Contemporary Slavery

Human Trafficking
 

By: Maria Brown

 

Is it possible to end modern day slavery? In a word, yes! 

Contemporary slavery is a global problem. More than twenty-seven million people are bought, sold or traded in one of history’s oldest social institutions. There are numerous reports of exploited children as young as 3 years old. No one is safe. While it may seem that the problem is too big to solve, there are numerous things that can be done. 

Abject poverty pushed many of today’s enslaved men, women, and children into the hands of predators. Some were duped and others were unsuspectingly betrayed by those closest to them. In our enlightened era, how can a brothel pay as little as $800 to a poor father for his fourteen year old daughter, and the father believe he has no other option?  Economically solvent people can never understand 'prostitution desperation', or how persons unsuitable for prostitution end up as bonded labor working 15 hours per day in foreign households.  

Poverty cannot be eradicated without access to education and the skills required to compete for jobs that pay better wages. In many third world countries public or privately sponsored aid programs don’t exist, or if they do, they are inadequately funded to be of much value. Powerful countries like the United States should fund educational grants that subsidize training for targeted groups in countries with the highest at-risk population. 

Penalties for those who engage in human trafficking need to be more severe. According to AbolitionMedia.com, "In 2006 there were only 5,808 prosecutions and 3,160 convictions worldwide. This means for every 800 people trafficked only one person was convicted." It is time to stop turning a blind eye and take a stand to abolish modern day slavery.  

Ending human trafficking begins with the introduction of educational opportunities in those countries hardest hit. It ends with the worldwide prosecution and eradication of those committing these crimes against humanity.  Collectively society can end human trafficking.

Edited by Barbara Latimer

Human Commodity: Too Big to Tackle

By: Mikki Dixon

 

 

 

 

The U.S. State Department's definition of human trafficking applies to people who are subjected to forced labor, sex trafficking, bonded labor, debt bondage for immigrant workers, involuntary domestic servitude, forced child labor, child soldiers, and child sex trafficking. The number of people forced into these types of slave arrangements is greater now than at any other time in history. Contemporary slavery is, indeed, a global problem, and one too large for any law enforcement or government agency to tackle, even when combining forces.  

“The government of the country should prohibit severe forms of trafficking in persons and punish acts of such trafficking”. That policy according to the Trafficking of Persons Report for 2012 will lead to a reduction in the number of human trafficking victims. It's disheartening to accept what the quote implies about prevailing attitudes toward combating human trafficking. Countries aren't being encouraged to prohibit human trafficking all together, but only to prohibit “severe” forms of trafficking. 
 

As the economic divide widens, more and more disenfranchised people will fall prey to predators who view human trafficking as a commodity business with unlimitless profits to be made. These profiteers do not have a social conscious and will continue until forced to stop. Placing some responsibility for these conditions on the victims may spur controversy, but some of these criminal activities could be limited if more people sought to improve their situations where they currently reside instead of trying to pay unscrupulous individuals to illegally transport them into another country, thus creating bonded or debt labor situations for themselves.

I agree education should be encouraged to aid those who wish to improve their living conditions, and governments should be encouraged by their citizens to prosecute traffickers to the fullest extent of the law. Regrettably however, this is something else I don't see  happening anytime soon.  Society lacks the resolve and means to end human trafficking. 

Edited by Barbara Latimer

 

Movies Enlighten and Entertain

Zero Dark Thirty

By Barbara Latimer

Thirty minutes after midnight in darkness and secrecy . . . the decade-long manhunt for Osama bin Laden was finally over. The al-Qaeda leader and mastermind of the most egregious attack on the United States (U.S.) in contemporary times was found and killed in an exchange of gunfire with elite Navy Seals.  The elimination of bin Laden became the most politically significant news story of 2011 in the U.S.

The movie Zero Dark Thirty is an historical dramatization of the epic journey and sacrifice of the dedicated intelligence and military operatives who finally gave America justice. The film’s director, Kathryn Ann Bigelow, meticulously filmed and brought the bin Laden mission to life based upon the perspective of the men and women who lived it.  The dialogue is at times intense and combative, and there are several scenes that summon powerful emotions for the audience. On cue, however, the film diverts the viewer’s attention to the dangerous world of terrorism and the steadfast debt the American public owes to those who protect them.

As with all great movies, there has been some political controversy with the film’s insinuation that waterboarding and other forms of torture were used as interrogation tools against al-Qaeda militants and sympathizers.  For most Americans however, the film reflected realism based on our understanding of the irrationality of normal communications with extremists. The tone of the movie is apolitical – with a focus on storytelling that exulted the spirit and heart of the American people.

The film leaves no doubt that the U.S. is a country with a long geographic reach who will pursue its enemies to hell and back.

Edited by: Mikki Dixon

Zero Dark Thirty

By: Maria Brown

Zero Dark Thirty is a thrilling historical drama that highlights the take down and capture of Osama bin Laden. The movie walks the viewer through the entire United States' operation which included capture, interrogation, and torture. While the movie was certainly one of the most significant political news stories of 2011, there were others that were equally if not more significant. For example, the Occupy Wall Street movement had its own share of publicity and was addressed by President Obama himself. What started as a small New York City gathering grew to an international movement.

Zero Dark Thirty showcases the dangerous world of terrorism, but it also makes the viewer wonder how far is too far to go for revenge? It begs the question, how many lives have to be taken in the name of vengeance? The amount of money that was spent in pursuit of Osama bin Laden over the course of eight years could have been spent on many other things that the U.S. so desperately needed. I agree that many Americans were happy when bin Laden was captured because of the pivotal role he played in the attacks on the Twin Towers; however, I also think that many Americans were just relieved that the pursuit for him was over.

The controversy surrounding the movie is well understood. It should never be acceptable to water board, walk a person on a leash and/or humiliate a prisoner. This is even truer when the prisoner hasn’t had the opportunity to be tried before a court of law.  Human beings should be treated as such. The further we push the envelope on what is considered acceptable interrogation, and by extension torture, the more immune we become to its effects. It is important to consider, what type of world would we live in then?

Zero Dark Thirty brings to light the CIA’s hidden dirty little secret.  The secret is they will use “any means necessary” to get what they want, even at the expense of shredding the moral fiber that separates human beings from animals.

Edited by: Mikki Dixon

SATs: Still Relevant or Outdated?

SATs Scores Are a Sign of Intellect and Overall Academic Aptitude, Not Socio-economic Status

By: Mikki Dixon

Charles Murray asserts that the SAT should be abolished because it is not a true indicator of a student’s potential academic success. He claims socio-economic background and parent education achievement are better indicators of overall intellect and successful pursuit in academia. Murray  believes that intellectual students coming from a lower socio-economic status are placed at a disadvantage when taking the SAT because their parents could not afford the test-prep course available to upper-middle class counterparts. 

Murray acknowledges however that test-prep classes do nothing for students that a few hours of personal study could not accomplish on its own.  He contends that “once a few hours have been spent on these routine steps [studying], most of the juice has been squeezed out of preparation for the SAT.”  I am inclined to agree with this assessment because I believe intellectual, academically inclined students will be successful both in taking the SAT as well as in their college classes— regardless of their socio-economic background. 

Aptitude is something locked within the genetic code and is fostered by one’s family and educators.  It is something which cannot be taught, studied for, or bought at a high dollar value.  As such, anyone claiming aptitude can be bought is truly only referring to the hard work and effort put in by the student. Therefore, I whole-heartily disagree that the SATs should be abolished because it is still the best indicator of student success during the college years.

Edited by Barbara Latimer

Just Say NO to SATs!

By: Maria Brown

 

There is an ongoing debate over whether the SAT should be abolished. To that question, I answer with a resounding, "Yes!" SAT scores alone do not predict future college success. As a matter of fact, SATs have a much better chance of weeding out intelligent students that come from a lower socioeconomic status than they do highlighting the students that will thrive and succeed.

In 2012, the University of Minnesota published a study in Psychological Science titled “The Role of Socioeconomic Status in SAT-Grade Relationships and in College Admissions Decisions.” This study examined the relationship between socioeconomic status, secondary-school grades, college admissions and college freshman grade-point average. The study found that socioeconomic status and SAT scores are positively correlated, and that students from higher income backgrounds generally achieve higher scores having benefited from access to better schools, prep tests, tutors and more. The study didn't find that the higher performing SAT students were inherently more intellectual or smart.
 
As a result, colleges that heavily rely on SAT scores as a basis for admission are inevitably screening out diverse students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Bypassing a student for admission based on a biased test score, without regard to their cumulative high school grade point average, extracurricular activities or community involvement is arguably unfair and counter-productive. Strict use of the SAT as a predictive measurement of college success stacks the deck against lower income students who may be ill-prepared for the test, but most in need of the opportunity for economic advancement derived from attending college.

Instead of reducing everyone to a number on a piece of paper, colleges should screen and admit students based on the full scope of course work they have completed while attending high school. This will ensure that we continue to champion our best and brightest students and that everyone has a chance at the "American dream."

Edited by Barbara Latimer

 



 

 

 

THE ADOPTION DEBATE

Can I change my mind . . . ?

By: Barbara Latimer

            In 2010, Torry Ann Hanson put her adopted seven year old son on a plane back to his native Russia with a note explaining that she was unable to parent the child she described as "violent with severe psychopathic issues." She alleged he tried to burn down her home with everyone inside.  The international fallout was swift and extreme leading to a temporary suspension of all Russian adoptions to the United States. The core question can’t be addressed by a moratorium on adoptions. Assuming everything Hanson said was true, does that give her or any adoptive parent the right to return a difficult or sick child because of unfulfilled expectations?  

          In the past two decades, Americans have adopted approximately sixty thousand Russian children. Many of these children are discovered post adoption to have severe physical and developmental issues resulting from fetal alcohol syndrome. They have attachment/bonding issues. They will never be what the adoptive parents imagined, but then again, birth children aren’t always what we imagined them to be either. We work with what we have and do our best to support and love them.

Children once adopted are yours. You cannot return them like shoes that suddenly start to pinch or a purse that now seems too large for everyday wear.  There are no do overs. For Hansen, U.S. court assessed breach of contract damages amounting to $150,000, and monthly child support payments of $1,000 to the Russian orphanage are a debilitating reminder that adoptions are intended to be permanent . . . as should be expected.

Edited by: Maria Brown

Sixty Day Right of "Rescission" on Adoptions

By: Mikki Dixon

 

Under most conditions I agree that adoptions are forever, but there should undoubtedly be a “trial” period.  In some states birth mothers have sixty days to change their mind after giving a child up for adoption.  So, too, should adoptive parents have an opportunity to change their minds if they find the child requires greater care than they are capable of providing.  The reason being is although adoption agencies have a legal, ethical, and moral obligation to disclose any and all health issues of the adoptee, full disclosure is not always what takes place—especially in overseas adoptions.

It is only within the last decade that the pervasive neglect experienced by infants and children in orphanages in the former Soviet bloc has come to light.  Had it not been for the Human Rights Watch (HRW) investigations into conditions in these orphanages, the world may never have known about the rampant neglect, complete lack of touching, and nurturing withheld from these children.

The National Institute of Health's study of human development asserted there is a “sensitive period” during which it is critical for children to receive nurturing and physical touch in order to stave off a lifetime of mental illness and behavioral problems.  That time period is from birth to ten years old.  LiveScience.com contends that in studies of the human brain, children who are deprived of a consistent and loving touch have significantly less grey and white matter in addition to having a 10% smaller hippocampus than children who receive nearly constant direct contact in nurturing homes.

What does this lack of nurturing translate to exactly?  It’s simple.  Children who do not receive nurturing as infants have decidedly lower IQs and severe psychological problems which last a lifetime.  Sometimes this is referred to as the “runt” syndrome or “failure to thrive.”  

It is with this in mind that I advocate a trial period during which the prospective parents have an opportunity to see if the adoptee is a good fit or better suited for another family equipped to handle his or her individual difficulties.  Perhaps this seems callous but my rationale is this: it takes very special people to take care of a special needs child—not everyone can do it.  The trial period would protect both the parents and the child.

Sources:

http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/russ98d.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18096809

http://www.livescience.com/21778-early-neglect-alters-kids-brains.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maia-szalavitz/how-orphanages-kill-babie_b_549608.html

edited by: Maria Brown 

DO INTERNSHIPS ADD VALUE?

Internship Importance by Barbara Latimer

Wow!  I cannot believe graduation is right around the corner and I’ll soon bid CSU farewell. I will no longer be a student, but someone’s employee. Am I ready for that?  The answer is a resounding YES. I have learned what I should have from my instructors academically, and I have completed an internship in my selected field of study. That internship opened doors for me.

Internships may be paid or unpaid, but all should be structured to maximize the intern’s opportunity to learn about their chosen profession. The intern performs as if a professional employee, and in exchange receives mentorship, training, and supervision. Student interns should take advantage of the opportunity to observe their surroundings and emulate the appropriate business attire, communication, and work ethics. The most effective internships will reveal any additional prerequisites a graduate may need for an in demand occupation, and make available professional networking opportunities.

Finding employment after graduation in today’s challenging times can be difficult, but the task is inarguably easier when a student has completed an internship. Having ‘real world’ relevant work experience prior to graduation is a competitive advantage, and this is especially true in a weakened job market.  I would encourage everyone to seek out an internship.

Edited by: Maria Brown

Networking Is In!

By: Mikki Dixon
 

Internships are not without merit.  Internships aid students in narrowing down their respective fields of interest, but offer little to no real world work experience.  Internships generally entail menial work better suited to someone with a high school education, the pay is usually minimum wage, and it offers no guarantee of a job offer after the internship is concluded.  In fact, the vast majority of internships do not lead to long-term job opportunities.  In the ever-changing landscape of job hunting, the single best way to secure gainful employment is networking.

Career counselors agree that networking is the best way to find a job in today’s shaky economy.  In days past, perspective employees had to hand deliver their resume to their potential employers.  At which point, the job searcher could meet someone inside the company face-to-face.  Those days are long gone.  Nowadays resumes and cover letters are submitted electronically.  Since the act of applying for work has moved entirely online, perspective employees no longer have the advantage of becoming a “face” and a “name.”  Now they are relegated to being just another number.

Career networking is no longer an “extra;” now it’s a necessity.  Landing a job in today’s market it is all about who you know and what kind of impression you have left with that individual.  It’s important to be “LinkedIn,” and to attend networking events such as luncheons and dinners.  More importantly, one needs to do everything possible to volunteer in their career of interest, particularly if their intention is to change career fields or if they are graduating from college and need experience in said field.  This networking not only provides experience in the field, but it also provides him or her with important networking opportunities.

If anyone has interest in narrowing down and deciding whether or not he or she is interested in one field, an internship is the obvious answer.  If he or she actually wants to find a career, the clear choice is to invest copious time networking.


Edited by: Maria Brown

  

My Race is Human

By: Maria Brown

I think that adopting a state level policy prohibiting classifying people by race, color, ethnicity, or national origin would be very beneficial.  What is the real purpose of classifying people?  Why can’t we all just be human?  Classifying people is really segregation.  It’s another degree of separation and it clearly draws lines between certain groups of people.  There are too many opportunities to favor or hinder a specific group.  We are living in a time when discrimination is still rampant and certain groups of people still benefit from being classified as one race over another. 

Don’t get me wrong.  I understand that people already have a natural predisposition to stereotype others based on race/color of skin and classifying people or not classifying people won’t immediately change that.  However not classifying people can help control the harmful information and statistics that are put out in the mass media.  That same harmful information is what aids in the stereotypes that people have.  For example, saying that the prison system is filled with 85% black people fuels the public’s opinion that black people should be feared.  In turn, it hinders that same group of people from many opportunities. 

On the opposite side of the spectrum, affirmative action can be interpreted as reverse discrimination and it still favors one race or group of people over another. Not only is this not “fair” but it often strengthens the natural division between races.   

In addition, how can some people truly choose just one race?  For example, I have a white father and a black mother.  I am truly 50/50.  However there is never a check box on the race designation forms for me.  I'm always forced to choose one over the other when really I'm both.  

By designating everyone simply as human, we can begin the process of knocking down the walls of stereotypes, preventing discrimination and moving America truly towards the great “melting pot” that we claim to be.




Edited by Barbara Latimer

……………….Human With Government Needs 

By Barbara  Latimer

 

When anyone is first asked about the state policy of classifying people, the neck hairs start to tingle. All sorts of negative connotations come to mind and our instinct is to find the idea repugnant, but classifications of people by race, color, ethnicity, or natural origin actually serve a purpose in our lives. The collection and analysis of this data provide the means for documenting the demographic changes within our state and the resulting need for funding of critical social programs in our society.  States should have the right to classify groups of people as the benefits derived from this effort far outweigh any individual objections due to perceived racial extrapolations or labels.

Without the ‘personal’ data states and the U.S. Census Bureau collect, it would be impossible to keep abreast of statistically relevant demographic changes in a community, or anticipate constituent needs. If a community doesn’t know for example how many women reside within its borders, how can it anticipate the extent of domestic violence related services it may be called upon to provide, or the volume of childcare related requests for assistance it may theoretically receive? If a community doesn’t know how many immigrants have relocated there, how can it adequately gauge the impact to the ESL programs or standardized test results? I think you get the point. Government efforts, whether at the local, state, or national level to collect information do so in the furtherance of the common good.

Need more convincing……..let’s look at the latest data excerpt below from the U.S. Census for Morrow, Georgia. Consider why the data might be personally useful to know. If you are the city of Morrow, the more accurate the reporting of your comprehensive data, the more likely federal dollars will be allocated for funding schools, medical indigent care, road construction, law enforcement, and cultural awareness programs.

Percent of community Black:      45.5%

Percent of community White:    22.1%

Percent of community Asian:     25.5%

Percent of persons reporting two or more races: 2.6%

Percent where language other than English spoken at home, age 5+:      37.4% 

Detailed findings are available at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/13/1353004.html.

Data, by itself is not harmful. How data is used can be problematic, but we cannot as a society forego its relevance because some humans can be narrow minded and bigoted. Humans must be dealt with through other avenues of consequence

 

With an Increase in Mass Shootings, Should There Be Tighter Gun Laws?

Changes to Current Gun Laws Need to Take Place Now

By: Mikki Dixon

Schools, movie theaters, office buildings, and gas stations.  Increasingly, the news is inundated with mass shootings and accidental deaths caused by guns.  Gun laws should be tightened and reformed.

It has become commonplace to turn on the news or to open the newspaper and see that another mass shooting has taken place in the United States.  The motives and excuses are as varied as the locations.  Whether it is students who were being bullied retaliating against their fellow students and teachers, disgruntled workers who have been fired, random crimes such as the shooting at a movie theater showing the Dark Knight Rises, or the belt-way shootings that took place at gas stations in Washington D. C., in 2002, it is evident that we need to reform the current gun laws.

Opponents of gun law reformation often assert that it is not guns that kill people, it is people.  Although they are correct, if there were tighter gun laws to control who can purchase a gun, how long the wait time is before a purchase can be approved, and allowances made for a thorough background investigation, we as a responsible society may be able to limit the number of senseless shootings that take place in the United States every year.

Opponents to gun law reformation are also keen to point to the second amendment to the Constitution.  They say it is our Constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms, but they forget that our forefathers had enough foresight to allow the Constitution, a living document, to be changed if and when it became necessary.  It is essential that we recognize the time has come, and Congress needs to make changes to the current laws because it serves the greater good. 

Proponents of tighter gun laws are not proposing our politicians need to take away the individual citizen’s right to bear arms; rather, proponents feel our country needs to take action to prevent more needless deaths.

Edited by Maria Brown.

Not So Fast: Guns Don’t Kill People; People Kill People  

By: Barbara Latimer 

It is not uncommon when a gun tragedy occurs to look for someone or something to blame. Too often we end up shifting the responsibility for these horrific actions from the single person committing the wrongdoing to gun owners in general. That is the logic that makes the current gun debates so virulent and the prospect of certain weapons being banned so divisive. Lost within all the rhetoric is the cognizance that guns are materially inanimate objects, and without human deliberateness misuse is not possible. We don’t need changes to gun laws. We need tightened enforcement of current laws and greater access to mental health services for our citizens. Think about this, each of the recent attackers had one thing in common: they were known to be emotionally unbalanced with anti-social tendencies.

Exchanges between proponent and opponent assemblies on the topic of gun rights and gun control do eventually circle back to the language contained within in the Second Amendment, and the intent of said language.  However, few debaters reference all 27 words of the Amendment: "a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." As state militias have been replaced by national military forces does that preclude citizens from bearing arms? Historically, the Courts have said yes.  They assert that the right belongs to the states and not to the persons in the states. That position, it seems, may be due for a makeover as even the President and both parties in Congress acknowledge a majority of Americans favor an individual's right to bear arms.

There are roughly 250 to 300 million guns in circulation in the United States. States have implemented varying degrees of structure around access to and ownership of these guns. In Wyoming, for example, guns and ammunition are easy to obtain with few delays or restrictions. Wyoming is a sparsely populated area in comparison to states with larger urban populations, but geography alone doesn't explain why there were only 21 murders in 2012. It may be as simple as although people owned guns, they didn't solve their problems with them.

Contrast Chicago, Illinois. It is an area subject to very restrictive gun laws, and they post more than 21 murders in any given month. Could it be that the social issues inherent in urban areas propel acts of violence, and the gun restrictions currently in place do little more than inconvenience law abiding citizens? Gun control is obviously not the end all be all solution for curtailing gun violence. If it were, these two examples would prove rather than disprove the theory that gun control curtails violence.

I accept, as fact, that gun violence needs to be decreased. I do not accept, as fact, that moving to ban certain weapons or adding more restrictions will change the situation. Perhaps we would be better served to address why these high profile shootings happened in the first place. Why do some in our society feel so alienated? Why do they want to lash out and harm others? We aren't going to figure this out without increased access to mental health services and earlier intervention. All the gun control in the world cannot close the door on violence unless we first reset the triggers that disallow some people to maintain self control.

Edited by Maria Brown.