1
Two Waters Review
Student Essays from Spring 2015
Volume 1, Issue 1
Scottsdale Community College English Department
2
All student works collected here are Copyright © 2015 by their respective authors. Licenses for publication in Two
Waters Review by the English Department of Scottsdale Community College are on file at the college.
Cover image: “TWR Cover 1.1” by Matthew Bloom is a mashup of two images in the public domain taken by NASA
(accessed via Wikimedia Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org) and is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License.
Volume 1, Issue 1
September 2015
3
Table of Contents
Outer Space
4……Eljana Nikolli – “NASA: Hovering in Space”
13…. Mary Byron – “A Progression for Humanity”
22…. Kevin C. Abblett – “Reevaluating the Legacy of Egyptian
Astronomy”
Terrestrial Space
32…. Drew Carey – “Modern Day Slavery”
40…. Connor Murphy – “The Environmental, Economic, and
Contamination Issues of Wild vs. Farmed Salmon”
Inner Space
47…. Corinne Arnold – “The Health Cost of High Fructose Corn Syrup”
54…. Jennifer Beichner – “Conflicted Agreement: Improving Discourse
within the Abortion Debate”
64…. Madeline Waddell – “Freeing the Gaze”
4
Eljana Nikolli
Dr. Jared L. Aragona
English 102
8 May 2015
NASA: Hovering in Space
On November 12th 2014, the European Space Agency (ESA) announced the first ever landing of a space probe on the surface of a comet. According to the ESA, “Rosetta was launched on 2 March 2004 and travelled 6.4 billion kilometers through the Solar System before arriving at the comet on 6 August 2014.” It then took months until a successful landing was accomplished. In addition, a mission to send the first humans on Mars is already on the works. According to Mars
One, the non-profit organization behind the mission, the plan is to send the first humans to Mars in
2024. However, this mission is being based on current space exploration technology with the hopes that by the time the mission is ready to launch, more advanced technology will be available. Projects like these have been known to cost a lot of money, and many argue that the money NASA is given is going to waste and it should be used elsewhere, as in education and healthcare. However, we all know that many of the humankind’s achievements, regarding space or not, have been successful due to research, and research most often needs money to happen. Indeed, many of NASA’s biggest achievements, like the moon landing, have happened because NASA had the US government’s financial support. Therefore, the US government should continue and even increase NASA’s financial support since the National Aeronautics and Space Administration plays an integral role in the country’s financial, technological, cultural, and scientific development, and in humanity’s safety as well.
To begin with, the public does not have a clear vision of NASA’s financials. According to
Mary Lynne Dittmar, Dittmar Associates, Inc. CEO and Senior Policy Advisor at Center for the 5
Advancement of Science in Space (CASIS), “the public perception of NASA’s budget is grossly inflated relative to actual dollars.” We have often heard about probes lost in space or equipment that cost millions of dollars being destroyed due to miscalculations or unexpected circumstances, and that angers people since that money could have been used for something else. However, people do not have the right perception when it comes to large amounts of money. The majority of the population compares large sums to numbers they understand, and they cannot comprehend that in the much larger scale of the national fund seven and eight figure amounts are miniscule.
Subsequently, the public does not realize that NASA’s budget occupies an exceptionally small percentage of the national budget. Also according Mary Dittmar, a study showed people believe that about 24% of the national budget is allotted to NASA. However, Columbia University
Professor Howard S. Friedman, who is also a Statistician and Health Economist for the United
Nations, says that aside from a rush of funding in the mid 1960’s, which reached about 4.5% of the total federal budget, NASA’s budget has been significantly dropping since then. According to
Friedman, NASA’s budget for the 2015 fiscal year is estimated to be about 0.47% of the national budget. To put this into better perspective, for every dollar the US population pays in taxes, only about half a penny goes to NASA.
Furthermore, considering more cuts on NASA’s budget would lead to additional issues for the agency and its programs. In his book “Mysteries of Outer Space”, Thomas K. Grose says that since its creation, the International Space Station hasn’t achieved any of its goals of space exploration and micro gravitational research. On the other hand the station is costing more and more money each year. Grose says that, “A diminished floating laboratory doesn’t excite the public’s imagination, and that gives lawmakers plenty of maneuvering room to keep NASA’s budget tight, which leads to more downscaled projects” (66). In an effort to appeal to the public, politicians many times succumb to the public’s demands, and budget cuts for NASA are one of them. Consequently, 6 the space agency has not reached its potential due to past budget cuts. These budget cuts have been causing and continue to cause problems for more of NASA’s ongoing projects which in turn could potentially lead to even more cuts, thus, entering a vicious circle that could lead to the agency’s demise.
Nevertheless, NASA’s technological achievements have changed our lives dramatically.
According to the article “NASA Spinoff 2015 Features Space Technology Making Life Better on
Earth,” “NASA technologies are being used to locate underground water in some of the driest places on the Earth, build quieter and more fuel-efficient airplanes, and create shock absorbers that brace buildings in earthquakes.” In fact, these are only some of the NASA spinoffs that have changes our lives for the better. NASA has largely influenced many more areas of our lives such as weather forecasting, the medical field, and others.
To start with, NASA’s satellites have saved thousands of lives because of the detailed and timely weather forecasting they can provide. According to the National Research Council, NASA has powerfully contributed in the study of Earth’s atmosphere, oceans, and surface through use of its satellites. Also, nasa.org provides us with detailed tracking of dangerous storms. According to nasa.gov, when hurricane Sandy hit the east coast, “the satellite data provided detailed information such as the size and direction of the winds, observations of the cloud structures near the storm and the amount and location of storm’s rainfall.” Even though there was a lot of destruction and many died, and even more were injured during hurricane Sandy, the consequences would have probably been much worse if not for NASA’s contribution to weather forecasting and tracking.
Secondly, NASA has made many contributions in the development and/ or advancement of many technologies used by the medical field, like telemedicine. In the article “A Brief History of
NASA’s Contributions to Telemedicine”, 7
The dominant medical question prior to Yuri Gagarin’s successful spaceflight in April
1961 was whether the human body could function in space. […] To determine if this
would indeed be a problem, both the U.S. and the Soviets performed a number of test
flights using animals attached to medical monitoring systems, which sent the animal’s
biometric data to scientists on Earth via a telemetric link. [..] The focus on possible
limitations of the human body forced the agency to take a technologically focused
approach to telemedicine.
It took years for telemedicine to function the way it does today. Now, the lives of many people that live in remote areas of the country and of the rest of the world have been saved due to this technology.
And in addition to telemedicine, NASA has contributed in the invention of other very important medical devices. According to Linda C. Brinson, the VAD (Left Ventricular Assist
Device), which keeps patients alive while they await for a heart transplant, light technology that lessens the painful side effects of chemotherapy, and ear thermometers are a few of the many more technologies that NASA has contributed to medicine. A lot of people are alive today because the
VAD was able to buy them some time until the right donor was found. Also, cancer patients can now suffer a little bit less during their chemotherapy sessions. Technologies as these simply make the hardships in life a little bit more bearable.
In addition, NASA has added to our quality of life with the invention of things like highway safety grooving. According to nasa.gov, safer highways were a spinoff of a program developed to reduce accidents on wet airways. Due to this technology, grooving highway concrete has probably prevented more accidents and saved more lives than we can imagine.
Another NASA invention contributing to a higher quality of life is the memory foam.
According to nasa.gov, “[memory foam was] the result of a program designed to develop a padding 8 concept to improve crash protection for airplane passengers.” Not everyone knows about the origins of the memory foam, but everyone appreciates the comfort temper mattresses pillows, memory foam insoles, etc. provide.
Additionally, our everyday lives are becoming more and more futuristic with every passing moment. According to nasa.gov, a program that was initially designed to enable astronauts to control devices on spaceships and stations remotely, resulted in the invention of internet connected wall ovens. People can now not only cook meals from a distance but they can also lock and unlock doors, turn on the shower so it’s ready when they arrive, check their home when on vacation to ensure it doesn’t get broken into, and many more. Who doesn’t appreciate being able to control almost anything inside your home while at the office or on the road? And all this because of inventions like internet remote technology. Life in the 21st century makes science fiction movies about the future not so much science fiction anymore.
Of course, the most important reason to increase NASA’s budget is because planet Earth, and along with it humanity, is in danger. For instance, forces like asteroids are threatening the safety of all living beings on Earth. According to Brain Marshall,
[Asteroid 1997XF11] has the energy that's 10 million times greater than the bomb that fell
on Hiroshima. It's able to flatten everything for 100 to 200 miles out from ground zero.
In other words, if a mile-wide asteroid were to directly hit New York City, the force of
the impact probably would completely flatten every single thing from Washington
D.C. to Boston, and would cause extensive damage perhaps 1,000 miles out -- that's as far
away as Chicago. The amount of dust and debris thrown up into the atmosphere would
block out the sun and cause most living things on the planet to perish. If an asteroid that
big were to land in the ocean, it would cause massive tidal waves hundreds of feet high
that would completely scrub the coastlines in the vicinity. 9
For reasons as this, we need a powerful space agency. NASA needs to be prepared to eliminate these kinds of dangers. The only way this can be achieved is through research, and the development of technology that could destroy an asteroid, or the option of continuing human life in space.
However, external forces are not the only threat towards humanity. In an article for The
Telegraph, Michael Hanlon writes that “our solar system is home to a swarm of comets, rocks, boulders and flying mountains, tens of thousands of which are big enough to wipe out anything from a small city to the entire biosphere.” In addition to that, in his article for reuters.com, Alister
Doyle says that according to a scientific report regarding the impact humankind has had on our planet, “Climate change and high rates of extinctions of animals and plants are pushing the Earth into a danger zone for humanity.” As we can see, our planet is being hit on both sides, by us the humans, and by forces in outer space as well. As a result, we need technology that can either prevent or overcome problems like these, and NASA has the potential to do so on both fronts. With the right technology, the agency can eliminate problems deriving from space, while at the same time use its resources to help with global warming and the reinstatement of our planet’s health.
But more than just prevent destruction, NASA has the potential to discover new energy sources that could put a stop to global warming. According to Brian Dunbar of NASA, “Our renewable energy focus is on advancing biofuels, solar, and wind technologies that also help reduce our nation’s dependence on petroleum-based fuels. By advancing clean energy technologies, NASA
[…] hopes to help our nation reduce its generation of greenhouse gases and create a sustainable future here on Earth.” Obviously, the discovery of a new and clean energy source would have a large impact on global warming and its solution. However, this cannot be done without enough funding.
Furthermore, NASA has the technology to monitor the ozone issue, and would most likely be the one to solve the problems with it. According to James C. Wilson, professor of engineering at the University of Denver, many who worry about the future of planet Earth, and along with it the 10 future of humans, think that NASA is an essential contributor in the answer of the ozone issue.
Professor Wilson says that “NASA aircraft were the first to fly into the ozone hole and return with scientific data confirming the causes of stratospheric ozone loss.” Finding a way to reinstate the ozone layer would solve many problems associated with global warming. NASA has already taken many steps in the study of such scientific fields, and the access it has to the atmosphere from the outside, enables the agency to discover technologies that may not be possible to be discovered in earth.
Lastly, if humanity fails to save the planet Earth, space travel could be the only thing to save the human species. According to a BBC article, renowned cosmologist Stephen Hawking said that,
“The long-term future of the human race must be space and [space travel] represents an important life insurance for our future survival […] It could prevent the disappearance of humanity by the colonization of other planets.” Indeed, the only way to save the human race in case of a big disaster or in the case that Earth becomes uninhabitable, would be space travel. However, space travel of large amounts of people right now is not available. NASA is amongst the few organizations on
Earth that could achieve something like that, but none of this can happen without the government’s financial support.
Research has made us who we are today as humans, and space offers so much for us to discover. The US is amongst the few countries in the world that have a space agency, and the best one at that. However, unless the government realizes the agency’s importance, a lot could be at stake. The US could miss out on important technological advances that could permanently affect not just the nation, but the whole world as well. An investment in the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration is an investment in humanity. With the right support and the right resources, NASA has the potential and the ability to permanently change a lot of aspects of human life, whether that is scientifically, technologically, financially, culturally, or other. 11
Works Cited
"A Brief History of NASA’s Contributions to Telemedicine." NASA. NASA, 16 Aug. 2013. Web. 21
Apr. 2015. telemedicine/#.VTixpCFViko>. Brain, Marshall. "What If an Asteroid Hit the Earth?" HowStuffWorks. HowStuffWorks.com. Web. 2 Apr. 2015. earth.htm>. Brinson, Linda C. "What breakthroughs in medicine came from NASA?" 03 March 2011. HowStuffWorks.com. Web. 22 Apr. 2015 Dittmar, Mary Lynne. "Sustaining Exploration: Communications, Relevance, and Value." The Space Review. 12 Nov. 2007. Web. 23 Apr. 2015. Doyle, Alister. "Climate Change, Extinctions Signal Earth in Danger Zone: Study." Www.reuters.com. 15 Jan. 2015. Web. 20 Apr. 2015. Dunbar, Brian. NASA. NASA, 5 Aug. 2009. Web. 21 Mar. 2015. Friedman, Howard. "NASA Simply Stopped Being a Priority." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com. Web. 25 Mar. 2015. Grose, Thomas K. "Nasa Scales Back." Mysteries of Outer Space (2004): 66. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 28 Mar. 2015. Hanlon, Michael. "Why We Face Grave Danger from Space." The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, 13 Aug. 2013. Web. 23 Apr. 2015. James C. Wilson Guest Commentary, Denver. "NASA Cutting Earth Science Short: Final Edition." Denver Post: B.07. 2005. "Mars One." Mars One. Web. 13 Mar. 2015. "NASA Spinoff 2015 Features Space Technology Making Life Better on Earth." NASA. NASA, 20 Jan. 2015. Web. 22 Apr. 2015. 2015-features-space-technology-making-life-better-on-earth>. "NASA Technologies Benefit Our Lives." NASA Technologies Benefit Our Lives. Web. 22 Apr. 2015. National Research Council, (U.S.), States United, and (U.S.) National Academy of Sciences. Space Science in the Twenty-First Century: Imperatives for the Decades 1995 To 2015. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1991. eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 29 Mar. 2015. "Stephen Hawking: Live on Other Planets or We'll Die out." BBC News. BBC, 20 Feb. 2015. Web. 23 Apr. 2015. "Touchdown! Rosetta's Philae Probe Lands on Comet." European Space Agency. Web. 13 Mar. 2015. 13 Mary Byron Dr. Aragona Eng102 8 May, 2015 A Progression for Humanity Earth’s forests are getting smaller each day that ticks by, and the majority of Earth is covered in water which has been polluted by humans. Slowly but certainly energy sources are going to be depleted and within the next few decades the human species will have outgrown our own planet’s population limit. Our planet is slowly rotting away from human actions including non-sustainable development, overpopulation, and human waste. Sooner or later to save humanity from our inevitable demise, we must take the step to venture away from the toxic planet that rests under us. In order to succeed in such a feat, humanity must be willing to learn about the rest of our universe and discover if there is a possibility for another planet to hold life. Thanks to current technological methods, scientists have discovered that there may be hope to this discovery of life on the Red Planet: Mars. There is great controversy whether this endeavor is worth the investment but the human race will dive into a deeper understanding of our universe by creating a human settlement on Mars, which will be arguably be the biggest step in the direction of human progression since our evolution into conscious beings. The main drawback that society is seeing from this mission is the monetary value that will need to be invested into it. Currently, according to MIT’s department of aeronautics Sydney Do, the “space logistics analysis revealed that, for the best scenario considered, establishing the first crew for a Mars settlement will require approximately 15 Falcon Heavy launchers and require $4.5 billion in funding, and these numbers will grow with additional crews” (Do). So real 14 istically, it could take about 4.5 billion dollars in funding for the Mars One Mission to take place, which right now is aiming to launch in 2026. However when put into the perspective that the International Space Station was built off of the monetary sacrifice of 150 billion U.S. dollars, the Mars One mission is only a fraction of the cost. In Do’s Mars One Mission Plan, the 4.5 billion dollars was estimated off of the technology that we currently have. Between now and the year 2026 there will be over ten years for technology to be innovated and improved upon that will lower this estimation. As science advances, and we learn more about how to operate in space and more importantly on the surface of Mars, this estimate will go down in numbers. For instance, when this mission was much more dream-like than a possible reality back in 2003, the Russians were discovered making preliminary plans to go to Mars and back. In an article “One Nuclear Leap to Mars”, “Gorshkov and his Russian colleagues claim that such a mission could be pulled off for anywhere from $14 billion to $20 billion. But many Western experts believe that’s pure fantasy. They peg the adventure nearer to ISS’s $150 billion price tag” (Stone). The estimated price was about 10 billion dollars higher than what is predicted today, showing that with new technologies created cost is significantly decreased. Knowing this likelihood of having a decreased cost, the pricing of this mission should not effect whether or not it takes place. Additionally, Mars One is a non profit organization that is gaining millions of dollars in investments and making the endeavor as inexpensive as possible to take pressure off of needing government support. On the Mars One website, it informs that a “permanent settlement significantly reduces the cost, the required technology development, and the risk of the mission compared to the traditional return journey. It is also a more profound step in the continuous journey 15 of the exploration by the human race.” They also explain on the website that it will be financed through investments from the private sector by establishing the Mars One Corporation, a for profit entity in which investors can buy shares. So, because Mars One company made themselves desirable enough for people want to buy stocks, the mission will be well financed. An example of who will be contributing funds to the mission is a company called Uwingu. “New ‘People’s Map of Mars' To Be Used By Mars One Project” written by Mike Wall from the Huffington Post is written showing the partnership between the Netherlands based non-profit Mars One and the space-funding company Uwingu. Uwingu has developed a new “People’s maps of Mars” and by allowing people on Earth to buy certain craters and landmarks on Mars for a fee, Uwingu will therefore be able to support the mission with funding. The Mars One CEO states he was excited about this opportunity to give everyone in the world a chance for space exploration. The business aspect of Mars One and the integrity of various separate organizations supporting the mission helped to form a financial plan that will stay completely separate from any government line of work and will remain in progression without use of tax money. Another concern is that there are not people willing to inhabit Mars, when in reality there are many people willing to sacrifice their lives to ensure that this mission is a success and operational at its full potential. Currently, there are thousands of volunteers that have signed their name for a one- way-trip to Mars. The Mars One organization is in the final process of deciding who will go with only a few people left to choose from. Three of the volunteers whom may be chosen to go to Mars share their motivations to Jessica Orwig in her interview “A new, strangely morbid video profile”. The men and women state that they have no reason to perish on this doomed planet[Earth] when asked “Why would they want to die on Mars?”. These volunteers 16 say that they are okay with the possibility they could die on Mars. These people share a common trait in having few ties here on Earth, therefore making them more open-minded then others on the idea of starting a fresh life on the extraterrestrial planet versus sticking to the everyday life that in the end will be humanity’s downfall. People are willing to risk their lives because they believe with such an empowerment that this mission will prevent humanity from falling into extinction and instead will progress our species into discovery. A motive for the endeavor is to gain extraordinary universal discoveries and scientific advances that will be resulting from this mission. Throughout the progression of Mars One there will be plenty of improvements in science occurring that lead to limitless possibilities for discovery. According to Bruce Jakosky, NASA astrobiologist, the way to start discovering our universe is to compare what is known about Earth’s processes to what is known in space or in other solar systems. When thinking of the scale of our solar system compared to the vast entirety of the Universe the plausibility of life grows; therefore encouraging humanity to learn as much as possible starting with our solar system. Jackson states in his book The Search For Life On Other Planets how well suited organisms are for survival through extracting energy, and with the countless other solar systems in existence how plausible life in those would be. The well known question whether life exists or can exist somewhere else in the cosmos will definitely be one of the forefront questions during the exploratory mission. By examining the environment of Mars, there is the possibility of discovering environments that could support life or even discovering forms of life itself. If the question is answered whether life can exist elsewhere from our planet from Mars One, humanity will be altered permanently. 17 Discovering life would cause existence as we know it to be completely transformed. “The possible existence of life elsewhere in our solar system or in the universe is one of the most profound issues that we can contemplate. Whatever the answer turns out to be- whether life is present elsewhere or absent- our view of the world and our place within it will be dramatically affected” (Jakosky). This quote exemplifies if extraterrestrial life is discovered, humanity’s perspective of our place in the universe will be completely transfigured. In the human race we have evolved from thinking the Sun revolves around our world, to realizing the fact that we are in an endless universe, so large that light hasn't reached us from the outer most corners of the cosmos. If we add to this statement that either we are the only life forms out there or the other side of the argument, that there is extraterrestrial life somewhere, imagine the perspective that would be given to us. The perspective may be the strongest awareness of how largely diverse our universe could be. It could give us reason to create technology that we had not before dreamt of creating for there was no reason too. Along with learning our place in the vast cosmos, the Mars One Mission would spawn an extreme technological movement that could push science and engineering to it’s limits. Scientists and engineers are being relied on to make advances in technology that would not have been prioritized without this mission. For instance according to engineers at MIT, “a system to remove excess oxygen would have to be implemented- a technology that has not yet been developed for use in space” (Chu). According to Jennifer Chu, this is one of the new technologies that will be needed for astronauts to stay alive and thrive on Mars or else vegetation would produce unsafe levels of oxygen and cause human inhabitants to eventually suffocate. Similarly, there was a “discovery of ice on the Martian surface in 2008, suggesting that future settlers might be able to melt ice for drinking water…current technologies designed to “bake” water from soil are not yet ready for deployment” (Chu). A number more of rigorous inventions will need to occur in various technologies. There are 18 many unknowns with this mission and a success can not be close to guaranteed until our technology is more feasible for Martian properties. That is why an attempt at a human settlement will push our scientific knowledge to its limits; Mars will push humanity to greatness. Pushing humanity to great scientific and engineering improvements might not be the only thing Mars One could accomplish; there is a possibility that it will save us from our own doomed Earth as well. In history, there have been five worldly catastrophic events that have wiped out almost every life form on the planet at that point in time, also called an extinction event. The Endangered Special International organization clearly describes each event: the Ordovician as the third largest about 439 million years ago from drop in sea levels as glaciers from. Most life was in the sea at that time and 60% marine life was lost. The Late Devonian extinction was around 364 million years ago for the suspected cause of glacier activity. Endangered Special International then said the Permian-Triassic extinction happened about 251 million years ago and wiped out 95% of all species, one of the most devastating extinctions that occurred. Many believe it occurred from a falling comet or asteroid, though it is still unproven. The End-Triassic extinction about 200 million years ago was described to be mostly caused from massive floods of lava from the central Atlantic triggering the break up of what would be the combined form of all of the continents, Pangaea. Finally, the organization wrote about the Cretaceous Tertiary extinction. The most recent mass extinction about 65 million years ago was caused by an asteroid hitting Earth and aggravating many surrounding volcanoes to wipe out the dinosaurs. All of these 19 extinctions had two common facts, the first being that they were naturally caused and the second being that they resulted in a destruction of most of the Earth’s current population. Mars has potential for us to evade these catastrophes, and humans would avoid the inevitable demise of Earth that is about to appear before us all. Our world as we know it will certainly fall, but our species needs to worry about other causes than only the natural catastrophic disasters. Through overpopulation and non-sustainable efforts, Earth along with its many species is slowly rotting and, on a cosmic scale of time, soon will become uninhabitable for most beings. A sixth mass extinction is being said to be in occurrence in this moment, but there is no asteroid to blame. This is strictly through human induced efforts, and it is becoming the fastest mass extinction in Earth’s history. This current mass extinction Earth is undergoing is caused by activities such as “transformation of the landscape, overexploitation of species, pollution, and the introduction of alien species” (Eldredge). As soon as human beings (the most intellectual species to be introduced to Earth) appeared, the environment was immediately disrupted. A researcher and writer for ActionBioscience Niles Eldredge wrote in an article about the 6th extinction that the invention of agriculture accelerated the pace, and created a way for humans to live outside of nature and not with it. He also writes that Earth can not sustain the trend in human population growth; we are reaching its limit in carrying capacity. “Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson estimated that Earth is currently losing something to the order of 30,000 species per year” (Eldredge). As a human race, we have slowly rotted Earth from life, fuel, and are soon going to run out of room to live and grow food. Eventually there will come a time of need for people to escape from Earth as it is a planet of mass extinction. Whether a human caused extinction occurs, or a world-wide natural disaster, there has been a history of devastation enough to capture factual information that 20 humans are not going to live here peacefully forever. If humans want to survive past our planet’s pattern of extinction, we must become advanced enough to recognize and accept the pattern at hand. Leaving Earth and starting a settlement on Mars would be the first step to taking measures to prevent our extinction. The substantial effort required for this mass settlement will produce incredible outcomes that could alter humanity in the long run. Mars One could be what motivates us to advance our species technologically and produce outcomes that were only dreamt of twenty years ago. This mission may answer the question on what else lies in our seemingly endless Universe. A success in this endeavor will advance us in such ways that we may be able to handle and survive the 6th mass extinction lying upon us. We will never be able to experience this advancement unless we have a successful mission to Mars, creating a settlement that can experience the Martian surface firsthand. Though the effort required is prodigious, it really is the biggest step humans have ever taken towards progression. 21 Work Cited Chu, Jennifer. “Mars One (and Done?)” MIT News. n.p. 14 Oct. 2014. Web. Do, Sydney. “An Independent Assessment of the Technical Feasibility of the Mars One Mission Plan” MIT Strategic Engineering 10 Oct. 2014. Web. 10 March, 2015. Eldredge, Niles. “The Sixth Extinction”. ActionBioscience. American Institute of Biological Sci ence. 2009. Web. “The Five Worse Mass Extinctions.” Endangered Species International. n.p. 2011. Web. Jakosky, Bruce. The Search For Life On Other Planets. New York City, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Print. Mars One. Mars One. Web. 5 April, 2015. Orwig, Jesscia. “A new, strangely morbid video profiles.” Business Insider. 10 Feb. 2015. Web. March 10, 2015. Stone, Richard. “One Nuclear Leap to Mars?” Science. New Series, Vol. 301, No. 5635 (Aug. 15, 2003), pp. 906-909. 29 March, 2015. Database. Wall, Mike. “New 'People's Map of Mars' To Be Used By Mars One Project.” Huffington Post. March 12 2015. Web. (Interview) 22 Kevin C. Abblett Professor Mugford ENG 102 3/26/2015 “Reevaluating the Legacy of Egyptian Astronomy” The last of the Great Wonders of the World, the great pyramid of Cheops at Giza, is built along an ancient prime meridian that miraculously is even more precise than our own modern achievement in Greenwich observatory today. It is so perfectly aligned in fact, that if one were to strike out from its eastern face and trace a path north, one would reach True North at a point not farther than roughly 3’6” off center (Schoch/McNally). Add this to the discovery of the Tropical year to the precise measure of 365 ¼ days, which Egypt had mapped as early as 5,000 years ago, and one has a strong case for an advanced mathematics that stretches back to the very dawn of civilization. It is curious then, that even when “the genuine accomplishments of the Egyptian astronomers . . . are recognized, we still find them relatively unappreciated by historians of science” (Krupp). Two scholars exemplify these divergent theories: Sir Norman Lockyer, writing in the late nineteenth century, who first hypothesized the presence of advanced mathematics in the orientation of ancient temple structures, and Otto Neugebauer, who wrote nearly a half-century later and argues against the existence of advanced mathematics in any but the centuries comprising the first millennium BC. Lockyer’s work suffers from the stigma of centuries of esoteric speculation on Egypt, coupled with a speculative approach and “in some cases wrong, remarks about Egyptian history and culture [that] led many prominent Egyptologist to dismiss his work” (Krupp). Neugebauer, on the contrary, is able to demonstrate that in the surviving texts of the ancient world, “no systematic and comprehensive observation of the sun, moon, planets, and stars . . . remains.” In spite of this lack of evidence, however, there were astronomers in ancient Egypt. Their legacy lies scattered along the 23 Nile valley in their remaining megaliths and in the endurance of their calendar for more than 5,000 years. (Krupp). Neugebauer argues that the development of predictive astrology in late-Babylon is the source for the development of mathematics and science for the Greeks and, subsequently, our modern world and allows for little to no cross pollination from Egypt. Until recent years, it has proven impossible to refute his claims, but new research has revealed a fundamental flaw in Neugebauer’s conclusions that have opened the door for a much needed reevaluation of Sir Lockyer’s hypothesis and the accompanying stellar accomplishments of ancient man. Sir Lockyer’s thesis was born from a chance observation of the Greek Parthenon. Borrowing a compass from a friend, he was struck by the precision with which the Temple was aligned along the cardinal points of the Earth and conjectured that such a technical skill must have come from some more ancient technology. In Lockyer’s time, Egypt was viewed as the source of much if not all of the scientific and mathematical knowledge of the ancients, and he hypothesized that “[t]he determination of the stars to which some of the Egyptian temples . . . were directed, opened a way . . . to a study of the astronomical basis of parts of [their] mythology” (Lockyer). Missing data, and needing to corroborate his thesis against observable facts, he traveled to Egypt to take more detailed readings of the alignments of certain temples because “when the orientations were [originally] observed and recorded, it was not known what use would be made of them” (Lockyer). At sites like the Temple of Isis at Dendera, he observed “an alignment with the star Sirius” (Krupp). Finding similar data with several additional sites, Lockyer concludes that Egyptian mythology, and thus religion, “was intensely astronomical, and crystallized early ideas suggested by actual observations of the sun, moon and stars” (Lockyer). His hypothesis suggests that the Egyptians “oriented their temples astronomically and used them as observatories and as ceremonial centers for significant celestial events.” Lockyer believes that the Egyptian temple structure was “designed around a long passage . . . arranged to permit a beam of light from the sun or other celestial object to reach all the 24 way down the passage to a darkened sanctuary [at its limit].” He believes that this passage would allow for “the chamber [to be] illuminated for only a few moments on just the right day.” His calculations then argue that this “would have allowed the Egyptians to estimate the length of the tropical year to one minute’s precision, or one ten-thousandth of a year” (Krupp). Lockyer’s conclusion was that “it is impossible to doubt [in light of this new evidence] that these structures were erected by a people possessing much astronomical knowledge” (Lockyer). E. C. Krupp, an astronomer and author working out of Griffith Observatory notes that “[a]lthough it is possible that the temples were used as Lockyer described . . . his system of alignments is difficult to confirm in detail. His arguments are incomplete, and until a comprehensive picture of practical Egyptian astronomy is available . . . the case will remain unresolved.” He notes, however, that it “seems likely that his approach . . . and his evaluation of Egyptian astronomical endeavor are destined for a rebirth” (Krupp). One of the key difficulties with Lockyer’s hypothesis has to do with the effects of precession, an astronomical phenomena that causes the regular appearance of stars along the belt of the ecliptic to slip or “fall back” below the horizon at a speed of roughly 30° every 2,200 years. This means that a stellar alignment would only work for “a few centuries . . . and a temple aligned precisely on a particular star would become useless” and would need to be continually realigned. Lockyer points out that “[i]n fact, such reconstruction [does] occur . . . [and that] four additions to the temple at Luxor, each of which deviates slightly from the previous orientation [can be observed]” (Krupp). Precession as a phenomenon was not articulated until after 300 AD, well into the Hellenistic period, when Hipparchus of Alexandria “noticed that every one of the longitudes of stars recorded by the Babylonians [was] less than what he had observed . . . and rightly reasoned that the Babylonian figures would not all have been in error. The skies had shifted” (Sellers). This late discovery of precession seems to argue against Lockyer’s hypothesis, but Giorgio Santillana, 25 historian of Science at MIT, in his controversial book Hamlet’s Mill, argues that knowledge of precession predates Hipparchus’ “discovery” by more than 2,000 years, and that the key to unlocking Egypt’s and other ancient people’s knowledge of the stars lies in the interpretation of myth in line with astronomical phenomena. He argues that “[t]he sun’s position among the constellations at the vernal equinox was the pointer . . . of the precessional cycle” and goes on to argue that, in the time before civilization began, “the sun was in [the constellation] Gemini; it moved . . . from Gemini into Taurus, then Aries, then Pisces, which it still occupies [today].” In support of his mythological and religious hypothesis, he demonstrates that “[t]he preceding age . . . [of] Aries, had been heralded by Moses coming down from Mount Sinai as ‘two-horned,’ that is, crowned with the Ram’s horns [of Aries], while his flock disobediently insisted upon dancing around the ‘Golden Calf’ . . . [or] ‘Golden Bull,’ [of] Taurus.” He also notes that “[t]he advent of Christ the Fish marks our [current] age [of Pisces].” (Santillana/Von Dechend). This hypothesis stands squarely in the face of the consensus of modern scholarship. E. C. Krupp points out that “[c]omprehensive knowledge of precession seems to be incompatible with the descriptive non-mathematical picture of astronomy” offered by Otto Neugebauer” (Krupp). Neugebauer, however, “a very vocal opponent of the idea that ancient Egyptians possessed an ‘ancient science’ had conceded that ‘For ancient astronomy, precession required nothing more than sufficiently remote and sufficiently reliable records of observations of positions of fixed stars’” which do in fact exist, quite abundantly in the archeological record (Sellers). In his Exact Sciences in Antiquity, Neugebauer states that the ancient Egyptians possessed a calendar that is “the only intelligent calendar which ever existed in human history.” He states that this calendar of 365 total days, “originated on purely practical grounds, with no relation to astronomical problems.” He points out, however, that eventually, this calendar would be beneficial to the later astrologies of the Babylonians and Greeks (Neugebauer). “By 2100 BC [the Egyptian 26 Middle Kingdom], thirty-six star gods had been set in relation to this civil calendar and these gods of the heaven appeared on coffin lids” (Sellers). Neugebauer, in his monumental study, The Egyptian Astronomical Texts, co-authored with R. A. Parker, examines the evidence of these coffins and finds no traces of the type of mathematics or observations that would allow for their calendar being derived by stellar means. E. C. Krupp concurs that “from the evidence that is available, Egyptian astronomy was inferior to its Babylonian counterpart . . . [and] for the present nothing comparable to the systematic, mathematical astronomy . . . [of the Babylonians] is known” (Krupp). In assessing these claims, it must be kept in mind that the majority of these astronomical inscriptions come primarily from Thebes in the south of Egypt, where it is likely that “the archeological record . . . may be distorted” (Quirke). Thebes was modeled after the Northern city of the sun, Iunu, or Heliopolis to the Greeks. During the period of the 21st and 22nd Dynasties, a few fragments of these types of star-filled coffin inscriptions exist in Northern territories, but they date from a very late period in Egypt’s history. Northern Egypt was home to Iunu, the Cult of the Sun God Ra and was the birthplace of Egypt’s calendar and time-keeping systems. It lies within the moist, fertile plain of the Nile delta, in contrast to the dry, arid climate of Thebes in the south, and it is likely that “[i]f the royal Delta cities ever produced any [stellar] coffins or papyri of their own, such organic material could not have survived in the damp soil” (Quirke). The majority of the remains of Heliopolis, and thus the great center of Egyptian celestial observation, lies in ruins beneath the city of modern-day Cairo. Until a full survey of this buried metropolis is completed, it’s likely that questions about its observational history will remain unanswered (Quirke). In addition to their civil calendar, another contribution to the development of astronomy was the Egyptian’s “division of the day into 24 hours” (Neugebauer). This division is based upon the celestial observation of 36 decans, a Greek word for 10 representing the 36 stars that in the Egyptian New Kingdom, heralded the corresponding 10-day weeks of their year. Though in the earliest 27 attested examples the Egyptians used a heavily flawed Lunar calendar, it appears that near the start of their civilization, they abandoned this and instead “counted the days between [the] successive heliacal risings of [the bright star] Sirius, a system, it is suggested, that led to a year 365 days long” (Sellers). The heliacal rising of a star is the period in its annual orbit when it is seen to rise near the sun, in the moments just before dawn, and disappears just as the sun breaches the horizon. Neugebauer, as I will demonstrate, mistakenly asserts that these heliacally rising decans “have left no traces in modern astronomy.” He finds this curious, however, since the decans “are the actual reason for the 12-[hour]-division of the night and hence . . . of the [whole] 24-hour system” (Neugebauer). The decans first appear on the same Middle Kingdom coffin lids attested above. Of these 36 decans, to date “[o]nly two can be directly identified, namely Sirius and Orion” (Neugebauer). E. C. Krupp states that “[t]he Egyptians considered the heliacal rising of Sirius to be so important that they marked the beginning of the new year by this event. Even more compelling was the fact that the heliacally rising Sirius and the rising Nile coincided, approximately, with the summer solstice” (Krupp). The rising of the Nile in Egypt was more than any other single event, the evident life-blood of the land that yearly renewed the harsh desert and brought life and prosperity to its devout people. “The pattern of Sirius at the summer solstice became the plan for the entire year [and] for all of the decans [that followed it].” (Krupp). In assessing the evidence of the star-inscribed coffins of the Middle Kingdom, Neugebauer mistakenly concludes that the pattern of Egyptian decans was abandoned by the later developments of Babylonian and Hellenistic astrology. He examines two primary Egyptian texts that describe the patterns followed by all decan stars. One is a New Kingdom “cenotaph [or false tomb] of Seti I [describing] at length how one decan after another ‘dies’ . . . [and] is ‘purified’ in the embalming house of the nether world, to be reborn after 70 days of invisibility” (Neugebauer). The other is the Roman-era Carlsburg papyrus which “tells us that Sirius sets the pattern of behavior for all the decan 28 stars by doing four things over the course of a year. It is ‘first,’ then 90 days later, it is ‘šn dw3t.’ 70 days after that, it is ‘born.’ 80 days after that, it ‘works’ or ‘serves.’ Then, 120 days later, it is back to ‘first.’” Based on observations of Sirius’ annual pattern, Neugebauer then notices that it “disappears from the sky for roughly 70 days following its heliacal setting . . . [and assumes] that the 70-day period that stars are said to be šn dw3t refers to [this] period of invisibility.” Though this hypothesis seems reasonable in theory, in practice, it “posits a pattern that no stars fit” (Conman). Due to this inability of his model to reveal the identity of any accompanying decans related to Orion and Sirius on the Middle and New Kingdom star-coffins, Neugebauer asserts that “[t]o attempt to go further in the determination of the decans is not only of very little interest but would necessarily imply ascribing to our texts an astronomical accuracy which they were never intended to have,” effectively dismissing the stellar observations of the ancient Egyptians as nothing more than a “sound, however primitive, procedure of marking time at night by means of stars” (Neugebauer). Joanne Conman, writing just a few years ago, revisited these conclusions of Neugebauer’s and discovered that his “model does not and cannot match the pattern required by the . . . [coffin star maps]” (Conman). She argues that by utilizing the information provided in the cenotaph of Seti I and the Carlsburg papyri, “one should be able to find stars that were observable at some time and place in Egypt” and put them into one of the many star-maps that have been found in the archeological record (Conman). Applying Neugebauer’s model of the decans to these maps proved conclusively that a fundamental flaw existed in his conclusions. Conman then demonstrates that, because of this “erroneous theory, Neugebuer and Parker failed to recognize the decan system’s assimilation directly into Hellenistic astrology” (Conman). She abandons Neugebauer’s model completely and takes a different approach to understanding the decanal lifecycle. Realizing that the heliacal rising of Sirius was a cornerstone of Egyptian religious life, she posited this phenomena as one of the four key decan events and not the 70 day disappearance of Sirius that Neugebauer 29 postulated. Remarkably, this new approach reveals a pattern of observations that satisfies both the Carslburg and earlier Seti star-maps both at different times and locations throughout Egypt’s vast history (Conman). The implications of this discovery allowed for her to observe a pattern of decanal behavior that offered an explanation for one of the oldest, and most obscure, points in Greco- Babylonian astrology: the exaltations, or “places of power” of the planets along certain points of the ecliptic. At certain points along a planet’s regular orbit, it hits a particular point of maximum power or influence upon the earth. In Babylon, this point was located in the general region of a constellation, whereas in Greece, it was found in a specific degree of the ecliptic itself. These phenomena have long been understood as Babylonian inventions, carried forth into the astrologies of the later Greeks and Arabs. Conman’s new approach demonstrates that these exaltations are “very likely the result of ideas adopted from the Egyptians” and that they predate their Babylonian counterparts by over 1,000 years. (Conman). She finally notes that, “it would be an extraordinary coincidence [if] the Babylonians just happened to choose a pattern . . . [that matches] the Egyptian decans so closely” (Conman). Conman’s study is still relatively new, and the full implications of her findings will likely take decades to fully infiltrate the archeological community, which is still heavily indoctrinated by the towering figure of Neugebauer. The past seventy years of scholarly research have been guided by the notion that Egyptian astronomy, if it existed at all, had little or no effect on the scientific approaches of the Babylonian and Hellenistic periods. This assertion has been severely crippled by this new discovery, and claims, like those of Sir Norman Lockyer from more than a century past, that the Egyptians possessed a sophisticated and articulate knowledge of the movement of the heavens, deserve to be reexamined in the light of this new evidence. The time has again come for questions about the stellar knowledge of the ancient Egyptians to be allowed entrance into the great debate over the scientific and mathematical legacy of the ancient world. As the picture of the far ancient 30 skies continues to unravel before us, it is essential that we remain open to the possibility that our so- called knowledge of how our world evolved is incomplete and ever-changing. 31 Works Cited Conman, Joanne. "The Egyptian Origins of Planetary Hypsomata." Discussions in Egyptology 64. 2006-2009. Academia.edu. Web. 7 Mar. 2015. Online. Krupp, E. C. In Search of Ancient Astronomies. Garden City,: Doubleday, 1977. Print. Lockyer, Norman. The Dawn of Astronomy; a Study of the Temple Worship and Mythology of the Ancient Egyptians. Cambridge: M.I.T., 1964, Print. Neugebauer, O. The Exact Sciences in Antiquity. 2nd ed. New York: Dover, 1957. Print Quirke, Stephen. The Cult of Ra: Sun-worship in Ancient Egypt. New York: Thames & Hudson, 2001. Print Santillana, Giorgio, and Von Dechend, Hertha. Hamlet's Mill; an Essay on Myth and the Frame of Time. Boston: Gambit, 1969. Print. Schoch, Robert M., and McNally, Robert Aquinas. Pyramid Quest: Secrets of the Great Pyramid and the Dawn of Civilization. New York,: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Penguin, 2005. Print. Sellers, Jane. The Death of Gods in Ancient Egypt: An Essay on Egyptian Religion and the Frame of Time. London: Penguin, 1992. Print. 32 Drew Carey Professor Aragona ENG 102 04/15/15 Modern Day Slavery In 2011, Jane Black, a staff writer for The New York Times argued that anyone who ate a winter tomato inadvertently supported modern day slavery right here in the United States. Black as well as other authoritative members of society have stepped up to shed a light on the unethical methods currently being implemented throughout the agricultural industry. The process works like this: Grocery stores and restaurants rely directly on agriculture growers for produce. Agriculture growers are the people who own farmland and grow produce on their land. These growers hire men and woman referred to as farm workers, to maintain and pick the produce on the farm. Recently, cases of slave-like practices have been reported between agriculture growers and farmworkers. A new program has been proposed in effort to combat slave-like practices in the agriculture industry. The Fair Food Act will fight to ensure agriculture growers cannot integrate slave like practices into agriculture farming operations. One might wonder how slavery practices still exist if it was abolished in the 19th century. Unfortunately, the effects of abolishing slavery in the late 19th century can justify modern day slavery practices seen today. After the abolishment of slavery, the demand for cheap labor increased, leading to a new form of slavery referred to as slave like practices. In his book Slavery in a Modern World, Junius Rodriguez, explains, “American Migrant workers were forced to work 12 hours a day, seven days a week, producing goods for well-known U.S. firms”. Rodriguez explains the abolishment of slavery negatively impacted U.S. firms, who relied on slave labor to meet the demand of consumers. He says, following the abolishment of slavery many of these firms were left with limited options 33 concerning employment of the lower half of the work chain in the company’s work force. Out of desperation, the majority of these firms returned to old habits, slaving workers for unreasonable compensation and terrible workplace safety, now referred to as “modern day slavery”. Previous slaves who were uneducated and had spent their whole lives as agriculture workers or farm workers were now left with no other choice then to continue with their current skill set, being trapped back into slave-like practices for these large U.S. farms (Rodriguez 10). The abolishment of slavery was looked at as a step forward for humanity; however based on Rodriguez’s research, the abolishment of slavery could maybe have not been as far a step forward as we thought. As there are many different regions of America currently being influenced by modern day slavery, the most brutal conditions can be traced to 125 miles North West of Miami, in the small agriculture town of Immokalee, Florida. Jane Black reports that Florida Agriculture growers psychologically manipulate farm workers promising them room, board and a job that could potentially pay 200 dollars a week (Black 1). However she insists that most of the time this is a false opportunity and instead, upon arrival applicants are subjected to work in conditions similar to slavery. Black describes a graphic situation where a farm worker, “was docked five dollars, to stand naked in the back yard and clean himself with cold water from a garden hose” (Black 1). Black argues that this is simply unethical and would be considered acts of psychological torture. She expresses that these farm workers are unethically tricked into slavery for agriculture growers in the United States. In continuation, not only do these Agriculture growers abuse farm works psychologically, they also physically torture victim farm workers. Steven Greenhouse, columnist for The New York Times, describes farm workers daily routine: first farm workers are forced to board a bus at 5 am reaching their designated farm at no later than 6. Farmworkers are then forced to wait for the dew to dissipate, adding an additional 1-4 hours of time prior to actually starting their workday. Greenhouse 34 argues that this is physical torture as most busses are unreasonably packed full for hours on end (Greenhouse 1). Jane Black also describes similar cases where American farm workers were being lodged into the back of pickup trucks all night with no running water or toilet, then put to work all day. Sometimes this would repeat for 3-4 days at a time, separating families from their homes for days on end. She explains many farm workers struggled to cope with these harsh living conditions, pushing some to attempt escape from the Agriculture grower’s sickening slavery trap. However Black affirms the majority of workers did not attempt escape, for if you were caught, consequences included a severe beating as well as no pay for two weeks (Black 1). This brutal case further justifies that agriculture growers are unethically employing American farm workers. Furthermore, if the short-term physical abuses weren’t enough, farm workers also were forced to deal with the long-term physical burdens associated with agriculture farm work. Agriculture growers commonly spray pesticides on fields, as a measure to keep yield amounts high. Pesticides commonly sprayed on fields cause health issues in most farm workers. In her article The Nation: Historic Agreement Raises Farm Wages, Tamara Lush expressed, “Maria Meza gave birth to Jorge, who had one ear, no nose, a cleft palate, one kidney, no anus and no visible sexual organs” (Lush 2). Lush reports that it was later determined that Jorge was a girl and renamed Violeta, who ended up living just three days. She traces these common birth defects back to agriculture growers that use pesticides. Lush argues that this is simply inhumane as birth defects are now putting a huge burden on farm working families. American farm workers not only have to endure psychological and physical torture, but they are also unreasonably compensated financially for their backbreaking work. Lush highlights the misunderstood pay guidelines which say agriculture growers are paid 12 dollars an hour when in reality workers are technically paid per each 32lb bucket of produce picked (Lush 2). This would suggest that if each farm worker strived to make 12 dollars an hour, they would be forced to pick 35 one piece of produce per second with no resting periods throughout the whole workday. On top of that, Greenhouse reports that while farmworkers are waiting on buses for the dew to dissipate, they are also not receiving any compensation for that dead time, putting even more pressure on the desperate workers during the day. Instead farmworkers only start making money when they turn in the first bucket of produce picked for the day. At the end of the workweek, farm workers are often paid in small arbitrary amounts for 80-hour workweeks leaving most hungry and exhausted. These unethical protocols leave the majority of farmworkers to live below the poverty line, even after a backbreaking 80-hour workweek. By all means, agriculture growers have unethically taken advantage of these gritty farm workers. From physical beatings to an unethical compensation protocols, these farm workers are contained in a modern day slavery trap in the states. In these desperate times farm workers survive on the hope for change in this sickening trap. It is important that proper measures are taken to ensure farm workers are receiving fair financial compensation, treatment, and workplace safety. Companies who purchase produce from immoral agriculture growers ultimately are supporting slave-like practices. Subsequently, the solution to this problem goes far beyond any state or federal law requirements agriculture growers must abide by. According to Greenhouse, the solution to this problem lies within a single program referred to as the “Fair Food Act”, which aims to ensure agriculture growers practice newly revised business ethics under this program (Greenhouse 2). The thesis of The Fair Food Act would entail implementing proper business ethics to all agriculture growers and include a raise of one penny more per bucket of produce picked by farm workers. Greg Kaufmann, writer for National Public Radio, estimates the well-earned pay raise would ultimately cost agriculture growers 1200 dollars more a year per farm worker (Kaufmann 1). He also reports that the program will work to ensure that proper workplace safety protocols are followed. The 36 program aims to fund projects which will build shade tents for workers to rest, as well as improve drinking water systems, costing agriculture growers about 55,000 dollars per farm. The biggest hurdle to overcome with implementing The Fair Food Act is convincing companies to agree to only work with agriculture growers who abide by the Fair Food Act. In essence, all produce would have a sticker representing the Fair Food Act signaling that the produce came from a farm that does not use slave-like practices. Unfortunately, the harsh reality is that no agriculture grower is in favor of increasing overhead cost even if it is for a worthwhile cause. It is a tough sell even for companies who also do not want to take the responsibility of selling food that has come from an unethical form of business practices. With the support of the American people, farmworkers have put their foot down and retaliated against those who contribute to this unethical madness. Admiringly, back in Immokalee, Florida American farm workers protest the local chain grocery store Publix, in hope that they will sign on with The Fair Food Act. National Public Radio host Jon Esformes wrote about how, a protestor commented, “We ask how they can sell ‘fair trade’ coffee but not put pressure on the produce growers to make a slight increase to farm worker wages” (Esformes 1). Publix has already signed onto a Fair Coffee Program, which essentially aided coffee bean farm workers with better benefits and more reasonable pay. Produce farm workers now fight for the same rights coffee farm workers previously fought for. According to Michelle May, member of United Church of Christ, more than 350 produce farm workers protested in front of corporate Publix office for several days in hope that the multibillion-dollar company would sign the Fair Food Program. However, Michelle regrets to note that after the six-day protest no response was ever received from Publix (May 1). This further explains that large companies like Publix are aware of the unethical treatment between agriculture growers and farm workers, but suggests companies simply do not have a plan to fix the problem. 37 Without doubt, it is crucial that supermarkets sign onto the Fair Food Program in order to combat modern day slavery. In 2015 supermarkets struggle to compete with competitor’s low prices. By signing on with the Fair Food Act, new financial responsibilities are obtained. In other words, the cost of the produced goods would increase from agriculture growers to grocery store companies, which suggests the prices for consumers will also inflate. It is up to the election of the consumer if they decide to buy produce stamped by the Fair Food act, ensuring proper business ethics have been followed to deliver that piece of produce. Malcom Palmer, an average produce consumer asserts, “If a minor expansion on the price of produce helps to alleviate the burden and mistreatment of workers, I believe that it is not only reasonable, but a moral obligation” (Palmer 1). Most buyers value a product that has been delivered following all standards of business ethics. Like Mr. Palmer, many consumers believe that this is a moral obligation, which will help alleviate the encumbrance that has placed these laborers over the past 40 years. Mr. Palmer expressed it is only fair that a farm worker receives the same work place safety protocols that a businessman would in New York City, working at an advertising firm. Palmer also suggests that responsible business ethics should never be over looked to reap the profitable benefits that large companies already obtain. Yet, he also recognizes that the people need to take responsibility for supporting companies who abide by the Fair Food Act. On the contrary, there is a significant amount of supermarkets that have chosen not to participate in the Fair Food Act. Greg Kaufman further explains that when non-participating supermarkets were accused of supporting agriculture growers; who immorally treated farm workers. Supermarkets commented, “these were isolated cases and there was no need for systemic reforms” (Kaufmann 2). Supermarkets are completely aware of the unethical practices being used by agriculture growers, yet still refuse that any immoral conduct is occurring on agriculture farms. Kaufmann further explains that supermarkets are not willing to own up to the Fair Food Program, 38 as profit margins would slightly decrease. The solution to this issue lies solely on convincing supermarkets to participate in the Fair Food Program. In conclusion, the abolishment of slavery led to dishonorable modern day slavery practices amongst agriculture growers in the United States. Agriculture growers have unethically taken advantage of hard working American farm worker’s rights. Growers have sectioned out farm workers, torturing them physically, psychologically, as well as financially. It is essential that companies only work with agriculture growers who practice the Fair Food Program to ensure that no farm worker experiences the burden of low pay and unscrupulous treatment here in the United States. The consumer holds the responsibility of choosing where to purchase produce in this free market economy, and it is in the interests of social morality that they only invest in Fair Food Program produce. 39 Works Cited Black, Jane. “Attack of the Factory Tomatoes.” Washington, D.C: WP Company LLC d/b/a The Washington Post, 2011. Esformes, Jon. "The Nation: Historic Agreement Raises Farm Wages." NPR. NPR, 10 Oct. 2011. Web. 31 Mar. 2015. Greenhouse, Steven. "In Florida Tomato Fields, a Penny Buys Progress: Business/Financial Desk." New York Times: A.1. 2014. Kaufmann, Greg. "The Nation: Historic Agreement Raises Farm Wages." NPR. NPR, 10 Oct. 2011. Web. 31 Mar. 2015. Lush, Tamara. "Modern-Day Slavery Hides Behind Florida Doors: South Pinellas. Edition." St. Petersburg Times: 1.A. 2004. May, Michelle. "Synod Delegates March In Support Of Immokalee Workers." United Church of Christ. UCC, 03 July 2011. Web. 31 Mar. 2015. Palmer, Malcom. "Supporting Companies with Bad Business Ethics." Personal interview. 15 Mar. 2015. Rodriguez, Junius. Slavery in the Modern World: A History of Political, Social, and Economic Oppression. ABC-CLIO, 2011.Print. 40 Connor Murphy Prof. Matthew Bloom ENG 102 May 10, 2015 The Environmental, Economic, and Contamination Issues of Wild vs. Farmed Salmon After shrimp and tuna, salmon is the third most consumed fish in the United States (Knapp, Rohelm, Anderson 123). Salmon are a unique species of fish because they are anadromous, meaning they are born in freshwater, migrate to the ocean as juveniles, and return to freshwater to reproduce. There are two sources to this incredible fish: salmon that are farmed in aquaculture pens and wild salmon that are caught by commercial fishermen using gill nets, purse seines, or by hand troll. However, choosing to consume wild salmon instead farm-raised salmon is clearly the better choice after considering the environmental, economic, and contamination issues regarding both of these sources of salmon. Perhaps the most concerning issue regarding farmed-raised salmon is the destructive impact that salmon aquaculture has on the environment. One major environmental consequence associated with salmon farming is salmon aquaculture is occurring in habitats that are not natural to certain salmon species and escapees from aquaculture pens are a threat to wild salmon populations. Approximately 90 percent of all farmed salmon is Atlantic salmon; a species that stocks are nearly depleted in the wild (Naylor, Hinda, Fleming, Goldburge, Williams, Volpe, Whoriskey, Eagle, Kelso, Mango 428). Given the name Atlantic salmon, they are only native to river systems of the Atlantic however, Atlantic salmon are now being farmed in the Pacific Ocean. Unfortunately, millions of Atlantic salmon escape their aquaculture pens each year, and invade non-native waters in places such as British Columbia, where Atlantic salmon are now found is approximately 80 river systems (Naylor, Hinda, Fleming, Goldburge, Williams, Volpe, Whoriskey, Eagle, Kelso, Mango 428). The 41 invasion of Atlantic salmon places stress on the native species of salmon as they compete for the same prey and reproduce with wild salmon that are native to the river system. In an interview with Robert Murphy, an Alaska Peninsula salmon management biologist of 23 years with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game claims that “farmed Atlantic salmon have poor genetic diversity, and are often inbred. When these salmon escape and invade river systems, they reproduce with wild salmon and pass down these poor genes to the wild species genetic pool which affects the survival rate of the next generation.” Furthermore, in the article Sterilize Farmed Salmon to Save Wild Salmon, “Scientists now fear that wild populations will be damaged irreversibly, losing traits that have evolved to keep them adapted to their environment, unless sterilization is introduced as mandatory” (Smith 12). Not only are poor genes by farmed salmon escapees are a severe threat to wild salmon stocks, Murphy also stated in his interview that “farmed salmon are given antibiotics and when they are integrated with wild salmon, they spread diseases to the native population because wild salmon do not have immunity due to the lack of antibiotics.” Another environmental consequence that is just as significant as farmed escapees is the waste produced by aquaculture. Since farmed salmon are confined to an aquaculture pen, they discharge high concentrations of fecal matter into the ecosystem and produces harmful algae blooms (Schardt 10). Harmful algae blooms produce bacteria that release toxins known as “red tide” that kill many forms of aquatic plants, fish, marine mammals and results in “dead zones”: a problem at is snowballing into effect (Shardt 10). Furthermore, a salmon aquaculture of 200,000 farmed salmon produces effluent that equivalent of a small city with a population of 65,000 (Shardt 10). Salmon farming is threating the existence of wild salmon populations and destroying marine habitat that was once thriving with life. Growing up in the second largest fishing port in the United States, it is very common to see a bumper sticker saying “friends don’t let friends eat farmed fish” around Kodiak, Alaska. Being a crewmember on a commercial salmon fishing boat myself, I have experienced the market for wild 42 salmon first hand. To give a gist about how commercial fishermen earn their living, we make money by selling our catch to fish processing plants. Eventually, salmon products such as salmon fillets and canned salmon that are produced from seafood processing plants are exported all over the United States, Europe and Asia. The owner of the boat and commercial fishing permit receives all of the income from the sold fish and is responsible for all expenses associated with fishing which includes maintenance, repairs, fuel, insurance, food, and paying the crew that help run the boat. Crewmembers are not paid by the hour, but receive a percentage of net income from the fish sold. Commercial is fishing dangerous work, although it is not the only risk associated with the job; you never know when you are going to make your next dollar. When the boat is experiencing poor fishing, or not fishing at all due to a closure in the fishery or a boat repair, the crew is not earning a living. In addition, catching fish is only half of the equation to a commercial fishermen’s income; the price that seafood processing plant pays for raw fish plays is just as important. However, the increasing demand for farmed salmon is a key reason why the price of wild sockeye that the fish processors are buying from fishermen has dropped from $1.40 to roughly $.80 per pound for this upcoming season. Theoretically speaking, if commercial salmon boat were to catch the same amount of salmon this upcoming season as last year, the crew would make approximately 40 percent less money. A key reason why the price fell significantly is because the seafood processors that purchase wild salmon directly from fishermen are losing money because they are unable to sell all of their products from the previous season due to decreasing demand for wild salmon. Americans consumed 300,000 metric tons of salmon in 2004 compared to 130,000 metric tons in 1989 and its consumption is continuing to grow considerably due to the increased importation of farmed salmon from other countries (Knapp, Rohelm, Anderson 123). In addition, of the 300,000 metric tons of salmon consumed in 2004, two-thirds were farmed salmon and one-third was wild salmon (Knapp, Rohelm, Anderson 123). Furthermore, Norway, Chile, Canada, and the United Kingdom produce 98 43 percent of the world’s farmed-raised salmon (Shardt 9). Therefore, overseas aquaculture farms do not employ Americans nor do they pay taxes that benefit communities across the United States if their business were to be established in this country. However, commercial salmon fishing and seafood industries across the United States employ many residents of coastal fishing communities and also produces a significant amount of tax revenue. According to a press release from the United Fishermen of Alaska, Alaska’s seafood industry produces a staggering $250 million in tax revenue annually from commercial fishing. The press release states, the fisheries business tax generated the most tax revenue of all of the seafood taxes and fees at $44.2 million for the fiscal year of 2013. In addition the press release explains how the levy works, “Fisheries business tax is collected primarily from licensed processors and persons who export fish from Alaska” and there is a direct correlation with the price of salmon and the revenue that is generated from this levy because, “the tax is based on the price paid to commercial fishers or fair market value when there is not an arm’s length transaction”. Also, the press release informs that the Alaska Department of Revenue receives half of the fisheries business tax revenue while the other half is dispersed between 65 fishing communities and boroughs. Commercial salmon fishing has a positive impact on Alaska’s economy however, the trend of importing farmed salmon from other countries is threatening both the livelihood of commercial fishermen and the tax revenue that is a result from the commercial fishing of wild salmon in Alaskan waters. Supporters of salmon aquaculture generally have two main arguments against wild salmon: salmon farming more sustainable to the environment because of the untargeted species that are caught from fishing techniques such as gillnetting and farmed salmon has less contaminants because the ocean is polluted. Also known as bycatch, unwanted species that caught from salmon fishing is based solely off of the assumption of old fishing technology. Gillnetting is a fishing technique that uses a net that is stretched vertically in the water column and when fish swim into the webbing of 44 the net, it entangles the fish by the gills so it is unable to swim away. Based off of my observations as a commercial fishermen on a boat that uses gillnetting to harvest salmon, there is little to no bycatch involved with Alaskan gillnet salmon fisheries. The gillnets used in these fisheries do not catch every living organism that comes in contact with as one may believe, in fact, the webbing is specifically shaped for salmon gill plates and is sized to only catch salmon. If an untargeted marine organism is too big, it will bounce of the net and if the creature is too small, it will swim right through it. Further, the webbing used in gillnets today is so specific that we use different size webbing to catch different species of salmon. To debunk the myth that marine mammals are constantly entangled into our nets, here is some enlightenment; marine mammals such as seals are highly intelligent animals and wait by gillnets until a salmon is trapped in the net. Once a salmon is completely helpless and unable to swim out of the net, the seal will viciously eat the salmon out of the net because mooching fish is much easier than chasing a fish with its primary defense being capable of swimming at high speeds. Cetaceans such as whales are not caught in salmon gillnets either and are powerful enough to swim completely through the net, blowing a hole in the webbing since it is of relatively thin nature. These new technological advances in gillnet help minimize bycatch because no fishermen wants unwanted fish; it waste our time, energy, and wears out our gear. Alternatively, farmed salmon are fed a diet of fishmeal and fish oil. To meet the demand of this artificial diet, other wild fish are required to be caught. It takes three tons of wild fish such as herring in order to produce one ton of wild salmon which threatens the sustainability of other fisheries (Wilson 30). Opponents that claim bycatch caught by commercial salmon fishermen places stress on other species of fish is a hypocritical refutation considering that wild fish are needed be caught by commercial fishermen to feed farmed-raised salmon. To address the argument that farmed salmon has less contaminants than wild salmon because the ocean is polluted, salmon management biologist Robert Murphy also stated in his interview that “Although some species of wild salmon such as chinook salmon can contain 45 miniscule amounts of mercury, these levels are not concerning enough to be dangerous for human consumption because of wild salmon’s unique lifecycle unless excessively eaten. Most species of wild salmon only spend two to three years in the ocean before migrating back to their native freshwater river system compared to other species of fish such as tuna, which spend their entire lives in saltwater, therefore have high levels of mercury.” On the other hand, in a web article published by Harvard Medical School, claims that polycholorinated biphenyl (PCB) levels in farmed salmon on average, are almost eight times higher at 36.63 parts per billion compared to 4.75 found in wild salmon. The article also stated that PCBs are a synthetic chemical that was commonly used in paint additive before being banned in the 1970’s and while the Environmental Protective Agency classifies PCBs as probable to causing cancer in humans, studies have also found that children that are born to women with that have high levels of PCB are more likely to have neurological problems and developmental delays. The claim that wild salmon have higher contaminants than farmed is simply not true. The web article published by Harvard Medical School states that both farmed and wild salmon have significant health benefits as they both contain high levels of omega-3 and a diet that is rich in this fatty acid can prevent sudden death from irregular heart rhythm, heart attack, and stroke. However, the next time you are at a grocery store or seafood restaurant looking for a healthy dosage of omega-3 fatty acids from this superfood, be more mindful about the two sources of the salmon. Not only is wild salmon more sustainable for the environment and contains less contaminants, consuming wild salmon also benefits workers in the seafood industry and supplement government budgets that are reliant seafood taxes. The bottom line is, choose wild Alaskan salmon instead of farm-raised salmon. 46 Works Cited "Getting Your Omega-3s vs. Avoiding Those PCBs." The Family Health. Harvard Medical School, 1 Apr. 2004. Web. 9 May 2015. "Farmed Salmon vs Wild Salmon: Salmon Management Biologist Robert Murphy’s Point of View." Telephone interview. 5 May 2015. Knapp, Gunnar, Cathy A. Rohelm, and James L. Anderson. "The Great Salmon Run: Competition Between Wild and Farmed Salmon." (2007): 123. TRAFFIC North America, 1 Jan. 2007. Web. 28 Apr. 2015. Naylor, Rosamond, Kjetil Hindar, Ian A. Fleming, Rebecca Goldburg, Susan Williams, John Volpe, Fred Whoriskey, Josh Eagle, Dennis Kelso, and Marc Mangle. "Fugitive Salmon: Assessing the Risk of Escaped Fish From Net-Pen Aquaculture." Bioscience 55.5 (2005): 428. Oxford Journal, 1 May 2005. Web. 30 Apr. 2015. Schardt, David. "Farmed Salmon Under Fire." Nutrition Action Health Letter June (2004): 9-10. JSTOR. Web. 1 May 2015. Smith, Lewis. "Sterilize Farmed Salmon to Save Wild Salmon." The Independent. The Independent, 10 Mar. 2014. Web. 28 Apr. 2015. United Fishermen of Alaska. Alaska Seafood Industry Taxes. United Fishermen of Alaska, Jan. 2015. Web. 30 Apr. 2015. Wilson, H.W. "Farmed Salmon." Ecologist 35.8 (2005): 30. EBSO Host. Web. 28 Apr. 2015. 47 Corinne Arnold Dr. Jared Aragona English 102 May 8, 2015 The Health Cost of High Fructose Corn Syrup An article published in 2004 linked high fructose corn syrup to obesity. The authors of this article related the increase of high fructose corn syrup consumption to the increase of obesity rates in the United States. Since this article, high fructose corn syrup has become a heavily debated subject. People are divided on whether or not high fructose corn syrup is adding to an increase in obesity rates and whether or not it should be consumed. Multiple studies have been done and continue to show that high fructose corn syrup is not a product that should be in a person’s diet, and people are starting to listen. The effects of consuming this product are detrimental to a person’s health. High fructose corn syrup should be avoided because it contributes to an increase in weight, and an increase in chronic diseases. False evidence may have been used to originally link high fructose corn syrup to obesity, but continued evidence shows that the conclusion is valid. In their article “Lack of evidence for high fructose corn syrup as the cause of the obesity epidemic,” Klurfeld et al. believe that high fructose corn syrup is not the cause of the rise in obesity. They argue that high fructose corn syrup was used for over 35 years before it was a topic of controversy. According to Klurfeld et al., the 2004 article lacked evidence linking high fructose corn syrup to obesity and implied that correlation equated to causation. He wrote, “This debate is by no means settled. More and longer randomized controlled trials are clearly needed to establish an appropriate knowledge base related to sugar sweetened beverage consumption and its alleged link to obesity” (772). Although they believe more research is needed to clarify the true reason for the obesity epidemic, there are many recent studies showing 48 that fructose and excess consumption of any sugar has been directly linked to more fat in the liver, more fat in the abdomen and an increase in prevalence for chronic diseases. High fructose of corn syrup is chemically similar to sucrose, but there are chemical differences. Sucrose is made up of two sugar molecules, glucose and fructose, and is bound together by a glycosidic bond, which is a bond that joins a sugar molecule to another sugar molecule. John White, author of “Straight talk about high fructose corn syrup: what it is and what it ain’t”, writes that sucrose is a naturally occurring substance found in sugar cane that needs to be imported from other countries at times to supply the demand. He discusses the price of sucrose and how it can often fluctuate in the market. White also discusses that sucrose is unstable in packaged food because it can expire and change the taste or texture of the food. In turn, this reduces the shelf life of the product and leaves unfulfilled profit for the company. The manufacturing industry was looking for a stable product to replace sucrose when high fructose corn syrup was invented. High fructose corn syrup was created in the 1960s as a replacement for sucrose. It starts off by turning corn into corn starch. The corn starch is broken down by enzymes into corn syrup. Author of “What to Eat” Marion Nestle writes, “Corn syrup is sweet, but not as sweet as sucrose, and not nearly as sweet as fructose. To make it sweeter, chemists treat corn syrup with other enzymes to convert some of its glucose to fructose--about 42 percent. With further treatment, they can produce syrup that is 55 percent fructose” (320). High fructose corn syrup is also composed of the same two sugar molecules as sucrose, glucose and fructose, but these sugars are not bound together. It is because of this non-bond that high fructose corn syrup is able to be stable at room temperature in a liquid state. It also means that high fructose corn syrup does not spoil as quickly as sucrose. Companies that could not afford to use sweeteners are now able to because of the cheaper cost of high fructose corn syrup. This syrup is easy to produce because the United States has an abundance of corn fields in the Midwest, making it an economically viable product. This means that 49 packaged food is more likely to contain high fructose corn syrup than sucrose and can contain empty calories. Calories are units of energy from food used by the body. Calories are actually such a small unit that they are often bundled together by the 1000s and referred to as kcalories. Kcalories should be “nutrient dense” or packed full of nutrients according to authors Whiteny and Rofles. In their book, Understanding Nutrition, they discuss empty calories as, “empty kcalorie foods: a popular term used to denote foods that contribute energy but lack protein, vitamins and minerals” (38). Corn sweeteners lack protein, vitamins or minerals and are thus considered empty calories. An increase of empty calories from high fructose corn syrup can add to an increase in weight. Weight is higher in people who consume processed food because of the added calories from high fructose corn syrup. In the paragraph titled “Obesity and Chronic Disease” from Understanding Nutrition, Whitney and Rofles explain that high fructose corn syrup and added sugar consumption increases calorie intake and weight gain. The authors state, “Over the past several decades, as obesity rates increased sharply, consumption of added sugars reached an all-time high- much of it because high fructose corn syrup use, especially in beverages, surged” (110). Children and adolescents are consuming more sugary drinks, and in taking more calories than necessary. The increased calorie consumption is directly related to increased weight with the excess calories being stored as fat. Studies show that a diet with too much fructose from high fructose corn syrup gets stored as fat. Laura Beil, author of “Sweet Confusion: Does High Fructose Corn Syrup Deserve Such A Bad Rap?” writes about how the unbound fructose in high fructose corn syrup seeps into the liver. Fructose goes into the liver even if the energy is not needed and targets the mitochondria, or powerhouse, of a cell. Beil quotes Robert Lustig, a pediatric endocrinologist, when she writes, “When your mitochondria get overloaded, the excess energy is turned into liver fat. […] he characterized fructose as ‘alcohol without the buzz,’ because of its potential to cause liver damage.” 50 This means, consuming more fructose than necessary from high fructose corn syrup can be damaging to the liver and be stored as fat in the body. In addition, fructose from high fructose corn syrup slows down the body’s normal mechanisms to control appetite. “Further damaging are studies suggesting that once in the body, fructose is more likely to take up residence as fat about the belly and less likely to engage the appetite-control mechanisms that help put the brakes on eating” states Biel. If there is no full feeling, a person will continue the cycle of overeating processed food. Processed food is full of empty calories from corn sweeteners, including high fructose corn syrup. This topic is also discussed in the article “Being Happy With Sugar” by author James Hamblin. He quotes Doctor Barry Popkin, “Unlike glucose, fructose does not stimulate insulin secretion or enhance leptin production. […] Because insulin and leptin act as key afferent signals in the regulation of food intake and body weight (to control appetite), this suggests that dietary fructose may contribute to increased energy intake and weight gain.” Likewise, too much fructose from high fructose corn syrup can affect people differently. In his article “Adverse Effects of Dietary Fructose,” Doctor Alan Gaby talks about the consumption of sucrose and fructose primarily from high fructose corn syrup. He relates an increased intake of fructose to having harmful effects on metabolism, He also states that excess fructose is more detrimental than sucrose, but it depends on how much is consumed and how a person’s body processes the excess sugar. Gaby states, “Even some of the healthiest people might experience negative effects from the massive amounts of fructose present in some modern Western diets. For those who have a genetic or acquired weakness in their capacity to metabolize this sugar, relatively modest increases in fructose intake might also cause problems” (295). He believes evidence shows sugars like fructose are more harmful than previously realized and is increasing the prevalence of chronic diseases. 51 Healthcare providers are telling patients to avoid food with high fructose corn syrup because it is linked to chronic diseases. Helen Hilts, board certified family medicine physician, tells all her patients to stay away from this overly used syrup. She tells them directly, “High fructose corn syrup is a destructive substance that you need to stay away from. Not only will it increase your blood sugar and cause insulin resistance but you will also consume harmful chemicals and poison your body.” Hilts explains to all her patients that high fructose corn syrup will increase weight and increase blood sugar. The increase in blood sugar will increase insulin resistance which means it will make it harder to get glucose into the cells and the sugar will stay in the blood stream. This will make the blood sugar higher, and when blood sugar is high constantly, it damages blood vessels. Damaged blood vessels can be detrimental to overall health and lead to chronic diseases like diabetes, a decrease in circulation in arms and legs, chronic diarrhea, bowel issues, obesity, and fatty liver. Too much fructose from high fructose corn syrup can even be toxic. Being affected by a poisonous substance is the definition of toxic, and in the article, “Why You Should Never Eat High Fructose Corn Syrup,” Doctor Mark Hyman discusses high fructose corn syrup and why it should be given up. Hyman writes, “[…]even harmless substances can become toxic if you eat enough of them. Many people ask me, ‘Is high fructose corn syrup really that bad for you?’ And my answer to this question if ‘Yes,’ mainly for this very reason.” Hayman warns that the average sugar consumption per person, per year has increased to 150 pounds, and too much sugar is already known to be toxic to the body. The article also discusses the many hazardous chemicals used in the manufacturing of this ingredient. Many studies done have shown that high fructose corn syrup contains a small amount of mercury from the manufacturing process. This ingredient is dangerous when too much is consumed and can increase the mercury levels in the blood. In conclusion, high fructose corn syrup in packaged food is detrimental to overall health. The unbound fructose molecule from high fructose corn syrup will seep into the liver and excess 52 sugar in the liver is stored as fat. The fatty liver will also store fat in the abdomen around the midsection, or “spare tire”. The excess fructose can also affect blood vessels, blood sugar levels, and can increase the likelihood of getting a chronic disease like diabetes or obesity. Also, the manufacturing process of high fructose corn syrup can add harmful chemicals like mercury. All the evidence does point to high fructose corn syrup being an ingredient to avoid at all costs. 53 Works Cited Beil, Laura. "Sweet Confusion: Does High Fructose Corn Syrup Deserve Such A Bad Rap?." Science News 183.11 (2013): 22. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 01 Apr. 2015. Gaby, Alan R. "Adverse Effects Of Dietary Fructose." Alternative Medicine Review 10.4 (2005): 294- 306. Academic Search Premier. Web. 01 Apr. 2015. Hamblin, James. "Being Happy With Sugar." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 05 June 2014. Web. 23 Apr. 2015. Hilts, Helen. Telephone interview. 22 Apr. 2015. Hyman, MD Mark. "Why You Should Never Eat High Fructose Corn Syrup." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 12 Nov. 2013. Web. 01 Apr. 2015. Klurfeld, D M, et al. "Lack Of Evidence For High Fructose Corn Syrup As The Cause Of The Obesity Epidemic." International Journal Of Obesity 37.6 (2013): 771-773. Academic Search Premier. Web. 01 Apr. 2015. Nestle, Marion. "Sugar(s)." What to EAT. New York: North Point, 2006. 320. Print. White, John S. "Straight Talk about High-fructose Corn Syrup: What It Is and What It Ain't." The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 88.6 (2008): 1716S. Web. 23 Apr. 2015. Whitney, Eleanor and Sharon Rolfes. Understanding Nutrition. 13th ed. Andover: Cengage Learning, 2011. 110. Print. 54 Jennifer Beichner Dr. Tualla ENG 102 May 5, 2015 Conflicted Agreement: Improving Discourse within the Abortion Debate Politics are more divided than ever, and no topic appears to be more contentious or overwrought with frustration and stagnation than the topic of abortion. Yet, just as politicians are prepping for the next polarizing presidential election and will surely declare another “war on women,” there has been some new movement within the discourse. Not long after Pope Francis’ installation as the new Bishop of Rome in 2013, it became abundantly clear that he would not shy away from talking about such controversial issues as abortion, the use of contraceptives, or homosexuality. Pope Francis indicated in an early interview that the church needed to spend less time “obsessing” over these three issues, and more time creating an inclusive church. Despite the fact that the Pope’s comments ignited heated criticism from both sides of the abortion debate, everyone was talking, and listening; therefore, he did indeed move the discussion forward. Evidence of common ground within the abortion debate, is not new but may be news to many. The fact of the matter is that many Americans have no idea how much they actually agree. A Gallup poll from 2011 said that “self-described ‘pro-choice’ and ‘pro-life’ Americans broadly agree on more than half of 16 major abortion policy matters…” (Saad 4). Nevertheless after the 2012 elections, John Gehring, a Catholic program director at Faith in Public Life, stated that “it’s hard to remember that there was a brief moment, and not long ago when a new conversation on abortion seemed at least possible” (1). Gehring blames the recent increase of anti-abortion legislation on the 55 introduction of funding for unplanned pregnancies within the Affordable Care Act, once again solidifying hardline stances. However, Roland Merullo reporting for the Boston Globe faithfully called upon the Catholic Church to reconsider their ban on contraception, while also calling out the left to step forward and clearly state they are not “pro-abortion” for the sake of constitutional exercise. Merullo suggested that “If you really want to reduce abortions, then you must really want to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies” (1). Our political culture as a whole would benefit a great deal from Merullo’s perspective, yet few people are talking about it. Merullo went on to say, “Now is the moment in history when instead of making ourselves feel good by shouting slogans, we can take concrete steps to begin peace talks. The alternative is dissention, bitterness, anger and…more abortions” (3). Compromise is the byproduct of assessment, negotiation and most importantly, relationship. In the interest of dispute resolution, an argument must first occur to cause people to reflect on their morals and consider what is ethical to propose conciliation. Bringing attention to the fact that there are actually areas of agreement within the extremely controversial debate over abortion could encourage new avenues for discourse and also inspire argumentation of other highly contested, yet stagnant, cultural issues. Ultimately, society must come to terms with the fact that nothing is resolved by ignorance and inaction. Political opponents within all facets of the abortion controversies must recognize and take responsibility for their intense political rhetoric, and take ownership for the stalemate that is currently preventing just gains across all socio-economic lines. Maintaining the intense divisions over abortion seems to most benefit politicians in need of political currency. The refusal of politicians to set rhetoric aside and acknowledge and work from a place of mutual understanding is ethically puzzling. To the political extreme it seems most beneficial to keep the argument emotional and divided. Pro-choice advocates want to keep abortion legal in every circumstance, no matter the development stage of the human life in question, and refuse to 56 acknowledge any consideration that may take choice out of the hands of women. Pro-life advocates want to make every abortion illegal, regardless of any mitigating circumstances and refuse to accept any policy that may lead to tax-payer funded abortions. In an article for Religion & Politics titled, “What Ever Happened to the Common Ground on Abortion Reduction,” expert, Dr. David P. Gushee, a Christian Ethics professor and the director of The Center for Theology and Public Life at Mercer University said, “… I don’t have confidence that there is any kind of passion for making reducing abortion a priority or much interest in investing presidential capital on this, but I do think it is a conversation many people want to have” (Gehring 3). Statistics support Gushee’s claim that the public is desirous of new dialogue. The Public Religion Research Institute reported in a 2008 survey that “83 percent of voters support the common ground approach to reducing abortions” (Gehring 4). Despite this seldom publicized awareness, and the fact that both sides of the reproductive rights argument have made considerable gains in policy and public attention over the past few years, long term constructive dialogue still appears to remain elusive due to political expediency. If politicians are avoiding common ground in the abortion debate then what other political issues are they resisting for the sake of partisan vanity? Many Americans, including policy makers, are not willing to engage one another in honest and productive dialogue because the social and professional risk is too great. Whether or not it is around the water cooler or within the political discourse community, it seems no longer popular to introduce new concepts without having already obtained a consensus. Assistant Professor Dr. Charles C. Camosy of Fordham University in New York, writing for Political Theology said, Whether it is the news channels we watch, the blogs we read, our physical neighbors, our Facebook/Twitter communities, our churches, or the people we talk with at (non-family) parties, many of us consume information and form ideas within comfortable, largely 57 disconnected communities which rarely force us to critically confront our already decided- upon positions. (41) The trickle-down effect of pop-culture on American politics and healthy public discussion has made discerning complex aspects of American life more difficult, in so much that individuals have become more insulated and self-absorbed. Camosy goes on to say that “indeed, our sinful natures appear to crave the sort of sensationalized ‘us vs. them’ narrative, and strong market demand has led to a thorough drenching of our culture with this kind of media” (41). If Americans, including politicians, never courageously seek to overcome polarization in such contentious topics as abortion, to the extent that debates over abortion become monosyllabic attacks over emotion rather than substance, then American society as a whole will cease to be one that has more solutions than it has problems. Possibly due to the high volume of rancor, the lack of straightforward media coverage, or simply moral discomfort, the average American is completely unaware of the empirical data that exists to indicate that Americans actually agree on a majority of abortion policies. A 2011 Gallup poll reported by Lydia Saad found that “self-described ‘pro-choice’ and ‘pro-life’ Americans agree about nine major areas of abortion policy, while disagreeing on eight others” (1). Often times the reason why people avoid topics such as abortion, as a point of conversation or critical analysis, usually stems from one’s desire to avoid inciting an emotional debate, embarrassment for speaking out of turn for lack of knowledge, or to “save face” among peers who may think differently. When in fact, the data demonstrates that most individuals surveyed essentially agree with one another on many aspects of the abortion debate. For example, Gallup’s 2011 poll further uncovered that Americans agree, “… abortion should be legal when a woman’s life or physical health is endangered by pregnancy and when the pregnancy is caused by rape or incest. Both groups favor banning ‘partial birth abortions,’ and requiring parental consent for minors.” (Saad 2). Fundamentally, this survey indicated that there is much more mutual agreement than previously thought. Staying well-informed 58 and culturally connected can demystify sensitive and emotionally charged debates. If individuals do not take personal responsibility for their beliefs, and never test their beliefs and knowledge against opposing viewpoints, dynamic argumentation will not occur. Further preventing genuine dialogue is a refusal by pro-choice supporters to admit that abortion is a moral as well as an ethical issue. More than ever women are stepping forward to admit they regret their decision to have an abortion and their freedom of speech is not being as equally celebrated as their freedom of choice. The American public has grown weary of the divisive debate on abortion and the political oversimplification of a complex, multi-faceted argument. For example, in an USA Today article titled “Abortion is not ‘good’ for society,” they discovered that “… abortion advocates are waging a campaign to end the language of sadness and regret. The 1 in 3 Campaign aims to ‘end the stigma and shame women are made to feel about abortion’” (Bauer 07a). Yet abortion advocates seemingly want to change the way women think and feel about abortion, going so far as to purpose a change to the language one might use to describe their abortion, especially if it was a negative experience. Bauer, the president of American Values and chairman of the Campaign for Working Families also pointed out that “not long ago, the shame of having a ‘bastard’ child equaled or even exceeded that of having an abortion. That’s clearly changed” (07a). The moral scope and the public understanding of the consequences of abortion seem to be widening. Perhaps the change of climate is due to scientific advances, or a broader study of embryonic viability, but it seems that the humanity of a fetus is being called into question more frequently. Bauer concluded that “one doesn’t need to consider abortion tantamount to murder to recognize that it cannot be reconciled with most people’s conceptions of love, family and the good things in life” (07a). The logical common effort for both sides of the debate should be to reduce the number of abortions occurring in the United States. Acknowledging that there is an immense amount of middle ground from which to create genuine solutions is paramount. For this to take place unyielding 59 positions must be relinquished on both sides of abortion politics to productively reduce abortions, preserve the freedom of choice and ensure the health and wellness of women. Compromise in impassioned arguments such as abortion should be celebrated. Historically, abortion protests and marches have in some cases become violent. In decades past, abortion doctors were murdered by perpetrators who claimed they carried out their crimes to advance the right-to-life effort. Pro-life and pro-choice supporters should enthusiastically seek new paths to political relationship and conciliation. For example, Merullo, in his article said, “we’re a million miles apart in what we believe, but there’s one thing we have in common. Without demonizing anyone, let’s work together to reduce the number of abortions” (2). Merullo goes on to implore advocates on both sides of the debate to release hypocritical stances on such aspects as contraception, sex education and choice without responsibility. Merullo gives examples and asks, “How can we respect the beliefs of those who are against abortion availability, while acknowledging the fact that it is legal and likely to stay that way” (2)? Merullo suggests a more open exchange of ideas with college-age adults regarding sex education with an emphasis on cautious and thoughtful intimacy that does not promote a rush to sexual engagement or keep parents out of the loop. Continuing to develop dialogue and create new paths to compromise within the reproductive rights discussion, should be the goal of every advocate, supporter and lobbyist, otherwise the end result of argument will only be hot air and more self-promotion. Policy makers and the representatives of the people within Congress should not consist of individuals that shy away from a truth-filled exchange of ideas, or authentic argumentation on behalf of the nation. They should instead consist of those best equipped and willing to engage in difficult dialogue and the sometimes uncomfortable process of synthesizing the notions of both parties. Physicist Dr. Jennifer E. Miller, is the founding director of Bioethics International and a residential fellow in the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University. Dr. Miller co-chaired the 60 Open Hearts Open Minds and Fair-minded Words Conference at Princeton University in 2010 and was interviewed by Kathryn Jean Lopez for her article featured in Human Life Review titled, “Charity, without Compromise.” This conference brought together prominent leading experts in the fields of science, faith and politics to purposefully and rationally discuss the constitutionality of human life within a democracy. Dr. Miller said, “I think we need to help each other as we look for the best ways forward in the abortion debate, no single person has all the answers.” (Lopez 35). Lopez, also an editor at large for National Review Online, makes clear in her article that she is a pro-life supporter not willing to concede the viability of a human life. However, she is writing about leaders on both sides choosing to participate in an open forum and encouraging others to enter into a constructive exchange of ideas. At minimum, contentious topics like abortion provide an opportunity to assess prejudices and acknowledge personal levels of resistance to others with opposing viewpoints. Mutual respect and understanding develop out of these difficult processes and could pave the way for practical resolutions. Increasing the likelihood that common ground could develop and succeed within the discourse community of pro-life and pro-choice advocates, are women who have experienced abortion first-hand. Valuable are women who are willing to share their insights, giving intimate yet honest testimony within the public forum, in the hopes that sharing their experience will encourage greater personal responsibility. One such woman is Lisa Selin Davis, a prolific freelance writer for the New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. Davis was once a staunch abortion rights activist, participating in marches and rhetoric-filled symposiums, until an unplanned pregnancy in her 20s gave her an unexpected insight into the reality of her choice. Davis wanted to use her pregnancy termination to artistically exalt the benefits of choice for women, going as far as to take a personal video camera with her into her appointment. Davis however found the truth of the moment to be far more overwhelming than theoretical narrative. In an opinion piece for The New York Times titled, 61 “My Abortion Wasn’t Art,” Davis said, “I wish that someone had alerted me to the harshness of the experience, acknowledged the layers of regret that built and fell away as the months and years passed. I want my daughters to have the option of safe and legal abortion, of course. I just don't want them to have to use it” (SR.8). In a field of study stereotyped by screaming feminists on one side of the argument and bible-thumping evangelicals on the other, women like Davis are courageously sharing their experiences to open dialogue and help people understand the importance of both sides working together for the common good. Personal experience is a powerful conversation starter and brings individuals to the negotiating table ready to compassionately listen, setting aside political agenda for human decency. The climate of abortion politics is changing and the argument should evolve with the atmosphere. Temperance and moderation may be essential to the politics of the future and should receive more than just lip service. No longer can anti-abortionists and reproductive rights advocates negotiate policies with indifference to the ever emerging moderate climate. Dr. Charles C. Camosy, in his article, “Intellectual Solidarity and Transcending Polarized Discourse,” pointed to an earlier 2010 Gallup poll by Saad that found, “Unlike older generations, the millennials generally support gay rights, but also that they are ‘trending anti-abortion’ at the very same level as seniors. In a telling statistic, a whopping 45% of American millennials identify as neither liberal nor conservative” (47). Americans no longer want politicians to sit on the sidelines and wait for the political winds to shift in their favor, but instead be engaged and participate more openly in a democratic process from which they may actually learn something through their opposing viewpoints. Settling disagreements with more logic than emotion, and more trust than suspicion is a worthy leap of faith for the benefit of the greater good. Camosy points outs that, “We have an opening to instead engage each other in the spirit of intellectual solidarity: to carefully sift through the complex issues that divide us, find 62 where the disagreement lies, and move forward on issues where a substantial number of us actually agree” (47). Determining at what stage life is truly a life to be protected, or just a small mass of complex human cells, may not be determined or conceded anytime soon. Setting political pride as well as personal pride aside for the greater ethical good, could be more than beneficial to both sides and society as a whole. Across the vast spectrum of religious and philosophical beliefs is the understanding that argumentation and truth seeking are the worthiest of pursuits. As a society we must challenge ourselves to reflect and discuss the issues that create the most discomfort in our daily lives. Striving to create a space for dialogue where none previously existed, or in the place of heated rhetoric is a noble and selfless pursuit that can only benefit our culture and teach us more about one another. 63 Works Cited Bauer, Gary. "Abortion is not 'good' for Society." USA Today 10 Feb. 2015, 07a. American Search Premier. Web. 16 Apr. 2015. Camosy, Charles C. "Intellectual Solidarity and Transcending Polarized Discourse." Political Theology 15.1 (2014): 40-52. Academic Search Premier. Web. 16 Apr. 2015. Davis, Lisa Selin. "My Abortion Wasn't Art." New York Times 06 Jul. 2014, Late Edition (East Coast) ed. ProQuest. Web. 28 Apr. 2015. Gehring, John. "What Ever Happened to the Common Ground on Abortion Reduction?" Religion & Politics. (2013): Web. 11 Mar. 2015. Lopez, Kathryn Jean. "Charity, Without Compromise." Human Life Review 36.4 (2010): 33- 36. Academic Search Premier. Web. 15 Apr. 2015. Merullo, Ronald. "Finding Common Ground in the Abortion Debate.” Boston Globe 22 Jan. 2013, Pro Quest Web. 11 Mar. 2015. Saad, Lydia. "Plenty of Common Ground Found in Abortion Debate." Gallup.com. Gallup, 08 Aug. 2011. Web. 11 Mar. 2015. 64 Madeline Waddell Jared Aragona ENG 102 19 April 2015 Freeing the Gaze There is an umbrella of terms to describe the act of looking. While a thesaurus could provide a list of synonyms that describe perception, gaze is the only term specifically used for making a statement about art. Other words simply cannot describe the relationship between art forms and their reflections of the world and society. One form of art where a gaze is especially prevalent is in cinema. Cinema is so often used to entertain audiences, but behind the flickering screen is a deeper implication: the power it has to reflect the society around it. The male gaze is a prevalent force in cinema that objectifies women due to the behavior engrained in a patriarchal society. In order to break away from the engraved order of a patriarchy, it is necessary to free the control of the camera from the male gaze. Before addressing the male gaze, it is important to understand its parent concept: the gaze. Gaze was not always used as such a critical term. Before the twentieth century the noun gaze was synonymous with the word glance. Art critics initially used this term to acknowledge the gazes that were portrayed in paintings. It was not until the early twentieth century that Jaques Lacan, a French psychoanalyst, popularized the term the gaze by intertwining it with his theory of the mirror stage. The mirror stage is a concept based on the idea that an infant will recognize their reflection in a mirror. Because of this the child views itself as an object outside of themselves. The gaze embodies this same idea of awareness. This awareness that a person can be a visible object creates a loss of ones sense of freedom. It was not until the emergence of contemporary art criticism that gaze was used as a term to describe the relationship between what is viewed and the viewer. Jennifer 65 Reinhardt, a student of The Chicago School of Media Theory explains that, “a gaze can transcend the medium in which it is produced and contains social implications beyond its function within the work of art” (1). It wasn’t until 1975 that Laura Mulvey, a very influential feminist film theorist, introduced the theory of the male gaze. Her theory directly makes a statement about the nature of cinema and the reflection it provides of a patriarchal society. Laura Mulvey introduced the term male gaze in her very influential second wave feminist article, “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema”. In,“Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema,” Laura Mulvey breaks down the role of a woman in cinema. Mulvey states that because of the lack of gender equality, viewing has been separated into two roles: the active male and the passive female. She believes that the active role causes the male to project his fantasies onto a female figure. The roles of women in cinema are specifically designed to be erotic and to encourage the active viewer to view women in a sexual nature. Mulvey articulates that throughout cinema women are portrayed as erotic objects to signify male desire. She address that a woman's role in a traditional narrative film is actually insignificant to the plot and is specifically to freeze the story line by providing a moment of erotic contemplation. Mulvey very well states that, “film reflects, reveals, and even plays on straight, socially established interpretation of sexual difference” (34). The gaze is when the camera takes the viewpoint of a heterosexual male. Because the heterosexual male is the target audience of most film genre, the basic concept of men being watchers and women being watched is highlighted. One very central idea of the male gaze is phallocentrism. Phallocentrism concentrates on the idea that masculinity is the central focus and source of power and authority. The male gaze is a way for a man to objectify women to reduce his fear of castration. A male takes a woman’s lack of a body part and turns it into a symbol of importance unto which the basis of a patriarchal society is built. In, “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema”, Laura Mulvey states that phallocentrism itself is a paradox because it relies on the woman’s lack of a phallus to provide the significance it carries. Not 66 only is a lack of a phallus degrading, but a woman is now seen as a degenerate male. She found that these ideas date back to the theories of western culture. In “Generation of Animals,” Aristotle explicitly refers to women as, “a mutilated male, and the catamenia are semen, only not pure” (737). The absence of this very important symbol turns into an unintentional threat against a male’s masculinity and therefore his importance. This leads to the fear of castration and the male has no other way to regain back his power but to constantly remind the female of what she lacks. This is done by regarding her solely as an object and only viewing her as an image of desire. This is clearly seen and exemplified in cinema. Sleeping Beauty is a classic fairy tale that captures the essence of the male gaze. It is clear that there is a gender imbalance within the story that makes Sleeping Beauty the most passive fairy tale heroine of all time. Prince Phillip, Sleeping Beauty’s savior, is slaying dragons while she is asleep. Maria Tatar, a professor of Germanic Languages and Literatures at Harvard, points out that, “the very name Sleeping Beauty invokes a double movement between a passive gerund (sleeping) and a descriptive noun (beauty) that invites a retinal response” (143). Sleeping Beauty’s name quite literally is a representation of a woman’s passive nature and invitation of sexual desire. This is where the male gaze is prevalent. The portrayal of Sleeping Beauty invites the active viewer to, “indulge in the pleasures of her visible charms” (Tatar 143). The active viewer is the gendered male for which Sleeping Beauty is put on display for. She may be asleep, but she is put on display in an appealing way that invites male spectatorship. This allows the active viewer of the male gaze to derive pleasure from watching the woman on display. Scopophilia can be used to describe the perverted nature of the male gaze. The definition of scopophilia, as found in the Oxford English Dictionary, is “sexual stimulation or satisfaction derived principally from looking” (Oxford English Dictionary). In her essay, “Show and Tell: Sleeping Beauty as Verbal Icon and Seductive Story,” Maria Tatar discusses that scopophilia is something that 67 all humans naturally experience. She explains that as children we experience this pleasure in looking at things when we explore what is around us. As adults, the gaze shifts to the foundation of erotic pleasure, which is also known as active looking. Tatar addresses that the male is the “bearer-of-the- look” and women are just objects to be looked at. This can be referred to as “to-be-looked-at-ness.” The male gaze allows a male to be a bearer-of-the-look which gives him power over the female. Being able to look at a woman in a sexual nature that gives him sexual satisfaction is a type of objectification that reminds a woman that she is powerless to him and to the patriarchal order. Some may argue that there is such thing as a female gaze, but it does not create a social construct that the male gaze does. The objectification of men is a false equivalency to the objectification of women. The female gaze objectifies men in regards to strength. What a woman fetishizes in a man is strength, vigor and most importantly power, but men already possess power in a patriarchal society. Women are standardly objectified on the basis of their bodies which in return provokes sexual desire. The act of objectifying a woman provides the means for making her submissive or passive to male authority. Objectification of women is a tool used to remind a woman of her place in a male-dominanted society. Female objectification of men merely is used to fetishize and fantasize, and there is not any power in that. Linda Williams, a professor of Film and Media at Berkeley, discusses the male gazes’ influence in three movie genres that help to explain a woman’s place under a patriarchy. In her essay “Film Bodies: Gender, Genre, and Excess,” Williams explores gender and sexuality in different film genres. Williams specifically targets pornography, horror, and melodrama as genres that exhibit gratuitous elements: sex, violence and terror, and emotion. She believes melodramas are specifically targeted to women who are wives, mothers, and abandoned lovers. These roles are what Williams believes to be women’s status under a patriarchy. She points out that pornography is for the active male while melodramatic films are for the passive female. Williams states that in these specific 68 genres women have functioned only as the primary embodiments of fear, pleasure, and pain. She goes on to explain that men have always been in the role of the spectator while women experiencing these emotions have provided the most sensational sight. The roles that William’s states are a woman’s place under a patriarchy all have one characteristic in common and that is passivity. They are all roles that are somehow relate to the presence of a man, but the female is still submissive to that presence. Pornography is another example of a man taking on the role of an active viewer that allows him to objectify a woman and consume her for his own sexual pleasure. Linda Williams solidifies that, “women are the objectified victims of pornographic representation[…]; important to the genre is a celebration of female victimization and a prelude to female victimization in real life” (606). It is in these three film genres that woman portray fear, pleasure, and pain that the active male gaze uses to derive pleasure from watching. But there is a way for women to escape these socially constructed roles that leads to their objectification. To break away from the order of a patriarchy there must be a shift in the role of women that eliminates the male gaze. In her essay “Film Bodies: Gender, Genre, and Excess,” Linda Williams explains that when a female victim in a horror film grabs a knife or other weapon she turns the tables on the killer that causes a shift in roles. The female is symbolically castrating the monster and in return there is a shift from victimized passive female to a strong character without genederized limits (609). This is just one example of how a woman is shown transcending her pre-constructed role of a passive woman. The act of taking away the weapon that is used against her provides her with the opportunity of being seen as a powerful character that could not have been seen otherwise. The key idea here is that a woman is no longer generalized as a passive female, but now she is seen as a strong character in which her gender no longer limits her. Gaylyn Studlar, the Director of Film and Media Studies at Washington University in St. Louis, provides a similar theory for breaking away from genderized limits. The idea that a male can 69 derive pleasure from a female with her consent is a step towards freeing the male controlled gaze of the camera. Masochism, a type of pleasure derived from the submission of a man to a strong female character, can lead to a shift in the genderized limits that are reinforced by the male gaze in a patriarchal order. In her essay, “Masochism and the Perverse Pleasures of the Cinema,” Studlar provides a new theory that gives a solution to Laura Mulvey’s theory of the male gaze. Studlar expresses that one very important element of masochism is the male’s willingness to confer power to the female. This is a completely different ideal from that of the male gaze. She explains that Laura Mulvey’s theory focuses on the idea that women are portrayed as erotic objects purely for male enjoyment. Women are portrayed in passive parts while men are portrayed in strong active roles. Studlar's theory believes that pleasure is derived by total submission to the female. By using masochism, women are portrayed as an idealized, powerful figure both dangerous and comforting. Studlar’s theory of masochism enables subjective viewers to see both male and females as powerful figures therefore providing a freeing of the look of the camera in cinema. Just by introducing the concept of masochism a female is already released from the objectifying gaze of a male spectator. This theory can both influence and change the stigma that women are weak and passive figures. Studlar describes a woman in masochistic text as a powerful figure which is the exact shift needed in a patriarchal order that is necessary to end the objectification of woman due to the perverse nature of the male gaze. The male gaze is a clear example of the objectification of women that directly makes a statement about the nature of a patriarchal society. The male gaze is a way for a male to establish the place of a woman in a society dominated by masculinity to reduce his fear of castration. Cinema is a clear mirror that reflects the nature of the male gaze and the way it objectifies and consumes a woman for the pure enjoyment of a male spectator. To break away from the engraved order of a patriarchy it is necessary to free the control of the camera from the male gaze. This can be done by 70 eliminating genderized limits that portray women in a weak, passive nature. Awareness is the key for breaking through social constructs engraved in a patriarchal order that will allow for the elimination of the male gaze that controls how women are viewed both in film and society. 71 Works Cited Kaplan, E. Ann. Feminist Film Criticism: Current Issues And Problems. Studies In The Literary Imagination 19.(1986): 7-20. Humanities Full Text (H.W. Wilson). Web. 31 Mar. 2015. Mulvey, Laura. Visual Pleasure and the Narrative Cinema. Screen, 1975. Print. “Plato's Feminism: A Discussion of Women in Ancient Philosophy.” SeniorEssays. Sewanee Seniors Philosophy Essays, n.d. Web. 31 Mar. 2015. Reinhardt, Jennifer. "Gaze" The Chicago School of Media Theory RSS. The Chicago School of Media Theory, 30 Jan. 2008. Web. 21 Apr. 2015. Studlar, Gaylyn. Masochism and the Perverse Pleasures of the Cinema. Ed. E . Ann Kaplan. Oxford University Press, 2000. 203-219. Print. Tatar, Maria. “Show And Tell. Marvels & Tales.” 28.1 (2014): 142-158. Humanities Full Text (H.W. Wilson). Web. 31 Mar. 2015. Williams, Linda. Film Bodies: Gender, Genre, and Excess. Feminism and Film. Ed. E. Ann Kaplan. Oxford University Press, 2000. 603-615. Print. 72 Two Waters Review was founded in order to showcase the exceptional work our students produce in first-year composition. To qualify for publication, an essay must be formal, eloquent, research- based, and consistent with a standard citation style. The only changes made by the reviewers were with the purpose of formatting the text for publication. Reviewers: Jared Aragona, Ph.D. Matthew Bloom, M.A.