Definition Rewrite – TristanB50

Posted on March 7, 2023 by tristanb50

Interstate Infinity

If you live in an area without any form of public transport, riding another vehicle to get to your destination can feel like a novelty, a vestige of the time before cars took over. Riding a train, a ferry, a bike, a trolley, comes off more like a cultural experience rather than a sensible mode of transit, as if they’re only there because they didn’t manage to put up a bridge or a highway somewhere. But when cars slip into their usual disappointments like traffic jams or noise pollution, we’re quick to offer up more space for them, rather then questioning why we adopted them in the first place.

What other options do we have? The whole country is hooked on cars, it’s part of the world that we’re born into. If you ask a child to draw a city, chances are they’ll start out with some sort of street grid pattern. Teenagers idolize reaching driving age, as they finally have the freedom to travel wherever they please. We naturally place value on cars because normally they’re the only option we’re given for transportation. This is a direct result from the longtime advances the auto industry has made to promote their products, resulting in 92% of Americans own cars, more than any other country. 

But these advancements aren’t just issues of the past, and in fact, are still gaining new ground every day. I’d like to take a dive into the state of American transportation, how we got to this point, and why it’s a problem. Through spacing apart our buildings and aggressive lobbying tactics, the automotive industry has essentially created their own monopoly on transportation. 

To better understand how cars have a monopoly on transportation, we have to look at how cars came to congest our cities. It’s become common knowledge that before cars, streets were shared between carriages and walkers. This changed after Queens’ World’s Fair in 1939, where GM showcased a mockup “future city” plan comprised of highways and skyscrapers at the popular planning convention. What the public didn’t know when they were viewing the model, was the auto industry had been lobbying to cut federal funding from public transit systems, and had bought up and dismantled many trolley lines. The New Yorkers weren’t viewing a proposal on an improvement they could decide on, they were viewing the fate of many great American neighborhoods.

Environmentalist Spencer R. Scott explains this in his Medium article, “A Grand Theft: Auto Industry Stole Our Streets and Our Future.” He quotes Peter Norton’s book, Fighting Traffic: The Dawn of the Motor Age in the American City. “When there were no more streetcars to ride and cities were replanned around motor transportation, city people rode buses or bought cars. Mass preferences were relatively unimportant.” Norton’s claim denounces the narrative that citizens came to a consensus on allowing car infrastructure to burrow around their homes. This makes sense considering some of the devastating effects the auto industry has had on peoples livelihoods. One horrifying example of this comes from the 1949 Highway Plan, where neighborhoods inhabited mainly by racial minorities were demolished to make room for highways without their consent. 

Thanks to the automotive industry’s past pressures on the local and federal government has, we are feeling their inefficiency every day we spend stuck in traffic. Nowadays, the governments general response to traffic seems to be widening lanes, under the false pretense that it will reduce congestion. However, it is becoming more apparent that over time, our roads are staying clogged up. New York Times author Eden Weingart explains this in her article, “Widening Highways Doesn’t Fix Traffic. So Why Do We Keep Doing It?” by breaking down an NBER study on traffic: “In a metropolitan area, when road capacity increases by 1 percent, the number of cars on the road after a few years also increases by 1 percent.” While it’s proven that widening highways can lead to short term drops in congestion, in the long run it becomes a cluttered mess again after people learn they can save time. These expansion projects are often marketed as an economic investment, which will bring prosperity to an area. However the only thing these projects ensure is a continued state of building and repairing.

As infrastructure grows exponentially, maintenance quickly grows faster. More areas need to be repaired more frequently, which is financed by constructing new highways. Similar to congestion, the economic motives behind constructing new highways provide short-term benefits, before quickly returning to the dangerous, chaotic state it was before. This leads to an industry focused on constantly growing and expanding, neglecting any need to challenge cars by reconfiguring any of our transport systems.

Limiting the expansion of our roads is a serious issue, as it leads to unnatural flooding, degradation in our water and soil. Paved roads water-resistant properties make them great for quickly drying after a storm. Their lack of permeability comes at a cost however, they prevent water from being absorbed into the soil. We should look at waters relationship with the Earth similar to how we look at our respiratory relationship with trees. Rainwater deposits chemicals in the soil, cleaning the water and feeding the soil. Roads prevent this from occurring, as well as contributing their own eroded asphalt, motor oil, or anything else that falls off cars to the soil and out waterways, causing many indirect impacts on human health.

Remember the neighborhoods from earlier that were destroyed for highway development? Well the neighborhoods that were spared from mass eviction were left with highways surrounding their homes, leading to asthma and lung cancer development for future generations, and has been criticized for environmental racism due to disproportionate health effects people of color feel to this day. 

Despite these injustices towards human health and the environment, the American auto industry has managed to dodge paying reparations for those affected. Their political power in our government cannot be overlooked, as they have both physically and metaphorically burrowed into our nations functionality by ridding themselves of the responsibility decades in the past.

While it may seem like the auto industry has sealed out fate by taking control of our transportation, there are ways we can fight it. Some proposed solutions to fighting development, such as seeking federal funding for public transport, encouraging mixed-used development to make cities more walkable, or flexible bus routes. California recently canceled the expansion of Route 710, and are considering transitioning some of their freight lines to passenger rail. While cars will always be hanging around, are dependance on them doesn’t have to be.

Posted in Definition Rewrite, TristanB | Leave a comment

Definition – TristanB50

Posted on March 7, 2023 by tristanb50

Interstate Infinity

If you live in an area without any form of public transport, riding another vehicle to get to your destination can feel like a novelty, a vestige of the time before cars took over. Riding a train, a ferry, a bike, a trolley, comes off more like a cultural experience rather than a sensible mode of transit, as if they’re only there because they didn’t manage to put up a bridge or a highway somewhere. But when cars slip into their usual disappointments like traffic jams or noise pollution, we’re quick to offer up more space for them, rather then questioning why we adopted them in the first place.

What other options do we have? The whole country is hooked on cars, it’s part of the world that we’re born into. If you ask a child to draw a city, chances are they’ll start out with some sort of street grid pattern. Teenagers idolize reaching driving age, as they finally have the freedom to travel wherever they please. We naturally place value on cars because normally they’re the only option we’re given for transportation. This is a direct result from the longtime advances the auto industry has made to promote their products, resulting in 92% of Americans own cars, more than any other country. 

But these advancements aren’t just issues of the past, and in fact, are still gaining new ground every day. I’d like to take a dive into the state of American transportation, how we got to this point, and why it’s a problem. Through spacing apart our buildings and aggressive lobbying tactics, the automotive industry has essentially created their own monopoly on transportation. 

To better understand how cars have a monopoly on transportation, we have to look at how cars came to congest our cities. It’s become common knowledge that before cars, streets were shared between carriages and walkers. This changed after Queens’ World’s Fair in 1939, where GM showcased a mockup “future city” plan comprised of highways and skyscrapers at the popular planning convention. What the public didn’t know when they were viewing the model, was the auto industry had been lobbying to cut federal funding from public transit systems, and had bought up and dismantled many trolley lines. The New Yorkers weren’t viewing a proposal on an improvement they could decide on, they were viewing the fate of many great American neighborhoods.

Environmentalist Spencer R. Scott explains this in his Medium article, “A Grand Theft: Auto Industry Stole Our Streets and Our Future.” He quotes Peter Norton’s book, Fighting Traffic: The Dawn of the Motor Age in the American City. “When there were no more streetcars to ride and cities were replanned around motor transportation, city people rode buses or bought cars. Mass preferences were relatively unimportant.” Norton’s claim denounces the narrative that citizens came to a consensus on allowing car infrastructure to burrow around their homes. This makes sense considering some of the devastating effects the auto industry has had on peoples livelihoods. One horrifying example of this comes from the 1949 Highway Plan, where neighborhoods inhabited mainly by racial minorities were demolished to make room for highways without their consent. 

Thanks to the automotive industry’s past pressures on the local and federal government has, we are feeling their inefficiency every day we spend stuck in traffic. Nowadays, the governments general response to traffic seems to be widening lanes, under the false pretense that it will reduce congestion. However, it is becoming more apparent that over time, our roads are staying clogged up. New York Times author Eden Weingart explains this in her article, “Widening Highways Doesn’t Fix Traffic. So Why Do We Keep Doing It?” by breaking down an NBER study on traffic: “In a metropolitan area, when road capacity increases by 1 percent, the number of cars on the road after a few years also increases by 1 percent.” While it’s proven that widening highways can lead to short term drops in congestion, in the long run it becomes a cluttered mess again after people learn they can save time. These expansion projects are often marketed as an economic investment, which will bring prosperity to an area. However the only thing these projects ensure is a continued state of building and repairing.

As infrastructure grows exponentially, maintenance quickly grows faster. More areas need to be repaired more frequently, which is financed by constructing new highways. Similar to congestion, the economic motives behind constructing new highways provide short-term benefits, before quickly returning to the dangerous, chaotic state it was before. This leads to an industry focused on constantly growing and expanding, neglecting any need to challenge cars by reconfiguring any of our transport systems.

Limiting the expansion of our roads is a serious issue, as it leads to unnatural flooding, degradation in our water and soil. Paved roads water-resistant properties make them great for quickly drying after a storm. Their lack of permeability comes at a cost however, they prevent water from being absorbed into the soil. We should look at waters relationship with the Earth similar to how we look at our respiratory relationship with trees. Rainwater deposits chemicals in the soil, cleaning the water and feeding the soil. Roads prevent this from occurring, as well as contributing their own eroded asphalt, motor oil, or anything else that falls off cars to the soil and out waterways, causing many indirect impacts on human health.

Remember the neighborhoods from earlier that were destroyed for highway development? Well the neighborhoods that were spared from mass eviction were left with highways surrounding their homes, leading to asthma and lung cancer development for future generations, and has been criticized for environmental racism due to disproportionate health effects people of color feel to this day. 

Despite these injustices towards human health and the environment, the American auto industry has managed to dodge paying reparations for those affected. Their political power in our government cannot be overlooked, as they have both physically and metaphorically burrowed into our nations functionality by ridding themselves of the responsibility decades in the past.

While it may seem like the auto industry has sealed out fate by taking control of our transportation, there are ways we can fight it. Some proposed solutions to fighting development, such as seeking federal funding for public transport, encouraging mixed-used development to make cities more walkable, or flexible bus routes. California recently canceled the expansion of Route 710, and are considering transitioning some of their freight lines to passenger rail. While cars will always be hanging around, are dependance on them doesn’t have to be.

Needs References

Posted in Definition, TristanB | 4 Comments

Definition Rewrite—Giants19

Posted on March 7, 2023 by giants19

Seatbelts Are Unsafe

Introduction

Seatbelts have been a subject of controversy for many years. While some people believe that they are safe and can save lives in the event of an accident, others argue that they can cause serious injuries and even death. When you think of it in an abstract way, and understand that seatbelts often times lower peoples inhibitions and makes them less prepared for collision, it is not a completely absurd idea to suggest that seatbelts really no not do all that much to prevent risk, and risk often results in danger. Not to mention, seatbelts cause people to drive more erratically and pose more of a danger to themselves and others. This whole argument really boils down to how you define the word “risk”, as some people have different definitions than others. For that reason, I will spend this argument paper doing my best to do just that.

Definition

Oxford English Dictionary defines risk as “chance or possibility of danger, loss, or injury etc.” In general, risk is bad. Risk is something that you want to avoid as much as you possibly can when driving; which is exactly why seatbelts are dangerous. Once you feel safe, you lose your regard for your own safety, and therefore, are at a larger risk for danger. If you are driving, obviously your job is to get from point A to point B with as little risk of danger as possible to yourself and your passengers. In doing so, you wouldn’t want anything that would make you lose your sense of protection or to lower your ability to react. Humans are intrinsically protective of themselves when they are vulnerable. Taking this vulnerability away causes many people to become less focused, more easily distracted, and most importantly, more at risk. At the end of the day, risk is something that most people go out of their way to avoid, but the truth is that there are a lot of hidden risks in this world. Nobody would assume at first glance that wearing your seatbelt may pose more of a risk to somebody than driving without one, but the correct answer is not always the first one that appears. That being said, while risk is not always avoidable, I would prefer to always have the best chance instinctually to make the decisions or the maneuvers to keep myself and my passengers safe. When we break down what risk is, by its definition, we see that seatbelts cause drivers of vehicles a greater deal of risk than not having one because they give drivers a false sense of security.

Body

A study was recently conducted in Kuwait testing what exactly it was that resulted in collisions on the road, it was found that a vast majority of the accidents were a result of human error, which can be attributed to losing ones sense of safety and becoming distracted. “The relationship between factors that contribute to human error and road transport accident also determined. Data were collected from 80 respondents. Plus, observational technique was conducted at two roads chosen in Pahang and Terengganu. The questionnaire results concluded that there had association between factors that contribute to human error and road transport accident.” (Adibah) This study shows us that human nature will always triumph over human invention. At the end of the day, that is what this argument boils down to. Those that are more willing to place their faith in their intrinsic human instincts than a man made machine will agree that wearing a seatbelt can present somebody with a greater risk than not wearing one.

Body

In one instance, a 49-year old man with no underlying medical illness was killed when he got into an accident and his seatbelt compressed against his neck. The ironic thing about it is that if that man lived, he would probably be so very grateful that he wore that seatbelt. Who wouldn’t be initially? At first glance, it is the seatbelt that saved you. If you look closer, however, you can see that wearing the seatbelt caused you a much greater deal of risk than if you were without one. This is not even just seen in collisions of lower power/damage, as the man who was killed by his seatbelt when he would have otherwise been perfectly fine without one, was driving 110 kilometers per hour. Getting in a crash at 110 kilometers per hour was not enough to kill him, but the unpredictability and uncertain risk of his seatbelt certainly was. The one true way to truly mitigate day-by-day risk would be to begin driving without a seatbelt. In my opinion, if you limit your risk, you increase your safety, and as I have explained, not wearing a seatbelt is the ultimate way to limit your risk while driving. Following that process, the safest way for somebody to get from point A to point B would be without a seatbelt, rather than with one.

Another thing to note is how much somebodies risk of dying or getting injured in a crash decreases when the speed decreases. When do you drive faster, with a seatbelt, or without one? Assuming most people drive slower without their seatbelts on, this fact alone probably saves thousands of people a year. Without the fear of the potential repercussions that may arise from getting into a collision without a seatbelt on, your likelihood of getting into one significantly increases. At the end of the day, you just have to decide that it is more worth it to lower your risk of getting into an accident at all than increasing your risk by preparing for the accident. In wearing a seatbelt, it is almost as if you are welcoming a collision. You do something that will make getting in an accident more common, but you do it in order to mitigate the damages of said accidents. That is one of the most counter-intuitive things imaginable, even more so than neglecting to wear a seatbelt for the purpose of increasing safety.

References

Syarah Adibah, J., Mohd Najib, Y. (2022). Contributing Factors Towards Human Errors on Road Transport Safety Among Commercial Vehicle Drivers. In: , et al. Human-Centered Technology for a Better Tomorrow. Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-4115-2_19

Najari F, Alimohammadi AM. An Immediate Death by Seat Belt Compression; a Forensic Medicine Report. Emerg (Tehran). 2015 Fall;3(4):165-7. PMID: 26495409; PMCID: PMC4608342.

Posted in Definition Rewrite, Giants | 2 Comments

Definition – Giants19

Posted on March 7, 2023 by giants19

Are Seatbelts Safe?

Introduction

Seatbelts have been a subject of controversy for many years. While some people believe that they are safe and can save lives in the event of an accident, others argue that they can cause serious injuries and even death. When you think of it in an abstract way, and understand that seatbelts often times lower peoples inhibitions and makes them less prepared for collision, it is not a completely absurd idea to suggest that seatbelts really no not do all that much to prevent risk, and risk often results in danger. Not to mention, seatbelts cause people to drive more erratically and pose more of a danger to themselves and others. This whole argument really boils down to how you define the word “risk”, as some people have different definitions than others. For that reason, I will spend this argument paper doing my best to do just that.

Definition

Oxford English Dictionary defines risk as “chance or possibility of danger, loss, or injury etc.” In general, risk is bad. Risk is something that you want to avoid as much as you possibly can when driving; which is exactly why seatbelts are dangerous. Once you feel safe, you lose your regard for your own safety, and therefore, are at a larger risk for danger. If you are driving, obviously your job is to get from point A to point B with as little risk of danger as possible to yourself and your passengers. In doing so, you wouldn’t want anything that would make you lose your sense of protection or to lower your ability to react. Humans are intrinsically protective of themselves when they are vulnerable. Taking this vulnerability away causes many people to become less focused, more easily distracted, and most importantly, more at risk. At the end of the day, risk is something that most people go out of their way to avoid, but the truth is that there are a lot of hidden risks in this world. Nobody would assume at first glance that wearing your seatbelt may pose more of a risk to somebody than driving without one, but the correct answer is not always the first one that appears. That being said, while risk is not always avoidable, I would prefer to always have the best chance instinctually to make the decisions or the maneuvers to keep myself and my passengers safe. When we break down what risk is, by its definition, we see that seatbelts cause drivers of vehicles a greater deal of risk than not having one because they give drivers a false sense of security.

Body

A study was recently conducted in Kuwait testing what exactly it was that resulted in collisions on the road, it was found that a vast majority of the accidents were a result of human error, which can be attributed to losing ones sense of safety and becoming distracted. “The relationship between factors that contribute to human error and road transport accident also determined. Data were collected from 80 respondents. Plus, observational technique was conducted at two roads chosen in Pahang and Terengganu. The questionnaire results concluded that there had association between factors that contribute to human error and road transport accident.” (Adibah) This study shows us that human nature will always triumph over human invention. At the end of the day, that is what this argument boils down to. Those that are more willing to place their faith in their intrinsic human instincts than a man made machine will agree that wearing a seatbelt can present somebody with a greater risk than not wearing one.

Body

In one instance, a 49-year old man with no underlying medical illness was killed when he got into an accident and his seatbelt compressed against his neck. The ironic thing about it is that if that man lived, he would probably be so very grateful that he wore that seatbelt. Who wouldn’t be initially? At first glance, it is the seatbelt that saved you. If you look closer, however, you can see that wearing the seatbelt caused you a much greater deal of risk than if you were without one. This is not even just seen in collisions of lower power/damage, as the man who was killed by his seatbelt when he would have otherwise been perfectly fine without one, was driving 110 kilometers per hour. Getting in a crash at 110 kilometers per hour was not enough to kill him, but the unpredictability and uncertain risk of his seatbelt certainly was. The one true way to truly mitigate day-by-day risk would be to begin driving without a seatbelt. In my opinion, if you limit your risk, you increase your safety, and as I have explained, not wearing a seatbelt is the ultimate way to limit your risk while driving. Following that process, the safest way for somebody to get from point A to point B would be without a seatbelt, rather than with one.

Another thing to note is how much somebodies risk of dying or getting injured in a crash decreases when the speed decreases. When do you drive faster, with a seatbelt, or without one? Assuming most people drive slower without their seatbelts on, this fact alone probably saves thousands of people a year. Without the fear of the potential repercussions that may arise from getting into a collision without a seatbelt on, your likelihood of getting into one significantly increases. At the end of the day, you just have to decide that it is more worth it to lower your risk of getting into an accident at all than increasing your risk by preparing for the accident. In wearing a seatbelt, it is almost as if you are welcoming a collision. You do something that will make getting in an accident more common, but you do it in order to mitigate the damages of said accidents. That is one of the most counter-intuitive things imaginable, even more so than neglecting to wear a seatbelt for the purpose of increasing safety.

References

Syarah Adibah, J., Mohd Najib, Y. (2022). Contributing Factors Towards Human Errors on Road Transport Safety Among Commercial Vehicle Drivers. In: , et al. Human-Centered Technology for a Better Tomorrow. Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-4115-2_19

Najari F, Alimohammadi AM. An Immediate Death by Seat Belt Compression; a Forensic Medicine Report. Emerg (Tehran). 2015 Fall;3(4):165-7. PMID: 26495409; PMCID: PMC4608342.

Posted in Definition, Giants | Leave a comment

Definition Rewrite – Gracchus Babeuf

Posted on March 7, 2023 by gracchusbabeuf

Niccolò  Machiavelli : A Bad Machiavellian?

An unscrupulous character, wheeling and dealing in the halls of power with no concern for feeble-minded “morality”. The acquisition and wielding of power his only concern. Perhaps, such a character is dressed in dark colors and a sharp, evil-looking suit. This swamp creature is, to the modern audience, the archetypical “Machiavellian” figure: unscrupulous, immoral, and single-minded in pursuit of power. Whether named as such or not, this scheming, contemptible creature is present in plenty of modern media. One such creature who populated many home television sets in recent memory was Frank Underwood on Netflix’s House of Cards, a clever but immoral politician played too convincingly by the now-disgraced Kevin Spacey. For those in the know about “Machiavellian” characters, Frank and other scheming politicians form an American cultural memory of what these disciples of Machiavelli’s book of dark rituals, Il Principe, look and behave like.

Machiavelli, then, should be the arch-fiend of these immoral men. The progenitor from whom all these evil-hearted politicians take their cues. Unfortunately for aspiring dramatists, Machiavelli himself is a far-cry from the politicians, both real and fictional, who we often describe as “Machiavellian”. As is often the case, reality is less flashy and provocative than fiction.

What exactly is a “Machiavellian”? At its most simple reading, a Machiavellian is simply a person who behaves in the manner of Machiavelli. This, of course, is insufficient to understand the label. It would be like trying to define a modern christian using only the idea that they are followers of Jesus Christ. While true, it is not enough to unpack all the meaning in the word for a contemporary reader. All the other nuances and intricacies that had been read into that word over the last two-thousand years are critically important. The same is true of the concept of a Machiavellian.

Born in 15th century Florence the third son of an attorney, Machiavelli was neither born of great status or total obscurity. As the son of a man of letters, Machiavelli was afforded an education, an incredible privilege even in the relatively literate world of the Italian city states. It should be noted that this relative literacy is only in comparison to the almost entirely illiterate societies of the day, as opposed to the mostly illiterate Italian republic. For Machiavelli’s early life, the nominally republican Florence was dominated by the Medici family, who had de facto dynastic control over the city. In 1494, the citizenry of Florence, lead by the firebrand Dominican Girolamo Savonarola, overthrew the Medici family and restored the Florentine republic. Savonarola, an intense critic of excesses in the catholic church, was responsible for the burning of the vanities in which books and art were destroyed. Such religious fanaticism would see him driven from power and executed, though the republic he helped restore would last until 1512.

Following Savonarola execution and the religious moderation of the republic’s government, Machiavelli received his first posting in government. Until the defeat of the republic in 1512 by Giovanni de’ Medici (Pope Leo X), Machiavelli served as a diplomat and bureaucrat within the republic’s government. Following the Medici reconquest of the city, Machiavelli, like many of his comrades, was exiled from the city to the hinterlands. From exile and reflecting on his decade and half on the inside of European politics, Machiavelli wrote The Prince in an attempt to win favor with a member of the Medici family. While its unclear if the Medici’s ever took his work seriously (they did not commute his sentence), the work has proved an enduring foundational text of European theory. In determining the definition of a “Machiavellian” person, it is always The Prince which is scrutinized for answers.

Should we take the most shallow and ill-researched reading of The Prince, it is easy to decide that Machiavelli truly is the master “Machiavellian” that his critics have slandered him as for some five centuries. After all, Machiavelli does not shy away from reccomending acts of terror, violence, and deceit should it be the best course of action for a “Prince”.

A quick definitional aside within the larger definition argument: A prince, notably, is not exclusively a dynastic title in Machiavelli’s writing. It is better understood as a Sovereign, like that described in Hobbes’ Leviathan. A prince could be an elected ruler or a dynastic one, but they ultimately hold the authority from which the law originates.

Returning to the shocking acts advised within the Prince, it is not sufficient to read Machiavelli counciling a prince to execute political opposition as an endorsement of such behavior. Detractors of Machiavelli are quick to determine that hid diagnosis of what is politically necessary is, in. fact, his own satanic political morality. Nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, it is not unreasonable to consider Machiavelli to be a cynic. While his apologists, like the author of this paper, would prefer the term “realist”, Machiavelli has a distinctly dismal view of the nature of politics. As professor Narasingha Prosad Sil expertly described,

“Even if we concede that Machiavelli is a cynic, his cynicism cannot be the the testament of a heartless misanthrope. It is the confession of a conscientious man who would like to live under the reign of virtue but cannot find it among people“

A Machiavellian is a cynic (or a realist), but they are not “immoral”. When an immoral action is politically necessary, it is only advised because they alternative is worse. For instance, should the citizens of Florence not risen up against their social betters, the Medici’s, and strived to rule themselves simply because they might need to break a few eggs? The infantile political philosopher will wring their hands about abrogations of justice and the misdeeds that an upstart regime like the Florentine republic undoubtedly perpetrated. Yet, what goes unremarked upon is the cost of the status quo. It is not as if the Medici’s themselves did not perpetrate countless injustices to attain their de facto hereditary control over Florence.

Machiavelli does not fit the archtype of an unscrupulous immoral schemer. He is a man who wishes for the “reign of virtue”, but cannot find it. Therefore, he develops a system of analysis which teaches not how to be immoral, but how to combat those who are. The good, chivalrous prince, as Machiavelli describes, is one who finds themself dead or exiled. Should we be naive and believe only in the good hearts of men, the truly dark figures, the modern “Machiavellians”, will take power. The princes of past and present ignore Machiavelli’s warning at their peril and that of their subjects.

References

Colish, Marcia L. “Republicanism, Religion, and Machiavelli’s Savonarolan Moment.” Journal of the History of Ideas 60, no. 4 (1999): 597–616.

Sil, Narasingha Prosad. “POLITICAL MORALITY vs. POLITICAL NECESSITY: KAUṬILYA AND MACHIAVELLI REVISITED.” Journal of Asian History 19, no. 2 (1985): 101–42.

Soll, Jacob. “The Reception of The Prince 1513–1700, or Why We Understand Machiavelli the Way We Do.” Social Research 81, no. 1 (2014): 31–60.

Posted in Definition Rewrite, GracchusBabeuf | 1 Comment

Definition – GracchusBabeuf

Posted on March 7, 2023 by gracchusbabeuf

Niccolò  Machiavelli : A Bad Machiavellian?

An unscrupulous character, wheeling and dealing in the halls of power with no concern for feeble-minded “morality”. The acquisition and wielding of power his only concern. Perhaps, such a character is dressed in dark colors and a sharp, evil-looking suit. This swamp creature is, to the modern audience, the archetypical “Machiavellian” figure: unscrupulous, immoral, and single-minded in pursuit of power. Whether named as such or not, this scheming, contemptible creature is present in plenty of modern media. One such creature who populated many home television sets in recent memory was Frank Underwood on Netflix’s House of Cards, a clever but immoral politician played too convincingly by the now-disgraced Kevin Spacey. For those in the know about “Machiavellian” characters, Frank and other scheming politicians form an American cultural memory of what these disciples of Machiavelli’s book of dark rituals, Il Principe, look and behave like.

Machiavelli, then, should be the arch-fiend of these immoral men. The progenitor from whom all these evil-hearted politicians take their cues. Unfortunately for aspiring dramatists, Machiavelli himself is a far-cry from the politicians, both real and fictional, who we often describe as “Machiavellian”. As is often the case, reality is less flashy and provocative than fiction.

What exactly is a “Machiavellian”? At its most simple reading, a Machiavellian is simply a person who behaves in the manner of Machiavelli. This, of course, is insufficient to understand the label. It would be like trying to define a modern christian using only the idea that they are followers of Jesus Christ. While true, it is not enough to unpack all the meaning in the word for a contemporary reader. All the other nuances and intricacies that had been read into that word over the last two-thousand years are critically important. The same is true of the concept of a Machiavellian.

Born in 15th century Florence the third son of an attorney, Machiavelli was neither born of great status or total obscurity. As the son of a man of letters, Machiavelli was afforded an education, an incredible privilege even in the relatively literate world of the Italian city states. It should be noted that this relative literacy is only in comparison to the almost entirely illiterate societies of the day, as opposed to the mostly illiterate Italian republic. For Machiavelli’s early life, the nominally republican Florence was dominated by the Medici family, who had de facto dynastic control over the city. In 1494, the citizenry of Florence, lead by the firebrand Dominican Girolamo Savonarola, overthrew the Medici family and restored the Florentine republic. Savonarola, an intense critic of excesses in the catholic church, was responsible for the burning of the vanities in which books and art were destroyed. Such religious fanaticism would see him driven from power and executed, though the republic he helped restore would last until 1512.

Following Savonarola execution and the religious moderation of the republic’s government, Machiavelli received his first posting in government. Until the defeat of the republic in 1512 by Giovanni de’ Medici (Pope Leo X), Machiavelli served as a diplomat and bureaucrat within the republic’s government. Following the Medici reconquest of the city, Machiavelli, like many of his comrades, was exiled from the city to the hinterlands. From exile and reflecting on his decade and half on the inside of European politics, Machiavelli wrote The Prince in an attempt to win favor with a member of the Medici family. While its unclear if the Medici’s ever took his work seriously (they did not commute his sentence), the work has proved an enduring foundational text of European theory. In determining the definition of a “Machiavellian” person, it is always The Prince which is scrutinized for answers.

Should we take the most shallow and ill-researched reading of The Prince, it is easy to decide that Machiavelli truly is the master “Machiavellian” that his critics have slandered him as for some five centuries. After all, Machiavelli does not shy away from reccomending acts of terror, violence, and deceit should it be the best course of action for a “Prince”.

A quick definitional aside within the larger definition argument: A prince, notably, is not exclusively a dynastic title in Machiavelli’s writing. It is better understood as a Sovereign, like that described in Hobbes’ Leviathan. A prince could be an elected ruler or a dynastic one, but they ultimately hold the authority from which the law originates.

Returning to the shocking acts advised within the Prince, it is not sufficient to read Machiavelli counciling a prince to execute political opposition as an endorsement of such behavior. Detractors of Machiavelli are quick to determine that hid diagnosis of what is politically necessary is, in. fact, his own satanic political morality. Nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, it is not unreasonable to consider Machiavelli to be a cynic. While his apologists, like the author of this paper, would prefer the term “realist”, Machiavelli has a distinctly dismal view of the nature of politics. As professor Narasingha Prosad Sil expertly described,

“Even if we concede that Machiavelli is a cynic, his cynicism cannot be the the testament of a heartless misanthrope. It is the confession of a conscientious man who would like to live under the reign of virtue but cannot find it among people“

A Machiavellian is a cynic (or a realist), but they are not “immoral”. When an immoral action is politically necessary, it is only advised because they alternative is worse. For instance, should the citizens of Florence not risen up against their social betters, the Medici’s, and strived to rule themselves simply because they might need to break a few eggs? The infantile political philosopher will wring their hands about abrogations of justice and the misdeeds that an upstart regime like the Florentine republic undoubtedly perpetrated. Yet, what goes unremarked upon is the cost of the status quo. It is not as if the Medici’s themselves did not perpetrate countless injustices to attain their de facto hereditary control over Florence.

Machiavelli does not fit the archtype of an unscrupulous immoral schemer. He is a man who wishes for the “reign of virtue”, but cannot find it. Therefore, he develops a system of analysis which teaches not how to be immoral, but how to combat those who are. The good, chivalrous prince, as Machiavelli describes, is one who finds themself dead or exiled. Should we be naive and believe only in the good hearts of men, the truly dark figures, the modern “Machiavellians”, will take power. The princes of past and present ignore Machiavelli’s warning at their peril and that of their subjects.

References

Colish, Marcia L. “Republicanism, Religion, and Machiavelli’s Savonarolan Moment.” Journal of the History of Ideas 60, no. 4 (1999): 597–616.

Sil, Narasingha Prosad. “POLITICAL MORALITY vs. POLITICAL NECESSITY: KAUṬILYA AND MACHIAVELLI REVISITED.” Journal of Asian History 19, no. 2 (1985): 101–42.

Soll, Jacob. “The Reception of The Prince 1513–1700, or Why We Understand Machiavelli the Way We Do.” Social Research 81, no. 1 (2014): 31–60.

Posted in Definition, GracchusBabeuf, You Forgot to Categorize! | Leave a comment

Causal Rewrite—Queen Random

Posted on March 7, 2023 by queenrandom04

Rotten Foundations

America, Home of the free, land of the brave. This is the ideology we’ve been taught throughout history. Within our education, there have been unmistakable efforts to rewrite history with the United States always being the good guy. It’s forced us to never truly reconcile with the truth of our own history. In the article written by Khushbah Shu, 400 Years Since slavery Timeline, it’s revealed to us that, despite many people’s first recollection of the British colonizers’  migration to America being the Mayflower, “- a year earlier, 20 enslaved Africans were brought to the British colonies against their will.” This is the first of many instances where enslaved people’s history, what is simultaneously  American History, gets erased. 

A reason for this erasure is the belief that black people aren’t slaves so slavery shouldn’t continue to be acknowledged in the modern day. Slavery is over, that is a fact.  Slavery being over provides a nice cocoon of deniability. Deniability that has far too often been the excuse of minimizing the influence slavery has had on the United States as a whole. An argument we can all agree on is that slavery  is bad, but how can we reconcile the systems that have been created as a consequence of slavery, if we don’t fully accept how detrimental slavery was, in and of itself. People only find comfort in acknowledging slavery within the fact that it’s over. Its being over isn’t justice enough for the systemic issues that have resulted because of practices started while slavery was still on going. 

Saying slavery is inhumane isn’t enough to recognize the complete lack of humanity’s presence for actual centuries. To truly get the correct understanding of how inhumane slavery was we must first look at how we define what it is to be humane. The best way to do that is to look at what our county defines as the freedom to our quality of life. Humanness in the face of commodifying actual humans seems redundant. The rationalization is that enslaved people weren’t people. They were slaves, that the violence they faced was a byproduct of the time. But even within the time period slavery existed there were still people who saw the lack of humanness and knew it wasn’t moral. People like Samuel Wood.  Injured Humanity Graphic Arts is an article written by Julie Melby. Here we are able to find out that Samuel Wood was a Quaker and a New York Printer. In the midst of the political warfare that would eventually end in the criminalization of the Atlantic Slave trade; Wood, wrote Injured Humanity. 

It was his attempt to shine light on the injustices endured by enslaved people during their transportation from Africa to America. He wrote an article; its title which is an argument in itself is,  Injured Humanity; Being A Representation of What the Unhappy Children of Africa Endure from Those Who Call Themselves Christians. Here we can find first-hand accounts of the quality of life enslaved peoples were granted, “ to divide them into different classes: the first consisting of those bought for the use of the plantations: the second of the in and out-door slaves. The field slaves are called out by daylight to their work: if they are not out in time, they are flogged.”  There is nothing human about being forced to live outside, being reduced to a location and knowing that at any moment in time you can be beaten. From our very own government, the United States states on the OECD Better Life Index, “Housing is essential to meet basic needs, such as shelter, but it is not just a question of four walls and a roof. Housing should offer a place to sleep and rest where people feel safe and have privacy and personal space; somewhere they can raise a family.” They were deprived of housing. They were deprived of safety. From Injured Humanity, “ but husbands and wives, parents and children, are parted with as little concern as sheep and lambs by the butcher”. Enslaved people were denied the most basic of our principals of what we define as being human in this country. 

Samuel Wood in Injured Humanity wasn’t even advocating for the eradication of slavery as a whole, only the advocation to stop stealing people from across the world. This was the violence they faced before even stepping foot on American soil and truly experiencing chattel slavery. Which is its own beast. Jeniffer Hallem paints a gruesome look of the day to day lived experiences of enslaved people in her article, The Slave Experience, “ The female slave was, moreover, faced with the prospect of being forced into sexual relationships for the purposes of reproduction. Perhaps more harrowing, she might be witness to her daughters suffering the same fate.” The violence of chattel slavery is something that can’t be fully understood without being experienced. It’s a violence that has been passed down through generations and still affects us today. In the article, The Legacy of Trauma, written by Tori Deangelis, it’s stated that “The legacy of slavery continues to affect African Americans in a variety of ways. For example, research has shown that African Americans are more likely than other racial groups to experience poverty, unemployment, and incarceration.” This is a direct result of the lack of humanity given to enslaved people during their enslavement.  

With the evidence provided it is undeniable that slavery was inhumane, corrupt, and violent. Proceeding with this philosophy we can also come to the conclusion that anything that was created in response to, or because of, slavery is also inherently inhumane, violent and corrupt. Further into the course of slavery when the country was divided into the Northern free states and Southern Slave States it became more of a common occurrence for enslaved people to try to escape. In some cases they’d go free, in others they’d be caught by ‘patrollers.’ A definition of their duties from the National Law Enforcement Officer Memorial Fund, “ slave patrols served three main functions.’(1) to chase down, apprehend, and return to their owners, runaway slaves; (2) to provide a form of organized terror to deter slave revolts; and, (3) to maintain a form of discipline for slave-workers who were subject to summary justice, outside the law”’ this comes from Slave Patrols: An Early Form of American Policing. Slavery and having the mindset to be overtly violent is ingrained in the DNA of law enforcement in America. Therefore it should not exist. 

 References 

Deangelis, Tori, The Legacy Of Trauma, American Psychological Association, 2019 

Hallam, Jennifer, Slavery and the making of America. The Slave Experience Men, Women, and  Gender, Thirteen.org, 2004 

Melby, Julie Injured Humanity- Graphics, Princeton, 2009

NLEOMF- Slave Patrols: An Early Form of American Policing

Shu, Khushbah 400 Years Since Slavery- Timeline, The Guardian, modified 2021 

States, United Better Life Index- OECD, OECD, 2023 

Wood, Samuel Injured Humanity; Being A Representation of What the Unhappy Children of Africa Endure from Those Who Call Themselves Christians, Published by Samuel Wood., 1805

Posted in Causal Rewrite, QueenRandom | 4 Comments

Causal Essay-Queen Random

Posted on March 7, 2023 by queenrandom04

Rotten Foundations

America, Home of the free, land of the brave. This is the ideology we’ve been taught throughout history. Within our education, there have been unmistakable efforts to rewrite history with the United States always being the good guy. It’s forced us to never truly reconcile with the truth of our own history. In the article written by Khushbah Shu, 400 Years Since slavery Timeline, it’s revealed to us that, despite many people’s first recollection of the British colonizers’  migration to America being the Mayflower, “- a year earlier, 20 enslaved Africans were brought to the British colonies against their will.” This is the first of many instances where enslaved people’s history, what is simultaneously  American History, gets erased. 

A reason for this erasure is the belief that black people aren’t slaves so slavery shouldn’t continue to be acknowledged in the modern day. Slavery is over, that is a fact.  Slavery being over provides a nice cocoon of deniability. Deniability that has far too often been the excuse of minimizing the influence slavery has had on the United States as a whole. An argument we can all agree on is that slavery  is bad, but how can we reconcile the systems that have been created as a consequence of slavery, if we don’t fully accept how detrimental slavery was, in and of itself. People only find comfort in acknowledging slavery within the fact that it’s over. Its being over isn’t justice enough for the systemic issues that have resulted because of practices started while slavery was still on going. 

Saying slavery is inhumane isn’t enough to recognize the complete lack of humanity’s presence for actual centuries. To truly get the correct understanding of how inhumane slavery was we must first look at how we define what it is to be humane. The best way to do that is to look at what our county defines as the freedom to our quality of life. Humanness in the face of commodifying actual humans seems redundant. The rationalization is that enslaved people weren’t people. They were slaves, that the violence they faced was a byproduct of the time. But even within the time period slavery existed there were still people who saw the lack of humanness and knew it wasn’t moral. People like Samuel Wood.  Injured Humanity Graphic Arts is an article written by Julie Melby. Here we are able to find out that Samuel Wood was a Quaker and a New York Printer. In the midst of the political warfare that would eventually end in the criminalization of the Atlantic Slave trade; Wood, wrote Injured Humanity. 

It was his attempt to shine light on the injustices endured by enslaved people during their transportation from Africa to America. He wrote an article; its title which is an argument in itself is,  Injured Humanity; Being A Representation of What the Unhappy Children of Africa Endure from Those Who Call Themselves Christians. Here we can find first-hand accounts of the quality of life enslaved peoples were granted, “ to divide them into different classes: the first consisting of those bought for the use of the plantations: the second of the in and out-door slaves. The field slaves are called out by daylight to their work: if they are not out in time, they are flogged.”  There is nothing human about being forced to live outside, being reduced to a location and knowing that at any moment in time you can be beaten. From our very own government, the United States states on the OECD Better Life Index, “Housing is essential to meet basic needs, such as shelter, but it is not just a question of four walls and a roof. Housing should offer a place to sleep and rest where people feel safe and have privacy and personal space; somewhere they can raise a family.” They were deprived of housing. They were deprived of safety. From Injured Humanity, “ but husbands and wives, parents and children, are parted with as little concern as sheep and lambs by the butcher”. Enslaved people were denied the most basic of our principals of what we define as being human in this country. 

Samuel Wood in Injured Humanity wasn’t even advocating for the eradication of slavery as a whole, only the advocation to stop stealing people from across the world. This was the violence they faced before even stepping foot on American soil and truly experiencing chattel slavery. Which is its own beast. Jeniffer Hallem paints a gruesome look of the day to day lived experiences of enslaved people in her article, The Slave Experience, “ The female slave was, moreover, faced with the prospect of being forced into sexual relationships for the purposes of reproduction. Perhaps more harrowing, she might be witness to her daughters suffering the same fate.” The violence of chattel slavery is something that can’t be fully understood without being experienced. It’s a violence that has been passed down through generations and still affects us today. In the article, The Legacy of Trauma, written by Tori Deangelis, it’s stated that “The legacy of slavery continues to affect African Americans in a variety of ways. For example, research has shown that African Americans are more likely than other racial groups to experience poverty, unemployment, and incarceration.” This is a direct result of the lack of humanity given to enslaved people during their enslavement.  

With the evidence provided it is undeniable that slavery was inhumane, corrupt, and violent. Proceeding with this philosophy we can also come to the conclusion that anything that was created in response to, or because of, slavery is also inherently inhumane, violent and corrupt. Further into the course of slavery when the country was divided into the Northern free states and Southern Slave States it became more of a common occurrence for enslaved people to try to escape. In some cases they’d go free, in others they’d be caught by ‘patrollers.’ A definition of their duties from the National Law Enforcement Officer Memorial Fund, “ slave patrols served three main functions.’(1) to chase down, apprehend, and return to their owners, runaway slaves; (2) to provide a form of organized terror to deter slave revolts; and, (3) to maintain a form of discipline for slave-workers who were subject to summary justice, outside the law”’ this comes from Slave Patrols: An Early Form of American Policing. Slavery and having the mindset to be overtly violent is ingrained in the DNA of law enforcement in America. Therefore it should not exist. 

 References 

Deangelis, Tori, The Legacy Of Trauma, American Psychological Association, 2019 

Hallam, Jennifer, Slavery and the making of America. The Slave Experience Men, Women, and  Gender, Thirteen.org, 2004 

Melby, Julie Injured Humanity- Graphics, Princeton, 2009

NLEOMF- Slave Patrols: An Early Form of American Policing

Shu, Khushbah 400 Years Since Slavery- Timeline, The Guardian, modified 2021 

States, United Better Life Index- OECD, OECD, 2023 

Wood, Samuel Injured Humanity; Being A Representation of What the Unhappy Children of Africa Endure from Those Who Call Themselves Christians, Published by Samuel Wood., 1805

Posted in Causal Argument, QueenRandom | Leave a comment

Definition Rewrite-FatJoe

Posted on March 7, 2023 by fatjoe000

Performance enhancement drugs, oxycodone, codeine, Vicodin, painkillers, all drugs that athletes have and can become addicted to. Many athletes are often under tremendous pressure to perform at the highest level, and this pressure can lead to the use of PED’s and prescription drugs. While sports promote physical fitness, mental toughness and competition, and while all these things are good, it does not mean that they can always have good outcomes. The consequences of drug addiction can be devastating for athletes, including damage to their health, both mentally and physically, suspension from competition and even legal repercussions. The lure of instant gratification, and to meet the expectations to be able to achieve success will cause athletes to do whatever they feel is needed to achieve these things, no matter what the costs will be.

When it comes to drugs that athletes will turn to, PED’s, or performance-enhancement drugs, are the most common. The most common type of PED that athletes will use is steroids. Steroids are a drug that gets injected into one’s body. Steroids have always been frowned upon in the sports world because it is seen as cheating, which of course it is. When an athlete, who already trains every day to try to become the best at their sport, uses steroids, which strengthen muscles and reduces body fat, it impacts your image to the public and other players heavily. An example of this is former MLB superstar Barry Bonds. Before he started using steroids, Bonds was already the best player in the MLB, he won two MVPs, which are awarded to the best player in all of the sport, and three Gold Glove awards, which go to the best fielder in all of baseball. Bonds stapled himself as one of the best to do it, but once it was revealed that he was using steroids it prohibited him from making it into the hall of fame. This shows that steroids, or just PED’s in general, can extremely hurt someone’s image. Being in the hall of fame is a massive achievement for athletes of all sports, and even though Bonds was already having a hall of fame career before the steroids, he has still not been able to have the achievement of getting into the hall of fame.

Now, it is not uncommon to think that athletes only use PED’s to gain an upper hand over their opponents, or maybe even to try to secure a place on their roster. It is also common to think that athletes that aren’t the face of their sport will be the only ones to use PED’s, to try to gain that spotlight, but this is not always the case. Yes PED’s can be used to just cheat, but they can also be used as a coping mechanism. Athletes of all sports face extremely high pressure, especially during the playoffs or a big tournament. The article Athletes’ Substance Abuse and Mental Health, by Brandon T. Carreathers, states “New York Yankees Alex Rodriguez admitted to the Entertainment and Sports Programming Network (ESPN) that he took steroids because of the amount of pressure he felt when he arrived in Texas in 2001 (ESPN, 2009). Rodriguez is one of many athletes who turned to PEDs due to the enormous amounts of pressure.” (Carreathers, 2020). Alex Rodriguez was a world-class athlete when he played, and he is one of the best MLB players of all time, who is loved by many fans. And if a very well-known, and already great player feels the need to turn to steroids just to help him deal with the pressure, what else will athletes do to cope?

Furthermore, the pressure athletes face can come from many outlets. Whether it is from the fans, the organization that an athlete plays for, or the actual family of the athlete, it can all lead to immense amount of pressure. The same article states, “This pressure to succeed at such a high level comes from the athlete’s organizations and their families. NCAA research revealed that many Division I athletes believe their parents expected them to play at the professional level.” (Carreathers, 2020). Feeling the need to please your parents is a feeling that all people feel, but student-athletes feel it at a higher level which results in them doing whatever it takes to please their parents. Along with their parents, athletes also face pressure from the organization and the fans. Both the fans and the organization expect the athletes to play at a super high level, which could result in PED use. Also, when it comes to professional athletes, their job is to play that sport, they get paid for it, and all people need money so they can support themselves and/or their families. So athletes wouldn’t want to jeopardize their livelihood, which could result in PED use.

Moving on from PED’s, athletes can also turn to prescribed drugs to help cope. The use of prescribed drugs often comes after an injury, a very popular prescribed drug that athletes can become addicted to are painkillers, specifically Vicodin and OxyContin. Athletes will turn to these drugs as a way to help deal with the high level of competitiveness and the levels of intensity that they face. In the article Substance Abuse Concerns for Athletes After Injury, by “Michael’s House”, it states, “Erik Ainge, former backup quarterback for the New York Jets, sat out the entire 2010 football season as he recovered from a pain killer addiction that started after an injury.” (Michael’s House, 2021). Although Ainge was just a backup quarterback, he still fell victim to substance abuse. So it does not matter if you are a star athlete or just a backup, you can still become addicted to a substance all the same.

Athletes that are currently playing aren’t the only ones that can become addicted to prescribed drugs. “Michael’s House” states “In 2009, Sam Rayburn, former defensive tackle for the Philadelphia Eagles, was taken into police custody for committing fraud or forgery to illegally obtain a controlled substance. The arrest revealed that he had a painkiller addiction that at its height reached 100 Percocets per day.” (Michael’s House, 2021). Retired athletes can become addicted just as much as athletes currently playing, and in this case, even more. Sam Rayburn admitting that he had taken 100 percocets per day shows how heavily athletes can become addicted.

On the whole, the pressure to perform at the highest level can push athletes towards the misuse and abuse of performance-enhancement drugs and prescribed drugs, which can lead to addiction and severe consequences. While sports promote positive qualities like mental toughness and competition, it is important to recognize that these qualities must be balanced with a focus on health and safety. Also, injuries in both current and retired athletes can lead to substance abuse like painkillers. Overall addiction can have devastating effects on athletes, whether it’s physical damage, mental damage or both.

References

Carreathers, Brandon. Commons.emich.edu, 2020, “Athletes’ Substance Abuse and Mental Health”

House , Michael’s. Michael’s House Treatment Centers, 17 Nov. 2021, Subsrance Abuse Concerns for Athletes After Injury

Posted in Definition Rewrite, FatJoe | Leave a comment

Definition-Fatjoe

Posted on March 7, 2023 by fatjoe000

Performance enhancement drugs, oxycodone, codeine, Vicodin, painkillers, all drugs that athletes have and can become addicted to. Many athletes are often under tremendous pressure to perform at the highest level, and this pressure can lead to the use of PED’s and prescription drugs. While sports promote physical fitness, mental toughness and competition, and while all these things are good, it does not mean that they can always have good outcomes. The consequences of drug addiction can be devastating for athletes, including damage to their health, both mentally and physically, suspension from competition and even legal repercussions. The lure of instant gratification, and to meet the expectations to be able to achieve success will cause athletes to do whatever they feel is needed to achieve these things, no matter what the costs will be.

When it comes to drugs that athletes will turn to, PED’s, or performance-enhancement drugs, are the most common. The most common type of PED that athletes will use is steroids. Steroids are a drug that gets injected into one’s body. Steroids have always been frowned upon in the sports world because it is seen as cheating, which of course it is. When an athlete, who already trains every day to try to become the best at their sport, uses steroids, which strengthen muscles and reduces body fat, it impacts your image to the public and other players heavily. An example of this is former MLB superstar Barry Bonds. Before he started using steroids, Bonds was already the best player in the MLB, he won two MVPs, which are awarded to the best player in all of the sport, and three Gold Glove awards, which go to the best fielder in all of baseball. Bonds stapled himself as one of the best to do it, but once it was revealed that he was using steroids it prohibited him from making it into the hall of fame. This shows that steroids, or just PED’s in general, can extremely hurt someone’s image. Being in the hall of fame is a massive achievement for athletes of all sports, and even though Bonds was already having a hall of fame career before the steroids, he has still not been able to have the achievement of getting into the hall of fame.

Now, it is not uncommon to think that athletes only use PED’s to gain an upper hand over their opponents, or maybe even to try to secure a place on their roster. It is also common to think that athletes that aren’t the face of their sport will be the only ones to use PED’s, to try to gain that spotlight, but this is not always the case. Yes PED’s can be used to just cheat, but they can also be used as a coping mechanism. Athletes of all sports face extremely high pressure, especially during the playoffs or a big tournament. The article Athletes’ Substance Abuse and Mental Health, by Brandon T. Carreathers, states “New York Yankees Alex Rodriguez admitted to the Entertainment and Sports Programming Network (ESPN) that he took steroids because of the amount of pressure he felt when he arrived in Texas in 2001 (ESPN, 2009). Rodriguez is one of many athletes who turned to PEDs due to the enormous amounts of pressure.” (Carreathers, 2020). Alex Rodriguez was a world-class athlete when he played, and he is one of the best MLB players of all time, who is loved by many fans. And if a very well-known, and already great player feels the need to turn to steroids just to help him deal with the pressure, what else will athletes do to cope?

Furthermore, the pressure athletes face can come from many outlets. Whether it is from the fans, the organization that an athlete plays for, or the actual family of the athlete, it can all lead to immense amount of pressure. The same article states, “This pressure to succeed at such a high level comes from the athlete’s organizations and their families. NCAA research revealed that many Division I athletes believe their parents expected them to play at the professional level.” (Carreathers, 2020). Feeling the need to please your parents is a feeling that all people feel, but student-athletes feel it at a higher level which results in them doing whatever it takes to please their parents. Along with their parents, athletes also face pressure from the organization and the fans. Both the fans and the organization expect the athletes to play at a super high level, which could result in PED use. Also, when it comes to professional athletes, their job is to play that sport, they get paid for it, and all people need money so they can support themselves and/or their families. So athletes wouldn’t want to jeopardize their livelihood, which could result in PED use.

Moving on from PED’s, athletes can also turn to prescribed drugs to help cope. The use of prescribed drugs often comes after an injury, a very popular prescribed drug that athletes can become addicted to are painkillers, specifically Vicodin and OxyContin. Athletes will turn to these drugs as a way to help deal with the high level of competitiveness and the levels of intensity that they face. In the article Substance Abuse Concerns for Athletes After Injury, by “Michael’s House”, it states, “Erik Ainge, former backup quarterback for the New York Jets, sat out the entire 2010 football season as he recovered from a pain killer addiction that started after an injury.” (Michael’s House, 2021). Although Ainge was just a backup quarterback, he still fell victim to substance abuse. So it does not matter if you are a star athlete or just a backup, you can still become addicted to a substance all the same.

Athletes that are currently playing aren’t the only ones that can become addicted to prescribed drugs. “Michael’s House” states “In 2009, Sam Rayburn, former defensive tackle for the Philadelphia Eagles, was taken into police custody for committing fraud or forgery to illegally obtain a controlled substance. The arrest revealed that he had a painkiller addiction that at its height reached 100 Percocets per day.” (Michael’s House, 2021). Retired athletes can become addicted just as much as athletes currently playing, and in this case, even more. Sam Rayburn admitting that he had taken 100 percocets per day shows how heavily athletes can become addicted.

On the whole, the pressure to perform at the highest level can push athletes towards the misuse and abuse of performance-enhancement drugs and prescribed drugs, which can lead to addiction and severe consequences. While sports promote positive qualities like mental toughness and competition, it is important to recognize that these qualities must be balanced with a focus on health and safety. Also, injuries in both current and retired athletes can lead to substance abuse like painkillers. Overall addiction can have devastating effects on athletes, whether it’s physical damage, mental damage or both.

References

Carreathers, Brandon. Commons.emich.edu, 2020, “Athletes’ Substance Abuse and Mental Health”

House , Michael’s. Michael’s House Treatment Centers, 17 Nov. 2021, Subsrance Abuse Concerns for Athletes After Injury

Posted in Definition, FatJoe | Leave a comment