Assignment 16-Tag Howard

Totally didn’t forget we need to turn this in here too.

Take a moment. Picture the Earth in around twenty thousand BCE. No human structures, an unblemished landscape, and the temperature is on average about three degrees celsius cooler than during world war one (Hansen and Sato). Now this change is all-natural and took millennia. But can you guess how much the avergae temperature has increased in the last century alone? About one-degree celsius. If we do some quick math then for every one degree of temperature change in the post-industrial age it took over six and a half thousand years. Congratulations everybody! We did what nature took seven thousand years to do in just under a hundred. Now, of course, all of you have heard plenty about this topic before, but here’s the thing, I don’t care. Because what you have heard before is likely wrong, ineffective, futile, unfeasible, or some combination of the four. In reality, what we need is a combination of those proposals that you are already familiar with (so long as they don’t fall into the categories of ineffective or wrong).

    Now, first of all, when it comes to preventing climate change, we don’t. Its already happening, too bad.

    To a handful of you, this may come as a surprise, but we already see changing tides, more pronounced dry seasons (and wet seasons),  bigger badder storms, and a sharp uptick in wildfires (Shaftel and Callery). All we can do now is try to mitigate the causes and the symptoms. Here it is that we get into the real meat and potatoes of the climate-crisis. Not if climate change exists or when we will see its effects, we know the answer to both of those questions, even if some may not like them. The true question is what tools are best to use to address this crisis. 

    The first and most important tool in humanity’s hands is multilateralism, climate change is a global problem and requires a global solution, the Paris Agreement enshrined these principles well, but arguably fell short of what will be required of humanity in the coming decades. The UN has, however, been a fairly effective amplifier for climate activism, with Ethiopia and US governors alike protesting the current administration’s stance on climate policy (Saed 2). But the current level of multilateralism is far from effective and after the Trump administration pulled the US out of the Paris agreement, the flaw in international agreements became clear. They are nonbinding agreements whose implementation can change from leader to leader. In addition, the UN acts in vague but wide strokes, without providing actual mechanisms to implement the proposed cuts to carbon production. The reasoning here is simple, nations have different needs and the UN can’t dictate how each nation should go about making the needed changes. But this means that the proper place for international agreements is in goal setting, not actually making progress on the issue. So, for the remainder of this speech, seeing how that flag is star-spangled, I’ll focus on the United States.

    And speaking of specification it’s probably a good idea that I now move on to more specific ways to address global warming than the vague concept of multilateralism. 

Renewable energy is when it comes to actually making changes, inarguably the primary way to deal with climate change. No matter what other solutions we look at energy will always be vital to 21st-century humanity, and without renewables that energy will come from fossil fuels that fill the atmosphere with greenhouse gasses. Solar, wind, and hydroelectric are well-established and effective ways of generating energy; each has its own respective caveats, but one burdens them all: price. Converting a century-old infrastructure entirely to new forms of power generation is not cheap and spending money on infrastructure, especially what can be passed off as non-essential in the short term has never been government’s strong suit. Individually though more problems abound, solar only works during the day and therefore needs huge battery arrays to fill the gaps, further increasing the price and space requirements. Hydroelectric and wind both share something in common with real estate, “location, location, location”. Hydroelectric is obviously useless without flowing water and wind turbines need wide-open spaces with plenty of, you know, wind. But all of these problems can be solved quite simply, combine them. Use each solution in the environment best suited for it and import energy where you can’t produce it renewably, in the long term at least. 

But then one must consider the other big consumer of fossil fuels, cars (McGrath 24). The combustion engine is the number two source of human greenhouse gas emissions and has been around since the late 18th century. But recently the electric car has come around as a potential replacement and has made headway in the global markets with pushes for banning gasoline-fueled cars outright becoming less and less fringe. But electric cars still don’t beat the market share or price of conventional vehicles and it seems that it will stay that way for the next decade or so. Therefore, when it comes to transportation the most that can reasonably be done is to lessen the emissions of current vehicles whilst also promoting all-electrics. Now, some say that heightening standards for either energy or vehicle emissions is detrimental to the economy, but the very companies that they claim to be protecting advocate for these standards (Krupp), making that argument entirely fallacious.

When looking at the issue holistically it can be understood why so little progress has been made, the logistical and political difficulties combined with immense cost make dealing with climate change expensive and difficult. But that doesn’t make it any less necessary. The money exists to pay for a reform of the US grid, and systems are in place to expand our renewable capabilities. No, what is lacking is a will to what must be done. That is why it is the job of the people to hold our leaders to task. To paraphrase Kennedy, we choose to preserve the environment not because it is easy, but because it is hard, because that challenge is one that we are obliged to accept, one we are unable to postpone any longer. And therefore I beg of you, remember the future.

Works Cited

“Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?” Edited by Holly Shaftel and Susan Callery, NASA, NASA, 9 July 2019, climate.nasa.gov/evidence/.

EPA-EFE. “Demonstration on Climate Change, in Brussels, Belgium.” The Straits Times, Brussels, 3 Dec. 2018, www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/thousands-of-belgians-march-against-global-warming.

Krisberg, Kim. “Scientists: 2016 Was Hottest Year Ever Recorded.” Nation's Health, Oct. 2017, pp. 11–11. KYVL, search-ebscohost-com.proxy.kyvl.org/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,uid,cpid,url&custid=s1176192&db=a9h&AN=125529742.

Krupp, Fred. “Opinion | Car Companies Want Stricter Emissions Standards. What's the Problem?” The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones & Company, 9 Sept. 2019, https://www.wsj.com/articles/car-companies-want-stricter-emissions-standards-whats-the-problem-11568068636.

McGrath, Matt. “Climate Change: Current Warming 'Unparalleled' in 2,000 Years.” BBC News, BBC, 24 July 2019, www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49086783.

SHABAZZ, SAEED. “US Activists Turn to UN in Fight against Trump in Climate Change Debate.” THE NEW YORK AMSTERDAM NEWS, 30 Mar. 2017, pp. 2–2. KYVL, http://amsterdamnews.com/news/2017/mar/30/us-activists-turn-un-fight-against-trump-climate-c/

Hansen, James E, and Makiko Sato. “NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow.” NASA, US Government, July 2011, https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_15/.

Assignment 16- Swazey S

Depression, anxiety, autism, schizophrenia, multiple personality disorder, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. While listing off these Mental “Disorders” as some people would call them, many of you, if not all of you, probably already have some very specific opinions and images about this topic and the disorders that I’ve listed. This speech is not addressing the illnesses themselves, for that topic has been addressed plenty of times. Instead, I’m going to address something a bit more personal to us as peers and as a youth growing up in a world where older culture has set the standard. The Stigmatization. Specifically depression, for this speech.
Let me ask you all a question, and feel free to raise your hand if this applies to you. We’ve seen the Kentucky Suicide Prevention presentation for around 5 years now; now how many of you, like me, find that presentation to be outdated and completely irrelevant in our mental climate? To be honest I find it almost laughable at the kind of behavior they are presenting to us as the normals for depressed individuals. Whether it be directly, indirectly, or SUPER directly, depression has affected us all. And on very few occasions do depressed individuals publicly and blatantly show it. While yes, these conversations of feeling worthless, or alone, may pop up in the midnight confessionals of our dms, hardly ever have they appeared in our day to day. Ladies and Gentlemen, stigmatization of mental health, whether they are trying to be helpful or not, has been, and will continue to be the reason we lose our friends to suicide, and why individuals will get hurt, shunned, and in extreme cases physically hurt because of something that is physically impossible for them to control.
Now, look to your left, look to your right, look to me, now to the opposite side of the room, now to another side, now back to me. How would you like to know that, statistically, one of the people you just looked at has some string of depression. Who would you guess it would be? That question might make some folks uncomfortable, since they’d be labeling and judging their friends, but is crucial you understand WHY I asked that question. I ask this because currently, we have to make guesses. We lack the proper knowledge to be able to see signs and help our friends, so what we’re left to do is guess, and hope we don't miss an opportunity to help. Dr. Roxanne Edwards has found that depression affects 20% of us by the time we’re adults. 20%. According to standard stigmatization, 4 of us should be acting and looking depressed for an extended amount of time in order for us to be classified as depressed. Two issues are involved in this:
The first one, and the most important one, is the fact that depressed individuals don’t spend their everyday lives moping around like they do in the videos we see. While I hate to piggyback and exploit someone else’s speech, Abby’s speech to us yesterday perfectly conveys this. An outsider who does not know her, and most likely even some of her closer friends, would not have guessed or expected her to have depression, based off how she presents herself. 100s of our peers fall in to this same forced persona. A persona where because their depression isn’t visible by the day, they are deemed as impossible of having depression, but as soon as something is triggered make things worse, they are told they are overreacting. The third party perception of the individual not only mistreats the illness at hand, but it also severely decreases the likelihood that an individual will share again. Through ill informed ideas as to what depression really looks like, and how it has evolved between generations, a child is left by themselves with bottled up emotions and negative self understanding,
The issue of expectations and perceptions leads me to the second issue present when looking at that 20%, what type of depression do they have? Cause while you may think that only the so called standard depression and bipolar depression strands are the only two highly common strands of depression, that just simply isn’t the case. There are 6 leading strands of depression:
Major Depressive Disorder: Spurts of extremely heavy and destructive depression at different integers.
Persistent Depressive Disorder: This is the closest to the public's view of depression, a consistent, almost never ending stream of bad thoughts, but the bad thoughts tend to not be as totally severe or as is irreversible.
Bipolar Depression: A form of depression where an individual bounces between a full manic state, and a smaller depressed state.
Seasonal Depression: While the concept seems ridiculous, our bodies have a natural reaction to the change in seasons, and our brain chemistry is no different.
Postpartum Depression: While hormonal influxes are standard around the time of giving birth,consistent symptoms can lead to a variation of MDD caused by the extreme hormonal shifts.
Psychotic Depression: The instance where MDD or PDD reaches an extreme and is later followed by hallucinations and extreme paranoia.

These 6 different strands are scarcely known to us and peers, and therefore we don’t know how to properly look for it, on top of us having to properly dissect puzzles for communication. Depression isn’t an everyday thing for most people, it also isn’t crippling for most. Yet, depression is portrayed as a life crippling disorder that can be summed up in one simple word. We as peers want to help, we do. We just don’t know what we should be doing.
So what’s the solution? How do we fix the issue. It’s simple really. Proper communication about the CURRENT mental climate. Many students use jokes, memes, and humor to cope, or even cry for help. Educate us on the signs we can pick up on in humor, there are whole papers dedicated to the study of comedy. Educate us on the types of depression, and how to recognize specific triggers and symptoms. Educate us about ways to take care of ourselves and others, remove the stigma that depressed teeangers are wortheless without help. Educate us on how to save our friends. Educate us on what’s actually happening, educate us about the truth, not the Stigma.

Assignment 16 Matthew Klee

Writing this introduction I was listening to the popular song “The Box” by `Roddy Rich, I can’t say that listening to Roddy Rich talk about his riches and drug abuse really helped me to develop creative or thoughtful ideas but I would certainly like to think that listening to music helps me to concentrate. However, if I actually think about it, when I work in silence I am almost always more motivated and produce better ideas (even if my motivation only comes from wanting to get the assignment done). It can be shown that having moments of your day in silence and even working in silence makes you the most productive and successful, especially in school. So for that reason, let’s all take a short moment of silence.

*pause for an awkward amount of time. 

Now don’t get confused, I’m not proposing some weird hipster zen time during your day to do the ohms and stretch in completely unnatural ways that I’m still convinced aren’t good for your body, but really just an environment in your school day that is silent during your work or just the suggestion that you take moments of silence throughout your day to recenter yourself and get ready to focus and be productive. According to Art of Education University writer Kelly Phillips, giving a time of silence after lessons can allow for students to think at their own pace and not the teacher’s or other classmate’s, along with this, silence can give students access to their non-verbal right brain which opens them up to greater functions of creativity, imagination, intuition, insight, and holistic thought. Better access to your right brain gives you an entire new variety of resources to choose from when working on assignments and projects in school. Now, I’m stating this as if you could just pick a quality from your right brain and enforce it into your life and the work you produce, but you get the point overall, with silence, more functions are available for your brain to use, because of their increased function from the lack of sound. 

So now let me address some of the supposed benefits of music on productivity and work. According to studies done in the 1990’s at Bryan Memorial Hospital listening to “healing and tranquil” music lowered heart rates and calmed the blood pressure of patients having recently undergone surgery. This could be useful for the school environment to help with stress in students preparing to take a big test or give a stressful presentation, however, it has been shown that listening to music during the assignment or exam doesn’t improve performance but that is actually a misconception based on what’s called the Mozart effect which is the popularly referenced study where listening to classical music supposedly improves cognitive ability. But this study actually shows results that improved cognitive function is only from listening to classical music BEFORE doing the work and not during. Therefore, listening to calm and tranquil music BEFORE a test or assignment may prove to help calm us and reduce our stress but listening during the work would not be the most efficient choice.

Another counterargument against silence is that listening to music helps improve work ethic and is overall more enjoyable than plain silence. This most clearly evidenced by Robin Lloyd’s article, who is a writer for live science, about how runners use music as a form of a legal stimulus in place of illegal drugs during races to improve their times. It is shown that music, especially upbeat pop music, boosts mood and energy. However, listening to this type of stimulating music during assignments often decreases productivity because its the type of music that encourages activeness, not the sit down type of motivation to focus and “grind.” Listening to music takes up more cognitive function of your brain which also decreases productivity because your brain has to process the music along with trying to form ideas about the task.

Overall, it can be seen that to reap the most reward by using music, we should listen to it before our stressful assignment, perhaps this could be in class change. For those of us who use music to block out distractions, awesome! You’re on the right track. However, just think, if we didn’t have those distractions in the classroom our brains wouldn’t need the noise to cancel them. Simply put, our brains in a classroom environment function at their highest capacity when surrounded by silence. If we want to listen to music, my proposal is that we do it before our work and not during, because there is no doubt it inhibits our full potential and focus of our brain on what we are doing. Listening to music while working is just like the last lyrics of one of Roddy Rich’s songs “turning the static up” for your brain.

Works Cited

Admin, ERN. “The Use of Silence in Teaching.” Educational Research Newsletter 

and Webinars, 31 Dec. 2008, https://www.ernweb.com/educational-research-articles/the-use-of-silence-in-teaching/.

Busch, Bradley. “Drowned in Sound: How Listening to Music Hinders Learning.” 

The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 14 Mar. 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/2018/mar/14/sound-how-listening-music-hinders-learning-lessons-research.

Council on Communications. “Impact of Music, Music Lyrics, and Music Videos 

on Children and Youth.” American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Pediatrics, 1 Nov. 2009, https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/124/5/1488.

“How to Use Silence as a Teaching Tool.” The Art of Education University, 4 Nov. 

2017, https://theartofeducation.edu/2017/11/06/silence-teaching-tool/.

Lloyd, Robin. “Amazing Power of Music Revealed.” LiveScience, Purch, 

https://www.livescience.com/2953-amazing-power-music-revealed.html.

Assignment 16 - Ava Nielsen

“I sentence you to a term of natural life imprisonment, without the possibility of parole.”

These were the words spoken to Craig Cesal eighteen years ago, shortly after being convicted of conspiracy to distribute marijuana. Cesal unknowingly became linked to the conspiracy by his truck repair businesses’ participation in repairing semi trucks for a company that was trafficking drugs. Cesal, despite never having been accused of the sale or purchase of marijuana, was sentenced to life in prison for these charges-- and such is the case for over 2000 other federal prisoners serving life without parole for nonviolent drug offenses. 

The Prison Policy Initiative reports that, as of 2017, one in five incarcerated people faced a drug charge. Of those people, 456,000 were held for a nonviolent drug charge, including possession. The incarceration of people with a nonviolent drug offense almost certainly does more harm than good. This is demonstrated by the U.S. prison system- While the United States represents around 4.4 percent of the world's population, it houses about 22 percent of the world's prisoners, a large portion of these being people facing drug charges. This is a rate higher than that of any other country in the world. While this issue can be attributed to several factors, a major contributor is the lack of assistance offered to drug addicts while incarcerated. The United States, unlike some European countries, does not have an active drug rehabilitation program offered to prisoners. Programs would include assistance by professionals to prisoners in order to help overcome drug addictions. Another aspect of the growing U.S. prison population is the distribution of life sentences. People like Cesal are often sentenced to life without parole-even despite the often nonviolent nature of the drug charges. Drug offenders should be offered access to rehabilitation and recovery programs while in prison as a means to overcome drug addiction and lower reoffense rates, and nonviolent drug charges should not elicit a life sentence.

These changes would yield enough influence to drastically affect the American prison system - particularly the current rates of recidivism. Recidivism is defined as “the tendency of a convicted criminal to reoffend.” Currently, rates of recidivism in the U.S. are incredibly high--The Bureau of Justice statistics reported that 76.9 percent of drug offenders released in 2005 were rearrested within five years, and nearly half of those within the first year of release. Nearly all of these cases had one thing in common- they were not offered rehab in prison, and were consequently left with drug addictions after being released- making them all the more susceptible to drug abuse and further drug charges. This proves that recovery programs would assist a great deal in the reduction of drug offenses as well as the reduction of rates of recidivism amongst those with criminal drug charges.

In addition, the repeal of life sentences for those convicted of drug charges would greatly benefit prisoners-- they could much sooner return to their families, get jobs, and, with the help of prison rehabilitation programs, get their lives back on track and avoid any future drug convictions, in turn lowering the likelihood that they return to prison with additional charges.

In conclusion, the availability of recovery and rehabilitation programs while in prison is vital to the reduction of recidivism. Programs like these would help both the wellbeing of prisoners before an after release, in addition to lowering criminal drug offense rates in the United States. Repealing the distribution of life sentences would also benefit former convicts and help them sooner return to society as productive citizens.

Bibliography

Gilligan, James. “Prison Could Be Productive.” The New York Times, The New York Times

Company, 19 Dec. 2012, https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/12/18/prison- could-be-productive/punishment-fails-rehabilitation-works.

“Rehab vs. Prison: What Research Shows Is More Effective.” Oxford Treatment Center,

American Addiction Centers, 17 Jan. 2019, www.oxfordtreatment.com/rehab-vs-prison/.

Slifer, Stephanie. “Once a Criminal, Always a Criminal?” CBS News, CBS Interactive Inc., 23

Apr. 2014, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/once-a-criminal-always-a-criminal/.

“The Growing Problems of the Prison System.” American Friends Service Committee, 28 Jan.

2016, https://www.afsc.org/story/growing-problems-prison-system.

Assignment 16 - Beppy Badgett - Final Speech

Public education. Something all of us in this room are taking advantage of. But many of us haven’t taken a step back to look at how fortunate we really are.

At first glance the public education system is fairly standard with in the united states, but when we look deeper is becomes apparent that the system is fundamentally inequitable. Traditionally poor states spend less money on education, so students start with an immediate disadvantage. The Educational Trust estimated schools serving low income students spend on average $1,000 less per student than those educating students of higher income. This disparity combined with the lack of support most of these low-income students receive at home, gives these children less than adequate resources needed to succeed, leaving them in a worse place if and when they graduate, meaning they will work lower paying jobs, leading to a continued lack of economic stimulation, leaving the state in poverty, and when these former students have kids the cycle will start over again. The cyclical nature of funding in the education system is the exact reason this problem needs to be addressed, to help the over 25 million students from low income schools succeed. 

Current public school education is funded by a combination of local income tax and Title 1 funds. While the government regulated Title 1 funds cater towards low income areas, they make up less than 10% of a schools funding. They help, but do not do enough to counter the considerable gap in funds. This is because a majority of public school funding comes from local property tax. An inherent characteristic of low income communities is low property value, meaning low property tax, which leads to generally less funds given to schools in that area.

There is up to a 40% gap between test scores of wealthy and low income students. This gap can be attributed to a dramatic difference in resources. Wealthier households are able to afford extra curriculars, private tutors, and family time  because parents don't need to work multiple jobs. With an increase in funding for low income schools, the extra money could be used to set up clubs and extracurriculars at no cost to the students. This would help give low income students similar opportunities to their wealthier counterparts, and these extra resources would lead to an increase in academic performance.

Critics may say that no matter how much you spend on a low income student, they will continue to underperform because of their lack of support system. Students whose parents didn't receive a complete education may be ill equipped to support their children through grade school. However, former U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan states “Educators across the country understand that low-income students need extra support and resources to succeed, but in far too many places, policies for assigning teachers and allocating resources are perpetuating the problem rather than solving it,”. In this statement Duncan identifies the problem as the education system, not the home lives of low income students. The misallocation of resources, refers to the greater funds for high income students, placing those with low income further behind 

Kirabo Jackson, a labor economist specializing in education and social policy at Northwestern University states “when children are exposed to increases in school spending [...] they experience improved adult outcomes. [...] increasing school spending by about 10 percent over a child's school-age years - if that child is low income, they experienced about a 13-percentage-point increase in the likelihood of graduating from high school.” This shows that even a small increase in funding exponentially increases the likelihood for success in low-income students. With more teens graduating, they can enter the workforce with higher paying jobs, allowing them to put more money back into state and local economies, hopefully combatting lack in educational spending for future generations. 

The problem arises, how will low-income schools provide this initial funding needed to kickstart students success? 

The solution requires action on a national level. A communal pool of all educational funding collected from the states, then reallocated to schools based off average student income and test scores. Title 1 funds would be added in addition to this more equitable redistribution of educational wealth for schools requiring additional resources to enable student success.

The current system of public school funding must be changed. The cyclical nature of low income educational funding keeps students in poverty by not providing them with the necessary means to escape. Redistributing funds for public education based off need gives every student more equal opportunities to succeed, building citizens better equipped for the future. 

“More Than 40% of Low-Income Schools Don't Get a Fair Share of State and Local Funds, Department of Education Research Finds.” More Than 40% of Low-Income Schools Don't Get a Fair Share of State and Local Funds, Department of Education Research Finds | U.S. Department of Education, Us Department of Education, 30 Nov. 2011, https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/more-40-low-income-schools-dont-get-fair-share-state-and-local-funds-department-.

Shapiro, A. (2019). Spending More On Education For Low-Income Kids Improves Their Prospects As Adults. [online] Npr.org. Available at: https://www.npr.org/2019/01/18/686696835/spending-more-on-education-for-low-income-kids-improves-their-prospects-as-adult.

Taylor, Kelley, and Kelley Taylor. “Kelley Taylor.” INSIGHT Into Diversity, 25 July 2019, https://www.insightintodiversity.com/povertys-long-lasting-effects-on-students-education-and-success/.

The Growing Achievement Gap. (2018). Income inequality is exacerbating the gap between rich and poor school children.. [online] Available at: https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2018-05-28/income-inequality-exacerbates-the-achievement-gap. 

Watson, K. (2016). Why Schools in Rich Areas Get More Funding Than Poor Areas. [online] Global Citizen. Available at: https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/cost-of-education-in-us/. 

Assignment 16 - William Begley - Speech

William Begley

Have you ever used a product from Clinique, Maybelline, or even Victoria’s Secret, then you’ve used products tested on innocent animals. Animals just like my two pet rabbits. Animals which are often permanently traumatized, injured, or killed during these tests. According to the National Humane Society, between 100 and 200 thousand animals are killed during product testing every year. These animals consist of rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, rats and mice. And, while not tested on for cosmetics, even dogs and monkeys are tested on for chemical products. This doesn’t even show the magnitude of the animals kept solely for animal testing. According to the USDA, there are more than 20 million birds, fish, rats, and mice kept in laboratories for future testing. These 20 million are animals not covered by the Animal Welfare Act, a bill that is designed to “protect” animals used in animal testing. This act protected animals such as dogs, cats, rabbits, primates, and hamsters from inhumane conditions and severe testing. However, nearly one million of these protected animals are still kept in laboratories for testing. These animals are supposed to be kept in conditions that meet the five animal welfare needs outlined in the Animal Welfare Act of 1966. First is health which means an animal must be protected from pain, injury, suffering, and disease and actively treated if any of these arise. Then there’s behavior which means an animal must have proper access to resources that allow it to live as it would naturally, meaning it must be allowed to fly, run, dig, play, etc. Next is companionship which means an animal must be kept with and or away from other animals depending on what is best. For example, guinea pigs should be kept with at least one other guinea pig as they require social interaction, and dogs must not be placed with a rabbit as it’s dangerous for the rabbit. There is also diet which states that an animal must have access to a proper diet for their species and an adequate supply to avoid obesity or malnourishment as well as access to fresh water. Lastly there's environment which means that an animal must have an adequate space to exercise, hide, and explore for a majority of the time. These points create a strong outline for humane care of an animal but enforcement and punishment for breaking the rules of the Animal Welfare Act as well as the exclusion of intelligent animals such as rats, mice, and birds are what show the weakness of the act. PETA conducted an investigation into Professional Laboratory and Research Services or PLRS which showed there many dogs and cats being used for testing of insecticides and other chemical products while being kept in cages for years. Years where they were unable to have the proper life they deserve. These animals were deprived of social interaction, proper exercise, and any form of fun. Fortunately, PETA filed a complaint with federal authorities and the laboratory was shut down within a week. However, this investigation showed that the government was not enforcing these laws themselves and it was required that an independent organization perform an investigation to bring down just one of these inhumane testing laboratories. While these conditions are terrible for any living being, looking at the conditions for non-protected species is even worse. Animals such as rats, a species that is able to develop unique personalities, remember pain and be scared of it, show empathy, and even live in cohesive groups are not protected to any reasonable amount and are allowed to be killed or permanently harmed by any group during testing. This includes beauty companies that test “new” ingredients on these animals that will regularly kill or deform them even burning off all of their fur or skin while they are still alive. I see this as unethical in every sense, no animal deserves to die for the beauty of a human. While tests for things such as heart disease medicines on dogs and cancer treatments on rats may be necessary to better the lives of other beings, I believe this is the line where we must stop animal testing, only should it be allowed when it will help others live. I propose that a new bill must be passed that not only includes the unprotected animals of the 1966 Welfare Act but also includes harsh punishments for those caught breaking the rules of humane care. This bill would also include checkups similar to that of health inspectors on any laboratory that uses animals for testing every month to ensure proper conditions for all the animals. And I realize that animal testing may be necessary at some points, such as in medical testing, but humane efforts to keep these animals happy should be a priority in any testing facility and not exclude any animal even if it’s labeled as unintelligent. These tests could also be largely avoided by the leaps made recently in both computer and physical simulations of tests which have become more and more accurate. Other alternatives include using In Vitro models which examine products at a microscopic level using cells and don’t harm the animal. And most importantly, there's human volunteering, humans are the end goal for most of the products and testing on humans will always be the best possible test, this also ensures no animal is being tested on against their will for the most ethical testing possible. So next time you think about using that product tested on animals, think about Dog and Kiwi and think about what animals like them go through just to get you that product.

Works Cited

“About Cosmetics Animal Testing.” Humane Society International, 6 Mar. 2013, www.hsi.org/news-media/about_cosmetics_animal_testing/.

“Animal Welfare Act.” NAL, 2006, www.nal.usda.gov/awic/animal-welfare-act.

“Fundamentals: Research Animals.” Faunalytics, faunalytics.org/fundamentals-research-animals/.

PETA Board. “Dogs in Laboratories.” PETA, 22 June 2010, www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/dogs-laboratories/.

PYCROFT, LAURIE, and HELEN MARSTON. “Is Animal Testing Necessary to Advance Medical Research?” New Internationalist, no. 444, July 2011, pp. 34–36. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,uid,cpid,url&custid=s1176192&db=a9h&AN=62091081.

“Your Pet's 5 Welfare Needs.” PDSA, 2006, www.pdsa.org.uk/taking-care-of-your-pet/looking-after-your-pet/all-pets/5-welfare-needs.

Assignment #16 - Andrea Dubon - Speech

Misusing resources by the wealthy

Have you seen kim and kanye’s new plane? The Boeing 747. What a family vehicle. A 404,600 pound vehicle. Outside of the millions of likes it received on instagram and praise from the family’s closest friends this plane isn’t getting much use. At least no efficient use. The fact that celebrities purchase planes meant to house 524 to 660 passengers and use them  for trips that will at maximum carry 30 people, family, friends, and set crew included is ludicrous. Both Kardashian and West have, on multiple occasions, said that they average about 4 flights a week, most trips being domestic, but that averages to about 10-11 tonnes of gas being burned in an hour of flight. So? What does that mean. That would be equivalent to using a gallon a second. Now in comparison the average American uses 500 gallons…. a year. So why is the middle class the target for environmentalist ad campaigns? Why are we being bombarded with online messages about carpooling and metal straws when it’s clear that we don’t have nearly the same effect that the wealthy do. Why aren’t they being held accountable for their part? Or at least making better efforts towards helping communal causes such as humanitarian crisis or environmental issues.

For example the burning of notre dame. We all saw it in the news and retweeted it online but what actually happened? Well James McCauley of the Washington post cites the 177 year old monument being partially burned in Paris on April 15, 2019 along with around 1 billion dollars being raised within a 36 hour window. This appears to be the very definition of humanity pooling their efforts towards a single cause, saving a precious piece of history. But it isn’t  really. The majority of the funds raised towards the building’s restorations came from an exclusive circle of millionaires, most impressively McCauley reports French CEO Patrick Pouyanne’s $112 million dollar donation. How quickly the rich came to the aid of their communities, but why for this event? Why not for efforts to save the burning Amazon? Or for the famine in Yemen? Or even smaller causes like Flint Michigan who’s citizens haven’t had safe drinking water since 2014. It’s been estimated that with only 55 million dollars Flint’s water crisis can be fixed. So why have the world’s billionaires been so silent. Why have they been praised for flaunting their wealth online but remain impotent when it comes to taking actions that could better the common good and save the lives of actual people over architecture. When did we prioritize lining the pockets of individuals over assisting our fellow citizens in need.

But it would be unfair to generalize the wealthy. Within the top 1% percent there are a few who have hosted charity events to raise awareness for humanitarian issues. Particularly one hosted by none other than Shawn Carter, better known as rapper Jay z. In honor of the Shawn Carter Foundation gala, a charity made to provide financial aid for college students, dozens of A-list celebrities and businessmen of all calibers were invited to partake in the festivities and donate. The event was so successful that just this past November $6 million dollars was raised in the name of bettering the education of the nation’s youth. However boasting has once again taken center stage at this event. This time it takes the form of watches. Specifically, rolexes. Bypassing standard paper invitations Jay z sent out vip passes in the form of Rolexes, each individually costing 40,000 dollars. Now events like these typically have guest lists reaching far into the hundreds but with even with just 150 vip’s the amount raised in one night could’ve been paid off in Rolex watch invitations. While the end results of events such are incredibly beneficial for their charities, the flaunting in between shouldn’t be something that the public supports or encourages. Supporting and glamorizing exorbitant lifestyles will only end up making our collective futures more difficult. 

Writing for TheTimes.uk Rhys Blakely reports on Beyonce's new residence. Purchased for a stark $85 million including 23,000 sq ft with 8 bedrooms and 15 bathrooms and even a candy room stocked with $100,000 dollars worth of sweets. At first glance this seems like a middle class dream, but at a closer look it’s simply a gross waste of resources. 23,000 sq feet of space for a 5 member family that could have been used for public housing or a new school. $100,000 worth of sweets that could’ve been donated to feed the poor. The labor and resources used to construct the building alone shouldn’t be available to any individual, let alone spent for such impractical reasons. The strain from the wildfires and the drought in California could be lessened if the social expectations of having huge properties, requiring thousands of gallons of water yearly for upkeep, weren’t maintained. In not holding the rich to sustainable standards the steps we make towards aiding people and the planet will be ineffective in proportion to what could be possible with their help. 

So how do we get them to help us? Simple we hold them accountable, we boycott, we call them out for their actions. Recently the public has taken to twitter, a social media platform of about 330 million global users, to expose the wealthy of their unsustainable lifestyles and misuse of power. In the beginning of 2019 twitter exploded with various posts of the extremity that is the net worth of Jeff Bezos, so much so that people took to tweeting him link to charities for global issues and emailing him their gofundme accounts. Later on in August Bezos finally caves. Rebecca Aydin , of Business Insider, writes on Jeff Bezos’ donation of $100 million dollars to 24 different charities after months of messaging from millions of twitter users. While this is a monumental win for the public many users have stated that this price is equivalent to %0.01 of his total net worth. However, some people have argued that wealthy people like Bezos have earned their money therefore don’t have a responsibility to help people. Because of this, generational wealth  has been a leading argument to justify responsibility in the wealthy. The wealth that families accumulate over the generations of monopolizing business and inheriting companies refutes the arguments of the upper class having no responsibility to help the public because they earned their wealth through “hard work” and “good financial managing”. All in all events like this prove that if the middle and lower class band together and hold the rich accountable for their actions and promote the intervention of the wealthy on humanitarian issues then their can and will be change in our world. Even so remember to recycle! Carpool! Buy metal straws! But also email your favorite celebrities the links to charities and gofund ms because it’s going to take a lot of people to change the minds of a few.