Secretive Freemasons in midst of popularity, membership boom

Secretive Freemasons in midst of popularity, membership boom
May 18, 2008


From left, Zulu, Jonathan Kanarek and Daemon Hillin are representative of a new wave of Freemasons that’s stamping a younger, hipper profile on the centuries-old fraternity.

The secretive society gains a higher, hipper profile as younger men seek out a place for fraternal bonding.

Los Angeles Times | May 18, 2008

By Adam Tschorn

IN LOS FELIZ, across from a 7-Eleven on North Vermont Avenue, a few dozen men in their early 20s to late 80s share a dinner behind closed doors. Some wear full tuxedos with bow ties and jeweled cuff links, some have shoulder-length hair, and others wear open-collared shirts that reveal the slightest filigree of tattoo arching across their chests.

Over Italian food, retired lawyers and judges sit elbow-to-elbow with owners of scrap metal yards and vintage clothing boutiques. They hold forth on philosophy, the weather; they rib each other and joke about saving room for cannoli. As they reach for seconds, they reveal skull-cracking rings emblazoned with a compass and a square.


After becoming a Master Mason (the term used for a new member who has completed all levels of study), Zulu went on to become a Scottish Rite Mason and a Shriner — both fraternal organizations that hold Masonic membership as a prerequisite. Here he wears his Shriner’s fez, his Master Mason’s apron and his daily wardrobe of French-cuffed shirts, pinstripe trousers, a shawl-collared silk brocade vest and a vintage watch chain circa 1895.

Meet the millennial Masons. As secret societies go, it is one of the oldest and most famous. Its enrollment roster includes Louis Armstrong and Gerald Ford, and it has been depicted in movies such as “The Da Vinci Code” and “National Treasure.” Once more than 4 million strong (back in the 1950s), it has been in something of a popularity free-fall ever since. Viewed with suspicion as a bastion of antiquated values and forced camaraderie, the Masons have seen membership rolls plummet more than 60% to just 1.5 million in 2006.

ford_shriner2

The 38th U.S. president was the most recent Mason to occupy the Oval Office. In his younger days he was a male model, once appearing on the cover of Cosmopolitan magazine.

Only now the trend seems to be reversing itself, and nowhere more noticeably than in Southern California. The reasons seem clear. In another Masonic Hall, this one on La Cienega, a Sri Lankan-born banker, a sunglasses-wearing Russian immigrant and a continent-hopping Frenchman break bread, poke at their salads and chat about their health.

“For a time it looked as if Masonry was going into a sharp decline, if not the death throes,” said UCLA history professor Margaret C. Jacob, who has written extensively about the fraternal order. “But it looks like it may be making a comeback.”


New or old, one hallmark of Freemasonry fashion is a penchant for rings, usually in a precious metal and bearing a version of the square and compass logo. Here Zulu, left, Jonathan Kanarek and Daemon Hillin show off their Masonic bling.


In addition to his Masonic ring and several tattoos with Masonic motifs, Zulu also sports a skull ring and carries a skull-topped walking stick.

That’s because the Freemasons, whose tenets forbid soliciting or recruiting members, have enthusiastically embraced the Internet as a way to leverage curiosity about an organization with its roots in Europe’s medieval stonemasons guilds. Freemasonry today sees itself as a thinking man’s salon, a learned society with a philanthropic bent.

“We had a record number of new members last year,” said Allan Casalou, grand secretary of the Grand Lodge of California. “We added 2,000 men, which is the most since 1998 and our seventh straight year of membership increases.”

And, to paraphrase that Oldsmobile campaign, these definitely aren’t your father’s Freemasons. They are bar owners, male models and olive-oil brokers. They are men like Zulu, an L.A. tattoo artist with a swirling Maori-inspired design inked across his face and a panoply of metal piercing his ears, nose and face. They are men like Jonathan Kanarek, who runs a men’s vintage clothing store on Hollywood Boulevard and whose retro chic wardrobe of polka-dot ascots, glen-plaid jackets and smartly pressed pocket squares earned him a spot on Esquire magazine’s 2007 list of best-dressed real men in America. And they are men like Daemon Hillin, whose surfer-dude looks and blinding white smile can be found on Japanese TV, where he plays sidekick and comic foil to the Japanese version of the Hilton sisters.

They are also all men who want to be part of an all-for-one and one-for-all brotherhood built on shared ideals, philosophical pursuits and a penchant for rings, aprons and funny hats. As Zulu bluntly put it: “I joined because I was looking for people to hang with that were like-minded but also hip and cool, and a lot of tattoo artists tend to be drunks and druggies.”

Hillin, who originally joined the Masons in Temecula, moved to L.A. and is interested in the Santa Monica-Palisades Lodge No. 307, one of the youngest and most diverse congregations in the state (the average age of active brothers is just 33). The lodge’s senior deacon, Jim Warren, calls it ” ‘Star Trek’ without the chicks.” “We have every possible national origin, ethnicity and religious denomination you could imagine,” he said.

Warren credits the Internet. “We were one the first lodges in the state to have a website up,” he said. “That led to a huge spike in membership.”

Other lodges followed suit, putting up their own sites and drawing a crowd. That’s how prospective Mason Johnny Royal ended up at the door of Elysian Lodge No. 418 last month. Intrigued by the distinctive Masonic architecture that graces most halls, the 31-year-old publicist with sideburns to his chin and hair to his shoulders and a Renaissance lute player tattoo on his right forearm hit the Web.

What he read about the Masonic ideals — wisdom, strength, beauty and the pursuit of knowledge — made him decide to pursue membership. “My generation wants to be part of something beyond itself,” Royal said. “I want to learn; I want to participate.”


THE INTERNET hasn’t only made it easier to learn about the Freemasons, Casalou says, it’s changed the type of men coming forward. “There is so much information on the Internet that by the time someone comes to a lodge to seek membership, they already know a lot about Masonry,” he said. “Which is a big departure from previous generations. And it means they are more likely to be active participants.”

Zulu became curious about Freemasonry after tattooing Masonic symbology on several clients. He joined five years ago at age 39 and now serves as webmaster and senior warden of North Hollywood Lodge No. 542. He has also gone on to become both a Scottish Rite Mason and Shriner (Masonic membership is a prerequisite for both), and next year he will become the leader of his lodge. “I’ll be the first black worshipful master in the lodge’s history,” he said, using the proper term of respect.

But he probably won’t be the last. Because California’s contingent of Freemasons is expected to grow, the average age of its members, once 71 and now 65, is expected to drop. By 2018, as Casalou predicts, the state will be awash in 55-year-old pre-retirement Masons giving each other secret handshakes, wearing ritual aprons and invoking the Grand Architect of the Universe.

The Internet continues to help. Zulu said that he gets at least four e-mails a week from prospective Masons around the globe who see his tattooed and pierced visage at the lodge website and want to be reassured such an alternative look isn’t a barrier to membership.

“Yeah, I think it’s going to become hip and chic to be a Mason,” Zulu said. “And that could be a dangerous thing.”

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.