Switchgrass Ethanol vs. Corn Ethanol (no conclusion)

Switchgrass Ethanol

Americans use 140 billion gallons of gasoline each year, but only 4.8 billion gallons is produced from ethanol and approximately 95% of ethanol is corn based (Montenegro). Many experts believe there is major potential in ethanol as a fuel source, but some obstacles must be overcome. The first is what to use to produce the ethanol. The main debate is between corn, sugar cane, and switchgrass. This paper will focus on the differences between corn and switchgrass. Differences will be pointed out between production, soil conservation, and net energy gain. Through the comparison of the two one will be able to decide which is a potentially better source of ethanol production.

Maywa Montenegro gives the simple explanation of producing ethanol, “Creating ethanol involves leaching simple sugars from plant matter and fermenting them into alcohol, just like the process for making "corn liquor," or moonshine. It's affordable and effective.” Montenegro’s explanation sums up the process, but there is one significant difference between producing ethanol from corn and producing it from switchgrass. Montenegro explains that conventional ethanol is produced from simple sugars, and it is easiest to obtain these sugars from plants that concentrate sugars in certain parts. Corn is used widely because it concentrates these sugars in its kernels. The problem is that little of the plant is used in this method and a lot of biomass is not used (Montenegro). Switchgrass and biomass are actually converted into ethanol using same process. There is one extra step in ethanol production from switchgrass than from corn. C. Matthew Rendleman and Hosein Shapouri explain that switchgrass is composed of complex carbohydrates unlike the simple carbohydrates found in corn. The complexity of the carbohydrates in the switchgrass means that it must first be broken down into simple sugars before it can be fermented. To do this either sulfuric acid is added or enzymes are used. Glucose and other five and six carbon sugars are produced and are converted to ethanol by fermentation. In addition, there are also some non-glucose sugars produced, but they are not easily fermentable by Saccharomyces cerevisia, a naturally occurring yeast. This problem can be combated by genetically engineered yeasts, but the process is not economically viable (Rendleman 22).

Though the process of producing ethanol from switchgrass is still in its infancy, the benefits of switchgrass based ethanol are well known and agreed upon. The first big benefit is soil conservation. According to S.B. McLaughlin and M. E. Walsh, 2.7 million metric tons of soil organic matter (SOM) per year is lost in the United States. There is a large difference between erosion of cultivated row crops like corn and perennial grasses like switchgrass. Erosion of corn fields in Iowa was 70 times higher than perennial grass fields on similar land, and during heavy rains corn fields eroded up to 200 times more than the grasslands. Erosion of land washes away many chemicals used to increase production. The chemicals washed away not only harm the environment, but also the farmer’s pocket. It is estimated that $18 billion in fertilizer nutrients are lost to erosion annually in the U.S. Switchgrass not only retains more of the fertilizer, but it also uses less. Usually switchgrass only needs herbicides during the first year of what is usually a ten-year growth cycle (McLaughlin 320).

Using less fertilizer is only one of the energy saving benefits of switchgrass. McLaughlin and Walsh explain some of the others. Switchgrass has a higher energy output for a few reasons. The first is that the plant itself produces more energy. The biomass from switchgrass can be more easily converted into ethanol than the biomass from corn can; therefore, if one has equal amounts of corn and switchgrass, the switchgrass can produce more energy. It has been calculated that it takes 4.5 times more energy to produce an equivalent amount of ethanol from corn than it does from switchgrass. The differences in the way the plants are broken down, and the amount of energy produced when broken down accounts for the difference. When comparing switchgrass to corn one can see that switchgrass requires less energy for agricultural production, produces more energy in its biomass, and uses less energy to process the biomass into ethanol than corn does. All of the factors presented account for the fact that corn based ethanol has a 21% net energy gain while switchgrass based ethanol has a substantially higher 343% net energy gain (McLaughlin 321).

Some say that corn ethanol could be a "stepping stone" to cleaner fuels like cellulosic (from biomass) ethanol (Montenegro). New technologies for producing ethanol from biomass may make the technique more appealing than it currently is. Right now it takes an extra step to create ethanol from biomass which means more time and money than the technique used for corn based ethanol. Two new methods for producing ethanol form biomass are Countercurrent Hydrolysis and Enzymatic Hydrolysis, which was touched upon earlier. In Countercurrent Hydrolysis steam is first used to break down or hydrolyze most of the biomass and then acid is added to hydrolyze the rest. The idea is that the new method would reduce costs and increase glucose yields. In fact scientists have achieved glucose yields of over 90% in experiments using hardwoods. The second method, Enzymatic Hydrolysis, involves using a genetically engineered enzyme to break down the complex biomass. Studies are being done using enzymes in place of sulfuric acid, but the cost is too great to do this commercially. The goal is to engineer an enzyme that can both hydrolyze and ferment the biomass because the extra step of having to break down the biomass before fermentation is the biggest problem right now (Rendleman 23-24).

Works Cited

Brady, D., & Pratt, G. C. (2007). Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Dry Mill Fuel. Journal of the

Air & Waste Management Association , 1091–1102.

McLaughlin, S. B., & Walsh, M. E. (1998). Evaluating Enviromental Consequences of Producing

Herbaceous Crops for Bioenergy. Biomass and Bioenergy , 317-324.

Montenegro, M. (2006, December 4). The Big Three :The numbers behind ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, and

biodiesel in the U.S. Retrieved November 25, 2007, from Grist:

http://grist.org/news/maindish/2006/12/04/montenegro/

Rendleman, C. M., & Shapouri, H. (2007). New Technologies in Ethanol Production. Washington D.C.:

United States Department of Agriculture.

Realism vs. Idealism

Realism vs. Idealism

Realism is defined as: the representation in art or literature of objects, actions, or social conditions as they actually are, without idealization or presentation in abstract form. While idealism is defined as: the act or practice of envisioning things in an ideal form; or the pursuit of one's ideals. As one can see the two are opposites of one another. Realism is viewing things as they actually are, while idealism is viewing things as being the way one wants them. People argue that one or the other is better, but I feel a balance of the two is best.

Teddy Roosevelt is usually viewed as being a realist. He is identified as realist because many of his accomplishments were obtained by force and they were done without looking at future consequences. The Panama Canal is an example. Roosevelt basically stole the land for the canal. He was sick of Colombia wasting time and trying to cheat France out of its investment there; therefore, Roosevelt bribed the Colombian soldiers $50 each to lay down their arms, and he then helped create the Republic of Panama. Shortly after, the U.S. signed a protection treaty with Panama which said that America could control the land to build the canal if the U.S. protected Panama. The Panama Canal is an example of realism because Roosevelt went ahead with his plan without thinking of the future. He did not think about how the world would view the U.S. or about the many difficulties, like malaria, that would be encountered while building the canal.

Woodrow Wilson is perceived as an idealist because of his lofty goals and his strive for greatness. His 14 Points Speech is a perfect example of idealism. In the speech Wilson talked about free trade, self-determination, disarmament, freedom of the seas, and possibly the most important part of the speech was the League of Nations. Each of these points, or goals, is long term, and for the most part Wilson did not present a way to achieve his goals. Congress did not pass the proposal to join the League of Nations because Wilson had not included Congress in the negotiations. This is a trait of many idealists. They want to imprint a lasting legacy and think that no one else is able enough to help them get there.

There are upsides and downsides to both views. In short realists do not look to the future and idealists look to the future, but they do not have a means to get there. A balance of the two may be best. One can set high goals for himself or herself (idealism), and then have a realistic way of achieving the goals. If an individual leans too far one way or the other he or she can get into trouble. One may either lose sight of his or her goals, or on the other hand, one may no longer be able to find a way to reach his or her goals. As the old cliché goes, “Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing.”

Grade: 10/10

War of 1812 (mainly causes and effects)

War of 1812

Throughout the 19^th century, America transformed from a small, developing country into a world power. Acquisitions due to events such as The Louisiana Purchase, the Mexican Cession and the addition of Alaska, Florida, Oregon, and Texas tripled the size of the United States from 890,000 sq. miles to 2.73 million sq. miles in less than 100 years. One of the events that catalyzed this expansion was the War of 1812. The war is sometimes called “America’s second war for independence” because Great Britain was still interfering with American affairs. One definite cause of the war cannot be pinpointed because there were many factors that compounded upon one another. They can be whittled down to four main concerns which are maritime and trade issues, the Embargo Act, territorial expansion, and War Hawks.

The dispute on the seas and involving trade may have been the biggest concern. Britain was blockading any ship from going to France because of a war between the two countries, and as a result, ships had to first go through a British port in order to trade in France. Britain considered any ship that did not stop any enemy. On top of the trade dilemma was the problem of British search and seizure on the high seas. The British felt they had the right to search for deserters on any ship, anywhere in the ocean. Sometimes British generals made mistakes and American citizens would be wrongly accused of deserting. Many times it would take years for the mistake to be corrected.

To try to influence the European economy, President Jefferson passed the Embargo Act in 1807. It stopped almost every American vessel from sailing and closed trade with Europe; however, instead of disturbing Britain’s economy, the act adversely affected every region of the U.S., and its economy stalled. The Embargo lasted until 1810 when Congress passed Macon’s Bill No. 2, which reversed everything the Embargo Act had enforced. Americans were still mad at Britain, though, because it had not opened up free trade.

British officers in Canada realized the increasingly hostile relations between the United States and Britain, and because of this they began making friendships with Indians residing in the Northwest region of the United States. It was easy for the British to make friendships because of the pressure being put on Indians by the westward expansion of the United States. During the war, Americans called for an invasion of Canada mainly because of the support the British were giving the Indians of the Northwest.

The last primary cause of the war was the War Hawks. This nickname was given to Republicans who wanted to go to war with Britain. Many of them had just been elected into office and wanted to change the direction of the country. Some historians say the War Hawks must be blamed for the war because they wanted to fight even though the U.S.’s military was inadequate at the time. These historians feel that the War Hawks wanted war because they needed it to recover America’s self-respect that they and fellow Republicans had destroyed.

The war of 1812 had a few small effects on the United States at the time, but these accomplishments would lead to larger things. America gained international respect after the war for resisting Great Britain for the second time in less than forty years. Not only did the war prove the U.S.’s military, but it also strengthened its army. The U.S. learned how to train its servicemen, and it now had battle tested leaders. This factor would help the U.S. create one of the most powerful militaries in the world. Its military would later help America expand by land acquisitions from the Spanish-American and Mexican-American Wars. The War of 1812 also strengthened America’s economy. The British blockade of America’s coast forced the U.S. to manufacture goods it normally imported, so after the war dependence on foreign countries was greatly diminished.

In 1846, the term “Manifest Destiny” began to be used in the United States. It stated that it was America’s destiny to span from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. It would have been impossible to obtain this goal if the War of 1812 had not happened. The U.S.’s military may never had taken off as it did after the war, and it would not have become as organized. Americans would not have acknowledged the immense feeling of nationalism as they did after the war, and the people may never have had the ambition to span the distance between the oceans. The War of 1812 gave the U.S. military power, a strengthened economy with less foreign dependence, and the confidence to expand its borders to eventually span the continent by the year 1900.

Bibliography

Causes of the War. (2007). Retrieved October 26, 2007, from Infoplease:

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0861857.html

Effects of the War of 1812. (2007). Retrieved November 6, 2007, from War of 1812-History:

http://www.warof1812-history.com/Effects-of-the-War-of-1812.aspx

Horsman, R. (1972). The Causes of The War of 1812. New York, NY: Octagon Books.

Major Harney, W. (2005, April 27). The Causes of the War of 1812. Retrieved October 26, 2007, from

Global Security: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1989/HWW.htm

Origins of the War of 1812. (2007, October 15). Retrieved October 26, 2007, from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_War_of_1812

Perkins, B. (1961). Prologue to War: England and The United States: 1805-1812. Berkely and Los Angeles,

CA: University of California Press.

Pratt, P. D. (1949). Expansionists of 1812. Gloucester, MA: The Macimillan Company.

Grade Received: A

Pentagon Papers

Pentagon Papers Reaction

When I first learned about the Pentagon Papers, I asked myself, “Why would the government even decide to make this report?” I got my answer early on in the play. The Pentagon Papers were compiled because the Executive Branch wanted future generations of Americans to be able to read the Papers and learn from the mistakes of previous generations. The document was highly classified partly because it was not a report of how the U.S. got into the Vietnam War, but it really was a report of how the U.S. Government consistently lied to its citizens.

One of the first things said, in the play, about the Pentagon Papers, was that President Nixon was not mad that the papers came out, but he was furious that the New York Times had somehow got a hold of them and was publishing parts of the classified document. President Nixon only wanted to pursue the matter further because it was a highly classified document and not because of its contents. That could lead one to think that it was alright for the New York Times and the Washington Post to publish parts of it, since the details of the Papers were not an issue to the President. Writers for the two newspapers had many years of experience with world affairs, and they made decisions each day whether it was okay to write about a certain story. People sometimes do not know that newspaper writers have access to many classified documents, but many times do not publish the story because it may endanger the country. The courts brought up the Espionage Act in the New York Times’s case. The act did not exactly fit the times though, since the information the Pentagon Papers contained ended in 1968.

The most interesting parts of the play were the excerpts from the Pentagon Papers themselves. From the Papers, Americans learned that the U.S. played a role in the coup to overthrow the South Vietnamese government, killing its leaders Ngo Dinh Diem and Ngo Dinh Nhu. The U.S. had been backing the South Vietnamese at the time. Americas also learned that the U.S. had a part in the problem with the free elections. The U.S. was pushing for free elections, but was also secretly stopping them from happening. It did this because there were rumors that the Communist leader, Ho Chi Minh, would win the election. The lies that came out led many Americans to distrust the U.S. Government, and that same feeling has stayed with Americans into the 21^st century.

I assume that the play was historically correct, and if it was, the U.S. government had absolutely no proof that the contents of the Pentagon Papers would have threatened the United States’s national security. The biggest piece of evidence, about the Gulf of Tonkin interception and how the U.S.’s secret of code deciphering would get out, was already in a Senate committee’s report. Every piece of evidence the U.S.’s lawyer brought out was shut down by the Washington Post’s lawyer. Many of the points brought up by the U.S., could already be obtained by the American population.

The end of the play was most interesting. It said that a government official was quoted saying, “Most documents are over-classified. The real concern is to cover the government from embarrassment, not to keep the country safe.” If this was the feeling of the government at the time, the New York Times and the Washington Post should be commended on the bravery they had shown. Without them we may never have been able to find the courage to stand up to what is wrong with our government. The play used an interesting quote, “We can’t gain freedom, we can only lose it.” This quote has a powerful message. It implies that Americans, or any free country for that matter, must protect their freedom by standing up to what is wrong. Sometimes the wrong doers may not even realize they are harming their country.

Grade Received: 10/10

The Constitution, Shared Power, and Foreign Policy

The Constitution, Shared Power, and Foreign Policy

The founding fathers set up the United States Constitution in a way that no one branch would have too much power. Each branch is supposed to work with each other to make decisions. The decisions made by the U.S. form its foreign policy. When the Legislative and Executive branches work together, rash decisions can be eliminated, and the foreign policy is a somewhat accurate representation of the views of American’s.

The United States foreign policy has changed over time. It began with an attempt to compromise with Great Britain. That did not work and the U.S. went to war. After winning its independence, Americans stayed out of most foreign affairs and concentrated on expanding the new country. When the Spanish colonies in Latin America declared their independence, the U.S. created the Monroe Doctrine. It was a policy to keep out all European powers in the newly independent Americas. The doctrine allowed the United States to interfere with any hostilities the new states had with Europe. The U.S. continued to expand after this, partly because of a war against Mexico and a dispute with Britain and Russia concerning the Oregon Territory. The U.S. won both of these, and it greatly increased in size as a result.

As the country grew in size and power, its interests grew further from home. Americans found themselves conquering Cuba and Puerto Rico and occupying Hawaii and the Philippines. The U.S. also wanted to gain more trade power throughout the world; therefore, they demanded that Japan open up for trade and fought for influence in China. The U.S. entered World War II after it was attacked by Japan, and after the war, America became one of the five permanent members of the United Nations. After World War II, American foreign policy switched to stopping the spread of communism. This view got the U.S. involved in the Cold War, Korean War, and Vietnam War. Since the Vietnam War, the United States has been involved in almost every major conflict around the world. Some examples are the U.S. invading Panama in 1989, the Gulf War in 1991, and the 2003 “War on Terror” in Iraq.

Many people argue about the U.S. being involved in so many conflicts over the past two decades. The primary debate is about who should have the authority to declare war. Some think the President should have sole power to decide because there is not time for Congress to debate the issue. Others think Congress should decide because Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution states, “Congress shall have Power to declare War.” Still others think the President and Congress should jointly decide the plan of action. The President can quickly deploy troops if needed and then Congress must authorize the war shortly after. This view runs parallel with the War Powers Act (WPA) which Congress passed in 1973 because the Vietnam War had failed miserably. The WPA states that the President should speak to Congress before doing anything, but he has the power to send troops wherever he wishes for sixty days. If the President determines that troops cannot leave yet, he must submit a written explanation to Congress. If Congress does not authorize the troops after this time period, they must be withdrawn.

There has been a precedent set that the President does not have to follow this law. Either the President blatantly ignores it, or he uses a fancy description to say the situation is not war. This precedent has given Congress little power. Members of Congress have taken the President to court over the matter a few times, and each time, the Supreme Court has decided that only individual members had a conflict with the issue, not the entire Congress. Ultimately though, Congress has all the power. If they were to stop passing funding bills, the war would eventually stop.

To prevent major disagreements, the Legislative and Executive branches need to work together when deciding whether or not to go to war. The two branches would then be more willing to work with each other when the war does not go so well, like the War on Terror. Instead of arguing back and forth about progress in Iraq, the two could determine a plan of action for a successful end to the war. To fix these problems, either the President needs to be more willing to work with Congress, or Congress needs to take back some authority by using the power it has. For example they could stop passing bills the President wants. If the U.S. government were more willing to work together on issues inside and outside its borders; the United States would be better “united” and would have a better chance of surviving in the future.

Grade Received: A

Technology In the U.S. and Throughout the World

How Technology Has Affected the U.S.

The United States of America is at a crossroads with the War on Terror in Iraq. The war has not only sparked debate in the U.S., but it has been criticized in other countries as well. To fully understand the situation, one needs to be familiar with the way the U.S. interacts with other countries. Over the past twenty years there have been numerous technological breakthroughs that have allowed people all over the world to find almost any type of information desired. The ease of accessing this information has affected the way United States is viewed by the rest of the world.

The average American watches four hours of television per day, and the average person in the United Kingdom watches three hours per day. That means the average person in the United States and the U.K. spends about one day every week watching television. Most of these hours are spent watching television shows or sports, but twenty-seven million people in the U.S. still watch the evening news each night. Thirty-five million people watched the evening news ten years ago, but many of those turning off the television are turning on the computer.

The internet has been growing exponentially since the beginning of the 1990’s. It has changed into something almost everybody has. In the U.S. 70% of households have access to the internet, in Australia 54% have access, and in Europe 40% have access. In 1990, there were 313,000 internet hosts (websites). Today there are around 350 million hosts and that number continues to rise each year. This has allowed people to know what is going on in any other part of the world. Thus, America’s news can be viewed almost anywhere and criticized instantly by countless people.

The internet contains nearly an infinite amount of content. This allows people to find information that is normally not given much acknowledgement by the media. Examples of this are foreign aid and charity donations. Many times the U.S. media reports that the United States is the most generous country in the world. This is true if one looks only at the amount of money donated, but if one looks at the dollar amount per capita, the United States ranks near the bottom of the list. This example shows how the media manipulates their data to get the result they want. When realizing they have been lied to by the press, people wonder what other lies the press, and many times the government, has told them. American citizens may react by electing someone they think will change the country’s wrongs, while another country’s leaders may debate whether to remain in alliance with America. The lies may fuel an enemy to act on their hatred towards America, causing the U.S. to react (i.e. September 11). Attacks like this happen and are highly publicized when they do, but this is usually the only time the United States’s news is regularly on other countries’s television stations.

Though our news is not broadcast everywhere, our music and movies are, allowing people of other countries to know and learn our culture. Many of the U.S.’s movies and television shows demonstrate violence. This can be dangerous because someone may interpret the actions of the U.S in an offensive manner. Misinterpretation hurts the United States’s image, and the violence depicted may sway someone to think that all American’s act the way an actor does in a movie. Obviously this is not true, but that is the stereotype many countries have associated with the U.S. Through globalization, people from one country will be more willing to interact with one another, and these interactions should help the world shape a more realistic view of the American population.

In conclusion, the amount of information available will continue to grow, and it will become easier and easier to obtain. The internet has made it easy for many people to find information about the U.S. that is normally not presented by the news media. Some of the information found has led people in other countries to view the United States as having too much money and too much power. Our interaction with other countries is essential for continuing progress in America, and the ease and availability of information will continue to help people view how positive or negative these interactions are.

Grade Received: B

U.S Military Spending Bill For the War

Iraq Spending Bill

On November 6, the House and Senate passed a $459 billion military spending bill, but they did not pass the Republican proposal for $70 billion to continue the fighting in Iraq without restrictions. Senator Robert C. Byrd was quoted as saying, “This amendment would send to the president additional funding for this horrible, misguided war in Iraq without any Congressional direction that he change course. No strings attached. That would be a tragic mistake.”

It seems as if Congress has figured out that it holds the “purse strings”. Democrats have been saying for some time now that the course of the war must change. Representative John P. Murtha said, “The public wants this war over with. Many Democrats were elected because they said this war ought to end.” Congress has approved around $412 billion for the war in Iraq since 2003. President Bush vetoed a war spending bill in May because it set a date for the withdrawal of troops. Democrats are now using their majority in Congress to their advantage. They have attached a pullout goal to a $50 billion funding bill for the war. The goal is for the removal of all troops, except those absolutely necessary, by December 15, 2008. It also included government personnel to follow the Army field manual when conducting interrogations. This is intended to prevent the use of waterboarding. The bill will most certainly be opposed by most Republicans, and may be opposed by some strongly antiwar Democrats who want even tougher restrictions on the president. In the senate, many think the bill will run into a filibuster. Democrats say that this will just make Republicans responsible for delaying the money. Democrats have also threatened that if the $50 billion bill was rejected, they would not pass any other Iraq funding bills this year. Since Democrats have the majority, Bush will not get the funding he wants unless the bill passes with the pullout date.

By not passing the spending bill Congress is making a statement. Instead of just talking the talk, they are now also walking the walk. The decision to contradict the president may be a turning point in getting out of Iraq. People can argue all they want whether it is a good idea to leave Iraq, but when it comes down to it the majority rules. The majority of the people want to leave Iraq and have been waiting for Congress to do something like this. If this bill is the beginning to the end of the war, we will just have to wait and see if it was a good decision.

Syrian Nuclear Project

Syrian Nuclear Project

Last month Israel led an air attack on a Syrian site the Israelis thought was a partially constructed nuclear reactor. Both American and Israeli intelligence say the reactor was modeled after one North Korea has used to create its nuclear weapons fuel. Some American and foreign officials think the strike was premature. Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, said the site was a building “related to the military” but was not used. Many details of the strike have been withheld by the Israelis thus far, but as more information becomes known, an accurate assessment on the situation can be made.

In 1981, Israel destroyed the Osirak reactor in Iraq shortly before it would have become operational. The attack was officially condemned by the Reagan administration. The Israelis think it was one of their military’s greatest achievements. Weeks before the Iraq war, President Bush said that the attack set back Iraq’s nuclear program by many years. The same could be true of this latest attack on Syria, except many experts believe the reactor Israel bombed last month was much further from completion. It could have taken years for the reactor to be able to produce bomb-grade plutonium.

Another matter complicating the issue is the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty which Syria has signed. Even though it has vowed not to build nuclear weapons, Syria could still build a nuclear reactor as long as it is used to produce electricity. Syria could even finish building the reactor without having to say anything about it.

Furthering the complication is the possibility that North Korea was helping Syria build the reactor. Some members of the Bush administration have said, behind closed doors, that the U.S. should reconsider its negotiations with North Korea, and its diplomatic strategy toward Syria. The problem is the negotiations with North Korea have been going quite well lately, and it would be a bad thing to mess that up. There is also the possibility that North Korea sold plans to Syria years ago, and Syria is just beginning to use them now.

As one can see, issues in the Middle East are delicate. It seems like if one thing goes good another problem occurs. Talks with North Korea have been going well and now we find out they may be selling their plans. This could have been a premature attack by the Israelis, but Israel probably would not plan an air strike for no reason. Syria’s president came out and said himself that the building was associated with the military. His statement basically throws out the possibility that the reactor being built was for electricity. Right now, the U.S. needs to wait for more details about the bombing, so it can decide its plan of action.

Grade Received: 10/10

Poppy Production in Afghanistan

Poppies in Afghanistan

Afghanistan had its largest opium harvest in history this past year. This has prompted American officials to persuade members of the Afghan government to begin spraying herbicide on poppies. They have found some supporters in Hamid Karzi’s administration, but not President Karzi himself. The tide may be turning, but proof that the herbicide to be used, glyphosate, is safe must first be confirmed.

Afghanistan produces 93 percent of the world’s opium. In the past year alone 34 percent more opium was produced and they are now producing more heroin than in the past. The shift has allowed drug revenues grow exponentially in the past six years, much of which is going to the Taliban. The problem is worst in the South where 4,400 metric tons of opium was produced this year. This is almost half of the country’s total Opium production.

The problem seems to keep growing. The Afghan government has tried to eradicate the fields, but they are fighting a losing battle. Forty-seven thousand acres were eliminated this year, up 24 percent from last year, but it still only accounts for nine percent of the total poppy crop. The fields that were eradicated had to be negotiated plot by plot; therefore, large, powerful, and politically connected farmers could protect their fields from eradication.

Aerial spraying of an herbicide like glyphosate may have a greater affect on the percentage of poppy field eradication. This is why American officials have been pushing for the use of glyphosate for the past two years. Last year they thought they may have finally convinced the Afghan’s, but an American-educated Afghan deputy minister of public health raised concerns about the safety of the herbicide. The statement changed President Karzi’s mind about the spraying of herbicides, and he still says he opposes any spraying of herbicides. Though President Karzi has not changed his mind, some of his officials have. Their only concern is that the spray may kill some of the other crops that farmers plant next to their poppy crop. American officials have said that damage to the food crop can be avoided, though.

The Bush administration has said they will support any decision Afghanistan makes, behind the scenes they are pushing for at least a trial run with glyphosate. They say the spray would only be a small part of a new strategy against narcotics, but the way the eradication is going now they need to find something that works better. Glyphosate may be part of the solution. Now American officials need to convince President Karzi and his administration that it is too.

Grade Received 10/10

Steroid Ring Busted

Steroid Ring

On September 24, 2007 the Drug Enforcement Administration reported that 124 people had been arrested in connection with a steroid trafficking ring. The investigation, called Operation Raw Deal, began a year and a half ago. It started with thirty Chinese companies that were shipping raw materials into the U.S. No athletes have been connected to the bust yet, but thousands of emails connecting users to the manufactures have not been looked through by investigators.

This latest steroid bust could mean even more athletes will be found to have used performance enhancing drugs. Some people who do not watch sports may not think it is a big deal, but really it is. Steroids are illegal like many other drugs. People who use steroids are breaking the law. Athletes who use them are also ruining the integrity of the game. It is not fair for other players to be at a disadvantage. Many Americans watch sports for entertainment, which makes money for many people. If players in these sports are cheating, not as many people will watch. Fewer viewers mean less money for companies that depend on the popularity of sports.

In 2005 eight Mexican steroid manufacturers were busted. These eight manufacturers accounted for four out of every five steroid pills in the world. This created a void in the market, and the Chinese and Americans filled it. There were fifty-six different sites raided, and 224 kg and 1.4 million dosage units of steroid were found. To me this seems like an extremely large number. The sites themselves were unsanitary. Many of the ingredients were being mixed in bathtubs and sinks.

The authorities will continue to investigate the emails found, and the message boards they had been watching. The truth is now known about the underground steroid market: the product is unsanitary and probably not safe to ingest or inject. It will also be interesting to see if any more athletes will be found guilty of cheating. Hopefully someday we can trust our athletes.

Grade Received: 10/10

Osama Bin Laden Tape

Osama bin Laden

Today marks the sixth anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center. That may be the reason for the new al Qaeda tape featuring bin Laden. In the tape bin Laden makes multiple references to 9/11 and also mocks the United States. These comments have drawn concern from some including me.

The war in Iraq drew our attention from bin Laden allowing him to rally his supporters. This is exactly what he wanted. Many experts are saying that al Qaeda is prepared or nearly prepared for a large scale terrorist attack on the United States. The small plots that have been busted in the U.S. and other countries are just a precursor to a bigger attack. The man that used to be in charge of the bin Laden case for the CIA said in an interview that he is sure al Qaeda is ready for an attack larger than 9/11. The tape also suggests this.

In the tape bin Laden mocks the U.S. by saying we cannot end the war in Iraq when we spend more money on our military than all the other countries in the world combined. (I do not know if this is true). He goes on to say that 19 men (the men that hijacked the planes) changed our focus on foreign affairs. He then says that us as Americans are just as guilty as our government because we voted them in. This goes against Middle East countries former beliefs; the countries usually only hate our government. He says we should leave Iraq because our economy is suffering badly from all the money we are putting into the war. I feel this is true, but we cannot just leave overnight.

There is not a good solution. If we leave Iraq would be left to fend for itself and we would probably just be back there in a few years. If we bring back some of our troops people will ask why anyone is still there and eventually we will have to make a decision about what to do in Iraq. If we keep fighting the way we are, we risk making our own country weaker and susceptible to attack. These are all the issues our country’s leaders need to take into account. I would give my opinion, but I feel I do not know enough about the topic to give an acceptable and educated statement.

This week will be a big for the direction our country is going in. The report our military leaders are going to give should make the picture a bit clearer. I am excited ( and somewhat scared) to learn more about topics I have not paid much attention to in the past, and I hope our country will do the right thing.

Grade Received: 10/10

Family Influence

Is the family the most influential way to learn how to think, feel, and act in society?
I believe that family does play a major role in the way we behave in society. As we grow, we learn many things from our family that are beneficial to our society. Almost everything that we learn as a child comes from parenthood and how we react with our parents. Our parents went through the concepts of life, and they were exposed to society as a kid and an adult, which we learn as we get older as well. Our families, especially our parents, have a lot of wisdom about what goes on life, since they have already experienced many parts to it. They are the ones who can teach us what they have learned, and they can show us how we should act, feel, and think about our modern-day society.
“Probably the strongest influence in our lives is the family we grew up in. Our birth order, the personality's of our parent(s), the way we were treated by our siblings, the socioeconomic status of the family, their education, the place we lived — all of these shaped us at the time when we were most vulnerable to being shaped. Besides these tacit influences, our parents taught us all the basics of "proper" behavior. When we were small children, we jolly well did whatever impulse entered our heads. We did not know that it was socially unacceptable to eat with our fingers, to play with the vase on the coffee table, to hit our brother, to break our toys. These and a million other rules were drummed into our heads by our parents. Some of this is OK, some not so OK. Either way, it is often difficult to change things inculcated at such an early age.” (The Michael Teachings by Phillip Wittmeyer)
Should family be the most influential?
I believe that family should be the most influential aspects of our society. I believe that growing up without a family would make many people lost and not know how to act in society. Our parents are our role-models as kids, and we learn from them. If we have nobody to follow these aspects of off, I believe that humans would have a hard time out in the “real world”. However, I do believe that family is not the only place to look for how we behave in society. After our family has showed us and taught how we should act, we can go out in the world and experience them first-hand. One family cannot show all the aspects of how to behave, think, act, and feel towards society, we need to live it ourselves and know what else is going on in the world.
In other cases, family may not be the most influential way…
“It has been said that parents always screw up their kids, it is just a matter of how bad. Some seventy to eighty percent of families are considered "dysfunctional" by family therapists. It is probably true that no matter how well intentioned and how well informed parents may be, they cannot know exactly the correct way to rear a particular child. Many parents are not so well intentioned, and few are well informed. Consequently, most children grow up with a considerable burden of False Personality. Are you one of these? Was your mother alcoholic, her unpredictable behavior making you indecisive? Did your uncle molest you, making you mistrust all men? Was your father cold and distant, making you cold and distant? Was your sibling the gifted or favorite child, making you feeling inferior or unwanted? Did you grow up in poverty, causing you to feel insecure about money and possessions? Were you a weird kid that other kids made fun of, making you shy? Did your strong-willed father dominate your weak-willed mother, making you a male chauvinist pig?” (The Michael Teachings by Phillip Wittmeyer)
What are other ways we learn how to think, feel, behave and act in society?
Another way of how to express our feelings towards society is to actually just go out and experience what else is in our world. Our family is a huge starting point of where we learn these concepts, but we need to go “outside the box” and start to think for ourselves. As we become adults, we will need to start doing many things on our own, and not be so dependent on our family. For example, when I went to college, I knew how to do my laundry and other necessities to my life that my parents had taught me. Some kids in college are somewhat “lost”, because they were never taught how to do their laundry or be independent. In this case, you need a strong and helpful family that can help you get ready for the outside world. If you do not have a strong family background, I believe that the influence of family will not play a major role in your life.
As a child, we all went to grade school and high school. This is also a major place where people learn how to feel, think, and act towards society. We meet friends, teachers, and other people besides our family who were taught different things and they were raised differently. This is what makes each individual unique from everyone else.
Traveling to other countries or even going outside our home town will help us get a better feel for the “real world”. From my experience with friends who have traveled to other countries, they have said it was an amazing experience and that have learned so much about different cultures. People think, act, and feel differently wherever you go. The more places you travel, the more you will be exposed to different cultures and how they act towards society.
Religion also plays a major role of how we behave towards society. The bible says many things in life that we should and should not do. People follow these rules, wanting to live the best life they can and make their way into heaven when they pass over.

Is the influence of family eroding? (cited resources, personal examples, culture of origin as basis for discussion)
When it comes down to how much our family influences us as the years go by and if it is eroding from our cultures or not depends on each individual family. In some families, parents never really cared for their children and they grew up not knowing much about the outside world. In these cases, people can become “crazy” when they get older, and some individuals can become dangerous to society. I believe that a lot of serial killers, thieves, murderers, and other bad people come from the lack of family exposure when they were being raised as a child.
In my case, I grew up with a strong and helpful family that was always there for me. I did get into a lot of fights with my siblings, but now that I am at college and beginning my own life, I realize how much I really care and love them. Thinking back on my childhood, I was raised a good life and my parents told me to be the best person I could possibly be. They showed me how to pursue a good work ethic, and how to treat others the way I want to be treated. My family was what made me who I am today.

Grade Received: N/A

The Kite Runner - Amir/Hassan's Relationship

ONE DECISION CHANGED EVERYTHING
"Too late we learn, a man must hold his friend unjudged, accepted, trusted to the end" (John Boyle O'Reilly). Khaled Hosseini’s story of The Kite Runner showed a vast amount of love, trust, and betrayal towards two completely different people. Amir, the son of a wealthy and well-known man in the northern area of Kabul, develops a friendship with one of his servants named Hassan. As years progressed, Amir had a chance to save Hassan but the way he acted affected their lives which led them to follow two separate paths in life. Looking into his past, an aged and wise Amir struggled with the choices that he made as a young child that ultimately altered the friendship with Hassan.
As young boys becoming adolescents, Amir and Hassan enjoyed doing everything together. However, Amir never considered Hassan and him friends. Amir felt this way because he knew that neither history nor religion changed who they were. In the end, Amir was a Pashtun and Hassan was a Hazara. But, they were kids; they fed from the same breast and they learned to crawl together. Nothing was going to change that either. Amir spent most of the first twelve years of his life with Hassan. They used to play hide-and-seek, cops and robbers, cowboys and Indians, and they loved insect torture (Hosseini 25). They took strolls together through the parks and saw many movies together. One of the most memorable times that Amir and Hassan shared together was underneath their pomegranate tree on top of a hill. They climbed the tree and Amir read many stories to Hassan. Hassan was uneducated and Amir made fun of him because he could not read. One summer day, Amir and Hassan took knives to the top of the hill and carved their names in the tree. It read, “Amir and Hassan, the sultans of Kabul”. No matter what would happen to these two in the future, this saying was permanent and the story of the lives of these two individuals never left this tree. Those words made it formal: the tree was theirs (Hosseini 27).
Hassan was the one who helped Amir choose the path of his future career. Amir had taken advantage of the friendship between Hassan and him. He made fun of him whenever he had the chance, but Hassan never took it to heart and still perceived Amir as his best friend. One day while he read to Hassan, Amir made up the ending of the story and Hassan loved it. He said, “That was the best story you’ve read me in a long time” (Hosseini 30). That same night, he wrote his first story.
In The Kite Runner, Hassan was both physically and mentally stronger than Amir. According to Baba, Amir’s father, there was something wrong with Amir since his birth. Amir never stood up for himself and he was different for the fact that he liked poetry, something that Baba believed was not normal for a young boy. One day while Hassan and Amir were walking towards their tree, they came upon Assef and his friends. Assef was the son of one of Baba’s friends, an airline pilot. He was known for his brass knuckles and wanted to start an argument with Hassan and Amir. Right before he was going to hurt them, Hassan grabbed his slingshot and aimed it right at Assef’s left eye. He let the boys go but said he was going to get revenge. This part of the story foreshadowed an event that occurred later in the story in which Amir and Hassan’s lives were changed forever.
Throughout the entire story, Amir felt that Baba was not giving him the attention he needed. Anytime Amir wanted to be alone with his father, Baba asked Hassan to join him. Many examples were written in the book, but the general idea was that Amir was never left to be with his father alone. This presented another foreshadowing scene that was resolved at the end of the book. This was a large twist to the story that many people never saw coming.
Kite flying was a major event that took place every year. The object of the game was to be the last kite flying in the air. After all the other kites were cut down, a person chased the kite to redeem their pride and glory. During the tournament, Amir cut down the last kite and Hassan ran to get the kite for Amir. Amir went looking for Hassan after he did not arrived home. This is when the devastating incident occurred that changed the friendship of Amir and Hassan.
“I opened my mouth, almost said something. Almost. The rest of my life might have turned out differently if I had. But I did not. I just watched paralyzed” (Hosseini 73). Trying to find Hassan, Amir walked through the streets of his home town as he looked and asked others if they saw a Hazara running for/with a blue kite. All of a sudden, Amir heard voices and he found Hassan. Amir saw the blue kite behind the back of Hassan; he protected the kite from the one person that he hated the most. It was Assef. Hassan did not give up the kite and was given two options: He either gave the blue kite to Assef or expected something bad to happen to him. Hassan refused to give up the kite and was molested. Amir caught a glimpse of Hassan’s face and ran away. He betrayed the person that once stood up for him; the one person who was willing to do anything to be loyal to Amir. He was a coward. At that instant in time when Amir decided to run, life was no longer what it used to be.
“I lifted Hassan’s mattress and planted my new watch and a handful of Afghani bills under it. I waited another thirty minutes. Then I knocked on Baba’s door and told what I hoped would be the last in a long line of shameful lies” (Hosseini 104). Amir could not stand living with Hassan any more. He tried to make it seem as if Hassan stole money from Amir. After Baba was notified about this incident, he made everyone sit in a room. Hassan took the blame for the stealing because he wanted to save Amir. Amir was surprised when Baba had forgiven Hassan for the stealing, but Asi told Baba that they could not stand living there anymore and they decided to leave. As Hassan and his father loaded their belongings into Baba’s vehicle, Amir realized that this was the last time he saw Hassan in person. Forever.
Due to the war going on, Amir and Baba were forced to move to America. Here, Amir started a whole new life and began a family. Amir and his wife tried to have a child, but they were unlucky. Baba later died in the story and Amir had to live life on his own. He kept thinking back to the old times in Kabul where he grew up. However, no matter how hard Amir tried to forget about the rape of Hassan, the dreams kept coming.
The phone call. Amir received a phone call from a past friend that wanted him to return to his home country. Amir did not want to leave his life in America, but he went anyway. After he arrived, Amir received the shocking news; from this moment on everything in his past now made sense! Rahim Khan, the friend of Amir who told him to come back to Pakistan, said that Hassan was not just their servant; Amir and Hassan were brothers. Asi, the man who raised Hassan, was sterile and Baba was his true father. The secret had been kept between Baba and Rahim Khan throughout the lives of Amir and Hassan. Amir was very upset and yelled, “I’m thirty eight years old and I’ve just found out my whole life is one big fucking lie!” (Hosseini 222). The main reason that Rahim Khan brought Amir back to Pakistan was not for the sake of telling him that Hassan was his brother. Amir found out that while he was living a life in America, Hassan started his own as well. They had a child named Sohrab; however, this child was now sought to be found because Hassan and his wife were killed during the war.
In the end, Amir decided to stand up for himself and knew that he had to find this child. He was not going to be the same coward that was back as a child; those days were over. Amir had found Sohrab and took him back to America. As time progressed, Amir saw many similarities in Sohrab that he had once seen in Hassan. Through the long journey of finding and rescuing Sohrab, Amir finally began to see who he really was.
There is a way to be good again (Hosseini 226). Rahim Khan was one of the few men that knew everything that occurred in Amir’s life. He knew about the raping. He knew that Amir had been a coward and ran away. He knew Amir was suffering and he wanted to relieve him of his guilt; the only way to do this was to have Amir come back to Pakistan and care for Hassan’s only child. After saving Sohrab, Amir no longer felt like a coward. Amir realized that the past could not be changed or altered to how he wanted his life to end up. He now understood his goal in life and that was to take care of Sohrab. He needed to repay Hassan back for all the good that he has done for him, even though he knew that nobody could live up to the loyalty and trust that Hassan gave him. Amir loved Hassan and wanted to repay him in as many ways as possible; he would have done anything for him if he was still alive today…a thousand times over.

Work Cited:
Khaled Hosseini. The Kite Runner: The Berkley Publishing Group. New York: Penguin Group, 2003
Global Friendship