Legalize Weed!

Marijuana Legalization position paper

The question of whether or not marijuana should be legalized has been an ongoing discussion ever since the prohibition of the plant in 1927. Although the reasoning as to why marijuana was made illegal seemed rational at first, the real terms of the experiment were released leaving room for discussion. I will disprove the theories attributing brain cell loss to marijuana consumption by exposing the hidden facts of the original marijuana experiment. I will also examine the many industrial purposes of the hemp plant in attempt to persuade those against the legalization of marijuana that this drug's benefits far outweigh its negative stereotype.

Marijuana is the product of an extremely versatile hemp crop. The key difference between Hemp and Marijuana is that hemp lacks the resin glads found in marijuana which produces tetrahydrocannobinal or THC. Therefore, Hemp only has one tenth the amount of THC that would be found in a marijuana plant. THC is the main ingredient responsible for triggering the commonly known side effects of marijuana. Considering that hemp does not contain these high levels of THC, the fact that it is illegal for industrial purposes is simply irrational. Industrial hemp is composed of three primary parts; seeds, hurds, and fiber. All of these parts have strong benefits to our present day lifestyles in the United States. The seeds provide many nutrients for people and animals and can also be used in oils for shampoos, soaps, and many other cosmetic products. The oil which is produced from the hemp plant contains the highest amount of polyunsaturated fats of any plant in the plant kingdom. This oil has many benefits including the clinically proven treatment of arthritis and premenstrual syndrome. The fiber of the hemp plant has many industrial purposes in making clothes, rope, and paper. In fact, Hemps absorbency and strength make it the most durable fiber in the world. Its resistance to salt water, UV light, and raw strength would make it an elite and highly valuable product in todays market. Lastly, the hurds, or woody core, can be used for paper as well as other chemicals, plastics, fuels, etc which would help the issue of deforestation. Along with the benefits produced from the basic processing of hemp, the waste resulting from this process also yields many benefits as well. The vast amount of waste can be used in paper making, as a biomass for fuel production, and serves as a renewable source of raw material for pastiche production.

The most popular and untruthful arguments against the legalization of marijuana is it causes smokers cough, has harmful affects to proper brain function, and kills brain cells. In the Heath Tulane experiment released by Ronald Ragan in 1974 he stated, "the most reliable scientific sources says permeant brain damage is one of the inevitable results of the use of marijuana." Throughout the study monkeys were pumped full of marijuana, supposedly 30 joints per day. Naturally, these monkeys began to die after 90 days. However, after 6 long years of requests about the true nature of the study many startling facts were uncovered. According to a documentary, "The Union," Adam Scorgie states, "instead of administering 30 joints a day for one year, they were given an equivalent of 63 columbian strength joints through a gas mask within 5 minutes over 3 months." In other words, these monkeys were pumped full of marijuana without any additional oxygen and consequently suffocated to death. By blocking the brain from receiving oxygen, the brain cells in these monkeys were killed but instead of attributing the death of brain cells to suffocation the experimenters claimed this was the direct result of smoking marijuana. The government then portrayed marijuana to the public as a harmful and damaging drug. Because of these untruthful conclusions marijuana was made illegal and a misleading stereotype began. These false claims became the basis for the illegalization movement when the results of the study should have proven otherwise.

As I stated above there is absolutely no evidence that marijuana causes brain cell damage. With that being known, marijuana should not only be legalized because of the many beneficial industrial purposes this plant provides but also because it is not proven that this drug is directly linked to any harmful longterm health issues.

Jordan Verastique

Should Fast Food Be Banned?

Lower the Drinking Age

One of the many controversial issues today is the movement to lower the drinking age in the United States to eighteen. Only four countries in the entire world have a drinking age of twenty-one: Ukraine, South Korea, Malaysia, and of course the United States. All other countries have a lower drinking age, and some don't even have a legal age. Some argue that lowering the drinking age would result in more drinking and driving deaths. I don't believe this would occur. Instead, I believe the number of deaths would remain approximately the same, with more deaths in the 21-24 age group than in the 18-20 age group. Another argument against lowering the drinking age is that eighteen year olds aren't mature enough to drink alcohol. However, when you are eighteen, you are eligible to vote, serve on juries, fly an airplane, and even old enough to join the military. I don't see how an eighteen year old can be mature enough to make the decision to serve his or her country at war, but not mature enough to drink a beer. Also, who says that twenty-one is the magical age where you're all of a sudden mature enough to drink? Gradually introducing the concept of responsible conception at an earlier age would lead to less alcohol-related incidents later on when young adults move out on their own and are no longer supervised. A possible way to gradually introduce alcohol to eighteen year olds would be to only allow them to drink beer or wine at eighteen, then allow hard liquor consumption when they turn twenty-one. However, I do understand that this could be a hard law to enforce, since it would be dificult to distinguish if an eighteen year old had consumed beer/wine or hard liquor. Placing the drinking age at an age extremely higher than the world average has not kept minors from being able to obtain alcohol. There have been many studies and surveys taken that show it has still been relatively easy for minors to obtain alcohol despite the high age requirement. Also, during your college years, it puts a bind on friendships with those friends who are of age when you are underage, and vice versa, because many times you are unable to go to the same places together. It is time to join the rest of the world and lower our country's drinking age to eighteen.

Corey Inboden

Should HIgh Schools Drug Test Their Athletes?

Back when I was in high school, our school board added a new policy where all athletes would be randomly drug tested. If the athletes failed, then they were suspended from two of their games. This policy became very controversial among most students, faculty members, and parents. Most students, of course, disagreed with this because they felt as if it was an invasion of privacy and that it was completely ridiculous that they were gonna drug test a bunch of high school kids. All the parents, with exception to some of them, disagreed with the students and thought it was a great idea. The parents and the school's faculty believed that threatening the athletes with random drug testing would keep the students away from the drugs and out of trouble, even if this meant the best football/basketball players being suspended. In my opinion, I believed the drug testing was just a waste of time and money. The school board believed that this was going to change many athletes into better students and that we would be a drug free campus. But in reality, the drug testing didn't change the way students felt about drugs and didn't stop them from the students from doing them. If anything, it encouraged the students more to do drugs because they were so annoyed with the fact that they might be drug tested. So one can see many valid points and why they should drug test, but either way it isn't going to keep the athletes away from the drugs.

Kara Oliver

Why Voluntary Euthanasia Should be Legal

By Ginger Tamijani

Imagine a loved one has a terminal illness and has been given less than six months to live. They are in immense pain and are in a hospice, just waiting to die. Your loved one feels absolutely awful, and wants to die peacefully instead of being constantly drugged up, unable to walk or even eat on their own. However, their request must be denied, because voluntary euthanasia is illegal and is considered to be assisted suicide, and when a doctor does decide to end a patient’s suffering, they serve a jail sentence, like the case of Dr. Jack Kevorkian who was a man who performed mercy killings upon his patients upon their request.

It’s sad when one realizes that animals have more rights than human beings when it comes to the process of dying. This past April, my dog Hank was getting quite sick and weak, and was diagnosed with a heart murmur. The vet said that the best and most humane thing to do would be to gently put him to sleep to end his suffering. Though my family and I were devastated that it had to come to this, we realized that it he was such a sweet and amazing animal who did not deserve to live in such pain. With this in mind, why must it only be applied to animals? Do humans not deserve to die comfortably and removed from the misery and dreariness of the dying process?

As human beings, we deserve the right to die with dignity. Studies and tests performed on people seeking voluntary euthanasia have proven that they are not mentally ill or depressed; they merely want their suffering to end.

Free Speech Policy on UA Campus

At the University of Arkansas for the fall 2010 semester a new policy was instilled to limit the number of times a person who is not related to the U of A can come to campus and make a speech. The new limit is five times a semester. The previous regulation was that a person not associated with the university had to obtain a permit to speak or make exhibits on campus. A speaker still has to obtain a permit to speak but there is also a limit to five visits per semester. As most upper classmen know there is a man referred to as “Moses” who used to frequent our campus. “Moses” whose real name is Gary Bowman would come to campus to preach about sin and the evil behaviors that students allegedly partake in. Moses makes attacks on Greek life and typical college behavior like drinking. When he comes to campus it’s obvious students don’t agree with his accusations because of the muttering and whispers of disagreement from the crowd, yet Moses still gathers a large crowd sometimes of thirty people or more.

So is this policy even legal is it violating the right of free speech? Can the university decide how many times someone can come to the campus to make a speech about whatever they wish? I absolutely believe the university is permitted to establish this policy. I think that the university in a sense has the “all powerful” authority about what happens on campus. When students, faculty, and staff are on campus we have to abide by the rules and policies the university executes. As long as those policies and regulations are ethical and hold the good of the students at heart I think they are viable.

University officials claim this free speech policy was not directed at Moses but to be applied to all people not related to the university. I think that even if the policy was applied to limit the times Moses could come to our campus it is perfectly okay. Moses is a complete distraction to students on campus. Not only is he offensive and unwanted by most students, but students become distracted by his speeches and the crowds of people that surround him. I know students who have wanted to stick around to listen to Moses’ crazy allegations and have skipped class because of it. When crowds gather to listen to Moses I often have to walk around the large circle to get to my class. People should not be ban from coming to speak on our campus and they are not. It is simply that there is a limit to how many times someone can come speak which I believe is absolutely feasible. We will still hear what you want to say we just don’t want to hear it once a week.

Allison Lafargue

Yay For Uniforms!

Coming from a background where I had to wear a uniform everyday to school kindergarten through twelfth grade, I feel that I am qualified to write about implementing uniforms into public schools. This argument is a complicated one that has many pros and cons. Some people agree that by wearing uniforms a student is not allowed to express his or her individuality. Others think that enforcing uniform rules may make children more prone to get into trouble. By taking away some of their freedoms by making them wear a specific thing could aggravate some children’s naturally rebellious spirit to make them want to resist conformity even more. They may tighten, widen, shorten, and lengthen the uniforms in order to rebel.

On the other hand, I believe that a school uniform would be a positive thing for public schools to require. I used to hate wearing the same thing day after day but once I thought about all the positive things about them, I quickly changed my tune. I would hear stories about how much money the other kids who didn’t have to wear them spent on back to school clothes and it appalled me. Especially in the tender years of middle school that are swarming with bullies just waiting to criticize any little thing they can, I believe that having uniforms would take stress off of kids who are trying to fit in. If everyone wears the same thing then kids wouldn’t feel self conscious about not wearing designer clothes or wearing last year’s hand-me-downs and it would ease tension altogether. Schools focus on making sure that a student’s individuality and uniqueness isn’t determined by the kind of clothing they wear. Also studies have shown that in elementary schools with uniforms children tend to perform better because they are more focused. Clothing can be a distraction to learning and school for some becomes an unending fashion show. Another positive thing about school uniforms is the price. So many families spend hundreds of dollars on a new wardrobe for their growing child each school year. School uniforms are a bargain and are way more economical than designer brands and trendy fad clothes. Also uniforms can help build school spirit and instills a sense of belonging in students. In general I believe that students and families alike would benefit a lot from implementing uniforms into public school systems.

New School Integration

School Integration has long since been a very hot topic of debate since the Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954. The Jefferson County School District was trying to integrate a new plan that will make schools in the country more diverse with having an enrollment based on race that was 15% to 50% African-American, but the Supreme Court shot that down. Now they're trying a new plan that will assign students to schools throughout the district based on household income while still trying to integrate and some of those students are assigned to schools that are an hour or more from their home and in most cases in a worse neighborhood. They claim that this will help students when they become adults by experiencing diversity but at what cost? I believe that students should be able to choose what school they want to attend and not be forced to attend a school that is in a dangerous neighborhood and has lower test scores when they have a perfectly good school closer to home. The Brown vs. Board of Education overturned schools being able to tell students where they could and could not go to school based on race, but is that not what is happening here just a reversed situation? As a parent I would not want a school district telling me where my child had to go to school based on integration when my child will suffer because of it.

-Shae N

The Death penalty, which is legally known as capital punishment, has been in debate since it has first been in discussion. It has never been illegal in America, and although it creates controversy, it will not disappear anytime soon. Some people see it as a violation of the eighth amendment "cruel and unusual punishment", and costs of the actual death sentence is very expensive. Others believe it is the only punishment that should be allowed for a crime that is so heinous. 60% of domestic Americans feel the death penalty should be used and that number is only increasing over the years. The Death penalty should definitely be in consideration when lives are taken by a indescribable brutal act to the highest degree.

Back in 1997 a ten-year old boy was lured into a car by two men in Cambridge, Massachusetts who promised the boy a new bicycle. When he got in the car the two men attempted to rape him. When he resisted they beat him, and smothered him with a gasoline-soaked rag and proceeded to sexually assault him as he lay dying. His body was found six days later in a container at the bottom of the river in Maine. The governor of Massachusetts, which continually has the lowest crime rate in America, electrified the state with saying it was long pass due for the death penalty to be placed on the two men.

Another example is in 2007 a home invasion murder of a Connecticut mother Jennifer Hawke- Petit and her two daughters Haley 17 and Michaela 11 by the killer Steven Hayes. He was convicted of 16 felony counts which included raping the mother and one of the daughters. The only survivor was the husband and father Dr. William Petit who was beaten and tied to a pole in the basement, but escaped to the neighbors house shortly before his house was burned down with his family still inside. Connecticut has only executed one prisoner in the last 40 years and is considering the execution of Steven Hayes. The only set back is the cost weighing out Steven sitting in jail for the rest of his life.

Overall both of these stories show the emotional strain that the victims families have to suffer with once their innocent loved ones are gone. Yes, the cost of the process might be expensive but should that be even considered for the crime they committed? The death sentence can somehow give people some closure to what will be a part of them for the rest of their lives. But is this closure enough? Maybe not, but at least they can peacefully know that in their eyes the killers justice was served.

Sarah Giffin

Toddlers & Tiaras: Teaching kids the right things?

On Wednesday nights, TLC broadcasts the reality series called "Toddlers & Tiaras". Each episode follows three set of parents and toddlers as they participate in a pageant. These toddlers, boys and girls, go through a combination of spray tans, heavy makeup, dental procedures, hairspray, fake eyelashes, and hours upon hours of practice. Finally, the day of the pageant, the children take the stage only to look into the audience and see mom and dad doing every planned step.

This look into the child pageant world is very scary. I'm wondering what these parents are teaching these children. In the show, in the days before the pageant, the parents are not shown encouraging the children, but yelling and forcing them to practice. At the pageant, the children are very mouthy and do not behave well. As a child development major, I believe the parents should guide their children in more appropriate behavior rather than shout out expectations.

These children are taught from a young age that "beauty" is what determines a winner. As they get older, they will consistently measure success by how pretty as person is. A friend of mine posted on her Facebook status quoting her 3 year old daughter "put on Toddlers & Tiaras so I can win the crown next time" Three people judged this pageant and now this little girl is trying to "learn" what to do to win.

A Duncan

BCS vs. Play-off system in college football

Todays college football is much different than it has been in the past. Also it has a bigger fan base than ever. In the old days the polls (AP and Coaches) decided the number one and national champion team. In todays world we have the BCS system. Todays system is based on a computer formulation that brings into consideration many factors including strength of schedule, quality of oppenents etc. In a BCS format many teams get to particicpate in the hype of the post season, which makes it fun for the players, coaches, fans and everyone involved. While it brings more teams into the post season, having more teams does not increase the total number of games played like it does in a play-off system. Many people today are lobbying for the major football leagues to go to a play-off style post season. This type of system in my opinion is not the best choice. A few of the flaws i see in a play-off set up is season length and number of teams involved. With already playing 12 games plus a conference championship game, it seems impossible to play another 4 games or so in the play-offs. Seasons that long would cause more injuries and potentially ruin a young players career. Also I believe that there would always be a problem with the number of teams included. I think that people would always be fighting to let more teams in causing problems. The BCS system also has its flaws, but i believe that the problems and potential problems that would come along with a play-off system would more than outway the cons of the BCS.

-Will Gunnell

Guns On Campus by Megan Carroll

As the majority of you know, campus shootings, whether it be high school or college, are not out of the question. You hope it never happens to your campus or campuses anywhere. What would happen if it did? Students are pitching the idea to the University of Texas and government to pass a law in order for them to be able to carry concealed weapons on campus in order to protect themselves if that situation were to happen on their campus again.

If you remember the Columbine shooting killed 13 people. High school students who just had the urge to shoot people mostly at random and the students not having any weapons to fight back or protect themselves in this situation other than praying to God that their friends and their own life weren't taken in this tragic event.

Virginia Tech, in 2007, had a gunman on campus who took 32 innocent lives that day. They ask what would have happened if they would have had a concealed weapon to protect themselves before the shooting got out of hand. University of Texas had a gunman on campus this year who taunted people with his gun and shot around just to see their reactions. A student quotes "He looked into the library at which thousands of students were hiding in, showed us his gun through the window, and smiled from ear to ear as if it were a game to him." Luckily the gunman didn't shoot anyone or even try to shoot at anyone, only at birds and shots in the air. He took his own life within minutes after police arrived. This isn't the first time UT has seen a gunman. 1966 a man was in the tower that looks over their campus with a hunting rifle and sniped people as they were walking to class. The UT students then pitched an idea to the campus board that consisted of students being allowed to carry a concealed weapon with them at all times incase of this incident happening again. There are other campus shootings that I haven't mentioned.

This idea of students carrying concealed weapons on campus is still in debate. Many people believe students should have the right to protect themselves, I agree. I also believe it would give the gunman easier access to get his/her gun on campus. Would this increase more campus shootings? There are many things to think about before making a decision. The goal is to be safe and feel safe on your own campus.

Megan Carroll

Is the lottery helpful or harmful?

The issue I chose to discuss was about the Arkansas Lottery and how people think it needs to stop since it’s considered “gambling.” Some people think it’s a good thing to have and others think the opposite. I personally never saw anything wrong with lotteries and thought if anything that they were helping people out in a huge way. For some people it could be helping with car payments, bills, mortgage, out of state tuition for a college student, help pay off loans, or anything that could help out in such a big way. I think having the lottery is a very helpful thing to a lot of people and I believe some people do need that help in life.

On the other hand, the people that are opposed to it do have some good points, although I do not consider it to be gambling, saying that the lottery winners could use their money in a very stupid way. It could just give people the excuse to buy pointless things and to not spend their money wisely. For instance they could be using that money to buy drugs, expensive cars they do not necessarily need, anything that would just be digging them into a deeper hole and isn’t very beneficial to their lives.

In conclusion, I don’t think the lottery should be taken away due to the simple fact that it really has helped a lot of people in this world in great ways. For the most part, I would believe that people are putting that money towards things that will have a positive impact on their lives and aren’t putting it towards nonsense and things that they could surely live without. I think the lottery is just something else out there for people to do and might have a shot at getting lucky, what’s so wrong with that?

Againest Act 1= best interest of children?!?

As a child development major, I have learned the importance of a good home environment for a child. The place where a child is raised makes all the difference in their development. Unfortunately, some children are abandoned by their parents and have no place they can call home. In a situation where a child is abused, abandoned, or parents have passed away they would go into the foster care system to live with a family. Now because of Act 1, it is illegal for unmarried couples to adopt in Arkansas. This leaves thousands of children homeless because they cannot move in with or be adopted by single parent families, cohabiting couples, or gay/lesbian couples. This act does not support the best interest of children and families.
In the year 2010 the definition of family is no longer clear cut, there are step families, homosexual families, and single parent families. Over half of all marriages end in divorce, so children live either in single parent homes or have stepparents. The "Leave it to Beaver" family image is not realistic in America anymore. Act 1, is not practical when it comes to the current definition of family. What is important is not how your family is formed but if there is love and support. A lesbian family can achieve love and support for a child just as well as heterosexual couples. There is no proof that a child growing up in a homosexual family automatically becomes gay. Isn't a home for a child better than no home at all? Apparently not in Arkansas..." at any one time in Arkansas 3,700 kids needing foster care; there are only 1000 eligible foster parents" (www.arktimes.com). This law discriminates against homosexuals, unmarried couples, and single parents as a group, calling them "unfit" for adopting. This law doesn't even go by a case by case basis; it just declares people who aren't married can't create a loving home environment.
People who are in support of this law believe that a marriage creates stability in the home. Supporters of Act 1 say that a couple who is cohabiting without marriage may not stay together long term, which may hurt the child. Stephen, who blogged about his opinion on a website said that if a couple can't commit to each other through marriage, how are they suppose to commit to a child for 18+ years? Basically, supporters of Act 1 believe without a marriage certificate the relationship of the parents is not secure and an insecure relationship is not in the best interest of the children.
No matter what form a family is in, the most important part is how committed and devoted they are. Act 1 discriminates and hurts the homeless children of Arkansas. Refusing loving homes to children is unfair. Just because two people have a certificate that declares their marriage to each other does not certify them as good parents or stable. To look for the best interest of children, adoption and foster care should be eligible to any form of loving family.

Chloe Goodwin

Should drivers of Automobile be Banned from Using Cell Phones?

Using cell phones has become a mandatory part of everyday life. We use it to check e-mail, weather, play games, and keep in touch with the latest gossip from friends. We, the majority of the population, have become quite dependent on our phones, but when is too much? Using cell phones while driving is a serious problem. Inexperienced drivers do not fully comprehend the gravity of using phones while driving but statistics and studies have shown a drastic increase in accidents while using cell phones since the frenzy has started.
Cell phones are like billboards, passengers, music, and anything else you see driving down the road; they are all distractions. Distractions keep us from paying attention to pedestrians and street signs. Even though we say we know how to use our phones safely while we drive, they still make us break eye contact with the road. We have to look down to dial a phone number or type out a text, and then we always look down when we hang up or to check if we have a message.
Another problem with driving while using the phone is that most people get emotionally involved in their conversations. If we get bad news while we are driving it can make us cry, mad or anything other strong emotion which increases the possibility of accidents.
Using cell phones while driving is a bad idea because it increases our chances of having an accident. It is an overall hazard to the public safety.

Biofuels: Harmful to the American Livestock Farmer

Since the creation of bio-fuels such as Biodiesel and Ethanol, there has been much controversy. Farmers have been thrown under the bus by being forced to pay extremely high prices for feed to produce their livestock. Ethanol and Biodiesel are made from food crops such as corn, soybeans, and other crops that are also use for human and livestock consumption. Being from a farming background I have a great knowledge of what livestock producers are going through. The production of biofuels is increasing at a very rapid rate. 355 million metric tons of corn are being used to produce Ethanol in the United States alone. This is nearly one third of the corn production. In the next five years the amount of corn used is projected to be nearly 50 percent. Biodiesel is growing almost as rapidly in Europe. With the production of biofuels increasing at this incredible rate the prices of grains are also rising to rates that are unaffordable to smaller farmers. Many lobbyists, including the National Pork Producers Council, the National Beef Cattlemen’s Association, and many others are pushing very hard to try and get the 45 cent “blender’s tax” dropped. If the credit continues to be paid then more and more crop producers will begin selling their crops to create biofuels instead of selling them to livestock producers because they will most likely be able to receive more profits for their products.

With the American population continually growing there is a great stain placed on crop and livestock producers to “feed America.” With more and more people selling their crops to Ethanol producers an even greater strain is placed on the rest of the farming sector to make up for the feed shortage. If the grain prices continue to increase then the poorer farmers are going to keep getting out of production because it will be uneconomical for them. Also, production short falls due to climate changes and weather patterns need to be taken into effect. If there is production shortfall and most of the corps are being used for biofuel production then the grain prices will rise once more.

The more biofuels continue to be pushed for by Obama and other government organizations then livestock production is going to continue to decrease. This decrease is going to be devastating to the economy because the prices of meats such as beef, pork, and poultry are going to sky rocket. Although the productions of biofuels are trying to reach the goal of weaning the world off of the use of petroleum based products, they are also causing a great controversy in the Agricultural Sector. America needs to worry more about feeding its population instead of using the majority of its agricultural resources for fuels. There are many other resources that we as a human race have the ability to make fuels out of… besides grains.

by: Corbin Allen

"Young Americans" (mis)use the flag

Sheila Pree Bright’s “Young Americans” is a photo essay which seeks to capture national identity among young Americans. The work, published in 2009 on CNN.com’s “Living” segment[1], portrays youngsters between the ages of 18 and 25 using the American flag to explore and express their identity. Bright’s art has aggravated Americans like army veteran Dave Jackson, of the online journal, Scoop. Reacting to the photo-shoot, Jackson insists[2] that some of the portrayals of “American”-ness in the photo essay are disgraceful, insulting and disrespectful. And some of the photographs are certainly uncommon and daring, bordering on the misuse of the flag. However, the photographs need to be placed in context of the testimonials of each of the individual subjects. It is only through understanding the intent behind each individual expression (i.e. each individual photograph) that the photo essay can be read as more than just vulgar and dishonorable handling of this symbol of national pride.


Ostensibly, as Dave Jackson points out, only some of the pictures (Jackson singles out Kirstin Alexis Kucks and Amy C. Ashton) seem to comply with the national flag code. In others, the flag is represented much more informally. One young lady drapes the flag as a blanket, another fashions it into ethnic / traditional garb, Madelyne Oliver goes so far as to wear it as a hijab. To Jackson, these photos are a sad indictment of the un-patriotic youth of America. This criticism however is perhaps too harsh. The fashioning of the flag into a traditional outfit seems to be a unifying, rather than a divisive sign – the synthesis and convergence of two identities rather than the privileging of one over the other.


This comfortable middle-ground however, falls through in the much bolder photograph of David Gutierrez, who seems to be ‘purging’ the flag from his system. It is almost impossible to remain unaffected by such a representation of American identity. However, the photo by itself only conveys half the story. Each photograph (atleast on the website) is accompanied by a short interview explaining what it means for the subject to be American. Gutierrez’s testimony expresses concern about multi-ethnicity, its place and reception in America. His interview contextualizes the (mis)use of the flag. And within this context, the flag is transformed from a symbol of national identity to a symbol of individual expression.


Each of these youngsters only seems to be using the flag to represent the issue / idea that was the most important to them. The flag itself then, becomes a ‘prop’ through which individual identity is represented. Thus understood, the intent rather than the manifestation is foregrounded. Without this context, the photographs may seem offensive and insensitive. However, it is only within this context – only when the viewer focuses on intent – that these specific representations of the flag can be understood as a reasonable exercise of the right to freedom of expression.


Aishwarya G.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] See the photo essay: http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/07/03/young.americans.bright/index.html
[2] See: http://blog.scoop0901.net/life/photographer-shows-young-americans-and-flag-at-cnn/

My topic I choose to discuss was the conservation easements program. Ducks Unlimited defines a conservation easement as a legal agreement that a land owner makes to restrict the type and amount of development that may take place on his or her property. Conservation easements are funded by many different federal programs, that pay farmers or landowners to leave or provide habitat grounds to help conserve wildlife populations. The easement has to meet the needs and interest of the landowners and the wildlife it is set to conserve. Ducks Unlimited is one of the biggest supporters and provides funding for most of the easements around this area and all across America. The main focuses of the easements to to protect against loss of wetland habitat. I believe the conservation easements are great ways to provide for habitat loss without profit loss to landowners. Much of the land provided for easements is critical farm gound so without funds to compensate the landowners there is no way possible that people would be so eager to let the farm ground grow up to provide habitat for certain types of wildlife. There are strict laws set forth to restrict hunting regulations within the easements. Some of the laws restrict all hunting within or around the area. My opinion is that the regualtions help out large amounts of wildlife drawn to these areas. If there were restrictions to the easement then there would be no purposen in even putting forth the efforts to conserve wildlife and its habitat. With urban growth expanding rapidly today, easements are one the only ways to ensure that there will be habitat for wildlife today and into the future. I am completely for the conservation easement programs and who they are designed to protect.

Kent Reno