them that separates them from their brands or any other shoe wear? I believe is all on the consumer on how important they make it because money is a great example. Money is valuable because we make it like that. If we really didn’t believe in money in cash that is paper it won’t have any value and Bolivia is the answer to this. Anything we put in our minds, paper being money and making stone money or a piece of unique fabric. A rubber money. The whole point of this is that what is trendy now is because we made it like that. We are the reason for everything that is happening in the world now and we are the only ones that could stop it. Experts had tried to eliminate the issues and dangerous circumstances happening because of sneakers and they say their still no answer or nothing that they can’t do, but I believe that we do have the answer but we never going to act on it because at the end of the day we are the only answer to stop this. We cause the issues and the problems and that is why sneakers are an issue. We made it trendy and famous and treated like if it was gold now the symbolize your personality and now is also considered dangerous to even put this kind of shoe wear. This addiction could really cause financial struggle especially for low income families because they don’t even know how to manage their own money. We always must ask ourselves questions because that’s the only way we could find what the truth is. Everything changes if we change.

Reference

Elliott, R., & Leonard, C. (2004). Peer pressure and poverty: Exploring fashion brands and consumption symbolism among children of the ‘British poor’. Journal of Consumer Behaviour,3(4), 347-359. doi:10.1002/cb.147     Chittenden, T. (2010, August). Ebscohost. Retrieved 2019, from
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cb.147

Posted in Causal Rewrite, chavanillo, Portfolio Chavanillo | 1 Comment