Fight the Fat

Most people around the globe would agree that the United States of America has a serious problem when it comes to over-eating. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, one out of every three Americans is obese, or has a much greater amount of body fat than is considered healthy for a given weight (CDC). In 2008, twelve percent of the world’s adults aged twenty and above were considered to be obese (World Health Organization). The United States’ population more than doubles Earth’s average fat rate, and we do not have to search far to find the culprits. A combination of lack of exercise and excessive food intake contribute enormously to this country’s unhealthy status, and not much has been done to fight it. Luckily, there is one solution that can combat the fat factor of the U.S. along with the rest of the world’s perception of its citizens’ health: raising taxes on junk food.

Now, I know what comes to mind whenever a new tax is discussed: the government already taxes everything in the country; adding another one will only take more money away from citizens. Not all citizens could afford to live with a junk food tax anyway; most people in the lower socioeconomic status depend on the low costs of junk food to feed themselves and their families. The United States does not need the government to tell it what it can and cannot consume, for junk food is after all, food, and people cannot live without sustenance. I cannot argue with the validity of the idea that taxing junk food is not ideal for certain groups of people in the country. Even more, the purpose of combatting obesity would not entirely help, for obesity is caused by a lack of portion control, exercise, and genetics as well. The mere task of deciding what to tax is in itself extremely difficult, and it would be hard to get congressmen to agree on a list of millions of items considered to fit in the junk food category.

However, we can endeavor to define what fits under ‘junk food.’ Webster’s Dictionary defines junk food as “food that is high in calories but low in nutritional value,” (Webster’s Dictionary). This rather broad description can be narrowed down even further to include foods that are high in fat, sugar, sodium, and empty calories. When the ‘calories from fat’ count significantly bypasses the “good stuff,” like nutritional calories, protein, and vitamins, the food definitely cannot be considered healthy. According to the Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College, a junk food can be recognized if the nutrition label reads >35% of calories from fat, >10% of calories from saturated fat, any trans fat, >35% of calories from sugar, >200mg of sodium for snacks, or >480mg of sodium in a meal (Ashakiran, and Deepthi R.). Foods such as potato chips, donuts, and candy unarguably fit perfectly into the appealing junk food category.

The word ‘tax’ has negative connotations wherever it appears, simply because people do not want to give away any more of their hard-earned income, and especially when it goes to paying for the welfare of people who do not work hard and take care of themselves. When it comes to this specific tax however, money included in the junk food tax would ultimately still end up in the Medicare fund, but the tax itself would fight the amount of people who require such heavy bills to be paid by the public. The junk food tax increases prices on unhealthy food, ideally pushing consumers to purchase healthier options. In one twenty-year experiment performed on 5,000 participants enrolled in a Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults Study, Archives of Internal Medicine revealed that “a 10% increase in the price of either soda or pizza was linked to a lower daily consumption of these foods” and an even greater decreased consumption level when both prices were raised, leading to the conclusion that “policies aimed at altering the price of [junk food] may be effective mechanisms to steer U.S. adults toward a more healthful diet and help reduce long-term weight gain or insulin levels over time,” (“Do Junk Food Taxes Work?”). Therefore, when people eat the healthier foods, obesity rates will lower and theestimated annual medical cost of obesity in the U.S. of $147 billion dollars (CDC) will drop significantly. Think about it, even if the obesity rate were to drop by just ten percent due to the junk food tax, the United States and taxpayers as a whole will save almost fifteen billion dollars per year.

Installing a junk food tax on the United States would contribute to many other benefits as well as tax dollars spent on useful projects rather than obesity healthcare, including vitally needed heath promotion programs for the general public (Jacobson). The country would be healthier, and not just the people who spend less on junk food. When obesity is combated, production in the workplace is increased, for workers with obesity do not function physically as well as people with healthier bodies; so, companies around the nation would see increased labor. Stores and fast food restaurants would see a change if their products were taxed more, but they would also be forced to introduce healthier options available for purchase. With a new high demand for healthier food, production of healthy nutrition would increase tenfold, resulting in lowered prices for what was before the most expensive food on the market. If the prices of fatty and nutritional foods reversed, all classes of U.S. society would have available to them the nutrition that they need to flourish, fitting the needs of budget-families across the nation.

When an option to boost a person’s health arises, and it does not require much work, it would be foolish for the person to continue living as they were. It is the same with a country; the United States is in dire need of a diet, and when the simple solution of placing a tax on the very items that harm the country’s health is so easily within reach, why should we not try it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

“Adult Obesity Facts.” Center for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC, 28 Mar. 2014.

Web. 20 Apr. 2014.

“Do Junk Food Taxes Work?.” IDEA Fitness Journal 7.7 (2010): 110. SPORTDiscuss

with Full Text. Web. 2 May 2014.

Global Health Obsevatory. World Health Organization. WHO, 2014. Web. 20 Apr. 2014.

Jacobson M, Brownell K. Small Taxes on Soft Drinks and Snack Foods To Promote

Health. American Journal Of Public Health [serial on the Internet]. (2000, June

1), [cited May 2, 2014]; 90(6): 854-57. Available from: ERIC.

“Junk Food.” Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 20 Apr. 2014.

S., Ashakiran, and Deepthi R. “Junk Foods And Their Impact On Health.” Journal Of

Krishna Institute Of Medical Sciences (JKIMSU) 1.2 (2012): 7-15. Academic

Search Complete. Web. 2 May 2014.

Response to Rogerian Argument Feedback

In order to make my essay better, I need to add more detail to my argument as suggested by my classmates. I plan to develop the opposition to the junk food tax a little more and include another reason why the tax would not be detrimental to citizens’ paychecks. I will elaborate my definition of obesity in order to make clearer what is classified as obese. I also need to tailor the ending to fit more in the Rogerian style by combining the opposing view of the tax with ways the promoting side sees advantageous. By the time my essay is complete it will be longer and more persuasive towards installing a tax on junk food!

Fight the Fat

            Most people around the globe would agree that the United States of America has a serious problem when it comes to over-eating. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, one out of every three Americans is obese, or has a much greater amount of body fat than is considered healthy for a given weight (CDC). In 2008, twelve percent of the world’s adults aged twenty and above were considered to be obese (World Health Organization). The United States’ population more than doubles Earth’s average fat rate, and we do not have to search far to find the culprits. A combination of lack of exercise and excessive food intake contribute enormously to this country’s unhealthy status, and not much has been done to fight it. Luckily, there is one solution that can combat the fat factor of the U.S. along with the rest of the world’s perception of its citizens’ health: raising taxes on junk food.

            Now, I know what comes to mind whenever a new tax is discussed: the government already taxes everything in the country; adding another one will only take more money away from citizens. Not all citizens could afford to live with a junk food tax anyway; most people in the lower socioeconomic status depend on the low costs of junk food to feed themselves and their families. The United States does not need the government to tell it what it can and cannot consume, for junk food is after all, food, and people cannot live without sustenance. I cannot argue with the validity of the idea that taxing junk food is not ideal for certain groups of people in the country. Even more, the purpose of combatting obesity would not entirely help, for obesity is caused by a lack of portion control, exercise, and genetics as well. The mere task of deciding what to tax is in itself extremely difficult, and it would be hard to get congressmen to agree on a list of millions of items considered to fit in the junk food category.

            However, we can endeavor to define what fits under ‘junk food.’ Webster’s Dictionary defines junk food as “food that is high in calories but low in nutritional value,” (Webster’s Dictionary). This rather broad description can be narrowed down even further to include foods that are high in fat, sugar, sodium, and empty calories. When the ‘calories from fat’ count significantly bypasses the “good stuff,” like nutritional calories, protein, and vitamins, the food definitely cannot be considered healthy. Foods like these unarguably fit perfectly into the junk food category.

            The word ‘tax’ has negative connotations wherever it appears, simply because people do not want to give away any more of their hard-earned income, and especially when it goes to paying for the welfare of people who do not work hard and take care of themselves. Ultimately, money included in the junk food tax would still end up in the Medicare fund, but the tax itself would fight the amount of people who require such heavy bills to be paid by the public. The junk food tax increases prices on unhealthy food, ideally pushing consumers to purchase healthier options. When people eat the healthier foods, obesity rates will lower and theestimated annual medical cost of obesity in the U.S. of $147 billion dollars (CDC) will drop significantly. Think about it, even if the obesity rate were to drop by just ten percent due to the junk food tax, the United States and taxpayers as a whole will save almost fifteen billion dollars per year.

      

            Installing a junk food tax on the United States would contribute to many other benefits as well as tax dollars spent on useful projects rather than obesity healthcare. The country would be healthier, and not just the people who spend less on junk food. When obesity is combated, production in the workplace is increased, for workers with obesity do not function physically as well as people with healthier bodies, so companies around the nation would see increased labor. Stores and fast food restaurants would see a change if their products were taxed more, but they would also be forced to introduce healthier options available for purchase. With a new high demand for healthier food, production of healthy nutrition would increase tenfold, resulting in lowered prices for what was before the most expensive food on the market. With the prices of fatty and nutritional foods reversed, all classes of U.S. society would have available to them the nutrition that they need to flourish, fitting the needs of budget-families across the nation.

            When an option to boost a person’s health arises, and it does not require much work, it would be foolish for the person to continue living as they were. It is the same with a country; the United States is in dire need of a diet, and when the simple solution of placing a tax on the very items that harm the country’s health is so easily within reach, why should we not try it?

Ethical Argument, Stop the Driving Ban

His Majesty Abdullah bin Abdulaziz

King

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

 

 

April 11, 2014

 

 

Re: Ending Band on Female Driving

 

 

Your Majesty:

 

I write to you today on behalf of the organization Amnesty International to implore you and your government to examine the impunities set upon women in your country and to make sufficient progress towards justifying the grievances against them, particularly in the area of driving.

 

Amnesty International is a global movement of people fighting injustice and promoting human rights around the world. With active organizations in over 150 countries and territories, we promote peace and justice through campaigning against the terrible wrongs against universally accepted standards of human rights.

 

It has recently come to our attention that civil movements have increasingly been occurring in your country regarding the ban on female drivers. Protestors who started movements such as the October 26 Women Driving Campaign have been arrested and prohibited from further public expression. These protestors realize that though female driving is not against the law in Saudi Arabia, the act of female driving will still result in the arrest of women who commit the offense.

 

In Saudi Arabia, one of the many patriarchal rules in place is that women are not allowed to drive vehicles. If a woman was to venture out in a car the police would arrest her, her legal guardian would be called, and they would both have to sign pledges stating that the incident will never happen again.

 

There are several human rights issues apparent in this case. Aside from the required male guardian for all women, our main argument today is with the ban on female driving. One of the mainstream human rights accepted globally is that men and women are created equal, therefore they should have equal rights. Women should be free to make their own decisions just like men, and they should have the same opportunities available in society. However, we realize that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia does not accept the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, so not all of its principles apply to your country’s citizens.

 

Even so, there are many reasons besides equality that female driving would benefit your country. If women were allowed to drive, men would have much more time to conduct their own business. Instead of driving their wives to pick up groceries, to go to the doctor, and to other necessary places, the men could work on their own tasks. Since there are no public transportation systems, right now it is impossible for women to get anywhere by themselves. In addition to transporting them to stores and appointments, men also have to drive women to schools in the case where women are getting educations. As we understand, education is important for everyone in your country, and the literacy rate is steadily increasing. If women could drive themselves to class, they would take up less of their guardians’ time, making life easier for everybody.

 

Another case of beneficial female driving is when men require immediate medical attention. If a man needed to go to the hospital and was incapable of driving himself, he would be stuck at home if there were no other men around to help him. If women were allowed to drive, the ill man could simply have a women drive him to get help, or she could drive to find him help.

 

If women were allowed to drive by the law enforcement in Saudi Arabia, the benefits would reach everybody in the community. Daily business could be conducted more efficiently, and traditional social norms could still be followed. A woman behind the wheel does not violate any government policy nor Islamic value as stated by Your Majesty and other leaders alike, so why not allow them to drive when there are so many great benefits to be had than what your country experiences at the present?

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Brenna Graham

Amnesty International

Peaceful Plants?

“A garden is a delight to the eye and a solace for the soul,” (Sadi). When people bring up the subject of gardening, the first image that pops into my mind is one of a little old lady holding her spade outside, smiling and surrounded by beautiful petunias and sunlight. My next thought is, why would she, or anyone else for that matter, want to sit on the hard ground for hours and get covered in dirt and sweat only to have her plants die within weeks? There are many people who share my skepticism of gardening, but there are just as many who, like Sadi, fully believe that the act of gardening can spread a blanket of complete tranquility over those who participate in it. Despite the obvious dirty work involved in gardening, could it be true that caring for plants really does promote inner peace?

            On the quest for answers, my search results immediately led to the discovery of horticultural therapy. “Today, horticultural therapy is accepted as a beneficial and effective therapeutic modality [that] is widely used within a broad range of rehabilitative, vocational, and community settings,” (AHTA). Institutions all over the world use horticultural therapy as a way to help people with both mental and physical disabilities and trauma find a road to recovery. The participants nurture plants in gardens specifically laid out for easy gardening and stress relief. In one study by the University of Hyogo in Japan, researchers found that the physical actions of therapeutic gardening stimulate areas of the brain such as sensory-motor areas and association areas, leading to improvement of damaged brain function in patients who suffer from cerebrovascular diseases (Mizuno-Matsumoto). Patients like these along with those who suffer from cardiovascular disease, dementia, anxiety, depression, and many others experience the same gardening therapy. Their work, though at times difficult, leads to healing and relaxation in most cases.

Although horticultural therapy is a proven treatment that heals patients, not everyone who has found peace in gardening suffers from professionally diagnosed cases. Everyday people in cities across the globe sustain gardens that range from simple potted lilies to large vegetable patches. When asked about peaceful gardening, local Oklahoman Rebecca Ballard said, “there’s just something about putting seeds in the ground and watching them grow; it makes you feel so good inside, and a sort of tranquil feeling sets in over everything,” (Ballard). In her history of gardening, Rebecca has successfully harvested vegetables in her backyard including squash, cucumbers, tomatoes, red and green peppers, carrots, and potatoes. She says, “even though you get dirty, the hard work pays off in the end,” (Ballard).

In order to further my understanding of exactly how peaceful plants can seem, I decided to visit the Myriad Botanical Gardens in downtown Oklahoma City. My two-hour visit to the indoor sanctuary indeed resulted in a greater appreciation to those who garden, for the entire greenhouse-esque building omitted the most powerful sense of nature I had felt in a very long time. Every glass wall was covered in vegeatation from top to bottom, and my short walk among the beautiful greenery alone instilled an incredible calmness in me for the remainder of the day. Walking through the beauty and dynamism of nature reminded me that there are greater things at work in the universe than humans, which humbled me significantly. I came to the realization that the people who work so hard to achieve the awe of the Myriad Gardens must truly gain harmony with the world and themselves after experiencing the gardens they helped to bloom.

My last attempt to discover the peace of gardening led me to purchase a plant and see if I could achieve the tranquility everyone seems to be talking about from watching it grow. For four weeks now I have been caring for an aloe vera plant that lives in my room at OCU. Even though aloe plants do not require much maintenance, I enjoy being around it. I water it every Wednesday, and already its color has gone from a sickly slightly brown to a vibrant bright green. Knowing that I helped a living thing to recover from illness made me incredibly happy; as a result the aloe vera plant has boosted my everyday morale and instilled more happiness in my life. I look forward to the days I can feed the plant, and I enjoy opening the blinds for it every morning. I do not even have to get dirty to take care of my plant, because it lives in a pot rather than an outdoor garden. One day soon I get to transfer the plant to a larger pot where it can grow even bigger and healthier than before.

Gardening extraordinaire Cheryl Patterson must have been correct when she said to “surround yourself with special things that you enjoy, that will give you a moment to pause, reflect and just feel good, “(Patterson). My search into the mystery of gardening has led me to change my opinion that gardening is only grueling work for old ladies; I have found that gardening can induce feelings of calm tranquility and harmony with yourself and the world, and yes, plants must be peaceful after all.

 

Peaceful Plants?

            “A garden is a delight to the eye and a solace for the soul,” (Sadi). When people bring up the subject of gardening, the first image that pops into my mind is one of a little old lady holding her spade outside, smiling and surrounded by beautiful petunias and sunlight. My next thought is, why would she, or anyone else for that matter, want to sit on the hard ground for hours and get covered in dirt and sweat only to have her plants die within weeks? There are many people who share my skepticism of gardening, but there are just as many who, like Sadi, fully believe that the act of gardening can spread a blanket of complete tranquility over those who participate in it. Despite the obvious dirty work involved in gardening, could it be true that caring for plants really does promote inner peace?

            On the quest for answers, my search results immediately led to the discovery of horticultural therapy. “Today, horticultural therapy is accepted as a beneficial and effective therapeutic modality [that] is widely used within a broad range of rehabilitative, vocational, and community settings,” (AHTA). Institutions all over the world use horticultural therapy as a way to help people with both mental and physical disabilities and trauma find a road to recovery. The participants nurture plants in gardens specifically laid out for easy gardening and stress relief. Their work, though at times difficult, leads to healing and relaxation in most cases.

            Although horticultural therapy is a proven treatment that heals patients, not everyone who has found peace in gardening suffers from professionally diagnosed cases. Everyday people in cities across the globe sustain gardens that range from simple potted lilies to large vegetable patches. When asked about peaceful gardening, local Oklahoman Rebecca Ballard said, “there’s just something about putting seeds in the ground and watching them grow; it makes you feel so good inside, and a sort of tranquil feeling sets in over everything,” (Ballard).  In her history of gardening, Rebecca has successfully harvested vegetables in her backyard including squash, cucumbers, tomatoes, red and green peppers, carrots, and potatoes. She says, “even though you get dirty, the hard work pays off in the end,” (Ballard).

            In order to further my understanding of exactly how peaceful plants can seem, I decided to visit the Myriad Botanical Gardens in downtown Oklahoma City. My two-hour visit to the indoor sanctuary indeed resulted in a greater appreciation to those who garden, for the entire greenhouse-esque building omitted the most powerful sense of nature I had felt in a very long time. Every wall was covered in vegeatation from top to bottom, and my short walk among the beautiful greenery alone instilled an incredible calmness in me for the remainder of the day. Walking through the beauty and dynamism of nature reminded me that there are greater things at work in the universe than humans, which humbled me significantly. I came to the realization that the people who work so hard to achieve the awe of the Myriad Gardens must truly gain harmony with the world and themselves after experiencing the gardens they helped to bloom.

            My last attempt to discover the peace of gardening led me to purchase a plant and see if I could achieve the tranquility everyone seems to be talking about from watching it grow. For three weeks now I have been caring for an aloe vera plant that lives in my room at OCU. Even though aloe plants do not require much maintenance, I enjoy having being around it. I water it every Wednesday, and already its color has gone from a sickly slightly brown to a vibrant bright green. Knowing that I helped a living thing to recover from illness made me incredibly happy; as a result the aloe vera plant has boosted my everyday morale and instilled more happiness in my life. I look forward to the days I can feed the plant, and I enjoy opening the blinds for it every morning. I do not even have to get dirty to take care of my plant, because it lives in a pot rather than an outdoor garden. One day soon I get to transfer the plant to a larger pot where it can grow even bigger and healthier than before.

            Gardening extraordinaire Cheryl Patterson must have been correct when she said to “surround yourself with special things that you enjoy, that will give you a moment to pause, reflect and just feel good, “(Patterson). My search into the mystery of gardening has led me to change my opinion that gardening was only grueling work for old ladies; I have found that gardening can induce feeling of calm tranquility and harmony with yourself and the world, and yes, plants can in fact be peaceful. 

American Horticultural Therapy Association. Ahta.org. 2014 Web. 23 March, 2014.

Ballard, Rebecca. Personal Interview. 23 March, 2014.

Patterson, Cheryl. “Create a Sacred Garden.” Natural Life May 2008: 12. MasterFILE

            Premier. Web. 12 Mar. 2014.

Sadi. Gardening Quotes and “Gardenisms.” Northerngardening. Web. 23 March, 2014.

Save the Forests

            

            One of the most formidable problems fighting against the environment today is seen in the form of deforestation. Deforestation, or the removal of vegetation from natural areas, occurs planet-wide and contributes to a rising number of consequences each year, including climate change and the endangering of species. If action is not taken against deforestation soon, the resulting changes to the Earth could be devastating.

            Deforestation occurs for several reasons. The top cause for clearing natural areas is attributed to the unsustainable logging industry, where massive companies cut down trees for timber and building supplies.  Deforestation can also happen in the case of forest fires caused by human error, clear-cutting for agricultural purposes, and ranching or urban development.  Humans are the source for this degradation of wildlife, and it is up to us to make the decision to solve the issue or let it burn out of control.

            In the case of climate change, deforestation plays a major role. Trees are producers of oxygen, essential to the survival of human beings. Trees also absorb carbon dioxide, which is detrimental to human beings as well as to the atmosphere. When trees are removed from the land, a key part in the checks and balances system of the natural earth goes missing. The resulting large amounts of carbon dioxide are then free to roam in the air, mixing with pollution and gradually wearing away at the planet’s protective ozone layer, contributing to global warming.

            The effect of animal endangerment is slightly different; instead of a buildup of looming disaster, animals are immediately deprived of essential natural resources. Deforestation destroys natural habitats, displacing the local wildlife from their homes. As forests get smaller and smaller, species are confined to limited grounds for hunting and for finding all elements essential to survival. As trees lessen to the minimum, the animals will eventually die, and perhaps become extinct.

            “Save the Forests” is a visual argument that protests against tragic deforestation. The teddy bear in one hand holds a protest sign depicting two grizzly bears kissing, saying, ‘We deserve love too, Save the forests!’ The handle of the sign reads, ‘Fight Deforestation Today,’ furthering the protest. In his right hand, the stuffed bear holds a real leaf in the shape of a heart.

            The message of the bear is straightforward, save the forests. However, the delivery of the message appeals to pathos as a form of argument. The stuffed teddy bear relates to all ages, since most people owned one as a child. Teddy bears, as a general consensus, are also considered cute, so their message is more likely to be widely accepted. The bear’s sign portrays two real life grizzlies touching noses, or kissing, adding to the ‘cute factor.’ “We Deserve Love Too” is the plea coming from all bears; just like humans, bears form families and have children whom they love. When humans take away the bears’ homes, the bears are no longer able to love one another because they are endangered and dying. “Save the Forests” is the stuffed bear’s solution to the problem. As seen on the handle of the protest sign, fighting against deforestation is the way to save the forests. The leaf heart held by the bear promotes the forests as well as the desire to allow living things to love one another.

            The materials that make up the visual also promote its message. The cardboard backing to the protest sign advances the cause of protesting deforestation, since cardboard is a recycled resource. The plastic straw acting as the sign handle is also a recycled resource, and is also green, the color of forests. The leaf heart is a real leaf, taken from a real tree, and is also green.

            The creators of “Save the Forests” are promoters of fighting against deforestation; therefore, they are likely advocators of using renewable resources. The creators use grizzly bears as the focal point for protecting wildlife, so they desire to make known the plight of threatened bears. Grizzly bears are native to North America and were once roaming the continent freely. Today they are restricted to reside in small, protected areas due to deforestation in America and Canada.

            Using pathos and heartwarming love as the argument strategy, “Save the Forests” utilizes grizzly bears as its example of the tragic consequences of deforestation. Due to the clearing of trees in natural environments, both world climate and animals are placed in such a jeopardy that could never be rectified unless the perpetrators of deforestation stop and change their course of action when it comes to destroying the natural environment. 

Implicit Argument, Girls Say Yes to Boys Who Say No

           

           The year 1954 marked the beginning of one of the most infamous battles known to the United States of America, the Vietnam War. The war started as a conflict between North Vietnam and South Vietnam, when the socialist-controlled North undertook the task of converting South Vietnam to a communist country. South Vietnam retaliated, and so initiated the nineteen year long struggle against leader Ho Chi Minh and his Viet Cong allies.

President Richard Nixon of the United States made the executive decision in 1965 to send US combat troops to Vietnam in aid to the South on the basis that if one country fell to communism, more and more would follow in the domino effect. However, after fighting for years in Vietnam to no avail, American morale and support for the war began to deteriorate. Many citizens felt that the United States had no business meddling in Asian affairs, and the young soldiers were dying for no reason.

One obvious response to the unwillingness of Americans to participate in the war was seen in their opposition to the draft. American men aged 18 to 26 were required, if notified, to engage in military action of the government’s choosing. After a few years of failed combat in Asia, the population of the U.S., especially the younger generation, began to openly defy conscription. Anti-war sentiment spread widely among the youngsters, seen prominently on college campuses and in counterculture. Protesting men burned their draft cards, and some even resorted to fleeing north to Canada in order to escape conscription.

“GIRLS SAY YES to boys who say NO” is one of many peace-led propaganda posters that cropped up during the Vietnam War Era. Funded by and showcasing U.S. folk singer and political activist Joan Baez, the 1968 ad protests against the United States’ involvement in Vietnam. Its main message, “Girls Say Yes to Boys Who Say No,” targets the prime age group for conscription, young men in their late teens and early twenties. Three young and attractive women are depicted sitting on a couch, seemingly directing their message to the men viewing the poster. The girls promote the fact that only boys who oppose the draft and burn their draft cards or something of the like will find the fortune of having a pretty lady fall in love with them. If they do give in to the draft, they will be swept away to grueling war and never know true love and happiness, because what girl in her right mind would want to be with a man who agreed with violence and murder?

The ad appeals to more than just young men’s desires for marriage; the clothes that the women wear also engage viewers’ sex-appeal. The ladies wear very short shorts for the decade, with the fabric cutting off high above their knees. The most prominent part of their bodies shown are their alluring crossed legs, enticing the young men to agree with whatever the women want in order to get them to “say yes.” Two of the young ladies are barefoot, adding to the appealing exposure of skin. However, all three of the ladies wear fashionable hats, giving them credibility as high-class and modest, even more of a prize for young men to claim.

Since one of the girls in the poster is a famous artist of the era, and the other two girls are her sisters, the young generation of Americans was likely to recognize Joan’s face at first glance to the poster. Baez and other conscription-resistors employed celebrity peer pressure in order to get the message across that war was unnecessary and the draft was a terrible phenomenon. The background of the poster enhances Baez’s opinion as one of influence by showing the surroundings of a superstar. The high quality and expensive-looking sofa, shag rug, and blanket add to Joan’s credibility. The guitars on the walls as well as the landscape painting hung centered above the girls’ heads connects them and their message to the common American people, as traditional music and patriotic scenery are relatable to everybody. This highly esteemed, popular, and attractive young lady had the ability to coax her fans and followers into believing as she did.

The smaller memo at the bottom of the image, “Proceeds from the sale of this poster go to The Draft Resistance,” confirms for the viewers that anti-conscription efforts were all-the-rage at the time. Everyone who had a heart and mind for the preservation of American lives would oppose the draft and all war efforts in Vietnam. This poster and others like it contributed to a vast portion of defiance to the Vietnam War, and in the long run gave influence to the recall of American troops to U.S. soil.

Girls Say Yes to Boys Who Say No. 1968. Photograph. 1960-1969 Posters & Postcards. Retronaut. Comp. New Zealand History Online. Joan Baez, 25 Sept. 2012. Web. 02 Mar. 2014.

Swept Away

Swept Away

            “Get under something hard and cover your heads, now!” were the last words I heard before my life, literally, was flipped upside down. On May 20, 2013, one of the largest tornadoes ever recorded in Oklahoma swept through the city of Moore, demolishing neighborhoods and schools in a matter of minutes. Thankfully my family and pets were unharmed, but we were left homeless in the confusing wake of natural disaster. Cases of dislocation such as mine are seen throughout history again and again, though most accounts focus on the struggle of the whole region affected rather than the battles of individual accounts. The effects of personal dislocation are wrought with stressful confusion and despair; fortunately, with an optimistic approach to the conflict from both those affected and those who wish to help, dislocation can gradually transform into normal life once more.

One prominent example of dislocation seen in the twentieth century is the negative consequences of the Great Depression and Dust Bowl. Thousands of families throughout the plains region of the United States were forced to relocate due to the inhabitability of their blackened and dirt-infiltrated homes. In search of jobs and safer living conditions, “Okies” such as Minnie Louise Forester Briggs migrated from their poor farms to the rich lands of California, (“Biographies: Minnie Louise Forester Briggs”). Unfortunately, upon their arrival, swarms of Americans had to reconcile to the fact that prosperity would not be found even in dust-free states, for on top of the storm-stricken plains, the economy of the entire country plummeted to poverty. Fortunately, President Franklin D. Roosevelt held high hopes for the country, and in 1935 implemented the Works Progress Administration sector of the New Deal, successfully boosting the spirits of the U.S. “Roosevelt’s vision of a work-relief program employed more than 8.5 million people. For an average salary of $41.57 a month, WPA employees built bridges, roads, public buildings, public parks and airports,” (“The Works Progress Administration”). Families like Minnie’s that held on to hope of a better tomorrow were able to seize hold of the President’s helping hand in the midst of trial and pull themselves along with the country into a thriving society.

Another example of dislocation and its relief is evident in the Holocaust during the mid-1900’s. The story of Norman Salsitz’s plight portrays the hardships of surviving disaster under even the most daunting oppression. Born an ill-fated Jew in Poland during the Nazi regime, Norman was transported to a concentration camp at a young age where he watched a majority of his family murdered before his eyes. Soon after, the Russian army liberated the camp, allowing Norman to escape with his life. Joining the Polish armed forces under false identification, Norman worked against German influences in the newly liberated country. At age 27 he and his wife illegally immigrated to America where Norman fought to retain a sense of personal identity, for despite surviving the worst occurrence of genocide in world history, Norman woefully continued to feel oppressed in the foreign country. “I didn’t know the language. I didn’t know the people. I didn’t have a trade. I didn’t have a job. This… You became, you became worthless,” (Salsitz). Surrounded by unfamiliarity for long periods of time, Norman gradually adapted to his surroundings. His wife Amalie continually encouraged him in his endeavors to connect to the ominous society. With the help of long distance relatives who provided jobs and support, along with the bright goal of providing a better life for his daughter Esther, Norman endeavored to thrive as a Jewish-American businessman throughout the remainder of his long life. He rejoiced in saying, “America took me in and nourished me, brought me back to health. And America did everything for me that I never dreamt that America would do it for me,” (Salsitz).

A third instance of the effects of dislocation is present in the devastation of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. One of hundreds of families torn from their homes is the Thomas crew. The family of eight took refuge in their attic during the onslaught of deadly water to Louisiana. Hours later, they tore a hole in the roof to get to safety as every surrounding house and street flooded stories high. With the state in a disarray of emergency, the Thomases and thousands of others were boarded onto government flights evacuating refugees from the city. Unaware of their destination until arrival, the large family landed in Arizona, a dry state completely opposite from their humid bayou home. The eight survivors were without food, clothes, housing, and any personal items that were not with them in the attic on that August day. Stranded in an unfamiliar city, all they had to hold onto was each other and their hopes that things could only get better. Fortunately, the new community reached out to the Thomas’, providing much needed necessities and friendships. “They became the mini-celebrities of the neighborhood, with folks coming over almost daily to introduce themselves and offer help. Neighbors threw birthday parties for the children. Walmart provided a credit account for shopping. A car dealership offered a Dodge Caravan,” (“Life since Hurricane Katrina”). One Arizona couple lent their rent house free of charge to the family, where they were able to stay until they could establish a home of their own. Due to the kindness of their neighbors and their own steadfast courage, the Thomas family was able to withstand the trials of catastrophe as best they could and pull through headstrong.

My own story of the May 20^th tornado is not so different from the plight of the Biggs family, Thomas family, and Norman Salsitz. At 3:30 in the afternoon I took cover within the concrete walls of my high school drama room, dog piled on classmates under a table with textbooks covering our heads. Even after hearing the train-like rumble of the whirlwind pass less than a mile away, we could not relax until we heard the news about the rest of the city. Slowly students who retained cell phone signal spread the news that a majority of our houses had been blown down, including our elementary schools. My house, right between Briarwood and Plaza Towers, was gone, along with those of several close friends’ and teachers’. However, losing my home and possessions meant absolutely nothing, because the only thing on my mind was praying for my family’s safety. My best friend’s mother was inside her house when it fell down; she brought the news as she walked mud-splattered with her two dogs over to the school that everything in sight was demolished. She walked back to my house to collect my mother, sister, and great-grandmother who were trapped in our storm cellar due to the dining room that fell on top of the door. As soon as my loved ones were safely in sight, my perspective on life changed. I only went to my house to collect debris and clean a few times in the aftermath of the tornado, for I did not wish to keep the worldly possessions worth so much less than the love I felt for my family. That summer I lived with my grandparents, and everything I owned could fit into my donated duffel bag. The courage of Moore and the kindness of helpers from around the country astounded me; groups flooded to the city, and countless people offered help ranging from cans of Vienna sausages to manpower yielding sledgehammers. I have never seen so much love in one place than I did in Oklahoma, 2013. I was sad, but at the same time happy, for I knew that things could only get better for my community and myself. A few months afterwards, my parents bought a new house a few miles down the street, where they currently live with brand new furniture and outlooks. My friends are rebuilding, and the city no longer looks like a movie set. We are all moving on as best we can thanks to the optimistic support flooding in from all sides and our drive to move on.

The best anyone can do when faced with tragedy is to look at the situation with his head held high. Making the best of the circumstance and accepting the love of others can lift one’s spirits higher than they ever could have gone on their own; from personal experience and the plight of similar cases, it is clear that the affects of dislocation can be tragic. However, when working together with confident hopes, the affected can, over the course of time, ardently attempt to remedy the afflicted faults and return to a life of harmony with the world.

           Works Cited

“Biographies: Minnie Louise Forester Briggs.” PBS.org. Web. 9 February 2014.

“Life Since Hurricane Katrina: 3 Dramatic Stories of Survival.” Khou.com. KHOU News, 28 August 2010. Web. 9 February 2014.

Salsitz, Norman. “Life After the Holocaust: Norman Salsitz.” USHMM.org. New    Radio and Performing Arts Studio and United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2013. Web. 9 February 2014.

“The Works Progress Administration (WPA).” PBS.org. Web. 9 February 2014.

Conflict Resolution Essay Rough Draft

Conflict Resolution Essay Rough Draft

            On May 20, 2013, my life changed forever. One of the largest tornadoes ever recorded in Oklahoma swept through the city of Moore, demolishing neighborhoods and schools in a matter of minutes. Thankfully my family and pets were unharmed, but we were left homeless in the confusing wake of natural disaster. Cases of dislocation such as mine are seen throughout history again and again, though most accounts focus on the struggle of the whole region affected rather than the battles of individual accounts. The effects of personal dislocation are wrought with stressful confusion and despair; fortunately, with an optimistic approach to the conflict from both those affected and those who wish to help, dislocation can gradually transform into normal life once more.

            One prominent example of dislocation seen in the twentieth century is the negative consequences of the Great Depression and Dust Bowl. Thousands of families throughout the plains region of the United States were forced to relocate due to the inhabitability of their blackened and dirt-infiltrated homes. In search of jobs and safer living conditions, “Okies” such as Minnie Louise Forester Briggs migrated from their poor farms to the rich lands of California, (“Biographies: Minnie Louise Forester Briggs”). Unfortunately, upon their arrival, swarms of Americans had to reconcile to the fact that prosperity would not be found even in dust-free states, for on top of the storm-stricken plains, the economy of the entire country plummeted to poverty. Fortunately, President Franklin D. Roosevelt held high hopes for the country, and in 1935 implemented the Works Progress Administration sector of the New Deal, successfully boosting the spirits of the U.S. “Roosevelt’s vision of a work-relief program employed more than 8.5 million people. For an average salary of $41.57 a month, WPA employees built bridges, roads, public buildings, public parks and airports,” (“The Works Progress Administration”). Families like Minnie’s that held on to hope of a better tomorrow were able to seize hold of the President’s helping hand in the midst of trial and pull themselves along with the country into a thriving society.

            Another example of dislocation and its remedy is evident in the Holocaust during the mid-1900’s. The story of Norman Salsitz’s plight portrays the hardships of surviving disaster under even the most daunting oppression. Born an unfortunate Jew in Poland during the Nazi regime, Norman was transported to a concentration camp at a young age where he watched a majority of his family murdered before his eyes. Soon after, the Russian army liberated the camp, allowing Norman to escape with his life. Joining the Polish armed forces under false identification, Norman worked against German influences in the newly liberated country. At age 27 he and his wife illegally immigrated to America where Norman fought to retain a sense of personal identity, for despite surviving the worst occurrence of genocide in world history, Norman continued to feel oppressed in the foreign country. “I didn’t know the language. I didn’t know the people. I didn’t have a trade. I didn’t have a job. This… You became, you became worthless,” (Salsitz). Surrounded by unfamiliarity for long periods of time, Norman gradually adapted to his surroundings. His wife Amalie continually encouraged him in his endeavors to connect to the ominous society. With the help of long distance relatives and the bright goal of providing a better life for his daughter Esther, Norman thrived as a Jewish-American businessman throughout the remainder of his long life. He rejoiced in saying, “America took me in and nourished me, brought me back to health. And America did everything for me that I never dreamt that America would do it for me,” (Salsitz).

            A third instance of the effects of dislocation is seen in the devastation of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. One of hundreds of families torn from their homes is the Thomas crew. The family of eight took refuge in their attic during the onslaught of deadly water to Louisiana. Hours later, they tore a hole in the roof to get to safety as every surrounding house and street was flooded stories high. With the state in a disarray of emergency, the Thomases and hundreds of others were boarded onto government flights evacuating refugees from the city. Unaware of their destination until arrival, the large family landed in Arizona, a dry state completely opposite from their humid bayou home. The eight survivors were without food, clothes, housing, and any personal items that were not with them in the attic on that August day. Stranded in an unfamiliar city, all they had to hold onto was each other and their hopes that things could only get better. Fortunately, the new community reached out to the Thomases, providing much needed necessities and friendships. “They became the mini-celebrities of the neighborhood, with folks coming over almost daily to introduce themselves and offer help. Neighbors threw birthday parties for the children. Walmart provided a credit account for shopping. A car dealership offered a Dodge Caravan,” (“Life since Hurricane Katrina”). One Arizona couple lent their rent house free of charge to the family, where they were able to stay until they could establish a home of their own. Due to the kindness of their neighbors and their own steadfast courage, the Thomas family was able to withstand the trials of catastrophe and pull through headstrong.

            My own story of the May 20^th tornado is not so different from the plight of the Biggs family, Thomas family, and Norman Salsitz. At 3:30 in the afternoon I took cover in the concrete walls of my highschool drama room, dogpiled on classmates under a table, with textbooks covering our heads. Even after hearing the train-like rumble of the whirlwind passed less than a mile away, we could not relax until we heard the news about the rest of the city. Slowly students who retained cell phone signal spread the news that a majority of our houses had been blown down, including our elementary schools. My house, right between Briarwood and Plaza Towers, was gone, along with those of several close friends’ and teachers’. However, losing my home and possessions meant absolutely nothing, because the only thing on my mind was praying for my family’s safety. My best friend’s mother was inside her house when it fell down; she brought the news as she walked mud-splattered with her two dogs over to the school that everything in sight was demolished. She walked back to my house to collect my mother, sister, and great-grandmother who were trapped in our storm cellar due to the dining room that fell on top of the door. As soon as I knew my loved ones were safe, my perspective on life changed. In the aftermath of the tornado, I only went to my house to collect and clean a few times, for I did not wish to keep the worldly possessions worth so much less than the love I felt for my family. That summer I lived with my grandparents, and everything I owned could fit into my donated duffel bag. The courage of Moore and the kindness of helpers from around the country astounded me; groups flooded to the city, and countless people offered help ranging from cans of Vienna sausages to manpower yielding sledgehammers. I have never seen so much love in one place than I did in Oklahoma, 2013. I was sad, but at the same time happy, for I knew that things could only get better for my community and me. A few months afterwards, my parents bought a new house a few miles down the street, where they currently live with brand new furniture and outlooks. My friends are rebuilding, and the city no longer looks like a movie set. We are all moving on as best we can thanks to the optimistic support flooding in from all sides.

            The best anyone can do when faced with tragedy is to look at the situation with his head held high. Making the best of the circumstance and accepting the love of others can lift one’s spirits higher than they ever could have gone on their own; from personal experience and the plight of similar cases, it is clear that the affects of dislocation can be tragic. However, when working together with confident hopes, the affected can, over the course of time, remedy the afflicted faults and return to a life of harmony with the world.

 

 

           

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

 

“Biographies: Minnie Louise Forester Briggs.” PBS.org. Web. 9 February 2014.

“Life Since Hurricane Katrina: 3 Dramatic Stories of Survival.” Khou.com. KHOU News, 28 August 2010. Web. 9 February 2014.

Salsitz, Norman. “Life After the Holocaust: Norman Salsitz.” USHMM.org. New Radio

and Performing Arts Studio and United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2013. Web. 9 February 2014.

“The Works Progress Administration (WPA).” PBS.org. Web. 9 February 2014.