Intellectual Views

Airport Security

2010-12-31T17:29:00.000-08:00

     Airport security policies are too extreme because the threat of an attack is minimal to the point of insignificance, airport security is ineffective, and full-body scanners pose a health risk. In the aftermath of the 9/11 disasters, airport security was tightened substantially to accommodate the ever-increasing "terrorism threat". The Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) recent unveiling of new security tactics including the usage of "Advanced Imaging Technology" (AIT) and Enhanced Pat-Downs has been very controversial. According to the TSA, the AIT's can detect not only metallic weapons, but non-metallic weapons as well. This is done by bouncing electromagnetic waves off a subject's body creating a three dimensional black-and-white image in the case of the Millimeter Wave Unit. In the case of the Backscatter Unit, this is done by creating a reflection of the displayed body by projecting low X-ray beams over the subject (Transportation Security Administration). Because few details regarding the nature of the pat-downs and body scanners have been released by officials, the TSA has been highly vulnerable to corruption and abuse. Unintended consequences of stricter airport security have included increased road fatalities from would-be air travelers deciding to drive and a significant toll on the airline industry.

   One major reason why airport security is too extreme is that the measures currently in place are ineffective. Just after airport security was tightened in the aftermath of the 9/11 disasters, the TSA's red team, which is in charge of testing airport security, was able to secretly take weapons and bomb materials through airport security 100% of the time. By 2006, the agency made little progress in the detection of hazardous items. 75% of the fake bombs failed detection at the Los Angeles International Airport and 60% of fake bomb materials made it through the Chicago O'Hare International Airport (McManus). In addition, the TSA's Screening Passengers by Observation (SPOT) program failed to identify 17 known terrorists who traveled through eight airports that had the program implemented on 23 occasions. One of the terrorists that slipped through the cracks was Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square bomber whose attack failed (McManus). To make matters worse, the TSA's annual budget has surged from $700 million when the administration was founded to $6.9 billion in 2010 further straining the Federal Government's budget. That's not all. The federal stimulus package also granted an additional $73 million to the TSA to outfit airports across the nation with full-body scanners.


      Another major problem with airport security is that the controversial scanners pose a health hazard. Although the TSA claims that the radiation emitted by full-body scanners are relatively low, amounting to a thousandth of that received by typical chest X-rays, many independent scientists have disputed this. For example, a Physics professor at the University of Arizona at Tempe has found that the scanners emit 10 times more radiation than the TSA claims (Airguide). Although the amount of radiation emitted from the scanners may in fact be low, it's very dangerous because the ionized radiation received is cumulative and could build up to dangerous levels over time. These scanners are also dangerous because unlike medical X-ray machines which require people to wear radiation shielding, people are unshielded when undergoing the full-body scan. Many independent scientists have also warned of the potentially serious health risks the scanners present to pregnant women and the elderly. For pilots, flight attendants, and frequent fliers, the effect of the ionizing radiation emitted by full body scanners could be profoundly devastating. Pilots already receive greater amounts of radiation than nearly every other category of worker in the U.S. including employees at nuclear power plants (Airport Security Report). During a solar flare, pilots and flight crew members can receive the equivalent amount of radiation of getting 100 chest X-rays each hour during a typical Atlantic crossing. Requiring people who are exposed to whooping amounts of radiation everyday they're on the job to go through radiation-emitting scanners means greater radiation exposure and statistics indicate that flight crew members have higher-than-average caner rates as a result.

     Perhaps the biggest reason why airport security is too extreme is that the threat of an attack is minimal to the point of insignificance. To assess how great the threat of terrorism really is, we have to compare it with other every-day risks. For example, the chance of dying in an airplane crash is 1 in 400,000, the chance of dying as a pedestrian is 1 in 48,500, and the chance of drowning is 1 in 88,000. In addition, the chance of being murdered is 1 in 16,500 and the chance of being struck by lightning is 1 in 80,000 (Bailey). However, even if just one of America's commercial flights was hijacked and crashed once a week, the chance of dying would be 1 in 135,000 (Bailey). If terrorists managed to commit an attack equaling the magnitude of 9/11, the one-year chance of dying would be 1 in 100,000. As seen from these statistics, the risk of death associated with terrorist activity on commercial flights does not even come close to the risk of dying in an automobile accident, as a pedestrian, in a fire, or by being murdered.

   Although the government probably implemented the strict airport security measures currently in place with the best intentions, the reality is that the security administered by the TSA is ineffective. In the government's pursuit to ensure the highest level of security to travelers, it must implement security measures that are proportional to the threat and not overblown by fear. Not only are the enhanced pat downs and full-body scanners a nuisance, but they have proven to be dangerous and ineffective. Mandating people, especially pilots and flight crews who are already exposed to extraordinary amounts of radiation while on the job, to go through radiation-emitting fully body scanners is not the correct approach to take. To successfully protect the flying public, the TSA must shift its focus from the detection of weapons to the detection of terrorists through behavioral analysis and effective watch lists. It must also replace security equipment that has proven to be ineffective and dangerous with safer, less intrusive systems that are better able to detect weapons. Despite how minimal the threat may be, security that is balanced, moderate, and proportional to the threat is needed to ensure safety without the deprivation of liberty. It is for these reasons that airport security is too extreme and should be reformed with all deliberate speed.

Works Cited

"Travel Health Watch." Airguide Online (2010). General OneFile. Web.

"APA Advises Against Full Body Scanners." Airport Security Report 18.23 (2010). General OneFile. Web.

Bailey , Ronald. "Don't Be Terrorized." Reason Magazine 11 Aug. 2006: Print.

McManus, John F. "A look at the TSA." The New American 6 Dec. 2010: 44. General OneFile. Web.

Torture

2010-11-23T20:57:00.000-08:00

     Torture should be abolished because it's unethical, is against the founding principles of the United States, and has been condemned by former CIA agents for its ineffectiveness. In its simplest terms, torture is the intentional use of violence on an individual to make him or her suffer. The intent is to get the tortured individual to believe his life is at stake and could be deprived if the torturer's requests are not fulfilled. The torturer's ultimate goal is to get complete power over the victim potentially causing him to give away useful information. A "Top Secret" CIA report called "Counterterrorism Detention and Interrogation Activities (September 2001- October 2003)" that was published on May 7, 2004 was released to the public on August 24, 2009 in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit (Thomas). This report outlined two types of interrogation techniques, "standard interrogation techniques" and "enhanced interrogation techniques". Methods of torture falling under the "standard" category were not supposed to "incorporate significant psychological pressure", including "isolation, sleep deprivation not to exceed 72 hours," and "loud music or white noise." Under the "enhanced" category (EITs), the torture was intended to "incorporate physical or psychological pressure," including attention grasp (slapping), walling (slamming a detainee against a wall), stress positions, sleep deprivation beyond 72 hours, and simulated drowning through "waterboarding" (Thomas). The US's torture policies are in direct contradiction with the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that "no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment" (Macmillian Social Science Library).

     One major reason why torture should be abolished is that it's unethical. The practice does not only betray the professional ethics of the physicians and psychologists involved, but also deprives the tortured individual of his most fundamental human rights (Merriman). After 9/11, psychologists revised their ethics code to be in accordance with changing political tides. This change disregarded the ethics set forth in the Nuremberg Code after the conclusion of World War II. The adoption of "post 9/11 ethics" by the American Psychological Association created uproar both within and outside the association. In the name of national security, the American Psychological Association failed to remain immune to political influences when the Bush Administration decided to engage in torture. As seen from the drastic ramifications of torture over the last few years, ethical values and civil liberties must be upheld regardless of the ever-changing political tide. It is clear that some ethical values, such as torture, are too fundamental to discard despite emerging dangers or risks.

   Contradicting the ethical arguments against torture is the following viewpoint by Henry Mark Holzer, a law professor at Brooklyn Law School.

It is likely that a clear majority of Americans would support torture in cases where it can prevent massive loss of life. The use of torture in such situations is not only morally permissible, but also morally necessary. A legal precedent for torture can be found in a Florida case where police officers threatened and physically abused a kidnapping suspect in an attempt to locate his victim, and were lauded in both state and federal court rulings. Most would consider this use of physical abuse acceptable because it saved the victim's life. If it is acceptable to use physical abuse and threats to save lives, then it should be acceptable to use nonlethal torture—particularly when dealing with a terrorist's "ticking bomb" scenario, where countless lives may be at risk (Holzer).

   Holzer says that when a life can be saved, we should disregard the ethical criticisms of torture. According to Holzer, it is a moral necessity to take whatever means is necessary to harness valuable information, in the absence of a viable alternative, to save a considerable number of innocent lives. In Holzer's viewpoint, he cites the "Ticking Bomb Scenario" as an instance in which it would be a moral necessity to execute torture.   One plausible variation of the "Ticking Time Bomb Scenario", is when a suspected terrorist implants a secret weapon of mass destruction that is known to detonate in the near future, at an undisclosed location. In a situation such as this when law enforcement is certain that the suspect won't give away any information in the absence of torture, Holzer claims executing torture would not only be justified, but a moral necessity.

   The reason it remains unethical to torture in the extremely improbable "Ticking Time Bomb Scenario" is that torture is indefinitely "elastic" (Roth). If the terrorist can be tortured, why not torture those close to him such as his neighbor or friend who could potentially yield valuable information about the attack? It is essential that our actions are not driven by fear in the wake of a threat of terror, but on the rational and ethical views we have in times of peace when all the odds are carefully considered and debated. Through multiple international treaties, many countries have recognized and committed to stop the usage of torture because it's always cruel, inhuman, and degrading in times of peace or in times of war. Although Holzer's viewpoint that torture is justifiable in certain situations may seem reasonable at first, as we'll explore next, torture is an ineffective method to harness valuable information.

Another major reason torture should be abolished is that it has been condemned by CIA veterans for its ineffectiveness. The reality of torture is that it almost always fails to yield true or useful information. In law enforcement's pursuit of valuable information to combat terrorism, the usage of abusive and degrading torture is counterproductive. When subjected to unbearable and inhumane treatment, anyone will say what is expected of him, true or not, to end the degrading treatment. Even in the rare situation when a hint of marginal value is obtained from the practice, it does not by any means outweigh the loss of national pride and strained diplomatic relationships due to violated international treaties. When informed of America's usage of torture, Allies are less likely to provide support in the fight against terrorism. History has showed us time and time again of the ramifications of torture and its failure to yield valuable information in almost every instance.

     Contradicting the evidence that torture is an ineffective method to obtain information is the following viewpoint by Richard B. "Dick" Cheney.

"To call this a program of torture is to libel the dedicated professionals who have saved American lives.... To completely rule out enhanced interrogation methods in the future ... would make the American people less safe" (Berlatsky).

   In his viewpoint, Cheney expresses his belief that criticizing the psychologists and interrogators involved with torture during the Bush Administration is unacceptable. He insists that their actions were driven by their ongoing commitment to keep America safe and ensure the highest level of security within the country's borders. Cheney firmly believes that the legalization of torture in response to the devastating 9/11 attacks was absolutely necessary to prevent a tragic event from recurring. The former vice president contends that valuable information was obtained through the practice and claims only a small number of terrorists of the highest intelligence value were ever subjected to waterboarding (Berlatsky). Cheney is outraged by recommendations to charge those who approved torturous interrogations with war crimes and thinks such action would thereby indicate that political differences are a punishable offense. Cheney believes that the US's incorporation of torture after 9/11 was necessary to combat terrorism and condemns views proclaiming torturers should be punished with war crimes.

   As previously addressed, torture is an ineffective method to obtain critical information. Because it is in human nature for a torture victim to surrender whatever information is expected of him, true or not, when presented with unbearable amounts of pain, torture almost always fails to yield valuable or truthful information. Even in the rare case when it does provide a hint to law enforcement, it is marginal in value at best. It is profoundly wrong to say that only a few terrorists were subjected to waterboarding. Furthermore, the intentional destruction of videotapes of terrorists undergoing simulated drowning by the CIA before US investigators could see them is further evidence that the practice is still alive and well, perhaps more used today than ever before. As we will see next, torture truly is a war crime and is against the laws of the United States.

     Perhaps the biggest reason torture should be abolished is that it is illegal and against the founding principles of the United States. In our pursuit to curb the threat of terrorism, we cannot continue to fight terrorists while being violators of international law ourselves. Torture is a war crime because it violates both domestic and international laws. One federal law addressing torture is the Torture Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2340 (Haerens). In addition, the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment signed by President Reagan states that "just following orders" is no defense and that "no exceptional circumstances whatsoever" will be considered when it comes to torture (Haerens). Finally, under the Convention Against Torture, the United States, among other countries that signed the treaty, committed to make "all acts of torture offenses under criminal law" and prosecute cases that are determined to be torturous to the maximum extent allowed by the law. Among others, the 8th Amendment of the US Constitution prohibits the usage of cruel and unusual punishment. Torture is clearly unconstitutional, against federal laws, and against international treaties and agreements and it is unquestionable that the interrogation techniques cited in the Counterterrorism Detention and Interrogation Activities (September 2001- October 2003) report violate the laws and treaties described above.

   Although the United States government in conjunction with the CIA probably participated in torturous activities with the best intentions, it is clear that the resulting activities have caused far more harm than good. Torture is truly one of the worst things we can do to fellow human beings. Ethics aside, history has showed us time and time again how ineffective torture really is. When presented with the greatest extent of brutality, anyone will say what is expected of him or her to cease the violence. Besides that, torture is clearly a violation of the US Constitution, federal laws, and international treaties. In our struggle against terrorism, we must cease our violations of domestic and international policies before we can fight the terrorists that imperil our lives each passing day. It is for these reasons that torture should be abolished with all deliberate speed.

Works Cited

"Enhanced Interrogation Helps Keep America Safe." Presidential Powers. Noah Berlatsky. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2010. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web.

“Bush Administration Officials Who Authorized Torture Should Be Tried for War Crimes in the ICC." War Crimes. Ed. Margaret Haerens. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2011. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web.

Holzer, Henry Mark. "Torture Is Sometimes Justified." Front Page Magazine (29 Nov. 2002). Rpt. in Is Torture Ever Justified? Ed. Tom Head. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. At Issue. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web.

"Torture." Current Issues: Macmillian Social Science Library. Detroit: Gale, 2010. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 23 Nov. 2010.

Roth, Kenneth. "Torture Is Never Justified." The Washington Post (13 May 2004): A29. Rpt. in Is Torture Ever Justified? Ed. Tom Head. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. At Issue. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web.

Thomas, John. "Mental health professionals in the 'enhanced' interrogation room." Psychiatric Times 26.11 (2009): 1. General OneFile. Web. 23 Nov. 2010.

Affirmative Action

2010-09-04T09:50:00.000-07:00

      Affirmative action should be abolished in the United States because it constitutes reverse discrimination, undermines the academic performance of minorities, and does not significantly improve the quality of education for majority-race students. Affirmative action is a policy used in the United States and countries worldwide that aims to expand the educational and career opportunities available for women and minorities. This is done by granting people in these groups preference in areas including college and graduate school admissions. Critics of affirmative action claim that favoring certain races and ethnic groups over others fosters not only resentment, but deteriorates educational and professional standards by considering race and ethnicity over achievement and qualifications. However, supporters contend that the practice is necessary to compensate for past discrimination.

   One reason why affirmative action should be abolished is that the practice constitutes reverse discrimination by lowering the chance of admission for better-qualified white students or applicants. It is justifiable for high school students applying to college to be embittered when they are rejected based on the conditions of their race, gender, or ethnicity. Affirmative action goes against the founding principles of this nation. For instance, the Declaration of Independence states that "all men are created equal" and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires all Americans to be treated equally "without regard to their race, color, or national origin" (New York Times Upfront). Yet since the the mid-1960s, the United States has largely disregarded the principle of equality set forth in these documents by prioritizing the admissions of women and minorities to compensate for past discrimination. While it would be an ethical necessity for slaves to receive compensation from their masters, it is unfair to have the descendants of slaves receive compensation from the descendants of the masters. The policy of affirmative action is subsequently discriminating white people. For every person that is granted admission to college or given a job because of affirmative action, one better qualified person is unfairly denied that same opportunity. Discrimination of any type is morally and ethically unacceptable. Until applicants are judged solely by merit, the United States will remain divided as a country. It is time to move on from past discrimination.

   Contradicting the evidence that affirmative action is harmful to society as a whole is the following viewpoint by Graciela Geyer:

Graciela Elizabeth Geyer of the United States Student Association argues that affirmative action policies promote equality. These policies, in which colleges consider race in admissions, ensure that minorities have an equal opportunity to attend college, she asserts. Because discrimination is pervasive in the admissions process, claims Geyer, race must be considered in admissions. Believing that affirmative action is an effective response to racism, Geyer maintains that eliminating affirmative action creates a hostile environment and segregates colleges (Carroll).

   In her viewpoint, Geyer claims that affirmative action is an essential policy that promotes equality. She insists that abolishing affirmative action would literally re-segregate schools and society. Geyer cites the drop in enrollment of colored students that were accepted into the University of California (UC) system over the last five years as one of the negative effects of repealing affirmative action. She believes that institutionalized racism is necessary to tear down the barriers minorities face and claims that not considering race and gender in the admission process sends out the message that all people have equal opportunity regardless of their race or gender, a message which she deems as false.

     In her viewpoint, Geyer fails to take into account the effect of affirmative action on society as a whole. While citing retribution for past discrimination as a justifiable reason to use affirmative action, Geyer ignores the fact that America is a meritocracy and that affirmative action contradicts the founding principles of this nation. Although affirmative action may help disadvantaged individuals be competitive in universities and businesses, these people are often less qualified than their majority peers, resulting in them performing poorly in relation to these peers (Becker). While affirmative action may give minorities the necessary boost they need to get into college or get a job, it harms the self-esteem of these minority students and workers. Geyer also fails to mention the fact that when rejected, qualified majority applicants feel as though they were cheated out of a well-deserved opportunity. In their pursuit of diversity, the appropriate solution for businesses and universities is to work harder in their search for qualified minority students, not to lower their standards by giving special consideration to disadvantaged minorities.

   Another advantage of abolishing affirmative action is that it undermines the academic performance of minorities. For instance, if white students believe that many of their black peers would not be at a college were it not for affirmative action and, more important, if black students perceive whites to believe that, then affirmative action may indeed undermine minority-group members' academic performance by heightening the social stigma they already experience because of race or ethnicity (Charles). In addition, individuals who have negative beliefs about their race will find that they feel more so when they know that they themselves fall well below the institutionalized average for SAT scores. Also, when asked to perform academically, individuals who feel that they are representing their race will feel more pressure and responsibility when their race's SAT score is well below that of other students at the institution. This stress can be attributed to the psychological need minority-students have to prove that they're worthy of admission at any particular institution. Given the number of college rating services available, this is a very common issue minorities across the country are experiencing. Disparities in performance between minority and majority peers can sometimes be observed in class as well. A study conducted by The Chronicle of Higher Education on the academic effects of affirmative action revealed that the greater the difference in SAT scores between minority students and others on campus, the lower the grades earned by black and Latino students as a group on that campus. These findings suggest that significant gaps in test scores between minority and majority students creates a social dilemma in which it is harder for minority students to perform academically. The reality is that affirmative action enhances the social stigma minorities feel and increases the pressure they feel to perform academically resulting in undermined grade performance.

   Disputing the consequences of affirmative action is the following viewpoint by Gary Orfield:

Gary Orfield contends that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the University of Michigan affirmative action case was right: college admissions policies that value diversity, such as affirmative action programs, are necessary and important for the nation. Orfield asserts that schools and communities across the country are deeply divided, with whites increasingly being isolated from blacks and other racial groups. But the nation and the world are comprised of diverse racial and ethnic groups and diversity on college campuses is important for the success of future leaders in our nation (Langwith).

   Orfield believes affirmative action programs are necessary since whites only account for three in five students in America. He insists that census data shows that communities and schools across the nation continue to be divided and racially unequal despite progress made during the civil rights era. Gary even goes on to claim that schools are now more segregated than they were in the 1960s regarding race and income. Orfield asserts that many students appreciate diversity because they believe it positively impacts their education by allowing them to better work with others, and analyze legal issues from the perspectives of multiple cultures and backgrounds. Gary concludes that to successfully adapt to a rapidly diversifying nation, affirmative action programs must be existent.

   Contradicting Orfield's viewpoint is the reality that affirmative action programs are unnecessary and discriminatory. Perhaps the most fundamental principle of this nation is equality. But recently, this principle has been ignored and replaced with diversity. Most Americans believe that judging one by the color of their skin or their country of origin is profoundly wrong. However, altering the standards of admission for minorities and women is never considered discrimination, just a necessary approach to form more diverse institutions and organizations. Since recent movements have claimed that affirmative action has such a redeeming value, a frighteningly large number of Americans are insisting diversity be achieved by any means necessary (Langwith). The reality is that affirmative action programs promote a quota system in which the outcome of a competitive process is engineered to achieve proportionality based on group identity and that such programs are unnecessary and discriminatory.

   Affirmative action should also be abolished since racial diversity does not significantly improve the quality of education for majority-race students. A study by Duke University analyzed data on graduates of 30 selective universities to test the frequently argued but little-tested hypothesis that increasing the presence of minorities in elite colleges enhances the quality of education for majority-race students. To do this, they examined the College and Beyond data set compiled by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation which includes the SAT scores, major subject, and means of exit (whether by graduation, transfer, or withdrawal) of all students in participating universities. The study analyzed a broad range of outcomes from earnings to academic success. In addition, the satisfaction individuals had with both their life and job were taken into account. The study's authors failed to observe any evidence that whites and Asians attending relatively diverse institutions do better later in life (Arcidiacono and Vigdor). More thorough analysis of the data revealed that affirmative action programs are actually counterproductive if their goal is to enhance to quality of education for majority-race students. The evidence is clear, affirmative action programs only produce educational benefits for the minorities they are targeted at and have no spillover effects whatsoever on majority-race students.

   America has been coined the "melting pot of the world" for being so racially diverse and tolerant of different cultures. This level of diversity has surely had immeasurable advantages. While it is true that being around people of other races and cultures has unprecedented benefits, such interaction does not yield any educational benefits. For those that are given a job or admitted into college through affirmative action, the psychological strain and pressure they feel to prove themselves worthy of admission can sometimes be unbearable. Disparities in performance between minorities assisted through affirmative action and majority-race students can often be observed in class as well. For every beneficiary of affirmative action, one qualified individual is turned down. In their pursuit of diversity, institutions should ramp up their efforts to find qualified minorities, not lower their standards by giving special consideration to disadvantaged minorities. Engineering the outcome of a competitive process to achieve proportionality based on group identity is profoundly wrong and until individuals are judged solely by merit, the United States will remain divided as a country. The time to move on from past discrimination has come, and it is for these reasons, that abolishing affirmative action is in the best interest of the United States.

Works Cited

Arcidiacono, Peter, and Jacob Vigdor. "Does the River Spill Over? Estimating the Economic Returns to Attending a. Racially Diverse College." Duke University (2008): 34. Web.

"Affirmative Action in College Admissions Ensures Equality." Students' Rights. Ed. Jamuna Carroll. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web.

Charles, Camille Z., et al. "Affirmative-Action Programs for Minority Students: Right in Theory, Wrong in Practice." The Chronicle of Higher Education 55.29 (2009). Educator's Reference Complete. Web.

"Preferences Cover Problem They Claim to Correct." The Chronicle of Higher Education 55.10 (2008). Educator's Reference Complete. Web.

"Affirmative-Action Programs Are Necessary." Discrimination. Ed. Jacqueline Langwith. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2008. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web.

"Affirmative-Action Programs Are Unnecessary and Discriminatory." Discrimination. Ed. Jacqueline Langwith. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2008. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web.

"Is it time to end affirmative action? California, Michigan, Washington, Florida, and Nebraska have banned its use in public education and hiring." New York Times Upfront 16 Feb. 2009: 22. Popular Magazines. Web.

Value Added Tax

2010-08-08T21:16:00.000-07:00

       A value added tax should be enacted in the United States since it will lead to significant increases in machinery and equipment investment, is a highly efficient tax that will help the government balance budgets, and has been successful in many developed countries worldwide. The value added tax is the tax of choice in most industrialized countries. Like a sales tax, it is a tax on consumption in which a single percentage rate is applied to goods and some services. Unlike a sales tax, which is levied at the final retail stage only, a VAT taxes each stage of production calculating the increasing value of a good or service as it moves through the production process towards distribution. In other words, businesses only get taxed on the difference between their sales receipts and the cost of their inputs purchased from other businesses (Farrell). A VAT could help eliminate the US's debt and lead to long-term economic stability.

   One major advantage of implementing a value added tax in the United States is that it will likely lead to substantial increases in machinery and equipment investment. During the 1990s, four Canadian provinces implemented a VAT, while five other provinces continued to use a retail sales tax (RST) similar to that used in almost all US states. Research conducted in Canada during the 1990s shows the effects of having a VAT over a retail sales tax very accurately. This is because both methods of taxation were used at the same time allowing the provinces that continued using a retail sales tax to act as a "control group". In provinces that adopted the value added tax, machinery and equipment investment rose approximately 12 percent above trend levels in the years following the sales tax reform. However, no significant difference was observed in both residential and non-residential construction in provinces that hadn't switched to a VAT (Smart and Bird). The correlation between slow construction growth in non-reforming provinces can be attributed to the excessively high tax rates on business inputs including capital goods. In accordance with economic theory, eliminating such taxes by replacing a RST with a VAT will have substantial effects on business investment. It is likely that the effects observed in reforming Canadian provinces will be observed in US states that implement a VAT since the RSTs currently in place in many US states are similar to those currently being used in non-reforming Canadian provinces. As seen from Canada's experience, replacing RSTs with VATs gives businesses a drastic incentive to increase machinery and equipment investment.

     Contradicting the evidence that a value added tax is beneficial to society as a whole is the viewpoint that it's regressive. Opposers of a VAT believe that it's regressive since it's a tax on consumption meaning that it will hit low-income households in greater proportion than upper-income ones. This is due to the fact that poor people spend a greater percentage of their annual income on consumption meaning that a greater percentage of their income would be spent on the VAT tax (Caspersen and Metcalf).

   At its very core, a VAT is in fact regressive because poor people spend a greater percentage of their income on consumption. At the same time, you can't ignore the fact that 47% of US households don't pay income tax (Leonhardt). Implementing a VAT would require all US consumers to make a contribution of some amount to the government. To minimize the regressiveness of a VAT, food, housing, and medical expenditures could be exempt from the tax. If a value added tax is designed and implemented with delicacy, its regressiveness can be minimized to an insignificant minimum.

Another advantage of implementing a value added tax in the United States is that it's highly efficient tax that will help the government balance budgets. Based on panel data from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), governments with a VAT raise more revenue than those that don't, all else equal. A VAT can achieve stellar efficiency due to significant reductions in administrative costs when raising any given amount of revenue. This is because most of the cost of collecting tax is borne by business, rather than by the state. A significant cause of the budget deficit can be linked to combating the costs of the current recession. In addition, with the approximately 76 million baby boomers born between 1946 and 1964 getting ready to retire, enormous strain will be placed on the budgets of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. If over the next 25 years, the nation's total tax burden remains at its current 18% of the GDP, the United States will have to borrow to pay interest on the interest resulting in the national debt going straight up (Farrell). Obviously, the income tax rate must be drastically increased or an efficient revenue raiser such as the VAT must be enacted. The efficiency of a VAT can minimize compliance problems and help the government make ends meet.

     Many conservatives fear a VAT because of their belief that it will increase government size since governments with the tax raise more revenue than those that don't, all else equal. Although statistical analysis of OECD data seems to show increased government size in countries with a VAT, deeper more thorough analysis reveals that the revenue a VAT raises is to some extent offset by reduced revenues from other taxes (Keen and Lockwood). This shows that the purpose of a VAT is not to finance bigger government, but raise revenue with greater effectiveness. The intent of a value added tax is to minimize wasteful spending and increase government revenue while easing the burden on taxpayers. In essence, a VAT reduces the use of less effective tax instruments maximizing efficiency.

   One of the biggest reasons a value added tax should be implemented in the United States is that many developed countries worldwide have had success with it. For example, the VAT is the tax of choice among OECD countries. In the European Union, each member country's VAT legislation must comply with the provisions set forth in Directive 2006/112/EC which sets the basic framework for the EU VAT. The VAT Directive requires certain goods and services to be exempt from the tax including postal services, medical care, lending, and insurance. New Zealand has a value added tax called the Goods and Services Tax (GST) which is notable for its relatively few tax exemptions. For example, New Zealand taxes all types of food at the same rate unlike most countries with a VAT. Its few tax exemptions include rents collected on residential rental properties, donations, and financial services. Critics fear that if the federal government enacts a VAT, the states will lose their preferred tax base. To get around this problem, Canada created a Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) which merged its Goods and Services Tax (GST) with its Provincial Sales Tax (PST) into one single value added tax. Based on the experiences of countries worldwide, the US will likely have success with a VAT if it is designed and implemented well.

   As seen from Canada's experience, enacting a value added tax in the US will likely increase machinery and equipment investment substantially. In addition, it would be much more efficient than the RSTs currently being used in many US states because most of the cost associated with collecting tax would be borne by business, rather than by the government. Enacting a value added tax will not make the government bigger, but raise revenue with greater effectiveness. Its intent is to minimize wasteful spending and increase government revenue all while easing the burden on taxpayers. Using a similar approach to Canada's HST, a VAT could generate revenue for both state and federal governments. With the national debt spiraling out-of-control and the baby boomer generation starting to retire, the US must either drastically increase its income tax or implement an effective tax such as the VAT. If quick action isn't taken, the nation will see itself paying interest on the interest. While not perfect, a VAT is the US's best approach to economic recovery and long-time stability. It is for these reasons that a value added tax should be enacted in the United States.

Works Cited

Caspersen, Erik, and Gilbert Metcalf. "Is a value added tax regressive? Annual versus lifetime incidence measures." National Tax Journal 47.4 (1994): 731-746. General OneFile. Web.

"Why a VAT Tax Is Where It's At; Adoption of a value-added tax in the U.S. would be a fair, efficient way to help restore the country's financial health, argues Bloomberg Business Week columnist Chris Farrell." Business Week Online 8 Mar. 2010. Business Economics and Theory. Web.

Keen, Michael, and Ben Lockwood. "Is the VAT a money machine?" National Tax Journal 59.4 (2006): 905+. General OneFile. Web.

LEONHARDT, DAVID. "Yes, 47% of Households Owe No Taxes. Look Closer." The New York Times 13 Apr. 2010: Print.

Smart, Michael, and Richard M. Bird. "The impact on investment of replacing a retail sales tax with a value-added tax: evidence from Canadian experience." National Tax Journal 62.4 (2009): 591+. Business Economics and Theory. Web.

Capital Punishment

2010-07-10T21:04:00.000-07:00

Due to the reality that capital punishment leads to the executions of some citizens who are innocent, the fact that many states and countries have abolisehd the death penalty, and the evidence that the death penalty does not deter crime any more than life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, the death penalty should be abolished. Since the 1970s, capital punishment has received a great deal of legal and religious discussion. On June 29, 1972, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty was a form of cruel and unusual punishment in Furman v. Georgia after finding that juries imposed the death penalty in arbitrary manners. This invalidated all existing death sentences and death penalty laws in all states (Rose). A rapidly rising crime rate in the 1970s created a demand for the restoration of the death penalty especially for certain types of murder. Just four years after the 1972 ruling on July 2, 1976, in Gregg v. Georgia, the Supreme Court ruled that under a new two-stage capital trial system, the death penalty was constitutional, under certain conditions, in any state that chose to adopt it (Rose).

     Since the seventeenth century, the arguments for and against the death penalty have remained fairly constant (Pickens). Supporters of the death penalty believe that the practice is justifiable for reasons including retribution, social protection against dangerous people, and deterrence. People against capital punishment have expressed their belief that capital punishment is not a deterrent because states without the practice have the same average murder rates as those that do. They believe that the imposition of the death penalty makes juries more likely to respond irrationally and with fear resulting in a miscarriage of justice, namely the death of an innocent person. Religious groups have stated that perfect justice is not humanly possible and have expressed opposition towards capital punishment. Capital punishment has historically been used most frequently against the poor and certain ethnic groups causing some to perceive the practice as a means of social control.

   One major reason why the death penalty should be abolished is that it leads to the executions of some citizens who are in fact innocent. Since 1973, 133 people have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence (Death Penalty Information Center). The following question allows one to better understand the opposition of religious groups towards capital punishment: "If we choose to worship an innocent who was executed as a criminal, shouldn't we care about the execution of innocents in our time?" However, Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia stated in 2006 that there is no "single verifiable case to point to" that proves that an innocent person has been executed, and that although no criminal justice system can completely rule out "the possibility that someone will be punished mistakenly", the likelihood of this happening in the U.S. has been "reduced to an insignificant minimum" (Winright). But one must ask themselves how the wrongful death of even one innocent person is insignificant. New Jersey's Death Penalty Study Commission, which completed a study of all aspects of the death penalty in New Jersey, concluded in part that whatever good might be served by executing a small number of guilty persons would not justify the risk of executing an innocent one. Given how often innocent people are executed, the death penalty is a measure civilized societies shouldn't employ regardless of how efficient the practice is.

Contradicting the evidence that capital punishment is harmful to society is the following viewpoint by Walter Berns:

Abolitionists distrust and dismiss retribution as a justification for capital punishment. They do not understand that the anger a community feels toward a criminal who has caused the innocent to suffer is a sign of the highest morality. This kind of anger leads people to seek justice and protect their community. Society is justified in executing serious criminals in order to achieve justice and retribution (Berns).

Berns believes that we imprison criminals as a form of pay back for their crimes and that it is a moral necessity to execute the worst of them. He is also convinced that executing the worst of criminals does not sacrifice human dignity. In his viewpoint, Berns expresses his belief that the ultimate punishment, the death penalty, "must remind us of the moral order by which alone we can live as human beings" (Berns). Berns clearly conceives that the purpose of our justice system is to punish criminals out of the demand for justice thereby breeding respect for the law. He is certain that the presence of capital punishment in the law will create a more trustworthy society in which citizens will not commit crimes in such great amounts even in the absence of law enforcement.

   Abolitionists oppose the viewpoint that retribution is a justification of capital punishment because of their belief that vengeance and revenge is the aim of the death penalty. From a psychological perspective, immediate victims and society as a whole desire the satisfaction associated with seeing the suffering inflicted upon themselves returned to the criminal who initially caused their suffering. This feeling of getting even with the criminal creates a peace of mind for the people affected by crimes such as murder. What is increasingly happening is that juries are satisfying the interests of society and those of the immediate victims corrupting the judicial system. The purpose of juries is not to feel the pain those close to a murder victim feel, but measure the toll on society the crime has created (Cohen). It is also not the job of juries to provide victims of a gruesome crime with satisfaction, but provide reliable, unbiased punishment for the suffering inflicted upon society as a whole. The abolishment of capital punishment will not only eliminate the heat of revenge from the sentencing process, but make sentences fairer and minimize discrimination in regards to race, gender, and social status since bias becomes more of a factor the more passionately a process is conducted.

   Another reason why capital punishment should be abolished is the fact that many states and countries have abolished the death penalty. As of April 2010, 95 nations have banned the death penalty (Gajewski). On November 19, 2009, Russia's constitutional court extended a thirteen year moratorium on the death penalty. In Mongolia, President Tsakhia Elbegdorj has commuted three sentences since taking office and has placed a moratorium on the death penalty. In addition, he has called for an end to the practice. In the United States, New Mexico has abolished the death penalty and replaced it with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Influenced by a report prepared by the Public Defender Department, lawmakers realized that they could save millions of dollars on prosecution costs if they eliminated capital punishment. In New Hampshire and Colorado, the House of Representatives passed measures to abolish the death penalty recently (Death penalty under examination). In 2007, New Jersey Governor Jon S. Corzine signed legislation abolishing what he called "state-endorsed killing" (Christian Century). According to assembly member Reed Gusciora, "murderers have not been deterred in the 2,000 years the death penalty has been in effect." Although capital punishment remains a significant part of the justice system in the United States and many parts of Asia, many countries and states are realizing the consequences of having capital punishment and are taking progressive measures towards abolishing it.

   Disputing the evidence that capital punishment results in the deprivation of innocent lives is the following statement by Roy D. Adler and Michael Summers:

Most commentators who oppose capital punishment assert that an execution has no deterrent effect on future crimes. Recent evidence, however, suggests that the death penalty, when carried out, has an enormous deterrent effect on the number of murders. More precisely, our recent research shows that each execution carried out is correlated with about 74 fewer murders the following year (Goldstein).

   Alder and Summers claim that each execution has a huge deterrent effect on murder rates the following year. They believe that prior to the publication of their report, activists for the abolition of capital punishment could feel that they'd saved a life after working tirelessly to commute the sentence of a convicted murderer. The professors insist that based on their research, it is the duty of the criminal justice system to deprive the lives of convicted murderers to create a strong deterrent effect that will save dozens of lives the following year.

   This statement is not an accurate reflection of the deterrent effect associated with capital punishment due to the fact that the study was conducted from the early 1990s on, which was a period of rapidly falling crime rates nationwide. In addition to the decrease in homicide, crime rates fell consistently across the board. Due to the fact that the study was conducted in a period of rapidly decreasing crime rates, a correlation between crime rate and the deterrent effect associated with capital punishment cannot be observed. This study is flawed geographically as well by comparing very distant places. For example, the decrease in murders in New York can't be attributed to capital punishment because most of the executions occurred in Southern states. The report prepared by Alder and Summers is so plagued with flaws that no connection between capital punishment and any associated deterrent effect can be observed.

   The biggest reason why capital punishment should be abolished is that it does not deter crime any more than life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. In a study published in 2009, Radelet and Lacock surveyed America's leading criminologists on their opinion of the deterrence effects of capital punishment over long term imprisonment. To be eligible to participate in this survey, the criminologists had to be a Fellow in the American Society of Criminology (ASC) at some time, apprehend the ASC's Sutherland Award (the organizations most prestigious award given for contributions to criminological theory), or been a president of the ASC between 1997 and the present. Founded in 1941, the American Society of Criminology is the world's largest organization of academic criminologists. Although the questionnaire was sent to the 94 criminologists meeting these requirements, only 79 of them responded resulting in an 84 percent response rate.

    The first question asked the criminologists if they felt the death penalty lowers murder rates. 88.2% of those polled felt capital punishment wasn't a deterrent. When asked if they thought death-penalty states had lower homicide rates than neighboring non-death penalty states, 74.7% of the experts felt this statement was false. In 2007, states with an active death penalty had homicide rates that were 42% higher than their non-death penalty counterparts (Radelet and Lacock). There was a strong overall agreement among the criminologists that politicians support the death penalty because it makes them appear tough on crime. In addition, only 8.3% of the respondents believed increasing the frequency of executions would increase the death penalty's overall deterrent effect. Besides that, only 12.4% thought shortening the time between sentence and execution would add to the death penalty's deterrent effect. Concluding the questionnaire, 89.6% of the experts disagreed that executing people deters others from committing murder.

     The result of Radelet and Lacock's study shows that an overwhelming number of criminologists strongly believe that the death penalty does not add any additional deterrent effects to those achieved by long term imprisonment (Radelet and Lacock). Only ten percent or less of the top criminologists surveyed believe that the presence of the death penalty reduces homicide rates more than long-term imprisonment. Summarizing the results of this study, most criminologists think that the death penalty does not add any significant deterrent effect above that of long-term imprisonment and only a few believe the threat or use of the death penalty reduces homicide rates more than long-term imprisonment.

   Capital punishment should be abolished because it leads to the executions of some citizens who are in fact innocent. States like New Mexico have realized that they can save millions of dollars on prosecution costs if they abolished the death penalty. New Jersey's Death Penalty Commission concluded in part that whatever good might be served by executing a small number of guilty persons would not justify the risk of executing an innocent one. The fact that 133 people have been released from death row with proof of their innocence since 1973 shows how unreliable and unsuited our justice system is to have capital punishment. But the fact is that almost all of America's top criminologists agree that capital punishment doesn't lower murder rates or add any significant deterrent effect above that of long-term imprisonment. In addition, the statistic that states with an active death penalty have homicide rates that are 42% higher than their non-death penalty counterparts shows how ineffective and potentially dangerous the death penalty is. Replacing capital punishment with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is a win for everyone. It's a win for all the people affected by a murder since the convict will suffer more than if executed overcoming the day-to-day struggles prison has to offer. In addition, it's a win for the convicted criminal because he/she will be allowed to continue living making it easier on his/her family. Last of all, it's a win for the government because huge amounts of money will be saved on prosecution costs easing the burden on state budgets and taxpayers. But if a convict that has not been executed is found to be innocent, all that he/she was deprived of was precious time to enjoy life. No one deserves to be deprived of their life for crime they did not do. Regardless of how efficient the death penalty is, it is a measure civilized societies just shouldn't employ. It is for these reasons that capital punishment should be abolished.

Works Cited

Berns, Walter. "Retribution Is a Moral Reason for Capital Punishment." At Issue: The Ethics of Capital Punishment. Ed. Nick Fisanick. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2004. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale.

"New Jersey repeals capital punishment." The Christian Century 125.1 (2008): 20+. Business Economics and Theory.

Cohen, Michael. "Capital Punishment Is Ineffective and Dangerous." Current Controversies: Capital Punishment. Ed. Paul Connors. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2007. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale.

"Death penalty under examination." State Legislatures 35.6 (2009): 10. Business Economics and Theory. Web. 1 July 2010.

Gajewski, Karen Ann. "Ninety-five nations have banned the death penalty." The Humanist Mar.-Apr. 2010: 48. Business Economics and Theory. Web.

Goldstein, Evan R. "Debating the Impact of the Death Penalty." The Chronicle of Higher Education 54.16 (2007). Business Economics and Theory. Web.

Pickens, Donald K. "Capital Punishment." Dictionary of American History. Ed. Stanley I. Kutler. 3rd ed. Vol. 2. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2003. 39-41. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web.

Radelet, Michael L., and Traci L. Lacock. "Do executions lower homicide rates? The views of leading criminologists." Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 99.2 (2009): 489+. Business Economics and Theory. Web.

"Capital Punishment: The Question of Justification." American Decades Primary Sources. Ed. Cynthia Rose. Vol. 8: 1970-1979. Detroit: Gale, 2004. 547-551. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web.

Winright, Tobias. "Jesus on Death Row: The Trial of Jesus and American Capital Punishment." The Christian Century 126.19 (2009): 40+. Business Economics and Theory. Web.

Prison Privatization

2010-06-26T20:53:00.000-07:00

     Private prisons are not beneficial to the country as a whole because of the negative effects on prisoners caused by the way they are run, the artificial situations private prisons use to boost business, and the low wages and benefits employees in private prisons receive. Ever since the 1970s, there has been an increased interest in the privatization of public services. The claim is that private companies seeking a profit can perform many services cheaper and more effectively than the public sector, which is perceived to be unmotivated, ineffective, and inadequately able to fulfill the public's needs and demands. For years, the private sector has been contracted to provide laundry, food, medical, educational, and vocational services. However, the recent emergence of correctional privatization involving the financing, construction, and operation of entire institutions has been subject to intense debate.

     During the 1980s and early 1990s, the operation of prisons by the private sector became a vital option. This was due to the change in political climate favoring tax reductions and limited government. In addition, the increase in mandatory prison sentences from the start of the "war on drugs" resulted in an extraordinary increase in federal and state prison populations. The prison population rose from 315,974 in 1980 to 883,656 in 1992, a 180% increase (Flanagan Maguire, 1992; Maguire Pastore, 1994; Mauer, 1992). This resulted in a steep increase in the inmate population causing major problems of prison overcrowding. The final push for prison privatization was the laissez-faire approach favored by many Americans which called for the minimization of governmental control. This economic approach was favored by many Americans because of their belief that the private sector can fulfill the needs of the general public more adequately than the public sector.

      The way private prisons are run has negative effects on prisoners. "Prison work and education programs of the kind eliminated from some private institutions have been shown to reduce inmates' recidivism. A 1993 report to Congress found that literacy programs made juvenile offenders 20 percent less likely to re-offend; other studies have shown even more dramatic results for adults" (Prisoners/Corrections). The insufficient funds spent on education and security by private prisons makes them more violent places. Advocates of public prisons infer that violent prisons release violent people into society.

     Another negative effect on prisoners is symbolism. "Does it weaken that authority, however, as well as the integrity of a system of justice when an inmate looks at his keeper's uniform and, instead of encountering an emblem that reads "Federal Bureau of Prisons" or "State Department of Corrections," he faces one that says "Acme Corrections Company"? (Shichor and Sechrest). Many people consider symbols to be the basis of human behavior and the source of civilization. From a psychological perspective, it seems apparent that what badge an officer wears within a prison facility makes a difference.

   Contradicting the evidence that privately run prisons are not beneficial is the following statement by Jeff Becker.

Overcrowding has become a major challenge of U.S. prisons, threatening the security of prisons and the   safety of the public. Jeff Becker argues, in the following viewpoint, that allowing private companies to build and maintain prisons can help ease the burden of overcrowding endured by federal and state facilities. He claims that private prisons are run as safely as public prisons. Private prisons can also preserve public safety, he contends, because increased prison space means more inmates will carry out longer sentences (Becker, Jeff).

     Becker believes that because overcrowding is such a major challenge for publicly run prisons, having the private sector build and operate prisons will increase the number of prisoners state and federal governments can imprison. He believes that they are run just as safely as public prisons and thinks private prisons maintain the level of safety the public demands since an increased capacity for inmates means they can serve their full sentences. This expanded capacity also provides elasticity for the law if prison sentences are lengthened.

     The 2003 Grass Roots Leadership report greatly contradicts Becker's statements through its documentation of a series of wrongful death civil suits, numerous disturbances and escapes, and a long list of other prison management failures. A leader in prison privatization is the CCA (Corrections Corporation of America) which has always presented itself as a cheaper and better alternative to imprisoning prisoners than traditional publicly owned prisons. There have been an overwhelming number of management failures in private prisons including the failure to control violence, substandard conditions that have resulted in prisoner protests and uprisings, and escapes, which in the case of two or more facilities resulted in the release of prisoners who were supposed to remain in custody (Gainsborough). The murders that occurred in a private prison in Youngstown, Ohio resulted in the CCA paying 1.6 million dollars to prisoners to settle a lawsuit. Although it would be naive to claim that such instances don't occur in publicly run institutions, it is clear that they don't occur in such unprecedented numbers.

   Another reason why prison privatization is not beneficial is because private prisons create artificial situations to boost business. This is done by showcasing some of their facilities to make it appear that private prisons perform above expectations generating them more business. For example, the Silverdale Facility in Tennessee, operated by Corrections Corporation of America, was the subject of several "positive" evaluations (Brakel, 1988; Logan McGriff, 1989; Sellers, 1989), making this facility probably one of the most researched correctional institutions in America. At the same time, little attention was paid to negative reports, such as the 1986 inmate riot in this facility with demands for better food, recreation, and treatment (Diulio, 1990). In addition, the Wackenhut Corporation broke its contract to operate the Monroe Jail in Florida in 1991 when it realized that the state required 11 correctional officers to be on duty per shift rather than the 6 the company wanted to fill (Keating, 1991). They decided that operating the Monroe Jail wouldn't generate enough profits if they were required to position nearly twice as many correctional officers per shift. They were willing to sacrifice safety to maximize their profits.

     Contradicting the negative effects of prison privatization is this statement by Wayne Calabrese.

Public-private prison partnerships can lead to a reduction of construction costs by 25-40%, reduction of operational costs, which account for more than 80% of a prison's life-cycle costs, by 10-20%, acceleration of facility construction by as much as 30-50%, assured high quality service, and budget certainty (Calabrese).

     Calabrese believes that significant savings can occur through public-private partnerships in construction and operational costs. He also believes that the time required to construct correctional facilities can be dramatically reduced when built under the discretion of the private sector. In addition, he insists that private prisons offer high quality service and can be consistent and predictable when it comes to pricing.

     Contradicting Calabrese's statement is the view "that the cost savings claimed by the advocates of privatization have not been clearly proven" (Hatry et al., 1989; U.S. General Accounting Office, 1991). If in fact privately run prisons actually cut costs, these savings may be the result of "lowballing" by private companies where corporations attempt to cut labor costs and maximize their profits by using a smaller and less qualified workforce. Although private prisons may in fact save taxpayers money, the savings don't offset the costs of recidivism. In addition, the jobs that private prisons bring to the communities that house them aren't worth the safety risks posed by the low-budget security practices of the private sector.

   Correctional officers working in private prisons also experience negative effects. Since its founding, the CCA has attempted to minimize its labor costs to the maximum possible degree. They have achieved this goal by keeping wages low and denying their employees traditional pension plans. This has resulted in high turnover rates and under staffing in many private prisons. "For example, annual turnover rates at several CCA facilities in Tennessee have been more than 60 percent" (Gainsborough).

     The negative psychological effects on correctional officers associated with symbolism can be better understood by the following question: If a Medal of Honor was accorded to a citizen for his or her contribution to the country and the ceremony was organized by a private company that could do it more cheaply, would it make a difference if the award presenter wore the pin of a private company rather than being a government representative? (Shichor and Sechrest). An award given by a private company over one given by a government agency would definitely be perceived as less valuable. This might even discourage correctional officers in private prisons from constantly striving to perform better. It is also common knowledge that people relate to private security personnel differently than the way they relate to sworn police officers. The sworn police officers are respected more and are perceived to be of greater authority than private security personnel.

   In addition, the CCA has given the Republican Party over $100,000 since 1997 to create a greater demand for its services by changing state policies so that more people will be kept behind bars for longer periods of time. Using tactics such as these, the CCA has been successful in recent years in gaining the support of legislators and the general public. However, it's not hard to obtain the support of legislators when your arguments are backed up by large sums of cash.

   Private prisons have negative effects on prisoners because they cut funding on security and educational programs which have been shown to drastically reduce recidivism rates. These cuts make prisons more violent places resulting in the release of violent people into society. By showcasing some of their private prisons, the private sector gives the public an inaccurate picture of how private prisons are generally run. In addition, private prisons are willing to sacrifice security to maximize their profits. There is no proof that prison privatization saves taxpayer dollars. Even if private prisons save taxpayers money, the savings don't offset the safety risks and low-budget security practices associated with private prisons. Private correctional companies also increase corruption within our government by lobbying for policies that keep more prisoners locked up for longer periods of time. They also cut corners by hiring under-qualified staff and providing them with inadequate training. The prison system is something that should remain under the control and discretion of the government because it is prone to unprecedented levels of corruption if turned over to the private sector. It is for these reasons that prison privatization is harmful to society as a whole.

Works Cited

Becker, Jeff. "Privatization Would Benefit the Prison System." Opposing Viewpoints: America's Prisons. Ed. Roman Espejo. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2002. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale.

Brakel, S. J. (1988). Prison management, private enterprise style: The inmate's evaluation. New England Journal of Criminal and Civil Confinement, 14(2), 175-244.

Calabrese, Wayne. "Private Prisons Are Cost Effective." Current Controversies: Prisons. Ed. Bryan J. Grapes. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2000. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale.

DiIulio, J. J., Jr. (1990). The duty to govern: A critical perspective on the private management of prisons and jails. In D. C. McDonald (Ed.), Private prisons and the public interest (pp. 155-178). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Flanagan, T. J., & Maguire, K. (Eds.). (1992). Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics, 1991. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Gainsborough, Jenni. "Privately Operated Prisons Are Not Beneficial." America's
Prisons. Ed. Clare Hanrahan. Opposing Viewpoints®. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2006. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale.

Hatry, H. P., Bronstein, P. J., Levinson, R. B., Altschuler, R. M., Chi, K., & Rosenberg, P. (1989). Comparison of privately and publicly operated corrections facilities in Kentucky and Massachusetts. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Keating, D. (1991, January 30). Monroe County sheriff gets back control of jail from Wackenhut. Miami Herald, p. B4.

Maguire, K., & Pastore, A. L. (1994). Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics, 1993. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Mauer, M. (1992). Americans behind bars: One year later. Washington, DC: Sentencing Project.

"PRISONERS/CORRECTIONS." Columbia Journalism Review (1999): 19. Business Economics and Theory. Web.

Sechrest, D. K., & Shichor, D. (1993). Corrections goes public (and private) in California. Federal Probation, 57(3), 3-8.

Shichor, David, and Dale K. Sechrest. "Quick fixes in corrections: reconsidering private and public for-profit facilities." Prison Journal 75.4 (1995): 457+. Business Economics and Theory. Web.

Evolution

2010-06-01T16:10:00.000-07:00

     Because of the plentiful supply of evidence consisting of embryology, cellular biology and paleontology, evolution is the best explanation of biodiversity. “To an evolutionary biologist, evolution is a change in the proportion of genes present in an existing population” (Andrew). The evolution-creationism debate can be traced back as far as ancient Greece but has more recently been between Bible followers and followers of the scientist, Charles Darwin. In the simplest terms, Darwin realized that individuals in a species have varying characteristics, and that those that are best adapted to their environment are more likely to survive and breed, causing the maladapted individuals to be eliminated over time.

     “In embryology, the developing fetus is studied, and similarities with other organisms are observed” (Cobb). For example, at their earliest stages, different mammal species look almost identical in the embryo and are almost impossible to distinguish. Since many species develop similarly and start off in similar shapes, embryology is a strong independent line of evidence that we originated from a common ancestor and that evolution did in fact occur. It is important to note that we didn’t come from other mammals such as chimpanzees; we just branched off from them at some point.

     “The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all things in the universe are undergoing a continual process of decay. That process causes a decrease in the complexity of all things. Yet evolution requires the opposite to occur – namely, that all things evolve from a simple state to a state of greater complexity” (Thomson). This statement is based on a complete misconception as to the mechanisms of the second law. The second law states that the total entropy – or amount of energy unavailable for work during a thermodynamic process – cannot decrease. The Second Law also states that parts of a system can decrease in entropy as long as other parts endure an offsetting increase. For example, if the sun pours heat and light onto it, our planet can become more complex. The increase in entropy associated with the sun’s nuclear fusion more than balances the scale. It is for this reason that when simple organisms consume other forms of life and nonliving materials, they can fuel their rise toward complexity (Rennie).

     “Even in cell biology, at the level of the individuals cell, there is evidence of evolution in that there are many similarities that can be observed when comparing various cells from different organisms” (Cobb). Through cellular biology, we can see how similar the cells of different organisms are despite differences in size, shape, capabilities, and intelligence. This is because the DNA for supporting essential components of life is very similar and consistent across the wide and diverse spectrum of species that inhabit Earth. For example, we share 50 percent of our DNA with bananas, 60 percent with fruit flies, 98 percent with chimpanzees, and 99 percent with every other human. The same relationships that can be observed when analyzing the structures of organisms can be seen in DNA sequences further supporting that Darwin’s theory of evolution is the best explanation of biodiversity.

     “The ethical argument of the creationists is that the reductionistic materialism of Darwinian science is ethically degrading. If Darwinians persuade people that they are nothing but animals and therefore are not elevated above other animals by having been created in God's image, people will not respect God's moral law or see the unique moral dignity of human beings. Instead they will become selfish hedonists in the pursuit of their animal desires” (Arnhart). Darwinians reason that as the rational and naturally social animals human beings are, we have social instincts allowing us to care for others. We are also capable of creating moral rules making it possible for us to satisfy our social needs. For example, if children weren’t cared for by their parents or people assuming parental roles, the human species would not survive. We can therefore see how natural selection has given humans the natural desire to parent offspring and created the moral bond between parents and children.

     Our abundant and extensive fossil record is perhaps the best evidence of evolution. “By placing fossils together based on their ages, a gradual change in form can be identified, which can be carefully compared to species that currently exist” (Cobb). Analyzing the placement of fossils within the ground and using techniques like carbon dating to determine their age allows paleontologists to place fossils in chronological order. This makes it possible for them to note similarities with currently existing species. Using our fossil record, we can very clearly see that countless species have gone extinct. Although our fossil record is incomplete, careful analysis of habitat, environmental factors at various points of time, characteristics of extinct species, and characteristics of currently existing species can compensate for missing parts of the fossil record making paleontology an excellent source of evidence for evolution and natural selection (Cobb).

     There is an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting evolution including embryology, cellular biology, and paleontology. But what makes evolution so scientifically strong isn’t just the many strong lines of evidence that support the same thing, but the fact that each is completely independent from the others. Embryology is a strong piece of evidence because it shows how certain species develop similarly and start off in similar shapes allowing us to infer that these species have a common ancestor. Cellular biology allows us to see how similar various genetic codes and cells from different organisms are. It also allows us to see the same relationships between the structures of organisms in DNA sequences. Last of all, our extensive and abundant fossil record shows that countless species have gone extinct. When fossils are placed in chronological order, a gradual change in form can be identified which can carefully be compared to species that currently exist. Most of the opposing views on evolution are derived from a complete misconception as to the mechanisms of evolution. It is for these reasons that evolution is the best explanation of biodiversity.

Works Cited

Andrew, Susan. "Evolution." The Gale Encyclopedia of Science. Ed. K. Lee Lerner and Brenda Wilmoth Lerner. 3rd ed. Vol. 2. Detroit: Gale, 2004. 1538-1542. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 18 May 2010.

Arnhart, Larry. "Evolution–Creationism Debate." Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics. Ed. Carl Mitcham. Vol. 2. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2005. 720-723. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 18 May 2010.

Cobb, Bryan. "Evolution, Evidence of." The Gale Encyclopedia of Science. Ed. K. Lee Lerner and Brenda Wilmoth Lerner. 3rd ed. Vol. 2. Detroit: Gale, 2004. 1544-1546. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 18 May 2010.

John Rennie, "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense", Scientific American Magazine, July 2002.

Thomson, Ker C. "Physical Laws Support Creationism." At Issue: Creationism vs. Evolution. Ed. Bruno J. Leone. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2002. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. 27 May. 2010

Titanic

2010-05-01T22:11:00.000-07:00

    Did the Titanic really hit an iceberg or did it only hit low-lying pack ice? Was an excessive amount of coal added to the furnace causing the ship to travel at unsafe speeds indirectly leading to the iceberg collision? Was Titanic's sister-ship, the RMS Olympic, disguised as the Titanic for an elaborate insurance scam? Was the Titanic's angle at the time of the break up far less than had commonly been assumed? We'll examine these conspiracies next.
The RMS Titanic was built in Belfast, Ireland and was an Olympic-class passenger liner owned by the White Star Line. At the time of its construction, it was the largest passenger steamboat in the world. On April 14, 1912, four days into the voyage, the Titanic struck an iceberg sinking early the next morning according to accepted reports. The ship sunk only two hours and forty minutes after striking the iceberg. The sinking became one of the deadliest peacetime maritime disasters in history resulting in the deaths of 1,517 of the 2,223 people on board.
   Although the ship was complying with regulations of the time, the capacity of the lifeboats was 1,178 although the ships maximum capacity was 3,547. A disproportionate number of men died due to the women and children first protocol that was followed. As a result 74 percent of the women, 52 percent of the children, and only 20 percent of the men on board were saved. The Titanic incorporated the most advanced technologies of the time and was designed by some of the most experienced engineers. Many believed that the ship was unsinkable resulting in a great shock to many that despite its extensive safety features, it sank. The accepted theory is that buckling of the hull allowed water to enter the ships first five watertight compartments (one more than it was designed to survive) causing it to sink soon after.
     Now that we know what the accepted theory is, let's examine some of the conspiracies. One conspiracy is that the Titanic didn't hit an iceberg, but low lying pack ice. A former member of the Ice Pilotage Service, Captain L.M. Collins, published The Sinking of the Titanic: The Mystery Solved in 2003. This was based on his own experiences of ice navigation and witness statements given at two post-disaster inquiries. One piece of evidence supporting this theory is that 10 minutes before the ship was struck, two lookouts spotted what appeared to be haze on the horizon. Collins believes that what they saw wasn't haze, but a strip of pack ice three to four miles ahead of the ship. There was much discrepancy as to the height of the ice. The lookouts reported it as being 60 feet tall, 100 feet by Quartermaster Rowe, and very low in the water by Fourth Officer Boxhall, who was on the starboard side. An optical phenomenon that is well know to ice navigators where the flat sea and extreme cold distort the appearance of objects near the waterline making them appear to be the height of the ships lights, about 60 feet above the surface near the bow and 100 feet along the super structure, is believed to have occurred by Collins. He also believes that had the Titanic struck an iceberg, the ship would most likely have flooded, capsized, and sunk within minutes.
      Another theory is that a coal fire indirectly led to the iceberg collision. Robert Essenhigh, an Ohio State engineer, released a theory in 2004 claiming that a pile of stored coal started to smolder causing more coal to be put in to the furnaces. He believes this attempt to get control of the situation led to dangerously high speeds in the iceberg-laden waters. Records prove that fire control teams at the ports of Cherbourg and Southampton were on standby because of a stockpile fire. Fires of this sort are known to reignite after they've supposedly been extinguished. Essenhigh believes the Titanic left Southampton with one of its bunkers on fire or that a spontaneous combustion of coal occurred after the ship left port. These types of fires were common occurrences aboard coal-fired ships and were one of many reasons why marine transportation switched to oil in the early 1900s.
   Perhaps the most controversial and complex theory is by the author of the book, Titanic: The Ship That Never Sank?, Robin Gardiner. In her book, she cites several events leading up to the sinking of the Titanic and concludes that the ship that sank was in fact Titanic's sister ship, the RMS Olympic, disguised as the Titanic for an elaborate insurance scam. The Olympic was Titanic's older sister although it was built alongside the Titanic and entered service in October 1910. The two ships were nearly identical except for the fact that the Titanic contained smaller glazed windows to protect passengers from spray. The Olympic was involved in a collision with the HMS Hawke near Southampton on September 20, 1911 causing serious damage to both ships. The Hawke was not found responsible for the collision. According to Gardiner, White Star Line wasn't insured for the cost of fixing the damaged Olympic. Realizing that it would be more economical to make the Titanic appear to be the Olympic rather than remove parts from the Titanic to the Olympic, the company converted the almost complete Titanic into the Olympic removing any parts that had its name so at least one vessel could be earning money. Gardiner believes that the Titanic spent 25 years imitating the Olympic until the Titanic's (or Olympic's according to official reports) retirement in 1934.
      Gardiner believes that White Star Line's plan was to dispose the Olympic so insurance money could be collected. Gardiner also believes that the seacocks (a boat's valve permitting the entry of water into the boat) were supposed to be opened up at sea and that the nearby ships would be able to rescue the passengers. They thought the shortage of lifeboats wouldn't be a problem because the ship would sink slowly allowing the lifeboats to be able to make several trips to and from the Olympic to its rescuers. She thinks Officer Murdoch was keeping a watch out for rescue ships on April 14 even though he wasn't on duty yet because he was one of the few high ranking officers who knew of the plan. Gardiner's most controversial statement is that what the Titanic struck was really not an iceberg, but a rescue ship with its lights out. She hypothesizes this because of the short distance the lookouts saw the iceberg and of her belief that an impact with an iceberg couldn't cause such serious damage to a steel double-hulled ship like the Titanic.
      As to the mechanics of Titanic's breakup, Walter Lord, the author of A Night To Remember, assumed the ship was at an absolutely perpendicular angle before its final plunge. This theory remained unchallenged for the most part even after the ship's discovery in 1985 confirmed it had broken in two pieces at or near the surface. Most researchers acknowledge that the Titanic's expansion joint played no role in the ships breakup although it was designed be able to flex at sea. In 2005, a history channel expedition analyzed two large section of Titanic's keel which consisted of the portion of the ship's bottom from immediately below the site of the break. With the help of naval architect, Roger Long, they publicized a new theory in the 2006 documentary, Titanic's Final Moments: Missing Pieces. They believed that Titanic's angle at the time of the breakup was far less than originally believed and no greater than eleven degrees. Long also suspects that the quicker-than-expected sinking resulting in a greater loss of life was due to a premature failure of the ship's expansion joint. It was discovered that Titanic's sister ship, the Britannic, had expansion joints that were superior to that of the Titanic's. In the 2007 documentary, Titanic's Achilles Heel, Long's theory was proven wrong when computer simulations showed Titanic's expansion joints were strong enough to handle all stresses the ship could reasonably be expected to encounter in service and that during its sinking, it actually outperformed its design specifications.
   It is certainly possible that what the Titanic struck was not an iceberg but pack ice instead. It was common for piles of stored coal to smolder making it possible that more coal was added to the ship's furnace to get control of the situation. This may have caused the ship to travel at dangerously high speeds, resulting in a loss of maneuverability, preventing the ship's operators from being able to navigate around dangerous objects at sea. The sinking of the Titanic could have been purposefully caused but it seems highly unlikely such plan would work. I could not grasp how a company would risk the lives of so many innocent people with the intention of committing an insurance scam for their personal gain. If the Titanic had in fact collided with another darkened ship, why are there no records of such incident and why have the remains of the other ship involved in the collision not been found? It seems highly possible that the angle of the Titanic at the time of the breakup was no greater than eleven degrees and that despite the end result, the ship outperformed its design specifications. Regardless of whether the ship was intentionally sunk or not, the lives of 1,517 innocent people were lost in what was one of the deadliest peacetime maritime disasters in history.

Pan Am Flight 103

2010-03-25T11:05:00.000-07:00

     Did the CIA set up a protected drug route from Europe to the United States so Syrian drug dealers could ship heroin to the US using Pan Am flights in exchange for intelligence? Did the Iranian government bomb the plane in retaliation for of the shooting down of a Iran Air Airbus by the USS Vincennes? Was Ahmed Jibril sponsored by Iran to commit the bombing and paid $11 million for the success of the operation? We'll examine these conspiracies next.
   Pan Am Flight 103 was Pan American World Airways' third daily scheduled flight from London's Heathrow Airport to the JFK airport in New York. On Wednesday December 21, 1988, the plane flying this route was destroyed by a bomb killing all 243 passengers and 16 crew members. In Lockerbie, a town in southern Scotland, 11 people were killed as large sections of the plane fell in and around the town bringing the death toll to 270. It was therefore named the Lockerbie bombing.
   On January 31, 2001, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, a Libyan, was convicted of involvement in the bombing and sentenced to life imprisonment in Scotland. The Scottish Government released him on August 21, 2009 on compassionate grounds to return to Libya because he had terminal prostate cancer and had a life expectancy of less than 3 months. His release and return to Libya has stirred controversy because six months after his release, he was alive and living as a freeman.
Initially, the prime suspects for the bombing were the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command (PFLP-GC), a Damascus-based rejectionist group led by former leader of the Syrian army, Captain Ahmed Jibril. It was speculated that he was sponsored by the Iranian government to commit the bombings. During a press conference in February 1986, Jibril warned that "There will be no safety for any traveler on an Israeli or U.S. airliner." Author David Yallop claimed to have recorded secret intercepts between the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Baalbeck, Lebanon and the PFLP-GC immediately after the downing of the plane. Israeli intelligence allegedly intercepted a phone call made two days after the downing of the plane by Mohtashemi-Pur, Interior Minister in Tehran, to the chargé d'affaires at the Iranian embassy in Beirut. The embassy allegedly paid Jibril $11 million for the successful mission and congratulated the PFLP-GC. This payment has never been confirmed.
   While the PFLP-GC constructed their bombs and planned the bombing, Germany's internal security service, the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (BfV) kept the group's members under strict surveillance. Unknown to them, the PFLP-GC's bomb maker, Marwan Khreesat, was a Jordanian intelligence service (GID) agent who reported the cell's activities to the GID, who shared the information with the BfV and Western intelligence. The Jordanian government encouraged Khreesat to proceed with the construction of the bombs but instructed him to ensure they were ineffective and would not explode. Despite this, a German police technician was killed, in April 1989, when attempting to disarm one of his bombs. Through Khreesat and the GID, the Germans learned that that the PFLP-GC was surveying a number of targets. They then set the attack date for October 30, 1988.
   Knowing this, the German secret police attempted to arrest the PFLP-GC by raiding 14 apartments and arresting 17 men on October 26, 1998. They feared that they would lose control of the situation if they kept the group on surveillance any longer. Two members of the group managed to escape despite the German police's efforts. The author of the 1994 documentary film, David Yallop, speculated that Libyan or Iranian-paid agents worked together on the bombing, or one group handed the job to the other upon the arrest of most of the PFLP-GC participants. Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA head of terrorism who worked on the PA 103 investigation, believes the PFLP-GC planned the attack after being requested to by the Iranian government, then sub-contracted it to Libyan intelligence after the arrests in Germany meant they were unable to complete the mission. Other supporters of this conspiracy believe that who ever sponsored the bombing arranged two separate operations to ensure one with succeed, or used the operation in Germany as a red herring to divert the attention of intelligence services, while the bombers proceeded quietly elsewhere.
   Many journalists believe that the Iranian motive for committing the bombing was retaliation for the shooting down of an Iran Air Airbus by the USS Vincennes. This had been denied by investigators from the start. Abolghasem Mesbahi, the former head of Iranian intelligence in Europe, eventually admitted to German investigators that Iran had asked Libya and Abu Nidal, a Palestinian guerrilla leader, to conduct the attack on Pan Am 103.
Another conspiracy involves CIA drug smuggling. In this theory, CIA agents set up a protected drug route from Europe to the United States, allegedly called Operation Corea, allowing Syrian drug dealers led by Monzer al-Kassar, to ship heroin to the US using Pan Am Flights. In exchange for this, they were to supply intelligence on Palestinian groups in Syria holding hostages. As part of this plan, the CIA would protect the suitcases containing the drugs and make sure they were not searched. According to this theory, on the day of the bombing, the terrorists exchanged suitcases: one for drugs and one for the bomb.
     According to a theory by Juval Aviv, the CIA knew the bag with the drugs would be exchanged with the bag with the bomb but let it happen anyway because two American Intelligence Officers - Matthew Gannon and Major Charles McKee had found out about the drug route and were heading to Washington on Pan Am 103 to tell their superiors. Pan Am hired Aviv as their lead investigator for the bombing. His scenario provided a credible defense against claims for compensation by relatives of the victims because Pan Am could hardly be held liable if the US Government helped the bomb bypass Pan Am's security. Pan Am's report alleged that Khalid Jafaar, a Lebanese-American passenger, brought the bomb on board thinking he was carrying drugs for the drug dealers he supposedly worked for. A civil case by US relatives presented in a New York court rejected the report's allegations due to lack of evidence.
   It is certainly possible that the Iranian government funded the mission in retaliation for the Iran Air Airbus that was shot down. Despite the 290 lives that were innocently taken in the Iran Air incident, which appears to be an accident by the USS Vincennes, a retaliation of violence is unacceptable if that is what caused Pan Am Flight 103 to be downed. If the Iranian government caused the downing of the flight, keep in mind that a country's government is not necessarily a representation of the beliefs of the individuals that reside in that country. It seems highly possible that the PFLP-GC was initially assigned the mission but it was transferred to Libyan intelligence when it became clear the group could not complete the mission. It is a lot harder to believe that two separate operations were arranged by whoever sponsored the bombing or that it was used as a red herring to divert attention from the real bombers. Knowing how corrupt Iran's government has been since the revolution, it is quite possible they funded the mission. There is a chance that the CIA allowed Syrian drug dealers to transport heroin through Pan Am flights in exchange for intelligence on Palestinian groups holding hostages in Syria, but it seems highly unlikely that they would knowingly let a bomb on board Pan Am Flight 103. I could not grasp them doing such a thing. Regardless of who is to blame, the Lockerbie bombing was truly a tragedy that took the lives of 270 people.

Waco Siege

2010-03-07T14:50:00.000-08:00

      Who fired the first shots at the Waco siege? Was CS gas injected into into the building by armored vehicles in an unsafe manner? Did the compound residents really have enough time to escape the fire if they desired? Did the Davidian's commit suicide or whey they caught in the midst of combat with the FBI? We'll examine these controversies next.
     Beginning on February 28, 1993, the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) attempted to execute a search warrant at the Branch Davidian ranch at Mount Carmel, located nine miles northeast of Waco, Texas. After an exchange of gunfire, four agents and six followers of David Koresh were killed. The FBI then conducted a 51 day siege which ended when fire destroyed the compound on April 19. Seventy-six Davidian followers died in the fire including including more than 20 children, two pregnant women, and Koresh himself.
   Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventists are a Protestant sect originating in 1955, and are a reform movement that had begun within the Seventh Day Adventist Church around 1930. With increasing membership, the group moved the church to a hilltop they named Carmel Mountain which was several miles west of Waco. Mount Carmel was named after a mountain in Israel mentioned in the Bible. The group moved to a larger site east of the city a few years later. The group had sold most of the land that belonged to them by 1992 except for 77 acres. Most of the buildings had been removed or used as construction materials to convert much of the main chapel and water tank into apartments for the resident members of the group. Most of the group's members had been associated with the Davidians for a few generations and had large families. After construction was complete, the new Mount Carmel Center consisted of a main church building, administrative and storage buildings, and homes for the leaders and important visitors.
   One of the biggest controversies is who fired first. Helicopters had been obtained by the Texas National Guard on the ground that there was a drug laboratory at Mount Carmel. The official explanation of the events stated that helicopters were mainly used as a distraction, and that the Davidians were not targeted because the helicopters didn't have mounted guns. One negotiator admitted that the helicopter's occupants were armed and could possibly have opened fire but that it wasn't the sole purpose of the helicopters. The lead attorney for the Davidians' wrongful death lawsuit explains that the condition of the left-hand door tells you that the right-hand door wasn't consumed by fire, but purposely misplaced by someone. This evidence is in support of the government firing the first shot.
     Another controversy is that during the final raid, CS gas was injected into the building by armored vehicles in an unsafe manner that could have started a fire. Two of the three fires started well inside the building, away from where the CS gas was pumped in. Despite this, survivor David Thibodeau claimed that damage to the building allowed the gas to spread. He says the ATF broke the walls, broke the windows down, and spread the CS gas. Attorney General Reno and spokespersons for the FBI claimed that no pyrotechnics were used during the assault between 1993 and 1999 (even under oath). However, pyrotechnic Flite-Rite CS grenades were found in the rubble immediately after the fire. Finally, in 1999, an FBI spokesperson admitted that these devices, which dispense CS gas through an internal burning process, had been used early that morning to penetrate a covered, water-filled construction pit 40 yards away, and were not fired at the building itself. The FBI claimed that the fires had started about three hours after the grenades were fired. When the FBI turned over documents to Congress, the use of pyrotechnics was missing. The six year failure to disclose the use of pyrotechnics led Attorney General Reno to demand a second investigation. A senior official of the FBI told Newsweek that up to 100 agents knew about the use of pyrotechnics, but no one spoke up until 1999.
     The government claims that surveillance devices planted in the walls of the building captured a number of conversations which are evidence the Davidians started the fire. Contradicting this, reporter Diana Fuentes said that when the tapes were played in court on April 19, few people heard what the FBI audio expert claimed to hear. She said the tapes were filled with noise and the voices could only occasionally be perceptible. Since the words were faint, some people in the courtroom could understand what was being said, while others could not.
     The Branch Davidians had given ominous warnings involving fire on several occasions leading Congress to conclude that they had started the fire. Due to the fact that the FBI had not released the use of pyrotechnics at the time of the investigation, a second investigation by the Office of Special Counsel was conducted. Even with this new evidence, they reached the same conclusion and no further congressional investigations followed. In Professor Kenneth Newport's book The Branch Davidians of Waco, he attempted to prove that that the Davidians started the fire themselves and that it was preplanned. His evidence included conversations the FBI recorded during the siege, testimonials of survivors Clive Doyle and Graeme Craddock, and the purchase of diesel fuel the month before the siege started. Texas state authorities bulldozed the site less than a month after the siege ended, on May 12, making it impossible to gather additional forensic evidence.
     A large concentration of bodies, weapons, and ammunition were found below the building. The arson report suggests the possibility that many of the occupants did not make an attempt to escape the burning building. It also mentions another possibility which is that structural debris from the fire on the west side of the building could have blocked a possible escape route through the underground tunnel system. An independent investigation concluded that if the compound residents wanted to escape the fire, they had enough time to do so.
     Since Davidian leaders repeatedly denied plans to commit mass suicide to negotiators during the siege, the FBI believed that there was no possibility such event would occur. People leaving the compound said that they had not seen preparations for such a thing. The FBI concluded that there was a possibility that some of David Koresh's followers would follow him if he committed suicide. According to Alan A. Stone's report, the FBI used an incorrect psychiatric perspective to evaluate the Davidian's responses causing them to over-rely on Koresh's statements that they wouldn't commit suicide. This error could have caused them to be over-confident about their will not to commit suicide altering the questions the negotiators asked the Davidians.
    According to autopsies of the dead, some women and children who had fallen beneath a fallen concrete wall of a storage room had died of skull injuries. Photographs after the fire show that the M728 CEV tank that crashed into the building to inject CS gas did not come close enough to cause the collapse, which was most likely the result of the fire. Photographs show signs that fragments of concrete were ejected from the body due to impact or stress. This suggests the damage was caused by intense heat. Autopsy photographs of other children showed that their muscles suddenly tightened before death which is consistent with cyanide poisoning, one of the results produced by burning CS gas. The DOJ report indicated that only one body had traces of benzene, one of the components of solvent-dispersed CS gas. The gas insertions ended nearly an hour before the fire did meaning that there was enough time for solvents to dissipate from the bodies of the Davidians that had inhaled the tear gas.
     According to autopsy records, a minimum of 20 Davidians were shot, including 6 children under the age of 14, and one three-year-old was stabbed in the chest. The medical examiner who conducted the autopsies believed these shootings were mercy killings by Davidians trapped in the fire with no escape. According to survivor Clyde Doyle, who was a burn victim himself, the gunshots were mercy killings. In a 1995 press conference in Las Vegas, Nevada, Doyle said that he could understand why someone would end the suffering of another, especially a child, who had been gassed and was burning to death. To him, killing each other in such a time of peril made more sense than a "suicide pact" as some claimed. He believes that the people who made such claims had never been on fire.
     I don't think Mount Carmel was legally run since a Texas agency responsible for child protective services claimed to have a substantial amount of evidence that children were being abused at the site. In addition to that, authorities had reason to believe that Koresh and his followers were stockpiling illegal weapons. Despite this, I don't think the siege was appropriately conducted. I don't think such violent means were necessary to siege Mount Carmel. One of Timothy McVeigh's motives for the Oklahoma City Bombing might have been to get retaliation for the Waco Siege. This might also have been a motive for the Columbine High School massacre that took the lives of 15 people. It will probably never be known for sure who fired the first shot. I don't know why the FBI would lie about the use of pyrotechnic devices until 1999. I think the Davidians didn't escape the burning wreckage because the escape route out of the tunnel was blocked with structural debris. Setting the building on fire and injecting CS gas causing some of the occupants, including children, to be gassed and burned to death was an extremely cruel thing to do. It is highly unfair to say the Davidians committed suicide when all they were trying to do was end the suffering of each other, especially the children. Regardless of who is to blame, the Waco Siege was truly a tragedy that took the lives of 82 Davidians and 4 agents.

Jonestown

2010-02-26T21:39:00.000-08:00

      Was Jonestown created to support a CIA study on the effects of truth serums and other drugs on mind control? Did the CIA conduct mind control research that it said it abandoned at Jamestown? Did the occupants of Jonestown really 'voluntarily' kill themselves or were they massively murdered? Were 20 to 120 followers not accounted for in the death toll? Were the members of the settlement murdered by CIA agents to prevent further political emigration from the USA as well as abolish opposition to the US regime? We'll examine these conspiracies next.
     Jonestown is the informal name for the "People's Temple Agricultural Project" located in northwestern Guyana. It became internationally known on November 18, 1978, after 909 people were killed in Jonestown. The occupants apparently died of cyanide poisoning in what Jones (Jonestown's leader) said was "revolutionary suicide" on an audio tape prior to the incident. Among the victims was Congressman Leo Ryan who was the first Congressman to die in the line of duty in the history of the United States. The incident has been viewed as a mass suicide and is the largest such event in modern history. It resulted in the greatest loss of American civilian life in a non-natural disaster until the September 11, 2001 attacks.
     Now that we know what happened, let's examine some of the conspiracies. The most accepted conspiracy is that Jim Jones created Jonestown to support a CIA study on the effects of truth serums and other drugs on mind control. Some claim that the CIA was conducting mind control research branching off from its previous program, MKULTRA, despite the fact that they claimed to have abandoned all mind control research. Some claim that the CIA's ultimate goal was to overthrow Guyana's government. It was believed that a nation run by Jones under CIA influence would provide an example of a communist nation the United States could engage with politically. For this reason, the CIA kept Jonestown supplied with drugs, weapons, and money with the hope that they would eventually be able to convert the locals.
     Some theorize that the CIA used the Peoples Temple and its unlicensed nursing home to defraud US government assistance programs by secretly transferring money through the church, then depositing it to the congregation's private bank accounts which had all been signed over to the church. It is claimed that this money was used to fund political advertisements, busing voters to the polls, and secretly paying homeless people and others who wouldn't normally vote to support their candidates.
     Originally, the Guyanese army reported that 408 people had committed suicide while more than 500 managed to flee into the surrounding jungle. Some dispute the fact that more than 500 fled into the surrounding jungle because the deaths were supposedly voluntary. If committing suicide was optional, why would you have to 'flee'? When the American military arrived several days later, the death count first rose to 700, then 780, and finally a final count of 909 seven days after the Guyanese report was released. It was reported that only 167 Jonestown inhabitants survived. To explain the discrepancy in body counts, one US official said the Guyanese couldn't count while another said that 400 corpses had initially been found in such a way that they hid 500 more. The compound was littered with piles of dead, decomposing bodies atop one another near the pavilion.
     Although the total number of settlers living at Jamestown at the time of the massacre has never been verified, it is estimated that 20-120 followers were not accounted for. According to the New York Times, all 100 of the bodies that were initially examined had been injected with cyanide in places they could not have reached without assistance and that many had also been shot. Charles Huff, one of the first American soldiers on the scene reported that many of the gunshot victims as well as other victims had been attempting to flee. The first doctor on the scene who initially examined 100 bodies, Dr. Leslie C. Mootoo, felt that the children were incapable of consenting to suicide and speculated that a majority of those who died at Jonestown may have been murdered.
The Jonestown Massacre was truly a tragedy that took the lives of 909 people. Whether they committed suicide or not will never be known for sure. The fact that the Guyanese army reported that over 500 people managed to 'flee' is suspicious if the suicide was voluntary. It is also quite hard to believe that the 400 bodies that were initially found could be stacked on top of each other in such a way that they could hide 500 more. How can we conspire that 20-120 weren't accounted for in the death toll if we don't know how many inhabitants Jonestown had at the time of the incident? If suicide was taking place so massively, why were the participating people injecting cyanide in places they couldn't reach without assistance? It is quite possible that the CIA's ultimate goal was to overthrow Guyana's government, but I don't think they smuggled money through the church to private accounts by defrauding US government assistance programs. The fact that one of the most powerful members of the church, Timothy Stoen, never said anything about the CIA or its mind control experiments is a point against a conspiracy. Since he published everything he could find to discredit the organization and Jim Jones in an attempt to win back his son strongly suggests that the CIA was not involved. Regardless of who is to blame, the largest mass suicide in modern history took the lives of 909 people. Whether or not they committed suicide, may an event of such magnitude never take place again.

Death of Princess Diana

2010-02-19T19:01:00.000-08:00

    Was Princess Diana pregnant before being tragically killed in a car accident? Was her body so quickly embalmed to ensure her pregnancy test would produce a false result? Did a bright white flash blind her driver just before the car entered the tunnel? Was Henri Paul, Diana's driver, an M16 agent? We'll examine these claims next.
     Diana, the Princess of Wales, was killed on August 1, 1997 resulting from injuries sustained in a car accident in the Pont de I'Alma road tunnel in Paris, France. Dodi Fayed, her companion, and Henri Paul, her driver, were also pronounced dead at the scene of the accident. Amazingly, Fayed's bodyguard, Trevor Rees-Jones, was the only person to survive the tragic crash. In 1999, an eighteen-month French judicial investigation concluded that that the crash was caused by Paul's loss of control of the car at high speeds while intoxicated and under the influence of antidepressants. On April 7, 2008, the Royal Courts of Justice in London, England concluded that Diana had been unlawfully killed by the grossly negligent driving of her chauffeur and paparazzi photographers.
   Now that we know what happened, lets see what some of the conspiracies are. Allegations about the driver, Henri Paul, claim that he was paid by a national security service. Evidence supporting this is the large amount of money in his possession at the time of his death and his personal wealth. These allegations were covered in chapter four of the Operation Paget criminal investigation report. A well know allegation questions the reliability of blood tests carried out indicating that he had been drinking before taking control of the car. The French investigators concluded that Paul was drunk based on blood samples that had been taken indicating that his blood alcohol content was three times over the French legal limit. In response to a British pathologist's challenge, French authorities tested the blood sample a third time confirming Paul's blood alcohol content and the fact that he had been taking antidepressants at the time of the crash.
     On November 2006, various news sources reported that the identity of the person to whom the blood samples belonged had been found. They claimed that the blood samples belonged to a suicide victim. On December 10, 2006, it was reported that DNA evidence concluded that the samples belonged to Henri Paul. In November 2006, Lord Stevens apparently told Henri Paul's parents that he wasn't drunk. The CCTV footage at the hotel supported this. Another issue raised by Lord Justice Scott Baker was the high level of carbon monoxide found in one sample. If true, the sample would have shown Mr. Paul to have been noticeably unwell.
   Richard Tomlinson, a former M16 agent who was dismissed from the intelligence services, alleged that the M16 had been monitoring Diana before her death, and that her driver was an M16 agent. He also alleged that her death mirrored plans for the assassination of then President of Serbia, Slobodan Miloševicoth. The M15 and M16 gave the Operation Paget inquiry unprecedented access to their offices to investigate Tomlinson's claims. They found out that he was referring to a proposal to assassinate another Serbian power. The plan did not contain any details of a car crashing in a tunnel and Tomlinson confirmed that it was the one he was referring to in his claims. The inquiry found no evidence that Paul was an agent for any security service and found limited evidence of surveillance on Diana. There is strong evidence that British Authorities had no way of knowing she was in Paris at the time of the accident. The inquiry concluded their investigation by dismissing Tomlinsons's claims.
     Another allegation is that Diana was pregnant with Dodi Fayed's child and that the couple was about to get engaged. Mohamed Fayed theorized that the couple was planning to announce their engagement on the Monday after the accident on September 1, 1997. Operating Paget commented that such announcement would attract media attention worldwide and would require much preparation. No evidence of such preparation was found making the scenario unlikely. Dodi did however purchase an engagement ring on the day of their deaths. It is not certain whether Dodi intended to present the engagement ring to Diana. Statements from Diana's eldest sister, Lady Sarah McCorquodale, her spiritual adviser, Rita Rogers, as well as other friends who spoke to her in the week before her death, unanimously stated that she was firm about not wanting to get engaged or married to anyone at that point in her life. Her former private secretary, Patrick Jephson, said that her facial expression at the Paris Ritz on her final evening with Dodi Fayed was one she would wear when she was displeased with a situation. Dodi and Diana met each other seven weeks (or 47 days) before the accident. They spent a maximum of 35 days together but it is likely they only spent about 23 days together before the accident.
     Regarding her pregnancy, Doctor John Burton said in January 2004, that he personally examined her womb and found her not to be pregnant. The Operation Paget also had scientific tests carried out on pre-transfusion blood found in the seat of the wrecked Mercedes the Princess occupied at the time of the accident. The blood did not contain any trace of the hCG hormone associated with pregnancy. Her friends reported that she was in her normal menstrual cycle further indicating she was not pregnant. Diana's holistic healer, Myriah Daniels, who traveled aboard Mohammed Fayed's yacht said that she was one hundred percent certain that Diana wasn't pregnant because she told her she wasn't, allowed her to perform a deep message on her stomach, and the fact that she found no indications that she was pregnant through the course of her work.
   Mohamed Al Fayed believed her body was quickly embalmed after her death to ensure her pregnancy tests would produce a false result. According to the Operation Paget, August 31, 1997 was a very hot day. Diana's body was stored near the Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital where she had been treated. Although dry ice and air conditioning units were placed in the room to keep it cool, such attempts appeared to have little success. Diana's two brothers, Prince Charles, and President Jacques Chirac wished to view the body and pay their respects later that afternoon. This means that there was little time to prepare the body to an acceptable state for viewing. Due to such pressure, the hospital staff embalmed the body with only the verbal authority of Madame Martine Monteil, the local superintendent of police, who assured them "that everything would be in order". French law requires paperwork to be to be completed before a body that is likely to endure a autopsy is embalmed. Such paperwork was only completed after the body was embalmed causing allegations to rise from such suspicious circumstances. It turns out that there was no way the hospital staff could have known whether Diana was pregnant or not.
     Richard Tomlinson claimed that a bright white flash blinded the driver before the car entered the tunnel and alleged that it was consistent with eyewitness testimonies. Operation Paget investigated Tomlinson's claims that part of M16 agents' training was to blind helicopter pilots with a powerful strobe light. The police found that such tactic was never at anytime taught to agents. The police found that only one witness, François Levistre, made a clear, specific reference to seeing a bright flash. He claimed to have seen this out of his rear-view mirror. His testimony differed from his then-wife's, who sat in the passenger seat next to him. Various television documentaries raised the issue of Levistre's criminal record for offenses involving dishonesty. In a detailed reconstruction of the event, the chain of events that led to the car crashing into a pillar started well before it entered the mouth of the tunnel. If a strobe light was used, it would probably have been so powerful that it would not only blind Henri Paul, but the perusing paparazzi and witnesses standing at the roadside. The Operation Paget report concluded that the alleged flash did not occur.
     I do not believe that Henri Paul was paid by a national security service but believe he was incompetent to drive due to his mental and physical state at the time of the crash. I also don't think that Richard Tomlinson was qualified to make the allegations he did due to the fact that he clearly didn't know what he was talking about. Based on the accumulation of data, it seems highly unlikely that the princess was pregnant. I think that her body was so quickly embalmed due to the fact that Diana's brothers and Prince Charles wanted to view her body with such short notice. It seems almost impossible that a bright strobe light was used to blind the driver. The tragic crash that took the lives of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed was truly a tragedy. Diana was a great Princess of Wales who did high-profile charity work. She also had a strong interest in landmines focusing on the injuries they create, often to children, long after conflict is over. In the end, the life of a great person was tragically cut short, the life of the People's Princess.

TWA Flight 800

2010-02-09T19:25:00.000-08:00

      Was TWA Flight 800 shot down by friendly fire? Was the shot down plane the result of a terrorist attack that the FBI and NTSB conspired to cover-up due to political pressure? Was the plane brought down by electromagnetic interference emitted from a U.S. military aircraft? Did a break up sequence occur when a high-pressure event "unzipped" the fuselage?   Was TWA 800 blown up a bomb to disrupt the trial of Ramzi Yousef, the planner of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing? Did the break up of the Boeing 747 result from a malfunctioning cargo door that opened in-flight resulting in the destruction of the aircraft? We'll examine these conspiracies next.
     On July 17, 1996, Trans World Airlines (TWA) Flight 800, a Boeing 747-131, crashed into the Atlantic Ocean near East Moriches, New York. It was a scheduled international passenger flight from JFK International Airport in New York to Leonardo Da Vinci International Airport in Rome, Italy. The flight departed the JFK International Airport at 20:19 with two pilots, two flight engineers, 14 flight attendants, and 212 passengers. The plane crash resulted in all 230 people on board being killed and the airplane being destroyed.
     Although there was much initial speculation that the crash had been caused by a terrorist attack, the FBI announced that no evidence of a criminal act had been found. The NTSB concluded that there was an explosion in the center wing fuel tank (CWT), causing the ignition of the flammable fuel/ air mixture in the tank. They also concluded that the source of ignition energy for the explosion could not be determined with certainty, but that the most likely was a short circuit outside of the CWT allowing excessive voltage to enter through the electrical wiring associated with the fuel quantity indication system.
   Now that we know what happened, lets see what some of the conspiracies are. On November 7, 1996, Pierre Salinger claimed that he had proof that TWA Flight 800 had been shot down by friendly fire, and that the events that took place had been covered up by the government. He based his assumptions on a document he received 6 months earlier by someone in French Intelligence with close contacts to U.S. officials. He refused to name his source and CNN quickly found the document to be a widely accessible e-mail letter that Richard Russell, a retired airline pilot, wrote six weeks earlier. Salinger was previously a White House Press Secretary and a long time correspondent for ABC News making his statements initially credible. The NTSB vice chairman, Bob Francis, said Pierre Salinger was an idiot and didn't know what he was talking about.
   James Sanders, a retired police officer and his wife, Elizabeth Sanders, claimed that the "reddish" residue not present on other seats was missile fuel. The FBI declared the residue to be adhesive used in the seats. In response, the NTSB retested the samples and once again declared it as adhesive which the Sander's again disputed. They believed that testing by independent laboratories showed the samples to be inconsistent with the composition of the expected adhesive. In their first book on the incident, the Sanders published the book The Downing of TWA Flight 800 in which they proposed that the plane had been shot down by friendly fire and a government cover up had taken place. Later with the help of Jack Cashill, they published First Strike: TWA Flight 800 and the Attack on America which further expanded their theory stating that the plane had been brought down by a Navy missile, whose intended target was a terrorist plane on a collision course with the passenger aircraft.
   Another conspiracy is by William S. Donaldson, a retired naval officer, who authored the Donaldson Report which was released on July 17, 1998. He claimed that TWA Flight 800 had been struck by two missiles which had been fired from the water. He said it was most likely a terrorist attack and that the FBI and NTSB had conspired to cover-up this due to political pressure. Donaldson disputed the CWT Fuel/Air vapor explosion scenario because there had never been an in-flight explosion in a Boeing Airliner of a Jet-A Kerosene fuel vapor/air mixture in any tank caused by a mechanical failure. His proof of the missile-attack scenario consisted of eyewitness accounts, the debris field, and victim injury evidence. Donaldson supported Sander's theory of the accidental shoot down and did not rule out U.S. Navy involvement. Most of Donaldson's report dealt with his belief that the FBI and NTSB covered up what really happened. He believed that the Clinton Administration wanted to cover up the events that occurred for political reasons especially the upcoming presidential elections. In his conclusion, he requested that Congress would hold Congressional hearings into the crash and that the Justice Department would appoint an independent counsel to investigate. Neither of his requests were granted.
   Elaine Scarry published "The Fall of TWA 800: The Possibility of Electromagnetic Interference", on April 9, 1998. She was a professor of English and American Literature and Language at Harvard and proposed that electromagnetic interference could have caused the crash, specifically energy emitted by a U.S. Military Aircraft. In response to the NTSB's Final Report, Elaine Scarry published "TWA 800 and Electromagnetic Interference: Work Already Completed and Work that Still Needs to be Done" in which she praised NTSB's initial research. She also stated that more research was needed to form an accurate conclusion and expressed her belief that the investigation was biased. She felt the events that occurred within the aircraft were excessively detailed while not enough research was done on the electromagnetic environment outside the plane. Scarry believed that a U.S. Navy P-3 Orion flying close to the aircraft was the source of electromagnetic interference that caused the CWT explosion bringing down the plane.
   The International Association of Mechanists and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW) submitted a report proposing a breakup sequence that started on the lower left side of the airplane when a high-pressure event "unzipped" the fuselage. They concluded that a major event may have occurred on the left side of the plane leading to the destruction of TWA Flight 800. They also concluded that the explosion of the CWT was a result of the breakup, not the initial event. The IAMAW criticized the "Tag Database" documenting the recovered wreckage and the accuracy of witness accounts. They also criticized how FBI agents removed pieces of the wreckage without documenting it. They however praised the FBI's cooperation during the investigation and their resistance to the media preventing it from being a force on the investigation. In the end, they concluded that the causes and circumstances of the crash are unknown.
   Peter Lance wrote in his book Cover Up: What the Government Is Still Hiding About the War on Terror, that TWA 800 was blown up by a bomb to disrupt the trial of the 1993 World Trade Center bomber, Ramzi Yousef. Lance believes that Yousef planned that attack from prison to get a mistrial for master-minding the Bojinka Plot. He claimed that the FBI had prior knowledge of the attack but did not properly act on it. Supporting this theory is the fact that the FBI found residues of RDX, the same explosive that Yousef intended to use to blow up 12 airliners. It was later assumed that the residue was from a K-9 sniffing incident about one month before when an explosive substance was placed in the aircraft for dogs to sniff out.
   The TWA Flight 800 crash was truly a tragedy that claimed the lives of 230 people. I think it is certainly possible that the plane was accidentally shot down by friendly fire. I think the "reddish" residue was just explosives used for a K-9 training exercise, not missile fuel. It is certainly plausible that the FBI and NTSB covered up the events that really took place on that tragic day due to political pressure. It seems highly unlikely that the breakup of the CWT fuel/air vapor explosion scenario took place due to the fact that such incident had never occurred before in aviation history in a Boeing Airliner using Jet-A Kerosene fuel. It is suspicious how FBI agents removed pieces of the wreckage without documenting it. A possible motive for the incident could have been to disrupt the trial of terrorist Ramzi Yousef and it is certainly possible that the plane was blown up by a bomb. I don't think the FBI had prior knowledge of the incident. Regardless of who is at fault, the lives of many innocent civilians were taken. This just emphasizes how bloody war, terrorism, and violence really are. Imagine what a wonderful world we could live in if we all lived in peace and harmony with each other and accepted and respected each others differences and beliefs.

Oklahoma City Bombing

2010-01-28T19:02:00.000-08:00

     Did Bill Clinton know about the Oklahoma City Bombing in advance or approve it? Was there a second person affiliated with the bombing? Were the investigators some how associated with the bombers? Were the two resulting tremors recorded nearby an indication that two bombs had been used? We'll investigate these claims next.
     On April 19, 1995 at 9:02 CST, a Ryder truck carrying over 6,200 pounds of ammonium nitrate fertilizer, nitromethane, and diesel fuel mixture detonated in front of the north side of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. The attack killed 168 people and injured over 800. Soon after the explosion, Oklahoma State Trooper Charlie Hangar arrested 26-year-old Timothy McVeigh for driving without a license plate and unlawfully carrying a weapon. Terry Nichols, McVeigh's old army friend, was arrested within a few days and they were both charged with committing the bombing. It was determined by investigators that they were sympathizers of a militia movement whose motive was to get revenge from the government's handling of the Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents. The bombing occurred on the anniversary of the Waco incident. On June 11, 2001, McVeigh was executed by lethal injection and Nichols was sentenced to life in prison.
     The plaintiffs at the trial expressed their belief that McVeigh and Nichols had conducted the bombing with others unknown to the jury. McVeigh himself eventually claimed that he and Nichols were solely responsible for the bombing. He said that the two had obtained fertilizer and other explosive materials over the course of months and assembled the bomb the day before it was detonated. On the day of the bombing, McVeigh drove the truck alone to Oklahoma City, lit the fuse, and fled in a getaway car he had parked days before. Many people have been skeptical of this explanation for a long time.
Now that we know what happened, let's see what some of the conspiracies are. One popular theory suggests that there were additional explosives involved in the bombing. This theory claims that additional explosives were implanted in the Murrah Building which is supported by the fact that local news channels reported the presence of a second and third bomb within the first few hours after the incident. Conspiracy theorists don't believe that the bomb McVeigh used could cause such catastrophic damage. They also believe that the two tremors recorded by nearby seismographs indicate two bombs were used. Experts deny this stating that the first tremor was the result of the bomb detonating and the second tremor was the result of the collapse of the building. A blast effects study published in 1997 analyzing the test results from the Eglin Air Force Base concluded that it was impossible for a single truck carrying 4,800 pounds of ANFO to cause the damage that occurred. Based on that statement, critics of the official explanation say that the damage Murrah Building endured was not caused by the bomb itself, but due to other factors including locally placed charges inside of the building. Some experts think the unusually large blast was from a thermobaric weapon using highly flammable particles such as aluminum mixed with a highly liquid explosive such as nitromethane. If the weapon is ignited in a two-stage process, the device creates a super-high heat and pressure blast capable of flattening buildings.
   Another theory is that President Bill Clinton either knew about the bombing in advance or approved it. Some people also believe that the bombing was done by the government to frame the militia movement or enact anti-terrorism legislation. Other theories include linking McVeigh with Islamic terrorists, the Japanese government, German neo-Nazis, as well as the CIA. There is some speculation that an unidentified leg may have belonged to one of the bombers. It was claimed that that the bomber was either in the building when the bombing occurred or had been previously murdered and McVeigh had left his body in the back of the truck to hide in the explosion.
   Several witnesses reported seeing a second person around the time of the bombing which investigators would later call "John Doe 2". Several theories suggest that the second person was involved in the bombing and may even have been a foreign connection to McVeigh and Nichols. This was believed because Nichols had traveled through the Philippines while terrorist mastermind Ramzi Yousef of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was planning his Project Bojinka plot in Manila. Yousef placed the bomb used in the 1993 World Trade Center inside of a rented Ryder van, the same rental company used by McVeigh, indicating a possible foreign link with Al-Qaeda. The FBI arrested Michael Brescia who was a member of the Aryan Republican Army in 1997 because he resembled an artists rendering of Jon Doe 2 based on eyewitness accounts, but soon released him after their investigation concluded that he wasn't involved in the bombing.
   Congressman Dana Rohrabacher said in 2006 that that the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the U.S. House Committee on International Relations, which he chaired, would conduct an investigation on whether foreign sources had provided assistance to the bombers. When asked about fueling conspiracy theories resulting from his questions and criticism on December 28, 2006, he said "there's nothing wrong with adding to a conspiracy theory when there might be a conspiracy, in fact." Danny Coulson, who was the deputy assistant director of the FBI at the time of the attack, called for a reopening of the investigation after voicing his concerns. A Salt Lake City attorney named Jesse Trentadue released security tapes that he had obtained from the FBI through the Freedom of Information Act on September 28, 2009. It showed surveillance of the Murrah Building before and after the blast from four security cameras. Oddly, the tapes were blank at 9:02, the time of detonation. The government's explanation was that the tapes were being replaced at the time of the explosion. That's right, four cameras in different locations went blank at the same exact time.   Trentadue became interested in the case when his brother died in federal custody during what he believes was an interrogation because Kenneth (his brother) was mistaken for a possible conspirator in the bombing.
   The Oklahoma City bombing was truly a tragedy. I think it is certainly plausible that the president or intelligence agencies might have had clues that they didn't properly act on but don't think they caused the bombing just to enact anti-terrorism legislation. It is hard to believe that just one truckload of explosives could cause such catastrophic damage to such a strong building leading me to believe that there is certainly a high possibility that explosives were implanted in the building. Two tremors also makes it plausible that two bombs were used. I don't think the unidentified leg belonged to one of the bombers. If McVeigh rushed to get away, he wouldn't have time to carry a leg out of the truck and place it somewhere before the bomb detonated. He could not have placed it after the bombing because he would be noticed and the fact that he was arrested shortly after the bombing. Just because the same truck and rental company were used in the Oklahoma City Bombing and the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing doesn't suggest in any way that McVeigh was associated with Al-Qaeda. If Al-Qaeda was in fact involved, they would probably have taken full or partial credit for the bombing. It seems that the government might have tampered with the surveillance tapes. The chances of having the tapes of all four cameras replaced at the exact same time the bombing occurred are very slim. I'm not going to say I support the way the government handled Waco and Ruby Ridge, but this is not how revenge should have been taken. When you are involved in situations like that and law enforcement officials are in life threatening situations, it is hard to make right decisions. Revenge should be obtained peacefully and we should forgive and care for one another. After all, we all share a single planet. Regardless of who is to blame, 19 of the victims were babies and children who were in the building's day care center. This bombing was thoroughly tragic and my heart goes to all the families and friends of the victims.

John F. Kennedy Assassination

2010-01-22T20:19:00.000-08:00

      Was there really only one gunman involved in the assassination of president John F. Kennedy? Why were no records kept of most of the people taken into custody in the minutes following the assassination? Did the secret service fail to properly analyze processed information and were they inadequately prepared to protect the president from a sniper? We'll investigate some of these claims next.
     On November 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated while traveling in an open top car in a motorcade in Dallas, Texas. Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested two hours later for the murder of officer J.D. Tippit. At 1:35 AM, he was charged with murdering the president. On November 24, 1963, Oswald was shot and killed while being transferred from the Dallas Police Department to the county jail. In 1964, the Warren Commission concluded that they believed Oswald acted alone in killing the president. In 1979, the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) agreed with the Warren Commission that Oswald assassinated Kennedy. Polls since 1966 have consistently shown that the public believes that the assassination of John F. Kennedy was the result of a plot, not the act of a lone killer. A majority of people also believe a second shooter was involved. Lets examine some of the conspiracies now.
     Many researchers believe the single bullet theory is implausible. After Oswald's rifle was tested by the FBI, they determined that it could only be fired three times within five to eight seconds. Based on eyewitnesses, the Warren Commission determined that only three bullets were fired. One missed the vehicle entirely, one hit Kennedy and passed through Governor John Connally, and the the third bullet was fatal to Kennedy. The weight of the bullet fragments taken from Connally and those remaining on his body supposedly totaled more than could be missing from the bullet found on Connally's stretcher. The trajectory of the bullet that hit Kennedy above the right shoulder blade and passed through his neck (according to the autopsy) most likely would have to change course to pass through Connally's rib cage and wrist.
     Another conspiracy involves the witnesses. Thirty-five witnesses who were present at the shooting thought the shots were fired from in front of the president from the Grassy Knoll Area or Triple Underpass while 56 eyewitnesses believed that the shots were fired behind the president, or at least in that direction. 5 witnesses thought the shots came from two directions. Governor John Conally's wife Nellie Conally who was sitting in the presidential car thought her husband was hit by a bullet that was separate from the two that hit Kennedy. Clint Hill, the Secret Service Agent who shielded the president with his body on the way to the hospital said "The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car."
   Numerous individuals believed that there were suspects in Dealey Park other than Oswald. Many witnesses reported hearing gunfire from the Dal-Tex Building which is located across the street from the Texas School Book Depository and aligned with Elm Street in Dealey Plaza. The House Select Committee on Assassinations found scientific acoustic evidence pinpointing the Dal-Tex building as a possible source of gunfire.
   U.S. Marine sniper Craig Roberts and Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock said that the assassination couldn't be done as described by the FBI. They said that after reconstructing the "whole thing: the angle, the range, the moving target, the time limit, the obstacles, everything. I don’t know how many times we tried it, but we couldn’t duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did. Now if I can’t do it, how in the world could a guy who was a non-equal on the rifle range and later only qualified 'marksman' do it?” According to the autopsy, the hole in the back of Kennedy's shirt and jacket supported a wound too low to be consistent with the Single Bullet Theory.
     Another popular theory is the Federal Reserve Conspiracy. Some people believe Kennedy's assassination might have been motivated by the issuance of Executive Order 11110. This gave the Secretary of Treasury the president's authority to issue silver certificates, bypassing the Federal Reserve System. The Reagen Administration repealed this explaining it was an attempt to drain the silver reserves and it did not endanger the careers of anyone working at the Federal Reserve. Craig Roberts, a U.S. marine sniper and veteran police officer theorized it was the beginning of Kennedy's plan to get rid of the U.S. Federal Reserve. He thinks that Kennedy was killed by a group of international bankers determined to make his plan fail. Actor Richard Belzer believes the president was killed in response to his attempts to transfer power from the Federal Reserve to the Treasury Department.
   Nearly twelve people were taken into custody in the minutes after the assassination. For the most part, no records of the identities of those arrested were kept. The most famous among those arrested are known as the three tramps. They were three well-dressed and clean shaven men who seemed unlikely to be riding the rails in a boxcar. It is also suspicious how they were quickly released by the Dallas Police before being investigated on whether they saw anything significant related to the assassination. The Dallas Police Department claimed to have lost the records of their arrest as well as their finger prints. In 1989, Dallas Police released files containing the arrest records of the three men. The brief record explained they were known rail-riders riding through Dallas. It indicated that they had slept in a homeless shelter the night before the assassination where they showered and shaved giving them a clean appearance. Apparently, the three weren't involved in the assassination in any way.
   U.S. Army Intelligence officer and National Security Agency executive assistant John M. Newman published evidence suggesting the FBI and CIA intentionally tampered with their files on Oswald before and after the assassination in 1995. He claimed to have found information that could have alerted authorities in Dallas that Oswald was a potential threat to the President.
   Regarding the Secret Service, the HSCA inferred that the president had not adequately been protected in Dallas. They also noted that they had processed information that was not properly analyzed, investigated, or used in connection with the President's trip to Dallas. The HSCA also concluded that Secret Service agents in the motorcade were not prepared to protect the president from a sniper. This lack of protection can be blamed in part because of Kennedy's request that the Secret Service make itself discreet during the Dallas visit.
   Barr McClellan published the book, Blood, Money & Power: How L.B.J. Killed J.F.K in 2003. He claimed that Lydon B. Johnson masterminded Kennedy's assassination with the help of his friend attorney Edward Clark after being motivated by the fear of being dropped from the Kennedy ticket in 1964 and the need to cover up various scandals. The book claims that Kennedy's assassination was paid for by influential people in the oil industry. Madeleine D. Brown who claimed to be a mistress of Johnson believed he was involved in a conspiracy to kill Kennedy. She claimed that the assassination involved dozens of people including the leadership of the FBI and the Mafia as well as well-known politicians and journalists.
   John F. Kennedy's assassination was truly a tragedy. The way in which it occurred has made it subject to a lot of conspiracies. It is very hard to grasp that one bullet could penetrate the skin of one man, go through a car seat, and hit another man sitting directly in front. It is also hard to believe how a sniper with little training could successfully shoot bullets with such accuracy while marine snipers with their extensive training couldn't do that in their replicated model of the assassination. There were a lot of potential motives for the assassination. The most powerful leader in the world shouldn't have been riding in a cover less car. I think going to Dallas under such circumstances was a very dangerous decision the president made which was further worsened by his request that the Secret Service be discreet. This was an event that will truly scar the nation and is a call to action on why increased measures are needed to protect the United State's most powerful governmental official. Hopefully, the government will learn from its mistakes and prevent such a tragedy from occurring again because history tends to repeat itself if mistakes are not thoroughly analyzed and learned from.

Infra Gard

2010-01-15T19:34:00.000-08:00

Is the government's nationwide surveillance program turning businessmen and office workers into spies? Is the government encouraging these people to spy on their neighbors and betray their friends all for information and special privileges from the FBI. Do members have, as some claim, a "license to kill"? How far has the government gone, in the name of national security, to keep an eye on its citizens? We'll examine the claims and get to the bottom of this conspiracy next.

Infra Gard is a public-private partnership with the Federal Bureau of Investigations classified as a private non-profit organization. According to the organization, it is an information sharing and analysis effort serving the interests and connecting the dots of information given by its wide range of members. They state that they are an association of businesses, academic institutions, state and local law enforcement agencies, and other participants dedicated to sharing information and intelligence to prevent hostile acts against the United States. As of January 2010, they have 34,084 members including the FBI.

Infra Gard was founded at Cleveland, Ohio in 1996. Since their founding, they have spread to become a nation-wide program with Infra Gard coordinators in every FBI field office. When it was founded, it was intended to be a local effort to gain support from the information technology industry and interests of universities, colleges, and academies for the FBI's investigative efforts in cyber security. Since then, it has expanded to cover a much wider range of activities surrounding the nation's critical infrastructure. These are assets that are essential for the functioning of the country and include the generation of electricity, agriculture, telecommunication, public health, security services, and transportation.

Infra Gard Alliances and the FBI have acquired a trust-based public-private sector partnership, since 2003, to ensure reliability and integrity of information shared on various terrorism, intelligence, criminal, and security matters. Infra Gard supports FBI priorities on counter terrorism, foreign counterintelligence, and cyber crime.

In Progressive Magazine's March 2008 issue, Matthew Rothschild reported that Infra Gard had 23,000 members in various businesses involved in critical infrastructure in the U.S. Two members have stated that they have been told in private that Infra Gard members would have the right to "shoot to kill" in the event of martial law being declared in the United States and not be prosecuted for this. Martial law is the law temporarily imposed upon an area by state or national military forces when civil authority has broken down or during wartime military operations.

The Progressive Magazine also reported that the American Civil Liberties Union was concerned that there "is evidence that Infra Gard may be closer to a corporate TIPS program, turning private-sector corporations — some of which may be in a position to observe the activities of millions of individual customers — into surrogate eyes and ears for the FBI". Operation TIPS or the Terrorism Information and Prevention System is a program designed for citizens to report suspicious activity.

On February 15, 2008, the FBI issued a press release denying the claims of the article. They said "in short, the article's claims are patently false." They also stated that "Infra Gard members have no extraordinary powers and have no greater right to 'shoot to kill' than other civilians".

I think that even if some members of Infra Gard said they had the right to kill in the event that martial law was declared, it was probably a poor choice of words that was interpreted differently than they intended it to be. The FBI has done a lot of positive things including protecting communities and businesses from the most dangerous threats from international and domestic terrorists to spies on U.S. soil. They protect us from corrupt governmental officials to violent gangs to child predators to serial killers. Because of all of this, I think their response to Progressive Magazine's comments are credible. Some might claim that the program is an invasion of privacy and I'm not going to say it isn't, but I think that all the information that can be obtained and connected from its wide range of members can really help prevent hostile acts against the United States. In the free society that we live in, it's hard to stop all the attempted violence that takes place but if we want to feel secure, having programs such as these are sacrifices we must make. As with any group or agency, when too much power is given, it is only natural for corruption to take place. We as a nation have to decide how much surveillance is necessary to protect our critical infrastructure and where to draw the line between protection and privacy. As new threats emerge and new security measures are implemented, this will be debated more and more. As of now, I don't see anything wrong with Infra Gard - the partnership for protection.

9/11

2010-01-08T19:36:00.000-08:00

     Did the World Trade Center really collapse because of structural weakening due to a fire or by a controlled demolition? Were the cockpit voice recorders or black boxes really not found in the WTC wreckage? Was flight 93 (the fourth hijacked plane) shot down by a U.S. fighter jet? Did a plane really crash into the Pentagon? Did ground controllers know that hijackers were in the cockpit before the jets took off? We'll dig deeper into this issue as we explore America's most controversial conspiracy.
     On September 11, 2001, 19 al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four commercial passenger jets. They intentionally crashed two of the airliners into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center located in New York City killing everyone on board and many others working in the buildings. Within two hours, both buildings collapsed destroying at least two other buildings and damaging others. They crashed a third jet into the Pentagon and a fourth into a field in Pennsylvania after the passengers and flight crew revolted. Now that we know what happened, lets see what some of the conspiracy theories are.
     Some people think that the official reports were smeared to cover up the incompetence or negligence of the Bush Administration and other U.S. Personnel. Many theories can be divided into two categories. The first, "let it happen on purpose", suggests that key individuals within the government had some foreknowledge of the attacks and intentionally ignored them or weakened America's defenses to prevent the hijacked flights from being interfered with. The second, "make it happen on purpose", suggests that key individuals within the government planned the attacks and collaborated with al-Qaeda in carrying them out.
   One popular conspiracy suggests there was a suspiciously high volume of put-options placed on United and American Airlines stocks just before the attack. This infers that traders knew in advance of the upcoming attack and based their bets accordingly. Surprisingly, a major warning of possible losses was released by American Airlines shortly before the attacks.
     Another popular claim is that the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) issued a stand down or intentionally scrambled fighters late to allow the hijacked airplanes to reach their targets without interference. This means the NORAD could locate and intercept planes on 9/11 but failed to do so to allow the attacks to occur. Popular Mechanics claims that there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the Continental United States on 9/11.
     Regarding the World Trade Center, controlled demolition conspiracy theories claim that the buildings didn't collapse of plane crash damage, or the resulting fire damage, but of explosives installed in advance. This theory suggests that explosives were installed by the US government making it look like terrorists had done the damage. Proponents of this theory like physicist Steven E. Jones, claim that aircraft impacts and the resulting fires could not have weakened the buildings enough to induce a catastrophic collapse. They also claim that the buildings would not have collapsed completely, or at the speeds they did, without additional energy to weaken their structures. He believes that thermite or nanothermite was used to demolish the buildings and claims he found evidence of their existence in WTC dust. Soon after the attack, major media sources claimed that the towers had collapsed due to melted steel. This led to widespread belief among skeptics that the towers would not have collapsed without external interference due to the fact that the burning temperatures of jet fuel could not melt the steel support structure of the WTC.
   Some theories suggest the U.S. government purposely didn't shoot down a plane heading for the Pentagon while others claim a plane didn't hit the Pentagon at all. They claim the Pentagon was hit by a missile launched by people within the U.S. government and say the holes in the Pentagon wall were far too small to have been made by a Boeing 757. In other words, "How does a plane 125 ft. wide and 155 ft. long fit into a hole which is only 60 ft. across?" According to the 9/11 Commission Report, passengers on Flight 77 made calls reporting their plane had been hijacked. Their identities were confirmed by DNA analysis. Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University believes a crashing jet doesn't form a cartoon-like outline of itself in a reinforced concrete building.
     The fourth hijacked plane on 9/11 was United Airlines Flight 93 which crashed in an open field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. It was the only hijacked plane that didn't reach its target that day. A popular conspiracy theory suggests that the plane was actually shot down by a fighter jet. This is inferred due to the fact that large parts of the plane landed miles away from the main wreckage site which is much farther than in ordinary plane crashes. Usually, planes leave a small debris field when they crash. According to some theories, the plane was shot down because the passengers had found out about the alleged plot. The magazine Skeptic claims that the engine was found only 300 yards from the main crash site, not miles away, and its location was consistent with the direction in which the plane had been traveling. CNN reported that investigators found debris from the plane crash at least eight miles away but that it was all very light material that could have easily been blown away by the wind.
     Another conspiracy theory claims that the "black boxes" or cockpit voice recorders were really found at the WTC site by two men who worked extensively in the wreckage. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, they were not recovered from the remains. One theory suggest that no planes were involved in the World Trade Center attacks. It claims that it would be physically impossible for the largely aluminum planes to penetrate the steel walls of the tower and that digital composting was used to make it appear that planes had crashed into the WTC. Its authors claim that if you watch the footage of the attack frame by frame, you'll see a cigar shaped missile hitting the World Trade Center.
   Now that we know what many of the theories are, lets examine the possible motives. Commonly claimed motives are to justify the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq leading to US control of their vast oil resources, increased military spending, and restricted domestic civil liberties through the USA Patriot Act. Many conspiracy theorists question whether 9/11 and the Oil Factor gave the US and UK a valid reason to launch a war they had wanted for a long time. Others claim the war was also started to benefit the weapons industry.
   First of all, I offer my deepest condolences to the families and friends of the victims involved in the 9/11 attacks. The attacks left a scar on the United States that will never be forgotten. I don't believe the US government planned the attack but believe they didn't accurately report the events that took place in the 9/11 Commission Report. I also think they might not have taken as much action as they could or should have taken. I don't believe investors knew about the attack before it took place or made decisions based on that knowledge. I think that the black boxes of the two planes that crashed into the WTC were really found. There is certainly a possibility that external interference occurred within the WTC that caused the buildings to collapse the way they did. 9/11 was truly a tragedy that caused us to re question our government and our safety. View the products below for more information on 9/11.

2012 Doomsday

2009-12-31T15:34:00.000-08:00

      Is the world really going to come to an end in 2012? Is the government preparing to save and protect the elite while leaving the rest of us to defend ourselves? Why have claims of top secret underground bunkers suddenly emerged in places like the Nevada desert, White House, Yamantau, and below a major metropolitan airport? What's behind the Mayan Calendar's prophecy that the world will end in 2012?
   To see what's really behind this prophecy, you need to understand the Mayan Calendar. This calendar is recorded as a carving on the Aztec "sun stone". Our modern calendar, the Gregorian Calendar, is comprised of days, weeks, months, and years. The Mayan Calender is much more complex because it consists of three calendars at the same time. In the religious calendar, it takes 260 days to complete a full religious cycle. It consists of 20 weeks each made up of 13 days. Each week has a special name, graphic logo, and unique meaning associated with it. The solar calendar has 365 days that are divided into 18 months with 20 days in each. After all months have passed, the five remaining days are considered to be unlucky because they don't belong to a month. Just as the weeks in the religious calendar, each month has a special name, graphic logo, and something significant about it. The long count calendar is a linear number of days starting from the first day, "1", and counting through each day to the present. Any day in history can be recorded through the long count and with some simple math, the corresponding religious week and solar month can also be found.
     Now that we understand the basics of this calendar, how do we know when it will end? The days in the long count are numbered in an unusual system. Instead of writing numbers from right to left as we do with each place being a multiple of 10, the Mayans used only 5 places. The first place recorded a number from 0 to 20. Left of that, the second number had a range of 0 to 17, the third 0 to 19, the fourth 0 to 19, and the last from 0 to 12. The numbers were written from right to left, like our system, and separated by a dot. Instead of multiples of 10, the first place had a 1 like our system, the second place a multiple of 20, the third a multiple of 360, the fourth a multiple of 7200, and the fifth a multiple of 144000. Therefore, the maximum number that can be recorded is 12.19.19.17.20 This amounts to a long count of 1,872,000 days or 5125.36 years of our modern calculations. Obviously, a very old calendar.
   Archeologists have found carved monuments recording the long counts for known dates in Mayan history. Once a date was fixed in time, it was easy to determine "day 1" as August 11, 3114 BC. Knowing that, we could calculate the date the calendar would end as December 21, 2012. Why didn't the Mayans calculate a date beyond this point in time? Using astronomy and astrophysics, we will take a closer look at December 21, 2012.
   The sun plays a key role in the final day of the "long count". The barycenter is the "center of gravity" of an object. That means it's the exact center of all matter (mass) that makes up an object. Regarding the Earth and the sun, both bodies revolve, or spin, around the center of gravity between them (this point is called the barycenter). Every two objects are "connected" by the gravity pulling them together. That said, the barycenter between Earth and the sun is almost the very center of the sun.
   The new cycle has already begun but some surprising activity on March 27, 2008 showed huge eruptions near the sun's equator. There eruptions suggest a barycenter of disturbance from an object more massive than Jupiter. Could this be the start of the Galaxy's effects on the sun?
   Scientists have realized that when Jupiter and Saturn are aligned on the same side of the sun, the solar maximum (the period with the most sunspots and flares) is at its weakest. When they're on opposite sides of the sun, the solar maximum is at its strongest. The positions of the two planets on doomsday are ideal for extreme solar activity because it is the solar maximum of that cycle. In 2001, the last solar cycle was at its maximum. Most flares are small but even a small one can be dangerous. In 1989, a flare hit North America frying electric lines, zapping power grids in the US and Canada, and creating large power blackouts. They can also effect our moods and physical health. In theory, a large flare impacting Earth could zap the ionosphere (wrecking cell phones, satellites, GPS...) and irradiate the surface killing every living organism it collided with.
   After an unusually long period of of quiet solar activity, some people at NASA concluded that this cycle would be a very quiet cycle. They are now taking back their previous claims of a quiet cycle now that the activity has sprung up again agreeing with their earlier predictions that it would be a very violent cycle.
   Our solar system is part of the Milky Way which is a huge disc shaped collection of stars and planets. We are currently located on the edge but on December 21, 2012, we will begin moving to the bottom of this disc. On the same day the sun will be at its solar maximum, the ecliptic (the great circle formed by the intersection of of the plane of the earth's orbit with the celestial sphere) of our solar system will intersect with the Galactic plane. This is something that's never happened in thousands of eons of time. On December 21, 2012, we will be at the Galactic Equator where the galactic gravity is the strongest. As if that wasn't enough, we will be intersecting with the Galactic Equator precisely aligned with the center of the galaxy where there is maximum mass meaning more gravity. More gravity will result in more influence from the barycenter in our sun. This means exponential increases in solar disruptions all on the same day. December 21, 2012 will be a special day. It will have the maximum possible influence of solar flares the universe can provide. Whether all this activity is enough to doom us all is uncertain.
   Throughout the course of history, many prophets have failed to predict doomsday. Some gave up after failing while others "recalculated" their claims. This is obviously a very unreliable way to predict the future. Every two objects exert a gravitational fore and are aligned with each other. Many dispute doomsday findings because they say we don't know exactly when it started. How can we know when it will end if we don't even know when it started? The claims of underground bunkers throughout the world do not in any way suggest the world is coming to an end. If in fact the events described above really do take place in such magnitude, I believe an underground bunker would not be an adequate source of refuge. There really isn't much we can do to brace for impact. If this phenomenon has startled you, live life to your fullest and count each day as a blessing despite its hardships. This is one thing we will just have to wait and see about. I personally do not think the world will come to an end in December 2012. View the products below for more information on Doomsday.

Global Warming

2009-12-22T09:39:00.000-08:00

       Do you really think the Earth is undergoing abnormal temperature increases? Do you really think that greenhouse gases emitted from human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation are causing massive changes in our climate? How harmful do you think the 1 degree Fahrenheit world wide rise in surface temperature over the course of the 20th century could really be? Is global warming really real or are some people just using the issue to make billions of dollars and increase the government's role in our lives from the cars we drive to the foods we eat?
   Global warming is more than just surface temperatures increasing. A lot of research into temperature changes in the upper layers of the atmosphere as well as the deep oceans shows warming. More obvious signs include the retreat of glaciers in Greenland, Alaska, Himalaya, and the Antarctic Peninsula. Also, the disappearance of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean during summer, melting permafrost in Canada, Alaska, and Siberia, and the rise of sea levels and increases of extreme weather all indicate that global warming and climate change are really happening.
   The cause of global warming can be described through the greenhouse effect. This means that gases in the atmosphere prevent some sunlight from being reflected back into space. By keeping sunlight that has been reflected, this causes the Earth to warm.
   The greenhouse effect isn't a bad thing and is essential for life on Earth. If the greenhouse effect was non existent, temperatures would swing wildly from 225 degrees Fahrenheit during the day to -243 degrees Fahrenheit at night. This would not be a good place for life. The greenhouse effect is only troublesome when it occurs too rapidly and things warm too much which is what is currently happening. For the last 150 years, people of industrialized nations have extracted vast amounts of buried fossil fuels and burned them. Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased nearly 30 percent, methane has more than doubled, and the nitrous oxide concentration are up about 15 percent. These extra greenhouse gases mean increased amounts of solar energy is being trapped in the atmosphere speeding the greenhouse effect and making things warmer.
   But what are the effects of global warming? Some of the devastating effects of global warming include heat waves, droughts, increased hurricanes, and massive sea-level rise. The effects which are happening all around us include more intense heat waves that will disproportionately affect the elderly and poor, more severe storms that wreak havoc in our homes and communities, and all kinds of changing cycles in the natural world. Regarding the economy, global warming is big business. Some economists say that a warmer climate would benefit some crops and the farming communities. However, property insurers predict that worsening storms caused by global warming could eventually bankrupt the insurance industry.
   The causes of global warming include carbon dioxide from power plants, cars, trucks, airplanes, buildings, and deforestation. Methane, another cause of global warming, is emitted from sources including rice paddies, bacteria in bogs, and fossil fuel production. Most of the world's rice is grown on flooded fields causing the organic matter in the soil to decompose releasing methane into the atmosphere by chemical reactions that involve sunlight. Nitrous oxide, another source, is commonly known as "laughing gas" and is sometimes used as an anesthetic. Man-made sources include nylon and nitric acid production, the use of fertilizers in agriculture, cars with catalytic converters, and the burning of organic matter. Nitrous oxide is broken down in the atmosphere by chemical reactions involving sunlight.
   The good news is it is not too late to act. One way to stop global warming is the nuclear option. Nuclear power produces clean energy but at a high risk. Take the 1986 Chernobyl accident in Ukraine, where serious contamination spread throughout Ukraine and Russia. Hundreds of thousands of people were evacuated and millions were left to live in areas that were dangerous to their health and lives. Studies show that the full consequences of the Chernobyl disaster could cause up to 250,000 cancer cases with nearly 100,00 that were fatal. Dangerous situations including uncontrolled reactions have occurred in the last ten years in Japan, the US, UK, Sweden, Bulgaria, and other places. Recently, the Spanish Asco nuclear plant experienced numerous errors and safety system failures resulting in radioactivity being released. In my opinion, nuclear power is just not worth the risk.
     Another solution is creating a new power grid. We could do this by using Super Cables to transport energy in both chemical and electrical form. Using such system, electricity would travel nearly resistance-free through pipes made of a super conducting material. Chilled hydrogen in liquid form inside the conductors would keep the temperature near absolute zero. Transitioning to a Super Grid would take at least a century to complete. The evolution would incorporate new technologies into every level of the energy infrastructure: generators, transformers, power transmission, and consumption. This system would greatly increase efficiency, reliability, and our ability to harness electricity from renewable energy.
   Another plan is Greenpeace's Energy Revolution. This plan demonstrates that phasing out nuclear power and massively reducing carbon dioxide emissions is possible. The plan comes close to completely phasing out fossil fuels and reducing CO2 emissions by 80 percent by 2050. It incorporates green technologies including wind energy, solar energy, hydro power, geothermal energy, biomass, and wave-tidal energy. Click Energy Revolution to view this plan.
   But how can we act on the individual level? Green Living is the latest trend. Green living is a lifestyle intended to insure that one's impact on the environment is as minimal as possible. An easy ways you can make a big difference is by replacing your light bulbs with energy efficient CFLs. It will save you about $30 dollars over its life time and pay for itself in about six months. They last about ten times longer and use 75 percent less electricity than an incandescent bulb. Another way is to reduce the amount you drive by carpooling, using public transit, cycling, and walking. Also, you can install a low flow shower head. This will reduce the energy used by the hot water system and reduce your water consumption. Additionally, you can turn off appliances when you are not using them, shop with a reusable bag, lower the brightness of your computer screen, buy locally grown food, buy alternative energy, and wash your clothes with cold water.
   All this climate change data seems pretty straightforward, so why do some people deny global warming? Solving global warming will require government action. Most people don't want any more governmental control in their lives. The fear that individual freedoms will be infringed on may make some people think it's a governmental hoax. Some have close ties with the huge fossil fuel industry. Some people deny it because they passively absorb misinformation from various media outlets or their social groups.
   I think global warming is a serious threat to our well being and survival. The evidence is clear, the Earth is warming at a pace never before seen. Global warming has occurred throughout the history of our planet but the rate at which it is occurring is too quick for life to evolve. As a result, we are undergoing mass extinctions. Fossil records show that in previous warming cycles, animals didn't become extinct at rates anywhere near what they currently are. I think that if we are going to prevent catastrophic consequences from occurring, we have to act NOW! From replacing our grid, to replacing our gas hogging cars with electric and fuel cell powered cars, to using more efficient appliances, to ending our fossil fuel addiction, we must act now before it is too late. On the individual level, we can go green. If you don't think a one degree Fahrenheit temperature increase is that much, think about when you have a fever and that one degree is making the difference between your well being and sickness. The evidence is clear that the Earth is experiencing unprecedented increases in temperature, storm intensity, and glacier melting. Act now before it is too late.

For more information on global warming and climate change, visit my environmental website at www.makeearthabetterplace.org
Check out the products below and take action before it is too late.

HAARP

2009-12-18T18:05:00.000-08:00

      Think the U.S. Government wouldn't construct a facility that is capable of destroying or disabling enemy spacecraft or disrupt communications world wide? Some conspiracy theorists claim it can change weather patterns over whole continents, disrupt mental processes (mind control), and manipulate the Earth's upper atmosphere? If you think the government wouldn't construct such a facility, you might want to think again.
   The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) is jointly funded by the US Airforce, US Navy, the University of Alaska, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. It's purpose is to investigate the Ionosphere and establish whether such facility can be used for surveillance or communication purposes. The facility operates a VHF and UHF radar, a fluxgate magnetometer, a digisonde, an induction magnetometer, as well as the transmitter facilities.
   VHF (Very High Frequency) is the radio frequency range between 30 MHz and 300 MHz. UHF (Ultra High Frequency) are electromagnetic waves with frequencies ranging from 300 MHz to 3 GHz (3,000 MHz).
     HAARP is located north of Gakona, Alaska. HAARP's primary instrument is the Ionospheric Research Instrument (IRI). This is a high frequency transmitter system used to temporarily energize a portion of the Ionosphere. During active research, the transmitter system generates a signal that is delivered to the antenna, which is transmitted in an upward direction, and gets partially absorbed at an altitude between 43 and 217 miles above the site (depending on the operating frequency). The signal intensity is tens of thousands of times weaker than the Sun's electromagnetic radiation reaching the Earth. The small effects are then observed with the scientific instruments installed at the facility. This information can provide new information about the dynamics of plasmas and the processes of solar-terrestrial interactions.
   There are currently three ionospheric heating facilities in the US. There are also facilities in Norway and Russia. Measuring the ionosphere is very difficult. The air is too thin for balloons to reach but too thick for satellites. HAARP however is able to perform such experiments. HAARP research includes:

Ionospheric heating
Plasma line observations
Stimulated electron emission observations
The effect of ionospheric disturbances on GPS satellite signal quality
Radio observations of meteors
Response and recovery of the ionosphere from solar flares and geomagnetic storms

A lot of speculation has occurred because of the large role the military has in the project suggesting HAARP might be used as a weapon. Some people believe that HAARP can alter weather patterns significantly and have linked it to hurricanes (such as Hurricane Katrina), tsunamis, and other weather related incidents. It is also believed that such high frequency radio waves could have the ability to destroy enemy satellites which would be a form of space warfare. Regarding the disruption of mental processes, the frequencies that HAARP emits are the same as the ones that mind control instruments emit. This means the HAARP could control the minds of innocent people without them even knowing it.
I think that we shouldn't be altering our environment faced with the potential risks and consequences. The fact that HARP emits signals in the mind control range makes me suspicious of the project. Why would the military have such a large role in this project if it was for scientific purposes? Could this really be altering our weather to the extent that hurricanes, tsunamis, and other weather related incidents occur? The more scientific knowledge we have, the better off our civilization will be but is this type of research worth the risk? The consequences of such device could be deadly and I don't think we should be taking any chances. I don't support this facility at this point and believe much more research is needed on this subject before a conclusion of the safety of such device is formed. For more information, I recommend geting the book above.
By: Shawn M.