Civic Issues II: How did we get here?

Now that we understand the magnitude of the issue and how crowded and ineffective prisons are, it is important that we understand exactly how we have made it to this point. We covered it briefly in the last piece, but there is still much to study in order to understand how we have gotten more prisoners per capita than any other country on the planet. (Though, it is important to note that some countries may not be reporting their prison population accurately.)

Back in the founding of the country, much focus was put on fair trials and protecting those who had been convicted. Even in the 1800s, a French sociologist, Alexis de Tocqueville, came to the US to study prisons and was amazed by the prisons working to make conditions better and more livable, something he had never seen in europe. Of course, he was not in support of the US’s other similar solution, slavery.

The US continued to do pretty well with not filling up the prisons until the 70s. The US government at this time felt the need to fight a new war, so politicians from both parties with Nixon leading the charge started the fundamentally flawed War on Drugs. They began the rhetoric that we needed to be tough on crime. While Nixon started the work of the war on drugs, Reagan took it all the way. He entered office with a little over 300,000 in prison and left to see a population of over 600,000. These numbers were disproportionately from communities of color. Even at the state level, prison rates boomed. It wasn’t only the federal government pushing this. In 25 years, from 1978, Texas quadrupled its prison count. (1)

prison
Prison System Growth – Brennan Center

But things got worse. The democratic party wanted to be the party that was harsher on crime, but the republican party would not have this, so there was a constant war on pushing tougher and tougher laws to “fight crime” This led to Clinton’s 1994 crime bill, which bloated prisons beyond what anyone had before. The Bill allowed states to pass even harsher laws to appear tough-on-crime. And, in that year, every state had passed a minimum sentence law. It encouraged police to send more people to prison and for them to stay for a longer period of time. This set a strong precedent and in 1996, the democratic party showed off the effects of the law and how “tough on crime” they were. They pridefully showed off how they arrested more people than ever before. They even taunted that they expanded to sixty more crimes that receive the death penalty and encouraged the trying of young people as adults. 

Clinton the 1994 Crime Bill - ACLU
Clinton Signs the 1994 Crime Bill – ACLU

But rest assured, this is not a partisan issue, Republicans had also been fighting to fill prisons and appear tough on crime. In fact, Barack Obama, a Democrat, has been at the forefront of decreasing prison populations as for the first time they had started to decrease under his term.Interestingly enough a 1994 Gallup survey revealed that 58% of African Americans supported the bill, while only 49% of white Americans supported it. This was largely due to the Crack epidemic that these communities wanted to see an end to.(2)

The four decades of “tough on crime” laws built up a system that arrested a great many people while doing little to make these people change how they act. Two things determine how many people are in prison at any given time.These are the number of people arrested and sentenced every year and the length of every sentence. Both of these factors have become very high in the united states through our work to be tough on crime. It has even become harder to avoid a sentence as bail and other ways to end a sentence have become far more difficult to achieve, which is especially preventative to the poor as they have no chance of paying off. 

Back in 1984, there was debate in many cases about disparity in different sentences for seemingly similar crimes. Thus, the U.S. Sentencing Commission was created which set standards for sentence lengths. However, this simply pulled up many sentence lengths to match some longer ones and continued to contribute to the lengthier prison sentences of the United States. Mandatory sentences fill prisons for a very long time. For example, if you sell 2 grams of cocaine in Mississippi, you are required to serve life without parole. And, it is important to note that none of these laws have had any effect on drug use as it had remained stable for the 40 years in which the war on drugs mainly occurred (1970s-2010). Drug sentences make up a staggering 55-60% of those incarcerated to federal prison.

In the 1990s, there was another fear, the rise in violent crimes. A number of famous cases developed in many people’s mind that those who commited violent crimes could not be reformed and should be separated from society for the rest of their life.This produced the “Three-strikes” laws which would give those who commit two or three offenses a life in prison. However, the crimes that fell under this law was not simply violent crimes, but also oft covered other crimes. The ACLU covers some ridiculous examples that were part of the three strikes policy:

“The ACLU documented thousands of cases of people sentenced to life without parole under habitual offender laws for nonviolent crimes as petty as siphoning gasoline from an 18-wheeler, shoplifting three belts, breaking into a parked car and stealing a woman’s bagged lunch, attempting to cash a stolen check, acting as a go between in the sale of $10 of marijuana, or possessing a bottle cap smeared with heroin residue.” (3)

In 1984, the federal government abolished parole and 16 other states were soon to follow. This made it impossible for many people to leave prison early on “good behavior”. Now that we understand why prisons are so full today and the history that brought us here, we need to explore the possible solutions in the next Civic Issues blog!

Australian Aliment

This week we will travel to Australia to explore the cuisines throughout their history. We will start with the Aboriginal People. They were nomads and moved across the land based on the availability of food and as seasons changed. These ancient people were around so long ago that there was little record of what they did or eat, but some believe they had some sort of agricultural system.  Our best recounts are from the earliest European settlers. They were reported to have harvested Murnong tubers, a Native yam of the country that is now nearly extinct. Parsnip yams were harvested interestingly; a large portion of the edible part was removed, leaving the bottom part of the yam in the ground to regrow. Large stone fish traps were also found that would allow these people to force the fish in a small pool to a place where they could be harvested. They also ate grubs, lizards, and snakes.

Murnog Roots
Murnog Roots – wikimedia

Early explorers thought that the people of Australia had no food at all available to them, so little naturally occurring Australian food was eaten by colonists. However, there were two foods that they had that became very popular, oysters and lobsters.

Fast forward to the 1820s, settlers saw the massive lands open for grazing across the giant country of Australia. These were rich settlers who would buy very large tracks of land and would pay Nomadic people in rations to work the land. Their rations were always the same, so they ate meals of damper, billy tea and a slab of meat. However, some would boast about eating three meals of meat a day, which was uncommon elsewhere.

The 1880s brought the introduction of the railway system in Australia which allowed for agricultural harvests from across the country to be brought to those who couldn’t have reached them regularly. Coconuts and cornflakes soon came that were very popular. The Chinese gold rush to Australia brought many foods. In facts, by 1890, one third of all chefs in Australia were Chinese. Italians then came. They were shocked by the Australian diet which was three meals of meat a day, often washed down with a gallon of tea. They brought their own cuisines and built their own delis and other restaurants.

King & Godree 1955
King & Godree 1955 – SBS

Before WWII, the country had relied on daily delivery of cold ingredients and ice boxes for their cold food. Factories that were used for the war were then converted into factories that produced cars and refrigerators. (1)

Today, chicken is the most commonly consumed meat while lamb is also very popular. Kangaroo meat is eaten sometimes, though typically not very commonly. Coffee has overtaken tea as the most popular beverage. Australia does not have very many starbucks or similar chains because they already had coffee shops across the country before the chains came. The people prefer the local or even national companies than what is offered by global coffee companies. The Australians also loved their dairy products and consume much of it.

Prisons in America

The United States of America has an issue with mass incarceration and a failing prison system. This issue is best exemplified when this country is compared to the rest of the world. As of 2015, the US had over two million citizens held in prison. There are only about ten million people incarcerated world wide, so this means that the US has 20% of the global prisoner population despite only making up 0.4% of the population. A common metric used to see the incarceration rate of a country is prisoners per hundred thousand people. Japan has 38 per 100,000. Norway has 49 per 100,000. Canada has 104 per 100,000. And even China only has 164 per 100,000. But the US? We have 639 per 100,000. The only country that is comparable is Russia with 411 and El Salvador with 564. Fortunately, things have improved slightly in both countries, in 2008, with 1,000 prisoners per 100,000 US adults. Even under the reign of the Soviet Union, only about 800 per 100,000 were imprisoned. That is to say that in 2008, more US citizens were in prison then under the Soviets and the Gulag. (1)

Prison pop
World Map of Prison Population Rates – World Prison Brief

Interestingly enough, the US would lose to many European countries if we counted number of people entered into prison per year. The reason we top the list is that the US has such long prison sentences that people stay in prison longer and keep them full. (2)

So is there a correlation between Russia and the US, some countries with the highest imprisonment rate? Yes, both countries offer a zero-tolerance policy for illegal substances. This can also be seen by the war on drugs started with Richard Nixon. In the nearly 50 years since then, the prison population in the united states has increased nearly 600% while the population has only increased by 51%. But this doesn’t explain how Russia still has a much lower imprisonment count with the arresting of gay rights advocates and political dissidents. The US also leads the list with the most minors imprisoned out of any country in the world. The use of minimum sentences keeps these prisons full for a long time. Half of those imprisoned in the US are due to drug related offenses and nearly three quarters of those people are faced with a minimum sentence. (3)

Now that we understand how big prisons are for the US, we must ask whether or not they are actually effective in their job, turning criminals away from illegal activities. The rate of recidivism measures the percent of inmates who will be arrested again. 70% of US inmates will be arrested within five years of their freedom. On the opposite end of spectrum, Norway has a rate of recidivism of only 20%. A key difference between the two countries which may cause the difference in rates of recidivism is Norway’s emphasis on rehabilitation. Their prisons attempt to teach new skills and provides amenities like gyms and medical personnel. The US is still practicing many solely punishment based practices like solitary confinement.

Prison quality may be another key effector on the recidivism rate of a country. While the US is lacking, they are not the worst in the world, with China, Russia, Thailand, and Venezuela considered to be far worse. We also have private prisons. These are prisons contracted out by the government. However, they are often criticized as they can cut corners in cleanliness or quality of care in order to boost profits. It can even be proposed that these prisons not only have no incentive to rehabilitate, but they may want to ensure that these prisoners will be arrested again and return to their prison so they may make more profit. Speaking of costs, the US spends over $80 billion dollars on prison systems every year, and this doesn’t even include things like border detention facilities.

Thailand Prisons - BBC
Thailand Prisons – BBC

As mentioned before, the US is slightly improved over the last decade in it’s prison population. It peaked back in 2008 and in 2018, we reached the lowest since 1995. And while reports haven’t been released yet, it is proposed that prison rates have decreased at an even greater rate due to the Coronavirus pandemic. According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, a 2018 law by President Trump led to shorter sentences and earlier releases for many offenders.  (4)

Pew Research
Incarceration Rate – Pew Research

There is also likely a significant racial bias when it comes to arrests and imprisonments. It is said that one in three African American boys will be arrested during their life and one in six Latino boys compared to one in seventeen white boys who will be arrested in their life.

Worse still, is that after many of those who are arrested and freed face restrictions when returned to the regular world with nearly 50,000 federal, state, and local restrictions preventing them from acclimating back into the world.

Returning to Norway,  where their prison systems is oft considered to be one of the best in the world. They claim to work to nurture people into becoming “better neighbors”. These prisoners are free to complete many activities seen unacceptable to many in the US for prisoners. They are given quality exercise facilities, have computers to do work on, and in some locations, the freedom to swim in the sea. They also give them the opportunity to learn skills such as carpentry. And in contrast to the US, they have a maximum sentence of only 30 years. (5)

So what are prisons in the US like? Separation from outside society and all media create a contrast from the prison world to the rest of the world. They are made subject to degrading treatment, inhumane conditions, and abusive interactions. The prisons make little effort to rehabilitate the prisoners and focus primarily on punishment. Though recently there has been a push to focus more on rehabilitation rather than punishment.

So what change do I want to see? I think the goals of the US prison system should be to reduce in size significantly and drastically improve the rate of recidivism for the country. Prisons should be meant to return criminals into regular members of society rather than keep them away from it forever.

Hawaiian Viand

Welcome back to Why Eat That? where we explore cultures and why they eat what they eat. Today we will be studying Hawaii past and present.

When people initially arrived on the island around 1600 years ago, the island was lacking in much edible food. There were ferns, which could be eaten boiled, and some fruits. This meant that many plants needed to be shipped over so that they could be eaten. These were called canoe plants because they were brought over in canoes. The most famous of these was taro which was made into a sort of paste known as Poi. Taro roots were pounded into a paste as water was added. Through light fermentation it gains a sort of sour taste in addition to it’s starchy taste. This became a staple of their diet for a long time. Sweet potatoes were also a canoe food and were enjoyed greatly. Many other foods were later introduced to the island, including bananas, breadfruit, and sugarcane. 1

Taro
Taro Colocasia – Wikimedia
Poi starch - Wikimedia
Poi – Wikimedia

For the desire of protein, the water around the island supplied fish. However, the islands lacked many mammals and had only some birds and bats. So once again, people sailed with all many of animals in order to expand their diets. Pigs were brought over and were used as sacrifice and then eaten in great feasts. 2

Food was often season with sea salt, but even more interesting was an older version of relish which they used to season things. The relish was made up of mashed kukui nuts. Edible sea weeds were often eaten to add flavor to foods and prevent constipation.

One of the biggest feasts held by the ancient hawaiian people was the ‘Aha‘aina Mawaewae feast which celebrated the birth of a child. The center of the feast was a pig which was raised and prepared specifally for the event. Shrimp, crab, taro, and even octopus were also served at this event.

In the late 1700s, western exploration reached the islands of hawaii. Cattle were brought over to the island as a source of food. However, with no natural preditor, they multiplied uncontrollably. Thus, they all had to be either massacred or domesticated and beef was introduced to Hawaii. Pineapples were discovered and more and more westerners came to settle Hawaii and grow food. By the late 1800s, pinapple and sugarcane farms took over most of the land on these islands and were run by most Americans. They became the primarily sources of revenue for the islands.

However, the pinapple business still hadn’t reached it’s height yet. Then came Jame “The Pinapple King” Dole. Over 50 years, his company became the biggest pinapple company in the entire world. Not until the late 20th century, did the island return to the idea of grow local, buy local, and eat local, when they realized that food was being imported in massive quantities while local foods were rotting on the ground after falling off trees.

Today, the state tries to embrace some of their more classic foods including the guava plant and some of the things that were brought over so long ago, like bananas.

Banana Pancakes
Banana Pancakes – Evie Lenze

Be Unforgettable

During my first year of highschool Cross Country, I was incredibly impressed by all the seniors. They all seemed so impressive and legendary to me. There was a group of them who I saw as the most passionate and memorable people I have ever met. Otis inspired me to pursue a computer degree. Bryce helped me understand what type of person I wanted to be. Jack showed me the value of hard work. I would not soon forget these people who had a profound effect on me. When the end of the season arrived and I knew many of them I would never see again as they headed out to college, I was sad and fearful for the future without them. Before this moment I had just been floating through my relationships with others and trying to move forward. I hadn’t thought about the effect I was leaving behind on those I met or spent or time with.

The next year the seniors had less of an effect on me. They just weren’t as memorable and important to who I was becoming. I knew who all of them were and spent event more time with them then I had my seniors the year before. When the end of the season arrived again, I was expecting the sobering effect to return upon them leaving. However, it didn’t come like it did the previous year.

As the years went on since those two years, I have begun to forget about those in the second year and those of the first year still hold a strong place in my memory. I could still name most of them, but I couldn’t think of what they did or how they change me. Because, I’m not sure if any of them did.

This made me realize what effect I wanted to have on people, I wanted to be unforgettable. In my final year of high school I tried my best to show my passion and help out the younger runners as much as possible. However, I fear, did I have enough of an effect to not be forgotten? When I returned over to the team over the break, I saw that I was not remembered as well as I had hoped. Had I failed in my mission? Had I become forgettable?

Passion and Civic Issues and This I Believe, Oh My!

For my passion blog I would either want to continue my blog from last semester about why cultures throughout the world and history have eaten what they have or I would write one about nuclear power, from its origins to impact today and future.

For my Civic issues blog I would be interested in writing about prison reform. My other thought for my Civic Issues blog is powering the US and how we rely on materials and people to keep our country on and how we can work towards becoming independent and sustainable and that avenue.

For my This I Believe I may write about “The opposite of regret”. I would talk about how it’s important to experience new things and meet new people not from someone who regrets not but from someone who wonders about the version of himself who didn’t. Another possibility is for me to talk about “be unforgettable” where I would talk about how whenever older members of my team throughout highschool would leave I would miss them dearly and how I hoped that I did enough to be seen the same way as those younger than me.

 

Script

intro/background:(Ainsley)

Going to space is not a novel concept in the 21st century. In fact, as of 2020, more than 600 people have been to space. Of that 600, about 150 of those are Americans. Why haven’t there been more? Well this is a complicated question. Space travel is very physically grueling, but it is also extremely expensive. That leads to another interesting question– where is that money coming from and where SHOULD that money be coming from? The answer to that is complicated and depends on who is asked. Some people believe groups such as NASA should be publicly funded and some believe they should be privately funded. 

As of right now, NASA is publicly funded. In the fiscal year 2020, NASA had a budget of about  $23.3 billion from the government, which was 48% of the federal budget. In 1963, NASA’s budget was 2.29% of the federal budget. It rose to the highest it’s ever been at 4.41% of the budget in 1966. Both of these budgets were during a time known as the Space Race. The Space Race was when the US and Russia were in competition to travel to space. This included human travel to space, satellites, space probes, and aerospace capabilities, and lasted from 1955-1975.

While the US is not currently in a situation such as the Space Race, space exploration is still extremely important. Whether funded publicly or privately, most can agree that this is a field worth exploring. 

Economy section:(Nolan)

When the average American hears that NASA’s budget is $23.3 billion dollars, they might be shocked and annoyed that so much money is going toward space exploration. After all, so much needs to be done here on earth. Why should we be putting money toward going to space? 

Youtuber, and former NASA scientist Mark Rober explains how much of the US budget really does go to the NASA budget (insert clip). When it comes down to it, that is less than $9 per year for most Americans paying taxes.

Despite the budget of NASA not being that large in comparison to the rest of the US budget, $23.3 billion dollars is still a lot of money. It is important to understand where that money is going. (Show background image of pie chart showing funding) About 45% of the budget goes to human spaceflight each year. That is around $10 billion dollars each year going toward a select few individuals going to space. That is where some people think space flight is outrageously expensive. After all, it currently cost the US $81 million dollars per seat on the Russian Soyuz to send astronauts to the International Space Station. Before during the Space Shuttle program it cost around $450 million dollars and in the future it is expected to be cheaper at $58 million dollars per astronaut on the new SpaceX and Boeing rockets.

That is a very large amount of money for one human to simply go up into space and do research. This is not including the fact that all the supplies they need are ultra expensive. For example it costs over $10,000 for a water bottle to get to the space station. The espresso machine cost over $1 million dollars to get up there. You get the point. And this is only the cost to send supplies and people to the space station in Earth’s orbit. I can only imagine the cost of missions to the moon or Mars or beyond. 

Despite the mere cost so spending people and supplies to space as a part of the space budget, the overall economic benefit of the NASA budget as a whole is impressive. In a report on the economic impact from 2019, NASA was found to support more than 312,000 jobs nationwide and generate $64.3 billion dollars in total economic output. Given a budget of $21.9 billion dollars for the year 2019, this economic output is very positive. The NASA budget for that year generated around 3x the money that was put into it. 

 

On top of that, the Moon to Mars mission that is NASA’s newest goal that might be seen as a waste was estimated to provide 69,000 jobs and generate $14 billion dollars in total economic output. That is a tremendous return for a project that might be seen as impractical for our society. 

A lot of this economic output and job creation comes from the research side of NASA. 

Scientific Research:(Owen)

One of the most common reasons given to continue nasa funding is the scientific research they uncover. A significant area of research they contribute to is an understanding of climate change. NASA holds a primary seat at the UN climate conference, where they share their observations and findings. Two programs that they have that help them observe the earth are the Earth Observations and Eyes on the Earth. Earth Observations allow for the monitoring and addressing of extreme heat events, landslides, pollution, and flooding. Eyes on the Earth program allows for anyone to track the earth’s vitals, including carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide levels, the sea level, and soil moisture levels.

According to Britannica, science learned in space is generally divided into 5 categories. The study of Earth from space is what is used to better understand climate change. Solar and space physics can be studied far easilier in space. Obviously, the exploration of extraterrestrial bodies can only be done in space. Uranus and Neptune have barely even been explored (only visited once) The origin of the universe and all things requires research in space. The study of humans, other living, and nonliving things  in low gravity can be done in space. With this being a public venture, the information collected is freely available.

However, the direction NASA is heading may inhibit that. With our reliance on these private companies to bring our guys to space, they have the choice not to conduct any research or share any information gathered with the public (thus we’d be paying for space travel but not gaining research). Additionally, the moon has already been visited, so just putting people on the moon will provide no advancements. This leads to another  issue with space exploration, a  fair portion of it is just doing things to do them. Put a man on Mars for us to say we’ve put a  man on Mars.  On the contrary, these types of  missions do inspire the young to explore and discover in a  time when most discoveries are not visible.

Risk:(Jaxon)

While the high probability of new discoveries and relatively low cost of funding Nasa are compelling arguments for funding Nasa, we need to ask ourselves; are the risks worth it? And, should the global environmental issues we face on our planet receive more funding before we fund trips to discover new ones. 

NASA itself has uncovered risks, some life threatening, that come with space exploration. The radiation produced from space is detrimental to our health. Once we leave the protective atmosphere that Earth provides, we are subject to cancer, central nervous system damage, and even our motor function could be inhibited.  As humans, the effects of isolation are inevitable. Astronauts would have to spend years living with their potential crewmates in conditions they would find in space. And even that training is not certain to ensure that the mental health of the team is strong enough to withstand the challenges that come with space isolation. 

Other issues lie within the fact that we are not certain that the ships we sent into space will leave Earth. Between 1983 and 2003, we saw the demise of two space shuttles, the Columbia and the Challenger. Not only did these accidents lead to the death of 14 astronauts, but we lost over 200 billion dollars worth of equipment on those dreadful days.

Conclusion:(Ainsley)

Uniting of people across world

While it is debated whether NASA should be funded publicly or privately, there is no doubt that space exploration unites people across the globe. Most people are hooked on the common goal of discovering new science to aid in bettering the earth. Whether that be through an American astronaut, a United Kingdom satellite, or a Russian rocket, the whole world has the common goal of going to space. There may be debates in the US about if space exploration should be funded publicly or privately, but all agree that space exploration should definitely be funded and endorsed in some way. This unites people across the country and across the world.

Speech Thoughts

Talk

I felt that my preparation for this speech was an improvement over the last one. I pushed to the extremes in my notes and outline. I had even more content in my outline in an attempt to better describe exactly what I wanted to say. Thus, my notecard was under 20 words, a fraction of the length of my artifact speech notes. I think this combination aided when I began learning the piece, I could follow the dense outline and understand the cadence of the speech with almost reading off the outline. I then could begin to remember the key ideas and switch to the notecards which allowed me to cover the main points and interject all the extra information from the outline at my own pace or when it seemed to more naturally come up (less scripted feeling). I feel that my preparation of outlining before this period could have been better. I originally chose a different topic and realized I really couldn’t see myself producing an engaging presentation with that information. Thus, I rushed my original outline to make the due date for that part and felt the quality wasn’t great until I later made drastic changes. All of this just pushed the timeline back and gave me less time to rehearse the speech and refine my visuals.

After rewatching my presentation I came with a number of comments about it. Again, I wish my computer had a better microphone and camera or I could find an effective way to record with my phone (many of my earlier rehearsals were done on my phone and I found the audio and video to be great but didn’t know how to submit it that way). I think in future talks, my preparation would be greatly improved if I divide up my work more rather than sitting down and doing massive chunks of the work at once. I feel that splitting up the work can help me get less tired of doing the work and produced higher quality work. Also, I felt that all of my takes of the Ted Talk were very similar, I think it would produce more interesting presentation if I varied from take to take more so it seemed more natural.

I really enjoyed learning the information for my speech, so I didn’t find it difficult to present in what I thought was an engaging way. An issue I have with making recorded speeches is striving for perfection but having little change from recording to recording. Whenever I record a speech and I cough or slip and say an um or uhh, I typically stop the recording because it ruins the process of me giving the talk. This can be seen in my final take where I cough partway through the speech and appear lost and frustrated for a couple seconds. I believe, while still not perfect, the organization of my talk was an improvement over the artifact speech. I felt that the I put my information into clearly defined categories that helped progress the talk in an engaging and informative way.

Public Controversy Examples

 

  1. Nuclear power in space travel. Talk has been made of the viability of using nuclear reactors to accelerate travel outside of the atmosphere. They would be impractical in the atmosphere, but once space is reached, far more efficient. However, there are many counters to this such as the assembly needed. Additionally, any nuclear project is incredibly hard to gain public support of.
  2. Organic food vs. GMOs. Some people argue that organic food should be eaten over genetically modified food, despite GMOs being healthier, tastier, lasting longer, and organic being a meaningless label added to food to make it seem healthier. My description may be slightly biased.