When does concern for public health cease to be grounded in reality and becomes a matter of exaggeration and excessive precaution? Can actions to warn the public be taken too far, leading to mass hysteria as opposed to an informed populace? Seldom do members of governmental organizations or the media ask these questions of their agenda and distinguish between superfluous and essential information. As a result, many of their warnings to the public concerning infectious diseases lead to an overreaction and atmosphere of panic. In order to rectify this situation and prevent further chaos at the hands of an infectious disease, public and media officials must strive to release accurate information to the public that is not based purely on speculation and worst-case scenarios. Although some may argue that this speculation is needed in order to forewarn the public about possible epidemics that will affect them in the future, others contend that proven aspects of a disease, less exaggerated prognoses, and control of information is necessary if the nation hopes to address an epidemic and pandemic in a concerted and well-managed fashion.
However feasible a prognosis regarding the spread of an infectious disease may be, efforts to address the public on the subject of said disease should be based on known aspects of the disease and not what traits it could acquire in the future. Following the H5N1 (avian flu) epidemic that was mainly concentrated in parts of Asia, the government reacted by releasing statements predicting a pandemic capable of causing numerous fatalities in the United States. As a result, the media built upon this unfavorable prognosis and predicted a near apocalyptic scenario. One such scenario was created in the form of a documentary called The Great Influenza. In this documentary, it was hypothesized that the avian flu had the potential to spread worldwide and kill millions of people. Although such an overblown reaction is to be expected from the media, governmental organizations cannot present purely speculative information regarding diseases to the public as reality. As a result of this speculation, the public is subjected to what is often an unnecessary fear at the hands of a disease that may have little to no effect on the country itself. Fear often does little to prepare the public for a pandemic and, instead, causes it to develop ignorance for the actual facets of the disease as well as unrealistic aversion to the issue altogether. If the nation is to expect its people to stay well informed and prepared for the disease as a whole, it must inform them accurately and qualify its information.
However difficult it may be to achieve, transparency on the part of the government when handling accurate information is essential if the public is to comprehend the actual and effects of the disease at hand. Currently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) withhold vast information from the public in regard to the location of outbreaks and certain aspects of the disease itself. Specifically, as described in The Hot Zone, a work of non-fiction written by a scientist who has studied this horrifying disease and its cases, Richard Preston, the CDC has long kept information about the outbreaks of Ebola in the United States localized and unavailable to the public. Some of this information should be withheld in order to protect the privacy of the affected citizens. However, the withholding of vital information about a disease that will undoubtedly affect the lives of the citizens needs to be released in order to allow the public to adequately prepare. If these details are not released, the media builds upon the ignorance of the citizens and creates panic in an effort to uncover the truth or what the media believes to be the truth. Hence, an effort taken by the government to prevent panic only serves to spread ignorance which, in turn, lends itself to interpretation and to a media-driven state of uninformed fear.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Speeeeeeeeech
Technology is constantly changing. These changes can lead to unintended side-effects, not thought of by the inventors of the technology. Such cases have been found throughout history every time a major advance comes through. An example of this is an issue hotly debated to this very day: the effect of greenhouse gasses on the environment. My answer: lower emissions over a period of time for the benefit of everyone.
Firstly, it must be established what creates these gases. They are naturally created when animals breathe out, but mankind has been creating them for 200 years by processes such as burning coal, oil, and gas. This produces lots of gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, which head into the atmosphere and help keep heat from leaking out. This keeps us all from freezing to death, for without this, the Earth would be very very cold. Unfortunately, all the gases being produced are adding up, and they're starting to have a negative effect on life on our planet. A good example of this is the ocean life. Phytoplankton are microscopic plants that help support the rather large ocean food chain. However, they grow slower in warmer water. This means that due to global warming, the oceans will start to warm up. With warmer water, there will be fewer phytoplankton. Fewer phytoplankton means less food and, just as bad, less consumption of carbon dioxide for use in photosynthesis. Phytoplankton use as much carbon dioxide as all land plants combined, as well, so that's a huge loss, but it doesn't stop there. Less carbon dioxide consumed means more of it overall, which increases global warming. This spreads into a vicious cycle that wont end until the Earth is barbecue on a rock in Death Valley. Ouch. Obviously, this is an urgent problem that must be rectified immediately. Irritatingly enough, it's not that easy. There are some that are against this movement. Some that would lose from "going green." I'm talking about the bigwigs here, the people running the oil and automobile companies. They are doing all they can to stop this movement from succeeding, which includes putting up counter-arguments. One of these say that many jobs would be lost if the standard for emissions became much stricter. This is true. Many jobs WOULD be lost. However, they are conveniently not mentioning the fact that many jobs would OPEN. Many jobs that deal with the new energies, such as water, light, or even the ethanol in corn, would replace the old jobs dealing with fossil fuels and the like. Another argument against environmentalism is that it would cost a lot to do this. Increased energy taxes and regulations would make us lose up to $300 billion a year! Not only that, but what if global warming is wrong? It'd be a waste of money in that case, no? The answer is simple. Would you rather gamble with money, or your life?
However, a compromise has the most chance of getting through, or so it seems to me. I propose this: a 20 year-long plan that slowly reduces then finally bans major producers of greenhouse gases (excluding breathing, of course), such as gasoline-powered automobiles and coal-burning power plants. This 20-year span will give people time to get used to and convert to a more environmental lifestyle, while also allowing companies to change what they're selling to cope with the new standards. With this, we can save our planet and ourselves. Let's make it happen.
Bibliography:
University of California - Santa Barbara. "Global Warming Is Reducing Ocean Life, Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, Say Scientists." ScienceDaily 7 December 2006. 14 December 2009
"Greenhouse Gasses." Ace.mmu.ac.uk. Web..
An Inconvenient Truth. Perf. Al Gore.
"Arguments Against Global Warming." www.aproundtable.org. Web..
Firstly, it must be established what creates these gases. They are naturally created when animals breathe out, but mankind has been creating them for 200 years by processes such as burning coal, oil, and gas. This produces lots of gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, which head into the atmosphere and help keep heat from leaking out. This keeps us all from freezing to death, for without this, the Earth would be very very cold. Unfortunately, all the gases being produced are adding up, and they're starting to have a negative effect on life on our planet. A good example of this is the ocean life. Phytoplankton are microscopic plants that help support the rather large ocean food chain. However, they grow slower in warmer water. This means that due to global warming, the oceans will start to warm up. With warmer water, there will be fewer phytoplankton. Fewer phytoplankton means less food and, just as bad, less consumption of carbon dioxide for use in photosynthesis. Phytoplankton use as much carbon dioxide as all land plants combined, as well, so that's a huge loss, but it doesn't stop there. Less carbon dioxide consumed means more of it overall, which increases global warming. This spreads into a vicious cycle that wont end until the Earth is barbecue on a rock in Death Valley. Ouch. Obviously, this is an urgent problem that must be rectified immediately. Irritatingly enough, it's not that easy. There are some that are against this movement. Some that would lose from "going green." I'm talking about the bigwigs here, the people running the oil and automobile companies. They are doing all they can to stop this movement from succeeding, which includes putting up counter-arguments. One of these say that many jobs would be lost if the standard for emissions became much stricter. This is true. Many jobs WOULD be lost. However, they are conveniently not mentioning the fact that many jobs would OPEN. Many jobs that deal with the new energies, such as water, light, or even the ethanol in corn, would replace the old jobs dealing with fossil fuels and the like. Another argument against environmentalism is that it would cost a lot to do this. Increased energy taxes and regulations would make us lose up to $300 billion a year! Not only that, but what if global warming is wrong? It'd be a waste of money in that case, no? The answer is simple. Would you rather gamble with money, or your life?
However, a compromise has the most chance of getting through, or so it seems to me. I propose this: a 20 year-long plan that slowly reduces then finally bans major producers of greenhouse gases (excluding breathing, of course), such as gasoline-powered automobiles and coal-burning power plants. This 20-year span will give people time to get used to and convert to a more environmental lifestyle, while also allowing companies to change what they're selling to cope with the new standards. With this, we can save our planet and ourselves. Let's make it happen.
Bibliography:
University of California - Santa Barbara. "Global Warming Is Reducing Ocean Life, Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, Say Scientists." ScienceDaily 7 December 2006. 14 December 2009
"Greenhouse Gasses." Ace.mmu.ac.uk. Web.
An Inconvenient Truth. Perf. Al Gore.
"Arguments Against Global Warming." www.aproundtable.org. Web.
yeah what it is
As time has gone on, civilizations have advanced. We've grown from nomadic hunter-gatherers, to agricultural civilizations, to industrialized societies. Many nations have grown in terms of political structure, from dictatorships and monarchies, to democracies. We've grown in our health and medicine practices, from using medicine men and spells, to letting blood out, to now using incredible methods that have increased the average life span to 75 years. However, across all of these breakthroughs in society, through all of the advancements we’ve made, we’ve kept the oldest and most outdated form of punishment-the death penalty. This reactionary mean of punishing is barbaric and illogical, but our great nation has ignored the international trend and has continued to practice capital punishment. How can we look down upon foreign countries for their crude governments and justice systems, when here on our own soil we kill our own people? Since World War II, when human rights became a vital international issue, the number of countries that use the death penalty has gone down more than the economy of the last two years. 48 of 50 European nations have completely abolished the death penalty. Over two-thirds of the world no longer kills their own, yet our stubbornness has led us to resist this change. These nations have noted the hypocrisy in killing people as punishment for killing people. They have discovered what Mahatma Gandhi discovered, that “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” They have realized that it is not up to the government to determine who gets to live and who does not. America, on the other hand, has turned a blind eye, if you will, towards this new movement.
During one of the debates leading up to the 2000 presidential election, George W. Bush stated that “[deterring crime] is the only reason to be for [the death penalty].” Many people agree with President Bush here in that capital punishment prevents crimes from happening and thus saves lives. However, this is hardly accepted as fact. A September 2000 New York Times article reported that 10 of the 12 states without the death penalty had homicide rates lower than the national average. Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, Texas has killed four times more people than any other state, yet their homicide rate is above the national average. Northwestern University’s Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology recently released a survey showing that less than 10% of criminologists believe that the death penalty serves as a deterrent. The explanation behind this is fairly obvious to me. In order to support the idea that capital punishment prevents crime, one must agree that a potential criminal would decide against committing murder out of fear of being killed by the state. If the stats aren’t enough for you, just think about this situation logically. Most homicides are done out of rage, in a fit of emotion. When emotion takes over and a potential criminal has a gun in their hand, they’re not thinking about whether or not they might get a death sentence for this or might just go to jail for the rest of their life without the possibility of parole. That’s why these statistics show that the death penalty doesn’t prevent crime. Logically, it shouldn’t. If capital punishment doesn’t prevent future crime, then even President Bush says there’s no reason for it. Quite a turn of the tables, isn’t it?
Now, looking at this situation morally, is it okay to kill someone to set an example to prevent other crimes? And the even larger question is, does the government have the right to determine who lives and who doesn’t? As leading death penalty abolitionist Helen Prejean has said, “the profound moral question is not, ‘Do they deserve to die?’ but ‘Do we deserve to kill them?’”
Murder is illegal in every society in the world and in every state in our nation. It’s punishable by decades of time in prison, or sometimes…murder. Murder can be punished by murder. The hypocrisy behind this is obvious and quite scary really. The ‘eye for an eye’ philosophy of Hammurabi’s code has long passed and realized to be outdated and unjust. But still we sit today, in what is supposedly the most advanced nation in the world, following the same practice. Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language-College Edition defines murder as “the unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of one human being by another.” The unlawful portion of this definition is arbitrary as many societies have different laws. By European standards, capital punishment is unlawful, while it is currently legal here in the States. This makes it impossible to determine what truly is legal and what isn’t on a justice level. As for the malicious part, I can’t think of any intentional killing that isn’t malicious and filled with a desire to harm others. Any death that results because of deliberate action can be considered malicious. I’ll let the French Nobel Prize-winning philosopher Albert Camus explain how premeditated the death penalty is. He writes, “Capital punishment is the most premeditated of murders, to which no criminal's deed, however calculated can be compared. For there to be an equivalency, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for months. Such a monster is not encountered in private life.” Looking at the definition of murder closely, it’s hard to make a case that capital punishment isn’t murder. Newspaper publisher William Randolph Hearst wrote “What is murder in the first degree? It is cruel, calculated, cold-blooded killing of a fellow human man. It is the most wicked of crimes and the State is guilty of it every time it executes a human being.” How can the government get away with murder every time it kills one of its own citizens? The answer is it shouldn’t. It is not up to the state to decide who has the right of life and who doesn’t. Murdering criminals won’t bring their victims back to life, it won’t prevent future crime, and it won’t undo the crime they’ve done. It simply breaks the law.
China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Korea were the top 4 countries in terms of executions carried out in 2008. The United States of America has the distinct honor of being fifth on that list, followed by Pakistan, Iraq, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. That’s not that kind of company we’d like to be among. I’d rather have my nation be associated with England, France, Australia, Norway, and other advanced, respected nations that don’t execute their citizens. As a nation, we’ve grown quite a bit since we first wrote our Constitution in 1787. We’ve dropped the barbaric practice of slavery. We’ve given the franchise to blacks and women. There’s just one more stop we need to take on the justice train. If we dropped our barbaric policy of killing our own people and followed the trend set by our peers, we’d gain much more respect with foreign countries around the globe. Not only would this help with our foreign relations, but it’d be doing the just thing, the right thing.
The cons of capital punishment outweigh the pros by a large margin. Morally, we can’t feel good about killing in order to ‘set an example,’ or killing for any reason. The government is set up to discourage crimes, not to hypocritically murder those who murder others. The main pro is that the death penalty prevents crime, but we’ve proven this to be false. It really has no affect on future crime. In order to grow, we need to advance as a nation. Capital punishment is outdated, crude, and unnecessary. It doesn’t have a place in our justice system anymore.
Bibliography
1. Haney, Craig. Death by Design: Capital Punishment as a Social Psychological System. 1. Oxford University Press, 2005. 352. Print.
2. "On the Issues." 25 Nov 2009. Web. 13 Dec 2009. <http://www.ontheissues.org/
3. "Cynthia McKinney's Huntsville Speech." YoutTube Video. Web. 13 Dec 2009.
4. Fourteen Days in May. BBC.
5. Donohue, John. "The Death Penalty:No Evidence for Deterrence." Economist, Web. 13 Dec 2009. <http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.
Ugh, speech
I have a low grade seizure which causes me to pass out, or faint. Now, had these gone unchecked I could have gone on to develop a full epileptic seizure, causing me not only to pass out, but to shake uncontrolably as well. The American healthcare system, while supposed to fix these problems, sometimes only causes them to get worse. The system needs reform, and I'm not saying it has to come in the form of Universal healthcare, but hey it's an idea.
Of all the countries recently polled America is least likley to be satisfied with their helathcare system. Over 16% of the nation has no form of health insurance. That's nearly a quarter of the population who have to go without some kind of medical service the majority of their life. And thinking about that, we still spend the most per patient at $6697, the second being Canada at $3326, and that's an average of those who do receive care. Did you know that 25% of americans don't visit the doctor because they can't afford it. 23% skipped a test, 23% more didn't fill a prescription. It's true, I've experienced it. My mom, just this year, didn't fill her prescription for her flu medicine because she had already filled mine and my sister's. She was actually sick for about three weeks, that's three weeks she NEEDED to work.
Another problem in our system, lack of quality. Doctors aren't paid based on the quality of their work. Many Americans would say that their doctors don't even listen that well. Americans are frequently victims to medical error, be it a misdossage, or a wrong prescription. If we are paying so much more, and getting so much less out of the care don't you think the quality should be better? My mom has had multiple surgeries done over the past two years, because of the same basic problem. Now, it's not from lack of effort by her to change, it's problems with the communication of the doctors, or the quality of their work. She just had a surgey that was supposed to have, along withb fixing the problem, prevented her from burping, she burped just last night. Has something gone wrong with the surgery? She's afraid to get it checked out for fear of the price, and for the fear that she may have to go throough another invasive surgey to fix a problem that has been "fixed" multiple times.
There are so many problems with our healthcare system, what is the solution? Does it have to be something as radical as Universal healthcare? Can we fix it internally? The answer lies in us, the American people. Can we give up some of the luxuries of our healthcare to assist those who can't afford it? Or do we have to have a government run systme where we all pay through taxes? I believe, if possible, we need to make changes with our current system. A radical change, like the single payer insurance system, could bankrupt our economy, but paying almost 10 G's a patient, for only 75% of our population could also bankrupt our economy further than it already is. The problem our health, the solution is change, reform, but how big? And at what cost?
Of all the countries recently polled America is least likley to be satisfied with their helathcare system. Over 16% of the nation has no form of health insurance. That's nearly a quarter of the population who have to go without some kind of medical service the majority of their life. And thinking about that, we still spend the most per patient at $6697, the second being Canada at $3326, and that's an average of those who do receive care. Did you know that 25% of americans don't visit the doctor because they can't afford it. 23% skipped a test, 23% more didn't fill a prescription. It's true, I've experienced it. My mom, just this year, didn't fill her prescription for her flu medicine because she had already filled mine and my sister's. She was actually sick for about three weeks, that's three weeks she NEEDED to work.
Another problem in our system, lack of quality. Doctors aren't paid based on the quality of their work. Many Americans would say that their doctors don't even listen that well. Americans are frequently victims to medical error, be it a misdossage, or a wrong prescription. If we are paying so much more, and getting so much less out of the care don't you think the quality should be better? My mom has had multiple surgeries done over the past two years, because of the same basic problem. Now, it's not from lack of effort by her to change, it's problems with the communication of the doctors, or the quality of their work. She just had a surgey that was supposed to have, along withb fixing the problem, prevented her from burping, she burped just last night. Has something gone wrong with the surgery? She's afraid to get it checked out for fear of the price, and for the fear that she may have to go throough another invasive surgey to fix a problem that has been "fixed" multiple times.
There are so many problems with our healthcare system, what is the solution? Does it have to be something as radical as Universal healthcare? Can we fix it internally? The answer lies in us, the American people. Can we give up some of the luxuries of our healthcare to assist those who can't afford it? Or do we have to have a government run systme where we all pay through taxes? I believe, if possible, we need to make changes with our current system. A radical change, like the single payer insurance system, could bankrupt our economy, but paying almost 10 G's a patient, for only 75% of our population could also bankrupt our economy further than it already is. The problem our health, the solution is change, reform, but how big? And at what cost?
Horse Slaughter
As most of you know, the thoroughbred racing industry is one of Kentucky’s main sources of revenue. Our state is the home of the Kentucky Derby, the Triple Crown, and many other important races. Keeneland and Churchill Downs, the sites of many of these races, and the breeding operations that produce the horses provide countless jobs for Kentucky’s citizens. It is impossible to drive even twenty minutes from the center of Lexington without running into a horse farm. About 30,000 foals are registered with the United States Jockey Club each year, most of which come from Kentucky, California, and Florida. Thoroughbreds typically begin racing at the age of two or three, depending on what their trainers want to do with them. A very lucky thoroughbred’s career lasts until they are seven, and a select few stallions and mares are kept for breeding. After these few years of pounding their premature skeletons into the ground, trainers want nothing to do with them. There are approximately 200 organizations that purchase these horses to place them with new owners. Some are simply “pasture puffs” who have been too maimed by their time on the track to do anything but live for the remainder of their years. Others are sound enough to move on to varying levels of competition in other disciplines. While it would seem that 200 programs would be able to pick up most of the unwanted thoroughbreds, that is far from the truth.
So what happens to all the others? Nothing pleasant. In 2007, the year that the last United States slaughterhouse was officially closed, 29,761 horses were slaughtered in the U.S. However, 45,609 horses were sent to Mexico and 36,401 horses were sent to Canada for the same reasons, totaling 111,771. Most of these horses were thoroughbreds. This number has actually fallen slightly from 2006, when the total was 135,288, and in 1996 113,399 horses were slaughtered in the U.S alone. As you probably know, Americans do not consume horse meat. Horse meat is consumed in Canada and Mexico, and it is considered a delicacy in France, Italy, and Japan, to name a few countries. While I personally find this practice revolting, my argument is not to end horse slaughter worldwide. My argument is to end the slaughter of American horses.
Most horses end up at slaughterhouses in the same way. They are purchased at auctions by kill buyers for extremely low prices. Along with race horses, standard bred trotters(think the Red Mile) and Amish cart horses are the most common. After this purchase, they are put on double decker cattle buses. Not double decker horse trailers, but double decker CATTLE buses. The average cow is 4’4”. The height of the average horse is about 5’1”--not including the neck and head, which easily add another two and a half feet when fully extended. This means that the horses are packed together and forced to stand in a position that does not conformationally work. Because of this, many of the horses become fatigued on their journey, fall, and are trampled to death. Due to the extremely low prices at which these horses are purchased, these instances of blatant cruelty are not, financially, a problem to the buyers. Upon arrival at the slaughterhouses, the horses are packed together in small pens. When their time comes, they are herded into a small “Kill Box.” They are then killed with a captive bolt gun--the same thing used to kill cattle. Well, that doesn’t sound inhumane, right? Wrong. Captive bolt guns are designed for use on cattle, who have very short necks and slow reaction speeds. Horses have long necks and fast reaction speeds, allowing them to dodge the weapon that is often wielded by an unskilled worker. Thus, the horses are hit several times before being killed, causing intense pain and suffering. This is no way to for anything’s life to end.
Most people are under the impression that only sick animals go to slaughterhouses. While many of the animals who end up in these places appear sick at the end of their journey, most do not start out that way. Even famous racehorses are not safe. Exceller, the only horse to ever beat two triple crown winners, was slaughtered in Sweden at the age of 24. He was in excellent health. Ferdinand, the winner of the 1986 Kentucky Derby and the 1987 Breeder’s Cup Classic, was slaughtered in Japan at the age of 19. These are animals who worked their hearts out for their owners, trainers, and riders. As Ghandi said, “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” What does that say about America?
Since over 100,00 horses are sent to slaughter each year, a ban on the process would cause an unwanted horse problem. However, there is not truly any such thing as an unwanted horse. Someone, somewhere, would love to take that animal home. The feasibility of that is another matter. While horse rescue programs take as many as they can, their abilities are not unlimited. Some horses have to be turned away. For these, humane euthanasia should be the answer. However, the cost is prohibitive. It costs anywhere from $140-500 to have a horse euthanized by a veterinarian(depending on location), which is a problem for the greedy and the poor, who unfortunately are a huge denomination of the horse industry. To counter this, funds are being set up to help owners afford euthanasia. For example, the Equine Voices Rescue and Sanctuary in Green Valley, Arizona, has such a program. They rely on donations to keep the fund running. The NorCal Equine Rescue offers seven free euthanizations per month for those who qualify, and others can have their horses euthanized for only 150 dollars. As these programs continue to spring up across the country, pro-slaughter advocates are running out of excuses.
It is my hope that, eventually, horse slaughter will become as much of a taboo in the United States as the actual consumption of horse meat. As a country, we are making the right strides. In 2007, our last slaughterhouse was closed, but a ban on the export of horses intended for slaughter has not yet been passed. As I said earlier, there is not reason for a country who does not consume horse to send their horses away for consumption. You don’t see the Indians sending off their cows, do you? While those have religious connotations, one must only think of how the horse helped early Americans conquer the “new world” to realize that horses are just as important to our society. They deserve repayment in the form of long, happy lives with peaceful deaths at the end.
Bibliography:
After the Finish Line: The Race to end Horse Slaughter in America, Bill Heller, Bowtie Press, April 2005
Footage of a horse slaughter operation provided by the Humane Farming association
A photograph of a horse trampled to death en route to slaughter
http://www.equinevoices.org/
http://www.equineprotectionnetwork.com/rescue/euth.htm
So what happens to all the others? Nothing pleasant. In 2007, the year that the last United States slaughterhouse was officially closed, 29,761 horses were slaughtered in the U.S. However, 45,609 horses were sent to Mexico and 36,401 horses were sent to Canada for the same reasons, totaling 111,771. Most of these horses were thoroughbreds. This number has actually fallen slightly from 2006, when the total was 135,288, and in 1996 113,399 horses were slaughtered in the U.S alone. As you probably know, Americans do not consume horse meat. Horse meat is consumed in Canada and Mexico, and it is considered a delicacy in France, Italy, and Japan, to name a few countries. While I personally find this practice revolting, my argument is not to end horse slaughter worldwide. My argument is to end the slaughter of American horses.
Most horses end up at slaughterhouses in the same way. They are purchased at auctions by kill buyers for extremely low prices. Along with race horses, standard bred trotters(think the Red Mile) and Amish cart horses are the most common. After this purchase, they are put on double decker cattle buses. Not double decker horse trailers, but double decker CATTLE buses. The average cow is 4’4”. The height of the average horse is about 5’1”--not including the neck and head, which easily add another two and a half feet when fully extended. This means that the horses are packed together and forced to stand in a position that does not conformationally work. Because of this, many of the horses become fatigued on their journey, fall, and are trampled to death. Due to the extremely low prices at which these horses are purchased, these instances of blatant cruelty are not, financially, a problem to the buyers. Upon arrival at the slaughterhouses, the horses are packed together in small pens. When their time comes, they are herded into a small “Kill Box.” They are then killed with a captive bolt gun--the same thing used to kill cattle. Well, that doesn’t sound inhumane, right? Wrong. Captive bolt guns are designed for use on cattle, who have very short necks and slow reaction speeds. Horses have long necks and fast reaction speeds, allowing them to dodge the weapon that is often wielded by an unskilled worker. Thus, the horses are hit several times before being killed, causing intense pain and suffering. This is no way to for anything’s life to end.
Most people are under the impression that only sick animals go to slaughterhouses. While many of the animals who end up in these places appear sick at the end of their journey, most do not start out that way. Even famous racehorses are not safe. Exceller, the only horse to ever beat two triple crown winners, was slaughtered in Sweden at the age of 24. He was in excellent health. Ferdinand, the winner of the 1986 Kentucky Derby and the 1987 Breeder’s Cup Classic, was slaughtered in Japan at the age of 19. These are animals who worked their hearts out for their owners, trainers, and riders. As Ghandi said, “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” What does that say about America?
Since over 100,00 horses are sent to slaughter each year, a ban on the process would cause an unwanted horse problem. However, there is not truly any such thing as an unwanted horse. Someone, somewhere, would love to take that animal home. The feasibility of that is another matter. While horse rescue programs take as many as they can, their abilities are not unlimited. Some horses have to be turned away. For these, humane euthanasia should be the answer. However, the cost is prohibitive. It costs anywhere from $140-500 to have a horse euthanized by a veterinarian(depending on location), which is a problem for the greedy and the poor, who unfortunately are a huge denomination of the horse industry. To counter this, funds are being set up to help owners afford euthanasia. For example, the Equine Voices Rescue and Sanctuary in Green Valley, Arizona, has such a program. They rely on donations to keep the fund running. The NorCal Equine Rescue offers seven free euthanizations per month for those who qualify, and others can have their horses euthanized for only 150 dollars. As these programs continue to spring up across the country, pro-slaughter advocates are running out of excuses.
It is my hope that, eventually, horse slaughter will become as much of a taboo in the United States as the actual consumption of horse meat. As a country, we are making the right strides. In 2007, our last slaughterhouse was closed, but a ban on the export of horses intended for slaughter has not yet been passed. As I said earlier, there is not reason for a country who does not consume horse to send their horses away for consumption. You don’t see the Indians sending off their cows, do you? While those have religious connotations, one must only think of how the horse helped early Americans conquer the “new world” to realize that horses are just as important to our society. They deserve repayment in the form of long, happy lives with peaceful deaths at the end.
Bibliography:
After the Finish Line: The Race to end Horse Slaughter in America, Bill Heller, Bowtie Press, April 2005
Footage of a horse slaughter operation provided by the Humane Farming association
A photograph of a horse trampled to death en route to slaughter
http://www.equinevoices.org/
http://www.equineprotectionnetwork.com/rescue/euth.htm
Speech draft
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is not an illness such as cancer or influenza. It is not diagnosed through CAT scans or tissue biopsies. No blood samples will give you a straight “positive” or “negative” reading, and no echocardiogram can show you exactly where the problem lies. Despite what any doctor tells you, the study of child behavioral issues is one of the most difficult and ungratifying fields of medicine out there. An alarmingly miniscule number of cases actually fit the “text-book definition” of any given disorder, making the diagnosis and treatment of such conditions as ADHD and juvenile bipolar disorder extremely subjective and imprecise. But if accurately detecting these illnesses is such a shot in the dark, why is it that doctors worldwide have become more and more comfortable prescribing clinical medications before even sitting down to talk to a child?
The process of diagnosing childhood behavioral disorders, says pediatric psychiatrist Lawrence Diller, predictably begins with the child and his or her immediate family. The bare minimum that even the shoddiest of doctors will require is a ten to fifteen minute consultation with the concerned parent—sometimes even without the child in question present—where horrific symptoms and home-wrecking anecdotes are relayed. Brief words of the wise doctor’s theories are shared, and then the prescription pad and pen make their famous appearances. But what qualifies this physician to turn what is, quite frankly, an educated guess into a little white pill before breakfast every morning? He knows as much about your daughter and which disorder her symptoms suggest as WebMD does. And this, Diller claims, is where the problem is rooted: doctors’ inability or mere lack of desire to give several full, complete evaluations of every element of a child’s life before making a diagnosis. In 1985, about 500,000 cases of ADHD were reported in children and treated with medication. And today? Over six million. It is not enough to know the symptoms, to know that Jack threw his bowl of Cheerio’s against the wall this morning, or that Sally has trouble paying attention during reading lessons. To truly understand why a child acts the way he acts, one must know the child, his living conditions, his personality, his experiences in life. One must know that Jack’s parents recently divorced, and that Sally has an underlying learning disability. Simply put, an overwhelming majority of physicians in this country aren’t willing to put that effort forth.
Even when a conclusion has been effectively reached through extensive research and communication with not only a child, but also his parents, doctors today are at a loss in regard to where to go next. The medical world is constantly subject to diagnostic and therapeutic “fads,” says PBS Frontline’s “The Medicated Child,” that unfortunately dictate the norm for the treatment of behavioral issues. Thirty years ago, Freudian psychotherapy methods were the only commonly accepted way to go about handling these conditions. Nowadays, the Rx form dominates alternative methods to solving the issue. Between, 1990 and 1995, the number of preschool children being treated with ADHD medication tripled. Likewise, the number of adolescents aged 15-19 being treated with similar medication has skyrocketed by 327% in just fifteen years. Ritalin production has doubled in the last decade, with 80% of its prescriptions being written for minors. Disorders that could be resolved as easily as switching a child to a more specialized classroom in school are now unquestionably treated with Xanax prescriptions and Prozac dosages. Parents turn into zombies indubitably following doctor commands, feeding their children Adderall with every bowl of Lucky Charms. It’s not my child’s fault, they’re now accustomed to claiming, she has a chemical imbalance that must be treated with medication. That, of course, or your lazy doctor has not taken the time to explore alternative methods that do not require doping your daughter into a drug-induced stupor.
The scariest part of it all is the harsh reality of the world of medication—that not every psychoactive drug has been tested in juvenile subjects for harmful side effects. In fact, asserts David Axelson, M.D., conditions like bipolar and manic depression disorder had never even been the subject of child behavioral diagnoses until the last decade or so. Only recently have doctors begun to—with frightening frequency—consider these extremely adult issues as relevant to child behavioral problems, which leaves an immeasurably small time frame for the psychiatric drugs used to treat these conditions to be tested in younger subjects. In recent years, “The Medicated Child” details, more and more doctors are recklessly prescribing medications that parents are fearfully and incontestably accepting and administering to their children: medications whose side effect studies have never even begun to breach the gap from adulthood to adolescence.
Science is an inconsistent world of theories and variables, the only constant of which is that it is a world ever-changing, ever-evolving. Maybe physicians will never be completely accurate in diagnosing and treating the behavioral disorders of their juvenile patients. Maybe the parents of these children will never question the unwavering decision of doctors to push medication on anyone who exhibits even 5 out of 11 ADHD symptoms. The one thing we can change is our society’s medical “fad”—our steady reliance on medication to solve all of our problems, and our eagerness to accept answers even when we know the question hasn’t yet been fully analyzed. Because surely a child’s life and mental health aren’t worth the risk of a hasty diagnosis and a foolish prescription when more effective and safe alternatives exist.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
PBS Frontline: The Medicated Child documentary
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/medicatedchild/
Should I Medicate My Child?
by Lawrence H. Diller, M.D.
New York Daily News, "Children taking ADHD medication may be at risk of sudden cardiac death, study finds."
http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/health/2009/06/18/2009-06-18_children_taking_adhd_medication_may_have_an_increased_risk_of_sudden_cardiac_dea.html
American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychology
http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_families/psychiatric_medication_for_children_and_adolescents_part_ihow_medications_are_used
Swimming
Let me tell you something… Preserving the integrity of a sport is vital. Why are there so many penalties called in football? To preserve integrity! Why are there regulations in performance enhancing drugs? To preserve integrity! (And to prevent serious medical problems…eek) And why did the international governing body of swimming (FINA) ban the use of high tech swim suits in competition? To preserve integrity!
Yes, October 1st was the last time that the “new generation” technologies were legal in the sport of swimming. 18 months before that, Speedo released a suit that sparked innovation. It was called the LZR racer. It had ultrasonically welded seams, neoprene panels, and core stabilizers. It had been produced using technology from NASA for God’s sake! It was released a few months before the Beijing Olympics, and its purpose was to enhance performance for these Olympics. And it proved to do just that. 25 out the 34 events had new world records set...at these games alone. Speedo was not the only company that released a suit of this quality. Both TYR and Nike released new suits, but were not publicized as much as the LZR.
It seemed like a new age was beginning. Technology was blanketing the sport. Major athletes like Michael Phelps and Ryan Lochte sponsored this new suit and proceeded set world records in it. Michael Phelps had won his eight gold medals (WHERE THE GOLD AT?!), which put swimming on the radar (for once). This brought a bit of attention to the swim meets following the Olympics. And the world records that were coincidentally dropping like flies.
European companies like Jaked and Arena released new suits that were solely made out of thick neoprene. They contoured around the body’s curves in a perfect streamline that propelled swimmers through the water. They also were EXTREMELY buoyant. This increase in buoyancy was probably the most drastic change. It allowed swimmers to kick faster underwater after a flip turn. Something that had previously separated the elite. Also, it allowed swimmers to “last longer” at their top speed. It truly gave an advantage. It was noted that these full neoprene suits even had a sizeable advantage over the LZR.
Here is a perfect example. Alexander Popov was the greatest sprinter of his time. He owned the world record in the 50 meter freestyle for decades. His record was finally broken in the early 00’s. Since then he has been sitting at number two on the all time list for that event. During the 18 month span that these high tech neoprene suits were available, 40 MORE PEOPLE posted a faster than him. Imma let you finish… but something is not right with that picture.
These suits literally advertised 14% time drop in all events. That is outrageous.
The first highly anticipated meet with widespread use of these so-called “supersuits” was the World Championship Trials for the US. It was aired on CBS. Much of the commentary was in regard to the supersuits, which were on almost all the athletes. Numerous world records continued to fall. The discussion was heated on whether these suits would still be legal come 2010. Little did they know, this was nothing compared with what was to come.
The World Chamionships in Rome, Italy were held at the end of this past July. It is a 13 day event second in gravity only to the Olympics. This meet boasted the best competition from around the world. Also, it boasted the newest innovations in “swimming technology.” This meant supersuits on everybody.
Records were smashed.
All but 2 events resulted in a “new world record” which, by the end of the meet, was completely lackluster. Barriers were obliterated. Barriers that had taken years to build were destroyed by people that no one had heard of before. Most notably was Paul Biederman. He bested Phelps’s record in the 200 meter freestyle by a full second. And no offense to Paul, but who the hell is that!? Because I’m pretty sure I had never heard of him. Bob Bowman, Phelps’s coach, said, “It took Michael from 2003-2008 to go from 1:46 to 1:42.9 and this guy’s done it in 11 months. That is a truly amazing training program. I would love to hear how it works.”
Milrod Cavic raised controversy about these suits at the Rome World Championships. He lost to Phelps by one hundredth of a second at the Olympics the year before and he was out for revenge. He was wearing the new Arena suit. Arguably the “most high tech.” Cavic talked trash about Phelps the day before the race. Phelps was required to wear the LZR suit instead of the new new suits like Cavic would wear, and Cavic said if Phelps was complaining about his lesser generation suit that is was unjustified. Phelps beat him in the race, so it was a moot point.
After the World Championships, FINA (the governing body of international swimming) immediately met and discussed the potential banning of these suits. They compromised the sport’s integrity. They made it possible for swimmers at all levels to get away with not training or being in good shape. One just relied on their 550$ swimsuit. The 130 world records that fell in one year were not just a coincidence. It was ridiculous. Something needed to change. Suit technologies were great, until it got to the point where the suit is doing the work. We were at that point.
The original decision was to ban suits starting on January 1, 2010. But after the HUUGE realization that they were ruining everything in the sport of swimming, it got forwarded to October 1, 2009. Regulations on fabrics and body coverage were made. So far, it has proved to be difficult for those who relied on the suits for the past year and a half. Luckily, I (yes, I swim) never bought into it and am now basking in the wisdom and envy of others (not really! But yes really.)
Sources:
-Splash Magazine (Bob Bowman quote)
-60 Minutes (documentary)
-Lexington Herald-Leader (article on banning suits)
-usaswimming.org (swim meet information)
-wikipedia.com (Olympic results)
Yes, October 1st was the last time that the “new generation” technologies were legal in the sport of swimming. 18 months before that, Speedo released a suit that sparked innovation. It was called the LZR racer. It had ultrasonically welded seams, neoprene panels, and core stabilizers. It had been produced using technology from NASA for God’s sake! It was released a few months before the Beijing Olympics, and its purpose was to enhance performance for these Olympics. And it proved to do just that. 25 out the 34 events had new world records set...at these games alone. Speedo was not the only company that released a suit of this quality. Both TYR and Nike released new suits, but were not publicized as much as the LZR.
It seemed like a new age was beginning. Technology was blanketing the sport. Major athletes like Michael Phelps and Ryan Lochte sponsored this new suit and proceeded set world records in it. Michael Phelps had won his eight gold medals (WHERE THE GOLD AT?!), which put swimming on the radar (for once). This brought a bit of attention to the swim meets following the Olympics. And the world records that were coincidentally dropping like flies.
European companies like Jaked and Arena released new suits that were solely made out of thick neoprene. They contoured around the body’s curves in a perfect streamline that propelled swimmers through the water. They also were EXTREMELY buoyant. This increase in buoyancy was probably the most drastic change. It allowed swimmers to kick faster underwater after a flip turn. Something that had previously separated the elite. Also, it allowed swimmers to “last longer” at their top speed. It truly gave an advantage. It was noted that these full neoprene suits even had a sizeable advantage over the LZR.
Here is a perfect example. Alexander Popov was the greatest sprinter of his time. He owned the world record in the 50 meter freestyle for decades. His record was finally broken in the early 00’s. Since then he has been sitting at number two on the all time list for that event. During the 18 month span that these high tech neoprene suits were available, 40 MORE PEOPLE posted a faster than him. Imma let you finish… but something is not right with that picture.
These suits literally advertised 14% time drop in all events. That is outrageous.
The first highly anticipated meet with widespread use of these so-called “supersuits” was the World Championship Trials for the US. It was aired on CBS. Much of the commentary was in regard to the supersuits, which were on almost all the athletes. Numerous world records continued to fall. The discussion was heated on whether these suits would still be legal come 2010. Little did they know, this was nothing compared with what was to come.
The World Chamionships in Rome, Italy were held at the end of this past July. It is a 13 day event second in gravity only to the Olympics. This meet boasted the best competition from around the world. Also, it boasted the newest innovations in “swimming technology.” This meant supersuits on everybody.
Records were smashed.
All but 2 events resulted in a “new world record” which, by the end of the meet, was completely lackluster. Barriers were obliterated. Barriers that had taken years to build were destroyed by people that no one had heard of before. Most notably was Paul Biederman. He bested Phelps’s record in the 200 meter freestyle by a full second. And no offense to Paul, but who the hell is that!? Because I’m pretty sure I had never heard of him. Bob Bowman, Phelps’s coach, said, “It took Michael from 2003-2008 to go from 1:46 to 1:42.9 and this guy’s done it in 11 months. That is a truly amazing training program. I would love to hear how it works.”
Milrod Cavic raised controversy about these suits at the Rome World Championships. He lost to Phelps by one hundredth of a second at the Olympics the year before and he was out for revenge. He was wearing the new Arena suit. Arguably the “most high tech.” Cavic talked trash about Phelps the day before the race. Phelps was required to wear the LZR suit instead of the new new suits like Cavic would wear, and Cavic said if Phelps was complaining about his lesser generation suit that is was unjustified. Phelps beat him in the race, so it was a moot point.
After the World Championships, FINA (the governing body of international swimming) immediately met and discussed the potential banning of these suits. They compromised the sport’s integrity. They made it possible for swimmers at all levels to get away with not training or being in good shape. One just relied on their 550$ swimsuit. The 130 world records that fell in one year were not just a coincidence. It was ridiculous. Something needed to change. Suit technologies were great, until it got to the point where the suit is doing the work. We were at that point.
The original decision was to ban suits starting on January 1, 2010. But after the HUUGE realization that they were ruining everything in the sport of swimming, it got forwarded to October 1, 2009. Regulations on fabrics and body coverage were made. So far, it has proved to be difficult for those who relied on the suits for the past year and a half. Luckily, I (yes, I swim) never bought into it and am now basking in the wisdom and envy of others (not really! But yes really.)
Sources:
-Splash Magazine (Bob Bowman quote)
-60 Minutes (documentary)
-Lexington Herald-Leader (article on banning suits)
-usaswimming.org (swim meet information)
-wikipedia.com (Olympic results)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
