Example the structure
1. Single Parent Struggle
Single Parent Struggle For many years, children growing up
in a single parent family have been viewed as different. Being raised by only
one parent seems impossible to many yet over the decades it has become more
prevalent. In today’s society many children have grown up to become emotionally
stable and successful whether they had one or two parents to show them the
rocky path that life bestows upon all human beings. The problem lies in the
difference of children raised by single parents versus children raised by both
a mother and a father. Does a child need both parents? Does a young boy need a
father figure around? Does the government provide help for single parents? What
role do step-parents and step-siblings play? With much speculation, this topic
has become a very intriguing argument. What people must understand is that
properly raising a child does not rely on the structure of a family but should
be more focused on the process or values that are taught to these children as
they learn to mature. Children of single parents can be just as progressive
with emotional, social and behavioral skills as those with two parents.
People
claim that the only way for children to gain full emotional and behavioral
skills is to be raised by both a mother and a father. When a topic such as this
one has a broad amount of variables it is impossible to simply link these
problems to only having one parent. In the article, “Single-parent families
cause juvenile crime”, author Robert L. Maginnis states, “Children from
single-parent families are more likely to have behavior problems
because they tend to lack economic security and adequate time with parents”.
The simple statement that raw criminals are products of single-parent
adolescence is absurd. What this writer must understand is that it can be
extremely difficult for one parent to raise a child by themselves for many
reasons. A single-parent must work full time to be able to afford to provide for
themselves and their child. They must also be able to still have time to offer
an exuberant amount of emotional time for the well being of their child.
However, even though this may seem impossible, it can be done.
As this subject
continues to be looked down on people must realize that single parents are
becoming more common in today’s world. Since 1995 the American family structure
for children ages fourteen to eighteen consists of forty-two percent living in
a first marriage family with both parents, twenty-two percent living in a
second marriage step-family, twenty-one percent living in a single parent,
divorced or separated family, six percent living in a single parent never
married family and three percent living in a single parent widowed family. This
is an extremely scary statistic considering that fifty eight percent of children
in America are living in a single parent family. This is a chilling percentage
because it shows how little faith is put into a relationship before actually
deciding to have children. Unfortunately not all single-parents take the time
to perform the vital tasks needed to raise their children. Parents who think
they would never be able to provide emotional stability for their children by
themselves should have taken the time to think this through before deciding to
become parents. Accidents may happen once in awhile but in most cases adults
know what is at stake when planning to have a child. Plain and simple, if
you’re not ready, than don’t do it. If you do decide to have this child and you
love this child, then you can be a good parent. There are many ways to enhance
the well being of your child if you simply apply yourselves as parents. Magginnis later states that, “Boys who do not have fathers as male role models
suffer especially”. While it is extremely important for a male child to have
his father around, there are other ways of teaching a young boy the lessons he
needs to become a man. I know from personal experience that what the author of
this article is trying to convey is wrong. I never had my father around while
growing up and I did in fact have many positive male role models. My
Grandfather was always there to help guide me as I slowly blossomed into a
young man. Anytime my mother had to work to support us, my grandparents,
aunt’s, uncles and cousins would step up and provide the time and attention I
needed. Therefore, I had the best support group I could have had as a young
man. Being a child with a single mother had its benefits. Although I came to
find how hard it really was for her to always meet the needs of her child, she
did the best job that she possibly could and gave me the knowledge that I
needed to become a successful man without the guidance of my father.
I did
however have the experience of dealing with a step-parent. Today, twenty-five
percent of all American children will spend at least some time of their
growing-up years in a step-family. This seems fine for single parents because
they feel like they can start over in a new relationship and receive help from
their spouse both emotionally and financially. A step-parent can cause
confusion and emotional stress on the child since they have just had to adjust
to only one parent and now have to adjust to a new parental figure stepping
into the family role. Another factor of bringing a step-parent into a single
family’s life is new step-siblings to get along with. It might not be justified
for a step-parent to punish their step-child like they would their own flesh
and blood. As long as both parents have an understanding that their family
comes first and that it is important to communicate between themselves and with
the children, a step-family could survive.
Children who are raised with both a
mother and a father have more attention from both parents therefore they get
the emotional time they need to progress in life. This could be true but not in
all circumstances. It would not be beneficial at all to grow up in a two parent
family who did nothing but argue and put each-other down. Naturally, a child
who sees this from a very young age until they are ready to be out on their own
would only follow in the footsteps of all that they have ever known. Children
who are raised by one parent who devotes their time and emotion into their
child would benefit much more than a child who has both parents showing them
that fighting and arguing is acceptable.
Not all families are lucky enough to
have a healthy structure. It is important for society and government aids to
notice these structural differences and take action. There should be government
funded programs to help assist single-parent families with childcare and
finances for parents who must work and still have time for their children.
Whether it’s a mother and a father, a single mother, or a single father, children
need guidance. They will only become a product of what they are taught from a
young age and these children are deeply affected emotionally by the amount of
love and compassion that is put into raising them. Whichever family structure
is implied it must be one of respect and strong moral values that they can
someday pass on to their family.
Society Begin at Home
Anita Renfroe wrote these catchy words for the song “Momisms”, sung to the familiar tune of the William Tell Overture. Her words best describe a typical day of mayhem through the eyes of a mother. Mothers who stay at home know that at times, their lives can be discombobulating. Despite the chaos, stay-at-home mothers get the tremendous responsibility of only having one chance of raising their children in such a way that makes a difference in their children’s lives and in society
Throughout history, society has looked upon the male as the breadwinner: the one expected to work and support the family. The mother has been viewed as the nurturer: the one to stay home and raise the children. During the 1960’s, women wanted more rights, power, and the ability to get higher paying jobs. Women were given this right so they expressed this new found freedom by going to work outside of the home. As women sought employment, their children were left to the care of babysitters and day care workers. Because society has redefined the role of a mother to be one who is an important element in the workforce, the loss of the mother in the home has led to the Fellhoelter 2 decline of the family unit, and thus, to society. This forfeiture has created a generation for whom social morals and values are not as important as they once were. Perhaps this is due to a working mother being absent from the home where she is unable to personally instill these ethical standards in her children, thus leaving her children to receive their value system from strangers. “Society truly does begin at home”, asserts Sibyl Niemann, so, in order to return to a culture with better morals and values, the importance of the role of the stay at home mother should be restored. (2) In this way, stay at home mothers can improve society.
It is disappointing when mothers are devalued for staying at home to raise their children. Richard Lowry states, “There is something valuable in a mother’s caring for her own child.” (4) In general, no one can take care of your child in the same way his or her mother would. A mother’s care is usually superior to daycare since she naturally wants what is best for her child. “According to a non-partisan Public Agenda survey in 2000, roughly 80 percent of parents with children five and younger say a stay-at-home parent is best able to give children the “affection and attention they need.”
A mother’s individual care can also curb the aggression that is evident in day care centers. “A study done by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), reports that, kids in non-maternal care tend to be associated with qualities such as “gets in lots of fights,” “cruelty,” “explosive behavior,” “talking too much,” “argues a lot,” and “demands a lot of attention.” Teachers who work in a preschool environment, like my daughter, are frustrated with how badly the children usually behave. Workers in day care are governed by strict rules which prevent Fellhoelter 3 disciplining children the way one can do at home. This causes a disregard and loss of respect for others because many children grow up thinking they can do what they want. Today, many of the younger generation act like they are owed something. In the workplace, it is shocking to see the way they treat others with their degrading manners and think there is nothing wrong with their behavior. They also tend to have lazy work ethics and “cop an attitude” when asked to do anything extra. This makes it difficult for many employers to find hard working and respectful employees.
It is important to note that not all children in daycare grow up to be aggressive and unproductive adults. Even though many women in the work force find raising children to be a very difficult task which leaves them feeling lonely and bored, they do a fine job of balancing their jobs with raising successful children. These women enjoy being able to show their children the advantages of working outside of the home. They are able to “teach their children how to be independent, inquisitive, and ambitious”, as well as “learn the value of personal fulfillment and goal setting.” (Karaim 1) Reed Karaim also proclaims that, “successful working mothers give their children one of the best gifts any parent can: the example of a life lived to its potential.” (3) I think that all of these examples are helpful in raising successful children, however, I believe a stay at home mom can also teach these same qualities in the home. I know this to be true because I was fortunate to remain at home and raise my children. I was the one who was the nurturer and demonstrated love and compassion to my children by hugging, cuddling, and kissing them. I was personally involved in teaching them throughout all the stages of development and shared in the joy of my children’s accomplishments. There is something special about hearing your child’s first word and watching them take their first step as they giggle with glee. I was able to mold my children’s character by instilling good values and morals that taught them to be independent and set goals for themselves, such as being on time for work and appointments. These attributes have helped to contribute to society in a positive way and leave me feeling as if I have done a good job.
Despite the seemingly successful results of a stay at home mom’s efforts, “our culture no longer values the household supported by a sole breadwinner.” (Niemann 3) This is demonstrated by the many women who currently do work outside of the home because they feel the need to contribute to their families’ well being. According to Niemann, “everything—from buying a house to applying for a college loan for one’s son or daughter—seems structured around the two income family.” (3) A household that has a dual income helps “boost many families into middle class.”, says Karaim. (2) This allows their children to experience the comforts, options for education and opportunities that they might otherwise not have had.
As tempting as this extra income may be, couples should be careful that this does not impact their relationship as husband and wife. When spouses compete for power in the workforce and then return home too tired to deal with the many needs of their children, the harmony of the family unit can suffer. This is because husbands often feel threatened by the success of their wives. Steven Rhoads claims that “men are more likely to divorce women who are ambitious.” (5) Lowry explains that “just the specter of divorce creates a kind of intra-marital arms race. The wife works to hedge against getting abandoned, but her very act of working, research shows, makes it more likely that the marriage will fail—a dismaying downward spiral.” (3) Since divorces negatively impact society, we should refocus on preserving marriage and on strengthening the family unit. Fellhoelter 5 When men and women are happy and comfortable in their roles as the fatherbreadwinner, and mother-caregiver, marriages can thrive.
Women who do remain at home should not hide behind their children or husbands but instead should be proud of their role. They should be vocal about how productive they are with their children and family. This allows working women and men to see and appreciate the importance of the role of a stay at home mom. Perhaps they will see for themselves the advantages of remaining at home and raising their children. According to Lowry, “most women would like to stay home and care for their children, but society pressures them into believing that a career is more important than family.” (1) Unless some changes are made, the family unit will continue to decline. Less time spent with children building character increases the risk for disregarding and disrespecting others. The current attitudes of “you owe me”, “I deserve it”, as well as “it is all about me” will probably continue to get worse.
Even though being a stay-at-home mom may have periods of loneliness, boredom, frustration, and feelings of futility, the rewards of being personally involved with raising one’s own children greatly outweigh the negatives. One of the greatest accomplishments in life is being a stay-at-home mom where one can teach and model good behavior and moral fortitude. By emulating these morals and values, children enter into adulthood with the necessary tools needed to produce a successful society. As tough as this unpaid task may be, this self-sacrifice of staying at home to raise ones’ children can be the most society enhancing job a woman can do
School Choice – An Educational Custom Fit
Imagine if only one size of pants were sold in stores and government regulations
wouldn’t allow any other size to be made available to consumers. This may sound crazy but it’s
much like what’s happening with the education of our nation’s children. As Americans we enjoy
a wide range of personal choice, and thankfully it includes our ability to select the pants that fit
us best. But think for a moment about traditional public education. For decades the public school
system has offered a one size fits all approach to educating our nation’s children. As we
approached the 21st century, the public school system began to show its age. More and more
children began to fall behind in a rapidly changing environment marked by the introduction of
personal computers and later the internet. Sensing a need for change, many people began to push
for new educational models that would keep up with the times. This marked the beginning of the
school choice movement. Both charter schools and school voucher programs are collectively
referred to as “school choice” initiatives, in that they allow parents freedom to choose
individualized education options for their children that are outside of the traditional “one size fits
all’ public school system. A school voucher program provides parents with certificates that are
used to pay for education at a school of their choice, rather than the public school to which they
are assigned. Charter schools on the other hand are publicly funded schools that have been freed
from inefficient public school system rules and regulations in exchange for accountability to
produce positive, measurable results. These agreed to results are set forth in each school’s charter. The ability for parents to choose an education path that is best for their children is an
exciting opportunity currently revolutionizing public education.
Considering the importance of public education, it’s understandable that many people
would be hesitant to make changes to the system. Those opposed to school choice site concerns
that public schools would be traded in for profit based education corporations that care more for
financial profit than the individual education of students. Others site concern for what appears to
be government sponsorship of private religious schools through the funding provided by various
school voucher programs. Those against choice should be commended for demonstrating a
committed concern for the education of our nation’s children, but the overwhelming evidence
proves that school choice is the right direction for the future.
A characteristic of privately operated charter schools is the focus on success through
measurable achievement and accountability. Imagine again the one size fits all pants store, how
could they stay in business if another store offered various sizes and styles? Simple, they
couldn’t, not when faced with competition that provides a better choice for consumers. The
traditional public school system of the past had no competition. There was no incentive to
improve the quality of education they provided since there was nothing to measure it against.
The school choice movement for the first time introduced an alternative to poorly performing
public schools. Charter schools make a commitment, or charter, to achieve a measurable level of
educational performance within a defined period of time. This concept works and has produced
results in places like Chicago, where charter schools show better performance in ACT test
scores, high school graduation rates, and greater numbers of students continuing on to college
(Rand).
One group that benefits greatly from school choice is the urban poor. For decades there
has been school choice for families that could afford it. The wealthy have always provided very
expensive private schools for their children, and middleclass families with the resources have
moved to neighborhoods that offered the best schools. But the poor, often in urban areas, have
had no other option than to send their children to under performing and sometimes even
dangerous public schools. Through school choice initiatives poor families have been given the
same opportunities to send their children to safer and better performing schools which others
have enjoyed for many years. In addition to the urban poor, other often overlooked groups can
greatly benefit from a system that allows individual schools to focus on gifted, special education,
or teen pregnancy programs (Chub). It’s clear that choices in schools allow a custom fit of
education solutions for every type of student.
School choice represents change and there will always be those that resist change stand to
gain from a return to the old system. One of the most active opponents to school choice is the
National Education Association. Representing public education professionals, the NEA is the
largest labor union in the US and boasts over 3.2 million members (NEA). The NEA benefits
from keeping status quo and exercising strong political power. At stake are changes in job
performance accountability, and the loss of union jobs a result of non-unionized schools. The
positions the NEA has taken on other issues have often been criticized as favoring the labor
interests of its members rather than what’s best for students. One of the programs the NEA has
been most vocal against has been school vouchers, contending that vouchers amount to
government funding of religious based schools. On the contrary, citizens are allowed to retain a
portion of their tax dollars that would have been spent on local public school funding and apply
it to a school of their choosing. It is the citizen, not the government that selects and contributes to a private school whether it is religiously based or not. Consider families that are already sending
children to private schools, they must pay the private school tuition and in addition to the tax
burden for a public school they are not even attending. This double burden is unfair and amounts
to a government fine for families that pursue private education without the help of vouchers.
It’s clear that the historical one size fits all approach to education is outdated. The new
fast pace of the digital age demands that we act quickly and accurately in guiding our public
education policies. Cling to an antiquated system that provides poor results is a guarantee that
traditional public education will continue to produce nothing other than poor results. Instead, a
path of measurable results and accountability should be pursued. The arguments of those against
school choice must be seen for what they are, and that is nothing more than protection of special
interests such as big unions. Our nation must ensure that children will be provided with a choice
based education that is forward thinking, customized, fair to all citizens, and able to move into
the future with them.
HEALTH AND HEALING AT YOUR FINGERTIPS
HEALTH AND HEALING AT YOUR FINGERTIPS
Throw out the bottles and boxes of drugs in your house. A new theory suggests that medicine could be bad for your health, which should at least come as good news to people who cannot afford to buy expensive medicine. However, it is a blow to the medicine industry, and an even bigger blow to our confidence in the progress of science. This new theory argues that healing is at our fingertips: we can be healthy by doing Reiki on a regular basis.
Supporters of medical treatment argue that medicine should be trusted since it is effective and scientifically proven. They say that there is no need for spiritual methods such as Reiki, Yoga, Tai Chi. These waste our time, something which is quite precious in our material world. There is medicine that can kill our pain, x-rays that show us our fractured bones or MRI that scans our brain for tumors. We must admit that these methods are very effective in the examples that they provide. However, there are some “every day complaints” such as back pains, headaches, insomnia, which are treated currently with medicine. When you have a headache, you take an Aspirin, or Vermidon, when you cannot sleep, you take Xanax without thinking of the side effects of these. When you use these pills for a long period, you become addicted to them; you cannot sleep without them. We pay huge amounts of money and become addicted instead of getting better. How about a safer and more economical way of healing? When doing Reiki to yourself, you do not need anything except your energy so it is very economical. As for its history, it was discovered in Japan America Western Europe . In quantum physics, energy is recognized as the fundamental substance of which the universe is composed. Reiki depends on the energy within our bodies. It is a simple and effective way of restoring the energy flow. There are no side effects and it is scientifically explained.
Opponents of alternative healing methods also claim that serious illnesses such as HIV/AIDS and cancer cannot be treated without drugs. They think so because these patients spend the rest of their lives in the hospital taking medicine. How can Reiki make these people healthy again? It is very unfortunate that these patients have to live in the hospital losing their hair because of chemotherapy, losing weight because of the side effects of the medicine they take. Actually, it is common knowledge that except for when the cancer is diagnosed at an early stage, drugs also cannot treat AIDS or cancer. Most of the medicine these patients use are to ease their pain and their sufferings because of the medical treatment they undergo. Instead of drugs which are expensive and have many side effects, you can use your energy to overcome the hardships of life, find an emotional balance, leave the stress of everyday life and let go of the everyday worries. Most of the chronic conditions such as eczema or migraine are known to have causes such as poor diet and stress. Deep-rooted anger or other strong emotions can contribute to viral infections as well. Since balancing our emotions and controlling our thoughts are very important for our well-being, we should definitely start learning Reiki and avoid illnesses before it is too late.
Some people may still maintain that in our material world, everything depends on time. It is even “lacking time” that causes much of the stress that leads to the illnesses we mentioned. How would it be possible to find time to do Reiki to ourselves and the people around us when we cannot even find time to go to the theater? This is one good thing about Reiki; it does not require more than 15 minutes of our time. There is no need for changing clothes or special equipment. It is a wonderfully simple healing art, an effective method of relaxation and stress-relief. Most important of all, it is less time consuming than medicine if we think of all the time we spend taking medicine for some complaints and taking some more for the side effects as well.
Having said these, resistance to Reiki would be quite illogical. Reiki is natural and drug-free. What is more, it is easy to learn by anyone, regardless of age and experience. It can be used anywhere, anytime. It also enhances physical, mental, emotional and spiritual well-being and the benefits last a lifetime. It is definitely high time to get away from the drug boxes we store in our drug cabinet!
The Faceless Teacher
The Internet is here to stay. Whether one lives in a backwoods shack or Silicon Valley, the potential of online communication cannot be ignored. In facing the twenty-first century, a fearless inventory of the role that the World Wide Web will play in global culture must be taken. This “phantom resource,” where web sites can shift and vanish like ghosts, should not lend itself to widespread application without careful examination of the specific functions it will be utilized to perform. The Internet is an entity without a master, and censure and discretion on the Web are left to the responsibility of the individual publisher. This means a student searching the vast fields of information that have flowered on-line may find pay dirt or fertilizer. Overzealous use of computers, even in innocence, to ease the burden of solid research in favor of convenience or for the sinister purpose of cutting costs, will reduce learning from a creative process to a point-and-click procedure, effectively diminishing students from social-learners to a cyber-tribe of hunters-and-gatherers relying on the ability of machines and the rote memorization of monitors’ displays.
The blank countenance of the computer screen, the faceless teacher, is a frightening prospect of education’s on-line future. Information is present as print, yet the medium of transference is missing. The student may be receptive and the information relevant; however, learning takes place not by passive observation but in a dynamic whirlwind of uncertainty and intent. A student enters the classroom to learn, and another human being must provide the nuance, the animation, and the conscious feedback--in short, the simple bioactivity--to stimulate a student’s mind. The professor provides another lifetime of experience to contrast with the student’s own personal reality. This interaction alone breaks the constraints of personal bias and helps to form a skill vital to critical thinking: objectivity. In a formal classroom, the informality of the social scene is left outside the door and a new discipline of rhetoric and discussion is acquired. The human teacher, while not infallible, can explain different solutions to a single problem, demonstrate objectivity and understanding, and illustrate alternate approaches to obstacles. The computer can calculate and display, but a teacher can calculate and devise.
Innovation is the ability to employ creative methods to solve a problem. How does one get it? Confronting problems directly and working through them is the only way. Education supplies not just raw data but also the strategies for dealing with that raw data, the template for forming this information into ideas by shaping it with innovation, and eventually the arena to use these weapons in challenging specific problems. Typing a command into a search engine or deleting an errant pornographic advertisement from a screen does not teach or even require critical thinking or innovation on the part of the student. Lessons hide in the process of learning--the cross-referencing, the questioning that is the lifeblood of the dialogue, and the discipline so important in the search for knowledge--not in the simple instant gratification in the click of a mouse. The ease of information acquisition provides the student with plenty of sources but hinders the development of a critical and flexible frame of reference to interpret this wealth of material. The computer can show but cannot teach. The student is left alone in a sea of information without a means of propulsion.
If the student seems the scapegoat, portrayed as dull-witted or lazy, this is unintentional. Though “virtual education” is only a keystroke away, and these are possibilities, not inevitabilities, the Internet is powerful, and with power comes the potential for abuse, by the teachers themselves as well as the students. As the Web gives pupils the option to decrease human involvement in their education, institutions may choose to use the Web as the primary classroom forum in the quest to save money. The equation E=mc2 can also be employed when examining a College or University’s financial strategy. Substitute “$” for “E,” manpower for “m,” and leave “c” as it is to represent “time” squared. The amount of time faculty members work multiplied by the size of the university’s staff equals money exiting from that institutions’ bank account. Time equals money, but money saved does not equal comparable education. It is vital that quality face-to-face education wins out over cost-cutting measures.
Machines work well with machines and people work best with other people. The human race is composed of a web of social animals. Human contact is essential for the development of quality minds. However, there are prospective students who, due to uncontrollable forces, find that a Web course is their only means of education. In this unfortunate circumstance, the concession must be given that any education at all is preferable to ignorance. But these on-line courses must be offered with caution and should not become the norm.
The web can be an aid to education in the way that a calculator is an aid to mathematics. With all of the speed and number crunching ability of a calculator, it would be highly difficult to learn algebra directly from this device. In the same respect, the World Wide Web is not a means to an end. It is not the magnificent force that is the human intellect. The mind is humanity’s greatest asset and its refinement is humanity’s greatest achievement. The evolution of such a device should not be left to anything less than its equal. The intangibles involved in the shaping and growth of human consciousness--the excitement of sharing knowledge, the drive to communicate in the most effective way, the value of having a person take a personal stake in the education of an individual-- are without parallel. In the complex chemistry of education, the computer is just a tool. The true energy and force is in the experiment itself; the teacher is the catalyst; and the student is the reaction.
The Use of Landmines
Antipersonnel landmines kill thousands of people every year. Antipersonnel landmines do not recognize a cease-fire; they continue killing or maiming for many years after the conflict is over. Antipersonnel landmines do not discriminate between soldiers or civilians. On the contrary, more and more they are being used in an indiscriminate way, terrorizing civilians and transforming agricultural fields into killing fields. In addition, de-mining is a very slow and very expensive process, and after a war most countries are not prepared to cope with the constant health care demands imposed by the number of injured by landmines. Finally, landmines make it very difficult for refugees to go back to their cities and villages. As response to the landmine problem, the international community has come up with a treaty to ban landmines. On March 1, 1999, the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty came into effect; so far 134 countries have signed the treaty. Unfortunately, the U. S. is not one of them.
The Encarta Encyclopedia defines a landmine as "an encased explosive device that is concealed below the surface of the ground." It can be made of "metal, plastic, glass, or wood" (n. p.). Probably the concept of landmines is almost as old as the existence of organized armies. Philip C. Winslow, in his book Sowing the Dragon's Teeth, describes how Roman soldiers, before the beginning of the first millennium, used a plant with spikes as a landmine in order "to delay pursuers" (126). The Chinese, according to Delbruck, used "ground mines" made out of explosives in the year 1232 (qtd. in Winslow 126). Six hundred years later, in 1840, the use of landmines was introduced in the United States; they were used "in large quantities" during the Civil War (Winslow 126, 127). In the course of the First World War the landmine technology was further developed, but it was "during the Second World War [that] hundreds of millions of mines were buried across Europe and North Africa" (Winslow 130). Thus began a massive use of this kind of weapon.
There are four main types of antipersonnel mines, explains James P. Grant, Executive Director of UNICEF. Blast mines, the kind more commonly used, are "normally detonated by the pressure of a foot and the resulting explosion will kill or severely injure [the] victims" (9). Fragmentation mines are normally triggered by tripwire and "jagged metal fragments are sprayed over a 100-metre radius. Anyone within a 25-metre radius is likely to be killed" (10). Directional mines, Grant continues, propel "steel balls forward in a 60-degree arc. These mines can kill at up to 50 metres and maim at up to 100 metres" (10). Bounding mines leap "45 centimeters into the air before shattering into more than 1,000 metal splinters. The lethal causality radius is at least 25 metres" (10). The end result in all the cases is either death (mostly in the case of children) or loss of body parts. In contrast with other armaments, landmines cannot be aimed to specific targets. Once deployed, they cannot be controlled. Even when the conflict is over, they cannot be stopped. They "can remain active for as long as 50 years. Land-mines placed today may still be killing and maiming . . . in the middle of the next century" (Grant 1). Landmines cause indiscriminate destruction and do not differentiate between soldiers, civilians, children, animals, or tractors. "It is estimated that land-mines have killed or injured more than one million persons since 1975, the vast majority of them civilians" (Grant 2). Furthermore, the United Nations reports that "every month over 2,000 people are killed or maimed by mine explosions" (1).
Nevertheless, according to Faulkner, in a war landmines are useful because they can "protect military establishments and other important installations." They also can "channel enemy forces" into specific areas and can "deny routes and strategic or tactical ground to the enemy" (3). Even if there is no war, landmines can help to protect specific areas or installations. Two examples can be found in South Korea and Cuba. In the event of an attack from North Korea, Heilbrunn explains, "millions of mines . . . have been laid by the U. S. and South Korea" in the border between the two countries (2). Cuba also uses landmines, "around the U. S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay," as protection from any American move (Canada-Mexico 11). However, it is hard to believe that in these days of sophisticated weapons and detailed satellite information another alternative to landmines cannot be found. Furthermore, even when landmines can have a specific and necessary function, they can very easily become a problem. For example, Hambric and Schneck reported that landmines caused "33% of all U. S. casualties" during the Vietnam War and "34% percent [sic} of all U. S. casualties" during the Gulf War (qtd. in Human Rights Watch, "The Global" 2).
Moreover, after the Second World War landmines have been used in agricultural lands, "villages, water sources, religious shrines," and also as "anti-morale, or terror weapons[s] targeting" civilian populations (Faulkner 3, 4). According to the United Nations, landmines can cost as little as $3.00 (1). Because they are cheap and effective, they are being used more and more in different conflicts around the world. "It is estimated that more than 110 million active mines are scattered in 70 countries" around the world (United Nations 1). However, the inexpensive cost of landmines is in great contrast with the expensive cost to remove them. According to Patrick Blagden, a United Nations de-mining expert, de-mining costs "between US $300 and US $1,000 per mine" (qtd. in Grant 3). Countries that have suffered a war in their own land encounter many rehabilitation tasks; landmines make these tasks very difficult and also put an extra economic burden on the country.
As is the case with the price of de-mining, the healthcare expenses imposed by the landmine injured are very high. Furthermore, most of the time, a war-torn country does not have the healthcare infrastructure necessary to cope with the demands imposed by this kind of injury. For example, the United Nations reports that "the number of units of blood required to operate on patients with mine injuries is between 2 and 6 times greater than that needed by other war casualties" (1). These expenses are only for physical injuries and are not taking under consideration any psychological damage. "Up to 1995, there are at least 250,000 landmine-disabled persons in the world" (Faulkner 1, 2). This number gives a clear picture of the magnitude of the healthcare problem confronted by the affected countries.
The indiscriminate use of landmines in rural areas has been devastating for these communities. Fertile agricultural lands are turned into "unusable and uninhabitable" landmine fields. And the grazing of livestock and domesticated animals becomes very dangerous for both the animals and the people taking care of them--a labor very often done by children (Faulkner 4). The economic and social consequences are impoverishment and malnutrition, accompanied by the feeling of despair and helplessness. In addition, the use of landmines make it very difficult for refugees to go back to their villages and towns, and, as just has been mentioned, to go back to their past activities.
Through the history of civilization, there have been a number of laws to "regulate conduct that is inherently brutal. . . . Societies have observed restrictions on the conduct of warfare for thousands of years. Just as there has long been a medical ethic, so there has been a warrior ethic" (Grant 15). There have been a number of attempts to regulate the use of landmines; but, for different reasons, they have failed to solve the problem. In October 1996, the Candian government sponsored a conference to discuss the strategy to achieve a total ban on antipersonnel landmines. This conference, explains Mary Wareham, a Senior Advocate for Human Rights Watch, led to a number of other conferences; and on December 1997, in Ottawa, "122 countries signed the Mine Ban Treaty" (3). It is also important to mention that in December 1997 the International Campaign to Ban Landmines and its coordinator Jody Williams were awarded the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize for "their role in making the treaty a reality" (3). The treaty, as Wareham explains,
prohibits the use, production, stockpiling, and transfer of antipersonnel landmines. It also requires that stockpiles be destroyed within four years of the treaty's entry into force, and that mines already in the ground be removed and destroyed within ten years. It also requires state parties to provide detailed information about antipersonnel mine stockpiles and minefields. It calls on states to provide assistance for care and rehabilitation of mine victims. (2)
Forty countries, Wareham continues, needed to ratify the treaty in order for it to become international law after six months had passed (3). In September 1998, the fortieth country ratified the treaty (Canada-Mexico 3). And six months later, on March 1, 1999, the treaty became binding international law. As of February 31, 1999, Human Rights Watch reports, "134 nations have signed the ban treaty (including all of NATO, except the U. S. and Turkey), and sixty-five nations have ratified." The U. S. has plans to sign the treaty in the year 2006, "but only if the Pentagon's search for alternatives to mines" is successful ("Historic" 1).
In a world that has many important problems--the war in Kosovo, the Ozone layer, AIDS--it is very difficult for people to keep informed. In a survey I conducted among eighteen students and two professors at Roane State Community College, only four people knew about the Landmine Ban Treaty. Nevertheless, thirteen thought the U. S. should sign it. The use of landmines constitutes a pressing problem for the world, but unfortunately, not many people are aware of it (see Appendix for a copy of the survey).
Landmines make the recovery process for countries that have suffered a war in their own land extremely difficult. Landmines put a tremendous economic burden along with psychological effects in the morale of the population; they may even perpetuate the conditions for a future conflict. The United States should sign the Mine Ban Treaty now, not in the year 2006. And also, the U. S. should put pressure on other countries to do the same. As it is, the advances made during this century in weapon technology are already impressive; the world does not need to wait for more new developments in order to ban the use of landmines. Human civilization should not begin a new millennium with the knowledge that new landmines are being produced and planted. The ban of the use of antipersonnel landmines should be in our "warrior ethic" for the next millennium; let us hope that the human race can achieve more than that in the next century.
1. Reference
