Speech Response: Legalization of Hemp

I think I probably choose to do my speech on the legalization of hemp mostly because I was raised to be very environmentally aware, and so topics about that advocate for the a cleaner environment have a lot of meaning to me.   The legalization of hemp is something that I read a lot about and heard a lot about up at the hemp shop in downtown Burlington.  I think that environmental topics are also very good for the reason that everybody can connect to them when they attend a really pristine campus.  We all watch the news and hear about global warming, and in many different ways through out my speech I showed by either needing less trees to be cut down, or just by reducing emission out puts in various ways could help prevent that.  And when you talk about something that your listener can connect to, its always much more interesting that a story about someone or something they've never heard of (a lesson learned from my friend who talks to much).

I decided to sort of build my speech around all the benefits that hemp can give us; including more recyclable and easier to grow paper source, addition to textile fabrics, low emission bio-fuel, food, and more.  Then after showing all the benefits of hemp I looked at why it is not legal (because of the THC in it) and proved that the reason it was not legal before, is no longer an issue because of the way the plants have been bred (low-THC hemp breeds).  I know that bio-fuels are looked at as a relatively better source of fuel for the environment than oil, so I put in the facts about how hemp grows one month faster (in four months) and creates ten tons of bio-fuel per acre; which is ten times more that corn can produce.

Composition Class Reflection

Composition did not seem like a very appealing class when I first signed up for it just because writing is not one of my strong suits academically.  But once the semester got started I figured it was just going to take more drafts even for the small weekly writes, and more visits to the writing center than I would have liked.

As far as the atmosphere of the class went I think it was very successfully set up and very helpful to me as a writer.  Blogging was a great way to work on writing because it became very accessible to work on save and comeback to, as well as turn in more simply when I was sick.  The Blogs were also cool because it allowed you to respond to our writing over the internet rather than on little pieces of paper we end up recycling or losing.  Having the option to look back on comments from past writings was really helpful on the bigger assignments to know what I needed to work on the most.  The speech was also a nice way to make us work on our writing skills in another way, as well as researching skills.

One thing that I think could have been improved about the class however was the strictness regarding the readings.  I feel like at least three or four times throughout the semester you had to change your class plan because everybody except like two of us didn’t read the assigned readings.  How to make them more strictly assigned I don’t know.

I would argue that I should get a solid A in this class, not only because I handed in every assignment on time and done well.  But also, because I put the time and effort in to come to class whenever I wasn't sick, and always had the readings done and the blogs listened to when I arrived (except for once).  However, the fact that I also got solid A's on all of the significant assignments in the class that I've seen my grade on is also a helpful.

Composition was clearly a valuable class for me to take.  Not only were the videos we watched, readings we read, and pod cast we listened to interesting.  But responding to or analyzing them will be helpful for people in almost any major as they continue both through college and into the real world.  As for the final exam band its Super Smash time!

Speech Topic: Legalization of Hemp

The legalization of the production of hemp in the United States and the positive affects it would have on our economy, the global food crisis, and cloth.  Hemp seeds can be used to help deal with the global food crisis and would creates large amounts of food for those who cannot afford it.  Hemp also creates a more durable longer lasting cloth.  Also the sale of Hemp is already legal in the United States but it is just the production of hemp that is not.  If we were to legalize the growth of Hemp which grows naturally in many of the climates of the United States we would be boosting our economy.  A bonus effect of growing hemp is that it naturally is a very bug resistant plant that is not fed on by very many insects at all, reducing the amount of pesticides that we use on our products significantly.

Farmer? I barely know ‘er!

Research Blog

As the industry continues to grow in every field, our planet tends to suffer the cost.  Although we may not be able to see it, large factory farms that now supply the gross majority of our food nationwide comes at a cost.  Compared to the ideal local organic farms that would treat the Earth the best, factory farms use pesticides, herbicides, and soil boosters that affect the planet a lot more than we realize.  These large industrial farms are also usually located far away from the cities and large urban areas they supply.  This makes transportation a high cost not only on our declining amount of fossil fuels, but also on the planet, which suffers immensely from the burning of fossil fuels.  Local organic farms should be preeminent rather than the large industrial farms that supply the majority of the food today.

            Although the organic symbol doesn't necessarily mean that the products are local ones, growing organic still has a positive effect on the environment when compared to non-organic farming.  Factory farms that operate outside of the organic classification use environmentally unfriendly pesticides, herbicides, and soil boosters in order to maintain their produce, and make sure that it can be grown effectively every year.  These herbicides and pesticides don’t differentiate between good plants  and insects, such as tomatoes and bees, and bad plants and insects, like invasive weed species and longhorn beetles.  As we genetically modify our planets to be herbicide resistant, we begin to spray more herbicides that have effects as they spread outside the fields on many important plants that are natural to these areas.  Another effect is that once some plants begin to recede from the increased use of herbicides, invasive species such as the Canada thistle tend to take their place and spread quicker, sometimes limiting plants that grow in less aggressively (Dangers of Genetic Engineering in Agriculture 1).  Dan Thompson, who has worked at his parent’s local organic family farm in Middlesex Vermont his entire life, sees no need for pesticides while farming. “Plants have been growing for millenniums without needing pesticides and chemicals.  They don't need them now.  It's important to us that people know exactly what is in the food they eat, and that they know that if they buy from us, there isn't going to be anything else in it,” Thompson says.  Dan's family has been growing and selling organic produce for over fifteen years without ever needing the assistance of these chemical concoctions and it pays off for the environment.

            Organic techniques such as those used by the organic farm Earthbound “obviate the use of more than a quarter of a million pounds of toxic chemical pesticides and almost 8.5 million pounds of synthetic fertilizers” (Shapin 2).  The flow off can be extremely harmful to the environment, as well as important bodies of water as proved in the mid-east area of the United States.  For instance, the EPA finds that once nitrogen based synthetic fertilizers are found in drinking water they can have potentially fatal health risks such as blue baby syndrome, gastric cancer, miscarriages, and lymphoma.  These nitrogen boosters also affect the reproductive ability of fish that live in affected waters, and of livestock grow and reproduction which and also lead to fatality (Jonas etal 3).  Nitrogen boosting, chemical doping, and soaking of plants is not a sustainable way to farm.  The major point being is that when you do semi-permanent or permanent damage, it is only going to take more to sustain, which eventually becomes unreasonable.

            What many people don't realize is that these pesticides and nitrogen boosting fertilizers harm the environment and don't just disappear overnight.  Recently we've seen that fertilizer, which we usually consider one of the more environmentally friendly parts of these larger farms when compared to their chemical habits, have been over filling the soil with nitrogen.  This nitrogen eventually flows down the Mississippi River which begins all the way up in the very northern most United States and flows all the way down to the Gulf of Mexico where it drains into the ocean.  When all of that nitrogen flows down the basin and eventually hits the Gulf of Mexico, it causes what we know as a dead zone.  Dead zones are essentially bodies of water with the same attributes as the Dead Sea in Europe. Nitrogen flows down the basin in the early spring before the soil can be rooted by the next year’s crop, and into the ocean at the mouth of the Mississippi.  The nitrogen then over feeds a rapidly growing algae that puts oxygen into the water, which then runs out of nitrogen and dies.  Once the algae die off, the excess oxygen is eaten up quickly by the microscopic organisms that eat the dead algae.  Then, with the majority of the important algae dead, the water's oxygen level drops.  Fish essentially drown in the now oxygen deprived water.  This probably may not seem as widespread as it is, but “[The] Mississippi River basin covers forty percent of the continental United States and is the largest producer of corn and soybean in the world (Ramanujan 1).”  Because of this, getting farms in this area to reduce their nitrogen fertilizer use seems nearly impossible because of the immense size of the area, and the density of corporate farms in that area.  The Gulf dead zone is just the start of the environmental damage that these large scale farms are causing with their environmentally unfriendly farming procedures.  

            Organic alone is not a solution to cleanse the environment.  When you're traveling long distances in order to deliver food there is ultimately a large cost in the fueling of the delivery vehicles.  By buying food from local farmers you can be sure that you’re not only supporting your neighbors, but that you’re cutting down on carbon emissions due to the transporting of produce.

            Growing locally also benefits the local community in many ways.  Locally grown food helps to keep money amongst the people rather than feeding it to executives who head the large industrial farms.  Dan Thompson summed up the benefits of the local aspect of farming by saying, “The community is an important aspect to what we do.  When someone buys produce at the grocery store, chances are they have no idea where it came from.  When someone buys from us, they know it came from just down the road.  They're our neighbors and they know they can trust us (Daniel Thompson).”   The local aspect when farming locally is no longer disconnected like it is when you produce food for thousands of people.  You can't really care about all of them the way you care about friends and neighbors in your local town.  When you're buying your food from someone you trust who you know is eating the same food that you’re eating and really cares about the food they're growing.  It's a different feeling.  He later concluded that “Local farming helps local economies.  When someone buys produce at a farmers' market, the money is going right in the pocket of the farmer that grew it.  The money then may be spent at another vendor's stand, and the money stays in the community rather than ending up at some large mass produce company (Daniel Thompson).”

            Factory farming is not sustainable and is a major factor in the pollution of the planet.  The only argument for factory farming is that local organic farming does not solve the global food crisis.  However, before we worry about a global crisis for food, maybe we should think about the greater long-term effects.  Factory farming is far from solving the crisis, and as much as it seems like an important issue for the future, the crisis will only be worse if we continue farming this way.

            Local organic farming is the natural way to get food and is the only sustainable way for food to be produced.  By buying local organic produce we can help to support our local communities while cutting down on the environmental harm that we ultimately cause to our planet.  If change doesn’t take place soon conditions could continue to deteriorate and the harm that we do to our food and our Earth will continue to do harm back to us.  These fatalities that have begun to emerge could soon be an epidemic of damaged foods and contaminated land and water.

Bibliography

            Jonas, Jill, Audrey Eldrich, and Neil Dubrovsky. "Nitrogen and Phosphorus Pollution Series." Enviormental Protection Agency, 29 Mar. 2011. Web. 2 May 2011. <http://water.epa.gov/learn/training/wacademy/upload/2011_03_29_slides.pdf>

Kimbrell, Andrew. Fatal Harvest : the Tragedy of Industrial Agriculture. Washington, 2002.

Ramanujan, Krishna. "Dead Zones in Gulf Caused, in Part, by Farm Drainage." Physorg.com. 24 Nov. 2010. Web. 19 Apr. 2011.

Shapin, Steven. "Organic Food and Farming Has Drawbacks." Gale Opposing Viewpoints in Context. 15 May 2006. Web. 2 Apr. 2011.

Thompson, Daniel. Telephone interview. 18 Apr. 2011.

"Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont." NOFA Vermont. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.

"2010 Statistics on Certified Organic Agriculture in Vermont." Http://nofavt.org. 31 Dec. 2010. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.

"Dangers of Genetic Engineering in Agriculture." Dangers of Genetic Engineering Campaign for Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food. Web. 02 May 2011.

Islamic Reform Not What It Seems

We've all heard the talk about the anti-American's in the Middle East.  The Jihad, and other irrational Muslims who supposedly are a "threat" to our western life style.  But how true is this view really?  Is it these Muslims groups and individuals who are being irrational?  Or the all mighty United States who believe that no matter where we are, in our country or theirs, that we are in complete control.

The Muslim extremist groups increased in numbers shortly after the cold war when the supposed "Green Peril" was gaining in power.  The Green Peril was basically the term for the quickly rising anti-American groups based off of their background of being Islamic, and the Islamic color green.  

It is important to remember as the article we read pointed out many times, these are not uneducated people like many people see at first.  Some of the largest reform pushers are extremely well respected intellectual Muslims.  The view we see is only that fed to us by large corrupt media sources.  But the truth is that many brilliant minds ponder on how Islam can reform without being over powered by Western lifestyles.  But also not become a pawn of these radical Muslims of feed of the uniting Muslim groups.

The pushing force behind the Green Peril was actually the growing need amongst the Muslim people worldwide to speak up for other Muslims that could not speak up.  Much like the Jihad they began to form as a peaceful group, but soon became violent based due to a preaching of poorly representing leaders.  The distinguishing point between many of the Muslim groups may not be clear based off of their goals.  But the majority of these groups start only looking for some freedom amongst themselves.  An ironic goal seeing as they fight against the overpowering Western views, and yet one of the most defining points of Western culture is the widespread freedom and equality without concern within those Western Countries.

Our invasive behavior in the Middle East, and over controlling actions are what many of the Muslim "extremist" as we call them, fight against.  The United States has too hard of a time letting people decided their beliefs, and governmental form for themselves.  Its a sad irony that we are the country that above all others stands for freedom and equality, and yet we cannot let other countries be free to decide how they want to be governed, and to let their actions be the deciding factor in their change.  Equal in our country, but less important if you live in another one is the true American motto based off the execution of our actions. 

War on Terror, or just others?

Although the United States may have labeled their latest war for oil the the "War on Terror", it begs the question who are we so afraid of? It seems the United States is just afraid of everyone different than our predominantly Americanized Presidents and other members of the U.S. Government we select. But even if we don't fear them, is the rest of the world getting fed up with our meat-head approach to policing over them?

The United States sets up military bases all over the world in order to maintain its complete military power over other countries such as it has for China and North Korea to ensure it maintains control over the farthest corners of the world. But the United States fails to think about the fact that maybe those nations don't want the influence of the United States in their country.

Although O'Keefe tries to make the point that the United States tries very hard to make these military complexes on foreign soil have the least effect as possible it still begs the question should they even be there. We try not to get too many, and keep the ones we have relatively low key in order to avoid getting any publicity from the people of the home countries but that does not mean they are okay with us having them. In my opinion the United States only keeps them low key in order to have these military bases, not because they actually care about the civilians of the countries.



If the people were actually given enough control in order to make changes in their countries and weren't already faced with more serious issues at hand how many of these countries people would actually be okay with the United States military bases on their soil? New Zealand for one already spoke up against these “temporary bases” that have were at one point stopping points for large U.S. vessels during the cold war. If China were to build a military base somewhere in the United States, the civilians would speak out against it.

The United States may believe that they can treat others however they want, and roam around the world pretending that they control everything, but it does not mean that we actually do. Eventually the other countries of the world are going to get fed up with America, like we are already seeing with our reputation diminishing with each war and act of terrorism that we commit around the world. And as we spend all our money now attempting to take control of oil reserves and diminish cultures that our leaders disagree with, we slowly begin to lose the economic advantage that the United States has always had. Without our economic advantage over other countries we may no longer be the super power that we are now.

Gasland, the less commendable view of Natural Gas in the United States

The movie Gasland by Josh Fox, proves undoubtedly that the techniques and methods for drilling, known as hydro-fracturing are extremely environmentally unfriendly. Although many of the camera views attempt to appeal to the viewers emotions it remains true that behind these shots are well researched facts that have caused this undesirable outcome.

The author uses shots that go from a blurry unknown into very emotional pictures, such as sickly people who are wearing gas masks just to breath. Although this is merely showing the outcome of the money hungry mongrels who could careless about the environment and their neighbors, it is also a powerful appeal to emotion. We all care about our neighbors and country men, and although some big corporation workers may have pushed those feelings deep away in order to make a quick buck. Seeing fellow human beings sickly and bent over with gas-masks on; such as if they were thirty years older and had been tortured in some third world conditions tends to be worry some. We work to improve living conditions in other countries to get them up to our living standards with food and water, yet in our own country the living conditions are becoming more dangerous than Chernobyl. Not because of some catastrophic accident, but because fully aware people are willing to risk the safety of millions of people for their own personal gain.

Fox also uses the image of dead animals to hit on that emotional reaction viewers get when they see cute animals such as rabbits and birds dead from our actions. Because the animals had been kept frozen in the woman's freezer they maintained a very live like appearance which I think helped make the emotional connection that the animals really were alive at some point and in fact died because that stream that they used to get there water from became toxic with natural gas and chemicals from the drilling process.

Although it seems like the movie affects people very emotionally the film was based almost completely around the facts of Natural Gas fracting. He named off hundreds of chemicals that were used in the fracting process and the affects they had on both the environment and on humans. There is of course the proof that normal tap water coming from peoples faucets was flammable enough to the point where it could be lit on fire while flowing out of the faucet. The affects of many of the chemicals were loss of smell, permanent lung damage, prolonged exposure led to cancer, and some such as arsenic and lead just poisoned the body themselves.

Fox's Gasland brought to the surface a the monstrosity behind the large oil and gas companies that were doing this and silencing the people. Although this movie brings out something that should be extremely important to the people, I guarantee a very small number of people have seen this movie and heard what it has to say. Fox didn't only bring a topic to the light, but he explored the topic first hand on film and found evidence everywhere he searched to prove that the oil and gas companies were in the wrong.