Assignment 16 - Dani Fauzi

Pharmaceutical Profits Over People

In 1988, the World Health Organization celebrated its first World Aids Day. The aim of the day was twofold: to raise awareness of AIDS-related issues and to mourn those whose lives had already been cut short  by the disease. Occurring each year on December 1st the campaign is additionally accompanied by a theme tying to global health. On December 1st, 2017, the World Health Organization sponsored the campaign My Health, My Rights.

With this year’s campaign, the World Health Organization aimed to support healthcare as a right for all people, in adherence to the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The covenant stated that it was the “right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health... to the prevention and treatment of ill health… and to be treated with dignity and respect.”                                                                                                                                                                                                      

Bringing attention to the plight of healthcare is important in a world where for many, treatment for AIDS remains out of reach due to pharmaceutical companies charging exorbitant amounts of money for their drugs. AIDS has moved out of the mainstream for many Americans; the days of the AIDS crisis of the 80s and 90s are over. But often ignored populations in America, like African Americans in the South, and people with AIDS in the global south continue to suffer as their economic conditions preclude them from accessing expensive vital medication. According to the World Health Organization, pharmaceutical companies’ target consumer bases are in wealthy North American and European countries, despite the fact that a majority of those living with AIDS live in Africa and Asia.

What can be done to make AIDS medication more accessible to the economically disadvantaged? Governments could regulate the pharmaceutical industry and place price controls on lifesaving drugs.

Detractors of such market regulation say such regulation hurts innovation. Drug companies say that lowering their pricing policies will only kill drug development. However, according to the D. Light Institute for Monitoring Policy, pharmaceutical companies only contribute to about 12% of innovation in drug development--governmental research and public research make up the bulk of drug development.

In truth, the cost of a drug often has nothing to do with how much it cost a corporation to produce it--out of all major industries, pharmaceutical companies have the greatest average profit margin. The returns pharmaceutical companies get per pill show that the current state of the pharmaceutical industry values profits over human life. Generic companies, like Cipla in India sell AIDS medication cocktails for a mere $350 per year, versus the average name-brand Glaxosmithkline AIDS medication cocktail costing as much as $15,000 per year.

The issue of drug profiteering goes beyond the scope of medicines to treat AIDS. In 2015, CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals, Martin Shkreli, made headlines after raising the price of a life-saving drug, Daraprim, used in the treatment of toxoplasmosis, a disease affecting immunocompromised individuals. The price went from $13.50 per pill to $750 per pill--and this was a legal move, albeit through exploitation of loopholes.

In America, virtual monopoly exists when companies exploit loopholes in the legal system currently regulating pharmaceutical companies. Market forces alone won’t limit these de-facto monopolies, we need more drastic changes like price controls and compulsory licensing in order to keep pharmaceutical companies from exploiting those in need of their drugs. Price gouging currently runs rampant in the pharmaceutical industry, and we must bring an end to this. Greater regulation of the pharmaceutical industry won’t stifle innovation, regulation will only protect patients who are currently suffering under inflated drug costs.  

Works Cited

Chu, Ben. “If We Want to Avoid Another Martin Shkreli or an EpiPen Pricing Fiasco, This Is How We Need to Deal with Pharmaceuticals in Future.” The Independent, Independent Digital News and Media, 30 Aug. 2016, www.independent.co.uk/voices/martin-shkreli-epipen-big-pharma-avoid-pricing-fiasco-pharmaceutical-companies-capitalism-a7216606.html.

Duberman, Martin. Hold Tight Gently: Michael Callen, Essex Hemphill, and the Battlefield of AIDS. The New Press, 2014

Fire in the Blood. Directed by Dylan Mohan Gray, Sparkwater India, 2013.

Mugyenyi, Peter. Genocide by Denial: How Profiteering from HIV/AIDS Killed Millions. Fountain, 2008.

“UNAIDS Launches 2017 World AIDS Day Campaign-My Health, My Right.” UNAIDS, 6 Nov. 2017, www.unaids.org/en/resources/presscentre/pressreleaseandstatementarchive/2017/november/20171106_myhealth-myright.

Villarosa, Linda. "America’s Hidden H.I.V. Epidemic." The New York Times, 06 June 2017,

nyti.ms/2rOqWIz. Accessed 30 June 2017

Assignment 16- Will Gregory

What is capital punishment really accomplishing?

​Imagine this, someone you love is murdered. Someone in your life is killed in cold blood. You would be left devastated, empty, and searching for a way to somehow right this wrong that has been done. Once the killer is caught how would you react? You’d want justice for this wrong but how could justice really be served. You’d want this person to feel the same pain, feel the same suffering that you feel. You’d want them to pay with their life to balance out the life that they took from you. This understandable mentality is the reason that capital punishment still exists in our country, however the falsehoods surrounding it are the reasons it should be eradicated.

​To counter the argument that they “don’t deserve to live.” If you want them to be punished, why give them the easy way out? Ignoring all moral aspects of capital punishment, isn’t that what it is? It’s saving the murderer from life in prison. It’s saving them the guilt, torment and pain that is felt after committing a murder and is contradictive to the claims that capital punishment is what a murderer deserves. If someone takes a life, shouldn’t they have to pay for it? Being executed for their crime is not the best way to do so. With capitol punishment, the real people being punished are the loved ones of the convicted criminal. Going back to my opening hypothetical, do you want them to suffer the way that you are suffering? They didn’t kill your loved one.

Capital punishment has seemingly always existed. In both history and religion, government ordered executions for crimes have been continuitywithin all societies throughout all of history, but that doesn’t make it right. Whilst one might think with the remarkable societal progression our country has made in the last century alone, this deplorable government action would no longer exist, but sadly it does. Since 1976, 1465 executions have been carried out in the US. It is currently legal in 31 of our 50 states, including Kentucky(DPIC).  

​Capital punishment just isn’t right. Yes, it is in place to bring justice for murder, but is truly just murder itself shielded under a different name. It’s supporters claim it is an eye for an eye or a life for a life, but this primitive mentality cannot be allowed to dictate how our government behaves. While this killing is without malicious or careless intent, it is murder just the same. While the life that the government is taking may belong to a terrible person, that life is not within the right of the government to take. A government’s purpose is to keep its inhabitants safe and the institution of capital punishment is by definition in opposition to this. 

​Other arguments in support of the issue claim that execution by lethal injection as opposed to life imprisonment saves money. This claim is just false. Yes the chemicals themselves used in lethal injection do not approach the cost of life imprisonment, but the cost of the trial most certainly does. The average cost of the defense in a federal death case is $620,932 and many inmates sit on death row for decades at a time at a price of $137,102 per year, $90,000 a year more expensive than regular inmates. Non-Capital trials are on average ¼ of the cost of trials where the death penalty is sought. When combined with these extra expenses the cost of delivering the death penalty is in the millions, far outweighing the cost of life imprisonment (DPIC). Even if life imprisonment were to be more expensive, can you put a price on a life?

​Whether you subscribe to a certain religion or not, life is sacred. Life is priceless no matter what terrible deed has been committed. The authority to take a life simply does not belong to humans, which is entirely why murder is illegal in the first place. If we allow that power to remain under the Governments jurisdiction we are no better than the murderer. So what if keeping them alive is costly, any life is worth it. 

To conclude we must do something about this. We cannot go in living our lives ignoring this. Admittedly rates of the death penalty have seen a decrease within the last few years but we cant stop there. 2,817 inmates remain on death row awaiting their fate. Not only are we wasting our taxpayer dollars by keeping them there but by not eradicating our country of this heinous death penalty we are murderers ourselves. Our politicians need to set aside their agendas and put an end to something that has plagued our nation for far too long. 

Assignment 16 - lindsey angel

Keltie Byrne. Daniel Dukes. Dawn Brancheau. These are the victims of a famous SeaWorld orca named Tilikum; a fraction of the total victims of captive animals. However, it is not the instinctive nature of animals, like Tilikum, that makes them killers. It is the result of the physical and psychological abuse humans subject these innocent animals to.
Before we can possibly begin to understand the circumstances of Tilikum's attacks, we must look at how he came to be in captivity, performing to the delight of Americans. At only two years old he was rounded up by men, using explosives to scare his pod into scattering, and caught in a purse-seine net, and forever separated from his family. From there the trauma only continued. He was inhumanely stored in a pitch-black cement holding tank, with only enough space to swim in small circles and float aimlessly. After a long year, Tilikum was moved to Sealand of the Pacific where he was stored in a hundred by fifty by thirty-five foot tank with two other female orcas, Haida and Nookta. Keep in mind, that Tilikum would grow to be 22 and a half feet long, and that wild orcas swim hundreds of miles a day. While at Sealand, Tilikum was subject to physical harassment from his whale counterparts, due to frustration from a type of training used where a group of orcas was deprived of food if one of them did not perform correctly. This type of aggression is common in captive orcas, yet seldom found in the wild.
On February 21, 1991 Keltie Bryne fell into the small pool holding the three orcas, where Tilikum dragged her to the bottom of the pool, drowning her. After this incident, Sealand closed its doors, and Tilikum was purchased by Sea World for its breeding program. Today, 54 percent of Sea World's whales contain Tilikum's genes. There he was once again confined to a small tank, ten thousandths of the amount of water he would have swam in a single day in the wild. He was later held responsible for the deaths of Daniel Dukes on July 6, 1999; and Dawn Brancheau, his trainer, on February 24, 2010.
While you may assume that Tilikum was just a "bad" whale, unfortunately, these types of attacks have occurred throughout the history of orca captivity. In 2006, Tilikum's offspring, Kasatka dragged her trainer Ken Peters down to the bottom of her tank twice, nearly drowning him. On December 24, 2009 – exactly two months before Dawn Brancheau's death – a trainer named Alexis Martinez at Loro Parque (an establishment similar to Sea World) in the Canary Islands was killed by Keto, one of the park's orcas who had been bred and trained by Sea World.
Both Tilikum and Keto, as well as many other orcas are forced to experience the negative effects of captivity. Stress, anxiety – which can be seen in the habit of captive whales to gnaw on their pens and consequently break their teeth, boredom – captive whales can often be seen floating listlessly in their tanks, performing for hours, and physical abuse caused by other whales. One particularly brutal example of such abuse occurred at Sea World in California, when Kandu the fifth bled to death after an artery in her upper jaw was severed in a display of dominance with another whale. This type of abnormal behavior is not only found in captive orcas, but all animals across the board. Animals in zoos can often be seen rocking and pacing – which is a sign of stress, over-grooming, consuming feces, being physically harassed by other animals, gnawing on their cages in frustration, and in extreme cases self-mutilating. This can be seen in a study conducted by Nicholas Newton-Fisher, a primate behavioral ecologist at the University of Kent's School of Anthropology and Conservation, in which he observed 40 chimpanzees at six different zoos across the U.S. and the U.K. over two years. He then compared his own observations to those made of wild chimpanzees. All 40 chimpanzees displayed abnormal behavior, no matter the quality of the zoo, that was related stress, anxiety, and aggression. They would "poke at their own eyes and other body parts, bang themselves against surfaces, pull out their hair, pace, drink urine, and do other things not associated with wild chimpanzee populations" (Viegas, 2011).
Now I don’t know about you all, but growing up I always dreamed of having wild animals as pets. An elephant. A lion. A giraffe. A monkey. Even an orca, thanks to films like Free Willy. Knowing what I know now, however, I could never condone the purposeful capture of such extraordinary creatures. While, as a child, this idea may have fulfilled my wildest dreams, the capture and forced captivity of these animals would have broken them. It would have destroyed them both physically and mentally, turning my beloved pets into killers, and I would have been responsible, just like we are responsible for tragedies like Tilikum's if we continue to sit back and do nothing while countless animals across the globe are subject to this abuse. While, in the case of Tilikum, Sea World has agreed to stop using captured orcas, as well as end their orca breeding program we must extend that same right to all animals. We must end the capture of ALL wild animals, unless they are deemed unfit to survive on their own in the wild and/or are held on the basis of species preservation and protection. We must also prohibit the breeding of ALL captive animals (again unless it is for species preservation), as well as reform the treatment of current animals living in captivity both in the United States and on a global scale.

Assignment 16: The decline of the NRA - Isabella Matthews

Last week, while most of us were frantically studying in preparation for our rapidly approaching finals... While we were filled with thoughts of dread and were so stressed out we felt like a few mere tests could be the death of us... countless lives were lost due to gun violence in the United States.

It seems as if everytime we turn around there is some mass shooting dominating the media. Whether it be the San Bernadino shooting 2 years ago in December of 2015 or the Las Vegas Massacre two months ago, each and every one is devastating in its own way as they unite our country in grief.

According to the Gun Violence Archive, there were 307 mass shootings in 2017 alone up to the date of November 6th, all with various numbers of law abiding citizens reported dead or injured as a result. The 307th was the recent massacre in Sutherland Springs, Texas, where 26 people died and 20 were found injured after a man approached First Baptist Church and began shooting.

The National Rifle Association, otherwise known as the NRA, is an organization that exists with the intention to protect us from such violence.

It was created in 1871 by two Civil War veterans in order to advance rifle marksmanship when they realized what many soldiers lacked was proper knowledge about guns. Very quickly teaching gun safety also became a priority. However, over the years that “priority” faded into the background a bit.

In 1975 they began to take a more political stance that is more similar to the one we associate with them today, directly lobbying for and against legislation regarding gun control. As the gun debate got more heated, the NRA got more involved, and in doing so left many of the values they once held so dear lying in the dust.

In 1999 this debate was ricocheted into a new era after the Columbine High School Massacre. Our country had never seen such a terrible school shooting up to this point, with 24 injuries and 15 deaths, including those of the perpetrators, two teenage students attending the school. The outrage caused by such a horrific scene called for gun laws stricter than those that had previously existed. Laws that would make it impossible for things like “gun show loopholes” to exist or for anyone who does not have the proper qualifications to somehow obtain a gun. Both of which, things that made it possible for the Columbine Massacre to take place.

Columbine was only the beginning though, since then the gun debate has grown into an enormous issue that often dominates political conversation. Because of this, the NRA’s main goal today is to protect our gun rights by maintaining the gun control laws at the current state they are in. Their priority has shifted from the people to the politics. Where once all they wanted was to make sure we knew how to safely handle ourselves around guns, now they are fighting to make sure we have the opportunity to protect ourselves using guns in the first place.

As times changed over the past 50 years, gun violence became more common, creating more tension in the gun debate and more need for the NRA to argue against too harsh of gun control. After all, if they weren’t going to then who was. But in doing so they have neglected their original purpose of making sure innocent citizens know how to appropriately and safely use a gun so that if they were to be put in a position where they needed to use a gun to defend themselves or others they would be able to.

An example of such a circumstance is the aforementioned massacre in Sutherland Springs, Texas last month.  The violence ended when the perpetrator was chased from the scene and shot by Stephen Willeford, an armed civilian. If Willeford had not been there or did not have the appropriate gun knowledge then the loss of life would have been much greater on that day.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention the  average rate of gun deaths in America is about 12 out of 100,000 people die. If the NRA reoriented themselves and returned to their original ideals of making sure people know how to use guns and teaching about how to be safe around guns than that number might be lower.

They’ve been trying the path of politics and the rate of gun violence has only gone up. People need to be reminded that guns are not toys and the NRA is the perfect group to do that. It’s time they start focusing on the people again.

Thank you.

Collins, Dan. “No Proof Gun Laws Reduce Violence.” CBS News, 2003.

David, Andrew. “Gun Control Triggers Debate.” The Spotlight, 2016.

Gould, Skye; Robinson, Melia “There have been 307 mass shootings in the US so far in 2017 – here’s the full list.” Business Insider, 2017.

Hauser, Christine. “Gun Death Rate Rose Again in 2016, C.D.C. Says.” New York TImes, 2017.

History.com staff. “Columbine High School Shootings”. History.com, A+E Works, 2009.

Kirk, Michael; Gilmore, Jim; Wiser, Mike. “Gunned Down: The Power of The NRA.” Frontline, 2015.

Jenkins, Aric. “‘I’m Not a Hero’: Man Who Shot and Chased Texas Gunman Tells His Story.” TIME Magazine, 2017.

Simon, Darran; Stapleton, AnneClaire; Yan, Holly. “Authorities: Texas church shooter had three gunshot wounds.” CNN, 2017.

Wilson, James Q. “Gun control isn’t the answer.” Los Angeles Times, 2007.

Girl Scout Law:

I will do my best to be honest and fair

Friendly and helpful

Considerate and caring

Courageous and strong, and 

Responsible for what I say and do,

Respect myself and others,

Respect authority,                     

Use resources wisely,

Make the world a better place,

And be a sister to every Girl Scout.

Boy Scout Law:

A Scout is

Trustworthy    Obedient

Loyal               Cheerful

Helpful            Thrifty

Friendly           Brave

Courteous        Clean

Kind                Reverent

           Millions of boys and girls across the country recite the core values of the scouting organizations after each and every meeting. I myself have said the Girl Scout Law countless times with my troop ever since I was six years old and I’ve seen my brother do the same at every family picnic or awards banquet that his troop has held ever since he joined the Boy Scouts. Being friendly, helpful, caring, and kind, these ideas are encouraged in young scouts and can be seen through the everyday good deeds that they do for others in their communities. Today I will be discussing the similarities between Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, some key differences between the two groups, and finally how we can bring them together as one.

When it comes down to it, both organizations have very similar messages to the youth of America. After looking at the laws of both organizations you will notice that while there are some differences, both The Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts promote the same core values to the young scouts and encourage them to serve themselves and others through their everyday actions. Not only this, but both of the organizations are run very similarly. Girls can join Girl Scouts in kindergarten as Daisies and then move up through the ranks all the way to the end of high school. Boys can also join the Cub Scouts in elementary school then move up to the Boy Scouts in middle and high school. Another similarity between the two organizations is the earning of badges. Throughout their time in the scouting programs, kids can earn badges from a variety of topics such as outdoor skills, home skills, STEM, volunteering, and much more. Each badge has a specific set of requirements that need to be filled in order for a Scout to earn it. Once completed the scout earns a badge that they can then display on their uniform.

            While the two organizations have many similarities, they have some key differences that make the two organizations unique. One of these is the way that one moves through ranks. In Girl Scouts, a girl is promoted to the next rank based purely on grade level. Once a child reaches 6^th grade they are automatically a junior and once they reach freshman year they reach the senior rank and finally the junior year they are the highest rank in the Girl Scout program, an ambassador. This ranking system gives very little honor to be a higher rank than someone else because it is purely based on age. On the other hand, after reaching Boy Scouts, a boy must earn their way up through the ranks. Each rank has a certain set of requirements that must be met in order to move on such as specific number merit badges that the scout must earn, he must demonstrate a level of proficiency in specific skills, and he must demonstrate leadership within the troop. This means there is actual work required to move through the ranks of boy scouts, giving boys a sense of pride when they reach the higher ranks in the organization.

            One of the most coveted ranks in Boy Scouts is the Eagle Scout. This is the highest possible rank you can reach in Boy Scouts and it is recognized as a huge accomplishment for the rest of the recipient’s life. In order to receive the Eagle Scout rank, a boy must complete an extensive service project that the Scout plans, organizes, leads, and manages as well as earn a total of 21 merit badges, hold a position of leadership within the troop for 6 months, and go through an extensive board review. The Girl Scouts have an equivalent to the Eagle Scout called the Gold Award, though it is a lot less nationally known. In order to get the Gold Award, a girl must have completed two Senior or Ambassador Journeys, then they must plan and lead a Gold Award Project that makes a lasting difference in the girl's community, is sustainable, and put the Girl Scout promise and law into practice. This is similar to the Boy Scout Eagle Scout project but is significantly less recognized and known about than being an Eagle Scout.

            Though there are a few main differences, the similarities these programs have their successes and flaws. And that brings me to my final point. We should combine these two organizations into one. Over the past several years, both the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts have lost vast amounts of membership. The Girl Scouts currently have 2.66 million members, down 30 percent from their peak membership of 3.8 million in 2003. The Boy Scouts are in a similar predicament with about 2.35 million members, less than half of the almost 5 million boys in the organizations peak in 1973. With both organizations working to get their membership numbers up, why not just go ahead and merge the two programs. This would mean that the two existing would no longer be competing for members. This has been most recently seen by the Boy Scouts recent decision to allow girls into their program.

            This brings me to my second point, the switch is already starting. The Boy Scouts have allowed girls to join their ranks through their many programs such as the Venture Scouts and depending on the troop, some already let girls participate in all of their activities except the girls aren’t allowed to earn any of the badges or ranks such as the coveted Eagle Scout. Due to the fact that both of the scouting organizations are built on the same core principles, the merging of the two organizations would be an easy transition. Also, due to the fact that both the Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts are family organizations, this would allow siblings to be in the same troop and would make it easier for parents instead of having to deal with different and often conflicting schedules of two organizations. Some people may be concerned that bringing girls into scouting with boys might decrease the amount of camping or adventure activities that occur, but often it is up to each individual scout to sign up for these adventure activities and you can participate in these activities if you want to.

            Finally, bringing the Scouting organizations together into one would allow both systems to adopt the Boy Scout ranking system and the rank of Eagle Scout. This would allow both girls and boys to earn this special rank. As it is already nationally recognized, there wouldn’t have to be any extra publicity about how much work is put into becoming an Eagle Scout.      

            In conclusion, the Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts have many similarities and differences, but the two organizations could be brought together as one. It is the time that we follow the lead of many countries such as Canada and France and create the Scouts of America. I will leave you with a quote from Juliette Gordon Low, “The work of today is the history of tomorrow, and we are its makers.” It is time to make a change and there is no better time than the present. Thank you. 

Assignment 16- Katie Demos

For the past two and half years of our education here as high schoolers, the importance and stress of the constitution as the “supreme law of the land” has been reiterated time and time again in our heads. The vagueness and occasional modern day irrelevance of some of the amendments frequently offer themselves up as substance for banter between “loose” and “strict” interpreters of the constitution. Of course, as any amendment, the 8th amendment lends itself up to debate and dissent as well.

Even when trying to read between the lines of the 8th amendment, the restrictions against “cruel and unusual punishment” aren’t clearly implied and allow for various, differing interpretations. The 8th amendment and its implications were recently brought to light in the popularity of controversy surrounding Guantanamo Bay. Although the matter ended up being more of an issue with international recognition of human rights, the public latched onto the horror stories of waterboarding, sexual humiliation, and forced drug injections. Similarly, death penalty sentences and death row seem to captivate the media and news headlines. It all circles back to one harped-on debate. How do we define what is “okay” punishment and what is not? In light of action to make certain kinds of of execution illegal, as well as protests against torture deemed inhumane, a less recognized method of abuse sticks out: solitary confinement.

What is solitary confinement? Solitary confinement is forced segregation of inmates within prisons, employed to correct troublesome behavior, whether it be posing a threat to other inmates or violating rules. Prisoners are locked up, away from all other people for 22 or more hours each day for weeks, months, and sometimes even years. As the US incarcerates the highest rates of its citizens in the world, it also holds just over 80,000 criminals in solitary. Conditions of confinement itself differ from place to place, but typically entail small rooms, around 8 x 10 ft, equipped with basic, necessary facilities, sometimes just a toilet and a cot. Usually one hour is devoted to exercise time, which typically takes place in fenced in areas or caged exercise rooms. Rarely are prisoners exposed to sunlight, instead just bright fluorescent lights. If it sounds less than ideal, it’s because it is.

But as with any topic of speech, it’s important that we consider one question-- why should we be concerned? Why is this important for us to talk about? The most obvious case against solitary confinement is its potential array of detrimental psychological consequences. On top of that is the argument that solitary confinement does little to help actually discipline criminals and prevent law breaking behavior, alongside the exorbitant costs to keep someone in solitary. In order to evaluate the overarching judgement as to whether or not solitary confinement should be truly constitutional, it’s important to seriously consider each aspect of the issue.

It’s not too hard to imagine what being alone, away from human contact and regular comforts, can do to mess up someone’s brain. However the experience itself is unreplicable unless you endure it personally. Some consequences of solitary confinement include generalized hypersensitivity to external stimuli; perceptual distortions, hallucinations, and derealization experiences; ideas of paranoia; and problems of impulse control. Additionally, the lack of natural light in most cells can lead to disrupted sleep cycles and irregular circadian rhythm. The sensory deprivation of solitary confinement poses an array of psychological risks.

Solitary confinement doesn’t come without a hefty price tag. It’s been estimated that a year of solitary for one person can cost taxpayers up to $75,000. In 2003 at the Ohio State Penitentiary, the cost of providing for a regular prisoner was less than half of what it took to provide for a prisoner in solitary. Due to the extreme construction and staffing costs, solitary confinement racks up big fees for an already detrimental process.

It’s also easy to forget that the goal of prisons is ultimately to correct behavior and to make it safe to release prisoners back into society as law abiding citizens. Ultimately, prisons aim to decrease recidivism-- the likelihood that a former inmate will commit a crime. The main argument in support of solitary claims that the confinement helps improve the lives of other inmates as well as fixing the behavior of the troublesome prisoner themselves.Yet solitary confinement fails to accomplish this goal, with a study at Florida State University finding that 24.2 percent of inmates held in solitary committed a violent crime 3 years after they were released, compared to 20.5 percent of inmates not kept isolated. If solitary fails to achieve the big-picture goal of prisons, what is it good for?

With the question ultimately concerning constitutionality, it’s not surprising that the case of solitary confinement has been discussed in court. In Madrid v. Gomez, 1995, federal judge Thelton Henderson acknowledged the extremity of confinement, comparing the placement of mentally ill persons in solitary confinement to placing an asthmatic in a place with little air. In 2001 in Ruiz v. Johnson, the federal judge declared that solitary confinement seeded illness in sane prisoners, and worsened the illnesses of those suffering from mental issues. But in each case it was deemed that solitary confinement didn’t reach cruel punishment under the eighth amendment, as it doesn’t branch unreasonably far from sentences already at hand.

Allowing solitary confinement should not be a solely political decision. It shouldn’t be left up to party tendencies, or certain interpretations of the constitution. America is failing to evaluate every aspect of the issue, failing to step back and look at the bigger picture and its consequences for the future. We can’t afford to psychologically test people just because they committed a crime. We can’t afford to send those people back into society worse off than where they started. We also literally cannot afford it.

Don’t sit idly and wait. The decision is in the hands of the people who can and will speak up for change, not those who are locked while we speak.

Assignment 16 - Will Graves

“When dictators come to power, the first thing they do it take away the people’s weapons. I do not believe that [our nations leaders] have any desire to impose a dictatorship upon us. But this does not mean that such will always be the case. A nation rent internally, as ours has been in recent years is always ripe for ‘a man on a white horse.’ A deterrent to that man, or to any man seeking unlawful power, is the knowledge that those who oppose him are not helpless.”

-Ronald Regan

The problem with our bipartisan system is that people are under the illusion that liberals and conservatives can’t agree on anything, that their ideals are the polar opposite of each other, and this is true especially in the case gun control. But the reality is that both have the same end goal which is ultimately to put an end to the violent crimes in America, or at least reduce them. (So now that we’re all on the same team), really the issue is just the manner in which we reach this goal. I think we can also agree on the fact that the current gun control polices in place are just simply not working--the constant “breaking news” alerts we receive on our phones are proof of this. So, today we are going to discuss examples of modern gun control polices and why they are ineffective. To conclude, I’ll suggest policies that have the potential to be more successful.

The failure of current gun control policies is no more apparent than in Chicago, which arguably has the strictest legislation regarding gun control in the whole country. Ironically, Chicago also has the highest number of gun-related crimes. While current laws regarding gun control don’t specifically outlaw firearms, they make the process so difficult as to render them inaccessible to the general public. Currently in Chicago, the minimum price you will have to pay in order to purchase a firearm is $550 (and thats for a used gun), this includes the fees for the permit, safety courses, and registering the gun. You’re also going to have to wait over 2 months to go through the whole process. Now don’t get me wrong, while some gun control is well and good to an extent, the process is so outrageously long and expensive that the average working-class American cannot conceivably purchase a gun. In places like Chicago where this is happening, the only people that have guns are 1: the upper class, and 2: criminals, thus the general population is being denied access to self-defense tools simply because they cannot afford them. The number of gun related crimes in Chicago in 2016 was approximately 4000, which is a 61% increase from the previous year. Ironically statics show that the increase in gun control laws is directly proportional to the increase in gun related violence. 

Some may argue that the answer is simply to restrict firearms entirely, whether it be assault rifles or handguns, just make them completely inaccessible to everyone. But guns aren’t the issue. Violent crimes are the issue. You don’t blame the spoon for obesity, and you don’t blame the car with drunk driving accidents. The purpose of the second amendment is to give citizens the right to defend and protect themselves against any danger or harm they might encounter. The foundation of our country was built on the idea of independence, that includes people’s freedom to be able to fend for themselves. By instituting major gun control laws the United States government is in essence telling the people of America that they can’t be trusted with their own freedom. Political commentator Bill Whittle reminds the American people that “The second amendment is there to protect the American people from tyranny.” The bill of rights was written to make sure that the United States government never becomes more powerful than the people it serves. Specifically the second amendment ensures that the people are guaranteed the right to defend themselves. History has proved that disarming citizens only leaves them vulnerable to an abusive government. With cases like Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and Communist China civilians were left defenseless and murdered; and while we aren't anywhere near that extreme here in the United States (yet), anyone who denies the possibility of it is naive. 

The majority of the population fails to acknowledge the good that can come of gun ownership. One such case took place this year in Texas. A local resident who legally owned a firearm heard Texas shooter Devin Kelley fire several shots in a church, the local resident engaged Kelley while he was trying to escape and shot Kelley twice, which ultimately lead to his death saving many lives. Still this whole shooting could have been prevented had there been more appropriate gun control policies in place. While serving in the Air-Force, Kelley was charged with assault on his wife and child and he was discharged. But because this information was not sent to the law enforcement database like it should have been, Kelley passed his background check and was able to purchase the rifle he used. 

So if the current laws we have are not working and you can’t fully outlaw guns whats the solution? Well one of the major concerns with guns is the deaths that amount from accidents in the home. Making guns inaccessible is not going to solve the problem, but education can, in the same way that when a person gets their drivers license they are required to take tests proving that they know the rules of the road and how to properly operate a vehicle, one must also be required to take test when purchasing a firearm, proving that they have to capability to safely clean, store and use one. In order to prevent violent crimes, a person seeking to purchase a gun must undergo mental health screenings, and background checks need to be strictly enforced with all previous misdemeanors being reported on the person’s record. If republicans and democrats commit to setting aside their differences and unite under one common goal of protecting the American people and their rights, such policies could become a reality leading to a safer United States of America.

Assignment 16 Griffin Coates

Net Neutrality Speech

Tim Berners-Lee, a name so important in this day and age, yet almost nobody in this generation knows who he is or what he has accomplished. In 1991, Tim Berners-Lee invented the internet as we know it today. This invention has expanded beyond what anybody thought possible. In 1991 there were only three million devices connected to the internet. This number has increased exponentially with nearly 8.4 billion devices connected in 2017. The key to this expansion can be boiled down to two words: net neutrality. It allows competitive online business marketing and social media platforms where users can present their opinions, free of restrictions Now what is net neutrality and why is it such an important part of our society? Steve Kovach of Business Insider defines it as “The principle that all traffic on the internet should be treated equally. Under net-neutrality protections, internet service providers are barred from blocking, slowing, or providing preferred treatment to particular sites and services.” This enables all internet users in the United States to access every website or service, from Snapchat to Gmail to online banking, with the same speed and reliability as any other service at no cost. Without net neutrality, users could have to pay fees to access high-speed internet, or have to pay a monthly fee to the use online services such as streaming or gaming platforms. Recently, this became a reality. Federal Communications Committee, or FCC, chairman Ajit Pai was pushing for an end to net neutrality and achieved his goal, with the vote passing last Thursday. Now we are living in a society where providers have the right to hike up prices exponentially and block content at their will. In order to preserve the economic interests of broadband users, free speech and to spur online economic growth, we need to push to reinstate the net neutrality laws that were removed.

            As of right now, all users have equal access to the internet regardless of their internet service provider, or ISP. This means no matter what you’re using the web for, you get the same speed and reliability as everyone else. This right was protected under the 2015 FCC Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet Act, which prohibited the blocking, throttling or paid prioritization of any internet traffic. Simply stated, this protects the users right to fair and free access of the internet. However, with the recent decision of the FCC in mind, these rights could be gone for good. Big broadband providers, such as Comcast or Time Warner Cable, now have the authority to control our internet. Results of this could possibly include payment to access gaming platforms, email or any other internet based service. One of the most likely outcomes is the dividing of the internet into two tiers. One tier would be the fast lane, where users pay an exorbitant fee to access high speed internet. The second tier would be the free option, where the internet would be slower and prioritized underneath the first tier. Verizon, which serves as an internet provider to nearly 149 million people, has already expressed interest in a similar plan. If any ISP’s implemented plans similar to this, users would experience slower internet speeds on certain sites, unless they pay to upgrade their service. The sole purpose of plans like these would be to put money in the pockets of ISP’s, by taking it from the wallets of their customers.

However, money isn’t the only factor when it comes to the rights of the consumers. The principle of internet freedom is intertwined with freedom of speech. Everyday millions of users post to blogs, Twitter, Facebook and many other online mediums in order to broadcast their opinion to the masses. However, the internet is also used for more serious matters such as politicking or spreading the word about certain organizations and businesses. This goes to show that the internet has become an integral part of politics and creating a community of informed citizens. Now that net neutrality is repealed, we could lose it all. Governments like China’s have no net neutrality laws, and they prohibit the search of certain terms and sometimes full out block websites and content. Now that we have no longer have these laws to protect user, ISP’s have the power to block certain content on the web, whether it be a confederate flag or simply a funny tweet. A recent example of this popped up in 2007, when Verizon attempted to prohibit Naral, an abortion rights group, from sending out messages to its followers. As a result of this, much controversy and backlash arose, sending tremors throughout the world of net neutrality. If text messages are being blocked, what’s next? Blocked television shows? Why doesn’t the first amendment protect us? Regarding this, Adam Liptak of The New York Times says “Messages urging political action are generally thought to be at the heart of what the First Amendment protects. But the First Amendment limits government power, not that of private companies like Verizon.” Based on the quote, we can infer that large internet providers will use their power over the internet to restrict the content we can view, inhibiting the users to see only what the ISP wants them to see. In turn, the blocking of content would lead to a community of less informed citizens, resulting from solely seeing the viewpoint of the ISP’s.

The blocking and prohibiting of content doesn’t affect just consumers, but also businesses trying to find a foothold through online marketing. Currently, all businesses have an equal playing field on the internet. They all get promoted equally, have equal access speeds and each have their own client base in which they reach out to. Without net neutrality laws in place, the playing field becomes favorable to larger corporations. With deeper pockets, they can afford to pay the higher fees to give high speed access to their marketed consumers. Smaller, growing business wouldn’t have the money to pay the fees, giving them no way to grow and expand their market, offering slower internet speeds This presents a problem. How are new innovative ideas that are crucial to our societies’ growth supposed to develop? They can’t without net neutrality laws. These new companies would be overlooked by consumers, who would favor the larger companies with higher internet speeds and easier access. Innovation and company growth would be stifled, as users would go straight to the larger sites, such as EBay or Amazon, to find products.

In sum, net neutrality is a vital part of our community. With the repeal of these laws comes a restriction of our speech. Your internet provider could block anything they don’t want you to see, or throttle the access speed down to unbearable. With this comes citizens having to pay more for access to broadband and streaming platforms such as Netflix or Xbox, hurting the consumers in turn and forcing them to pay even more for essentially the same internet service. Moreover, with the slowing of internet speeds, businesses wouldn’t have fair access to their consumers — stifling entrepreneurship growth across the country. These factors could become detrimental to our society, which is why I’m urging you all to vote to reinstate the net neutrality laws