Monday, December 12, 2016

Assignment 16 - Ella Franklin

A few months ago I bought a skirt at H&M for $4.95. No discount, that was the sticker price. As an American living in a culture of consumerism, I’m too blinded by low prices to consider how the prices got so low. The marriage of capitalism and consumerism has birthed the fast fashion industry. Fast fashion is stores like H&M, where I bought my $5 skirt, and Forever 21, Gap, Zara, Wal-Mart, you name it. Fast fashion is characterized by cheap, trendy clothes, and though the cuts and patterns might vary, their common thread is poor working conditions in developing nations. The effects of this industry are felt domestically and internationally. First, we must consider how we are neglecting human rights, and, second, how we are fostering a materialistic capitalist society.

The fast fashion industry didn’t happen overnight. In the 1960s, about 95% of clothes the average American bought in a year were made in the United States. Then, in the mid-70s, textile mills started sprouting up in Asia and Latin America. Labor prices were cheaper overseas, but companies were slow to outsource. By 1980, Gap and J.C. Penney had just begun outsourcing some of their labor. A turning point came in 1994, when the North American Foreign Trade Agreement, commonly known as NAFTA, was signed. This tore down the wall separating American businesses from foreign laborers, and outsourcing skyrocketed.

Why do we outsource labor? It all comes down to capital. Put yourself in the shoes of the CEO of Zara, Amancio Ortego. So as the CEO, he tells someone, “Get these clothes made, and make sure I make a profit.” So that person has two options: he can upcharge the clothes, but that risks losing customers with a lower budget; or he could find the cheapest way to make the clothes and keep the price of the clothes low. The risk with this option is human rights.

If you were to check the tag on your clothes right now, chances are the country they were made in is in the Global South. Right now, China and Bangladesh are the largest garment manufacturing outputs in the world. No two factories are the same. Your more intricate clothes, say something with embroidery or lace or a special fabric, probably comes from China, because their factories are more tech savvy. Bangladesh produces your basics, khakis, polos, t-shirts, etc.

Bangladesh is much impoverished. At the capital in Bangladesh, power goes out six times a day. Factory fires happen regularly. The conditions in the factories are not safe. Workers are being paid about $37 a month. A full-time minimum wage worker in America makes $1,150 a month. Employees are usually women age 18-20 who work 14 hour days and get two days off each month. Factories also have younger “helpers” who make $0.12 an hour, “junior operators” who make $0.22 an hour, and “senior sewers” who make $0.24 an hour. These are considered to be sweatshop conditions, not far from slavery.

On April 24, 2013, laborers in Bangladesh gathered outside of the factory they worked in and refused to enter. They said that it was not safe to work in the building with the large cracks in the wall that management refused to fix. Paid gang members came and beat the workers into going into work. Later that day, the power went out in the factory (not an unusual occurrence in Bangladeshi factories) and the generators kicked on. Within 90 seconds, the eight story building collapsed, killing 1,100 people and injuring 2,500 more. The building was called Rana Plaza. Around 5,000 employees worked there. Rana Plaza owners had ignored the complaints of its employees and now the blood of 1,100 people is on their hands. 41 people were charged with murder in association with the collapse. It is the deadliest accident in the history of garment production.

The most chilling fact is the companies whose clothes were produced there. American Eagle, Nordstrom, Target, and Gap all had clothes manufactured Rana Plaza. I buy from these places, I’m sure you do too, and as consumers of the clothes produced in these conditions, we are no less guilty than the owners of Rana Plaza who face the death penalty for their careless management.
We might be lowering the quality of life overseas, but our lives aren’t being improved either. The fast fashion system has changed how we consume clothes. Before we started outsourcing labor, so up until the 80s and 90s, fashion was on a seasonal schedule. A store would have a Fall/Winter line and then a Spring/Summer line, so the merchandise only had big changes a couple times a year. Lucy Siegle, fast fashion researcher says, “Instead of two seasons a year, we practically have 52 seasons a year, so we have something new coming in every week.” “Trends” are changing. It doesn’t go by season, it goes by weeks. One week it’s fringe, the next it’s velvet, the next it’s blue. And we have these trends thrown in our faces by the clothing companies and the media, so we buy it. We might not look good in it, but we buy it because it’s $10, and we can take comfort in knowing that if we get tired of it, we can always find another one.

We are inundated with clothes, more than any generation before us. And the best part is, the clothes are cheaper. So I can buy a whole new outfit at H&M for $30. I come home with more clothes to put in my closet without barely denting my wallet. It makes me feel richer to have more clothes, but, in reality, it’s making society poorer. When I put that $30 down, I’m paying into the cycle of fast fashion. That cycle begins with corruption of human rights in the production in factories like Rana Plaza, then goes to the shelves at department stores for dirt cheap, where
I can feed my materialistic need without spending too much, and the profit when the labor prices are taken from what I’ve paid goes straight to the top. We are the reason Stefan Persson, the chairman of H&M, is the richest man in Sweden. We are the reason Zara CEO Amancio Ortega is the 2nd richest man in the world. We might feel like the few dollars we spend here and there is only fortifying our wardrobe, but it adds up, and overtime we lose money, strip more people of human rights, and put company higher ups even higher up.

Fast fashion is making the rich richer and the poor poorer. We are blindly buying into it. Everyday you get an Email about a sale at Gap or put on that H&M dress, you are celebrating the loss of a life in the Rana Plaza collapse. Be a conscious, moral person. You are what you wear. Be a good person.

Assignment 16- Usha Adhikari

You have a fever of 101, your chest aches, and you can’t seem to get rid of that cough. You haven’t eaten all day but the thought of food makes you want to puke. You go to the doctors and they tell you have pneumonia. If this had been 100 years ago, you probably would have died. But it’s 2016 and antibiotics exist. You take the antibiotics for 6 days and life goes back to normal.
You may not realize this but modern medicine has made this possible, antibiotics were created around 100 years ago, and have saved countless lives. But here’s the thing, out of over a million different human reactions to stimuli, modern medicine can only “fix” about 250[1].  And Although antibiotics has done a lot, the problem is what they haven’t done, or more so, what they can’t do.  Antibiotics go into our bodies and kill bacteria and while this may help with certain things such as bronchitis, it won’t cure cancer.
The term cancer carries a lot of weight in our society. What it means to me maybe completely different from what it means to you. Most people have a personal connection to cancer, having lost someone close to it or knowing someone who has gone through pain of treating it. So far, most cancer treatments have been more of a “hit and miss” tactic with desperate attempts of cancer cell termination. But cancer impacts everyone differently and the severity of each type of cancer and each case differs, creating the need of personalized treatments. This is where stem cells come into play.  
Stem Cells are unlike the rest of the cells in the human body and are unspecialized. All cells in the human body contain a person’s DNA and genes. What makes a cell specialized is that it has certain genes “turned off”, and has a specific job to be carried out in the human body[2]. Stem cells are unspecialized cells with the ability to create specialized cells. Through differentiation[3], otherwise known as stem cell division, a stem cell divides into new cells, those of which either turn into more stem cells or specialized cells with specific jobs to carry out.
There are two main types of stem cells, embryonic and somatic. Somatic or adult stem cells are cells which are used to replenish the tissues in which they are found. For example, a skin stem cell would help to create new layers of skin after a wound. Stem cells can be extremely helpful, as demonstrated by bone marrow transplants. During a bone marrow transplant, not only are bone marrow cells transplanted, stem cells are also transplanted. These stem cells then help create new, healthier cells in the bone.
The difference between the two types of stem cells is that embryonic stem cells are pluripotent and can turn into any specialized cell, while Somatic stem cells are thought to be limited to creating specialized cells of the tissue in which they are found. Embryonic cells are easier to culture since adult stem cells are rare in mature tissue and thus isolation from the tissue is difficult.
Embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos, which causes a lot of controversy over stem cells. These cells however are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman’s body, instead they are donated eggs that have been fertilized in an in verto-fertilziation clinic[4]. This issue has become less of a controversial topic with the discovery of induced pluripotent stem cells by Dr. Takahashi and Dr. Yamanaka in 2006. Shortened as iPSCs, these cells are genetically reprogrammed somatic cells that are forced to express genes and factors, which in turn allow them to keep the major defining features of embryonic stem cells. This means that research of embryonic stem cells maybe can occur without the use of actual embryos, reducing the controversy around stem cells.
Stem cells are the key to understanding the human body, they tell the story of how a human is formed from a single cell. Stem cells are also the key to understanding and curing diseases from a cellular level, hoping to work its way up to organ levels where one day we might be able to replace damaged organs with specialized, stem cell cultured organs[5]. Stem cells will open a whole new world of medicine and will redefine life as we know it. Maybe one day stem cells based remedies may be as commonly prescribed as antibiotics are today.




[1] Mukherjee, Siddhartha. "Soon We Will Cure Diseases with a Cell, Not a Pill." Ted Talks. Vancouver. Mar. 2015. Lecture
[2] Stem Cells Revolutions. Dir. Amy Hardie. Prod. Amy Hardie, Chris Hird, and Clare Blackburn. Wellcome Trust, 2011. Film.
[3] PIORE, ADAM. "Stem Cells." Discover 37.6 (2016): 42-45. Academic Search Complete. Web. 1 July 2016.
[4] "Stem Cell Basics.” : Introduction [Stem Cell Information]. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 05 Mar. 2015. Web. 11 December 2016.
[5] Bakalar, Nicholas. "Bone Builder, New Jaws for Pigs." The New York Times 28 June 2016, New York ed.,Science sec.: D6. Print.

Sunday, December 11, 2016

Chelsea Avery Blog 16 Speech

In 1798, economist Thomas Malthus proposed the Theory of Population. He predicted that the population of the world would grow exponentially, while the food supply of the world would grow arithmetically. Now for those of us who are not quite as strong in the subject of math, this simply means that at some point, the resources of the world will no longer be able to sustain the ever increasing population, leading to famines, wars and disaster. However, this has not been the case thus far. This is largely due to the cultivation of genetically modified organisms. No discovery of the past century holds more promise—or raises more ethical questions than gene editing. Also known as "transgenic," genetically modified organisms or GMO's are the result of laboratory processes in which selective genes from the DNA of one organism are inserted into the DNA of another organism. These exchanges are used to greatly benefit the population of the world in a variety of ways.  
More than 40 years ago, scientists first discovered how to cut and paste desired traits of one organism into another.  For 25 million Americans diagnosed with diabetes, the work of geneticists has been lifesaving. By placing human genes in bacteria, scientists today can create sustainable amounts of insulin for the treatment of the disease that affects 8% of the US population.  
The reliability and success of genetically engineered medicine has allowed it to become widely accepted. However, this is not the case for genetically modified crops. In 1996, the agrochemical company Monsanto debuted their revolutionary herbicide tolerant crop—Roundup Ready Soybeans. The result of these genetic alterations simply was that when a farmer's field was sprayed with this strong herbicide, everything in the field was killed except for the crop. The year of the release, only two percent of the soybeans produced in the United States contained the altered gene. Today, more than 90 percent contain them. Altering the genetics of crops can be used in a host of ways, for example, in creating drought or freeze resistant crops or even changing the benefits of certain foods through a process known as bio fortification.  This process improves the nutritional value of a food crops through conventional or laboratory cultivation. This process grew in recognition with the growth of the golden rice project. In the past 10 years, over eight million children went blind due to a vitamin A deficiency, considered to be one of the most harmful forms of malnutrition, it causes not only blindness, but it limits growth, and weaken the body's immune system.  
With this potentially lifesaving crop bringing promise of survival to many malnourished children, it is hard to believe there would be resistance to the continuation of this project. However, the lack of knowledge on the topic brings much debate to the table. Many fear that a lack of long term testing makes GMO's unsafe for humans. However, a host of studies have shown these organisms to be safe for human consumption. In fact, over 1,700 scientific articles have been published on this subject—it would take you four hours to read just the titles of them all. The fear surrounding GMO's hinders the growth and release of their true potential. Activist groups such as Greenpeace continue to vandalize testing sites. Some call for mandatory labelling of all food products that contain GMO's, but the reality is that of all the food products in American supermarkets, an estimated 70% contain at least one or more GMO. Labelling foods with GMO's would spark an unnecessary fear in the general public as many will continue to be uneducated on the full truth behind GMOs.  

 A general distrust in science is prevalent in our society today. This can be found in those who refuse to accept the scientific acknowledgement of global warming safety of vaccinations. By educating the general public and fighting the propaganda war created by GMO skeptics, we can continue to develop our understanding and improve the lives of many around the world, perhaps continuing to prove Malthus’ Population Theory to be incorrect. 

Assignment 16: Dylan Ruddy

There are two things my parents told me never to talk about in public settings. Money and politics, two of the most hidden subjects is social discussions. When other subjects cause mere ripples in the societal lake, these can cause tidal waves. If not explored with extreme caution, they can turn pleasant conversation into a raging inferno of insults and stereotypes. This was not the first topic I wanted to discuss in front of my peers, that I would be in class with for another year and a half. But how can we discuss and resolve issues in these fields without talking about them. The plain answer is that we can’t. We live in the third largest country in the world, and the ninth wealthiest, yet we have the largest debt and it continues to grow. This suggest that there is something wrong with how our nation's money is being managed. During my allotted time, I will discuss the inequities with our tax code and uncover unnecessary governmental spending and provide possible solutions for the United States to be the best nation that it has the potential to be. I do include one disclaimer, I was raised a republican, and though you may not agree with these views, I urge you to at least keep an open mind to consider the possibility of their creation.
            By a show of hands how many of you have had or have a job that gives you a paycheck with taxes already deducted. Behind me, you see My Check in large print across the middle. That is the 80% of my paycheck that I get in my pocket. Surrounding it are smaller words like Social Security Employee, and Medicare Employee. After doing my research I have found that these words, mean about the same thing. Thank you for your mandatory donation to the government, you will never see this money again even though you earned it. These numbers may seem aggravating and they are, but when compared to the one percenters who pay more taxes than the other bottom 90% of taxpayers (Erb, K) my contribution is nothing. Another frustrating thing about this situation is that all taxpayers under the age of 18 have no say in the representatives who will decide where their tax dollars are spent because they don’t yet have a right to vote. This includes me, and just about everyone in this room.
            How do we fix this problem, level the playing field? In an ideal world, it would be to eliminate taxes altogether. Wouldn’t that be nice? But taxes are a necessary evil, they pay the police, the firefighters, the army, and the institute that keeps us from descending into disorder, the government. Keeping this in mind we need taxes, but we also need fair taxation. This could be achieved by the implementation of a flat tax, like that which I pay, 20% of income. However, there would be two exceptions to this rule and only two. Residents will not be taxed this amount, if it brings the amount of money coming into the household below $15,000, per working adult into the house. This number is one person, working minimum wage, for a year, with two weeks unpaid vacation time. You may have wondered why I specified adult a few seconds ago. That leads me to my second exception. In the U.S., the legal age to be an adult is 18. That is when you can vote, drop out of school without your parent’s permission, and for males, sign up for the military draft. Why did I include this exception? Well because I don’t want to pay taxes. But on a more serious note. There were 5.6 million job openings in December of 2015 (Gillespie, P). Eliminating the tax on dependents, as they are legally deemed, would provide an incentive to get them into the job market place, which will not only fill some of these vacancies but will also give these young employees the valuable job experience and references these jobs can provide, and help them to get better jobs down the road. Now that we have fixed the problems with the taxing systems, lets now move on to how we can improve governmental spending.
With all those tax dollars going to the government from 318 million people in the U.S. how could we be in debit. The debt clock for the United states stands at 19.9 trillion dollars and continues to grow. To put that in perspective, if you stacked dollar bills flat, on top of one another the stack could reach from the earth to the moon, back twice and then to the moon again. The solution to this seems clear, pay it back our debit. However, with a sum this big the interest is huge. That is why 229.15 billion dollars, about six percent of the federal budget in 2015 goes to just paying interest on our loans, meaning that every year our debt only grows (Federal Spending). The only way to counteract this process is to pay back more than just the interest, which means finding unnecessary funds somewhere else in the budget. I propose cuts to both the military as well as the Social Security, Unemployment, and Labor sectors.
Now, this semester in AP US History, we saw the effect of Thomas Jefferson’s cut to military spending that put the US in a tough situation in the War of 1812 against the British. However, we live in a different time now, and we are no longer that newly formed country that we were then. As of 2015 the U.S. dedicated almost 16% of its budget, about $609.3 billion dollars for the military (Federal Spending). This may be a bit excessive. To put that into perspective in the world the next closest country, China, spends $143 billion. Still not convinced, the U.S. has ten Nimitz Class aircraft carriers, the very top of the line, the rest of the world has ten combined. And the last military statistic I will give you, of the 8,400 military helicopters in the world, the U.S. owns 6,400 of them. While I agree with many of you that it is nice to have the biggest and best military in the world, the amount of money flooding into it could be reduced and instead go to repaying our debts. While $609.3 billion dollars for military spending may seem huge, it pales in comparison to the $1.28 trillion that goes to Social Security, Unemployment, and Labor portion of our budget. My cut to this area would be to Social Security. Created during the Great Depression by Franklin D. Roosevelt, it was meant to prevent the elderly retiring, and falling into poverty. However, as times change, so must we. From the time since its establishment, life expectancy has increased, and the amount of time people spend in retirement has grown to about 20 years. So, for every American on social security, we are mailing them a check, every month for an average of 20 years. Now the exact time that Social Security will run out of money varies depending on the source but it ranges anywhere from 15 to 25 years. At that point all the money going into social security will be coming out of Income tax from my paycheck and yours.
The basis of this nation was equality for all, no matter of gender or race. The proposed flat tax expands that equality to all incomes, and provides breaks for those at the bottom so that they may have economic mobility, and get out of poverty. Once we complete this our goal should be to decrease our national debt, by paying more than just interest until our country is in the black and we may start giving loans to nations and collecting their interest. I hope this presentation opened your eyes to a different way of thinking whether you shared these beliefs or not. I will end with the words of Albert Einstein, “The world as we have created it is a process of our thinking. It cannot be changed without changing our thinking.” 

Assignment 16- Caroline Couch

Caroline Couch

When we think about vaccinations or”shots” we get a flashback to the evil doctor and demon nurse inserting a long needle into your arm. You most likely have labeled that memory as traumatic and now dislike going to the doctor but vaccinations are essential to maintain herd immunity, and protect you and the community from the harmful infectious diseases. Vaccines are the best things to help prevent fatal disease. But of course 4 year old you isn't saying “wow these vaccines could really save my life.” You’re in fact crying and screaming trying to punch the doctors. We've all been there.
Doctors don't give you shots to hurt you, despite what your 4 year old self thought. They are trying to prevent you from getting fatal diseases and a vaccine is the best thing for fighting them. Luckily we live in a society where vaccines are common and affordable in some communities the vaccination rates are below the threshold needed to maintain “herd immunity” which is a form of “immunity that occurs when the vaccination of a significant portion of a population provides a measure of protection for individuals who have not developed immunity”(Salter). Let's take a community who has not been vaccinated at all and let the disease take its course, as you can see it has affected almost half of the population. Now let's look at another community who has vaccinated 80% of the population- as you can see the disease is contained and only affects a small portion of population. Just because 80% of the population is vaccinated doesn't mean that the other 20% will fall ill to the disease. herd immunity acts to effectively stop the spread of disease in the community. It is particularly crucial for protecting people who cannot be vaccinated such as the 20% in scenario 2. These include children who are too young to be vaccinated, people with compromised  immune systems,  and those who are too ill to receive vaccines.
It's not only small communities that can be affected, an outbreak of measles in Manhattan showed that even doctors had overlooked the disease as childhood vaccination became widespread (Feemster). But over the last decade more people have objected to immunization. Along with the religious exemptions which all states allow. Now 19 states allow exemptions for philosophical reasons. Should we as a country risk our communities health because of others personal preferences? As more people choose not to vaccinate based on personal belief, our communities are at risk -- we have seen recent outbreaks of diseases like measles, mumps and whooping cough throughout the U.S. It is shrewd policy to limit such exemptions to protect our own and the public’s health. Personal and religious beliefs should not prevail over the communities health. Some people cannot be vaccinated themselves and depend on those who are, to protect them and exercise herd immunity. Following traffic laws and subscribing to drug tests may go against your beliefs but we submit to them because it's our civil duty. So does that not mean that it is our civil duty to protect the community from such diseases? Where do we draw the line?
Of course many of these objections are people who have been influenced by the media that the vaccines are bad and can essentially harm their child. Many people are under the belief that vaccinations cause autism. This presumption of course would cause unrest in the parents of their children when the decision comes to vaccinate. Many studies have shown that there is no correlation between the MMR (mumps, measles, and rubella vaccine) and autism. They also believe that vaccines contain harmful chemicals like Mercury, formaldehyde, aluminum ,and sodium. These chemicals are used but in very small amounts as preservatives not as main ingredients. They are also not used in their most dangerous forms but instead But many parents till decide against vaccines for the thought that autism could even potentially become an effect of vaccinations.
Vaccines are safe and effective. The significant reduction in illness and death from vaccine-preventable diseases is testimony to how well they work. But of course the belief that they aren't safe has been consistently prevailing and is creating the “vaccine confidence gap” There is no doubt that this gap needs to be addressed. It is the responsibility of the scientific and public health community to ensure that vaccines are safe. It is that community's responsibility to listen to concerns and provide accurate and clear information for the public. Now it's the people job to listen to the experts and make informed decisions based on the facts not on the hyper critical media. In the documentary, “Vaccines - Calling the Shots”, it states that 10% of people don't vaccinate at all. many mothers explained their views on vaccinations and their hesitations toward giving them to their children. The documentary addresses the sudden shift in opting out of vaccination and the seemingly growing outbreaks of vaccine preventable diseases.
Therefore it's important to protect children and future generations through appropriate vaccination to set them up for a lifetime of immunity. Having many vaccine preventable diseases still in the US or just a plane ride away it is essential to have a highly immune population or herd to defend against such diseases and to protect yourself and the community. Vaccines may involve discomfort and pain but it is minimal compared to the trauma the diseases these vaccines prevent. The lollipop you got from getting a shot at the doctor's office was a gift of a moment but the vaccination you got was the gift of a lifetime.


Documentary
Vaccines- Calling the Shots. Dir. Sonya Pemberton. Prod. Michael Rosenfeld and Sonya Pemberton. By Sonya Pemberton. NOVA. PBS, 10 Sept. 2014. Web. 27 July 2016.
Internet Sources
nnPeenster, Kristin A.. "Given the Measles Outbreak, Should Vaccinations Be Mandatory?" New nnnnnnYork Times. N.p., 23 Mar. 2014. Web. 27 July 2016.
Chris Salter: “What is Herd Immunity?”."@ Vaccines Today., 27 Apr. 2010. Web. 8 December 2016.
Picture
http://www.vaccinestoday.eu/vaccines/what-is-herd-immunity/

Assignment 16 - Jackson Leach

Jackson Leach

In the classic nature versus nurture debate that has circulated the academic world for centuries, the question is always asked: do our personalities arise from what is inside of us, or what is around us? It seems that the debate will never be settled, but as with any dispute that carries on this long, a compromise of sorts has been reached. Most people, at least people that are somewhat undecided or uneducated on the matter, will argue that a combination of our genetics and our upbringing shapes our personality and our future, and while I have to agree that genetics plays a role in your mental capability and physical stature, I must disagree with both the compromise and the view of nature proponents. Our upbringing is everything. Our environment is a mold that is used form us into the person we are as an adult, just as a mold for a sword is used for the shape of the sword. Everything we see around us, even from an age as young as a year old, imprints on us; our brain soaking up everything around us as quickly as it can. That is why I feel it is my responsibility to expose one of the quietest yet most dangerous plagues of our American society: the abuse done by overbearing parents. This is not to say that a firm hand from parents is not appropriate for discipline or to keep their child’s grades in check, but specifically I would like to point out the great harm some parents cause by requiring above and beyond what their child can produce in an athletic sense. Competitive sports are if anything healthy for a growing person, and are other examples of environmental factors shaping a person’s character, but parents that don’t stop to respect the fact that high school sports must be a mix of fun and work for a student are doomed to crush their child. Dangers caused by this phenomenon include: a tendency for children in these scenarios to end up just like their parents and continue the cycle, children under this pressure missing out on important growth due to parents, and physical and mental harm done to a growing mind because of the crushing expectations and training requirements given by parents. Analyzing these keypoints effectively exposes the true horror that lies within the families of our society today, and show the long term effects that it causes.
Going back to the nature versus nurture discussion I mentioned earlier, it is my belief that you are what your parent makes you, whether they do it deliberately or on accident. It is no surprise then that personality traits are passed down for generations through families, but not because of genetic causes. This is easily applied to the crisis of overbearing parents in sports. In a book written by Karyl Mcbride called Will I ever be Good Enough, Mcbride discusses the major problems of the effects created by parents expecting too much from their children. “This kind of emotional environment and dishonesty can be crazy-making.” This quote from the book shows how Mcbride thinks that the stress put on these children makes them “crazy” and only continues this cycle of mental abuse for generations. It’s all about knowing how to moderate your guidance and support, and all it takes is one parent to be taught that lesson and generations can be spared the extremities of parental overcoaching. As well, this is a time when a parent is the ultimate authority figure, so high schoolers are powerless to resist the demands of their parents. Putting growing people through these kinds of tests also is dangerous because many kids don’t know how to express the emotions they feel, and bottling up these emotions can lead to life threatening results. Anxiety is a real issue in our society, and often the high expectations of parents can heavily contribute to these symptoms of anxiety. It is often said that the best steel is made under pressure, and while this phrase makes sense I’d like to point out that too much pressure will just cause the steel to break before it’s finished.
The physical expectations for many high school athletes already can be hard enough just from what a coach requires of you, but kids who have their parents strictly dominate a physical regimen only end up being damaged by it. In the documentary Trophy Kids by Chris Bell, a crew of cameramen follow around different families undergoing these situations to get real live footage of this events in play. In one case, a son being bred to play college football for Washington University is put through a daily schedule by his father to make sure he is able to compete to play on a college level. Included in this schedule is a high amount of protein drinks, combined with daily intense exercises and weightlifting workouts. It is evident after watching a few minutes of this situation that the required schedule is far too much for the boy to handle. Our bodies have well defined limits that we must all obey for fear of breaking our bodies, and over exercising and taking in too much protein powder is a way to do that. Too much of anything is bad for you after all. During the documentary the boy begins to break down physically after a few days, and often skips his required protein because it makes him sick, without his father knowing of course. This may seem like a rare case, but it happens all of the time particularly with fathers who want their sons to be as masculine and athletically equipped as possible. This line of thought can lead to a dark place however. A common phrase to refute this is “What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.” While overusing protein powder and over exercising may not kill you, it will make you weaker as your body cannot keep up with the excessive habits. Again, at this point children have no power to say no to these methods as their parents are the ultimate authority figure. These schedules also can drastically take away from other activities that are necessary for a child’s growth.
  One great cost of this style of overbearing parenting is time. This time expenditure takes away from other important things that a growing child needs. The chiefest of these is a social experience which a child may miss out on, not only for just having to spend more time on the required training, but also for parents not wanting their child to be distracted by friends . Psychologists prove time and time again how important it is for growing people to interact with people their age and be socially involved, and this authoritarian parenting style only detracts from that. An article by Ben Nadeau discusses the damage put on developmental characteristics. Parents can often live vicariously through the success of their children and can seriously damage their child’s love for the game and other important developmental characteristics like self-assuredness.” This quote points out how distracting children’s parents can be from their important psychological developments, even though they are trying to keep their children from being distracted in the first place. It also destroys a child's sense of self value in some cases. An Image made by Gary Meader illustrates this, with a parent and a coach both having their heads blown up in the image, while the kid is very small and insignificant in contrast. This shows how crushing an overbearing parent can be to the independence and self value a child should have.
The discussed components of this mental abuse all contribute to a society where living up to your parents expectations is everything, even when you know that their expectations are wrong or impossible. Every athlete about to play in a sports game is nervous of failure or embarrassment, but do players have more fear of failing in front of their friends or in front of their parents? Rarely do performing athletes not have even a small fear of what their parents would think for their performance. This problem has a solution that can easily be achieved, and that is by having these overbearing parents by corrected. The first way to get out of a hole is to stop digging. In the same way, the generation after generation that could be affected by this crisis could be saved by the simple step of someone explaining to these parents that what they are doing is wrong. A parent shouldn’t be entirely a friend to their child, but in the same way they shouldn’t be entirely a coach either. The key to solving this is by explaining moderation to these extreme parents, which will fix decades of psychological problems to occur.
Sources:

Assignment 16: Charlotte Kessinger

Persuasive Speech: Eat Local
What can one person do to make a difference in their community? An easy answer- simply immerse themselves into the network of local fresh produce. Eating local means that food you consume did not have to be frozen, packaged or driven 1000 miles across the U.S. to be put on the supermarket shelf. Eating local means the food you buy comes from nearby small food producers benefitting your friends and neighbors. You think about food, you buy food, you eat food therefore you are a major part of the food system: a consumer. The food system consists of anything from corn fields, pigs, tractors to supermarkets, McDonalds and the cafeteria lunch. This system links the local community, region, and state to the country and the rest of the world. However, this food industry is considered by some to be extremely corrupt. Owned only by few huge corporations, the food processing industry strives to produce large quantities of food at low prices to maximize their sales and result in large profits. Americans are easily manipulated by the cost and convenience of unhealthy fast food, especially when hungry, poor or tired. While the fast food industry easily keeps consumers fed, it is far from providing nutritious food or ethical work environments. American farmer Joe Salatin states, “We're willing to subsidize the food system to create the "mystique" of cheap food, when actually it's very expensive food when you add up the environmental costs, societal costs, health costs. The industrial food is not honest food.” (Food Inc.) Eating locally, on the other hand, strengthens the local economy, improves the health of its consumers and easily lets consumers know where their food is coming from. So instead of supporting the centralized power of the food industry that is used against farmers producing quality food, buy and eat local!
When you decide to eat local, its much more than just eating food from the farmer down the street. Eating locally strengthens the local economy. When someone buys food from an independent local food producer, they are supporting their community and their money re-circulates and is reinvested into other local businesses and services in the community. When someone consumes from large chains and companies, like Walmart, that money goes back to the company’s headquarters, enabling the manipulative food industry to produce masses of unhealthy food to stay in power of the industry. New Economics Foundation researcher David Boyle compares money to blood, just like blood moves through our body the money needs to keep moving around the community to keep the economy strong. Boyle explains that when money is spent at corporate-owned supermarkets instead of the small local corner stores, the money flows out of the community like blood from a wound. (Schwartz) Eating local also provides jobs for community members, as small local businesses are the largest employers nationally.Local jobs are essential to the community and have a more financially durable base than jobs provided by large companies. (Milchen) Eating from local producers also creates a more connected community. Eating locally connects people with farmers and food producers and creates strong relationships and more active communities. (Mellino) Local farmers and food producers can also preserve the community’s unique food culture and produce what they want because they don’t have to follow corporate guidelines or templates.
Local food is fresh food and fresh food is healthier food. Food that is sold on a supermarket shelf likely traveled hundreds or thousands of miles, over weeks, to get there. Due to this time traveling, produce is harvested prematurely and treated with chemical gasses to delay its ripening for two to three weeks to allow time for transportation across the country. Local food never travels long distances and is never treated with chemicals and typically arrives at the supermarket or farmer’s market 24 to 48 hours after harvest, allowing it to retain most of its nutritional values. (Ryan) Today chickens in industrial farms are raised in just 49 days compared to the three months it took in the 1950s, due to increased use of antibiotics, yet are twice as big, and proven to be less healthy. Today’s industrial chickens never even see the sun and live so closely together that antibiotics are necessary. (Food Inc.) Who wants to eat a piece of “meat” from a chicken that never had the chance to live and was genetically modified? Not me. Author of “The Omnivores Dilemma,” Michael Pollan writes, “Were the walls of our meat industry to become transparent, literally or even figuratively, we would not long continue to raise, kill, and eat animals the way we do.” (Pollan ) On the other hand, local farmers are much less likely to raise animals in such horrific conditions, or treat them with unnecessary antibiotics or genetically modified corn feed, and therefore local farmer’s poultry is much healthier for your body. Local food also is not processed food. The more processed an item is the more nutritional value it loses. Local small-scale farmers have more dedication and nourish crops and soils in ways to provide the highest quality, healthiest produce that they can.
Do you know exactly where all the ingredients in the frozen pizza you ate last night came from? Probably not. Can you pronounce the all the ingredients? I bet not. When you eat local food, you know exactly where your food is coming from and what exactly is in it. This allows the consumer to easily find out if the product was produced with pesticides, antibiotics or other extremely unhealthy methods. However, when you buy mass produced products, such as that frozen pizza, its nearly impossible to know where all the ingredients came from or how they were produced. The large scale food industry depends on the ignorance of its consumers and their decisions based upon only on a low price. Author Michael Pollan writes, “It's a short way from not knowing who's at the other end of your food chain to not caring–to the carelessness of both producers and consumers that characterizes our economy today.” (Pollan) To make sure you’re not an ignorant consumer, support your local farmers and food producers!
An easy way for the people of Lexington to eat locally is purchasing a Community Share from Elmwood Stock farm located in Georgetown, Kentucky. Elmwood is a 6th generation family farm that provides organic vegetables, fruits, meats, eggs and cornmeal to the surrounding area. (Elmwood) All you have to do is sign up and pay for a share. Each week, the farm delivers its harvest to several distribution sites across central Kentucky where it can be picked up. Each week you enjoy a variety of fresh local organic food. In doing so, you are supporting a local farmer and incorporating the freshest unprocessed local food available into your diet. Way better than frozen pizza.
Are you convinced?  Why not support your local farmer? Help stimulate the local economy. Improve your health. Quit eating food you cannot pronounce. Do you want to support Walmart or Elmwood Farm? I know who I support and I know confidently exactly where my food came from – down the road – and I hope you soon will too. 
Works Cited
Food, Inc. Dir. Robert Kenner. Perf. Michael Pollan and Eric Schlosser and Richard Lobb. Magnolia Pictures, 2008. Netflix.
Pollan, Michael. The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. New York: Penguin, 2006. Print.
Schwartz, Judith D. "Buying Local: How It Boosts the Economy." Time. Time Inc., 11 June 2009. Web. 11 Dec. 2016.
Mellino, Cole. "10 Reasons Why You Should Eat Local." EcoWatch. EcoWatch 2016, 27 June 2016. Web. 11 Dec. 2016.
Milchen, Jeff. "Buying Local Yields More Jobs, Stronger Communities." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 16 Dec. 2011. Web. 11 Dec. 2016.
Ryan, Briana. "Why Is Local Food Healthier?" Greenopedia. Greenopedia, 10 July 2016. Web. 11 Dec. 2016.
"Farm Fresh." Elmwood Stock Farm. Elmwood Stock Farm, Web. 11 Dec. 2016.