Essay 4.2-Young and Stupid: A Personal Experience With Drunk Driving

            With the warm spring night air streaming through the half open windows of my blue Toyota rav-4, I animatedly belted out my own version of Sublime’s What I Got.  I tapped my fingers rhythmically on the steering wheel, head bobbing away and really letting it loose, “Lovin’, is what I got, I said remember that. Lovin’, is what I got!”  Checking the time, the small green lines on the dash clock told me it was 2:30 AM, late and past my curfew.  Zoning back in on the road in front of me, I saw my best friend flick on his left blinker signaling our turn out of street-lit cop territory and up into the darkness the rural western Massachusetts hills that we called home. We were driving back together from a Friday night of hanging out with the guys, and once again it had came time for us to make our 12 mile return to our houses in the woods.

            The call of our own beds, and Mama’s pancakes in the morning had made us forget about the few beers we had drunk earlier while playing in that “epic” game of beer pong.  We were by no means drunk, but being under 21 we were definitely violating the “zero tolerance” drunk driving policy.   A slight miscue on the roads could end up with a run in with the police, and then we’d really be in trouble.  That was mistake number one.

            As I tugged the wheel to the left, my body leaning with the force of the turn, I felt home free.  We were in our territory now.  No local cops would be out at this hour (they always went off-duty at 11) and we knew these roads like the back of our hands.  The only chance we had of a police encounter was the rare state trooper making his late night rounds, but that was a real longshot.  Being our young and stupid selves, Julian and I knew what this meant; it was race time.  Mistake number two.

            The red orbs of his taillights grew smaller as he rapidly quickened the pace, then disappearing all together as he flew around the next curve.  “It’s on,” I thought, as I pushed in the clutch, downshifted into third and gave it some gas.  The engine churned harder, pressing me back against my seat.  “This old jalopy has still got a little pep,” I thought as I glanced at the little orange needle approaching the 60 mph mark.  We zipped along through the fresh spring night approaching one of our well known straight-a-ways where we both knew I was going to try and pass him.   Flying around a corner right on his tail the road opened up in front of us--more that a quarter mile of straight, level pavement.

            Faster and faster we went, the sides of the road a whizzing blur as we stupidly flew through the night.   Approaching 80mph with the engine screaming and the end in sight, I knew I wasn’t going to catch him.  I backed off, braking hard as the road ended its straight course and veered sharply left then snaked backed to the right.  Looking up I saw Julian’s taillights weave around the first corner, and then all of a sudden disappear into blackness.  Surprised and confused, I quickly switched on my high beams.

            Then I saw him.   Ripping the wheel to the right, I narrowly missed crashing head on into his mangled black sedan that now sat straddling the double yellow line, facing the opposite direction we had been traveling.  I screeched to a stop, flung open the door and sprinted back to the scene.  Horrified, expecting the worst and still not completely aware of what was happening, I was more than relieved to see Julian alive and in one piece.  He was standing there, not a scratch on him, staring in disbelief at the tree that had just ruined his car and almost killed him. 

            Once I knew he was okay, our situation truly began to sink in.  Here we were, two 17 year-old kids technically over the legal limit, in the middle of the night with a totaled car stuck in the middle of the road.  It was then, as I looked at the specks of car debris scattered about the road and the flashing of my emergency lights from my vacant vehicle, that I realized how truly stupid and ignorant we were.  We never thought something like this could happen to us.  We were your typical “invincible” male teenagers oblivious to the dangers we were putting ourselves in. 

            I believe that it was this feeling of invincibility that got us in trouble that night.  Partially natural, but also partially a product of our society, it is this feeling that drives teenagers like Julian and me to take risks and test limits.  We must break this “cloak of invincibility” that shrouds American teenage youth.  It is not only until a monumental and life-changing event that kids like us will snap out of this immature trance and realize the stupidity, and potential impacts of our actions.

            Statistics gathered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) show that a “teenage boy with a blood alcohol content of .05 (under the legal limit for an of age drinker), are 18 times more likely to experience a single vehicle crash than a non-drinking teenage boy (“Statistics of Teen Drunk Driving”)”.  While my buddy and I may have not been wasted behind the wheel, it is probably true that alcohol played a part in our decision to speed recklessly down that familiar rural road. 

            On to mistake number two: racing.   Again, how stupid could be we?  Even though driving on these roads was second nature, it only took one little patch of sand and driving to fast to send Julian hurtling into that tree.  The NHTSA says “motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause of death for people between the ages of 16-20,” and that out of 1,000 people who participate in street racing, 49 will get injured (“Illegal Racing Stats”).  That means that almost five percent of participants get hurt while sliding, and screeching around corners at high speeds.  I would say that those odds are too high to take the risk.

            So what needs to happen?  All of us remember being told that drunk driving is bad, and to make smart decisions behind the wheel.  We’ve been shown those 90’s videos and read horrific stories about what can happen if we do these types of things.  It became clear to me that night that even though we had heard these messages many times, they were not powerful enough to sink in.  It took a terrifying event like this to make us realize how lucky, but insanely stupid we were at the same time.

I argue an event like mine is preventable.  Schools and educators must use stories in graphic detail, and invite speakers who have lost loved ones talk to our youth about these decisions that they will face as they grow up.  In 2002 in Granger, Texas, 19-year-old Amy Wolf was killed by a drunk driver.  Her parents have since dedicated themselves by using her story to educate local high schooler’s about how to make good decisions (Chiodo, par 2).  Author Lauren Chiodo, in her article then discusses how many students wished that they were given this type of information in high school.  Here is direct evidence that we are not doing enough as a country to educate our youth on the impacts of their actions and how to make better decisions. 

Even though some parents might disagree, I think the brutal truth is the best way to undermine the teenage sense of “invincibility” and get them to be smarter, safer and make better decisions.  High schools and driver education institutions must show the gruesome images and mothers wailing because of the loss of their children.  While these materials are graphic and I understand some families do not want to expose their children to them, this is what it takes to get the message across.  There should be a required nationwide curriculum that would more effectively educate our youth of the dangers of their actions.  Maybe if I had been shown of these alarming images and heard these personal stories, I would have seen that mangled car that DARE had brought to school to show and tell, before I slammed on the gas and sped up.   But I didn’t.  It had not been forced down my throat hard enough and I chose to make the stupid decision anyway.

            I got lucky that night.  Julian got luckier.  But it was not until then, after making these stupid decisions many times earlier that we realized what we were getting ourselves in to.  Let’s as a country ramp up our efforts to educate our youth, even if it means telling and showing them disturbing and upsetting things.   I wish I had been exposed to this type of information, as it could have prevented me from almost killing my best friend.  I am older, wiser and slightly less stupid now but this night will be engrained in my mind forever.

           

Works Cited

Chiodo, Lauren. “Local tragedy used to each drug, alcohol awareness.” The Taylor Daily Press.  Sept 1 2010. Web. 19 April 2011.

“Illegal Racing Stats.” Street Legal Drags. 2003. Web. April 18 2011.

“Statistics of Teen Drunk Driving.” Car Accident Advice.  2008.  Web. April 19 2011.

Reflection 4.1

This was by far my favorite essay to write. I like to write creatively much more than I do analytically and this assignment lent itself perfectly to that. My creative license came into play and the writing juices really started flowing; i enjoyed this. I also found that this essay was easier for me to write because it was something that happened to me; something concrete and influential that I remember vividly and that had a profound influence on me. It was interesting to put this experience down onto paper, something I had never done before.
The part of this paper that I think I struggled slightly with was the argument part of the narrative argument. My narrative was there and I was very pleased with it, but I found it kind of difficult to intertwine this into an argument. I was having so much fun getting my story down on the paper, that the argument half of the assignment slipped to the back of my brain. In the end however, I felt like I came up with a pretty relevant argument that connected well with my story and fulfilled the argument part of the assignment.
On my final draft I plan to strengthen my argument and give it more clarity. It needs a little more evidence and clarification to make this the paper that I think it could be. Overall I am very pleased and excited to see how my final draft turns out!

Essay 4.1- Young and Stupid: A Personal Experience With Drunk Driving

With the warm spring night air streaming through the half open windows of my blue Toyota rav-4, I animatedly belted out my own version of Sublime’s What I Got.  I tapped my fingers rhythmically on the steering wheel, head bobbing away and really letting it loose, “Lovin’, is what I got, I said remember that. Lovin’, is what I got!”  Checking the time, the small green lines on the dash clock told me it was 2:30 AM; late and past my curfew.  Zoning back in on the road, I saw my best friend flick on his left blinker signaling our turn out of street-lit cop territory and up into the darkness of the hills.  We were carpooling home from a Friday night of hanging out with the guys, and once again it had came time for us to make our 12 mile return to our homes in the woods.

            The call of our own beds, and Mama’s pancakes in the morning had made us forget about the few beers we had drunk earlier while playing in that “epic” game of beer pong.  We were by no means drunk, but being under 21 we were definitely violating the “zero tolerance” drunk driving policy.   A slight miscue on the roads could end up with a run in with the police, and then we’d really be in trouble.  That was mistake number one.

            As I tugged the wheel to the left, my body leaning with the force of the turn, I felt home free.  We were in our territory now.  No local cops would be out at this hour (they always went off-duty at 11) and we knew these roads like the back of our hands.  The only chance we had of a police encounter was the rare state trooper making his late night rounds, but that was a real longshot.  Being our young and stupid selves, Julian and I knew what this meant; it was race time.  Mistake number two.

            The red orbs of his taillights grew smaller as he rapidly quickened the pace, then disappearing all together as he flew around the next curve.  “It’s on,” I thought, as I pushed in the clutch, downshifted into third and gave it some gas.  The engine churned harder, pressing me back against my seat.  “This old jalopy has still got a little pep,” I thought as I glanced at the little orange needle approaching the 60 mph mark.  We zipped along through the fresh spring night approaching one of our well known straight-a-ways where we both knew I was going to try and pass him.   Flying around a corner right on his tail the road opened up in front of us; more that a quarter mile of straight, level pavement.

            Faster and faster we went, the sides of the road a whizzing blur as we stupidly flew through the night.   Approaching 80mph with the engine screaming and the end in sight, I knew I wasn’t going to catch him.  I backed off, braking hard as the road ended it’s straight course and veered sharply left then snaked backed to the right.  Looking up I saw Julian’s taillights weave around the first corner, and then all of a sudden disappear into blackness.  Surprised and confused I quickly switched on my high beams.

            Then I saw him.   Ripping the wheel to the right, I narrowly missed crashing head on into his mangled black sedan that now sat straddling the double yellow line, facing the opposite direction we had been traveling.  I screeched to a stop, flung open the door and sprinted back to the scene.  Horrified, expecting the worst and still not completely aware of what was happening, I was more than relieved to see Julian alive and in one piece.  He was standing there, not a scratch on him, staring in disbelief at the tree that had just almost killed him and ruined his car. 

            Once I knew he was okay, our situation truly began to sink in.  Here we were, two 17 year-old kids technically over the legal limit, in the middle of the night with a totaled car stuck in the middle of the road.  It was then, as I looked at the specks of car debris scattered about the road and the flashing of my emergency lights from my vacant vehicle that I realized how truly stupid and ignorant we were.  We never thought something like this could happen to us.  We were your typical “invincible” male teenagers; oblivious to the dangers we were putting ourselves in. 

            I believe that it was this feeling of invincibility that got us in trouble that night.  Partially natural, but also partially a product of our society, it is this feeling that drives teenagers like Julian and I to take risks and test limits.  We must break this “cloak of invincibility” that shrouds American teenage youth.  It is not only until a monumental and life-changing event that kids like us will snap out of this immature trance and realize the stupidity, and potential impacts of our actions.

            Statistics gathered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) show that a “teenage boy with a blood alcohol content of .05 (under the legal limit for an of age drinker), are 18 times more likely to experience a single vehicle crash than a non-drinking teenage boy (“Statistics of Teen Drunk Driving”).  While my buddy and I may have not been wasted behind the wheel, it is probably true that alcohol played a part in our decision to speed recklessly down that familiar rural road. 

            On to mistake number two: racing.   Again, how stupid could be we?  Even though driving on these roads was second nature, it only took one little patch of sand and driving to fast to send Julian hurtling into that tree.  The NHTSA says “motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause of death for people between the ages of 16-20,” and that out of 1,000 people who participate in street racing, 49 will get injured (“Illegal Racing Stats”).  That means that almost twenty percent of participants get hurt while sliding, and screeching around corners at high speeds.  I would say that those odds are too high to take the risk.

            So what needs to happen?  All of us remember being told that drunk driving is bad, and to make smart decisions behind the wheel.  We’ve been shown videos and read horrific stories about what can happen if we do these types of things.  It became clear to me that night that even though we had heard these messages many times, they were not powerful enough to sink in.  It took a terrifying event like this to make us realize how lucky, but insanely stupid we were at the same time.

            I argue an event like mine is preventable.  We must use stories in graphic detail, and have speakers who have lost loved ones talk to our youth about these decisions that they will face.  In 2002 in Granger, Texas, 19-year-old Amy Wolf was killed by a drunk driver.  Her parents have since dedicated themselves by using her story to educate local high schooler’s about how to make good decisions (Chiodo, par 2).  Author Lauren Chiodo, then discusses how many students wished that they were given this type of information in high school.  Here is direct evidence that we are not doing enough as a country to educate our youth on the impacts of their actions and how to make better decisions.  Even though some may disagree, I think the brutal truth is the best way to undermine the teenage sense of “invincibility” and get them to be smarter, safer and make better decisions.  High schools and driver education institutions must show the gruesome images and mother’s wailing because the loss of their children.  Maybe if I had been taught and shown some of these alarming images, I would have seen that mangled car that DARE had brought to school to show and tell, before I slammed on the gas and sped up.   But I didn’t.  I had not been forced down my throat hard enough and I chose to make the stupid decision anyway.

            I got lucky that night.  Julian got luckier.  But it was not until then, after making these stupid decisions many times earlier that we realized what we were getting ourselves in to.  Let’s as a country ramp up our efforts to educate our youth, even if it means telling and showing them disturbing and upsetting things.   I wish I had been exposed to this type of information, as it could have prevented me from almost killing my best friend.  I am older, wiser and slightly less stupid now but this night will be engrained in my mind forever.

           

Works Cited

Chiodo, Lauren. “Local tragedy used to each drug, alcohol awareness.” The Taylor Daily Press.  Sept 1 2010. Web. 19 April 2011.

“Illegal Racing Stats.” Street Legal Drags. 2003. Web. April 18 2011.

“Statistics of Teen Drunk Driving.” Car Accident Advice.  2008.  Web. April 19 2011.

Essay 3.2-The Steroid Debate: Should Users Be Considered For The Hall of Fame?

I love the game of baseball.  I have been playing since I could barely walk, and possibly my favorite thing to do in the entire world is to pitch a baseball game.  As I have watched the game evolve throughout my childhood and teenage years, the use of steroids has tarnished the reputation of the game that I love.  Playing on team after team, I had the values of integrity and respect for the game instilled in me.  The use and abuse of steroids by professional players directly contradicts the very nature of America’s pastime.  With this said, the issue at hand is if these players who have either been proven, admitted to, or suspected of using performance enhancing drugs should be eligible for hall of fame induction.  I believe that such players have undermined the true spirit of the game, broken an inherent promise to the game of baseball and therefore should not be considered for enshrinement in baseball history.  However, having played the game I realize the level of difficulty that playing professionally entails and therefore have extreme respect and admiration for the accomplishments of some of these men.  In light of their extreme talent, and impact on the game of baseball I would agree however, that some of these players may deserve a second chance when considering hall of fame induction.

            Some say that arguably hardest thing to do in all of sports is hit a baseball.  Even though I may be slightly biased, I agree with this statement.  Therefore I do understand when people argue that even though some of these players used steroids, they should still be considered for the Hall of Fame. Even though a player such as Barry Bonds may have used steroids, he still possessed the hand-eye coordination to blast 762 baseballs out of the park over his illustrious career (“Major League Baseball”).  While these drugs may have made him stronger, there are plenty of Venice Beach juiceheads that could not hit a baseball if their life depended on it (Tobin).  Strength plays s role, but skill plays a larger one.  It is this fact that I find it hard to dismiss when thinking about these players; they are undoubtedly and irrefutably extremely skilled.  Should their use of steroids be overlooked because of their exceptional talent?  It is a valid point that must be considered.  To consistently perform successfully at the highest level of competition is an accomplishment that deserves recognition regardless of what the athlete has put into their body.

            Even though many of these athletes are exceedingly talented, I argue their personal decision to use steroids puts them in another category.  They cheated, and they should be punished.  The current MLB steroid policy states that players will be suspended 50 games for one positive test, and 100 games for a second.  A third positive test results in a lifetime ban from the game.  The original policy, which was in effect during the “steroid era” (1990’s-early 200’s), established penalties of a 10-game suspension for a first failed test, 30 games for a second, 60 games for a third, one year for a fourth, and a fifth positive test would be up to the commissioners discretion (“Major League Baseball”).   While the current restrictions more harshly discourage steroid use, these players still put banned substances into their bodies.  Some of these athletes claim that these supplements were ingested unknowingly, but this is just a petty excuse.  Any professional athlete should have, and would have full knowledge of what materials were going into their body.  A study by the Physics Department at Tufts University also shed some light on the steroid issue.  They found that a slight increase in bat speed due to increased physical strength from steroid use could result in 50%-100% more home runs (Tobin).  This is an alarming statistic that just goes to show how potentially unfair steroid use can be.  It is cheating.  After all, this is their job and how they support their families.  Why would they want to undermine their livelihood? 

Also, I think that another factor in many players steroid use stemmed from a financial viewpoint.  If they perform better, they receive more money.  And to perform better they must use steroids (Hill, par 5).  Roger Clemens, one of the greatest pitchers of all time, made 119 million dollars throughout his career, and made 53 million of them in his final five years of playing.  Consequently this is right during the time period that he is alleged to have used steroids (Hill, par 6).  Another example is Barry Bonds, who made $115 million of his total $187 million over the last seven years of his career—right when his connection to steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs was the strongest (Hill, par 7).  This is an unfair and selfish attitude to have, and disrespects all the players who play the game cleanly, fairly, and strive to be the best they can be without the help of modern day medicine.  I believe that steroids have helped to boost the salaries of professional athletes to the astronomical figures that are exhibited today.  The bottom line is that even though these are extremely talented human beings, they made the choice to unfairly get the upper hand, and take their game to the next level artificially. Not through hard work, determination, and pure skill like their predecessors to the HOF.

            While the two sides do have different opinions they also overlap, creating an interesting conundrum.  As stated above, these athletes are the best of the best; the cream of the crop.  They are able to do something, that only a tiny, itsy, bitsy fraction of the world’s population can achieve.  This does deserve some sort of recognition even if they made the wrong decision to use steroids.  People make mistakes, is this one simply to large to forgive?  Some players have come out publically and admitted their steroid use and apologized to fans, fellow players and the game itself.  These men arguably deserve more respect than players who continue to deny use.  Also, both viewpoints would agree that the Hall of Fame immortalizes players into the game’s storied history.  It is a greatly respected, and sought after accomplishment that represents a player’s commitment and dedication to the game.  It is a place for the best of the best and only the truly deserving should be inducted.  But should steroid use be grounds for exclusion?

            While using steroids is cheating and banned by MLB, I think that a compromise is necessary to address this issue.  The current MLB steroid policy should be enforced with full effect, no questions asked.  Current players need to have learned that these actions are unacceptable, and that nothing of the sort will be accepted in the future.  Steroids are intolerable, and people who use them will be punished. 

As for past players, who played when regulations were more lax, I suggest that a situational approach is necessary.  Players like these should be considered on a case-by-case basis, and there should be an overarching committee that either deems them eligible or ineligible for consideration into the HOF.  Perfect instances are players like Alex Rodriguez and Andy Pettite who have admitted their drug use, and are sorry for what they have done (Hill, par 8).  They knew they were wrong, apologized to the public, and gained back a lot of the respect that they could have lost by not admitting or denying their use.  They should be looked at in a different light than somebody like Barry Bonds, who has been accused of steroid use multiple times but continues to deny it.

 Furthermore there are rare situations where it may be true that a player was given and unknowingly took a supplement, or was prescribed drugs by a doctor that contained banned substances leading to their positive test result.  While cases like this are rare, they can happen and it would be unfair to punish a talented player for something that truly wasn’t their fault.  Also, I believe that all players should be considered innocent until proven guilty.  Just because a player has been suspected of using performance-enhancing drugs, doesn’t automatically cast them out of running for the Hall.  Exclusion from the ballot must be based on hard evidence that undoubtedly depicts the player as a user.

In conclusion, players are voted into the HOF based on the following criteria: ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contribution to the team or teams on which they played or to baseball in general (“Major League Baseball”).  The use of steroids directly undermines some of these very qualities that Hall of Fame players are supposed to epitomize.  As a result, I believe that these players should not be considered for the HOF.  However, I am willing to compromise, and examine players on a case by case because of their exceptional talent, contributions to the game, and hard work and honesty regardless of whether they decided to use steroids or not.

Works Cited

Hill, Jemele. “Do Steroid Era Players Value the HOF?”  ESPN.com. (28 Mar 2011). 28 Mar 2011.

“Major League Baseball.” WikipediaOnline.  (25 Mar 2011). 27 Mar. 2011.

Tobin, R.G. “On the potential of a chemical Bonds: Possible effects of steroids on home run production in baseball.” American Journal of Physics.  January 2008.  Volume 76, Issue 1.

3.1-The Steroid Debate: Should Users Be Considered For The Hall of Fame?

The Steroid Debate: Should Users Be Considered For the Hall of Fame?

I love the game of baseball. I have been playing since I could barely walk, and possibly my favorite thing to do in the entire world is to pitch a baseball game. As I have watched the game evolve throughout my childhood and teenage years, the use of steroids has tarnished the reputation of the game that I love. Playing on team after team, I had the values of integrity and respect for the game instilled in me. The use and abuse of steroids by professional players directly contradicts the very nature of America’s pastime. With this said, the issue at hand is if these players who have either been proven, admitted to, or suspected of using performance enhancing drugs should be eligible for hall of fame induction. I believe that such players have undermined the true spirit of the game, broken an inherent promise to the game of baseball and therefore should not be considered for enshrinement in baseball history. However, having played the game I realize the level of difficulty that playing professionally entails and therefore have extreme respect and admiration for the accomplishments of some of these men. In light of their extreme talent, and impact on the game of baseball I would agree however, that some of these players may deserve a second chance when considering hall of fame induction.
Some say that arguably hardest thing to do in all of sports is hit a baseball. Even though I may be slightly biased, I agree with this statement. Therefore I do understand when people argue that even though some of these players used steroids, they should still be considered for Hall of Even though a player such as Barry Bonds may have used steroids, he still possessed the hand-eye coordination to blast 762 baseballs out of the park over his illustrious career (“Major League Baseball”). While these drugs may have made him stronger, there are plenty of Venice Beach juiceheads that could not hit a baseball if their life depended on it (Tobin). Strength plays s role, but skill plays a larger one. It is this fact that I find it hard to dismiss when thinking about these players; they are undoubtedly and irrefutably extremely skilled. Should their use of steroids be overlooked because of their exceptional talent? It is a valid point that must be considered. To consistently perform successfully at the highest level of competition is an accomplishment that deserves recognition regardless of what the athlete has put into their body.
Even though many of these athletes are exceedingly talented, I argue their personal decision to use steroids puts them in another category. They cheated, and they should be punished. The current MLB steroid policy states that players will be suspended 50 games for one positive test, and 100 games for a second. A third positive test results in a lifetime ban from the game (“Major League Baseball”). While the current restrictions are slightly more harsh than policies during the “steroid era” (1990’s- early 2000’s), they took substances that were not allowed to be put into their bodies. Some of the athlete’s claim that these supplements were ingested unknowingly, but this is just a petty excuse. Any professional athlete should have, and would have full knowledge of what materials were going into their body. After all, this is their job and how they support their families. Why would they want to undermine their livelihood? Also, I think that another factor in many players steroid use stemmed from a financial viewpoint. If they perform better, they receive more money. And to perform better they must use steroids (Hill, par 5). Roger Clemens, one of the greatest pitchers of all time, made 119 million throughout his career, made 53 million in the last five years of his career. Conseuquently this is right during the time period that he is alleged to have used steroids (Hill, par 6).This is an unfair and selfish attitude to have, and disrespects all the players who play the game cleanly, fairly, and strive to be the best they can be without the help of modern day medicine. I believe that steroids have helped to boost the salaries of professional athletes to the astronomical figures that are exhibited today. The bottom line is that even though these are extremely talented human beings, they made the choice to unfairly get the upper hand, and take their game to the next level artificially. Not through hard work, determination, and pure skill like their predecessors to the HOF.
While the two sides do have different opinions they also overlap, creating an interesting conundrum. As stated above, these athletes are the best of the best; the cream of the crop. They are able to do something, that only a tiny, itsy, bitsy fraction of the world’s population can achieve. This does deserve some sort of recognition even if they made the wrong decision to use steroids. People make mistakes, is this one to large to forgive? Also, both viewpoints would agree that the Hall of Fame immortalizes players into the game’s storied history. It is a greatly respected, and sought after accomplishment that represents a player’s commitment and dedication to greatness and perfection. These are undisputed facts amongst baseball players and fans, but should steroid use be grounds for exclusion?
While using steroids is cheating and banned by MLB, I think that a compromise is truly necessary to address this issue. The current MLB steroid policy should be enforced with full effect, no questions asked. Current players need to have learned that these actions are unacceptable, and that nothing of the sort will be accepted in the future. Steroids are intolerable, and people who use them will be punished. As for past players, who played when regulations were more lax, I suggest that a situational approach is necessary. Players like these should be considered on a case-by-case basis, and there should be an overarching committee that either deems them eligible or ineligible for consideration into the HOF. Sometimes, it may be true that a player unknowingly took a supplement, or were prescribed supplements by a doctor that contained banned substances leading to their positive test result. While cases like this are rare, they can happen and it would be unfair to punish a player for something that truly wasn’t their fault. Also, I believe that all players should be considered innocent until proven guilty. Just because a player has been suspected of using performance-enhancing drugs, doesn’t automatically cast them out of running for the Hall. Exclusion from the ballot must be based on hard evidence that undoubtedly depicts the player as a user.




Works Cited

Hill, Jemele. “Do Steroid Era Players Value the HOF?” ESPN.com. (28 Mar 2011). 28 Mar 2011.

“Major League Baseball.” WikipediaOnline. (25 Mar 2011). 27 Mar. 2011.

Tobin, R.G. “On the potential of a chemical Bonds: Possible effects of steroids on home run production in baseball.” American Journal of Physics. January 2008. Volume 76, Issue 1.

Essay 2.2-Fracking: The Truth Behind the "Facts and Science"

Dear Mr. Kurth,

            In your article, “In support of fracking: the facts and the science,” published on February 15 on chron.com, you address hydraulic fracturing and claim to be in support of it.  However I find you argument extremely weak, and fails to live up to it’s title of “the facts and the science.”  You barely provide any scientific evidence suggesting that fracking is a beneficial process and does not cause environmental hazards.  Instead you provide basic information about the fracking process and cite a few EPA studies and their inaction regarding fracking, leaving your readers, or at least me, very unconvinced of your claim.  I believe that fracking is very detrimental to the environment, and has the possibility to create many safety issues in regions where it is utilized.  Also, I contend that “the facts and science” point to the same conclusion, and shed a completely different light than you propose, on the hydraulic fracturing process.  While this new technology has opened up a wealth of new resources, fracking poses many dangers to the environment, to the safety of people in affected areas, and breaks down local infrastructure. 

            While you contend that fracking poses little dangers to the environment, there is research out there that points otherwise.  In a recent New York Times article, “Regulation lax as gas wells’ tainted water hits rivers: Dangers to environment and health are greater than previously understood,” published on February 27, author Ian Urbina reports that dangers associated with fracking are greater than people previously thought, and that fracking chemicals are being dealt with in irresponsible and potentially harmful ways.   Urbina tells us that much of the wastewater that is wrought with chemicals is taken to sewage treatment plants that are not capable of removing the substances from the water.  After being only partially treated, this water is then discharged into rivers and streams, many of which supply drinking water to large populations of people. 

The ensuing environmental problem stems from the fact that sewage treatments facilities cannot remove the radioactive components from the fracking fluids before discharge.  Once in the environment, these materials cause defects in organisms and could enter the food chain, which in the long run could make it’s way onto your plate (Urbina par. 8).   On top of that, the prevalence at which this presumably clean wastewater is discharged into waterways is remarkable.  Urbina cites that, “Greater amounts of the wastewater went to the Monongahela River, which provides drinking water to more than 800,000 people…, including Pittsburgh, and to the Susquehanna River, which feeds into Chesapeake Bay and provides drinking water to more than six million people, including some in Harrisburg and Baltimore.” (Urbina par. 10).

 On a local level, the Times article also states that in New York state wastewater was sent to two treatment plants that discharge their water into Southern Cayuga Lake, right in my backyard.  This is more than sufficient evidence to determine that these fluids do pose harm to the environment and more so to ourselves as human beings, who utilize our environment.

             

            I believe that fracking poses many safety concerns to humans.  By addressing a 2004 EPA study, you say that there have been no confirmed cases of drinking water contamination due to fracking.  Following with that this is not very surprising because the tapped shale formations are way further below ground than aquifers used for drinking water.  More recent and updated science proves that this is simply not the case.  In a August 2009 journal article from ProPublica, entitled “EPA: chemicals found in Wyo. Drinking Water Might Be From Fracking,” author Abrahm Lustgarten tells us about how suspicious chemicals and compounds have been showing up in residents of Pavillion, WY drinking water.  Local rancher Louis Meeks had water from his well tested by the EPA, with the results showing some alarming findings.  His water contained methane gas, hydrocarbons, and lead and copper.  When he drilled a new well, and tested this water, contaminants were still present.  Lustgarten also presents information that in further testing throughout the area, 11 out of 39 tested wells also exhibited evidence of contaminants (Lustgarten par. 3).  Is this just a coincidence that these water wells are supplied by the drilling company Encana, I think not.

            Furthermore, evidence presented by Dianne Rahm, a professor of political science at Texas State University, tells the same sort of story.  In her article “Regulating hydraulic fracturing in shale gas plays: The case of Texas,” published in Energy Policy  in the March 2011 edition, she discusses the harmful ingredients of the fracking solution and how they have been causing problems.   She says that many of the substances are carcinogens and other hazardous materials toxic enough to contaminate groundwater and pollute the air.  These materials include benzene, diesel fuel, and formaldehyde (Rahm par. 3).  Next she discusses an instance in Texas, where one well blew up, discharging 35,000 gallons of this fluid into a state forest (Rahm par. 3).  Right there is a prime example of how fracking can negatively impact our environment.  She next discusses it’s risks to humans, saying that in blood and urine tests conducted on Texas residents living near Barnett Shale gas wells in , 65% of households had toluene in their system, and 53% had detectable levels of xylene (Rahm par 3).  Both of these chemicals are harmful to humans.

Moving back to Urbina’s article in the Times, he cites further evidence of health hazards caused by fracking wells.  Quoting Bartonville, Texas resident Kelly Grant, she says that “(Fracking) is ruining us,” as both her 14-year-old daughter, and 11-year old son have had severe asthma attacks and spells of dizziness since a well was installed two years ago near her home (Urbina par. 12).  Furthermore, Urbina also tells us that in heavily drilled areas of Texas where statewide well numbers have rose to 93,000 from 58,000 twelve years ago, hospital systems have observed a 25% asthma rate in these children, compared with a seven percent statewide figure (Urbina par 12).  These are alarming statistics considering the widespread use of fracking in these areas, and I insist on a correlation between the two.  Mr. Kurth, here is direct scientific evidence that fracking has both contaminated drinking water sources, and caused health problems in children. 

            The facts and the science do tell us otherwise Mr. Kurth.   While I understand that the vast majority of the fluids used in the fracking process are water and sand, the other small portion of harmful chemicals do have potentially devastating effects.  Because of the huge amounts of fluid used, the amount of these hazardous chemicals adds up, in the end conglomerating in significant levels.  It is scary to me to think that much of this wastewater is discharged back into our waterways with radioactive materials in it, that could one day reach the dinner tables of Americans.  I therefore ask you to reconsider your claim Mr. Kurth, and revisit the “facts and science” regarding hydraulic fracturing.  Recent evidence tells us otherwise and I strongly urge you think about how devastating fracking can truly be.

Works Cited

Lustgarten, Abrahm. “EPA: chemicals found in Wyo. Drinking Water Might Be From Fracking.” ProPublica Online Journal. (Aug 2009). n. page. Feb 28 2008.

 

Rahm, Dianne. “Regulating hydraulic fracturing in shale gas plays: The case of Texas.”  Energy Policy.  ScienceDirect. (8 Jan 2011). n. pag. 25 Mar. 2011.

Urbina, Ian. “Regulation lax as gas wells’ tainted water hits rivers

Dangers to environment and health are greater than previously understood.” New York Times. (27 Feb 2011).  27 Feb 2011.

Essay 2.1-Fracking: The Truth Behind the "Facts and Science"

Dear Mr. Kurth,

            In your article, “In support of fracking: the facts and the science,” published on February 15 on chron.com, you address hydraulic fracturing and claim to be in support of it.  However I find you argument extremely weak, and fails to live up to it’s title of “the facts and the science.”  You barely provide any scientific evidence suggesting that fracking is a beneficial process and does not cause environmental hazards.  Instead you provide basic information about the fracking process and cite a few EPA studies and their inaction regarding fracking, leaving your readers, or at least me, very unconvinced of your claim.  I believe that fracking is very detrimental to the environment, and has the possibility to create many safety issues in regions where it is utilized.  Also, I contend that “the facts and science” point to the same conclusion, and shed a completely different light than you propose, on the hydraulic fracturing process.  While this new technology has opened up a wealth of new resources, fracking poses many dangers to the environment, to the safety of people in affected areas, and breaks down local infrastructure. 

            While you contend that fracking poses little dangers to the environment, there is research out there that points otherwise.  In a recent New York Times article, “Regulation lax as gas wells’ tainted water hits rivers: Dangers to environment and health are greater than previously understood,” published on February 27, author Ian Urbina reports that dangers associated with fracking are greater than people previously thought, and that fracking chemicals are being dealt with in irresponsible and potentially harmful ways.   Urbina tells us that much of the wastewater that is wrought with chemicals is taken to sewage treatment plants that are not capable of removing the substances from the water.  After being only partially treated, this water is then discharged into rivers and streams, many of which supply drinking water to large populations of people.  The ensuing environmental problem stems from the fact that sewage treatments facilities cannot remove the radioactive components from the fracking fluids before discharge.  Once in the environment, these materials cause defects in organisms and could enter the food chain, which in the long run could make it’s way onto your plate (Urbina).   On top of that, the prevalence at which this presumably clean wastewater is discharged into waterways is remarkable.  Urbina cites that, “Greater amounts of the wastewater went to the Monongahela River, which provides drinking water to more than 800,000 people…, including Pittsburgh, and to the Susquehanna River, which feeds into Chesapeake Bay and provides drinking water to more than six million people, including some in Harrisburg and Baltimore. (Urbina).  On a local level, the Times article also states that in New York state wastewater was sent to two treatment plants that discharge their water into Southern Cayuga Lake, right in my backyard.  This is more than sufficient evidence to determine that these fluids do pose harm to the environment and more so to ourselves as human beings, who utilize our environment.

            I believe that fracking poses many safety concerns to humans.  By addressing a 2004 EPA study, you say that there have been no confirmed cases of drinking water contamination due to fracking.  Following with that this is not very surprising because the tapped shale formations are way further below ground than aquifers used for drinking water.  More recent and updated science proves that this is simply not the case.  In a August 2009 journal article from ProPublica, entitled “EPA: chemicals found in Wyo. Drinking Water Might Be From Fracking,” author Abrahm Lustgarten tells us about how suspicious chemicals and compounds have been showing up in residents of Pavillion, WY drinking water.  Local rancher Louis Meeks had water from his well tested by the EPA, with the results showing some alarming findings.  His water contained methane gas, hydrocarbons, and lead and copper.  When he drilled a new well, and tested this water, contaminants were still present.  Lustgarten also presents information that in further testing throughout the area, 11 out of 39 tested wells also exhibited evidence of contaminants (Lustgarten).  Is this just a coincidence that these water wells are supplied by the drilling company Encana, I think not.

            Moving back to Urbina’s article in the Times, he cites further evidence of health hazards caused by fracking wells.  Quoting Bartonville, Texas resident Kelly Grant, she says that “(Fracking) is ruining us,” as both her 14-year-old daughter, and 11-year old son have had severe asthma attacks and spells of dizziness since a well was installed two years ago near her home (Urbina).  Furthermore, Urbina also tells us that in heavily drilled areas of Texas where statewide well numbers have rose to 93,000 from 58,000 twelve years ago, hospital systems have observed a 25% asthma rate in these children, compared with a seven percent statewide figure (Urbina).  These are alarming statistics considering the widespread use of fracking in these areas, and I insist on a correlation between the two.  Mr. Kurth, here is direct scientific evidence that fracking has both contaminated drinking water sources, and caused health problems in children. 

            The facts and the science do tell us otherwise Mr. Kurth.   While I understand that the vast majority of the fluids used in then fracking process is water and sand, the other small portion of harmful chemicals do have potentially devastating effects.  Because of the huge amounts of fluid used, the amount of these hazardous chemicals used adds up, in the end conglomerating in significant levels.  It is scary to me to think that much of this wastewater is discharged back into our waterways with radioactive materials in it, that could one day reach the dinner tables of Americans.  I therefore ask you to reconsider your claim Mr. Kurth, and revisit the “facts and science” regarding hydraulic fracturing.  Recent evidence tells us otherwise and I strongly urge you think about how devastating fracking can truly be.

Works Cited

Lustgarten, Abrahm. “EPA: chemicals found in Wyo. Drinking Water Might Be From Fracking.” ProPublica Online Journal. (Aug 2009). n. page. Feb 28 2008.

 

Urbina, Ian. “Regulation lax as gas wells’ tainted water hits rivers

Dangers to environment and health are greater than previously understood.” New York Times. (27 Feb 2011).  27 Feb 2011).

            

Documentation Quiz

1.  What kind of documentation system are we using to cite our sources?
2.  Two types of citations, in text and what else?
3.  For a web source, list info needed to be included.


1.  We will be using MLA format to cite our sources.  (MLA=Modern Language Association)

2.  Along with in-text citations we also need to include a "Works Cited" page, which includes the complete info from all the in-text citations.

3.  For a Web source information needed to be included on a Works Cited page is as follows:  Author, title of page, name of site, name of affiliated institution, and date accessed.

Prewriting Essay 2

In Thomas Kurth's article "In support of fracking: the facts and the science," he makes a very weak claim that fracking does not cause a whole heap of environmental problems and poses and economic benefit.  On top of that, he never even addresses the science part that he includes in his title.  There is no mention of any scientific evidence that would support hydraulic fracturing, which I thought was very interesting given the title Kurth gave to his editorial.  Overall, I thought the author's argument was very weak, and disorganized with very little evidence to back it up.  I wanted to rebut this argument because it is something that I feel strongly about, and I have familiarized myself with the topic.  The main strategies I will be using are to refute the author's weak claims about the EPA, and just make my own counter argument against fracking.  The claim that I will be making is that fracking does pollute drinking water and poses numerous other hazards that make it more of a potential problem than a benefit.  Some initial thoughts that I had regarding refutation was to argue against his statement that the EPA's regulatory activities have been based off of "headlines and populist noise," which I think is completely ridiculous.

Essay 1.2 Self Defense or Self Destruction: A Rhetorical Analysis of Megan Weintraut’s “Governments should create stricter gun laws.”

             The right to bear arms is an issue that has been at the forefront of American society for many decades.  It is a very controversial topic, with many adamantly favoring it while others are vehemently opposed.   In the January issue of The Ithacan, an article titled “Government should create stricter gun laws,” by Megan Weintraut addresses one view on this debated subject.  She understands that the right to bear arms is a part of our constitution, but as times change she argues that we must view the right to bear arms in a new light.   The basis for the creation of this amendment stemmed from a time when guns were necessary for personal survival; to hunt for food and defend oneself from the British Army.   Today, the need to own a weapon for personal survival has greatly decreased, so Weintraut then asks us the question, “Why bother owning one?”   She uses both statistical reasoning and real world connections, as well as appealing to her audience’s emotions to try and convince us that gun control should be more closely regulated. 

            Right off the bat, Weintraut makes the point that “the majority of American citizens can live their daily lives easily and securely without the use of arms…For protection, we have diverse and organized military services as well as law enforcement agencies at all levels of government” (par 2).  This serves to prove that the need for guns on a personal level has greatly decreased over the past 200 years, and puts the idea of need for a gun into a modern context.  She is using logos to make it clear that this is an important concept to understand when looking at gun control in today’s society. 

            In the next phase of her argument she again uses logos bombarding readers with statistics, making them realize how prevalent guns are in our nation, and of the effects of their proliferation.  She tells us that 70 million Americans are gun owners, and many of them cite the reason for their gun ownership as self-defense, an idea well in line with our constitution (par 2).  The next sentence then reports that Americans own many more guns than other developed nations, accounting for a higher number of homicides.  This shouldn't be the case if most Americans only want a gun for self-defense.  She then adds that, “firearms were involved in 68 percent of murders, and more than 90 percent of today’s gang-related homicides involve guns” (par 3).  Here she uses statistics to show that guns and homicide are closely correlated, and that because we have more guns in our society that all other places in the world, more homicides will occur. 

            Continuing the statistical approach, she then intertwines some real world connections to give her argument more depth, credibility and authority. Weintraut is now using ethos to appeal to her audience and get her point across.  She states that “…66 percent of television programs contain violence…the popular video game Grand Theft Auto rewards players for murdering law enforcement (par 4).”  This supports her claim that, “Violence in the media reinforces destructive behavior” (par 4). Having experienced popular culture, this is just one example from a long list of games in which players are rewarded for violent acts.   She contends that the extreme amount of violence in the media desensitizes today’s youth, and that they don’t understand the true danger of guns.  This seems to be a valid claim given the rise in unnecessary violent acts committed by young people over the past decades. 

            Moving on to the main portion of her argument about the government and stricter gun laws, she tells us how easy it can be to own not one, but not multiple guns in the United States.  Out of the fifty states, only four limit the number of guns that can be purchased at a single time.  One gun can be bought every thirty days, to be exact.  This still allows for individuals to stockpile weapons, a scary thought if these arms were to fall into the wrong hands.   Weintraut then talks about the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, established in 1994 but which expired in 2004, allowing Americans to have access to assault weapons, the type of weapon that Jared Loughner used in the recent Arizona shooting (par 5).  This horrible event created the perfect occasion for her argument. Here, she is using logos, to reason with her audience and show them that it is possible to acquire weapons with tremendous firepower.

            To conclude her argument Weintraut uses pathos to appeal to her audience’s emotional side.  By mentioning the Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Arizona shootings, she strives to evoke an emotional response in her readers, hoping to make the issue really strike home (par 5).  By making these emotional, real world connections in the final stage of her argument, Weintraut tries to punch home the fact that the government must more strictly regulate gun control, or more heinous, unnecessary violent acts could be committed. 

            In “Government should create stricter gun laws,” Weintraut uses a variety of techniques to persuade her audience.  Her argument is supported with statistics, application to the real world, and the emotional connection associated with violent acts resulting from guns.  In my opinion, her argument could have been made stronger with more direct claims supported with evidence about the current lax nature of gun control laws.  She skates around the topic for a while before hammering home her main points.   I think it would have been more effective to jump right into the main point of her argument right away. However, I believe she gets her point across in convincing fashion and leaves readers leaning towards her point of view.

Works Cited

Weintraut, Megan. “Government should create stricter gun laws.” The Ithacan. 26 Jan. 2011. Web.  7 Feb. 2011

Reflection 1.1

At first I was a little unclear about writing the first paper, but once I got typing things started to fall into place and I felt like I had a pretty good grasp of the assignment.  I need to go more in detail regarding things like audience and purpose, and in acknowledgment and response.  For my next draft, I will build on my solid foundation and just clarify about which appeal I am addressing and add a couple more things into my paper.  I also plan on taking out places where I incorporated my own opinion into the paper, I need to stay removed and look at the author's work objectively.

Essay 1. Self Defense or Self Destruction: A Rhetorical Analysis of Megan Weintraut’s “Governments should create stricter gun laws.”

         The right to bear arms is an issue that has been at the forefront of American society for many decades.  It is a very controversial topic, with many adamantly favoring it while others are vehemently opposed.   In the January issue of The Ithacan, an article titled “Government should create stricter gun laws,” by Megan Weintraut addresses one view on this debated subject.  She understands that the right to bear arms is a part of our constitution, but as times change she argues that we must view the right to bear arms in a new light.   The basis for the creation of this amendment stemmed from a time when guns were necessary for personal survival; to hunt for food and defend oneself from the British Army.   Today, the need to own a weapon for personal survival has greatly decreased, so Weintraut then asks us the question, “Why bother owning one?”   She uses both statistical reasoning and real world connections, as well as appealing to her audience’s emotions to try and convince us that gun control should be more closely regulated. 

            Right off the bat, Weintraut makes the point that “the majority of American citizens can live their daily lives easily and securely without the use of arms…For protection, we have diverse and organized military services as well as law enforcement agencies at all levels of government (par 2)”  This serves to prove that the need for guns on a personal level has greatly decreased over the past 200 years, and puts the idea of need for a gun into a modern context.  She makes it clear that this is an important concept to understand when looking at gun control in today’s society. 

            In the next phase of her argument she bombards readers with statistics, making them realize how prevalent guns are in our nation, and of the effects of their proliferation.  She tells us that 70 million Americans are gun owners, and many of them cite the reason for their gun ownership as self-defense; an idea well in line with our constitution.  The next sentence then reports that Americans own many more guns than other developed nations, accounting for a higher number of homicides.  This shouldn't be the case if most Americans only want a gun for self-defense.  She then adds that, “firearms were involved in 68 percent of murders, and more than 90 percent of today’s gang-related homicides involve guns (par 3).”  Here she uses statistics to show that guns and homicide are closely correlated, and that because we have more guns in our society that all other places in the world, more homicides will occur. 

            Continuing the statistical approach, she then intertwines some real world connections to give her argument more depth.  She states that “…66 percent  of television programs contain violence…the popular video game Grand Theft Auto rewards players for murdering law enforcement (par 4).”  This supports her claim that, “Violence in the media reinforces destructive behavior.”  Having experienced popular culture, this is just one example from a long list of games in which players are rewarded for violent acts.   She contends that the extreme amount of violence in the media desensitizes today’s youth, and that they don’t understand the true danger of guns.  This seems to be a valid claim given the rise in unnecessary violent acts committed by young people over the past decades. 

            Moving on to the main portion of her argument about the government and stricter gun laws, she tells us how easy it can be to not one, but not multiple guns in the United States.  Out of the fifty states, only four limit the amount of guns that can be purchased at a single time.  One gun can be bought every thirty days, to be exact.  This still allows for individuals to stockpile weapons, a scary thought if these arms were to fall into the wrong hands.  Only recently, NBA player Gilbert Arenas was suspended for owning more than 500 firearms.  This just goes to show that people can accumulate arsenals of weapons with extreme firepower.   Weintraut then talks about the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, established in 1994 but which expired in 2004, allowing Americans to have access to assault weapons; the type of weapon that Jared Loughner used in the recent Arizona shooting (par 5).  It is an alarming thought that the American public has access to these types of weapons that were solely made for the purpose of killing other humans. 

            To conclude her argument she appeals to her audience’s emotional side.  By mentioning the Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Arizona shootings she strives to evoke an emotional response in her readers, hoping to make the issue really strike home.  By making these emotional, real world connections in the final stage of her argument, Weintraut tries to punch home the fact that the government must more strictly regulate gun control, or more heinous, unnecessary violent acts could be committed. 

            In “Government should create stricter gun laws,” Weintraut uses a variety of techniques to persuade her audience.  Her argument is supported with statistics, application to the real world, and the emotional connection associated with violent acts resulting from guns.  In my opinion, her argument could have been made stronger with more direct claims about the current lax nature of gun control laws.  However, I believe she gets her point across in convincing fashion and leaves readers leaning towards her point of view.

Works Cited

Weintraut, Megan. “Government should create stricter gun laws.” The Ithacan. 26 Jan. 2011. Web.  7 Feb. 2011

Prewriting Essay One

The basis of the authors argument is that it is too easy for people to acquire guns in the United States, and as a result of this violent things can, and have been seen to happen.  However, I feel like there is another side of this issue that the author fails to address; the process by which these guns fall into the wrong hands.  This tends to happen illegally and creates an interesting aspect to gun control laws.