On the 20^th of April 1999, Eric Harris and his friend Dylan Klebold killed 13 students at Columbine High School and then killed themselves. According to both of their mothers, the two boys were big fans of the first-person shooter video game “Doom”. Is it too large of a leap in logic to infer that this violent video game led the duo to commit this horrific act of brutality?

The argument that violent video games provoke violent crime is not unique to video games. From the dawn of distributed media, critics have insisted that social decadence is incited by the popular phenomenon of the day. For instance, if you were a youth during the 1950’s you would have been subject to the anti-comic book crusades of Fredric Wertham. Similarly, in the 1960’s, Elvis Presley and the Beatles were detested by some as moral deviants causing a teenage rebellion, promiscuity and drug use. There have been many others through history.

Enter the era of the video game. This relatively new form of entertainment has not gained the level of public acceptance that its popular predecessors attained. The generation that has grown up with comic books is now the legislative and parental authority who may have forgotten the controversy of their own youth. It is that generation that is now perpetuating the age old struggle of parent versus child, contending that video games have a negative effect on the adolescent mind.

There have been more than 200 scientific studies dealing specifically with the effect of violent video games on the human psyche. While the American Psychological Association has concluded that violent video games can increase aggression (Dill 1), several more recent studies have discovered that violent video games only influence the behavior of children who already show aggressive or violent tendencies. (Arendt 1).

A joint study by the U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Department of Education found that only 12 percent of those involved in school shootings were attracted to violent video games, while 24 percent read violent books and 27 percent were attracted to violent films (Vossekuil 15). In fact, the generation of children who have grown up with video games (from approximately 1993 to present) have the smallest violent crime rates ever recorded (Ferris 1).

Although it is clear that video games do have an effect on the psyche, it is not necessarily a negative one. A New Zealand study by Paul Kearney concluded that first-person shooter video games actually improve the players cognitive abilities and went so far as to suggest that the future of learning revolves around three dimensional worlds that inherently promote learning (7). Since video games are primarily designed as fictitious entertainment, their intent is to immerse the audience in a fictitious world. This immersion is no different than other good works of fiction, from the novels popular in the 19^th century to the films of the 20^th century.

In addition to the scientific evidence that suggests video games have a positive effect on the mind, the legal system, including the Supreme Court of the United States, has ruled that video games are also protected under the first amendment. The implication is that the courts have found no conclusive evidence that video games incite violent acts. Otherwise they would not be protected under the first amendment. Any words that exhibit a clear and present danger to the security of the public are punishable by law. Therefore the first amendment would not protect video games if the judicial system felt that they truly caused violent brutality.

In a unanimous decision by a panel of three judges, the Honorable Richard A. Posner, of the Seventh Circuit, declared the Indianapolis Arcade Ordinance (a city ordinance which sought to restrict children’s access to violent arcade video games) to be unconstitutional, reaffirming that children have First Amendment rights. In his ruling, Judge Posner stated that:

"To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it. Maybe video games are different. They are, after all, interactive. But this point is superficial, in fact erroneous. All literature (here broadly defined to include movies, television, and the other photographic media, and popular as well as highbrow literature) is interactive; the better it is, the more interactive. Literature when it is successful draws the reader into the story, makes him identify with the characters, invites him to judge them and quarrel with them, to experience their joys and sufferings as the reader’s own. Protests from readers caused Dickens to revise Great Expectations to give it a happy ending, and tourists visit sites in Dublin and its environs in which the fictitious events of Ulysses are imagined to have occurred. The cult of Sherlock Holmes is well known. When Dirty Harry or some other avenging hero kills off a string of villains, the audience is expected to identify with him, to revel in his success, to feel their own finger on the trigger. It is conceivable that pushing a button or manipulating a toggle stick engenders an even deeper surge of aggressive joy, but of that there is no evidence at all." (1)

In conclusion it is, in fact, too large of a leap in logic to infer that violent video games can incite individuals to commit brutal crimes in reality. Those individuals who have difficulty differentiating the fantasy world of video games and the real world we live in would have the same trouble if video games never existed.

This conclusion has been shown to be true for a number of reasons. First, the criticisms railed against the video games of today are no different that the criticism leveled against any other popular youth media in its prime. Second, although there has been a considerable amount of scientific study researching the specific affect that violent video games have on children, there is no conclusive evidence to show that these games affect the behavior of the majority of the population. Third, even the legal system has concluded in numerous cases that there is no evidence to support the argument that violent video games incite violent acts. It simply is not true.

Modern society can now confidently move violent video games into the same category as their literary and visual counterparts of the last few centuries and continue on to the next morally outrageous popular media of the future. YouTube.com here we come.

Works Cited

Anderson, Craig. "Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal and prosocial behavior: a meta-analytical review of the scientific literature" iastate.edu. Vol.12 No. 5, Sep. 2001. iastate.edu. 6 Apr. 2008 <http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/abstracts/2000-2004/01AB.pdf>

Arendt, Susan. "Study: kids unaffected by violent games" wired.com. 2 Apr. 2007. Wired.com 6 Apr. 2008 <http://blog.wired.com/games/2007/04/study_kids_unaf.html>

Dill, Karen. "Violent video games can increase aggression" apa.org. 23 Apr. 2000. American Psychological Association. 6 Apr. 2008 <http://www.apa.org/releases/videogames.html>

Endestad, Tor. "Computer games and violence: Is there really a connection?" Digra.org. 2 Jun. 2005. Digra.org. 5 Apr. 2008 <http://digra.org:8080/Plone/dl/db/05163.54594.pdf>

Ferris, Duke. "The truth about violent youth and video games" gamerevolution.com. 19 Oct. 2005. gamerevolution.com. 6 Apr. 2008 <http://www.gamerevolution.com/features/violence_and_videogames>

Gentile, Douglas. "Violent Video Games: The Newest Media Violence Hazard" iastate.edu. 16 Oct. 2003. Iastate.edu. 6 Apr. 2008 <http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/~dgentile/106027_07.pdf>

Kalning, Kristin. "Does game violence make teens aggressive?" MSNBC. 8 Dec. 2006. Microsoft. 5 Apr. 2008 <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16099971/>

Kearney, Paul. "Cognitive Callisthenics: Do FPS computer games enhance the player’s cognitive abilities?" Digra.org. 23 Sep. 2006. Digra.org. 5 Apr. 2008 <http://www.digra.org:8080/Plone/dl/db/06276.14516.pdf>

Posner, Judge Richard. "American Amusement Machine Association, et al. v. Kendrick, et al., 244 F.3d 572" FindLaw.com. 23 March 2001. FindLaw. 6 April 2008 <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=7th&navby=docket&no=003643>

Vossekuil, Bryan. "Safe School Initiative Final Report" ed.gov. May 2002. U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Department of Education. 6 Apr. 2008 <http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/preventingattacksreport.pdf>

The subject of weapons owned by the general population of a nation as always been a point of hotly debated contention. For hundreds of years, governments, even though many have the best intentions for doing so, often seek to disarm the common people. Some try to preserve general order by so doing and others seek to quell their opposition and ensure their own permanence. The common man, in contrast, has always sought to arm himself. Either to hunt for food, defend his family and property or, at times, to defend himself from unjust rule, whether that be from his own government or that of another.

The Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America reads, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It is from this section of the Bill of Rights that we as American citizens are guaranteed the right to "keep and bear" personal arms, or guns. Interpretation of this Amendment, like the subject of personal weapons as a whole, is not without controversy. However, most scholars are convinced that the Second Amendment refers not to a National Guard (which is actually described in Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution and furthermore did not exist until 1903) but specifically refers to the individual citizenry.

The original intent of the authors of the Constitution can clearly be seen in the variations between the first few drafts. The original version was an unnumbered list, penned by James Madison, that was intended to be inserted into the main body of the Constitution rather than attached to the end as it is now. It was presented to Congress on June 8, 1789 and read, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."[i] It should be noted that this statement was to be inserted in the First Article, Section Nine, between clauses 3 and 4, following the prohibition on suspension of habeas corpus and ex post facto laws, all individual civil rights. It follows then, that this statement too was understood to be an individual right of each citizen.

It is interesting that the authors chose, after weeks of debate and voting, the words "keep and bear arms". Implying not only the ownership of weapons but also the ability to bear, or carry, those arms. For the first ten to twelve decades no one really even questioned the intent of the Second Amendment. In Dred Scott v. Sandford (the 1856 Dred Scott Decision), the Supreme Court stated in an objection, "It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union . . .the full liberty . . .to keep and carry arms wherever they went." The Court indicated here that is was considered a universal right of all citizens to carry arms wherever they went. It is evident from this wording, that "to keep arms" was considered distinctly different than to "carry arms".

It was common practice for many members of Congress to carry pistols, and "guns and knives were abundantly evident on the floors of the House and Senate". In one heated House debate, 30 members showed their weapons. In at least three cases (1826, 1851, and 1856), a member of Congress challenged a colleague to a duel from the floor and then did duel outside.[ii]

In addition to the Constitutional guarantees, common law, derived from the British provided for personal ownership of arms. Even before the Revolutionary War, the Protestant colonists, being British subjects, had a conditional right to possess arms according to the English Declaration of Rights of 1689.[iii] When the British government attempted to disarm the colonist’s militias in the early phases of the Revolutionary War, the colonists cited the aforementioned English Declaration of Rights, their own local militia laws, Blackstone’s (who was the first to put English common law into writing) summary of the Declaration of Rights and the common law rights to self-defense. Clearly, the early Americans of our country saw the vital role that individual gun ownership played in not only personal defense but more importantly in the defense of the nation as a whole.

Even Aristotle, who lived around 350 B.C., saw the important role arms played in government when he said, "Those who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people."

Indeed, other more infamous leaders also understood the importance of removing arms from their citizens and political opponents. Men like Joseph Stalin (1878-1953) who admonished, "If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves. "Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924) said, "One man with a gun can control 100 without one … Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms." Likewise, Adolf Hitler during World War II in conversations with his staff stated, "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."

It almost goes without saying that our Founding Fathers believed in this fundamental principle and many even gave their lives to ensure that we may have it. Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence wrote in 1824, "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." In a letter to James Madison in 1787 he replied, "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take up arms." Timothy Dwight, who was an Army Chaplain during the American Revolution, summarized the views of many of his peers when he said, "To trust arms in the hands of the people at large has, in Europe, been believed…to be an experiment fraught only with danger. Here by a long trial it has been proved to be perfectly harmless…If the government be equitable; if it be reasonable in its exactions; if proper attention be paid to the education of children in knowledge and religion, few men will be disposed to use arms, unless for their amusement, and for the defense of themselves and their country."

This fundamental principle has been repeated and believed essential from America’s very start by every great American leader. In 1960, John F. Kennedy reiterated rather eloquently, "Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom. By calling attention to ‘a well regulated militia,’ the ‘security’ of the nation, and the right of each citizen ‘to keep and bear arms,’ our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny, which gave rise to the Second Amendment, will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important."

I believe, however, that Thomas Paine, an American Revolution political philosopher, summarized many men’s conclusion to the entire debate best when he answered, "Arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe and preserve order." [iv]

In 1940, following the Minersville School District v. Gobitis case involving Jehovah’s Witnesses, the West Virginia legislator amended its statues to require all of its schools to conduct courses of instruction in civics, history and in the Constitutions of the United States and of the State "for the purpose of teaching, fostering and perpetuating the ideals, principles and spirit of Americanism, and increasing the knowledge of the organization and machinery of the government." In 1942, largely based on the Court’s Gobitis ruling, the West Virginia Board of Education ordered that all students and teachers must salute the flag as part of the regular program of activities in public schools. This salute was originally defined by the Board as the common salute. However this salute was quickly objected to by several civic groups cited as "being too much like Hitler’s" and the Board of Education redefined the salute as the stiff-arm salute, which is what we commonly use today. Failure to salute was considered insubordination and could result in the student’s expulsion from school causing the parents to be fined up to $50 with up to 30 days in jail.

Jehovah’s Witnesses have a literal belief of the Bible, which forbids them from bowing down to any image, including the image of the flag. Therefore, they refused to salute it and several children where expelled and parents prosecuted for no other reason. It should also be noted that during this time period the United States had entered into World War II and the nation as a whole was in a patriotic fervor. It was in response to this general sentiment, which often turned into physical assaults against Jehovah’s Witnesses, that public opinion turned against the Gobitis ruling and Walter Barnette challenged the state’s law. The lower court ruled in favor of Barnette and the Board of Education appealed sending the case to the Supreme Court. Justice Frankfurter, the Justice who ruled on the Gobitis case, dissented as if it was a personal attack on him.

Justice Robert H. Jackson (whose opinion on the case is considered one of the great statements of freedom in American history) wrote for the majority and delivered the opinion of the Court, "Freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order. If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us. We think the action of the local authorities in compelling the flag salute and pledge transcends constitutional limitations on their power, and invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control." The Court affirmed that the lower courts ruling was correct and overturned the Gobitis ruling.

I fervently agree with the ruling made by the court and think that the compulsory flag-salute for public schoolchildren violates the First Amendment. It is difficult at first to look past the patriotic overtone of this issue and consider the facts. The real issue at hand was does the State have the power to make you conform to majority opinion and punish your dissent, if it poses no threat. The resounding answer is no. The State should not be able to dictate and then make me conform to an ideology that is not my own and silence dissent. That, as history shows, only leads to exterminating dissenters and totalitarianism.

View a Wikipedia article discussing the West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette case.

Relativity is the premier guiding force in twentieth century thought and art. It is the idea that no independent absolute value exists but rather every moral decision or truth that one believes, is true only from their frame of reference and particular time. Truth becomes what is meaningful or significant within a given context. In order to understand the many different styles of literature, art and music that came about in the early twentieth century one must understand relativity and how that idea alone has had a profound impact upon how artists, authors and musicians create and convey their works of art.

The impact of relativity is evident in works such as Wassily Kandinsky’s essay Concerning the Spiritual in Art, Igor Stravinsky’s article entitled Poetry of Music, Friedrich Nietzsche’s book Beyond Good and Evil, T.S. Eliot’s poem The Waste Land, and Pablo Picasso’s painting Les Demoiselles d’Avignon.

To illustrate the influence that the idea of relativity has had on modern works of art and to show how it has vastly transformed the styles that many artists have used to create their art, we will first examine Wassily Kandinsky’s work.

In his essay Concerning the Spiritual in Art, Kandinsky refers to relativity when he argues that absolute freedom must be given to the artist. Artists before Kandinsky only tried to express themselves by imitating nature to convey their message. However, Kandinsky says that the artist should be free from being forced to fit his expression into the mold of nature. He should be free to paint what he is really trying to express. In other words the objects and colors of the picture are relative. In Concerning the Spiritual in Art Kandinsky discusses what is good painting and drawing and he tells us that good drawing cannot be altered without destroying its inner value, irrespective of its correctness as anatomical or natural structure. He then has the reader question not the violation of natural form, but the need of the artist for such a form. He says the artist is not only justified in using, but is actually obligated to use only those things that are absolutely necessary to his painting. Specifically, Kandinsky says, “colors are not to be used because they are true to nature but because they are necessary to the particular picture” (Kandinsky, 535). The entire purpose of the picture is to convey a message that the artist is trying to communicate by use of an image. To mottle both the picture and the message by adding unnecessary form or structure, or needless color, defeats the very purpose of the picture in the first place. The communication is lost to convention. Everything that the artist puts into his painting must be for a purpose and be a part of the complete conveyance. The colors in a work of art are only relative to the message, not to the form of nature itself. Kandinsky was one of the first artists to argue that there was no need to copy nature or physical form but rather only the shapes and colors necessary to the art should be used.

Igor Stravinsky’s article Poetics of Music is another example of relativity greatly influencing a 20^th century artist. Stravinsky produced a vastly different style of music by applying the principles of relativity to music. Relativity in music is not abandoning all rules and form, but rather imposing rules that may be different than what others in a different frame of reference may be used to. In his article he explains that the more constraints one imposes on themselves, the more free they will become from the chains that shackle their spirit. He is telling us that one must have some sort of rules and guidelines that govern that individual’s creation of art. Earlier in the article Poetics of Music Stravinsky says, “My freedom will be so much the greater and more meaningful the more narrowly I limit my field of action and the more I surround myself with obstacles” (Stravinsky, 547). Here he explains to us that one may only reach the furthest points of creativity by building upon a foundation and taking the art further than it has previously been. This kind of progress and structure cannot be attained by randomly throwing pieces together but rather it must be the product of a purposeful work carefully constructed together to enable the artist to fully express his intentions. Art must be bound by rules, though those rules are not always the same rules that are accepted as common practice. To create art that is random and chaotic is to limit one’s creativity to mere chance. The rules that Stravinsky used were actually much stricter that the common musical rules of the day. However, in imposing on himself a more rigorous set of rules, relative to his own ideas, he was able to actually create more.

Another example of relativity in literature is Friedrich Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil. Nietzsche demonstrates the idea of relativity in his description of how the master moralist determines value. From part nine of Nietzsche’s work, subtitled “What is Noble?” he describes for us the vast difference between the noble, or master, moralist and the slave moralist. The slave, he says desires only comfort and will conform to the morals and values of those around him. He simply seeks safety from the hardships in life. The master however has a completely different viewpoint. The master is willing to take risks and suffer hardship, so that he may learn from them and overcome. He does not just ignorantly accept the values of those around him, but rather he seeks to create his own values from his experiences and judgment. Unlike the slave who seeks only comfort, the master desires more, he desires true self-satisfaction. Nietzsche tells us, “The noble kind of man experiences himself as a person who determines value and does not need to have other people’s approval. He makes the judgment ‘What is harmful to me is harmful in itself.’ He understands himself as something which in general first confers honor on things, as someone who creates values” (Nietzsche, 5). In this text Nietzsche explains how the values of the master are not determined by other people. The noble man creates his values from the lessons he has learned in overcoming the hardship that he has faced. He understands that the values he holds are not objective truths that are always true. They are relative only to the time and place which he is currently in. The values, though still important, are not eternal and not the same for all men all the time.

In T.S. Eliot’s poem The Waste Land, he demonstrates relativity in the way in which throughout the poem he abruptly switches both the character speaking and time frame. In this poem Eliot talks about the decline and desperate times of people. It breaks from many poems of an earlier time, which are commonly fluid and story-like, by unexpectedly changing speaker, location and even time frame.

In the first part of T.S. Eliot poem, subtitled “The Burial of the Dead” he writes,

"Summer surprised us, coming over the Starnbergersee
With a shower of rain; we stopped in the colonnade,
And went on in sunlight, into the Hofgarten,
And drank coffee, and talked for an hour.
Bin gar keine Russin, stamm’ aus Litauen, echt deutsch.
And when we were children, staying at the archduke’s,
My cousin’s, he took me out on a sled,
And I was frightened. He said, Marie,
Marie, hold on tight. And down we went.
In the mountains, there you feel free.
I read, much of the night, and go south in the winter."(Eliot, 1)

In this excerpt he takes on the persona of a girl, presumably Marie, and talks first about sitting around a lake, drinking coffee. The speaker then fades into her childhood, remembering with fondness how her cousin took her out sledding. She remembers being scared and then going down anyway. Then abruptly the speaker changes topics again and goes off on a different tangent. This is a prime example of how relativity has influenced T.S. Eliot in the way in which he is able to frame and write this poem. It departs from the common fluid, single event poetry and changes speakers and topics almost as if remembering a flash of a life, catching only pieces of each memory along the way.

Finally, Pablo Picasso is the archetype of relativity demonstrated in art. Relativity in Picasso is related to visual perspectives and the meaning of objects, deeper than just their physical structure. He painted many different styles, one of the most notable of which is Les Demoiselles d’Avignon, painted in 1907 during the African-influenced period of his life. In Les Demoiselles d’Avignon Picasso paints a picture of five prostitutes, one sitting and four standing. The two women on the right are wearing African-style masks. The woman sitting has her head turned toward us while her body is seated the opposite way and the woman on the far left has a face much darker than the rest of her painted skin tone. The spaces between the women also jut out in sharp pointed pieces rather than fade back behind the women as one would expect them to. Also the prostitutes themselves, though naked, are not depicted with sensuous curves and depth, but as flat plains. Each section or plain of this picture is in a different perspective than those that surround it. Some have shadows darkening the opposite sides and the faces of the women are asymmetrical. Picasso seems to have been trying to show the relativity of each perspective is different and paint all different viewpoints on one single image. And the fact that prostitutes are wearing tribal spiritual masks certainly conveys more of who the women are rather than just what they look like. This Picasso painting is the visual representation of what relativity is.

In Kandinsky’s Concerning the Spiritual in Art, relativity was seen in his argument that colors and shapes were only necessary when they were essential to the art, not simply to reproduce nature. Similarly, Stravinsky said in Poetics of Music that art is defined by its rules and no art can be void or structure, however the rules one artist uses may be completely different than that of another. In Beyond Good and Evil Nietzsche explains that the values the master moralist holds are not objective truths that are always true. They are relative only to the time and place which the master is in and those values, though still important, are not eternal and not the same for all men all the time. T.S. Eliot in The Waste Land showed relativity by abruptly changing speakers, locations and times. And Picasso applied the idea of relativity to his painting in Les Demoiselles d’Avignon showing several perspectives and viewpoints all in a single image.

It has been necessary to understand the Theory of Relativity and how it has been applied to the many different styles of literature, art and music that came about in the early twentieth century. That idea alone has completely reshaped art, music and literature and had a profound impact upon how artists, authors and musicians create and convey their works of art.

Works Cited

Elliot, T. S. “The Waste Land.” Wikipedia. 10 June 2007. <http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Waste_Land>.

Kandinsky, Wassily. “Concerning the Spiritual in Art.” Classics of Western Thought, The Twentieth Century, Volume IV. Ed. Donald S. Gochberg. Belmont: Thomson Learning, 2003. 533-37.
Read the Full Text of Concerning the Spiritual in Art

Nietzsche, Friedrich. “Beyond Good and Evil.” Malaspina University-College. 10 June 2007. <http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/Nietzsche/beyondgoodandevil1.htm>.

Picasso, Pablo. Les Demoiselles d’Avignon. 1907. Museum of Modern Art, New York. 10 June 2007. <http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?object_id=79766&>

Stravinsky, Igor. “Poetics of Music.” Classics of Western Thought, The Twentieth Century, Volume IV. Ed. Donald S. Gochberg. Belmont: Thomson Learning, 2003. 538-47.

Has this info been a help to you? Please consider donating to help me pay for hosting costs. I hate ads as much as you do, which is why I will never have them here. But that means I have to pay for all costs related to this website out of my student loans or from money I find laying on the street. I make no profit from this content or this website and all donations go strictly to pay for hosting and bandwidth costs. Even a small donation really does help. Thanks!

If you are poor like me but still want to help then you could sign up for dropbox with this affiliate link: http://db.tt/Cp0xqxY (it gives us both free extra space). Its a SUPER useful service that you really should try – especially if you are a student or have an iPad or smartphone. It will change your life for the better – I promise. For tips on how to use dropbox to its fullest see my rundown.

Every minute, in the United States, 19 more people become the victims of identity theft. That means that every year about 10 million people have their identity stolen.[i] Identity theft is the number one concern of all consumer who contact the Federal Trade Commission. According the U.S. Department of Justice Statistics, identity theft is now passing drug trafficking as the number one crime in the nation.[ii] Clearly identity theft is a major concern of American consumers, and their concern is not unfounded. In fact, 49% of consumers feel that they do not know how to adequately protect themselves from this crime.[iii]

What exactly is identity theft? Identity theft can be described as using someone else’s personal information such as social security numbers, names, address, or user names and passwords to establish or change financial accounts, or to conceal their own identity for criminal activities.

The main reason a thief seeks to steal a persons identity is for financial fraud. This is usually accomplished by a thief establishing a bank or credit card account under the victims name, running up purchases to the credit limit, and then leaving the bill unpaid. The bank or credit institution then seeks payment from the unknowing victim, whose identity was used to start a fraudulent account. According to the Identity Theft Resource Center, a victim spends an average of over 600 hours and $1,400.00 of out of pocket expenses in an effort to restore their credit.[iv]

The second reason why a thief may steal one’s identity is to take on the victim’s identity to commit a crime, cross a country’s border, get special permits, or to hide one’s own identity from authorities. These include activities like, computer and cyber crimes, organized crime, drug trafficking, alien smuggling, money laundering and even terrorism. A related reason why identity theft has become so common and is on the rise is because only one out of every 700 criminals will be caught and prosecuted for their crime.[v]

Several methods are employed by criminals in identity theft. It may be from a gas station or restraint receipt that you accidentally forgot or threw away without destroying it. Although less common now than a few years ago some companies still print your full credit card number and name on the receipt. With that information a criminal can easily place an order over the phone or online. Even websites that seek to make transactions secure by asking for the card holder’s address or phone number, can easily be bypassed if the criminal simply looks up the victim’s address and phone number in the phone book or through and online directory. Your credit card can be "skimmed", meaning a device is placed on the outside of the legitimate card reader to copy your personal information as you use your card in an ATM or gas station pump. Personal information can also be memorized or copied by waiters or sales clerks, taken directly from your mailbox, and they could even be taken from the files and records of your employer, landlord, hospital, or financial lender.

One of the more common methods as of late is to con you into giving the criminal your person information yourself. This can be through spoof emails – emails which appear to be from a legitimate company or service, and are often built on the premise of possible errors with your account, which requires one to log onto a carbon copy of the site with which you are familiar – or through fishing sites which unknowingly redirect you to a “carbon copy” re-login page, causing you to think you simply need to re-login to your financial lender’s website. In reality you have just give the thief all the information he could possibly want by looking at the information registered with that institution. Yet another way a thief may use your computer to steal your personal information is to exploit security holes in any software that you may have on your computer. The thief may install software that logs every keystroke that you make or looks through the files stored on your computer for any useful information. While these may seem like high-tech hacking tactics in reality they are very easily learned skills that can be found abundantly on the internet and use free downloadable programs. Any tech-savy teen with a little time on their hands is more than capable of using the aforementioned methods.

Some thieves even take the trash of likely targets, which they then sift through look for discarded pre-approved credit cards or any other information that they may use to piece together the victim’s personal information.

Laws like the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 and The Fair Credit Reporting Act were enacted to help protect consumer’s identities. However, the ultimate responsibility (and also the most effective defense) lie with the owner of the identity, you. The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act requires a national system of fraud detection and alerts, and also holds credit agencies responsible to identify patterns of fraud. The Fair Credit Reporting Act requires each of the nationwide consumer reporting companies such as, Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion, to provide an individual with a free copy of their credit report, at their request, once every 12 months or if they believe they have been the victim of fraud. This report can be obtained from http://www.annualcreditreport.com.

To prevent this epidemic problem from happening to you, you must take a proactive approach. Simply telling yourself that it won’t happen to you will not work. Each individual must take the necessary steps to protect their own sensitive personal information. These steps include:

• Monitoring your back and credit card statements and checking your credit report periodically for unauthorized accounts.
• Never give out your Social Security number unless you absolutely have to.
• Do not put anything but the required name and address on your checks and keep an eye on your checkbook while it is laying out and while you are writing a check. Someone can easily write down or memorize your address and account number in the time it takes to write a check. Also guard your deposit slips. Not only do they often have your name, address and account number printed on them, but they can also be used to withdraw money from your account. A thief must simply write a bad check, deposit it into your account and use the “less cash received” line to withdraw your money.
• Don’t carry your Social Security card or passport in your wallet or purse, and some experts suggest that you photocopy everything that you do carry in your wallet or purse to make recovery and canceling easier.
• Never give out personal information over the phone if you did not initiate the call and remember that a financial company will never ask you to email them your account information. If you do need to log in to their services, in response to an email, do not click the links in the email but rather type the address into your web browsers address bar.
• You should have your name and address removed from mailing lists by going to the Mail Preference Service (https://www.dmaconsumers.org/cgi/offmailing) and also remove your name from “pre-approved” credit offers by going to https://www.optoutprescreen.com.
• Be sure to shred – not just tear in half, but shred by cross cut – any credit offers or mail with personal information that you do receive before throwing it away.
• If you are ever denied credit, find out why. By law if you are denied credit the company must send you a credit report containing why you were denied.
• React quickly if you suspect that your identity has been stolen, or you see charges on your financial statements that you did not make.

In regard to computer related security there are several easy thing that you can do to protect yourself online.

• One of the simplest things you can do to protect your personal information is to use a secure password (one that is 8-13 characters long and includes a combination of uppercase letters, lowercase letters, numbers and symbols) and change that password every 60 days or so.

• Be sure your computer software, especially web browsers, are up-to-date by going to http://update.microsoft.com/ or the equivalent website for your software vendor.
• Look for digital security certificates, like VeriSign, when entering sensitive information.
• Never give out personal information unless you know who you are dealing with.

By taking a few simple steps to ensure your personal information is protect, you can save your self a great deal of time, effort and money by preventing identity theft from ever happening to you in the first place. As out lives become more and more involved with online registrations, website purchasing, and the ease with which digital data may be transferred or intercepted, it is more and more important to ensure that each individual is doing everything possible to protect their family, their money and their property by being aware of current security precautions.

Should the feeding tube that had been keeping Terri Schiavo alive for the last fifteen years been removed? I do not think so. Michael Schiavo was fighting for the right to let Terri die, however she had no terminal disease and would only die if not fed and given water, just as you and I would.

First of all, Terri was in a comatose state. A state that, although it is rare, it is possible to recover from. Many people have awoken from comas against all odds and a few people have awoken after being in a coma for many years. Terri was not being a burden to anybody and her parents, brother and sister were more than willing to take the time and effort to take care of all of Terri’s needs. Terri’s parents were also financially capable of paying for all of Terri’s medical needs and there were also a few funds set up for her care that had thousands of dollars in them devoted directly for her. In fact the only legitimate reason that anyone would want Terri to die would be her husband, Michael who stood to gain a life insurance claim from her. Other than that she was only a benefit to keep alive. Just her being there and having the chance to recover, however small a chance it may have been, was a comfort to Terri’s parents.

Second, the only thing that Terri needed medically was a feeding tube for food and hydration – just as some people who are severely retarded or some of the elderly in nursing homes need. However, it is clearly wrong to remove the feeding tubes of these people, in a similar condition. Food and water are not medical treatment, if you keep food and water from anyone for a long period of time they will die. Just because the delivery system of the food is different does not make that much of a difference in the fact that it is needed by all living people. Babies are not able to feed themselves either, but if you stopped feeding a baby and it was allowed to die you would quickly be put into jail. In fact, if you quit feeding your dog for several days – even if it doesn’t die you are very likely to receive several years in jail. There is no real difference in feeding through a tube than a liquid diet or feeding babies. People with a broken jaw must be fed through a tube also, but it is a crime to remove their feeding tube. The fact that Terri is unconscious will surely be raised on this point, but there are many mentally handicapped people who also do not have full consciousness or mental capabilities and must be fed through a feeding tube. But if their tube was removed you would go to jail for murder. This seems to be a very inconsistent argument.

Third, it was argued that the feeding tube should be removed because Terri was suffering in her current state and would not want to live that way. If that in fact was true, and Terri was in a comatose state that could not be recovered from, then she was in fact not suffering at all and would not in the future at any time. In a coma, the part of the brain that produces feeling and consciousness is not functioning properly and thus the individual is in a coma. Therefore, in a coma a person feels nothing and could not be suffering, making this argument invalid. It was not known whether she would want to live or not.

However, if you look at the facts, a more accurate picture of this can be seen. Her parents thought Terri would want the chance to recover and would want to receive any and all treatment that would be necessary to keep her alive. They stood to gain nothing if they were right and Terri was kept on the feeding tube. In fact, they only added more responsibility upon their own shoulders. Michael Schiavo, on the other hand, believed that Terri would not want to live in a comatose state and after being given a reasonable time of a few days or weeks with no improvement would want to be killed (not passively euthanized because there is no underlying condition that would take her life, but actively killed by starvation, as in any other case of starvation). He stood to gain money from life insurance and would no longer be involved in the legal issues and medical decisions for Terri. Motives seem to be a factor in this case.

Many opponents of this case said that Terri’s comatose state had gone beyond recovery and in fact to a place where the brain had started to deteriorate away. This evidence was still being debated however, as the technology for this kind of imaging is still not perfect. It was unclear exactly was the state of Terri’s brain was.

Another argument against this case is that medical treatment should be stopped and Terri should be allowed to die because her life was no longer worth living. There was no medical procedure being done however to sustain Terri’s life and no artificial means of life support. The only thing that kept Terri alive is the very thing that keeps you and I alive – food and water.

The last main argument made against this case is that Terri was suffering in her comatose state and should not continue to be made to suffer. This issue has already been addressed and it seems to be clear that either way, she was not suffering.

The arguments in this case seem to be very clear. To cease feeding Terri is just as wrong as to stop feeding anyone else. This case has gone beyond decided whether Terri should die, and into whether the courts have the right to decide who lives and who does not. All human life is precious and no one has the right to take the life of anyone else no matter what state they may consider them to be in. If the court can decide to stop feeding Terri, can they not also decide that you should not be fed either? I vehemently say the court has no such right.