Friday, January 17, 2014

Unit 7 Post: Stop and Frisk

The Stop and Frisk tactics used by the New York City Police Department are ineffective, biased, and are causing much more harm than good to a city which desperately needed a positive way to help keep the streets safe and bring an end to the problem of violence in NYC. Not only does the tactic of stopping pedestrians and searching them for weapons or other contraband after witnessing “suspicious behavior” simply not work to deter crime, it is being implemented in a racially biased way that is causing more outrage and aggression in the community it was designed to prevent those things from happening in. New York City mayor Bloomberg has been credited with establishing the stop and frisk tactic, and tirelessly defends this obviously faltering law, claiming that it reduces violent crime and isn’t implemented in a racially unjust manner. However, after even a mere glance at the statistics of the law, it is blatantly obvious that it has not been an effective deterrent of crime, and the racially biased implementation of the law is obvious to anyone who investigates the facts. Supporters of this questionable practice claim that violent crime has dropped in the city dramatically from 2001 to today in the city and, for the most part, those supporters are correct. However, the belief that the stop and frisk program is responsible for that decrease is absolutely not based on fact and is disproven easily by observing the crime data of other large, dangerous cities during the same time period. In the time parameters mentioned, the violent crime rate in New York City fell 29 percent, which is undoubtedly a significant drop. However, in that same time frame the violent crime rate of New Orleans fell an astonishing 56 percent, while the same rate in Los Angeles plummeted an even more remarkable amount, showing a 59 percent reduction. The interesting fact about those statistics is that those two of many cities that showed a much higher reduction in violent crimes were not utilizing the stop and frisk tactic of the NYPD, but stuck rather to higher traditional police activity and trying to establish the community as a more hospitable and safe place to reside. It is obvious that the claim that violent crime is significantly reduced thanks to the stop and frisk practices is not backed by statistics, which shows the ineffectiveness of the law and a very good reason to stop frisking and begin more positive and racially equal ways of protecting the citizens of the city. Not only does stop and frisk simply not work, but it is offensive how the minority residents of New York are being blatantly discriminated against by the very force created to protect them. The spokesman for the NYPD, Paul Browne, claims that the laws are not implemented in a racially biased way because African-American and Hispanic residents make up a larger number of violent crime suspects in the city. Although that observation may be correct, it cannot be used as proof that the practice of stopping pedestrians on the street is not being used as a tool to harass minorities. In 2011, less than 12 percent of the total stops made by police officers were based on the description of a suspect of a violent crime. Throughout the entirety of the stop and frisk campaign, black and Latino citizens have made up nearly 90 percent of total stops. There can be no statistic that warrants such an unequal balance of people who were chosen by police to be searched for weapons or who were exhibiting suspicious behavior. It is painfully obvious that these officers, either seeking to act on a personal vendetta against minorities or to fill a required number of stops set by a higher authority, are unfairly targeting minorities, which has caused nothing but outrage and mistrust in the police force in the communities affected by stop and frisk. A final piece of evidence, one that is truly shocking, reveals how discriminatory and blatantly failing the practice of frisking is: blacks and hispanics fill 25 percent of the population of one of the more well off neighborhoods where stop and frisk is implemented, Park Slope. However, over 80 percent of stops that occur in this neighborhood are black or latino residents. The data speaks for itself. Stop and frisk is a barbaric and racially insensitive practice that needs to end immediately before it instills any more fear or mistrust of authority in the minorities living in New York City.

Works Cited:
"Stop And Frisk Facts | New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) - American Civil Liberties Union of New York State." NYCLU. New York Civil Liberties Union, n.d. Web. 12 Jan. 2014.
Mathias, Christopher. "NYPD Stop And Frisks: 15 Shocking Facts About A Controversial Program." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 13 May 2012. Web. 15 Jan. 2014
"Stop-and-frisk in New York City." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 01 Sept. 2014. Web. 14 Jan. 2014.
Durkin, Erin. "Study Finds Stop-and-frisk Leads to Mistrust of Cops, Unwillingness to Cooperate with Police." NY Daily News-Crime. NYDN, 19 Sept. 2013. Web. 12 Jan. 2014.

Monday, January 13, 2014

Unit 6 Post: Legalization of Marijuana


For far too long the United States government has been keeping a medicine, healing substance, and a method of relaxation from the citizens of our otherwise free nation for Draconian reasons that have been disproven again and again by countless studies that all point one way: To the legalization of cannabis in America. Innocent people are being consistently prosecuted for “crimes” much less severe than those committed by fellow citizens which are left unpunished, and this unjust imbalance that has consumed our great nation must be halted before it is allowed to continue any further. The best way to solve a problem is to look at the beginning cause and work past that, so the logical step to take would be to look at why the unfair practice of marijuana prohibition was brought about in the first place. As early as the mid-1800’s, physicians had began to prescribe marijuana and extracts of marijuana to patients to act as a pain reliever and an appetite stimulant. After several years of mismanagement of many medicines by doctors, not just marijuana, the government passed what were known as the “poison laws”, which declared any substance not issued by a pharmaceutical company was to be labeled a poison. The malicious label of “poison” served only as the first step of the government distorting the view of the public on the topic of marijuana. In the early 20th century, states began passing laws that made the possession of marijuana in any form illegal. This was a move believed to stem from racism towards the small-farm Mexican workers who sometimes smoked pot after farming to relax after a long day. By the decade of the 1930’s, the government had created an agency called the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, which released a slew of highly controversial ads all giving the message that marijuana makes the user overly violent and sexually aggressive, although neither of those claims had any backing to them. More and more of these factless advertisements were issued by the government, and, along with a movie that portrayed marijuana users as violent rebels, effectively silenced any of the critics of marijuana prohibition. The United States economy is in a state of despair, with thousands of the brightest minds in the country being utterly dumbfounded searching for a remedy. I realize legalizing marijuana will certainly not completely reverse the negative slope the economy is sliding down, but it would provide much needed stimulus to an already depleted financial system. Revenue from “Sin taxes” imposed by the government on alcohol and tobacco products are rising at a rate of 8% over every two years. If the government did legalize cannabis and put an equal tax rate on the crop, which is sold at street value for $20 a gram, the revenue generated by this would be unimaginable. With over 30% of the country admitting to using marijuana at least 5 times a year, if every person who admitted to using marijuana bought only 1 gram from the government for 20$ with a tax rate of 10%, the revenue the government would accumulate would be over $180,000,000. That is based on 30% of the population purchasing a gram once a year from the government. If legalized, imagine the revenue if 50% of the population purchased ounces from the government a year. The revenue, just from the taxing of marijuana distribution, has potential to reach well over $10 billion a year, a figure many economists believe to be highly possible. The government can not simply deny billions of dollars in revenue based solely on ancient laws, but that is exactly what they are doing now. My final reason as to why marijuana should be legalized is that the practice of apprehending and harshly punishing innocent pot smokers by the police is unjust and without reason. Many politicians, including Arnold Schwarzenneger, see this logic also, and Arnold was not afraid to voice his opinion on the topic, saying “that’s not a drug, that’s a leaf.”  Why is someone who simply chooses to light up occasionally and relieve stress being mercilessly persecuted by our supposedly unbiased judicial system? Over half of the people in the prison system are there because of some sort of drug related crime, and over three quarters of those people are there because of marijuana. Retail thieves hurt not only the owner of the business they steal from, but consequently the manager and other employees of the business. Someone who chooses to smoke marijuana to relax or relieve pain in their own home can in no way be seen as invading on anyone elses rights, but pot smokers continue to be bullied by the ruthless police force set up to crack down on users of “the murder drug,” and are punished in many cases more severely than the retail thief who has obviously committed a more severe offence.  
Marijuana users are obviously being unfairly targeted, and the health benefits are being held from the sick who are in dire need of the healing properties of cannabis. Despite legal experts like Michael Bloomberg saying, “yeah I smoked it, and I enjoyed it too”, legalization is still a cause begging for a spark, and it is wrong for Americans to sit back and watch innocent users be bullied by our “fair” justice system. 

 As shown by this graphic, public opinion about the legalization of marijuana is changing dramatically as more facts are made public
Some of the blatantly false propaganda used by the government to support marijuana prohibition
NORML has been leading the fight to end marijuana prohibition
This shows the ignorance and misunderstanding displayed by somebody supporting further prohibition
Works Cited:
http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-war-statistics
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/28/why-marijuana-should-be-legalized_n_1833751.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-bloom/legalization-or-bust-a-br_b_775684.html

Friday, January 3, 2014

Unit 5 Post: San Francisco Earthquake

Andrew du Bois
Unit 5 Post: 1906 San Francisco Earthquake
A massive earthquake, the likes of which had never been seen by residents of the western United States, hit San Francisco along with much of the northern California coastline, on April 18, 1906. The quake hit early in the morning, and had a magnitude estimated at 7.9, making it the highest magnitude quake in the history of California. Apart from the earthquake itself, massive fires that broke as an immediate result of the quake caused a great deal of devastation and destruction to the entire city of San Francisco. San Francisco, along with much of California in the early 20th century, was at great risk for an earthquake, and surprisingly had little to no sort of preparation for the inevitable disaster. San Francisco lies next to the San Andreas Fault, which spans the entire length of California, or about 800 miles. There were very few building standards in place before the earthquake to make sure the major structures in the city were prepared to withstand such a massive tremor. Also, fire safety was not a major issue when dealing with the construction of homes or other public places in the early 1900s, so the entire city was not only at risk of completely collapsing as a result of a shift in the earth, but it also had a high risk of burning to the ground, as many of it’s densely packed large buildings were not designed to withstand such a massive fire as the one that broke out as a direct result of the quake. In the preceding decade, Northern California had experienced the largest number of minor earthquakes in history, which is a characteristic typical of locations where a major earthquake hits. It is astounding to me that these minor quakes were not seen as a precursor to a major one, and the proper precautions were not taken to prepare the city for a quake of a high magnitude. As far as possible cause goes, there is speculation that these minor earthquakes, which are believed to be partially the catalyst for the major quake, were a result of hydraulic mining practiced during the California Gold Rush. When the earthquake made impact on San Francisco, it was 5:12 AM, so most of the city was still asleep, which only adds to the level of unpreparedness displayed. There was a foreshock of about 20 seconds, which awoke and alarmed much of the city. But it was much too late to take any preventative measures, as the major shock wave hit immediately after the foreshock, and lasted for nearly 45 seconds. During and immediately after the initial tremor was when much of the destruction happened, with multiple major public destinations such as Market Street and Haight Ashbury Street, collapsing as a whole. The initial death toll was 375, although that number is believed to be low as hundreds of deaths in the poverty stricken Chinatown went unreported. As hard as it sounds to believe, the earthquake was not even the cause of the majority of the destruction of the city. In fact, nearly 90% of the destruction is said to have been caused by the fire. Unprotected gas mains snapped during the tremor, and all it took after that was a spark to set an entire block ablaze. The fires ravaged the city, leaving almost 300,000 people, or 3/4s of the population, homeless. There were over 30 fires that emerged throughout the course of the disaster, and these destroyed around 25,000 buildings. The destruction caused by the fire may have been at least partially avoidable, but along with the gas mains that snapped during the earthquake, the water lines failed also, so the remaining firemen had no source to power their hoses to put out the blazes ripping the entire city apart. After all of the damage had been done, the final cost of the destruction was $235 million, which is equivalent to slightly over $6 billion in today’s currency. A large majority of that figure was damage done by the fire, as it ravaged the entire city for four straight days. Apart from taking a massive blow financially, the city was also stricken by poverty in the aftermath of the disaster, with well over half of the population becoming homeless and setting up refugee camps, which were densely populated by tens of thousands of residents living in tents. The death toll was immensely high also, thought to be almost 3,500, which is a low number considering the amount of unreported deaths in and around Chinatown. It would make sense that the city would set very strict building standards relating to the stability and fire resistance of the structure. However, building standards were lowered immensely in the aftermath of the disaster, as the San Francisco municipal government wanted the city restored immediately so it could continue to be a flourishing trade destination, and to prepare for the Panama-Pacific Exposition. These structures built with minimal regulations are still standing today, and they put San Francisco at even more risk to be ravaged by a similar disaster.
City Hall before and after the Quake
San Francisco Skyline 
A makeshift refugee camp for the homeless in San Francisco
One of the fires that ravaged the city

Side by side comparison of Market Street before and after the earthquake
This is a map of the area in San Francisco damaged by the fires





Monday, November 25, 2013

Unit 4 Post Thorium


Global Issues   Andrew du Bois
Unit 4 Thorium: The Best Alternative Energy Source

The element thorium, in the organic form of Thorium-232, can be developed to create energy at a rate that is faster and a price that is cheaper than coal. Another major benefit of thorium is that it produces slightly more than 3% of the hazardous waste than a light water nuclear reactor creates. And, unlike its nuclear counterpart, the waste created by a thorium reactor, that is the waste that isn’t able to be extracted and formed back into distributable energy, is only environmentally toxic for 300 years. That is 1000 times less than the duration currently produced nuclear waste should be stored. This makes developing a long term storage solution for thorium waste much simpler than one for nuclear waste, which has been sucking up precious government funds through failed projects, exemplified by the Yucca Mountain fiasco that took $10 billion in government money and is still not functioning. If those reasons are not enough to convince one that thorium is the best form of alternative energy available, there is always the fact that so little of it is required to produce a reaction that the supply could never run out, supplying the planet with cheap and efficiently produced energy for as long as humans inhabit it. There are many innovations to explore when dealing with thorium, but in my opinion the most effective and the one that would bring the most benefit is a reactor that uses a substance known as molten salt. This molten salt reactor, or MSR, combines thorium and Uranium-233 into a salt mixture. The fluid then goes through the reaction, which removes the toxic waste, along with excess uranium, which can then be used again in a separate reaction. The unique aspect of a molten salt reactor is that the mixture acts as both the reaction to transfer heat into energy and as the matrix to combine the two isotopes, which initiates and sustains the reaction. To make all of this possible, it will require sufficient start up funds from the government to set up a series of reactors across the country. There will not need to be many reactors established, as the energy from a thorium reaction can be used to provide power to an immensely large radius of population. The cost to set this up, however, will not be a major issue. Despite the fact that developing a molten salt reactor does take sufficient funding, once it is created, all that is needed is a steady influx of thorium, which is naturally occurring and easy to obtain, and a supply of graphite which is used to regulate the reaction. A waste disposal site will also need to be established, but as previously mentioned waste products from the reactions are scarce and need to be kept out of the environment only for 300 years, so disposing of waste products should not be an issue. Another great aspect to thorium is, as previously discussed, the supply is endless and the waste is minimal, so there will be no need to curb the consumption to preserve the resource. People can be as wasteful as they please with the energy provided to them from a thorium development plant, because the environmental hazard is minute and there is no way the population could exhaust the supply. Once developed, the facts surrounding thorium can be displayed to the public, and, aside from the heads of oil and traditional nuclear power companies, it would be difficult to convince anyone to support another type of energy, as it is nearly impossible to find a way to produce fuel at a more efficient and environmentally friendly way.

This is a diagram of how a molten salt reactor would function


 The benefits of thorium energy and of the molten salt reactor are explained in this video



Thursday, November 7, 2013

Open Yucca Mountain

The Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, more commonly known simply as Yucca Mountain, is located in Nevada near the border with California. Nuclear power has long been a priority for the United States, as it provides us with a high powered form of energy which is relatively easy and cost efficient to maintain. A major problem with nuclear energy is how to deal with the fuel rods, which conduct the reactions creating the energy in the main reactors, once they become used up, or spent. Spent fuel rod disposal poses such a difficulty because they remain radioactive for vast durations of time, in many cases for over 1 million years. In the event that somebody from a later generation would stumble upon the repository and not be aware of it’s contents, it could not only cause a great deal of pain and suffering for the person who discovered it, but it could release radioactive toxins into the air, harming anyone near the point of release. This reason is exactly why I believe Yucca Mountain is the most logical choice as to where and how the nuclear waste should be stored. Yucca Mountain is a highly secure facility which is deeply embedded in the rock structure underneath a massive valley with no civilization in sight. The possibility of somebody stumbling across the facility in essentially the middle of nowhere are very slim, and in the event some explorer would discover it, there are warnings and depictive symbols placed all around the entrance to designate it as a site with major consequences should it be entered without taking the proper precautions. Another main point the opposition to the Yucca Mountain facility brings up when arguing for the continued closure of the facility is that the air around the facility will be polluted with radioactive material, which, if potent enough, could have major health effects on anybody in the near vicinity. However, this topic has been studied in great detail, and the findings show that the dose of radiation which inhabitants of nearby areas would be exposed to after 10,000 years of operation would still be over 100 times less than what somebody is exposed to while getting a simple medical procedure such as a hip X ray. As if these facts aren’t reason enough to put public unrest over the issue of Yucca Mountain to bed, the United States Senate conducted a major study in 2006, which was detailed in a report titled “Yucca Mountain: The Most Studied Real Estate on the Planet”. The paper was extensive, but reached several conclusions reinforcing the safety, security, and efficiency of Yucca Mountain. The conclusions stated, among other things, that the cost of not continuing on with the project would be immensely higher than simply operating the facility, nuclear waste disposal is a strong boost to national security, and that studies by geologists and environmentalists have proven that the facility is a safe environment to store radioactive material in, with little risk to the public who reside in surrounding areas for generations to come. A final reason which convinces me that Yucca Mountain repository needs to be reopened immediately is that the reason that it was closed down seems to be a very trivial and almost invalid. The federal government ceased funding the project in 2011, which is when it closed. The leader of the shutdown movement, and also the leader of the United States: President Obama, stated his reason for closing the facility was a politically motivated one, and not a choice based on security or safety concerns. Simply attempting to appease his environmentally conscious support group by closing the facility is an unacceptable reason to shut down a repository which could easily solve the ever pressing problem which is dealing with the waste produced from nuclear energy, which is only increasing and needs a permanent storage site immediately.
Yucca Mountain, Nevada
Entrance to the facility

A look inside the laboratory of Yucca Mountain

http://tessasglobalissues.blogspot.com/p/unit-3.html: This link is to Tessa's blog post about the Svalbard seed vault
http://globalissuesblake.blogspot.com/p/unit-3.html Blake's post about American food waste was eye opening about the amount of glut our country truly has
http://globalissuescatherinholmes.blogspot.com/p/unit-three.html This is Catherin's post about the poor lunches being given to the students of our schools, and the nutritional hazards these meals create



Garrick, John B. "Yucca Mountain: Pro & Con." IEEE Spectrum. IEEE, Oct. 2002. Web. 07 Nov. 2013.
Rojstaczer, Stuart. "PRO / Yucca Mountain / Yucca Mountain: A Pragmatic Solution to Storing Nuclear Waste." SFGate. San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 2002. Web. 07 Nov. 2013.
Farnham, Alan. "Nuclear Waste: Yucca Mountain Gets Reprieve As Storage Site." ABC News. ABC News Network, Aug. 2013. Web. 07 Nov. 2013.

Friday, October 4, 2013

          McDonaldization
              McDonaldization is a process which is occurring all across the world, and while it is tying cultures together through globalization, it is also causing negative consequences throughout society. McDonaldization is a term created by a sociologist named George Ritzer when he wrote his book The McDonaldization of Society in 1993. He describes this term as what happens whenever a culture begins to show traits and characteristics similar to those displayed by the major fast food company McDonald's. These traits were defined by Ritzer into four categories: Efficiency, Calculability, Predictability, and Control. The trait of efficiency is displayed when a government or society attempts to complete a task such, such as providing education reform, in the cheapest and shortest way possible. By doing this, nations can save much needed revenue, but at the same time will have to make sacrifices as to the overall quality of the project they are going after, such as the poor quality of meat used in McDonald's food. This is a major downside to McDonaldization, and has taken a major toll on countries such as Zimbabwe, which actually lost points in it's rating of quality of education since 1970. The second characteristic of a country going through McDonaldization, Calculability, refers to a major emphasis placed on quantity rather than quality. The fast food industry exemplifies this by providing a massive amount of food to consumers, but the food provided is very much below the standard of "good food". This has earned these corporations a great deal of income, but the consumers of their products, many of whom simply cannot afford to dine at higher quality establishments, suffer from the lack of nutritional value provided by the lacking food. Colleges which attempt to take in the highest number of students and give them degrees from a standardized curriculum in the shortest amount of time, such as the University of Phoenix, are being called "McUniversities", because the education they provide is below par with the rest of the colleges across the country, but the number of students which the university graduates is astounding because the students know they can quickly and easily get a degree. Predictability is the third characteristic demonstrated by McDonaldization. It is the trait which shows that people will return to a place, whether it be a fast food restaurant or a government sponsored organization, as long as they know that they will receive the same product that they got the previous time they were there. The element of giving a consumer knowledge that they will receive a product identical to the one they got last time, makes the necessity of the food to have good quality drop, because they know there is no chance the product they desire will be of significantly lesser quality. The final characteristic, which is control, states that the governing body which is acting along the principles of McDonald's management should have complete control over employees, practices, or the properties which guide the government's decisions. North Korea's military is the ideal example of this trait, as they require all men born in the country to enlist and serve. For this reason they have the largest active military in the world, and they can know now that their size will only increase, due to their strict laws. Because the government is in complete control of the futures of the men of their country, they are guaranteed to have an incredibly large active military for generations to come, so they can use precious financial resources on more important aspects of society, such as education and healthcare. This result of McDonaldization proves to be a very positive one, but the end product of the process usually results in a government more concerned with gaining revenue as opposed to helping the people who populate and support the nation it presides over.
A typical schoolhouse in Zimbabwe:



About.com article on McDonaldization: http://sociology.about.com/od/Works/a/McDonaldization-of-Society.htm

"McDonaldization.com - What Is It?" McDonaldization.com - What Is It? McDonaldization, 2000. Web. 04 Oct. 2013
Crossman, Ashley. "The McDonaldization of Society." About.com. About Sociology, n.d. Web. 04 Oct. 2013.
Visconti, Virginia. "The McDonaldization Thesis." IU Thesis. Indiana University, n.d. Web. 04 Oct. 2013.

Monday, August 26, 2013

Unit 1 Topic- Chemical Weapons in Syria

Recently the Syrian government has been accused of a very serious global crime: Using chemical weapons on its own people. There has been some debate as to whether or not the Syrian government, headed by President Bashar Assad, was responsible for the heinous attacks or whether it was rebel forces in Syria, who many say are becoming more and more radical as the president continues to oppress his people. Both the rebels and Assad blame the other, but there are reports that the less well funded rebels don't have the capability to acquire or utilize such complex weapons. Upon learning of the attack, the global community issued an almost immediate response, both verbally and in the form of UN investigators to determine whether or not chemical weapons were used, and if so which ones. There was more controversy coming out of Syria when the inspectors began their investigation. They were traveling in marked vans, one of which came under sniper fire, which debilitated the vehicle but failed to injure anyone inside. As with the chemical weapons attack, Assad and the rebels continue to point fingers at each other. Approximately one year ago, President Obama learned of Syria's potential to use chemical weapons on their own people, which he warned would be "crossing the red line", and would trigger a serious US response. As of now, no nation has engaged in military conflict with Syria as they wait for the UN to deliver the results of its investigation, but the United States, France, Great Britain, and their Middle Eastern allies have said that there will most likely be a "punitive attack". Many Syrians feel as though that would be inadequate, simply slapping Assad on the wrist will not be near enough to convince him to put his tyrannical and oppressive regime to a halt. Already engaged in an extremely violent civil war, it would seem as though the last thing Syrian people would want would be outside intervention, especially in the form of military attacks. However, that seems to be the only possible option left, as the UN and the United States have been warning Assad that using chemical weapons would surely lead to a response. If there is no action other than simply stating how morally wrong these attacks were, than there will be no reason in Assad's eyes not to continue issuing such malicious attacks on the citizens of the very country he is supposed to lead. The most probable option for response is currently firing several tomahawk cruise missiles at Syria. Cruise missiles, though ominously named, are relatively small missiles in comparison to the rest of the United States artillery. It is suspected that several missiles will be fired at various locations, such as the launch points for the chemical weapons, airports, and military headquarters. With a recent White House cabinet meeting, and as more warships pile up on the coast of Syria, the possibility of a military response from the United States, France, and/or Great Britain is ever growing, though nothing has been declared officially in regards to responsive action.
CNN Interview