Research- veleze22


Concussions Matter

A concussion is a mild form of traumatic brain injury that affects how your brain functions. These effects can be short-term, lasting only a few hours or a couple of days, or cause long-term problems (Utah Health, 2016). When players trade blows to the head it causes impact between the brain and the skull. A hit can be so hard that it affects the way a player’s brain functions and can also cause long-term damage. Studies show that about 300,000 TBIs occur in sports each year.

In the sport of football, traumatic brain injuries such as concussions have drastically affected hundreds of professional athletes until this day and still have an impact on the game. The NFL will always have cases of concussions no matter what equipment is worn. Concussions have been a serious present issue with players today. The NFL has tried to resolve the number on concussions occurring during seasons by improving equipment, adding concussion protocols, and making rule changes to ensure the safety of playing at all levels of football. Although these changes have improved and decreased the number of concussions occurring, coaches and organizations must focus on High School and College level players because of all the young, developing brains of the athletes. They must understand that concussions are very severe and can cause long-term damage to the brain. It is important to educate them on the issue while they’re still taking in everything that comes with playing the game of football. Concussions are a serious injury, and should no longer be taken lightly.

Helmet manufacturers have been trying to reduce the impact of hits to the head with new helmet technology. Over the years several new models of helmets have been improved more and more by the year. The National Operating Committee on Standards tests helmets for Athletic Equipment (NOCSAE), which provides voluntary standards that are designed to assess a helmet’s ability to prevent skull fracture. These helmets provide bigger and more comfortable padding which only makes the players feel like it’s safer than the standard helmet. What it does is make players want to hit harder while completely disregarding a full impact head to head hit. Concussions injure your brain to some extent and they all require time to heal. Brain injury from even the mildest concussions can have short-term and long-term effects. The effects of a concussion can be subtle and change over time. Symptoms can last days, weeks or longer (Utah Health, 2016). Since 2003, researchers have been instrumenting football players with the Head Impact Telemetry (HIT) system to collect head acceleration data each time a player experiences a head impact. The measurement and analysis of head acceleration data collected from these in-helmet accelerometer arrays have been well validated and accepted. The concept of the study was to develop and introduce the concept of a new evaluation system that can be used to provide quantitative insight into the protective performance of football helmets against concussions.


With this in mind, technology is at a stage where it can resolve all problems. It has risen to be one of the most dependable sources in our present time. Technology has the power to even stop concussions occurring in our most dangerous sports, like football. Every year, thousands of football players suffer from mild concussions. Concussions occur when the brain moves and collides with the skull. In contrast to the publicly available data on the safety of automobiles, consumers have no analytical mechanism to evaluate the protective performance of football helmets. A new mechanism called the “STAR Evaluation system” was brainstormed and can be used to evaluate helmet performance by integrating player head impact exposure and risk of concussion. The Summation of Tests for the Analysis of Risk (STAR) equation relates on-field impact exposure to a series of 24 drop tests performed at four impact locations and six impact energy levels(Rowson & Duma, 2011). Using 62,974 head acceleration data points collected from football players, the number of impacts experienced for one full season was translated to 24 drop test configurations (Rowson & Duma, 2011). From those tests a new injury risk function was developed from 32 measured concussions and associated exposure data to assess risk of concussion for each impact. The data from all 24 drop tests was combined into one number using the STAR formula that incorporates the predicted exposure and injury risk for one player for one full season of practices and games. The new STAR evaluation equation provided consumers with a great tool to assess the relative performance of football helmets. With that being said coaches must be very attentive to their players and the number of impact blows taken to the head because with this new technology in effect it will be their job to monitor. It is ultimately up to coaches to keep their players safe and to follow the guidelines of this new product. It was tested to its ability and the results speak for themselves.

                                                        NFL Effects

This past season the NFL had launched an Injury Reduction Plan with the aim to reduce the incidence of concussions in the upcoming 2018 season. Following a 16 percent increase in concussions during the 2017 season, NFL Chief Medical Officer Dr. Allen Sills issued a call-to-action to reduce concussions. “We see our job in player health and safety to have the very best care for our patients as possible—in terms of prevention, in terms of treating and diagnosing injuries, and doing rehabilitation for those injuries—so we can keep our players as safe as possible,” said Dr. Sills. NFL leaders, clubs and the wide variety of experts in medicine, engineering and science who form the NFL medical committees developed a three-pronged approach to drive behavioral changes. The NFL also created an educational video for players, coaches and club personnel about the concussion reduction strategy. “We designed what we think are going to be steps that can immediately impact the number of concussions on our fields,” he said. The NFL made 3 categories that will experience change and improvement they are preseason practices, better performing helmets, and rule changes.

Overall, impacts to the front of the helmet occurred most frequently, and were followed by impacts to the rear, top, and side of the helmet. Using these percentages, the number of impacts to each impact location for a single player participating in a complete season were computed based on the assumption that a total of 1,000 head impacts were experienced. This transformation gives that for a single season, a player will experience 347 impacts to the front of the helmet, 319 impacts to the rear of the helmet, 171 impacts to the top of the helmet, and 163 impacts to the sides of the helmet. Being that I played football my whole life I can standby these results (Rowson & Duma, 2011). Throughout a full season a player goes through a significant amount of hits to the head whether it’s during practice or in a game, the numbers add up well.

This past season the NFL had launched an Injury Reduction Plan with the plan to reduce the incidence of concussions in the 2018 season. The NFL had a 16 percent increase in concussions during the 2017 season. NFL Chief Medical Officer Dr. Allen Sills set a call-to-action to reduce concussions.

“We see our job in player health and safety to have the very best care for our patients as possible—in terms of prevention, in terms of treating and diagnosing injuries, and doing rehabilitation for those injuries—so we can keep our players as safe as possible,” said Dr. Sills.

NFL leaders, clubs and the wide variety of experts in medicine, engineering and scienctists for the NFL brainstormed a three-part approach to reduce injury. The NFL also created an educational video for players, coaches and club personnel about the concussion reduction strategy (Sills, 2018).

The NFL made 3 categories that will experience change and improvement they are the following:

  1. Preseason Practices

Sills wants to start the concussion reduction to start in the preseason practices. He wants practices to be supervised and drills to be watched incase anything brings risk of concussion. His main goal is to drive the number down.

The NFL is sharing information across the league to educate, stimulate change and enhance player safety—including information about the causes of concussion, the helmets players wear, and injury data analysis, such as preseason practice concussion data (Sills, 2018)

2. Better Performing Helmets

The second part of the Injury Reduction Plan is a goal to get players out of old-age helmets and to get them into modern day performing helmets in an effort to decrease the risk of injury. Each year, helmets go into laboratory testing by biomechanical engineers  in-partner with the NFL and the NFL Players Association. Their goals are to determine which helmets are more durable and reduce head impact and injury. The results of the laboratory tests are printed onto posters and shared with NFL players, club equipment managers, along with club medical, training and coaching staffs. In 2018, based on the results of this study and the opinions of the biomechanical experts involved, the NFL and NFLPA will prohibit 10 helmet models from being worn by NFL players (Sills, 2018). No helmet can completely protect a player from serious head injuries a player might sustain while playing football.

  1. Rules Changes

The third component of the Injury Reduction Plan is the enforcement of rules changes which is made to reduce big hits that can potentially lead to inury. The “Use of the Helmet” rule has been strictly enforced this season. Any player to make helmet-to-helmet contact will result in an automatic flag and first down, possibly a fine depending on how dangerous the hit was. The NFL is leveraging data in an effort to improve player safety and evolve the game.

Approximately 300,000 sport-related concussions occur in the United States annually, and the likelihood of serious injury may increase with repeated head injury (NCAA Concussion Study, 2003). A prospective cohort study of incident and recurrent concussions in a defined group of collegiate athletes was taken place for 3 football seasons, a total of 2,905 players were studied. The study resulted in 196 reported concussions among 184 players. Of the 196 incident concussions, 94 were included in the assessment group. The overall rate of incident concussion was 0.81 per 1000 athlete exposures. The rate in Division III was also higher than the rates in Divisions I and II (NCAA Concussion Study, 2003).

Effects of Concussions

If serious, concussions may also cause headache, a temporary loss of consciousness, feeling as if your brain is in a fog, delayed response to questions, dizziness, ringing in your ears, nausea and vomiting, fatigue, blurred vision, and sensitivity to light and sound (Utah Health, 2016). Concussions have an effect on the human brain that is unlike any other injury. Those involved in sports that engage in the most contact are more likely to suffer from injuries such as a concussion. Players who have experienced a concussion for themselves are sometimes hesitant about going back on the field to potentially relive the horror moment that put them out of the game in the first place.

Concussions can also have long-term effects on an individual. Some symptoms of a concussion develop hours or even days after the traumatic brain injury. Although, most people that suffer from a concussion only see short-term effects there are cases where people have to suffer long-term. Long-term effects of a concussion can include trouble concentrating, memory problems, irritability and other personality changes, sensitivity to light and noise, sleep disturbances, depression and other psychological problems, and disorders of smell and taste (Utah Health, 2016). Some people even suffer from post-concussion syndrome, which is where they seem to still experience symptoms even after it has been six weeks since the injury has occurred. What some may fail to realize is that, the more concussions a person has than the more long-term effects an individual may suffer from. This can also occur if one rushes into returning to the same activity that landed them with the concussion itself in the first place (football) without letting their brain fully heal. It is important to let your brain heal to the fullest, because one wrong move can potentially set that person back even further than before.  

In conclusion, concussions are more serious than most people would think. The effects of these traumatic injuries can be life changing, and ruin ones career and lifelong dreams. No matter what equipment is made to decrease a concussion from happening, it will never be sufficient for one to be completely risk-free. It is important to take into consideration that the NFL has even worked diligently on trying to prevent their players from having to suffer from such injury, which is why concussions should be taken even more seriously. Concussions have long-lasting effects, can destroy our youth’s both physically and emotionally, and can damage the future for our children when it comes to playing sports and living their life to the fullest.


Collins, M. W. (1999, September 08.) Relationship Between Concussion and

Neuropsychological Performance in College Football Players. Retrieved from

Comparison of Mouth Guard Designs and Concussion Prevention … : Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine. (2005, April/May). Retrieved from

Concussions: How They Can Affect You Now and Later  . (n.d.). Retrieved from

Guskiewicz, K. M., & ATC. (2003, November 19). Cumulative Effects Associated With

Recurrent Concussion in Collegiate Football Players. Retrieved from

Guskiewicz, M., K., Marshall, W., S., Bailes, Julian, . . . D., B. (2005, October 01). Association between Recurrent Concussion and Late-Life Cognitive Impairment in Retired Professional Football Players. Retrieved from

Incidence of Sports-Related Concussion among Youth Football Players Aged 8-12 Years. (2013, June 14). Retrieved from

Olson, Grossberg, & T., G. (2016, March 01). ‘We Need to Protect the Brain’: Addressing the Growing Problem of Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy. Retrieved from

The 2018 Injury Reduction Plan: Initiatives to Advance Player Health and Safety. (n.d.). Retrieved from

Rowson, S., & Duma, S. M. (2011, May 07). Development of the STAR Evaluation System for Football Helmets: Integrating Player Head Impact Exposure and Risk of Concussion. Retrieved from

Schwarz, A. (2009, December 03). N.F.L. Issues New Guidelines on Concussions. Retrieved from

Traumatic Brain Injury – Football, Warfare, and Long-Term Effects | NEJM. (n.d.). Retrieved from


Research- muggastackz

An American Crime

American singer/songwriter and political activist Ted Nugent said, “Where you have the most armed citizens in America, you have the lowest violent crime rate. Where you have the worst gun control, you have the highest crime rate.” There is crime happening all over America, whether it may be a small or a larger crime. But what is the true meaning of crime? Crime is the illegal act that someone commits and is punished by the government. There is also a difference between a crime and a crime rate. A crime rate is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 population. Many people in society find that crime in urban areas is more frequent than it is in the suburbs or in rural areas; which could be true. There are different categories and classifications for each crime and the criminals doing the crime. As years go on, crime could be hard to fight in urban areas because it is uncontrollable. Criminal activity is a chain effect; once it happens, it continues to happen prevalently

Over the past decade, crime rates and crime have been a huge problem in the United States. Violent crime has been around for as long as people can remember. Violent crimes would be considered murder, manslaughter, rape, aggravated assault, etc. There was a great increase in violent crimes between 1985 and 1990, right around the time Reagan was elected president. During this time, crime rates and crime played ‘hand and hand to show that there was an incline in crime and incarceration. The U.S. breaks the charts in murder rates and other crimes than other affluent countries. Christopher Jencks, a writer for The American Post, writes murder rates are far higher in the United States than in Europe, Japan, or even Canada.” Jencks states that the United States also has more rapes, robberies, and assaults than other rich countries. All of these crimes are considered violent crimes. Looking at other countries compared to the United States, it gives people in society reasons why our crime is increasing and why this continues to skyrocket throughout the years. What makes other serious crimes like homicide or murder nonreportable?

Along with violent crimes, property crimes are also committed very frequently in the U.S. Joe Gorman, author for The Vindicator, shares statistics from a local town whose property crimes were reported.” The local numbers for property crimes – which the FBI classifies as burglaries, motor vehicle thefts, vandalism, and shoplifting – decreased slightly for local police departments. Nationally, the FBI said property crimes decreased 3 percent in 2017 from 2016.”

According to US Legal, Burglaries/total population is the standard “crime rate” reported by the FBI and used by social scientists. These may be small crimes, but they are reported more often because these are personal items owned by homeowners or business owners. Property crimes happen to individuals during the night hours. Sam Thompson, Global News writer, interviewed police officers regarding a property crime incident. “The main thing is, we’ve had an increase in some minor property crimes, vandalism at night, theft from vehicles, theft from sheds, bicycle theft from yards, stuff like that,” he said. Smaller cities are known to have more property crimes than violent crimes. Thompson quotes a staff sergeant of Brandon Township saying, “Brandon’s a smaller city, around 50,000 people, so we have a little bit of that small-town attitude in some areas.” Officers in small suburban or rural areas aren’t patrolling streets that much because they feel that nothing would be expected to happen in their town. All crime should be reported regardless of how much damage is done; this only helps the community better.

Crime rates and crime differ in some regions of the country. Every city and town do not commit the same crime or have similar crime rates. Different regions of the country will have a higher crime rate or even high crime in that area than an another. Most urban cities have more crime and crime rates. Popular urban cities are bound to be talked about for crime rate, low employment, and impoverished areas. Violent crimes and property crimes are both happening a lot in those communities who need help the most. According to Statista, St.Louis had the highest violent crime in 2017. 2,082 crimes per 100,000 residents were recorded, and Detroit is running a close race with 2,057 crimes per 100,000. The statistics given are four violent crime categories: murder and non-negligent manslaughter; forcible rape; robbery; and aggravated assault. The major urban cities that are known for their ‘crime,’ there isn’t much business coming in and out because no one wants to be around a crime infested area. No business results in low employment rates and when people in that area have no job; they find their self-doing criminal activity. A chain effect continues.

There are at least a couple states in each of the five regions which have high crime and crime rates in the U.S.In 2017, Lousiana had the highest murders in the country with a manslaughter rate of 12.4 which is twice the national average. Smaller states like Vermont or New Hampshire have murder rates of 1. A tremendous amount of cities in the U.S have reported an increase in crime in their cities. New York Times writers Monica Davey and Mitch Smith state that “ In New Orleans, 120 people had been killed by late August, compared with 98 during the same period a year earlier. In Baltimore, homicides had hit 215, up from 138 at the same point in 2014. In Washington, the toll was 105, compared with 73 people a year ago. And in St. Louis, 136 people had been killed this year, a 60 percent rise from the 85 murders the city had by the same time last year.” Crime has changed over the years. Some of the crimes happening today are senseless crimes or crimes that have occurred on accident.

In the world today, society links everything together to receive satisfaction regardless if it is negative or positive. There will always be a crime in the world, but there are ways to help to reduce the amount of crime happening and to reduce the crime rate. Communities are in fearful trouble because crime gradually gets worse each day and they just want things to go back to normal.

Crime and crime rate comes with many questions and analysis that leave members of society puzzled. If there is a failure to reporting the crime, will crime get worst? Is social media and technology helping create more crime? Can police help reduce the amount of crime?

Failure to report crimes will lead to more crime. Society is fearful for what is going to happen next if they tell the police or people in the neighborhood. People in each community knows what is going on in the area, but they are nervous that they will be the next victim. People in urban areas will be called names like a ‘snitch’ if they told the police what they saw or heard. People in the community who are aware of the crime is only making their community better. When a crime isn’t reported, this will continue to grow in areas and will continue to get worst yearly. Most crime goes unreported in some urban areas. People in the community feel that not reporting the crime rate will help the situation when in reality, everything is getting worse. More crimes will continue to happen if they aren’t reported to the police because the community will be afraid that they will be the next victims of the future crime committed. Reported crimes are what makes statistics go down each year.

Steven Donziger writes, “The National Crime Victimization Survey, begun in 1973, is administered by the US Census Bureau. Approximately 40,000 households to determine how many people were victimized by one of seven crimes in the past year. The crimes recorded are rape, robbery, assault, personal theft, household theft, burglary, and motor vehicle theft.” Victims of crime will continue to feel that they are victims. According to John Gramlich, a researcher for Pew Research Center finds “In 2016, only 42% of the violent crime tracked by BJS was reported; And in the much more common category of property crime, only about a third (36%) were reported.” Society feels that nothing will happen if they report a crime. The more crime is reported, people in communities can feel safe knowing that a person has been found.

Everyone in the world uses social media, whether it is used to keep in touch with family, being updated with daily news or worldly events, or to show photos dealing with personal life. Children of today use social media and technology more than adults do. The media creates more crime daily; police brutality, discrimination, self-defense, etc. Brittni Brown, writer for International Policy Digest, states “In listening to and reading all of these reports about police and crime in the media, it is not hard to conclude that crime is on the rise everywhere and that the United States is no longer a safe place and allowing children to play in the front yard is risky.” Everything that deals with a crime is being plastered in the media to make a situation bigger. Media can be useful to keep people update, and it can also be harmful because jumping to conclusions can create a war that effects everyone.

Technology is Connected to an increase in crime. Both this paragraph and the previous are connected to one another. If a child in an urban community is inside on their phones or playing games systems, they are less likely to be influenced by their neighborhoods friends. If a child in an urban community is inside on their phones or playing games systems, they are less likely to be affected by their neighborhoods friends, but these video games are very violent. These video games are introducing guns, drugs, robbery, gang affiliation at a young age. Michael Casey, a journalist for CBS News, writes “Over 90 percent of children play video games, with 85 percent of those games containing some violence.” Violent games result in violent behavior. We see mass shooting happening frequently; these shootings are always in the media which allows individuals to do the exact same thing. Casey finds that “Adam Lanza gunned down 20 children and six teachers Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. It later turned out that he was obsessed with violent video games.” Young people pick this trait up from the games they are playing. Videos games that are violent are giving youth a lousy outlook for their lives and others around them.

Crime prevention is something police officers do as a part of their job along with enforcing the law. Reporting crime will reduce the attractiveness of crime. The government and the police work together to try to reduce crime and how crime rates could drop. The criminal justice system is finding theories that could help urban communities reduce the amount of crime happening in those areas. Police and the government see that crime will increase each and every day so what can they do to fix everything. If police are brought on the street to help communities, less crime will happen. Lind and Lopez, writers for, write, “while the number of police can affect crime rates, crime rates also affect the number of police. When crime rises, cities hire more police in response.” Lind and Lopez also state that “Research on specific areas, as well as the US as a whole, found that hiring more police helped decrease crime.” Crime, in general, was worst decades ago then what it is now and those models didn’t affect anyway in society. Crime, drugs, and gangs were more so a problem in the ’80s, and 90’s then in the 00’s and present day.

Cleary, crime in the United States will always continue to be around. It’s never-ending, or people can’t even wrap their head around the amount of crime happening. Many feel that crime is decreasing throughout the years. It’s not so much fair to think that there can be an increase and a decrease in crime. There are many outcomes to how crime is decreasing in the world. Incarceration is a reason why there is a decrease in crime. The community plays a role as well when talking about crime. Nevertheless, corruption will continue to be in the world.

John Gramlich, a researcher, found that “In 2016, there were more than 600 violent crimes per 100,000 residents in Alaska, Nevada, New Mexico, and Tennessee. By contrast, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont had rates below 200 violent crimes per 100,000 residents.” Crimes are dropping because criminals that committed violent crimes are incarcerated. Because they are locked up, the perpetrators aren’t going to commit the murder or severe crime. When previous crime commiters are locked up, the crime rates will go down. In the online article from, “The Brennan Center report estimates that incarceration played even less of a role than that: up to 12 percent of the drop in property crime during the 1990s was due to the rise in incarceration, but it was probably more like 6 percent. And it contributed to 1 percent, at most, of the continued property crime decline in the 2000s.” People who are incarcerated begins to age out of the crime they commit. While being locked up they find that they don’t want to do what brought them to jail, Christoper Jencks writes, “Murders are more likely to be reported to the police because they are easier to detect what happened. Not only is murder better recorded than other crimes, but there is less reason to think that the police have changed the way in which they record murders.” Incarcerating people who have done violent crimes allows a decline in crime.

More people in society think that a violent city will have more violent and property crimes. Researchers found that “higher poverty levels are associated with higher crime levels.” When thinking about poverty, instantly it is found upon that more killings and robberies are taking place at each second. It was found that this was only true for property crimes and not violent crimes. Now logically thinking,  it would make sense that violent crime is happening because certain gangs have feuds between them, or even accidentally killings are always happening in neighborhoods in poverty. In an article written by Tom Jacobs, it states, “ Social disorganization theory argues that certain neighborhood characteristics—a low-income, transient population composed of people from different ethnic groups—”would lead to higher levels of crime, as this would weaken the structural bonds within a community.” Neighborhoods are big reasons on why certain crimes frequently happen than they should in areas. Many feel that crime will be reduced if criminals are starting to get convicted for their crimes and if the neighborhoods are starting to become more positive and have a better outlook on the community as a whole. If more neighborhoods have programs or events that can bring a community together than diminish them and allow them to create more violence. A real neighborhood could reduce crime and property crime will start to decrease instead of increasing steadily.

Along with the fact that urban communities are diminishing people, the police force is also adding to crime rates in America. Cops are killing African-Americans due to police brutality in the world. These are reported crimes because either victims or witnesses see this cruel activity and take it to social media or at least tell someone about what they saw. Now that police brutality is becoming popular in the past couple of years; police try to stay away from black neighborhoods to try to reduce conflict. Blacks tend to stay away from the police now because they see what happens to other people who are just like them. Since cops stay away from black neighborhoods, they have no control over people in that community.

They are staying away which means people in urban communities think that they can get away with anything because no one is reprimanding them. When people see police brutality happening in social media, this encourages them to do criminal activity. Michael Barone, a writer for National Review, states “Black Americans were the primary victims of the huge crime increase starting in the late 1960s, and they will be the primary victims again if the Ferguson effect continues to result in more homicides.”Police officers break down people in the community which allows them to feel less than what they are. Resulting in the fact that police brutality is affected mental health, this also attracts people to do criminal behavior because they aren’t in the right state of mind. Police brutality is creating crime to increase. People in society demand more police to come in and help, but what is that going to do? Many theories have been tried to help bring police and people together. They have even decided to bring back specific models to maybe help reduce crime as a whole. This effect only created more people to go against this, and it failed. We think that police are supposed to help when in today’s world they are defeating the purpose. If police brutality weren’t as bad as it is, there wouldn’t be skyrocketing crimes happening.

There is no way to get around the fact that crime is going to go away completely. Whether it may be a small or severe crime, it still classifies as a crime in the United States. People do senseless crimes that result with them getting arrested and added to the statistics. The only way to bring down the crime rate is to report crimes, cooperate with police, and penalize criminals. The crime rate might rise temporarily as more crimes are reported, but they’ll fall again when the threat of swift justice deters criminals.

Brown, Brittni. “Is the Media Altering Our Perceptions of Crime?” International Policy Digest, International Policy Digest, 6 Nov. 2018,

Casey, Michael. “Do Violent Video Games Lead to Criminal Behavior?” CBS News, CBS Interactive, 17 Aug. 2015,

Davey, Monica, and Mitch Smith. “Murder Rates Rising Sharply in Many U.S. Cities.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 1 Sept. 2015,

Donziger, Steven. “Measures of Crime”

Gramlich, John. “5 Facts about Crime in the U.S.” Pew Research Center, Pew Research Center, 30 Jan. 2018,

Gorman, Joe. “Local Crime Rates Close to National Trends.”, 28 Sept. 2018,

Jacobs, Tom. “How to Bring Down Crime Rates.” Pacific Standard, Pacific Standard, 29 Sept. 2015,

Jencks, Christopher. “Is Violent Crime Increasing?” The American Prospect,

Lind, Dara, and German Lopez. “16 Theories for Why Crime Plummeted in the US.”, Vox Media, 20 May 2015,

“Number of Murders: U.S. Homicide Rate.” Statista,

Thompson, Sam. “Brandon Police Encourage Residents to ‘Lock It up’ as Property Crime Climbs.” Global News, Global News, 19 Nov. 2018,

US Legal, Inc. “Crime Rate Law and Legal Definition.” Fraud Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.,


Research — Wiseman101

Is Death also a Choice?

Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) as part of euthanasia is one of the oldest points of contention in medical ethics. The original Hippocratic Oath forbids it, and many religions and societal traditions have rejected it since antiquity. In physician-assisted suicide, a suffering or terminally ill patient is aided by a certified health practitioner to get access to a lethal dose that the patient then administers on themselves. If the patient is incapable of doing so, they can request the physician to administer the lethal substance to end the patient’s life. [Physician-assisted dying (PAS) as part of euthanasia is one of the oldest points of contention in medical ethics. The original Hippocratic Oath forbids it, and many religions and societal traditions have rejected it since antiquity. In physician-assisted dying, a suffering or terminally ill patient is aided by a certified health practitioner to get access to a lethal dose that the patient then administers on themselves. If the patient is incapable of doing so, they can request the physician to administer the lethal substance to end the patient’s life.]

It is called physician-assisted because the doctor supports in dying and hastening the death of the patient. In this case, the doctor takes the step knowingly and ready to make the patient die. There is a difference between physician-assisted suicide and the euthanasia. In euthanasia a doctor, assist the patient to die through the administration of a lethal drug while in physician-assisted dying, the doctor deals with a sound mind individual who requests voluntarily to die by requiring a dose of barbiturates that will kill him or her. The state of the art palliative care should be established to treat these people suffering and almost ending their lives. The practice of physician-assisted suicide continues to raise debate as only five American states, a handful of European Countries and Colombia permit some form of doctor-assisted suicide. Even though many governments and organizations do not formally accept physician-assisted suicide as a standard medical practice due to ethical concerns, they should adopt it because it is a show of respect to individual civil liberties as provided by the right of every individual to choose what is best for them without government or societal interference. [The practice of physician-assisted dying continues to raise debate as only five American states, a handful of European Countries and Colombia permit some form of doctor-assisted suicide. Even though many governments and organizations do not formally accept physician-assisted suicide as a standard medical practice due to ethical concerns, they should adopt it because it is a show of respect to individual civil liberties as provided by the right of every individual to choose what is best for them without government or societal interference] Nobody should control how someone should die; therefore, patients should be given a right to die anytime they will.

[The text in purple is reproduced from a Pay-for-Paper site called Course Hero where papers are purchased for college courses. ]

Many states have illegalized physician-assisted suicide. However, there has been a recent flurry of legal implications in this case. Kopelman also claims that, the issue of whether of whether to legalize physician-assisted deaths (PAD) has been on debate for a long time now. In the United States, most of the states have prohibited PAD and terming it as unconstitutional, but it the real sense it constitutional. Individuals should be given their liberty under the constitution.  She says that there have been several attempts to change this law. One of the federal challenging the constitutionality of these prohibitions of PAD includes two Supreme Court cases, Washington vs. Glucksberg and Quill vs. Vacco. After several attempts to legalize PAD failed, then the Death with Dignity Act was passed in Oregon in 1995 and also in Washington state in 2008. These laws allow an individual who wishes to die through physician-assisted practice to do so freely.

There has been a controversy on how to recognize the right of PAD individuals. According to Kopelman, some people associate the word suicide with some mental illness and some irrational behavior. However, these people should be given a right to control their lives because there is a point a patient realizes that death is the only best option for the illness, this is a self-preservation means. That is why when the states legalized this means of dying called is physician-assisted suicide.

There are various reasons why the right to physician-assisted suicide should be recognized. The first reason is patient autonomy. A patient should be guaranteed a right to control any possible circumstances surrounding his death. Respect of the patient is one duty of a doctor. The sole responsibility is to relieve pain the patient is undergoing, physician-assisted suicide is one of the approaches used. This practice was practiced in Oregon whereby over 100 patients obtained a prescription for lethal doses under the law, which was passed in 1997. 850 patients die after taking such doses. Most of these patients had critical and acute diseases like cancer whereby death was the only remaining option. It should also be noted that physician-assisted death is a personal choice; therefore, people should be given their right to choose what suits them. Sometimes the pain in the patient can be too much to contain, therefore when the patient recognizes it is better to die, nobody is supposed to prohibit that, secondly, there is an aspect of mercy. If the pain and suffering the patient is undergoing cannot be relived through the palliative care, then the doctor has the powers to do anything possible to assist the patient to relieve the pan, even if it means hastening patient’s death. Because, honestly, sometimes pain can be unbearable.

Kopelman also points out that, not all medicine can relieve human suffering. The pain and suffering of a dying patient can be too much. The suffering is caused by somatic symptoms like nausea, pain, depression, anxiety and even hopelessness. For most of the patients, when they feel to have the control over their death timing, they get comfort. However, it is reasonable to ask for medicine before opting for death directly. As much as there should be a right for physician-assisted individuals, nobody wants patients to die but have freedom and a right to remain alive and in good health. However, it should be noted that PAD is controlling suffering on terminally ill patients.

There is an unexpected benefit of allowing patients to have a right to physician-assisted suicide. However, it should be noted that the laws and rights for physician-assisted right do intend to kill a patient but to assist in pain relieving. In the study by Boudreau, Donald J., and Margaret A. Somerville, “Physician-assisted Suicide Should Not Be” in this exercise, patients have the opportunity to die with dignity; they experience less trauma and pin when dying. In addition, the patient has all the time to say goodbye to the friends and family members. It should be noted that when the patient requests to die early, he saves the financial burden that the family would have used to treat a disease, which will not get ill at the end of the day. The other most crucial benefit of such a death is that some useful organs like the kidneys can be saved for that patients and be used to save the lives of other patients. In addition, one can imagine if there were not physician-assisted suicide, many people could have committed suicide in a mess and horrifying, traumatic manner.

The other most important reason for legalizing physician-assisted suicide is that it gives patients freedom of choice. The capability to control your mind and body is fundamental to any human being. Boudreau and Somerville agree that, a patient should not be allowed to continue suffering for long in this world when in the real sense there are no hopes for healing members. Death is never enjoyable to witness, but also it is more saddening to see your loved one struggle in pain which will not end any time soon members. Therefore, physician-assisted death helps the terminally ill patient to end his life without necessarily undergoing agony for a long time. Physician-assisted suicide is the best method to determine the right time and manner of a terminally ill patient. This liberty grants the patients alternatives to choose. The constitution provides this liberty and makes it clear for everyone. However, some proponents can argue that physician-assisted suicide should be illegalized since the doctors have no right to determine the right time for a patient’s death.

Although physician-assisted suicide can be regarded as a sound practice, there are valid arguments against its application. According to Margaret Sommerville in her book “Death Talk, Second Edition: The Case Against Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide,” she claims that the constitution recognizes the right to life, and when life and death are compared, life will take precedence. Allowing physician-assisted dying is a contradiction of the first liberty. [Although physician-assisted suicide can be regarded as a sound practice, there are valid arguments against its application. First, the constitution recognizes the right to life, and when life and death are compared, life will take precedence (Sommerville, 2014). Allowing physician-assisted dying is a contradiction of the first liberty.]

In a literature review by Nicole Steck and Matthias Egger “Euthanasia and assisted suicide in selected European countries and US states: systematic literature review,” they conclude that it is also possible that legislating doctor-assisted suicide will be the first step on a slippery slope that will involve threats to the vulnerable as premature death is enacted as a cheap alternative for palliative care. This is true when one considers that a dose of euthanasia costs an upward of $50 and kidney failure treatment may cost an upward of $89,000 per year in the US. Also, Sommerville points out that, unproductive and poor citizens will be targeted and this, again, goes against the right of every American to access quality healthcare. [It is also possible that legislating doctor-assisted suicide will be the first step on a slippery slope that will involve threats to the vulnerable as premature death is enacted as a cheap alternative for palliative care. This is true when one considers that a dose of euthanasia costs an upward of $50 and kidney failure treatment may cost an upward of $89,000 per year in the US (Steck, Egger, Maessen, Reisch, & Zwahlen, 2013). Unproductive and poor citizens will be targeted and this, again, goes against the right of every American to access quality healthcare.]

For some people, the contention is absolute and moral. Life is sacred and the suffering that comes with it till one dies confers its dignity and consequently, deliberately ending a human life is wrong. Finally, how long will it take before physician-assisted suicide becomes involuntary? When relatives approach a 92-year old man on life support and request them to sign the physician-assisted suicide forms, is that not indirectly violating their rights as they have no choice? [For some people, the contention is absolute and moral. Life is sacred and the suffering that comes . . . . My free preview of the Course Hero document ended here. I did not purchase the paper to continue the comparison.]

According to Bradley Denton and his partner Dr. William Bradley in their “Australian Nursing and Midwifery” journal , the views that physician-assisted dying is immoral and strips human dignity deserves some seriousness but, is not autonomy and liberty critical sources of human dignity as well? The right to choose certainly adds value to human life and people should not take a myopic view of ethics without analyzing the laws that make these ethics possible. In the society we live in where the state and religion are separated, it is queer to support the sanctity of life abstractly by exposing particular individuals to unbearable pain, suffering and indignity that comes from some terminal conditions .Furthermore, evidence from countries and states where physician-assisted suicide has been enacted shows that the slippery slope contention with regard to widespread physician-assisted suicide is a myth. In the Netherlands for example, Gopal in his “Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law,” says that the process of doctor-assisted dying is bureaucratic and highly complex meaning that most applicants are rejected until it is established beyond reasonable doubt that the request is voluntary and will do more good than good. The Netherlands treats physician-assisted suicide as a criminal act if not carried out in the presence of an ethics expert, a legal expert, and the doctor. This implies that strict controls are needed, not blatant rejection, to ensure that this right is protected and not abused.

In the article” Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies” by MSC. Suela Hoxhaj, the argument that life should take precedence over death does not hold water when analyzed from an individual’s rights perspective. Just as people have the right to live with dignity, they also have a right to die with dignity. Medical practice is supposed to alleviate pain and unnecessary suffering in patients. Take the example of a single mother of teenage children having stage four cancer. Undergoing chemotherapy means that her hair falls off even as she consistently vomits while enduring the extreme pain that her children are supposed to watch as they take care of her. Presently, the medical technology we have cannot do any better than chemotherapy and radiotherapy to treat cancer (which generally cannot restore health in stage four cancer) and in the case of this mother, the continuing suffering only robs her of her dignity and those of her children. With physician-assisted suicide, such patients and their families get a right to a dignified end.

According to Sommerville, anti-physician assisted suicide proponents argue that death is a natural process that should not be interfered with. However, doctors have and continue to implicitly exercise the right of dying on the patient’ behalf. Physician-assisted suicide fixes this by recognizing the individual civil liberty of the patient to choose and administer PAS. Doctors normally exercise this right by giving pain-relief in lethal doses or withdrawing treatment. As Steck, Egger, Maessen, Reisch, & Zwahlen notes, this is usually after talking to relatives, and even though doctors are normally investigated for overstepping this mark, they are rarely charged. [Usually this is by withdrawing treatment or administering pain-relief in lethal doses. Often doctors act after talking to patients and their relatives. Occasionally, when doctors overstep the mark, they are investigated, though rarely charged.] Numerous people welcome this fudge given that it lays limits to PAS albeit with no need to articulate the contentious moral choices involved. [Some people welcome this fudge because it establishes limits to doctor-assisted dying without the need to articulate the difficult moral choices this involves.] This is unethical and unworkable given that the explicit choice to die that should be in the hands of a patient is left in the doctor’s hands. It is hypocritical and goes against the individual civil liberties as society pretends to shun PAS while tacitly and subtly allowing it without safeguards. [But this approach is unethical and unworkable. It is unethical because an explicit choice that should lie with the patient is wholly in the hands of a doctor. It is hypocritical because society is pretending to shun doctor-assisted dying while tacitly condoning it without safeguards.] Physician-assisted dying in its openness will fix this practice of deaths through nods and winks that contravenes individual rights. [Most deaths now take place in hospital, under teams of doctors who are working with closer legal and professional oversight. Death by nods and winks is no good.]

Gopal also suggests that, the fear that physician-assisted suicide will be foisted on vulnerable individuals, bullied by rogue doctors, cash-strapped states, panicking relatives, and parsimonious insurers is unfounded. [One fear is that assisted dying will be foisted on vulnerable patients, bullied by rogue doctors, grasping relatives, miserly insurers or a cash-strapped state.] The Oregon experience, where a law allowing PAS has existed since 1997, points to the enhanced recognition of civil liberties. Individuals who choose doctor-assisted dying are in fact insured, well-educated and getting the best palliative care. [Experience in Oregon, which has had a law since 1997, suggests otherwise. Those who choose assisted suicide are in fact well-educated, insured and receiving palliative care.] These individuals are motivated by the desire to maintain their own dignity, pleasure in life, autonomy, and the pain that comes with some conditions. [They are motivated by pain, as well as the desire to preserve their own dignity, autonomy and pleasure in life.]

[The text in blue comes not from Steck, Egger, Maessen, Reisch, & Zwahlen, nor from Gopal, but from the same Economist article not named in the References. ]

Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) can be caused by the fact that there is no available care for the victim patient. According to Ardelt Monika in the handbook of death and dying 1 “Physician-assisted death,”  palliative care strategies can be effectively utilized to ensure that lives of patients are prolonged rather than shortened. It is not something that can be advocated to have the patients’ lives shortened and yet there are care services that can be incorporated to assist patients to recover from acute suffering. There are quality end-of-life programs available through many hospitals. The focus should not be whether to legalize and give patients a right to decide for their lives, but it should be aiming to provide services that guarantee life for patients. The emphasis should be trying to improve hospital care. Ardelt also claims that, there are more than 4000 hospital agencies in the United States, but due to regulations and strict laws and the rigidity nature of the Medicare hospital cover requirements patients to possess a life expectancy of six months or less, many people in the USA fail to access these services. If the trend continues, then definitely there will be more PAS scenarios and people will be committed to fighting for their rights to die through physician-assisted method. In the US, there is excellent terminal care, which is readily available in many hospitals. Every individual in all states has access to hospital care when they require it. This is made available for people of all ages, either the elderly, children, rich, poor and even the mortal people. A significant number of individuals who die in the US die under the care and the umbrella of hospital premises. The fact is not because there is no sufficient care in the US hospitals; it is not because, in America, terminally ill patients are beyond control, no, this is simply because PAS has been legalized by many states. Making the doctors lazy in the administration of required care, hence assisting patients to die early.

It is evident that at some point, PAS can be recommended for the patient who is terminally ill and experiencing acute pain, but still, we need to look at it adverse effect in the healthcare industry. There is a possibility that advocating for PAS will make many physicians to cause more harm than good. According to Margaret Somerville and Dr. Boudreau, Donald, first, physician-assisted suicide is not the core aim of a doctor, professionally. The sole role of a physician is to support the good health of a patient and assist the patient as much as possible to ensure prolonged healthy life. Permitting PAS publicly will make the doctors lazy in the provision of quality palliative care services, which are aimed to support quality life. The involvement of physicians in PAS raises the question of ethical medical practice. The physician should not assume that facilitating the death of a patient is a unique role, it is not something to recommend but to avoid at all cost.

In conclusion, physician-assisted dying is the ultimate protection of individual civil liberties in the ongoing euthanasia debate. Just as people have the right to life, they have a right to autonomy, happiness, and pleasure in life; elements that are guaranteed through the right to choose a dignified death that alleviates unnecessary suffering. Anti-PAS proponents suggest that it will open the doors to a slippery slope of forced death on vulnerable patients, but evidence from Netherlands and Oregon show that this is a myth if strict controls are in place. After all, the right to die for patients has for long been practiced by physicians and relatives on behalf of patients through the withdrawal of medication or prescription of pain medication. Physician-assisted suicide is fixing this subtle illegal practice by placing the right to die in the patient’s hands hence protecting civil liberties.


Denton, A., Levett, C., Bradley, S., & Thoma, L. (2016). Death and dignity: Why voluntary euthanasia is a question of choice. Australian Nursing and Midwifery Journal24(6), 18-23.

Gopal, A. A. (2015). Physician-Assisted Suicide: Considering the Evidence, Existential Distress, and an Emerging Role for Psychiatry. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law43(2), 183-190. Retrieved from

Hoxhaj, O. (2014). Euthanasia – The Choice between the Right to Life and Human Dignity. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies3(6), 279-284. doi:10.5901/ajis.2014.v3n6p279

Sommerville, M. A. (2014). Death talk: The case against euthanasia and physician-assisted Suicide (2nd Ed.). Sydney, Australia: McGill-Queen’s Press-MQUP.

Steck, N., Egger, M., Maessen, M., Reisch, T., & Zwahlen, M. (2013). Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide in Selected European Countries and US States. Medical Care51(10), 938-944. doi:10.1097/mlr.0b013e3182a0f427

Boudreau, Donald J., and Margaret A. Somerville. “Physician-assisted Suicide Should Not Be Permitted: option 1.” The New England Journal of Medicine 368.15 (2013): 114-145.’s_and_ethicist’s_perspectives

Kopelman, Loretta M. “Does physician-assisted suicide promote liberty and compassion?.”

Physician-Assisted Suicide: What are the Issues?. Springer, Dordrecht, 2001. 87-102.

Ardelt, Monika. “Physician-assisted death.” Handbook of death and dying 1 (2003): 424-434.

Boudreau, Donald J., and Margaret A. Somerville. “Physician-assisted Suicide Should Not Be Permitted: option 1.” The New England Journal of Medicine 368.15 (2013): 114-145.

Kopelman, Loretta M. “Does physician-assisted suicide promote liberty and compassion?.”


Let’s Resist Resistance

Current hygiene practices increase our contraction of infectious disease. We have all seen the signs on the bathroom door or next to the sink that reads “employees must wash hands.” This signifies that OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) recognizes the importance of washing our hands after using the restroom. If this sign is abided by, customers are put at ease when eating at their favorite restaurant or buying muffins from their local baker. Customers can be rest assured that they are not going to contract some vile food borne illness that will knock them out of commission for days. We forget about the dish rag that has been used all day to wipe the counters, or the bench seats at the diner that haven’t been cleaned properly. There is a growing need to address the way we clean and the products we use to clean. This extends to the antibiotics we take to “clean” our bodies and the antibiotics we use to treat the animals we eat.

The invention of penicillin awarded Alexander Fleming the Nobel Prize in 1945. Fleming warned during his acceptance speech that the overuse of antibiotics would lead to a decline in their effectiveness. This overuse happens when bacteria evolve to have stronger defenses against certain antibiotics. The overuse is dangerous because as we take more antibiotics, bacteria are getting stronger and more likely to have a defense against the very thing meant to kill them. Today we are seeing an increased awareness to antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria. Immuno-compromised persons are at an increased risk due to their susceptibility to bacterial infection. This population consists of elderly and children as well as any persons with an existing condition that would weaken their bodies ability to fight infection. Compounding these issues is improper hygiene amongst people that service these immuno-compromised people.

According to The American Journal of Infection Control we should be taking a “risk-based approach” to hygiene. Knowing which cleaning products to use and when to use them is crucial to appropriate hygiene. Author, Sally F. Bloomfield says in an article titled, A Risk Assessment Approach to use of Antimicrobials in the Home to Prevent Spread of Infection” that “detergent-based cleaning can be used to break the chain of infection, in some cases an antimicrobial agent is required.” At one time, using an antimicrobial agent in the home was unnecessary but with a growing immune-compromised population that is receiving similar care in home as they once saw in a hospital it is becoming more crucial. This crucial step breaks the chain of the bacteria and allows for the person in contact with a once contaminated surface to now be safe from any bacterial infection. In addition to this step being crucial for the reduction of an infection, it also limits the use of antibiotics to treat an infection. By limiting the use of the antibiotics, we see a reduction in the risk for antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria.

Along with direct use of antibiotics in humans for treatment, the United States meat industry began using antibiotics both as a tool to keep animals from getting sick and as a tool to aid in weight gain. This practice is adding to the inappropriate hygiene practices. Maryn Mckenna writes in an article titled Drugs: gut response?, that “By saturating the environment with antibiotic residues, Blaser argues, we have effectively recreated that weight-gain programme in humans — and the result has been the seemingly unstoppable increase in obesity, especially in children.” This article is from the International Journal of Science. Mckenna is reviewing an article written by Martin J. Blaser on how the overuse of antibiotics is “Fueling our modern plagues”. Essentially, we are contaminating our food now with a product that was meant to treat infection. In doing so we are seeing a similar response in humans that these farmers see in their animals such as weight gain. Weight gain has many health repercussions on its own and now add to that the use of the antibiotics affecting efficiency when a person is ill. On top of the now sometimes inefficient antibiotics, Blaser discusses the idea that the overuse of antibiotics is destroying healthy benign bacteria that are necessary for normal, healthy, human function.

It appears that we are at a boiling point. With things like resistant bacteria and a growing immune-compromised population it is crucial that we begin to make strides in practicing appropriate hygiene. We can’t let that sign in the bathroom fool us. Just washing our hands is not enough. Appropriate hygiene goes beyond hand-washing.

Overuse and misuse of antibiotics leads to an increased occurrence of antibiotic resistant bacteria. We have an infestation of some mutant bug, a spider-cockroach hybrid that isn’t afraid to charge at us when we try to kill it. So, we call a professional to exterminate the hybrid monster bugs. The exterminator uses a substance that kills 95% of the spider-cockroach mutants but leaves 5% not killed. Now imagine, not only are these hybrid bugs not dead but they are now stronger. They have been exposed to the substance that killed the other 95% and have evolved to defend against that lethal substance. In addition, they are multiplying and passing their enhanced defense against the killing substance to their young. Antibiotics are designed to treat bacterial infection. Not unlike the substance used by the exterminator. They attack bacteria within the body by either killing the bacteria or stopping the bacteria from multiplying. Antibiotics are meant to be used as a last line of defense. The human body can usually stop an excess of harmful bacteria from multiplying without the use of antibiotic; however, there are instances when the bacteria becomes too great for a healthy immune system. This is when antibiotics are effective.

Antibiotics are only effective when prescriptions are followed through. A doctor will prescribe a specific number of pills to rid the body of the infection. If we fail to follow though and take all the pills, then the above analogy proves true. We will have exposed some bacteria to the drug meant to destroy them but not enough to kill them. Now exposed, those bacteria grow stronger. They will no longer be killed by the antibiotic first prescribed. Thus, this misuse of antibiotics increases the likelihood of an antibiotic resistant bacteria.

The use of antibiotics in animal agriculture is also contributing to resistant bacteria. Most of the meat found at the local grocer is contaminated with antibiotics. The farmers we buy our meat from are using these antibiotics to increase their profits. Antibiotics contribute to weight gain of their livestock, giving them more inventory, and keep their livestock healthier, giving them more inventory. The situation: animals take antibiotics, whether needed or not, increasing the likelihood of developing resistant bacteria, we eat the animals containing resistant bacteria resulting in the introduction of that resistant bacteria to our system. The microbial ecosystem of the animals we eat is interwoven in such a way that it is unable to be separated from our own. This makes this passing of resistant bacteria impossible to negate unless we were to not feed livestock antibiotics.

The discovery and development of antibiotics improved people’s lives, providing treatments that were more effective than their predecessors. What was once a potentially deadly infection can now be treated with amazing efficacy. Arsenic, a deadly poison in a high dose, was once the only method of treating infection. In small doses arsenic would attack the unwanted bacteria, but this was a precarious scenario. Too much arsenic would have an adverse effect, potentially killing the consumer. Enter the “Age of Antibiotics,” states Gerard D. Write in his book, The Origins of Antibiotic Resistance and we see drastic improvements in the field beginning in the 1940’s. However, resistance was inevitable from the start.

We need to figure out a way to combat resistance. In the article, What’s old is new: Reconfiguring known antibiotics to fight drug resistance,” from the journal Nature Medicine, Shraddha Chakradhar proposes that the way to do that might be by changing current antibiotics. Chakradhar states, “Turning to pre-existing drugs to make antibiotics more effective against drug-resistant strains of well-known pathogens is especially appealing given that no new class of antibiotics has been approved for nearly 30 years.” This argument does not address why no new class of antibiotics have been approved and therefore leaves us wondering, is it perhaps policy that needs to change? Moreover, she states that “drug companies and the US government have invested more than $1 billion combined toward the development of new antibiotics, just within the past decade,” which again screams at a potential flaw in how we go about approving these new antibiotics. According to the UK’s Chief Medical Officer, Sally Davies, there is a, “‘ticking time-bomb’. She says this is because of an overuse of antibiotics and the lack of new drugs coming on stream—no new class of antibiotics has been discovered since 1987,” from the Cancer Nursing Practice Journal, written by Nick Triggle.

The approach of “reconfiguring” existing antibiotics does nothing to address the problem with over-prescription. Over-prescription and misuse are negating any efforts to create stronger more effective drugs. Linda Bren quotes Stuart Levy, M.D., president of the Alliance for the Prudent Use of Antibiotics. “”The number of bacteria resistant to many different antibiotics has increased, in many cases, tenfold or more. Even new drugs that have been approved are confronting resistance, fortunately in small amounts, but we must be careful how they’re used. If used for extended periods of time, they too risk becoming ineffective early on,“” in her article, Overprescription of Antibiotics Has Led to Resistant Bacteria, Dr. Levy warns us that if we continue to overprescribe, even new drugs will become ineffective.


Aiello, A. E., & Larson, E. (2003). Antibacterial cleaning and hygiene products as an emerging risk factor for antibiotic resistance in the community. The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 3(8), 501-506. doi:

Bloomfield, Sally F., PhD, BPharm, & Scott, Elizabeth A., PhD, MPhil. (2013). A risk assessment approach to use of antimicrobials in the home to prevent spread of infection.AJIC: American Journal of Infection Control, 41(5), S87-S93. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2013.01.001

Bren, L. (2006). Overprescription of Antibiotics Has Led to Resistant Bacteria. In A. Hiber (Ed.), At Issue. Are Americans Overmedicated? Detroit, MI: Greenhaven Press. (Reprinted from FDA Consumer, 2003, September) Retrieved from

Brian N Tse, Amesh A Adalja, Christopher Houchens, Joseph Larsen, Thomas V Inglesby, Richard Hatchett; Challenges and Opportunities of Nontraditional Approaches to Treating Bacterial Infections, Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 3, 1 August 2017, Pages 495–500,

Chakradhar, S. (2016). What’s old is new: Reconfiguring known antibiotics to fight drug resistance. Nature Medicine, 22(11), 1197-1199. doi:

Coates, A. R. M. (2012;2014;). Antibiotic resistance (1. Aufl. ed.). Heidelberg;New York;: Springer.

Davies, J., & Davies, D. (2010). Origins and evolution of antibiotic resistance. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews, 74(3), 417-433. doi:10.1128/MMBR.00016-10

McKenna, Maryn, (2014) Drugs:Gut Response. Nature Publishing group, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved. Nature volume508, pages182–183. Retrieved from

Nordqvist, Christian. “Antibiotics: Uses, Resistance, and Side Effects.” Medical News Today, MediLexicon International, 25 July 2018,

Shlaes, D. M. (2010). Antibiotics: The perfect storm (1st;1; ed.). New York;Dordrecht;: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9057-7

Triggle, N. (2013). Overprescription of antibiotics is a ‘ticking time-bomb’: Chief medical officer points out that cancer patients are at increased risk of infections. nick triggle reports. Cancer Nursing Practice, 12(3), 6-7. doi:10.7748/cnp2013.

Twomey, Carolyn (2006). Hand Hygiene. Infection Control Today. Retrieved from

Witte, W. (1998). Medical consequences of antibiotic use in agriculture. Science, 279(5353), 996-997.



Research- Baahubali

As we all know that a great memory can’t be forgotten easily, similarly a legendary star is still not forgotten by the people even after his farewell; that is MICHAEL JACKSON. People and his fans have still not forgotten him. We still think that he is between all of us and soon his new album will be launched. Michael Jackson once said that, “a star can never die. It just turns into a smile and melts back into the cosmic music, the dance of life.” From abused child to the King of Pop, Michael Jackson’s success story is one of the most inspiring in history. MJ was born on August 29, 1958 in the Gary, Indiana. The most important people in his life were his 8 siblings, 5 brothers and 3 sisters. They all were so close that started a pop band along with their father. By the young age of 11, Jackson had his own T.V. series. Continuing his success and fame he used his talents to release his first solo album by the age of 14. Throughout his youth, Michael, along with his brothers and sisters, performed as a local song-and-dance act (successtory).

Success is not something that is bought, it has to be earned. Similarly the king of pop had faced many hardships mentally and physically growing up. He was loved by millions all around the world, however the only person that did not give him love and affection was his own father, Joseph Jackson. Day after day he and his four siblings used to be abused at rehearsals and at home. “Joe Jackson would beat his children if they missed a step, missed a note, or simply not performing well.” (A tragic childhood). His father enforced fear among the children with his presence, to the point that MJ and his brothers used to get physically ill. Due to his strict father by the age of 9 he was described as an adult in a child’s body. As he gained more fame as a solo artist, he was able to escape his father’s abuse. Because of his early maturity, he lost a childhood he once dreamed of. He was able of relive his childhood by spending time with kids and acting childish. Many tabloids judged his childish behavior. Soon in 1970 his four songs were number one hits on billboard. Continuing his journey, in 1982 the Thriller album was released leading him to worldwide success.

Some may describe him as a nonhuman or superhuman due to his unique dancing style and talents. One of his known talents was moonwalk and the 45 degree lean. With all his unique dance moves he inspired a generation with a new dance styles. He reinvented the definition of dancing in front of the world. The way he danced kept him ageless and inspired many cultures all around the world. Through his dance moves he was able to tell a story about the song which made him well known and liked. His songs introduced him to people who did not know him already. Most of u who never knew him, felt like we did know him. His soulful presence makes him a legacy worth celebrating. His concerts were an unforgettable experience for his fans as he was very energetic and soulful music that filled their hearts. He had his own way of walking, talking, singing, dancing and entertaining which made him different form other celebrities. There was fame, and there were pop stars, and there was entertainment, and somewhere above it all was Michael Jackson.

Some of the hardships he went through were controversial such as the allegations of sexual abuse of a thirteen year old boy and was charged for rape and molestation. Despite the allegations that were made, his fans still supported him and believed that he was innocent. They used many media outlets to support him which got the attention of the world and he was proven to be innocent in the end. Looking at the evidence that was found by the police, he was proven to be innocent because he only played with the kids but never sexually assaulted them. This proved that he was supported and loved by all his fans and the world that he only loved children.

There will be no legend like Michael Jackson since he had his own style and it is something that cannot be witnessed anywhere else in the universe. He was a onetime legend that continues to live in our hearts even though he has lived for a short period of time. Now he is in another world but still visits in our dreams and at award ceremonies as he is honored. He comes in various ways whether it is dancing, singing, or his music. There is always a glimpse of him in any song today and in the past. Michael Jackson admired many legends such as Fred Astaire and James Brown. He achieved success by finding motivation through them. Now history repeats again as many singers such as Usher and Jennifer Lopez look up to Michael Jackson as inspiration and role model.

Even though he has faced a lot of struggles in his life, he managed to overcome them and inspire a generation to work hard and achieve their goals. Michael Jackson became an international legend that lives in everyone’s hearts. His dancing, style, and music is still played today and every song brings him back alive in happy or sad times. The media has bashed him in many ways saying that he was a bad a person. All his fans still had faith in him and believed in the kind soul that he was. Michael Jackson has become a house hold name worldwide and continues to live through people’s hearts. People are still star struck by his presence and aura as he is one of the most talented people in the world. Even though some people have never met him, they feel like they have always known him. Above all music legends, Michael Jackson continues to inspire for generations to come and will never be forgotten in a lifetime.

The only person in the whole world that can match Michael Jackson’s steps and his legacy is Michael Jackson himself. Although he departed from this planet to some other world, he managed to imprint himself in the hearts of people. Just like your shadow never leaves you, the same way Michael Jackson never left us. He is still relevant in today’s world of music and entertainment. His music and his style is evergreen and he is setting example for the current and next generations to come. Whenever music, dance or entertainment is mentioned, his name will never fail to be cited. He is also known in history as a triple threat. The multi talented superstar, had a unique knack for composing music, singing and choreographing his own dance. Starting from an early age, he gave up his childhood, to live his dream by entertaining people. Now, he is the world’s biggest superstar.

Even at a young age, Michael was able to captivate millions of people’s hearts all around the world.  When he started singing with his 4 brothers in the Jackson 5 Band, many people always thought he stood out from the rest with his unique dance style, his fun energy, and ability to entertain. His popularity lead to his fans committing suicide when he passed away. His funeral had been witnessed more times than the 9/11 incident on the news channels and social media. It caused the Internet to crash and many search engines to stop working. Popular singers in this generation, incorporate his dance style and fashion into their own music and fans remember him through new singers in this way. The rhythm and tunes in his music is also used in new music and has inspired a new generation of artists.

Even though, Michael Jackson was a legend of his time, others may say that he was just as famous as other stars. But that’s not true. At some point he was diminished from his stardom and earning potentials. This these was due to the drug and the sex abuse charges on him. And by that people were considering him as a characterless man and a rapist. And to justify that statement, according to CNN, Jackson’s collection deals dropped strongly from his top and his “likability” rating turned drastically negative after the significant negative news about the accusations of consumption of drugs and sex abuse. And that’s not it, he was also found guilty for making small boys “drink alcohol.” And if he was a legend, which means that he supposed to have all the ‘hit albums.’ Rather that he had many about 6-7 failed albums such as Invincible, Ben, Music and Me, Got to be There, etc. and apart from that he was bankrupted and not granted any loans. And at some point he didn’t even have money to perform shows. And gradually his stardom faded with time. And by the above point it clearly states that if he was a “mega star” then he wouldn’t have faced such hardships and money problems.

Although he might be seen as an average celebrity by some people, he was a legendary singer with the sweetest heart in the world. He stood out from all the singers because he was different from dancing, singing, to entertaining and helping many people who were in need. He was not like others because he donated a large amount of money, like no other celebrity, to many poor people and the African American. Jackson dedicated his life to the joy of children and inspired them to live their dream. He had the most incredible and supportive fans that no other celebrity experienced before. He has been a savior to the African American community and raised millions of dollars with the song, We Are the World, and donated all the money to them. He visited many Medical Centers for leukemia and other cancer research and donated a 19 bed unit to the hospital with his own money. He donated 1.5 million dollars from his Pepsi Commercial when he founded the Michael Jackson Burn Center. Towards the end of his life, he setup the Michael Jackson United Negro College Fund for education for poor people who could not afford an education. He always knew the importance of education and accomplishing their dreams. He set up this outlet for young children to find a purpose in their lives with his own money. It is very rare that any celebrity would do this much for people in need. Most celebrities would spend the money for themselves or to small charities, but all his money and earnings went towards people who were in need. The amount of lives he has helped with those foundations and charity work, is something that sets him apart from others. His heart was like no other celebrity or human being and gave instead of gaining. Michael was extra ordinary when it came to his achievements. He sold close to 750 million copies of his album. Compared to modern day celebrity, Beyoncé has sold close to 150 million. Michael Jackson has surpassed great expectations. Even though he lived a short life, he has achieved the goals of a life time that no other person can achieve.

Looking back at all the things Michael has done for the world of entertainment and music, there is no doubt that he stands out from the other singers.  He has helped so many people in need and personally visited sick people and even donated his hard earned money to them. Jackson has donated a lot towards education, hospitals, research centers for the happiness and health of people. There are no tabloids or articles that can make anyone forget all that he has done for people. Michael Jackson was not only a legend in music, but also became a legend in the hearts of people around the world. Even though, he is not in this world with us, his charity work continues to help the poor and his music is still played to this day. The people who he helped still remember him for his good deeds and reminisce his good heart. Even after the king of pop was laid to rest, he was still in the thoughts of many staff members and charity owners, who were with him when helping those in need.

Along with the people who worked with him, his fans’ hearts broke into pieces. A voice that made them happy and joyful, disappeared into heaven. Since Michael Jackson had a lot of fans, it was hard for them to accept his death which caused his fans to commit suicide and others were in denial. Some fans went through an immense amount of depression. The thought that he was maybe still alive was not enough to console their hearts.  As soon as the news broke out that Michael Jackson has passed, many fans around the world made many tributes to him and honored him in several ways. They held memorials, candle lights, and placed flowers at places that he has set foot. It was a sad time for the world. Many fans felt like they were with him every step of his life and suddenly he was gone. Many fans showed up to the funeral and cried along with their family members. Since he was such a unique talent and an inspiration, it was hard for fans to accept his death and were mentally affected by his death. It took many decades for fans to recover. But his music has helped in healing every fan around the globe. Since many fans kept him in his hearts, his top seven songs reached the top of every music chart and his albums were sold out very quickly. Just hours after his death, the sales of the songs and albums have increased rapidly. Even though, he was not there for his scheduled concert, Colombia Pictures sponsored a movie on the legend and played it in all the cities he was supposed to tour. Many fans who lost hope, felt like he was still alive and connected with them. His death affected different social media outlets which caused his doctor to be questioned and arrested because many fans felt like his death could have been prevented if his doctor was more careful.

As the king of pop was laid to rest, fans’ hearts broke into pieces. A voice that made them upbeat and blissful had vanished into paradise. Since Michael Jackson had a part of fans, it was difficult for them to acknowledge his passing , which caused his fans to commit suicide and others were in denial. A few fans went through a colossal sum of sadness. The thought that he was possibly still alive was not sufficient to support their hearts. As before long as the news broke out that Michael Jackson had passed, numerous fans around the world made numerous tributes to him and regarded him in a few ways. They held dedications, candle light vigils, and put blooms at places that he had set foot. It was a pitiful time for the world. Numerous fans felt like they were with him each step of his life and all of a sudden, he was gone. Numerous fans appeared up to the burial service and cried alongside their family members. Since he was such a special talent and a motivation, it was difficult for fans to acknowledge his passing. They were irrationally influenced by his passing.

Many fans have lost hope that Michael Jackson would never come back again and their inspiration was gone from this world. Fans could not bare the news of his death and did not how to cope with the loss.  Most fans created sadness when he passed, which lead to 12 individuals commit suicide after agreeing to the pioneer of his fan club. This shows us that how much he had his impact around the world. Since this was such an concerning issue, the suicide cases lead to respectful right dissident, Jesse Jackson, to talk out around the issue and threat with respect to the suicide. She made a video on YouTube with respect to the suicide cases to anticipate others from committing suicide and to possibly diminish the number of suicide cases. The message was expressed as “We fall down sometimes, we get back up. That’s the right thing to do. In Michael’s name let’s live together as brothers and sisters and not die apart as fools” (Jesse Jackson). The YouTube video was spread all over from social media outlets to news channels for fans who seem not to adapt with the misfortune. They got the support and consolation that they required which motivated them to proceed their life and honor him. Fans started rallies, candle marches, events where they laid flowers, and memorials. His music too made a difference by laminating fans with the misfortune. Especially, his melody, You Are Not Alone. Numerous fans associated with the verses and had a feeling in their hearts that he was still alive. Due to the recordings and back, the fans gotten, the number of suicides was exceptionally few. In the recordings and endeavors were not made, at that point the suicide rates seem have expanded to millions of individuals in committing suicide.

The reaction of his death was so intense that it had caused Internet Trafficking. Social media outlets such as Twitter, Facebook, YouTube hits, and Google were jammed. This appeared how impactful his passing was. Virgin Media stated “It was the first time we have had so many crashing problems since 9/11 attack”. People want to reach out via social media outlets about his death which caused crashing problems. During his live broadcasting of his funeral, 31 million viewers were watching this excluding the attendees. Celebrities gave speeches, provided performances, and attended his funeral. They represented his friendship, wonderful heart, and the hero he was to millions of people.

Despite the fact that he was laid to rest, fans still believe that he is still alive. It was hard for his fans to believe that he was gone for good to a whole new different world. His fan following has caused a huge impact around the world and his death has caused an even bigger impact. Many fans have suffered a lot when he passed. Fans have developed depression and committed suicide. But, most fans found hope through his music and through honoring him in several ways such as memorials and tributes. Many fans felt like they were a part of his life and shared their experiences online. It caused an intense amount of attention which caused internet trafficking. Fans believed that even if he was laid to rest, his music and legacy would never disappear. He inspired a whole generation through fan following about living your dream and never giving up on life. Fans have kept that in their hearts and continued to carry his words in their everyday lives. There is not a single a day where someone forgets who Michael Jackson really was and what he has done for the world and his fans. His words still inspire the world to keep believing in themselves and to live life to the fullest. Jackson always said “If you enter this world knowing you are loved and you leave this world knowing the same, then everything that happens in between can be dealt with”. Fans loved him and Michael Jackson knew he was loved when he died as well. He full filled his life, but his legacy still inspires.


A&E Television Networks, “Michael Jackson is born” (March 4, 2010).

Grammy awards; “10 Reasons Michael Jackson Became the King of Pop” (May 15, 2017).

Lacienega. “Michael Jackson Info: Rhythm of the Tide.” Rhythm of the Tide, (15 Oct. 2011. Web. 11 Dec. 2014.).

“Michael Jackson Biography.” Bio (Nov 18, 2014).

Pflum, Mary, and Sarah Netter. “Growing up as Michael Jackson: Coming out of Hardship Came Success.” ABC News. (26 June 2009. Web. 18 Nov. 2014.).

Quote; “A star can never die. It just turns into a smile and melts back into the cosmic music, the dance of life.” 10 best michael jackson quotes.html 

Robinson, peter; “Blessed with an almost superhuman aura, Michael Jackson was his own unique creation,” (Fri 26 Jun 2009, 18.00 EDT).

Segal, Lewis; “why Michael Jackson danced like no one else,” (JUNE 26, 2009, 10:56 AM).

Wikipedia, “1933 child sexual abuse accusations on Michael Jackson,”

“Fans of Jackson stricken with grief commit suicide.” The Perez Hilton, (30, 2009 9:00am PDT).

Colothan, Scott, “12 Michael Jackson Fans ‘Commit Suicide’ In Wake of His Death.” Gigwise, (09:52 30th June 2009).

Jasmeeen, “Michael Jackson’s death- how did it effect the media?” wcsfmedia, wordpress (September 6, 2013).

Quote; “If you enter this world knowing you are loved and you leave this world knowing the same, then everything that happens in between can be dealt with.

BBC NEWS, ‘Michael Jackson ‘made some bad choices’, (26 September, 2013).

‘Michael Jackson charity work’, look to the stars

‘Michael Jackson: critics review his legacy’, The Telegraph, (5:00AM BST 27 Jun 2009).

Duke A., “Bad news hurt Michael Jackson’s earning potential, witness says”, CNN Entertainment, (9:30 AM ET, July 30, 2013).

Research Paper – Ivonid12

We Should get Defensive

Why does the NFL always disrespect defensive players in the MVP voting?  Elite defensive players are in many ways more valuable than a good quarterback and should be considered every season for MVP. What will it take for another defensive player to win MVP? It is becoming more of a proven fact that as the seasons through the NFL progress, quarterback after quarterback, and sometimes a running-back, is named MVP with defensive players never even getting consideration. Alan Page won the MVP award in 1971, and Lawrence Taylor in 1986, and not another defensive player before or since, in 52 years of MVP awards! While the NFL gets more offensive by the year, and defensive players have to adjust constantly to produce results, defensive players fall further, and further out of the public eye. Every season, rules are changed to favor the offense: casual touches by defenders are called “pass interference”; accidentally grazing the quarterback is called “roughing the passer.” Fans love scoring, long drives, marching down the field to sticking the game-winner in the back of the end zone, and the NFL knows it. Year after year, offense is valued more, and defense gets disrespected. Sadly, the economic model of the NFL means this probably won’t change.

One of the central questions posed recently by those who debate sports, is whether or not defensive players should be valued more since offense is easier than ever to come by. Since we are in the 2018 season currently, offense is as common as ever, as of before  week 7’s games, there are three teams averaging 30+ points per game, and another ten average 25+ points per game. Compare that to last season, and offense has clearly increased, as not a single team averaged over thirty points, and only eight averaged 25+ points per game. While the season is still young currently, and averages are likely to go up and down, the recent increase is undeniable, and more sustainable compared to last year. Mark Maske of The Washington Post states in his article “For the NFL there is no such thing as too much scoring” how offense through week 6 is at an all time high, and offense is at its easiest to come by. He states “The 4,489 points, 504 touchdowns and 328 touchdown passes recorded league wide thus far are the most ever, in each case, through six weeks of an NFL season”, concluding that these changes are certainly the new league wide trend. It has also shown no signs of slowing down as of now, but many believe, such as the NFL’s executive vice president of football operations, Troy Vincent that defense might adjust stating, “They will adjust. I think as we start getting into that real playoff run, we’ll start seeing the points normalize itself.” With all  these stats, opinions, and records in mind, the value of great defensive players should increase.

First of all, defense players have a harder job than ever in the game today. With a new catch rule, constant pass interference calls, and  a now more strict roughing the passer penalty, no wonder so many more points are being scored, as even the best defensive players are having a hard time. With all the new additions of these rules, however, a player that still performs despite all these limitations,  surely must get some consideration for Most Valuable Player Honors. With the current modern offensive system in place, guys that are great now, are really great compared to a lot of great players before their time, yet they still get little to no consideration for MVP.

Second of all, that one, great, future hall of fame defensive player can not only change the outlook of an entire defense,  but help the whole team as well. When you have a player that is that dominant at that position he plays on defense, he helps the rest of the entire defense play better meaning he’s most valuable. A great linebacker who plays the middle, can command the defense, cover receivers, and help tackle the quarterback or running back. A great defensive back can lock down parts of the field single handedly, forcing opposing offense to play around them and target another part of the field. Let’s not forget a dominant edge rusher, who can set the edge in the run game, as well as sack the quarterback and apply pressure leading to more turnovers and more opportunities for the offense. There have been great examples of players like this in the history of the NFL, and yet they never even sniff the opportunity to win that most valuable player trophy.  For example, a corner like Deion Sanders, is considered by many to be the greatest ever, as he always locked down the opponent’s best receiver when asked to, and even provided value in the return game, as he held the record for most kickoff and punt return touchdowns in NFL history, until it was recently broken by Devin Hester. Deion Sanders never even won an MVP award even though you could tell, he was the best player on the field. Another great example would be Ray Lewis, who is also considered the greatest at his position and has never won an  MVP even though he essentially ran the whole defense. As the middle guy, you tell your teammates to adjust, what the play is, and what they need to do to succeed, and while he was the first defensive player on the cover of madden, he never won an MVP award. As for an edge rusher, an amazing example is one that is occurring this season with Khalil Mack of the Chicago Bears. The Raiders foolishly traded their best player in Khalil Mack off their team, and are now the worst team in the league. The Bears on the other hand, now have one of the league’s best defenses, and are at the top of their division likely to head to the playoffs. With Mack’s  presence, the  whole defense has performed better, going from a good defense last season, to an elite defense this year. This is a great example of how a defensive player  can shape the whole outlook of a team, and the previous examples are guys in the hall of fame such as Ray Lewis, and Deion Sanders, who won super bowls because of their play. Yet continuously year in and year out, an offensive player wins the MVP award.

The MVP trophy in any sport always goes to who is considered the best player in the league that year, and on their team. It is a measure of the players great accomplishments in comparison to the rest of the best in their league. The competition is always fierce, but every year a player is voted by the Associated Press and is deemed the best, In the NFL, the league is disgustingly biased towards quarterbacks in their voting, as in the league’s history, exactly one defensive player player won the MVP award, with a few cases of running backs able to win the award as well. The absolute dismissal of the defensive player in recognition is disrespectful, and must end as soon as possible. Without a defense with great players, the quarterback wouldn’t nearly have the same success as he would with a bad defense. A great defensive player creates opportunities for that great quarterback and team, as without those opportunities by that great defensive player, the  quarterback cannot make his great plays possible.

The objective of any defense in the NFL is easy in concept. Get the opposing team’s offense off the field so the offense go and put points on the board. The best way to do that is to force a turnover. Whether it is a sack, fumble recovery, interception, or touchdown, the defense forcing turnovers is what provides an offense with the best chance to succeed. According to past history, a majority of MVP quarterbacks are those with defenses that force a good amount of turnovers. For example, in 2010, Tom Brady was the  first unanimously voted MVP in NFL history, and had an amazing year leading the Patriots to the Super Bowl. Brady was undoubtedly great, but his defense gave him plenty of opportunities, as the 2010 New England Patriots were second in turnovers on defense. The 2010 New England Patriots had many great defensive players that season, however as with most great defenses, the defensive got a significant boost from their best player. According to Pro Football Reference, Devin McCourty, a defensive back, on his own forced nine of the 38 turnovers the Patriots forced as a team, as he had seven interceptions, and two forced fumbles. McCourty forced just a hair under a quarter of his team’s turnovers by himself, yet he wasn’t even considered as an MVP candidate as opposed to his quarterback teammate. Another prime example of a quarterback’s great offensive season overshadowing an even better and more valuable performance by a defensive player is the 2011 Green Bay Packers, and their MVP winning quarterback Aaron Rodgers. The great defensive performance that season was by future hall of fame defensive back Charles Woodson who, in comparison to McCourty mentioned before, had an even better year. In 2011, Woodson led the league in interceptions with seven, had two sacks, forced a fumble, and even scored a touchdown on defense, all at the age of 35. Woodson had an absolutely outstanding season at the very old age of 35 as a defensive back, yet he received no consideration for MVP. Also, due to the performance of the defense and Woodson, the Packers were also third in starting field position as a team, undeniably caused by the defensive contributions of Woodson. Woodson undeniably impacted his team the most that year, and was easily the best and most valuable player on the filed for his team. Yet despite his efforts, was never considered for MVP as his teammate took home the award.

Turnovers are crucial to winning a football game. It is also crucial to win MVP for a quarterback. In fact, for 75% of the teams in which the NFL MVP came from since the 2000 to 2017 seasons, the team was in the upper half of the league for turnovers. The NFL MVP must’ve had a defense providing plenty of opportunities for the offense, further cementing the fact that defenses and its stars deserve more credit, and are more valuable. If the defense provides more opportunities for the offense, the offense succeeds as a whole. Along with turnovers comes the field position that they provide. Usually when defenses give up points, the kickoff sets the offense on the 25 yard-line to start their next drive due to a touchback, unless the returner decides to make a return in which it could be more or less field position. However, if a turnover is made, a majority of the time the offense gets great field position. With great field position, not only can the defense demoralize the opponent after a turnover, the ability to score is so much easier.  The less field you have to drive down, the easier it is to score, all caused by a great play made in the defense. Turnovers also negatively impact the opposing team’s defense as well. We’re all humans playing in the NFL, and we only have a certain amount of energy before we need a break to refresh and maintain our abilities. Whenever defenses force a turnover, that break the defense could so desperately need is cut short, and now they’re back on the field to try and stop that offense. With less time for a break however, their chances of stopping that offense diminish further. The quarterback cannot make plays and put up stats if never given enough opportunities. Additionally the quarterback can make more plays and given a better chance to put up numbers if given great field position. Lastly, opposing defenses cannot make plays if the great defenses always bring them back on the field.

However, undoubtedly the most biased and disrespectful case for a defensive player not winning MVP was for J.J Watt of the Houston Texans in 2014. J.J Watt accounted for a majority of the Houston Texan’s production in 2014, and was easily the main cause for their winning record. Watt had an unbelievable season in 2014, as he notched twenty and a half sacks, four forced fumbles, recovered five fumbles, lead the league in tackles for a loss with 29, scored a touchdown with an interception as a defensive lineman, and to top it all off, scored three more touchdowns playing offense. When has a NFL quarterback produced on both sides of the ball, dominating on one, and being quite productive on the other? J.J Watt was easily the most valuable player on any field in 2014,  and while he did receive votes for MVP, he still ultimately lost out to Aaron Rodgers in 2014. Watt’s season was greater than Lawrence Taylor’s MVP season, in an era of more productive offenses, yet he still didn’t receive the credit he deserved.

Defensive stars are undoubtedly the best players on the field, and deserve more recognition for MVP. Not only due their defensive efforts cause more opportunities for the offense, defenses have the ability to score and put up points as well. It is time we recognize those truly great defensive seasons for what they are, a representation of the most valuable player on the field that season.

With so much value, stats, and versatility from defensive stars, voters still gravitate towards quarterbacks every year. Even though defensive stars are much more valuable in many factors, it is easy to see why quarterbacks get so much recognition. Former quarterback Steve Young, now an NFL Analyst, shares the same opinion with a lot a fans and those who have the opinion on why quarterbacks are the most valuable.  Young states, “The great quarterbacks get everyone together, when it’s third and 10 in the fourth quarter, down by four on the road in the drizzling rain in 33 degrees. You have to be a guy that people will respond to.” While it is true that the quarterback is unquestionably the leader of the offense, the defensive captain does the same as well. A defensive captain is more of a team leader than a quarterback as their play has more of an impact to both sides of the ball. Young also states, “I’ve gone to law school, and the intellectual challenge of honing all of the data in a way that you can have immediate, you can have reflexive recall — not taking a couple seconds to think about it. But that’s five, 10, 30 times more time than you get in football. And you have to do it from the time you step on the field until you step off of it.” Once again, Young’s argument on quarterbacks having to make decisions in a extremely small amount of time isn’t wrong and is certainly difficult, however, quarterbacks get the whole play clock to diagnose the field ahead of them, while defensive players get mere micro-seconds. Many great quarterbacks such as Brady, Brees, and Manning are great because of their pre-snap diagnosis of the defense and are able to find the weak spots in the defense. Defensive players do not get the same ability to study what their opponent is doing pre-play, and mostly have to react to what happens before their eyes. Every play the defense is at an immediate disadvantage in comparison to the offense, because their diagnosis is more of an educated guess. Quarterbacks are also given designated reads as well, as the NFL is more coach driven than ever. Before every pass play the quarterback has his “go to read” as his main option, designed by the coaching and system the quarterback has in place for him. If the quarterback doesn’t like his first read, there’s always his second or third, and if the pass play doesn’t seem like the best option, he can always switch it to the run. In addition,  quarterbacks in the league are more system driven than ever before. The NFL is filled with plenty of young, strategic, and brilliant offensive minds in the league right now, and it is undeniable what their impact is on young quarterbacks in the league right now. A great example of how much a new offensive system can benefit a quarterback is two of the better young quarterbacks in the league in Jared Goff, and Mitchell Trubisky. Trubisky and Goff were number two, and number one picks respectively, had different coaches their rookie seasons, and are now much more successful after struggling their rookie seasons. Jared Goff came in the league with the now unemployed Jeff Fisher as his head coach, and struggled mightily in his rookie season, throwing more interceptions than touchdowns. Ever since Sean McVay was hired in 2017, Goff has performed as one of the best quarterbacks in the league, as he is now a MVP candidate with his team having one of the best records in the league. The same could be said for Mitchell Trubisky, as the hiring of now head coach Matt Nagy has kick-started his career after the bad struggles with former head coach John Fox. Trubisky has performed like one of the better quarterbacks in the league, since the hiring of Coach Nagy, and his career is for sure on the upswing. In contrast, defensive players do not have this same luxury as quarterbacks, mainly because their performance is much more predicated on their talent. Defensive systems do not nearly affect defensive stars in comparison to offensive systems, as great defensive players stay great on different teams. Deion Sanders played at a high level for three different teams, and is arguably the greatest all time at his position. There’s a reason most franchise quarterbacks stay with teams and coaches for most their career, as the offensive systems the quarterbacks are given is a major reason for their success. Plenty of defensive players have switched teams and have remained just as great.

Lastly, quarterbacks by far touch the ball the most out of any position on the field, as unless it is a direct snap to a different position, the whole offense runs through the quarterback. With the league becoming more pass heavy by the season, quarterbacks now throw the ball more than ever, leading to an inflation in stats and attention. If you compare the pass attempts per game for every team in the NFL in 2018 to 2008, there are a few teams that pass 40+ times a game, and rarely any that pass under thirty. In 2008, no team passed over 40 times a game, and the average pass attempts per game for every team was about 32.35 attempts per game. In 2018, that average has increased to 34.89, and could become higher as the season progresses. With the increase of screen passes and check downs, in recent years, quarterbacks get rewarded more than ever with a pass that barely travels five yards. In comparison to defenses, there are no easy plays to be made, and require the fast thinking and talent of making an interception or forcing a fumble.  Quarterbacks have to have some semblance of knowledge and ability, but with constantly evolving offensive systems, and more time than any other position, they receive much more credit than they really do deserve.

Defensive stars are undoubtedly the best players on the field, and deserve more recognition for MVP. Not only due their defensive efforts cause more opportunities for the offense, defenses have the ability to score and put up points as well. It is time we recognize those truly great defensive seasons for what they are, a representation of the most valuable player on the field that season.


  1. “2010 New England Patriots Statistics & Players.” Pro-Football-Reference.com

2. “2011 Green Bay Packers Statistics & Players.” Pro-Football-Reference.com

4. “J.J. Watt Stats.” Pro-Football-Reference.com

5. “NFL Team Points per Game.” NFL Football Stats – NFL Team Points per Game on TeamRankings.com

6. Maske, Mark. “For the NFL, There Is No Such Thing as Too Much Scoring.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 17 Oct. 2018,

7. “2000 Baltimore Ravens Statistics & Players.” Pro-Football-Reference.com

8. 28, January. “Steve Young: Quarterback Is the Most Important Position in Football.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 28 Jan. 2012,

9. “Mitchell Trubisky Stats.” Pro-Football-Reference.com

10. “Jared Goff Stats.” Pro-Football-Reference.com



Research- Peter Bomersbach

No Violent Video Games for Kids

Kids have been taken over lately with the distraction of video games which gets in the way of their social and educational life. Violent video games thrown in to the mix makes it even worse due to changing of behaviors such as aggression and thought process which later has great effects on their mental health. Parents need to pay attention to their kids in which they know what game they are playing and for how long because it can easily get out of hand. Nothing good comes from kids Violent video games except wasting good time to focus on school or have a social life.

An article “Study confirms link between violent video games and physical aggression,” written by the author Mike Snider says, “An international study looking at more than 17,000 adolescents, ages nine to 19, from 2010 to 2017, found playing violent video games led to increased physical aggression over time.” This study shows that there is a direct correlation with violent video games and kid’s aggressive behavior towards others. Video games such as Call of Duty and GTA are perfect axmples of violent video games kids should stay away from and parents should be aware of. My brother Nicholas gets very agitated when he plays violent video games such as Call of Duty because it’s a violent video game and aggressive actions are portrayed toward his friends or family.

Violent video games have more of an effect on just children’s behavior but other things such as emotions and exposure to graphic images like gore and shooting. Authors Lauren Goldbeck and Alex Pew wrote an article, “Violent Video Games and Aggression,” which states, “In 2017, the APA Task Force on Violent Media concluded that violent video game exposure was linked to increased aggressive behaviors, thoughts, and emotions, as well as decreased empathy.” This explains violent video games lead to decreased empathy due to increased exposure to blood and gore, violent language etc.. Thoughts and emotions can lead to mental health problems as a kid grows up which can be deadly to the family if not taken care properly.

Violent video games can easily be avoided by played the correctly rated game and with a managed time for other activities like playing sports or hanging out with friends. If kids dedicate their lives to video games in general they have a very small chance of going somewhere with that as a career. There are plenty of other opportunities to take on at such a young age, they can’t let it damage their mind at this young when that have so much to live for.

Violent video games desensitize individuals from real-world occurrences. Within a first-person shooter game which rewards players on getting kills and causing damage to other players, that effects how they would act in real life shootings or situations which don’t have rewards or killstreaks. Ultimately, Individuals who are exposed with the virtual experience will not know how to act in the proper manner in rea life. Scenes or events should be taken out of such video games entirely or have the scenes recreated in a respectful manner. The developers can input scenes or practices within games which accurately portrays what is needed or what actions should take places within the given situations. We don’t know what such scenes have done to these individuals playing the game, when the situation arrives we will be able to tell or it might be too late.

Violent video games are video games that have a rated M on them and rated by ESRB. An article from “HowStuffWorks” stated, “Games marked M are for people 17 and older. They usually have very violent or gory content, strong language and possible nudity.” Violent Video Games are often likely are involved in categerories such as blood and gore, strong language, sexual content etc.. Most of the video games now have their fair share of violence and guns which puts bad images into kids head’s. Now the problem we are faving is if these video games are too violent and cause desensitization in individuals who witness these actions.

Anyone who plays these violent video games is a target for desensitization. If they want to beat the whole game or experience what the developers have to offer then they have to go through all of the violence. Retailers are The initial problem because they sell the video games in the first place so they have to abide by the rule of rated M games which is ages +17. “A new survey from the Federal Trade Commission found that more retailers and movie theaters are enforcing age-based content ratings by turning kids away” ( This is what we need to follow, like California, we need to enforce these age rules on video games so it does not effect the players. The sooner we change our rules involving retailers willing the games, the better.

The debate on whether violent video games can cause aggressive behaviors or not change anything at all. Violent video games lead to aggressive behavior, change in social life and much more and is most commonly found within various studies on humans. Then there are studies where researchers try to discover the effects of violent video games and find no correlation between a change in behaviors and playing mature video games. The reaction of playing violent video games depends all on the personality of the human playing the video game. You can have a child with an outgoing personality have no effect and a child with a timid, shy personality with a dangerous effect. For me personally, playing violent video games have no effect on me whatsoever but as far as my brother goes, he is a totally different situation.

Video games can be a different experience for everyone who plays, it all depends on their personality. In an article, “Violent Video Games May Increase Aggresion in Some But Not Others, Says New Research,” Dr. Ferguson said, “Violent video games are like peanut butter” He also said “They are harmless for the vast majority of kids but are harmful to a small minority with pre-existing personality or mental health problems.” This is like the situation for my brother, I am fine after playing violent video games but on the other hand he is not. Aggression is the leading cause as to why violent video games get so much attention, even at this point in time the majority of violent video games is what all gamers enjoy.

There are plenty of studies out there that try to prove no connection between violent video games and aggressive behavior. In the article, “No evidence to support link between violent video games and behavior, the University of York stated in their study, “In a series of experiments, with more than 3,000 participants, the team demonstrated that video game concepts do not ‘prime’ players to behave in certain ways and that increasing the realism of violent video games does not necessarily increase aggression in game players.” This quote from the University of York explosions what they found but they are missing key factors such as the participants past and what they have been through or their personality before beginning the study. They also mentioned how increasing how real the virtual situation is in game might prepare them for real life but that was not the case since they achieved mixed results. Other studies suggest people who play violent video games become desensitized by the graphical images in game and become immoral when it happens in real life. Author Cheryl K. Olsen from the Massachusetts General Hospital posted an article, “Children’s Motivations for Video Game Play in the Context of Normal Development,” stating, “Researchers are now exploring what children can gain from electronic games, often emphasizing their potential to teach academic skills.” This explains what children can do with potential of playing the right kind of video game.



Goldbeck, L., & Pew, A. (2018, March 27). Violent Video Games and Aggression. Retrieved October 17, 2018, from

Snider, M. (2018, October 1). Study confirms link between violent video games and physical aggression. Retrieved October 17, 2018, from

HowStuffWorks. (2007). Choice Reviews Online, 45(03). doi:10.5860/choice.45-1203

Ferguson, Christipher. “Violent Video Games May Increase Aggression in Some But Not Others, Says New Research.” American Psychological Association, American Psychological Association, 7 June 2010.

No Evidence to Support Link between Violent Video Games and Behavior.” ScienceDaily, ScienceDaily, 16 Jan. 2018.

Olsen, Cheryl K. Children’s Motivations for Video Game Play in the Context of Normal Development. Massachusetts General Hospital, 16 Jan. 2010.

Morris, C. (2011, June 27). Violent Videogames Can Be Sold to Minors: Supreme Court. Retrieved October 23, 2018



Research – CarsonWentz11

Houston and Chicago: 2017 Homicide Rate vs. Gun Laws

State firearm laws, such as, needing a permit to purchase and licensing of owners, would make one believe that cities in those states with more strict firearm laws would be occupied with less homicide rates.  To the contrary, two cities, Houston, Texas, and Chicago, Illinois, which are very similar in characteristics, in particular, population, race, income and poverty, are located in states with different types of gun laws. The homicide rate in these two cities in 2017 are drastically different, with Chicago having a much higher rate than Houston, despite Illinois having tougher gun laws that Texas.

According to the United States Census Bureau, Houston and Chicago are quite similar when looking at their community statistics.  First, the Census Bureau’s estimated 2017 populations for Houston and Chicago were 2,312,717 and 2,716,450.  The percent female of these populations in Houston was 49.9% and in Chicago it was 51.5%.  This similar trend continues in the Census Bureau’s race statistics for both cities, with the percent of “White only” in Houston was 58.3% and in Chicago it was 48.7%.  The percent of “Black or African American alone” in Houston was 22.8% and in Chicago it was 30.9%.  The percent of “Hispanic or Latino” in Houston was 44.3% and in Chicago it was 29.1%.  The percent of “Asian alone” in Houston was 6.7% and in Chicago it was 6.1%.  The similarities continue in the Census Bureau’s economic statistics, which state the percent of “in civilian labor force, total” for Houston was 68.2% and in Chicago it was 66.4%.  The “median household income” for Houston was $47,010 and in Chicago it was $50,434.  The percent of “persons in poverty” was 21.9% in Houston and 21.7% in Chicago.

These parallels that Houston and Chicago have, are very significant when the homicide rates are compared.  According to the FBI’s “2017 Crime in the United States” Expanded Homicide Data Table 3, the homicide rates in 2017 varied greatly between different races and ethnicities.  The FBI determined, out of the known homicide information in 2017, that the homicide rate for White persons was 29.7%, for Black or African American persons it was 37.4%, for Hispanic or Latino persons is was 11.4%, and for not Hispanic or Latino persons is was 48%.  The U.S. Department of Justice gathered firearm homicide information in their special report, “Firearm Violence, 1993-2011,” which also determined that Black or African American persons had the highest firearm homicide rate, by race.  The FBI also reports the percent of known homicides in 2017 committed by each sex, with 61.8% by males and only 8.4% by females.  Due to these differences in homicide rates between different races and ethnicities, and the drastic difference in homicide rates between the two sexes, the similarities of race and ethnicity percentage and gender percentage that both Houston and Chicago share, eliminates the chance that one city might have an increased or decreased homicide rate because their race, ethnicity, or gender percentage are different than the other city being compared.

Another important similarity that both Houston and Chicago share is their poverty rate and average income.  Income inequality has heavily affected cities in the United States, such as Houston and Chicago, and there is a strong correlation between income inequality and homicide rates, not just in the United States, but in other countries as well.  In a study performed by The University of Chicago called “Inequality and Violent Crime,” they investigated the 5-year averages for 39 countries for homicides and compared them with income inequality from the Gini index.  The researchers determined that there was a positive correlation between income inequality and homicide rates.  In another journal, by Mike Males’ from the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, called “Age, Poverty, Homicide, and Gun Homicide: Is Young Age or poverty Level the Key Issue,” examined “the 54,094 homicide deaths, including 41,123 gun homicides, victimizing California residents ages 15 to 69 during 1991 to 2012 by poverty status.”  This study states that the gun homicide deaths per 100,000 population (average annual) for all ages, increased in each higher poverty bracket.  The gun homicide deaths per 100,000 population, in the “less than 10%” poverty bracket, was only 2.0, but continued to increase all the way to 27.9 gun homicides per 100,000 population in the “more than 25%” poverty bracket.  There was also another study that analyzed homicide rates and income inequality throughout the whole United States, by Harvard’s Ichiro Kawachi, that found, “when income inequality was higher, so was the rate of homicide. Income inequality alone explained 74% of the variance in murder rates and half of the aggravated assaults.”  As the studies prove, income inequality is positively correlated to homicide rates throughout the United States and the world, so when comparing the homicide rates of two different areas, it is important to use areas that are similar economically because it does play in a role in the number of homicides, and that is why Houston and Chicago are being used.

When the topic of homicides in large cities is brought up, it is imperative to investigate the gang-violence that occurs because it is a major part in large city crime, especially homicides.  According to the National Gang Center, “highly populated areas accounted for the vast majority of gang homicides: nearly 67 percent occurred in cities with populations over 100,000,” and “the total number of gang homicides reported by respondents in the NYGS sample averaged nearly 2,000 annually from 2007 to 2012. During roughly the same time period (2007 to 2011), the FBI estimated, on average, more than 15,500 homicides across the United States. These estimates suggest that gang-related homicides typically accounted for around 13 percent of all homicides annually.”  Knowing that gangs can affect homicide rates, it is important to make sure that both Houston and Chicago have issues with gang-violence and they do. According to the Texas Department of Public Safety, “there are an estimated 100,000 gang members in Texas, with the highest concentration in Harris County,” which Houston is located.  The Texas Department of Safety also reported that the most significant gangs in the Houston area include, “Houstone — a Tango Blast offshoot — as well as all sets of Bloods and Crips, and the Aryan Brotherhood of Texas.”  Chicago is facing a similar gang problem, if not worse.  ABC News states that in 2011 there were 100,000 gang members in Chicago, and “gang members were responsible for 61 percent of all homicides in 2011.”  In an article from the Chicago Tribune, Chicago’s Police Department’s chief of patrol stated, “gang members engage in mindless violence without any fear of consequence: If they’ve used a gun and are not incarcerated, they’ll do it again. That’s the life they know.”


Despite all the characteristics that both Houston and Chicago share, when it comes to gun laws they have many differences.  One of the most significant differences is the requirements to purchase a firearm and ammunition.  According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), it is Illinois state law that for a person to purchase a firearm or ammunition, they must have a valid Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) card.  Stated by the Giffords Law Center, “Each applicant for a FOID card is required to complete an application and “submit evidence” to the Illinois Department of State Police (“DSP”) that she or he is 21 years of age or over (or, if under 21, show that she or he has the written consent of a parent or legal guardian to possess firearms), is a resident of Illinois, and is not a prohibited purchaser. An applicant must also furnish his or her photograph.5 The DSP conducts an automated search of its criminal history record information files and those of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, including the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”), and of the files of the state Department of Human Services relating to mental health and developmental disabilities to obtain any felony conviction or patient hospitalization information which would disqualify a person from obtaining or require revocation of a currently valid FOID card.”  This law is important because, according to the Giffords Law Center, in Illinois, background checks are not required at gun shows and unlicensed gun sellers, but they are required to be presented with the purchaser’s FOID card, which shows they have already gone through a background check when registering for the FOID card.   On the other hand, in Texas, it is much easier to purchase a firearm.  In Texas, according to the ATF, a firearm purchaser does not need a license and there are not any laws like the one in Illinois, making a firearm purchaser have a FOID card.  In Texas, the purchaser really only needs to go through a background check, which isn’t even mandatory for private sellers. According to the Giffords Law Center, “Federal law requires federally licensed firearms dealers (but not private sellers) to initiate a background check on the purchaser prior to sale of a firearm,” and “Texas does not require private sellers (sellers who are not licensed dealers) to initiate a background check when transferring a firearm.” Another major difference in the gun laws in these two states that have to do with purchasing a firearm, is the waiting periods.  According to the Giffords Law Center, “Illinois prohibits any person from delivering a firearm prior to the expiration of statutory waiting periods, which are currently 24 hours for long guns and 72 hours for handguns,” meanwhile, Texas has no law requiring waiting periods for any type of gun.

Another difference in Texas and Illinois gun laws is there laws on carrying firearms.  According to the ATF, their concealed carry laws are actually very similar, with having to be 21 years old, having not been convicted of a felony, does not suffer from a mental illness, having not been convicted of certain laws, having completed a firearms safety test, and their license expires after five years.  The major difference in their concealed carry laws, from the ATF, is Illinois law does not allow individuals from out of state to carry guns, even if they have a permit to carry in their home state.  The biggest difference in state laws, when it comes to carrying firearms, is their laws on open carry.  According to the Giffords Law Center, Texas allows the open carrying of long guns but not in the display in a public place, and recently in 2015, Texas passed a law that allows license holders to carry visible handguns on their persons, but must be in a shoulder or belt holster.  Whereas, according to the ATF, Illinois does not allow open carrying of firearms.

Another difference in firearm laws is their laws on guns in vehicles.  According to the Giffords Law Center, Texas has no law on carrying long guns in vehicles and does not require a handgun license for a person to carry a handgun while in a motor vehicle, as long as it is not in plain view.  On the other hand, in Illinois, to transport a firearm, the owner must have the gun:, “1) broken down in a non-functioning state; 2) not immediately accessible; or 3) unloaded and enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container by a person with a currently valid Firearm Owner’s Identification card.”  More gun laws that Illinois has and Texas doesn’t, according to the Giffords Law Center is, Illinois “allows family members and law enforcement officers to act to temporarily disarm dangerous people by using an Extreme Risk Protection Order (known in Illinois as a Firearms Restraining Order),” “has a Child Access Prevention law, which prohibits leaving a firearm unlocked and accessible to a minor under the age of 14,” and “requires firearms owners to report lost or stolen firearms to law enforcement.”

With all these differences in gun laws between Texas and Illinois, it is clear the Illinois has the tougher laws when it comes to firearms.  According to Giffords Law Center, in their annual gun law grades, in 2017, they ranked Illinois with a B+ and Texas with F.  In a pro-gun editorial from Guns & Ammo, listing the best states for gun owners in 2017, they listed Texas as the 8th best state for gun owners and listed Illinois at 40th.

Knowing that Illinois has more strict gun laws than Texas, one would believe that Chicago, which is located in Illinois, would have a lower homicide rate than Houston, which is in Texas. Since both Chicago and Houston are very similar in their characteristics, the research is able to be compared and according to the Chicago Police Department, in 2017, there were 613 murders in Chicago, and in Houston, according to the Houston Chronicle, there were 269 murders.  Reported by USA Today, analysis of police department crime data, the homicide rate per 100,000 for Chicago was 24.0 and for Houston it was 11.7.  The massive discrepancy between the homicide rates in these two cities, which are similar in characteristics, prove a city that is located in a state with less tough gun laws, can have a lower homicide rate than a city that is located in a state with tougher gun laws.

Knowing that Illinois has more strict gun laws than Texas, one would belive that Chicago which is located in Illinois would have a lower homicide rate than Houston which is in Texas. Since both Chicago and Houston are very similar in their characteristics, the research is able to be compared and according to the Chicago Police Department, in 2017, there was 613 murders in Chicago, and in Houston, according to the Houston Chronicle, there was 269 murders.  Reported by USA Today, analysis of police department crime data, the crime rate per 100,000 for Chicago was 24.0 and for Houston it was 11.7.  The massive discrepancy between the homicide rates in these two cities, which are similar in characteristics, prove a city that is located in a state with less tough gun laws, can have a lower homicide rate than a city that is located in a state with tougher gun laws.

In Mark Gius’ study, “The Effect of Gun Ownership Rates on Homicide Rates: A State-Level Analysis,” from the Applied Economic Letters, he presents some very interesting research about gun ownership rates compared to homicide rates in the United States, but his results don’t reflect the results when Texas and Illinois are compared.  Gius, from Quinnipiac University, stated, “The purpose of the present study is to examine the link between gun ownership rates and homicide rates. Using a very large cross-sectional survey dataset in order to obtain estimates for household-level gun ownership rates, and state-level data on homicides.”  The gun ownership rates, in this study, were estimated from surveys for the years 2001, 2002, and 2004, which included both handguns and long guns.  His data from the three years showed the average homicide rate was 4.64 murders per 100,00 residents and the average gun ownership rate was 37.5%.  After the completed study, Gius concludes that, “these results are noteworthy since they suggest that, using state-level data, gun ownership rates have a positive effect on homicide rates.  This result suggests that gun control laws, which restrict gun ownership, may be an effective method to reduce murders.”  While looking at Texas and Illinois, which Houston and Chicago are the most populated cities for each state, Gius’ results don’t match.  Texas is widely known as a state where owning a gun is very popular and the data agrees.  According to Statista, Texas has the largest number of registered weapons in the United States, with 637,612.  Texas has so many registered weapons, that Florida, which has the second highest registered weapons, has just above half of Texas, with 377,207.  Illinois is much farther down the list, with only 52,527 registered weapons.  The huge gap between these two states for registered weapons, obviously has to do with the large difference in population size, so it is significant to look at the gun ownership rates for these two states.  According to CBS News, in 2015, Texas had a gun ownership rate of 35.7 percent, compared to Illinois, who’s gun ownership rate was only 26.2 percent.  The homicide rates for both these states followed the same trend as their most populated cities, Houston and Chicago, where Illinois had a larger homicide rate than Texas.  According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the homicide rate for Illinois in 2015 was 6.9 percent, while in Texas the rate was 5.6 percent.  In his study, Gius conclusion of “gun ownerships rates having a positive effect on homicide rates” simply does not correlate when Texas and Illinois are compared.  Another statement by Gius, “gun control laws, which restrict gun ownership, may be an effective method to reduce murders,” doesn’t correlate between these two states because Illinois has more strict gun laws than Texas and still had a higher number of murders.

In conclusion, Chicago, Illinois, had a higher homicide rate than Houston, Texas, in 2017, despite having more strict gun laws.  These two cities share many similarities when it comes to characteristics that can affect homicide rates, such as, gender, race and ethnicity, income and poverty rates, and gang violence.  Despite all their similarities, Texas and Illinois gun laws are very different.  Illinois is much tougher with gun laws and has laws such as, needing a FOID card to purchase any gun, waiting periods to receive a firearm, and no open carrying, to name a few that Texas doesn’t have any laws on.  The difference in strength of gun laws between Illinois and Texas, had no correlation to the homicide ratesw in Chicago and Houston.



Board, Editorial. “Chicago’s Great Shame, Chicago’s Crisis: Blood on the Streets.” Chicago Tribune, Chicago Tribune, 7 Aug. 2018,

“Crime Statistics.” Chicago Police Department,

Downen, Robert. “Houston Murders Drop 11 Percent in 2017.”, Houston Chronicle, 8 Jan. 2018,

Fieldstadt, Elisha. “Gun Ownership by State.” CBS News, CBS Interactive, 16 Feb. 2018,

“Firearm Violence, 1993-2011.” Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS),

“Giffords Law Center’s Annual Gun Law Scorecard.” Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence,

“Hidden America: Don’t Shoot I Want to Grow Up.” ABC News, ABC News Network,

“Illinois.” Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence,

“Inequality and Violent Crime.”, vol. 45, no. 1, 2002, pp. 1-39.

Madhani, Aamer. “Baltimore Is the Nation’s Most Dangerous Big City.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 1 Oct. 2018,

Males, Mike. “Age, Poverty, Homicide, and Gun Homicide.”SAGE Open, vol. 5, no. 1, 2015.

Mayberry, Ed. “UPDATE: Harris County Has State’s Largest Concentration of Gang Members in Texas, Says DPS.” Houston Public Media, Houston Public Media, 26 July 2017,

“Murder.” FBI, FBI, 10 Sept. 2018,

“National Center for Health Statistics.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 11 Jan. 2018,


“National Youth Gang Survey Analysis.” Measuring the Extent of Gang Problems,

Texas.” Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence,

“U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: Chicago City, Illinois; Houston City, Texas; UNITED STATES.” Census Bureau QuickFacts, United States Census Bureau,,houstoncitytexas,US/PST045217.

“U.S. – Number of Registered Weapons by State 2018 | Statistic.” Statista,

Wood, Keith. “Best States for Gun Owners (2017).” Guns & Ammo, 3 Nov. 2017,


Research – D2Forsaken

The Internet is Coming to an End

The internet is a fascinating system. Developed over two decades ago, the internet has now evolved into a powerful and unstoppable force. Yet, everything that involves humans must have its flaws. These flaws must be protected and depending on the goodness of people is not enough. When the internet was created in the late 1900s, no one thought it would ever turn into the controversial topic that it is today because so many people enjoyed it with almost no complaints. However, the internet has now taken a step into the spotlight and has become a major concern. Policies need to be made to protect, advance, and preserve the internet. Net Neutrality does all of those things for the internet and its users. Therefore, mankind needs to make every possible attempt to preserve Net Neutrality. Or else who knows, the internet might die before mankind can reach extinction.

Net Neutrality also allows for equal Internet Speeds for everyone and Internet Service Providers can’t pick and choose who gets faster internet. According to Joe Curtis author of “The Pros and Cons of Net Neutrality”, “At its core, net neutrality is the concept that all internet traffic should be treated fairly, without unfairly penalising or prioritising traffic from a given domain, service or publisher.” These policies allow internet users to use the internet without any discrimination. Regardless of their income, ethnicity, or gender, anyone is allowed to use the internet as they please. Without these policies, Internet Providers would have the ability to control their distribution of speeds to their customers. Author, Clint Finley, of “Here’s How the End of Net Neutrality Will Change the Internet,” argued that “INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS like Comcast and Verizon may soon be free to block content, slow video-streaming services from rivals, and offer “fast lanes” to preferred partners.” If a company prefers Yahoo over Google, they’re going to slow down the speed of Google under certain carries. Allowing Yahoo to become the more dominant search engine, increasing their profit. The only possible way for Google to become “faster” is to pay more which could put Google at a higher risk of going out of business altogether. This scenario could also be applied to situations involving normal, every-day people. Internet Providers would give everyone these “slow lanes” and the only way out of them is to pay extra for “fast lanes” and those faster speeds might still not even be good enough. Mobile devices would see the most drastic change since consumers already have limits on them. Internet Providers could shrink the amount of data you are able to use and make it more expensive to access more than the current given amount. Mehreen Kasana, author of “Here’s How Repealing Net Neutrality Could Change The Way You Use The Internet”, explains thoroughly why the internet is so important and essential for its consumers’ to protect through Net Neutrality, “This set of rules protects everyday internet users, like you and me, from the whims of massive corporations looking to make an extra buck. Net neutrality mandates companies to treat all internet data as equal. They can’t speed up, slow down, or hide any kind of internet content from users.” Which is exactly why mankind needs Net Neutrality. Without its policies, large corporations will nickel and dime its customers for every last penny they have. Without Net Neutrality, internet speeds will become throttled and people will have to pay more to access certain content. In order to preserve the equality of the internet, we must protect Net Neutrality and ensure that the internet remains equal.

One of the major necessities of Net Neutrality involves students. In this technological age, pretty much every student needs the internet in order to complete assignments for school. Most of the work that is done on the internet now would not be possible without Net Neutrality. Students would not be able to do their homework. Finley Klint, author of “FCC Plan to Kill Net Neutrality Rules Could Hurt Students,” claims that “Video plays a growing role in the education of students like Williams who turn to video conferencing, streaming lectures, and other forms of high-tech distance learning to complete or extend their educations.” Clearly, without Net Neutrality existing to protect the access of students on the internet, students like Nichole Williams would not be able to learn. Leaving the high possibility of more failures in school because students won’t be able to afford the prices if Net Neutrality is repealed. Resulting in more dropouts and increasing the number of our nation’s unemployed. If it gets repealed, Ms. Williams will fall into the trap of “slow lanes” and she will be forced to pay to get out of it. She lives by the City so online learning is important to her because she doesn’t have to drive in order to get the quality education she needs to graduate and to succeed in the workforce. Without Net Neutrality “major ISPs will be able to promote the media companies they own — like this one — while punishing competitors’ offerings”, according to Paul Blumenthal, author of “What Net Neutrality Really Means For You (And For Us).” If a student has to do an assignment and the teacher tells them to use a source such as Fox News and their Internet Service Provider doesn’t like Fox News, that source might be blocked for them. If Internet Service Providers were able to control what a student can and cannot use it could result in many students becoming uneducated and unemployed. Inhibiting them from reaching their full potential.

On the other hand, people argue that Net Neutrality is a bad thing and that the internet should go back to its original policies. They that the internet was fine until Net Neutrality was introduced in 2015. The question of why it would be a bad idea to go back to the old way. Before Net Neutrality, consumers could pick and choose what they want instead of paying a big sum certain applications and cites that they did not need nor want. Arguing that some people would only use video and e-mail, so why must they pay for things that they are never going to use like games. Jesse Hathaway, the author of “Ending Net Neutrality Will Save the Internet, Not Destroy It,” stated, “No internet service provider wants to be known for having ‘slow service’ or being ‘anti-free-speech,’ so there’s nothing for consumers to worry about.” Since the Internet Service Providers want more consumers to use their internet, “slow service” would cause their reputation to be tarnished. Influencing their previously loyal customer to find go out and find other internet providers. So in the end, the absence of Net Neutrality would force the Internet Service Providers to the consider the benefits of their consumers more as a priority. The ISPs competition will grow with Net Neutrality allowing more people to join the business of becoming an ISP. The Tylt, the company that authored the article “Is the Death of Net Neutrality Actually Good for the Internet,”  wrote, “Internet service providers (ISPs) will now compete against each other, leading to better services and products for the consumer. Prices might actually go down.” Prices going down would cause more competition for consumers leading to more customers for Internet Service Providers. Charging people more or having more consumers? The answer for them would be pretty clear, critics of Net Neutrality claim, more customers would better their reputation and in turn gain their more customers. Allowing their company to make the most money possible. This would then cause a chain of events of people “flocking” to the Internet Service Provider who does not have “slow-lanes”.

People don’t like being blocked by others, but imagine if an Internet Service Provider was allowed to block a popular website with no other reason other than that they don’t “like” or agree with certain ideas and opinions shared on that website. So now consumers are stuck with using the Service Providers preferred websites. However, under Net Neutrality everyone would have access to any website that they wanted. Without it, Internet Service Providers would make companies pay for consumers to access them. Forcing companies to pay more and causing smaller companies such as Discord, a free app for people to chat with each other, to reach its demise. Small companies like Discord don’t have the finances to pay if they were forced to pay more just because an Internet Service Provider prefers a different messaging app. Net Neutrality allows for competition so the consumer gets to pick what they want to use instead of being forced to use one app. People get to express their feelings on whatever they want but if Net Neutrality was repealed every comment and opinion would be censored. Paul Blumenthal, author of “What Net Neutrality Really Means For You (And For Us),” refers to the following statement, “‘No one company should have the power to pick and choose which content reaches consumers and which doesn’t,’ Franken said. ‘Facebook, Google, and Amazon, like ISPs, should be neutral in their treatment of the flow of lawful information and commerce on their platform.'” The smaller companies should have the same opportunities to advertise to the masses like the larger corporations. The smaller businesses should not be punished for their size and platform. If the powerhouses, that are big businesses, were to control the internet, consumers would observe less of variety and be stuck with fewer choices.

With Net Neutrality, people are able to post inappropriate things that others don’t want to see. Without Net Neutrality we can deny people from doing that and make sure the internet is a safe place. With Net Neutrality you can restrict websites yourself but some are able to find ways to bypass that. But without Net Neutrality we could deny people who are underage from accessing certain websites without a verification of who they are first. While blocking sites like those it is possible to crack down on peer-to-peer file-sharing and make illegal downloads nearly impossible. People could also pay for only what they want and not extra things that are a waste of money. If people only want the internet and not cable, they could choose that on their plans. Instead of paying for two and only using one service, you could pay for just one service and be allowed to use that service. Also if you don’t use the internet a lot you could pay so you could only get it on the days/weeks you need it the most. Without Net Neutrality prices, overall carrier prices would go down for those who don’t need access to everything and for those who don’t need the fastest speed. Not only that, but it could also cause for fewer companies to pop up on the internet besides the “big” companies. Because Net Neutrality gives everyone an equal ISP causing equal customers so no one company can own the internet.” Net neutrality hurts ISPs because they pay to manage their buildings and offices, bringing them less profit,” says Monica Ramirez author of “Pros And Cons Of Net Neutrality.” With Net Neutrality giving companies equal benefits, and not charging us the consumer it’s forced to charge companies like Netflix. Charging Netflix more to be on their provider than makes us the consumer pay even more money a month to access it.

The dilemma that the end of Net Neutrality presents is all the negative outcomes. Keith Collins, author of “Net Neutrality Has Officially Been Repealed. Here’s How That Could Affect You,” is afraid of Net Neutrality ending and claims, “Many consumer advocates argued that once the rules were scrapped, broadband providers would begin selling the internet in bundles, not unlike cable television packages.” Right now for the internet, you pay for a “Bundle” and you receive access to everything: streaming, e-mail, videos, gaming, and much more. So if you want to access something like Facebook and Twitter, without Net Neutrality, you would have to pay for a “social media premium package”. Which would only allow you to access ONLY social media and may only include two cites. Which could possibly force consumers to pay even more to gain other Social Media sites. Let alone the amount of money they would have to spend on the cites they need on a daily basis. Meaning that life without Net Neutrality would be full of “pay-to-play deals”. Also allowing the gap between the rich and the poor to grow even further and possibly leading to the elimination of the middle class. Net Neutrality is a great possible solution to make sure that everyone is getting the same internet speed.

Fig. 1

Screen Shot 2018-11-30 at 9.56.41 AM

Without Net Neutrality giving us the ability to pay for bundles, the government is, therefore, guaranteeing that people will have to pay more. “If net neutrality is repealed in the United States, people may have to subscribe to internet packages based on their needs…For someone who uses all of these services on a daily and equal basis — like activists, journalists, teachers, and more — an internet without net neutrality would put a halt to their critical projects and professional networks,” according to Mehreen Kasana, author of “Here’s How Repealing Net Neutrality Could Change The Way You Use The Internet.” Which is becoming truer every day. The internet has become so dominant that you need a laptop or computer for school, to pay bills, and even to schedule doctors appointments. As everyone is turning to the internet for their information, careers are becoming dependent on the internet to the point of almost falling apart due to the demands. Journalists need the internet to be able to report on things that have happened over the weekend. As well as teachers need to be able to post things online for their students to access them. We live in a world where the internet has become a necessity in our lives and if we want it to continue on for many years to come we need to improve it. The majority of the population needs all the packages and if the United States loses Net Neutrality we could be seeing images, like the one below, pop up in our lives a lot more. If Net Neutrality were to be repealed only rich people and rich companies would be able to afford every cite and applications that they needed, while the rest of the general population would suffer. They would be forced to pick and choose what they felt they needed the most.


Fig. 2

Screen Shot 2018-11-30 at 2.03.13 PM.png

In order to preserve the equality of the internet, we must establish a protective measure to ensure Net Neutrality and keep the internet equal. All in all, the internet is here to stay and is not going anywhere anytime soon. The problem the internet now possess to the general population is how to handle it, should The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) keep Net Neutrality or should they repeal what Obama implemented back in 2015. An end to Net Neutrality would create cries of outrage. People have now acclimated to the idea of the internet over the past few years and have witnessed first hand the possibilities that the internet presence. Keeping Net Neutrality would allow for companies small and large to gain customers. Consumers can have equal speeds on every website allowing everyone to access what they want when they want. Companies no longer have to compete or pay extra to make sure they get out there first, all companies can receive the same amount of commercial time for generally the same price. Countries without Net Neutrality are making their people suffer. “Slow-lanes”, blocking websites, and creating setbacks for certain companies is just inappropriate. Internet users should not have so many restrictions and limits; businesses should not be punished for opinions. Ending Net Neutrality would cause too many problems if the Internet Service Providers were allowed to control our daily lives. No one should be allowed to control the daily lives of millions of people. Not even a force as powerful as the internet.



  1. Blumenthal, Paul. “What Net Neutrality Really Means For You (And For Us).” The Huffington Post,, 26 Dec. 2017,
  2. Collins, Keith. “Net Neutrality Has Officially Been Repealed. Here’s How That Could Affect You.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 11 June 2018,
  3. Donnelly, G. (n.d.). What Net Neutrality Means for You and Your Time Online. Retrieved November 29, 2018, from
  4. Finley, Klint. “FCC Plan to Kill Net Neutrality Rules Could Hurt Students.” Wired, Conde Nast, 12 Dec. 2017,
  5. Finley, Klint. “Here’s How the End of Net Neutrality Will Change the Internet.” Wired, Conde Nast, 6 Mar. 2018,
  6. Hathaway, Jesse. “Ending Net Neutrality Will Save the Internet, Not Destroy It.” Fox News, FOX News Network,
  7. Kasana, Mehreen. “Here’s How Repealing Net Neutrality Could Change The Way You Use The Internet.” Bustle, Bustle, 13 Nov. 2018,
  8. Curtis, Joe. “The pros and cons of net neutrality.” (1970, July 31). Retrieved November 29, 2018, from
  9. Ramirez, M. (n.d.). Pros And Cons Of Net Neutrality. Retrieved November 30, 2018, from
  10. Tylt, The. “Is the Death of Net Neutrality Actually Good for the Internet?” The Tylt,


Figure 1: Khanna, Ro. “In Portugal, with no net neutrality, internet providers are starting to split the net into packages.” Twitter, Twitter, 21 Nov. 2017,

Figure 2: Khanna, Ro. “The FCC Is Getting Ready to Overturn #NetNeutrality. If They Succeed, ISPs Will Be Able to Split the Net into Packages. This Means That You Will No Longer Be Able to Pay One Price to Access Any Site You Want.” Twitter, Twitter, 21 Nov. 2017,


Excessive Screen Time: An Unhealthy Addiction

Thanks to the arrival of the 21st century, communicating and sharing information with others has become more effortless than ever. Waiting for postcards in the mail from long distance friends and monthly magazines for the latest trends, are now things of the past. Through websites and applications, such as Facebook and Instagram, people are given their very own social platform, where they can decide what they share, who they follow, and even who is allowed to follow them. Even what a person “likes” and “follows” will eventually determine the content that shows up on their social media, making it a virtual place specifically for that individual. Impressive, indeed, but excessive use of social media could ironically be making it’s users more detached, than connected with others in reality. Not only that, but excessive use of social media can even be life threatening.

An addiction is defined as the fact or condition of being addicted to a particular substance, thing, or activity.  According to Dr. Gregory L. Jantz from his article“6 signs That You’re Addicted To Something” symptoms include: prioritizing the activity over other things, seeking the activity for a reward response, feelings of anxiety when unable to engage in the activity and reverting back to the activity, after promising to quit or cut back. For most people, their phones are an extension of themselves; it has everything a person needs in one, small device; from their banking, to their busy schedules and even to socialize, people rely on their phones on a daily basis, so it is safe to say that checking your cell a few times a day does not qualify as an addiction. There are, however, many people who take the next step and become engulfed in their phones, ignoring their surroundings and potentially putting their life and others at risk. In the United States, it has been found that 1 in 4 drivers used their cell phone directly before being involved in a car crash. One driver in Texas even killed 13 people who were on a church bus because he was texting and driving. There are even strict laws against using your phone while driving, so with that in addition to the knowledge of injuries and fatalities that can occur from doing so, it is surprising that it is still very common to witness someone using their phone while driving. This is where the line is drawn from a habit to a destructive addiction.  

Given the evidence on the dangers of texting and driving, if a person can not wait until their drive is over to send a message, this could potentially mean that person values their involvement in the social media realm more than in the real world. Although using your phone while driving is the most unacceptable time to use the device, It’s not the only time that people are completely distracted by their phones. It is quite easy to spot a person using their phone doing just about any daily activity; whether in class, during a conversation, or even while walking, there appears to be no bad time to use your phone.

It seems that there are only types of people when it comes to phone and social media use: those who can control the amount of time spent on their phone and those that can not. Research has been done to try and unlock the general personality of a person who is more likely to become subject to social media addiction. Isaac Vaghefi and Hamed Qahri-Saremi did such an investigation at DePaul University of Chicago with 300 young adult participants. What they discovered was based on the Personality Model, which consists of five factors used to measure one’s personality. The five factors include being openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Out of the five, what stood out the most was neuroticism; the research concluded  that a person who is more anxious and prone to stress vastly increases the chances of them being hooked to social media. On the other hand, it was found that people who are more dedicated and attentive, have decreased chances of becoming addicted. However, personalities aren’t that simple and doing well in school doesn’t necessarily mean it’s impossible to become addicted to your phone; the same research found that people who are generally focused and dedicated could still fall into social media addiction if they also experience stress and anxiety. The same goes for agreeableness and conscientiousness; when a person is empathetic and friendly, they are more likely to use social media in excess and mixed with high levels of dedication, this could vastly increase the likelihood of a person becoming addicted to social media. Go-Globe has found that out of 2.3 billion people using social media, 18% cannot go a few hours without checking facebook.  A poll ran by Flashgap on 150,000 millennials found  54% of them feel they are “missing out” if they haven’t checked their social media recently, perhaps because these young adults are more prone to anxiety and 87 percent admitted to missing out on a real-life conversation because they were distracted by their phone.  In another study ran by flashgap, it was found that out of nearly 3,000 participants, 76 percent of the females admitted to checking their social media at least 10 times while in a social setting with friends, compared with 54 percent of males. It seems counterintuitive that these young adults are having the fear of being left out, when in reality they are the ones missing out on real-life conversations and experiences.

Another very important thing that must be considered when examining excessive social media use is it’s connection to self-esteem, especially in young women. Since the beginning of advertisements in newspapers and magazines, there has always been the objectification of the female body. Now with social media, these objectifications are something women must face every day, whether they like it or not; females are constantly reminded on how they should look, what they should wear, and how they should act to be considered desirable in today’s culture. When a young woman already has low self-esteem, feelings of envy come easy when viewing “picture perfect” women on social media,making them feel like they will never amount to such beauty. Self-love is a term used commonly today, but when everyone is comparing themselves to models, it sure makes it a hard thing to do. Social media definitely can be a shallow place, so for the insecure woman, it can be a dangerous place.

For the people who use social media in excess, feelings of envy and jealousy come easily. The worst part is, the lives that we are envious of on social media are not true in reality. For example, a person may be envious of another because of how their life looks on social media. The catch is, a grouping of pictures can not accurately represent one’s life. Most people only share things about their life that they want others to see, not what they are hiding. This is where the reward response of the addiction comes into play; people want to be able to post the best picture possible, to get the most like possibles, to get more followers, to feel satisfied with themself, when in reality the only thing picture perfect about their life is their social media page. Studies done by Harvard University have found that talking about yourself stimulates pleasure, so this could explain why so many people feel the need to post about themselves so much, even if it isn’t exactly truthful; lying and having people believe they have a better life than they actually do could potentially make those same people feel better about their current situation.The same goes when a person views their friend’s snapchat videos and sees everyone is out and having fun while they are stuck at home, but what is not posted is the video of the end of the night where certain friends may have become very ill, arrested, or perhaps even gotten a DUI; it simply is all false realities made by the creators to make their viewers envious. Facebook has even been linked to cause sadness and overall low life satisfaction to its heavy users, and this could surely be said for other phone apps, such as instagram and twitter. People are comparing their lives to others unintentionally everyday when using social media. That being said, when this is happening each day, twenty, thirty times a day, this can surely lead a person into depression.

We aren’t finished just yet, young adults are not the only ones who experience negative effects from excessive phone use. Children and teenagers are learning how to operate tablets at alarmingly young ages, with tablets being the usual toy of choice, but this is just the technological era we live in and there is nothing to worry about, right? Wrong. Children are offered many useful, age appropriate apps that can help with their basic knowledge skills however, as time progresses, allowing a child to be glued to their tablet can take away from learning how to socially interact with people. A recent study on pre-teens even found that tweens who spent five days at camp, media free, were able to understand emotions better than that of their peers who stayed home and did not attend camp. It was concluded that time away from from technology combined with real social interaction makes all the difference in recognizing social cues. It has also been found in A national survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation that children and teenagers spend an average of seven and a half hours a day using smartphones, computers, and other electronic screens. That being said, this could absolutely lead children to become confused on what is real and what is fictional. In an extreme case of being consumed by the internet, two 12 year old girls repeatedly stabbed their friend, resulting in serious injury, all to please a fictional internet character they believed to be real. Could this tragedy have been avoided if their parents spent more time monitoring their internet use?

So, is social media good for anything? It may seem a bit rash to make the claim that using social media as a distraction is a great way to recharge the brain and stay motivated, but blogger Janet Anthony stated just that as one of her reasons in her article titled “8 Proven Ways How To Use Social Media For Motivation.” Anthony believes this to be true and not only that but “distractions are good for motivations.” One could argue that inspirational pages and online support can surely improve one’s motivation to a certain degree; however, most motivational pages are based on false realities and there is such a lack of truth on social media, that you never know if the advice given on these pages is sincere/adequate. Not to mention, “persuading” others to use social media more is an evidently unnecessary job. Telling people to go on a nature walk, doing yoga, or relaxing with a book, are far better ways to recharge and do not involve any feelings of being inferior. My advice? Stay away from the screen when trying to get yourself together.

Advertisements online are now more efficient and client focused than ever thanks to the progression of AI. Shopping is now as easy as a click of a button, the advertisement already shows you the exact item you want, based on your like and internet searches. However, in result of this, mass consumerism is definitely “trending now,” since humans feel the constant need to improve themselves and be kept up to date with the latest trends.

In conclusion, social media, along with the excess use of our phones has all the potential to decline one’s mental health, become a dangerous distraction, and affect children’s social development  To be rational, we all use our phones and most of us have at least one form of social media that we enjoy checking; and that doesn’t have to be a bad thing. It has its benefits, and although a lot of these benefits have consequences when used in excess, that can all be avoided. Safe posting!



Jantz, George L. “6 Signs That You’re Addicted To Something.” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, 5 Nov. 2014,

“Texting & Driving .” DMV.ORG, DMV,

Teen Safe. “10 Shocking Texting and Driving Death Statistics.” TeenSafe, 31 May 2018,

Said, Uptin. “Social Media Making Millennials Less Social: Study.” CNBC, CNBC, 17 Oct. 2015,

Newman, Tim. “Unlocking the Personality of a Social Media Addict.” Medical News Today, MediLexicon International, 17 Mar. 2018,

“The Negative Impacts of Social Media Addiction.” Castle Craig Hospital, Castle Craig Hospital , 2018,

Vaghefi, Isaac. “A Combination of Personality Traits Might Make You More Addicted to Social Networks.” EurekAlert!, AAAS, 12 Mar. 2018,

Anthony, Janet. “8 Proven Ways How To Use Social Media for Motivation.” The Next Scoop, The Next Scoop, 2018,

Patel, Neil. “When, How, and How Often to Take a Break.” Inc., 11 Dec. 2014,

“Generation M2: Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-Year-Olds.” The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, 20 Jan. 2010,

Jones, Abigail. “Screen Time Makes Tweens Clueless on Reading Social Cues.” Newsweek, 21 Aug. 2014,

Uhls, Yalda T., et al. “Five Days at Outdoor Education Camp without Screens Improves Preteen Skills with Nonverbal Emotion Cues.” Science Direct, Academic Press, 15 Aug. 2014,

Jones, Abigail. “The Girls Who Tried to Kill for Slender Man.” Newsweek, 13 Aug. 2014,