Legalize Drugs?

In the state of Indiana, a person convicted of armed robbery will serve about six years in prison; someone convicted of rape will serve about eight; and a convicted murderer can expect to spend twenty-four years behind bars (Schlosser 13). According to Schlosser, these figures are actually higher than the national average: eleven years and four months in prison is the typical punishment for an American found guilty of murder (13). The prison term given by Indiana judges tend to be long. Those facts are worth keeping in mind when considering the case of Mark Young (Schlosser 13). At the age of thirty-eight, Young was arrested at his Indianapolis home for brokering the sale of seven hundred pounds of marijuana grown on a farm in nearby Morgan County (Schlosser 13). Young was tried and convicted under federal law. He had never before been charged with drug trafficking. He had no history of violent crime. Young’s role in the illegal transaction had been that of middleman – he never distributed the drugs; he simply introduced two people hoping to sell a large amount of marijuana to three people wishing to buy it. All this occurred a year and a half before his arrest. No confiscated marijuana, money, or physical evidence of any kind linked Young to the crime. He was convicted solely on the testimony of co-conspirators who were now cooperating with the government. On February 8, 1992, Mark Young was sentenced by Judge Sarah Evans Barker to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole (Schlosser 13).
According to the Federal Register, the fee to cover the average cost of incarceration for Federal inmates is $24,440 (31343). And according to the latest statistics from the U.S. Department of Justice, more than two million men and women are now behind bars in the United States (Prison). The country that holds itself out as the "land of freedom" incarcerates a higher percentage of its people than any other country. The human costs — wasted lives, wrecked families, troubled children — are incalculable, as are the adverse social, economic and political consequences of weakened communities, diminished opportunities for economic mobility, and extensive disenfranchisement. Contrary to popular perception, violent crime is not responsible for the quadrupling of the incarcerated population in the United States since 1980. In fact, violent crime rates have been relatively constant or declining over the past two decades. The exploding prison population has been propelled by public policy changes that have increased the use of prison sentences as well as the length of time served, e.g. through mandatory minimum sentencing, "three strikes" laws, and reductions in the availability of parole or early release. Although these policies were championed as protecting the public from serious and violent offenders, they have instead yielded high rates of confinement of nonviolent offenders. Nearly three quarters of new admissions to state prison were convicted of nonviolent crimes (Punishment). Only 49 percent of sentenced state inmates are held for violent offenses (Prisoners). Perhaps the single greatest force behind the growth of the prison population has been the national "war on drugs." The number of incarcerated drug offenders has increased twelvefold since 1980. In 2000, 22 percent of those in federal and state prisons were convicted on drug charges (Drugs).

The War on Drugs

The War on Drugs is a prohibition campaign undertaken by the United States government with the assistance of participating countries, intended to reduce the illegal drug trade - to curb supply and diminish demand for certain psychoactive substances deemed "harmful or undesirable" by the government. This initiative includes a set of laws and policies that are intended to discourage the production, distribution, and consumption of targeted substances. On the forefront of this war is the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), a component of the Executive Office of the President, was established by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988.
“The principal purpose of ONDCP is to establish policies, priorities, and objectives for the Nation's drug control program. The goals of the program are to reduce illicit drug use, manufacturing, and trafficking, drug-related crime and violence, and drug-related health consequences. To achieve these goals, the Director of ONDCP is charged with producing the National Drug Control Strategy. The Strategy directs the Nation's anti-drug efforts and establishes a program, a budget, and guidelines for cooperation among Federal, State, and local entities. (About, par. 2)”
Through its Office of National Drug Control Policy, the federal government spends $17 billion per year fighting drugs. That's roughly the same amount it spends on the Food Stamp program, which feeds poor Americans, and on our country's entire General Sciences, Space, and Technology budget (US CA). However, the actual financial cost of the war on drugs is much higher, with many drug-reform advocacy groups quoting the cost at $50 billion, which is equal to the combined budgets for all of our country's agriculture, energy, and veteran's programs. And still, a close examination shows that the total annual costs of the drug war probably exceed $50 billion. State and local governments contributed $15.9 billion to the fight against drugs in 1991, the last year for which the federal government tallied that figure. At that time federal spending on drug eradication was half what it is today (US CA). Of the $17 billion the federal government directly spends each year to control drug use, 61 percent goes for criminal justice and interdiction, while 30 percent goes for treatment and prevention programs (US CA).
The California Department of Corrections has an annual budget of $3.9 billion to deal with 161,000 inmates, 46,655 of whom are being incarcerated for drug offenses at a cost of about $1.1 billion each year (Budget). Nationwide, federal government figures show there are more than 1.7 million people in prisons and jails, 22 to 33 percent of those for drug offenses. At an average annual cost of about $20,000 per inmate, that adds nearly $7.8 billion to the drug war price tag (US CA).
In addition to all these costs, there are the soft costs of the drug war, which may be impossible to calculate. The cost of providing welfare and social services to families once dependant on drug profits, the large sums of money paid to foreign governments to join the war on drugs at our government’s insistence, the reduction of police and court officers whose workload is burdened by current drug laws.

Effects of the War

Drug use has increased in all categories since prohibition except that opium use is at a fraction of its peak level, although this is not an effect of the War on Drugs (In-School). Opium itself is not used as much because opium can be refined into more effective opiates such as heroin. By 1937, the use of marijuana, once an activity seemingly limited to jazz musicians, has become one undertaken by up to 50% of the youth of the United States (In-School). The big growth in use of marijuana happened however in the 1960s, well before the start of the war on drugs in 1971. President Richard Nixon stated that the increased drug use and drug related crime in the decade before 1971 was the cause for the war on drugs. Between 1972 and 1988 the use of cocaine increased more than fivefold (Controlling). The usage patterns of the current two most prevalent drugs, amphetamines and ecstasy, have shown similar gains (In-School).
In 1996, 56% of California voters voted for Proposition 215, legalizing the growing and use of marijuana for medical purposes. This created significant legal and policy tensions between the federal and state governments. Courts have since decided that state laws in conflict with a federal law about cannabis are not valid. Cannabis is restricted by federal law. Regardless of public opinion, marijuana could be the single most targeted drug in the drug war. It constitutes almost half of all drug arrests, and between 1990 and 2002, out of the overall drug arrests, 82% of the increase was for marijuana. In this same time period, New York experienced an increase of 2,640% for marijuana possession arrests (What Americans). As of 2006, marijuana has become the United States of America's biggest cash crop in terms of revenues (Marijuana).

Legalize and Tax?

Proponents of legalization suggest that their policy will save society money for several reasons. First, we will not have to pay police to enforce the present criminal-justice approach to drug usage. Second, we will be able to tax legal drugs, thereby raising revenue.
It should be stated initially that most people misconceive the amount of resources expended under the status quo for drug control. The FY 1994 federal budget allocates $7.51 billion for drug control (supply reduction) which includes criminal justice, interdiction, international programs and intelligence (National). State and local governments spend even more, $12.6 billion a year (National). Granted, this is a lot of money, but we should put these numbers in perspective. Americans spend about four billion dollars each summer for air conditioning. The citizens of Washington State spend $1.4 billion each year on legal gambling alone (Economics, par. 2). The national debt numbers in the trillions of dollars. One Stealth Bomber runs half a billion dollars. Indeed, only 1.4% of total government spending goes for law enforcement of all types, and an additional 1.0% for prosecution and prisons (Economics, par. 2). Out of this small percentage, 12% of spending for law enforcement was allocated to drug control activities, and about 25% of correctional (prison) spending was drug related (Economics, par. 2). Only 1.5% of total state and local government spending is attributed to drug control activities (Economics, par. 2). Thus, when taken in context, it is apparent that the costs of criminalized drugs nowhere approaches the financial obligations of government programs such as national defense, Social Security, or Medicare.
More important, if we legalized drugs on the assumption that by taxing them we could raise large amounts of revenue, we would be sadly mistaken. First, any such taxation scheme would perpetuate a criminal black market. Consequently, we would still have to spend money funding police, courts and the like to fight this problem. Second, if alcohol is any indication, we simply would not make that much money by taxing drugs. The total revenue collected from alcohol taxes at the federal, state, and local levels amounts to about $13.1 billion a year, a paltry sum compared to the social costs associated with alcohol consumption - something in the neighborhood of $100 billion (Economics, par. 3). Third, how would we structure a tax scheme for drugs? If we wanted to correlate higher taxes with higher risk behavior, logically we would tax the fifth joint more than the first (inasmuch as the fifth joint probably is more damaging to one's health). Further, it would cost money to create the governmental bureaucracy that would handle this taxation policy.
Thus, we do not spend that much on the drug war in comparison to other governmental programs, and taxation of legalized drugs would not result in that much revenue. But by far the most compelling economic argument against the legalization of drugs is the social costs associated with such a policy.
First, treating drug addicts is enormously expensive. Take crack babies as an example. In 1988, it cost $2.5 billion for the intensive care needed to keep the babies alive after birth (Economics, par. 5). But that was just the beginning of the expenses. It is estimated that it will cost $15 billion to prepare these children for kindergarten, and will then cost between $6 billion and $12 billion for every year of special learning programs (Economics, par. 5). Even assuming the low-ball figure, the social costs of educating all of the crack babies born in 1988 - not all crack babies, mind you, just those born that year - will run approximately $90 billion by the time they graduate from high school. Now to the extent that legalization will increase the drug addiction rates enormously, legalization seems like a very expensive policy indeed. And as for footing the bill: either common citizens will through taxes for government aid programs, or through increased insurance premiums (Economics, par. 5).
But treatment costs are just the first way in which drug addiction drains society. Already, drug addicts cost the country roughly $33 billion dollars a year in lost productivity and job-related accidents, according to a study conducted in 1987 by the Research Triangle Institute of Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (Economics, pars. 6-7). If legalized, addiction rates would increase and the cost would rise to between $140 billion and $210 billion a year (Economics, par. 6). And as for the loss of productivity and accidents, consumers will end up paying in the final costs of the produced goods.
Finally we must consider human lives in the economic calculus. As drug abuse causes more job related accidents, more people will be hurt or killed. Take, for example, the Conrail/Amtrak disaster of January 4, 1987. Because an engineer and a brakeman were high on marijuana, their train collided with another, killing sixteen people and injuring 175 (Economics, par. 9).
We spend approximately $20 billion a year on drug control activities. If drugs were legalized, we would see an increase in addiction rates. Consequently we would have more crack babies (the kind that already will cost the system $90 billion), decreased productivity (at a cost of between $140 billion and $210 billion), more job-related accidents, and more dead people. And given the potential black market effect, it is unlikely that we could raise even several billion dollars in tax revenue. From a purely economic standpoint, legalization is not cost effective.

Works Cited

“About.” Office of National Drug Control Policy. 31 May 2008
.
“Annual Determination of Average Cost of Incarceration.” Federal Register 72 (6 June
2007): 31343.
“Budget Overview.” California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 24 May
2008 .
“Controlling Cocaine: Supply Versus Demand Programs.” Rand Corporation. 24 May
2008 .
“Drugs and Victims of Crime.” U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics.
21 April 2008. 24 May 2008 .
“The Economics of Drug Legalization.” Schaffer Library of Drug Policy. 24 May 2008
.
“In-School Surveys.” Monitoring the Future. 24 May 2008
.
“Marijuana Production in the United States.” DrugScience.org. 24 May 2008
.
“National Drug Control Strategy: Reclaiming Our Communities from Drugs and
Violence.” Office of National Drug Control Policy. 24 May 2008 .
“Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2002.” U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of
Justice Statistics. 6 April 2003. 20 May 2008 .
“Prisoners 2001.” U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics. 30 July 2002.
20 May 2008 .
“Punishment and Prejudice: Racial Disparities in the War on Drugs.” Human Rights
Watch. May 2000. 22 May 2008 .
Schlosser, Eric. Reefer Madness: Sex, Drugs, and Cheap Labor in the American Black
Market. Boston: Houghton, 2003.
“US CA: What Does The Drug War Cost?.” Media Awareness Project. 24 June 1999.
24 May 2008 .
“What Americans Need to Know about Marijuana.” Office of National Drug Control
Policy. 24 May 2008 .

Anatomy of a Scene: Searching for Bobby Fischer (1993)

“Why is black better? Take your time.” We hear these words spoken by Bruce Pandolfini (Ben Kingsley) before the images of Bruce and Josh Waitzkin (Max Pomeranc) appear on the screen framed within a medium shot. We see the two of them sitting over a chess board in a softly lit room with the majority of the light coming in from an adjacent
window. In a sharp contrast, the chess board is brightly lit thanks to a lamp sitting beside it upon the same table.

The dialogue between the two continues while the audience in submerged in Josh’s explanation of his response to Bruce’s question with a close-up shot of the chess board - Joshes fingers pointing to the chess pieces portraying his mastery of the game. The director, Steven Zaillian, cuts to a close up of Bruce revealing an almost confused man who is at first worried and then delightfully relieved of his young pupil’s answer. Music subtly introduced in the background. A cut to Josh’s face makes it clear that he is proud of the acknowledgment from his mentor. After being told he just earned twenty master-class points, he gleefully reaches for his book and extends it across the table to have those points recorded. As Bruce is recoding the points in Joshes book, the off-screen sounds make it clear to the viewer that there has been an intrusion. The reaction shot of Josh is the viewer’s only visual cue of this intrusion. The look on Josh’s face turns from curiosity to that of worry.

The full shot of Jonathan Poe (Michael Nirenberg) and Poe's Teacher (Robert Stephens) entering the room with the teacher’s hand on Poe’s shoulder reveals the source of the intrusion. A cut back to Josh’s worried face reiterates his feelings of worry concerning his nemesis Jonathan Poe. With a slight hand gesture from his teacher, Poe beings to walk around the room observing his surroundings. He is walking from the left of the enclose of the from to the right; the camera trailing his movement. A cut to Joshes face – which has shifted to observe Poe’s new position is now half lit and still covered with concern. We hear what we quickly learn is the footsteps of Poe’s teacher and Josh turns to look at him. A close up of Poe’s teacher shows him wiggle his fingers at Josh as if to say “hello.” A medium shot of Josh and Bruce from over the right shoulder of an out-of-focus teacher reveals to the view what Poe’s teacher is observing.

By first looking at Josh and following his eyes to see what he is observing, Bruce learns the identity of the intruder. “You studying up on your end game, Bruce?” asks Poe’s teacher.

Sensing what’s about to come, Bruce turns to Josh: “Josh, go get yourself a Coke. We’re through here.” Josh is in a disconnected state staring at Poe’s teacher. Bruce leans in and restates “Get yourself a Coke” and Josh springs to his feet. A close up of Bruce shows he is excited to see Poe’s teacher. In fact, his facial expression reveals his not wanting to deal with this man’s presence.

“What do you want?” asks Bruce framed within a close up shot.

“Hello. How are you? How have you been?” is the response of Poe’s teacher. A cut back to a close up of Bruce is accompanied by the off screen voice of Poe’s teacher “How’s your health?” and as Poe’s teacher is reframed in a medium shot, he finishes with “any one of these would be appropriate.” Back to the over-the-right-shoulder shot, the viewer observes Bruce getting up from his chair and angrily standing up to his feet.

With this brief exchange, Zaillian establishes that there is a past connection between Bruce and Poe’s teacher. And judging by the tone of their current conversation, it is apparent they did not part in peace.

“I want to join the club. Well actually not me, my young friend. Jonathan here” Proclaims Poe’s teacher, turning to look at Poe who we find is standing above a chess game observing two men playing and laughs as to insult the move just made by one of the players.

Upon Bruce’s suggestion of Poe being brought back in a couple of years, Poe’s teacher insists upon getting an application from Bruce. With the next cut, Josh is followed back into the room, Coke in hand. He’s walking from the right of the frame to the left, camera trailing. He stops to look at Poe who himself is observing another couple engaged in a game of chess. Poe - seemingly board with that game – begins to pace. Music is once again introduced. Josh also begins to pace as though stalking Poe’s every move in what can be construed as a sense of worry. Poe looks up as he continues his stroll and sees Josh watching. The juxtapositioning of the shots of the two boy’s stroll around the room now shows Josh breaking eye-contact with Poe and again reconnecting all while they both continue with their strolls.

The boys break eye-contact in a very clever manner carried out superbly by the cinematographers (John Corso and Conrad L. Hall). As Poe is being trailed, the viewer’s sight of him is broken by an out-o-focus chess player. When he comes back into the viewer’s sight, he has broken eye-contact with Josh and changed direction in his stroll towards a chess board, setup upon a table waiting for a battle of the minds. Poe leans over the chess board while the off-screen voice of his teacher fills the room: “He’s been my student since he was four years old,” proclaims Poe’s teacher. The cut takes us back to Josh who is staring at Poe with an out-of-focus chess game in the foreground. “His parents have given him to me,” continues Poe’s teacher. The shot back on Bruce getting an application for the boy, Poe’s teacher continues: “Does nothing but play chess.” Bruce turns around with application in-hand. “No other interests.”

“He goes to school,” Bruce blurts out as though thinking out loud.

“Oh no,” responds Poe’s teacher. Bruce turns and looks at the man in shock and says “well, that’s great. You should be proud of yourself.”

“I am” proclaims Poe’s teacher, framed in a medium shot designed to display his excessive pride and hinting at his true intentions of dropping in unannounced. Bruce extends his hand holding the application with the look of disgust on his face. Poe’s teacher reaches out and snatched the application from Bruce’s hand.

With this exchange between Bruce and Poe’s teacher, Zaillian draws the parallels of character between Bruce and Poe’s teacher. Bruce walks away signaling he is done with the conversation. He is followed by Poe’s teacher who exclaims “you should watch him play, he reminds me of you, only he never gives up. It’s not a part of his character.”

Bruce calls out to Josh who meets him in the middle of the room and the two of them begin to make their way back towards the chess board with Bruce’s hand on Josh’s shoulder. As they pass Poe’s teacher who is on his way to meet his pupil, Poe’s teacher spews “He’s not going to disappoint his teacher.” It is with this phrase that the past connection between Poe’s teacher and Bruce is revealed.

As Poe’s teacher is walking towards Poe, he drops the application on a nearby table, confirming his intentions were not to seek admission into the chess club, but rather to gloat about his pupil. He then reaches Poe and the two of them walk toward the exit with his hand on Poe’s shoulder. His scene is juxtapositioned with that of Bruce and Josh walking with Bruce’s hand upon Josh’s shoulder. The scene ends with Bruce opening the can of Coke for Josh. Perhaps to highlight the distinct difference of how he cares for his pupil as opposed to Poe’s teacher, whose motives seem to be of a much more selfish nature.

eBay Auction: Investools PHD Program. Stocks, Options, and More.

Investools PHD Program
a $23,999 value

Program of High Distinction (PHD): Life is good at the top.

Auction Includes:

* Investing Basics Course Manual
* Stocks Course Manual
* Basic Options Course Manual
* Advanced Options Course Manual
* Advanced Technical Analysis Course Manual
* 5-Step Investing Formula Course Manual
* Basic Options DVD Set (4 discs)
* 5-Step Investing Formula DVD Set (4 discs)
* Advanced Options DVD Set (6 discs)
* Advanced Technical Analysis DVD Set (6 disc)
* Investools Investor Conference, Las Vegas Set (9 discs)

That's a total of 6 Course Manuals and 29 DVDs!

An Investools education is an excellent investment. It can inable you to make better investment decisions in financial markets. Every successful trade puts you one step closer to achieving your financial goals. Your Investools education will enable you to rely on facts to make decisions and not your emotions.

Whatever you're striving to achieve - a secure retirement, college tuition, improved 401(k) and IRA performance - this program will teach you how to position yourself fpr maximum potential return and accomplish your investing goals.

View Auction on eBay

Neolynx, Inc. Announces New Web Site Traffic Generation Serv

Get targeted traffic delivered to your website from Neolynx's network of quality websites. This is real human visitors they send to your site. The service allows for a high degree of control, such as allowing you to set the maximum number of daily visitors. You can also change your URL at any time. This is particularly useful if you want to split.

read more | digg story

Neolynx, Inc. Announces Free Web Design for Local Non-Profit Organizations

Neolynx Business Solutions, a leader in online marketing and web development services, has announced a unique opportunity for local non-profit organizations wishing to establish or expand their online presence. Beginning immediately, local non-profits can submit a brief online application for an opportunity to have Neolynx lend its expertise to the organization at no cost.

After finding great success being a part of the Southern California business community for almost a decade, Neolynx wants to show appreciation by giving back to the community. “We’ve felt a close connection with our community for a long time and have given back on the individual level. We recently decided to give back to the community through our company by lending our expertise to a worthy cause,” said Armen Mardirousi, President of Neolynx, Inc. “At Neolynx Business Solutions we believe together we can make the world a much better place.”

The search for a local non-profit is well on its way and will continue until application deadline, midnight on June 30, 2008.

For additional information on our free NPO web site, visit www.neolynx.com/npo.

The Art of Argument

Argument can be defined as the art of influencing others. With argument, the author attempts to influence the audience by getting them to act a certain way or to come to a favorable conclusion relative to the author’s position. A successful argument employs clearly defined terms, a fair use of information, and clear logic. When well executed, an argument is dramatic in nature; creating passionate debate on both sides of the issue-at-hand. Not all arguments end with one side declared the clear winner. Often times a compromise between many several extreme viewpoints is the only agreeable conclusion. To be able to persuade, the argument must be viewed as having merit. It is not merely enough to quote reports or studies; the author must use well-documented, credible sources in a well-executed manner.

Joe Kita – a writer and editor at Mens’ Health magazine – successfully persuades his audience with his well-researched and eloquently executed article (Kita 489). His augment immediately grabs the readers’ attention with its opening line: “Vertically challenged men are paying up to $80,000 to have their legs broken, caged, and then lengthened (Kita 489).” The following paragraphs introduce the reader to Jim Conran in his current condition following an operation to add inches to his height. Jim is described as having cages surrounding his legs like little scaffolds (Kita 489). Powerful descriptions like this coupled with quotes from credible sources help make a powerful argument.

Quoted estimates from economists at the University of Pennsylvania give the reader an insight to the thoughts and reasoning that might lead an individual to undergo such a painful procedure for a gain of three inches (Kita 491). Mr. Kita also quotes Nancy Etcoff, Ph.D., a professor of psychology at Harvard Medical School as citing “a study of Fortune 500 CEOs that found that more than half were taller than 6 feet, and just 3 percent were shorter than 5’7” (Kita 491).” According to Etcoff, less than one-half of one percent of women marry men who are shorter than they are (Kita 491).

While there are many medically acceptable reasons for a painful procedure where the patient must undergo the agony of having bones broken and repositioned, the cosmetic use of this procedure has far too high a complication rate to justify the three inch gain. Known as the Ilizarov method, this method’s legitimate medical uses include the “correction of leg-length deformities, bow legs, anchondroplasis (dwarfism) (Kita 492).” Overall, there is a twenty-five percent complication rate from the surgery, with the most common problem being pin-site infection. A less common but still serious complication is nerve damage (Kita 492). The relatively high rate of such gruesome complications should be enough to discourage any sane individual from perusing such a horrendous act of self-mutilation.

With vivid descriptions and statistical references from experts in varying disciplines, Mr. Kita establishes a sound argument. He employs clearly defined terms, a fair use of information, and clear logic to support his position. This article makes it clear that perhaps the greatest benefit gained by undergoing this surgery is psychological rather than physical.

There being clear consensuses that sex and violent sells, it should come as no surprise that depictions of these very subjects are becoming increasingly graphic and widely available. Ron Kaufman proclaims: “One fact should not be in dispute: TV is violent! Guns, shootings, murders, hitting, punching, slapping, screaming, kicking, stabbing, explosions, car chases, car smashes, disasters, and death are shown daily throughout TV programming (693). Mr. Kaufman’s essay is a prime example of a well constructed and properly sourced argument. With charts and graphs from several well-known sources, he successfully argues the negative effects of violence on TV on children. His argument is well-planned and skillfully executed. With a logical outline – starting with the violence-driven storyline (694) to his conclusion that children watch too much television in this country (700), Mr. Kaufman makes a very strong case for turning off the TV for the children’s sake (706).

Being a trained teacher gives Mr. Kaufman an added level of credentials to speak on the subject of child behavior. His break-down of learned violent traits is broken down by age groups ranging from newborns to six graders (Kaufman 699). One study quoted that is particularly disturbing is that “high viewing levels have been shown to interfere with reading development (Kaufman 699). Knowing this makes it difficult to argue that our children’s lack of reading skills is directly linked to the fact that “the vast majority of children are growing up in homes where television is a near-constant presence (Kaufman 694).”

On the other end of the spectrum from the well-constructed argument lies the poorly-constructed argument. The poorly-constructed column on privacy written for the New York Times is a prime example of how not to argue (Herbert 613). Mr. Herbert starts off on the wrong foot. The first sentence of the first paragraph read: “A recent report out of Washington tells a story about . . . (Herbert 613).” If Mr. Herbert is attempting to build a credible argument, he has failed before even starting. The troubles with argument don’t end there. Mr. Herbert goes on to make outrages claims such as hidden video cameras being legally installed in bathrooms and dressing rooms (Herbert 613). There is not a single case that would merit installing video cameras in public restrooms or public dressing rooms. He later references a report released by the Center for Public Integrity. This might sound an important group, but not one many people are familiar with.

The writings of this columnist build no credibility with the reader and render his argument ineffective and utterly useless. With serious claims of invasion of privacy during computer training, Mr. Herbert should support his argument with concrete sources rather than a mere mention of an article he once read (Herbert 613). He further discredits himself with vague statements like “Congress has gone out of its way to preserve the right of employers to eavesdrop and otherwise spy upon and collect personal data on employees (Herbert 614)” and “tremendous amounts of money are being made from the rampant transfer of the most personal types of information (Herbert 614).” While both these statements might be completely accurate, a well constructed argument requires the author to provide supporting evidence – perhaps a few well-known examples in his conclusion can add credibility to this hopelessly ineffective argument.

The argumentative essay is a genre of writing that requires the author to investigate a topic, collect, generate, and evaluate evidence, and establish a position on the topic in a concise manner. It require the writer do more than simply state his views on a subject matter and hope that that the audience follows his argument blindly.

Works Cited

Herbert, Bob. “What Privacy Rights?” Elements of Argument. 8^th ed. Ed. Annette T. Rottenberg and Donna Haisty Winchell. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2006. 613-14.

Kaufman, Ron. “Filling Their Mind with Death: TV Violence and Children.” Elements of Argument. 8^th ed. Ed. Annette T. Rottenberg and Donna Haisty Winchell. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2006. 693-706.

Kita, Joe. “All to Be Tall.” Elements of Argument. 8^th ed. Ed. Annette T. Rottenberg and Donna Haisty Winchell. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2006. 489-95.

American Freemasons

What’s a Mason? The answer is simple. A Mason (or Freemason) is a member of a fraternity known as Masonry (or Freemasonry). Freemasonry is the oldest fraternity in the world. No one knows just how old it is because the actual origins have been lost in time. It is thought to have descended from medieval stonemason guilds (Tolson). These stonemason guilds built the castles and cathedrals of the Middle Ages. Possibly influenced by the Knights Templar, a group of Christian warrior monks formed in 1118 to help protect pilgrims making trips to the Holy Land (Masonic Information Center). One thing is known; Freemasons played a major role in the formation of our young nation.

In 1717, Masonry created a formal organization in England when the first Grand Lodge was formed (Masonic Information Center 3). A Grand Lodge is the administrative body in charge of Masonry in some geographical areas. According to the Masonic Information Center, in the United States, there is a Grand Lodge in each state and in the District of Columbia. In Canada, there is a Grand Lodge in each Province. Local organizations of Masons are called lodges. There are lodges in most towns, and large cities usually have several. There are about 13,200 lodges in the United States (Masonic Information Center 3).

Freemasonry was brought from Great Britain to the American colonies before the 1717 formation of the first Grand Lodge (Tabbert 33). According to Tabbert, the first recorded Mason in America was John Skene, who became a member of Old Aberdeen Lodge in Scotland. He emigrated from Scotland and settled in 1682 near what is now Burlington, New Jersey. “Skene went on to serve as deputy governor of West Jersey from 1685 until his death in 1690” (Tabbert 33). The first American-born Mason is believed to have been Jonathan Belcher, who lived from 1681 to 1757. Belcher, who was thought to have been made a Mason when he was in London in 1704, was appointed the royal governor of Massachusetts and New Hampshire in 1730 (Tabbert 33).

The expansion of British immigration to and trade with the colonies played a key role in establishing American colonial Masonic lodges. According to Tabbert, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Georgia hold important distinction. Pennsylvania’s preeminence derives from a 1730 edition of Benjamin Franklin’s Pennsylvania Gazette that reported, “there are several lodges if Free Mason erected in this province.” Franklin became a Mason in a lodge at Philadelphia’s Tun Tavern in 1731 (33). The first chartered lodge in the United States was Boston’s St. John’s Lodge, which appeared on the 1733 register of the first, or “Modern,” grand lodge as number 126 (Tabbert 34).

By the late 1740s, Masonic lodges operated in most major communities along America’s eastern coast. The relationship between American Freemasonry and American Society during the mid-1700s can be seen through the lives and communities of four important American Masons: Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Paul Revere and Prince Hall. These men and their contemporaries used Masonry to demonstrate a “transformation from a hierarchical society of superiors and inferiors to a republican society of independent citizens” (Tabbert 34).

Benjamin Franklin (1706-90) was a Boston-born printer, scientist, inventor, politician, diplomat and sage. His migration from Boston to Philadelphia and quick rise to the highest social, intellectual and political circles remains to this day a model for the American dream. As part of his ascent, Franklin joined a Masonic lodge in the Pennsylvania colony and published the first Masonic book in America in 1734 (Tabbert 35). He was elected Provincial Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania in 1734, and in 1755 participated in the dedication of America’s first Masonic Hall in Philadelphia (Tabbert 35).

Unlike Franklin, George Washington (1732-99) was born into a leading Virginia family. While Franklins focus seemed to be on creating new community institutions, Washington preferred to maintain and build upon the establishments of his forefathers (Tabbert 36). According to Tabbert, Washington became a Mason at an early age in a lodge at Fredericksburg, Virginia, in 1752. In 1758, he was elected to Virginia’s House of Burgesses. Washington married the wealthy widow, Martha Custis, and settled down as a respected landowner, retied soldier, representative in the House of Burgesses and member of the vestry of his church (36).

“Washington’s Masonic membership, like his public titles, was part of a range of necessary duties expected from a man of his social status and political influence. At the time, Masonic membership was restricted to the colony’s most honorable and respected gentlemen” (Tabbert 36). While emphasis within the lodge room might be devoted to improving a man and creating equality among its members, at the time of Washington, the same was not the practice. According to Tabbert in his book American Freemasons: Three Centuries of Building Community, “Lodge members may have wished to create a more tolerant and benevolent society among their class, but they were not directly concerned with allowing lower-class men join the fraternity to improve themselves any more than they were with universal male suffrage.” (36-37)

Poorer and socially less prominent than either Franklin or Washington, Paul Revere (1735-1818) spent his entire life in Massachusetts. He was the son of an artisan (Tabbert 37). This would have greatly reduced his prospect in the society of colonial Boston. However, “Revere was recognized as a highly talented silversmith and a trustworthy businessman. His desire to improve his standing in the community led him to participate in many social clubs and political committees” (Tabbert 37) Paul Revere became a Mason in 1760 in Boston’s Lodge of St. Andrew. He served as the lodge Secretary and went on to become Master of the Lodge. In 1794, he rose to become Grand Master of the Massachusetts Grand Lodge. During the three-years he served as Grand Master, Revere chartered 23 new lodges, nearly doubling the number of lodges in Massachusetts. (Tabbert 37)

Unlike Franklin or Washington, Revere considered his participation in Masonry to be a means of establishing himself in Boston society as an individual as well as a businessman. “Paul Revere saw Freemasonry as a step toward both self-improvement and social advancement.” (Tabbert 33) He and other men like him learned the art of rhetoric and public speaking through the steady practice of the recitation of the Masonic rituals and lectures. They learned business and political skills by organizing and supervising meetings.

Little is known about Prince Hall (1735?-1807). He was probably born into Slavery. It is believed that he received his freedom in 1770 and established a leather dressing shop in Boston (Tarbbert 38). Hall became a Mason in 1775. “On March 6, 1775, during the British embargo and occupation of Boston, Hall and 14 other black men were initiated into the craft by lodge No. 441, a British military lodge attached to the 38th Regiment of Foot” (Trabbert 38). Prince Hall and his Masonic brothers continued to meet throughout the American Revolution. By 1784, these black Masons received a charter from the Grand Lodge in England to meet as African Lodge No. 459 (Trabbert 38). Prince Hall served as the first Master of the Lodge. Hall went on to charter other African-American lodges. After the death of Prince Hall, African-American lodges chose to call their organizations “Prince Hall Freemasonry”. This tradition continues to this day.

The commencement of the American Revolution in 1775 transformed all aspects of colonial life. Freemasonry was no exception. Freemasons from different lodges served with the Sins of Liberty (Tarbbert 39).

“While George Washington commanded the Continental Army, Benjamin Franklin, Paul Revere and Prince Hall all found their own way to serve the revolutionary cause. Franklin was sent to Paris to convince France to aid the rebellion. While there, he renewed his intrest in Freemasonry and joined a preeminent French loge, Loge des Neufs Soeurs. He served as its master and participated in Masonic initiation of Voltaire in 1778. Along with securing French support, franklin also met young aristocrat and brother Mason, Marquis de Lafayette, and assisted him on his journey back to America in 1780. Paul Revere remained in Massachusetts, where he served as an artillery officer, made gunpowder, and cast cannons for the Continental Army. Little is known about Prince Hall’s activities during the war, but he did make leather drumheads for a Massachusetts regiment and organized partitions on the Massachusetts legislature seeking to abolish slavery.” (Tarbbert 41-42)

The movement toward American independence that began in revolution eventually led to the ratification of the United States Constitution in 1789. Masons played a prominent role in this process. “Nine of the 48 signers of the Articles of Confederation were Freemasons, as were 13 of the 39 signers of the Constitution.” (Trabbert 42-43) Several Freemasons accepted positions in all branches of government for the new nation. George Washington received the presidential oath of office on a Bible borrowed from New York City’s St. John Lodge No. 1. Freemason John A.C. Muhlenberg was elected the first Speaker if the U.S. House of Representatives, Freemasons John J. Blair and William Cushing were among the first justices if the U.S. Supreme Court. (Trabbert 43)

Freemasonry was in harmony with the ideals of the new American republic. The fraternity’s principles and symbols became incorporated into early American culture. “Freemasonry’s prestige and social acceptance reached a pinnacle when the cornerstone for the U.S. Capital was laid in 1793. Wearing Masonic regalia, President George Washington led a procession to the top of Capitol Hill. He was accompanied by stonemasons, military units, government officials, brother Masons, and common citizens. During the Masonic ceremony, the stone was tried by the plumb, level and square and was symbolically blessed with corn (representing plenty), wine (happiness), and oil (peace). Using a Masonic trowel, Washington spread the cement that would unite the building into one common mass and bring all Americans together as one common people.” (Trabbert 44).

Freemasonry Today

Freemasons and all Americans witnessed stark changes during the 20th century, particularly during the last 35 years. The growth of the consumer economy of the 1920s, the role of government in the 1930s, and the changing foreign policy of the 1940s reached their limits in the 1970s. Industrial cities that were once the lifeline of the economy had rusted as corporations sent jobs overseas and Japan manufactured higher-quality products. Despite the best of intentions, the United States withdrew from Vietnam, Watergate consumed President Nixon, and government programs failed to bring victory to the war on poverty or drugs. The dynamics of the American family began to change. The divorce rate increased, more wives went into the work force and more husbands cooked, cleaned and raised children. In the 1980a and 1990s, the nation reasserted its role on the global stage and enjoyed a renewed prosperity. Sadly, civic life declined as people spent more time alone in front of their television or computer screen.

This shift had an even greater impact on Freemasonry. Membership nationwide dropped by over 61% from 1959 to 2005 (Masonic Service Association). Many large Masonic buildings became difficult to maintain. The fraternity, like the nation, became burdened by the decisions of the past. Older Masons dutifully served their lodges and liberally contributed to Masonic charities, but many failed to inspire their sons to join the fraternity. The craft’s troubles were further compounded by anti-Masonic attacks from the political left and the religious right. Despite all this, the Grand Lodge of Washington constituted a new Grand Lodge in Alaska in 1981 and the Grand Lodge of California constituted a new grand lodge in Hawaii in 1989. More importantly, many grand lodges and Prince Hall grand lodges officially recognized each other, and the philanthropic efforts of Masonic organizations have reached extraordinary heights. Despite the fading of Masonic lodges from many American communities, we Freemasons continue to practice the virtue of charity.

Works Cited
Masonic Information Center. What’s a Mason? Maryland: Masonic Information Center, 1993.

Tolson, Jay. “Inside the Masons.” US News & World Report Sep. 5, 2005

Tabbert, Mark A. American Freemasons: Three Centuries of Building Communities. Massachusetts: National Heritage Museum, 2005

Masonic Service Association. Masonic Membership Statistics. 12 Dec 2007