From the beginning of my college career (which began in 1998), I have been involved in the wetlands issue.  In the fall semester of my freshman year a petition went around asking for signatures to protest the construction of a Wal-Mart in Keene because the company was building on wetlands.  I signed the petition knowing little about the topic and went on my way.  The issue haunted me again in the second semester of my sophomore year when my father began researching the possibility of purchasing two lots behind our vacation cottage on West Island in Fairhaven, Massachusetts.  The research eventually intrigued my brother, and he also became interested in the purchase of this land. The following conversation occurred recently at my home in Canaan, New Hampshire, between my brother Aaron and I.

Aaron:  Hey Meliss-!  Come here for a minute.  (Aaron had just returned home from the meeting about the island cottage.)  Hey, I was wondering if you and Chelsi (one of our other sisters) want to buy the land out back of the cottage.  It would be about $9,000, and we could trade off payments every three months.
Melissa:   I don't know, Aaron.  I have to think about it, although it would be nice to purchase it so no one builds behind us on the wetlands.  I do have a lot of school expenses to worry about.
Aaron:  Well, I 'm just worried about someone building one of those tall houses behind us.
Melissa:  The more important part of that, Aaron, is that about three quarters of  the land is wetland, you know, the part with all the pampas grass. And people who build those houses build directly on them.  That's why the terns (migratory sea birds) are no longer around, because there is too much development on the wetlands.
Aaron:  What exactly do the wetlands do anyway? Obviously the terns are gone, but there must be other things the system does.
Melissa:  Wetlands of any type produce food and habitat for fish, birds, and other wildlife, like moose, beavers and otters.  They are also good for us because they filter out harmful chemicals in the water.  You know how Foster's field floods but never goes over the road?
Aaron:  Yeah.
Melissa:  Well, that's the result of a wetland, because wetlands reduce flooding.  The list of advantages to wetlands goes on.  People think that wetlands are just an ugly mess of water and dead trees.  Often, more times than not, people fill them in, endangering species from the smallest plankton to the largest moose.  Every year over 475 square kilometers of wetlands are filled in, when they actually help the environment and economy through less flooding and filtering of the water.  The wetlands in the entire United States save us $1.6 billion a year, and if we destroy the remaining wetlands, flood-control would be between $7.7 billion to $31 billion a year (Miller).
Aaron:  Well, what type of wetland do we have at West Island?
Melissa:  I don't quite know. I'm pretty sure that it is a salt marsh, which is one type of wetland.  The rest include prairie potholes, swamps, mud flats, flood plains, bogs, and wet meadows, like the one at the end of our road.
Aaron:  So then, if we don't buy the salt marsh behind the cottage and someone else buys it and they fill it in, we could be flooded out, have poor water quality, and all the birds that chirp in the morning wouldn't be there anymore.
Melissa:  That's right.  Even though there are regulations on building on a wetland, people often still build because the fine is only $7,000, which is hardly any money to the people who build these enormous houses.
Aaron:   So we should really buy the land and protect it.
Melissa:  Right.  Buy it, protect it, and enjoy what it has to offer us:  better water quality, wildlife, and flood protection.

Miller, G. 2001.  Environmental Science.  Pacific Grove:  Brooks/Cole.

        People in this country value those who can make tough decisions because many of us do not feel comfortable making them ourselves. In the work world, business executives make tough decisions everyday. Just recently, Chrysler Corporation announced they were to layoff 16,000 American workers, most likely, a decision few would like to make. Unfortunately, in global business today, producing maximum profitability is the main driving force behind these tough decisions, while factors like creating security of long-term profits and providing basic human rights to workers gets overlooked.

        Private industries always gravitate toward the least costly and efficient labor sources, and such sources are increasingly found in the third world.  For companies like Nike, Guess, and Gap, finding workers to produce their products based on maximum profitability is easy. However, taking into consideration the United States' continuing efforts to promote both human rights worldwide and a sustainable global economy, the decision has deeper consequences. American corporations need a new mission statement, one that emphasizes long-term objectives for creating better working environments for all. This mission needs to involve wages that keep pace with productivity gains in places where there are no labor unions. It is our responsibility to "practice what we preach" worldwide in order to validate our pleas for human rights in other nations and to protect the working class in America as well.

        One argument in favor of cheap labor in third world countries says that creating these types of jobs is helping foreign countries to industrialize much like our own nation did during the 20th century.  As Nicholas Kristoff points out in an article written for the New York Times, "For beneath their grime, sweatshops are a clear sign of the industrial revolution that is beginning to reshape Asia."  This viewpoint asks us to reflect upon ourselves and realize where we are now as a result of our own industrialization. In response to that argument, the reason, for example, that the average Indonesian in 20 or 30 years will not be enjoying the type of lifestyle the average American does now is because they are not allowed to form labor unions that protect working conditions and keep wages from dropping below productivity gains. This causes poor countries to compete with other poor countries by offering the cheapest labor because, at least to them, "something is better than nothing." Experts call this "a race to the bottom," in which case this is anything but an industrial revolution.  It is, more accurately, industrial oppression.

        Not only are these practices hurting the economies of foreign countries, but the effects of competing cheap labor in other countries are hitting home as well. Why would a big company pay for American workers when it can produce, in some cases, up to 100 times more profit by exploiting foreign workers that go to work for pennies? Job security in America will continue rapidly to diminish if the wages and standard of living for workers in other countries do not improve.

        How can the United States expect to promote human rights when we are drawn to and make use of workers who advertise their willingness to work for such poor wages in a strike free environment? There are 189 countries in the United Nations, an organization that is collectively fighting for global human rights, and America is arguably the most influential member.  Corporate America can afford to do what is not only morally correct but also economically wise in the long run by withdrawing business from countries who do not treat their workers appropriately. Ultimately, it is a question of morality and making the right decision. If an American company is making American products for American people, then the people who make those products should be treated no differently in terms of human rights.  Unfortunately, making all of this happen and placing the importance on people over profit can be a series of many "tough" decisions, but, as the saying goes, "somebody has to do it."
 
 

        Home version video games have been around since the early 80's.  Long gone are the simple amusements that the early video game systems provided with such games as "Pac-Man," "Asteroids," or "Pong."  In their place, children today are using their PC's to play violent games like "Doom," "Quake," and "Soldier of Fortune."  These games are considered point-and-shoot games in which the player has to shoot and kill anything there is to accumulate points and win the game.  In this paper I will argue that video games are devices that can teach children to behave violently.

        Newer video games contain intensely realistic color graphics and sound.  They show the blood-splattering impact that knives and guns can have on the human body, including loss of limbs, decapitation, and disembowelment.  Video game usage is at an all time high, and some children spend many hours each day consuming them (Brody, 8).  Children who experience excessive amounts of blood and violence for long periods of time can become desensitized to it.  It is quite possible that a child who is exposed to simulated-violence will be desensitized to, and more likely to commit, real-life violence.

        Recent studies find that children who play realistic games experience rapid heart rate, higher blood pressure, and increased aggressive thoughts.  Research shows that boys who play video games a lot tend to have a lower self concept, poor peer interaction, and poor performance at school (Brody).  Alarmingly, studies also show that "The younger the child, the greater chance they will imitate the game characters' behavior" (Brody, 8).

        Video game proponents present two arguments against the video and violence connection.  The first argument is that violent crime in the United States has decreased over the last several years.  They feel that if video games promote violence, then there should have been an increase in violent crime as game usage increased (Rattiner, 16).  There is an obvious response to this argument.  Although violent crime is down, the number of large-scale school shootings or "rampages" during the same time period has been unprecedented.  We now know that several of the recent school shooters (like those involved in Littleton, Colorado) played such violent games as "Doom" and "Quake" (Phillips, 24).

        The second argument of video game supporters is that players are merely playing a game that actually relieves any aggression they may be experiencing.  According to one supporter, "They're blowing up pixels.  They're killing bitmaps.... They're not a threat to public order....They're getting their jones -- they're satisfying their antisocial impulses in a completely harmless way" (Van Horn, 173).  However, we need to consider why "Point-and-shoot videos, derived from popular games like 'Doom,' are used to help soldiers overcome their aversion to killing fellow humans" (Christian Science Monitor, 10).  Van Horn, remarks on the use of video games to overcome the "psychological resistance" to wartime killing:  "The techniques used by the army to enable soldiers to kill are the very same techniques used in today's violent video games.  Games like 'Quake' are good training for murder, because they teach you to 'clear the room' by moving quickly from target to target and aiming for the head" (173).

        Today's video games are more violent that their predecessors and technological advances bring unprecedented realism to this "pastime."  Child enthusiasts who play these games for long hours at a time are at serious peril of becoming desensitized to violence.  One must question why the sudden outburst of school shootings mimics the style of play in violent video games.  Perhaps children are learning to get their "jones" in real life events instead of on the video game screen.

Brody, Michael. 2000. "Playing With Death," Child & Adolescent  Behavior, Vol. 16 Issue 11.
        Christian Science Monitor.  "Countering Youth Violence." 1999.  Vol. 91 Issue 123.
Phillips, Andrew. 1999.  "The World of Guns and Doom."  Maclean's. Vol. 112, Issue 19.
Rattiner, Marvidelene. 2000. "Have Video Games Pushed Fantasy  Too Far?" Writings.Vol. 23, Issue2.
Van Horn, Royal. 1999. "Violence and Video Games," Phi Delta  Kappa. Vol. 81, Issue 2.
 
 

        A six-year-old boy, James Owens, was known for being violent toward his classmates.  He had been suspended from Buell Elementary School three times for fighting because "he hates his classmates."  One day, James and another student, Kayla Rolland (also six years old) had a confrontation and James says that she slapped him.  He decided that he wanted to get even. When he returned home from school that day, he found a .32 caliber semi-automatic on his uncle's bed under a pile of clothes.  He had seen his uncle twirling this gun around his finger once before.  James hid the gun that evening and brought it to school the following morning.  At approximately 10:00 a.m., he and his classmates (including Kayla) were lining up in the hallway for computer class.  James pulled out the gun and aimed it at Kayla.  "I don't like you," he said, and fired the gun.  The bullet pierced Kayla's chest, and she fell to the floor.  "I'm dying," she said to her classmates, and she was gone.

        What caused this six-year-old boy to turn to such a violent act as a way of "getting even" with Kayla?  According to Walter Miller, juveniles learn delinquent behaviors from their subculture.  Lower-class juveniles are often exposed to a subculture that makes them more likely to commit delinquency.  Such subcultures, contends Miller, contain several "focal concerns."  These include trouble, toughness, smartness, excitement, fate and autonomy.

        Toughness and Smartness are two concerns evidenced in James Owens' subculture.  Toughness refers to an almost obsessive pre-occupation with masculinity.  Miller believes that this can come from a lower-class boy's lack of a proper male role model.  At the time of the murder, James lived with his 21-year-old uncle who was rarely around to pose as the father figure James lacked.  He lived with his uncle because his father was serving time in jail for burglary, and his mother had been evicted from her home. Instead, his guardian allowed him to watch violent television shows and was openly "playing" with guns in front of him.  According to Alicia Judd, the teacher who witnessed the shooting, James did not seem to understand what he had just done.  It was almost like he was stuck in a fantasy land and didn't realize that in real life guns really do kill.  Maybe if James had a better home environment, he would have known what the consequences of his actions might be.

        Smartness in the context of certain subcultures refers to the need to outwit others and to avoid being outwitted yourself.  The day before Kayla's murder, she and James "exchanged words."  James told the police about this and said that he shot her so he could "get even with her."  He said that his intentions were to scare her, not kill her.  James wanted to "get even" with Kayla before she was able to get even with him.

        Unfortunately, James Owens is a product of what he learned through his subculture.  He was brought up in a poor neighborhood and a dysfunctional family.  Maybe if his home life and environment had been better, he would have resorted to a more rational way of solving his problem with Kayla.
 
 

      When people see a person walking down the street with a large, spiked, green Mohawk, piercings in every area of their body, ripped clothing and dark eye shadow, they might think to themselves that this person is obviously a hardcore punk. However, many times that is not the case. The hardcore punks are not the punks that dress the style but are the ones that live the style. They live everyday of their lives trying to make things better for their subculture known as The Punks.

        According to Kathryn Joan Fox, there are four types of punks:  the hardcore punks, the softcore punks, the preppie punks, and the spectators. Although each type of punk plays an important role in punk society, the hardcore punks are the ones that do the most for this subculture. Many members of the punk scene think that because some members spike their hair up and pierce their nose that they are indeed hardcore punks, but actually it is quite the opposite. In an interview with a current self-proclaimed hardcore punk, Keely Malone, I was told that many times the true hardcore punks have a great disliking for the punks that have all of the makeup and piercings. According to her, these punks are known as "fashion punks."  Malone stated it best when she said, "Face it, if it takes you six hours to put your hair up, you don't have a lot of time for politics."

        The true hardcore punks have many objectives and are too busy to dress up everyday. One of their objectives is to establish independent music, music that is not part of the "pop culture."  They also help establish DIY (Do It Yourself) organizations, which means putting on their own shows and starting their own businesses, to try and cut away from mainstream society completely. They start their own clubs and floor spaces where they can hold concerts, and many also try to start their own punk restaurants. They are in charge of many underground magazines (dubbed "Zines") that have to do with punk culture and lifestyles. "The deliberate crudity of the publication, as far as illustrations, type, quality of paper, staple binding, and overall appearance are immediately reminiscent of Punk magazine" (Henry 94). Most importantly, the hardcore punks are in charge of creating and organizing political rallies.

        There is also an underground organization of traveling punks. Some of these punks get around by hitchhiking, train hopping, and walking. They usually don't have a place that they can call home, and they often sleep wherever they can find shelter. However, many of these punks who have abandoned much of mainstream society are still not as "hardcore" as most people think. They may go against everything "normal society" stands for; on the other hand, they tend to keep more to themselves and don't have much to do with the political aspects of the punk scene. They too are often clad in the same sort of attire as the fashion punks, although due to their poverty, they usually don't have the exotic spiked hair and more fashionable clothing.

        Punk culture is admittedly diverse, and almost every one of the members of the punk scene helps, in some way, to give the group its cultural identity. Nevertheless, the most committed punks are the ones that stand up for what they believe in, not just by dressing "radical," but by rallying and getting involved in the punk politics. Although one may not be able to tell a true hardcore punk from the average Joe, their efforts are appreciated by everyone in the subculture known as Punks.

Henry, Tricia. 1989. Break All Rules! Punk Rock and the Making of a Style.  Ann Arbor: UMI
           Research Press.
Malone, Keely.  September 28, 2001. Personal Interview.
Fox, Kathryn Joan. 1998. "Subcultures and Countercultures.  Real  Punks and Pretenders:  The Social
          Organization of a  Counterculture." In The Essential Sociology Reader.  Robert  Thompson,
           Editor. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.