Tuesday, November 26, 2013

Hostility of Accepting Wrong

November 22, 2013

Hostility of Accepting Wrong

Excuse me for my hostility from being tired of settling for what isn’t right. There comes a point in one’s life when they are confronted with the truth and knowledge of a situation, and must decide whether to ignore or accept it. To accept it means, that if there lie a problem within that truth being present/exposed one must seek to expose it; make known, that truth. Truth entails righteousness. The ability to seek; in any circumstance, the right choice that takes not only ones self, but others, into consideration before choosing.

We placed our trust in a system that is not meant to lead us. Yes, it may have been created as so decades ago, but today, that original purpose no longer aligns with today’s world. The framers forgot one thing when trying to structure the government. This life is ever changing, and therefore, man is changing with it. What was applicable hundreds of years ago, is no longer so today. The rules set in place to govern- control- the people were constructed in a time when technology was not present. That in itself shows the magnitude in different environments. Therefore, we cannot continue to follow a system whose foundation is encompassed in racial, ethnocentric, points of views that cannot exist in today’s system without causing conflict (as we see to this day).

People are being constrained to this ideology that if they work hard they can live the American dream. However, this notion is so flawed yet covered so well, most people never catch the flaw. Only a blind person could accept the American creed, and unfortunately blind are most today. Blind to the illusions set in place to district them from the truth; better yet reality. Blind to the value they are truly worth. So consumed by materials most are never consumed by anything else. There will be a time, however; there has to be a time, when those who are blind receive sight. Until that time those who can see, must lead the way, and stand to their feet.

I cannot be the only one anxious to be free. Tired of being restrained from experiencing life outside these walls. They say we have free-will, yet why do I feel like a prisoner. I live right. I strive for good. I love with no end. So why can I not live! Why can I not be free? Free to experience everything my God left me, here on this earth; with no restraint, no restrictions, nor a form of compensation demanded.

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

Thoughts of Insanity

As I sit and ponder about the purpose of this life thousands of thoughts flood my mind. Questions of right and wrong are debated back and forth; back and forth. The question of insanity creeps up. Making its presence ever so clear, my mind struggles to rationalize its being. Am I or am I not? Are these outlandish made up thoughts from single pieces of information stored over time, being collected and jumbled together to make what seems to be a critical thought; outrageous or righteous? That very question haunts and still haunts me. Creating dreams so vivid, so life-like; reality and imagination become one. Leaving me stuck in this thought it is all an illusion, or perhaps a test of who can keep sane the longest.  But as one steps back and re-exams this life holistically, one is presented with the question, why? Why is all of this necessary? We have the potential to be great. Too live in a world of peace and love. Yet, you would never think that concept of living is possible but I am here to tell you it is. Many struggle with the notion is “impossible” something actually factual. One can argue all things are possible therefore nothing is impossible, as well, another could argue all things are not possible therefore something is impossible. But is that not an excuse of a limitation to mankind. We believe we are the superior being of all. Yet, some doubt their ability to be innovative and obtain self-actualization. Why? Is it because so few have led the way? Because those few have thought and talked for so many for so long leaving many, not knowingly, to follow blindly with no mind. Causing a static advancement of the very thing that makes us. But this problem is not encountered by all. Is it a reality that this will ever happen? Most would say no, some would say yes. Sadly I am becoming one that would say no. This is what leaves me torn between my mind and my heart. One thinks logically as one is told to do so. The other thinks irrationally with feelings driving the irrationality. But looking back, as one should always do, at the beginning of these scrupulous words I’ve learned there is a time and a place for man’s logic. Moreover, it is a time and place for irrational thinking. It’s your choice to decide which is needed at the time. Who’s to say which is right and which is wrong? Who’s to say any thought is insane?

Thursday, February 7, 2013

Prophecies Of Old Current In Present Day

Prophecies Of Old Current In Present Day

Haggai, Chapter 1, versus 6: Ye have sown much, and bring in little; yea eat, but ye have not enough; ye drink, but ye are not filled with drink;ye clothe you, but there is none warm; and he that earneth wages earneth wages to put it into a bag with holes (Dake, 2009).

“Haggie was a prophet unto Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Josedech the high priest.” In the second year of Darius the king, in the sixth month, in the first day of the month (June 1st) Haggie gave the word of the Lord. He said to them, as the host of the Lord, “Consider your ways.” After prompting them to take heave to their present actions he explained to them, in a manner some would consider a parable, that they constantly want more despite the fact they have plenty; never to be satisfied. As so, instead of spending time with the Lord and relying on Him whole heartily, they relayed on their own ways; which left them to labor more (sow much) yet receive little in return for their work (bring in little). They had food to eat to satisfy their bodily hunger, yet they desired more. They had clothes to clothe themselves yet it wasn’t enough; they needed more. And last, they earned money thinking it was going in their pocket, when in reality it was as if they had holes in their pocket and the money was falling out due to them constantly spending.

If one were to compare this scripture with a nation in present day, because Haggie was speaking to a nation, one might say the United States fits this parable. We put ourselves out here everyday, striving to work towards something because we've been promised something better in return. When in reality the compensation we receive for our “hard work” is not nearly the amount we truly deserve. All the middle to lower class jobs, that consist of the people doing the work that makes that institution function and exist, receive the lowest amount of money from the actual overall amount received for that product or service, while the ones who do no labor bring in majority of the overall amount. Therefore one could argue that we sow so much, yet bring in so little.

America is facing a problem with over production. We are producing things at rate that doesn’t line up with the actual use of the said product. Cars are constantly being built, yet thousands sit on lots everyday, half never used just resold to auctions to repeat the cycle again. We have plenty of food, yet we act as if it is not enough. As a friend famously put it, we no longer eat for survival, instead for pleasure. We have plenty of clothes, yet in some cases there seems to be this preconceived notion that one cannot wear the same outfit twice. “To do that would be taboo.” Or, one I am even guilty of, the famous excuse that its out of season or style.

When one is forced to really look at American society and its structuring, the argument that we our enslaved by our kind yet do not realize it, can be made. All of us, and really no matter what class, have to work in order to live in this society. In some manner we have to work at something in order to get it. Most of us have to go to work everyday to earn wages, knowing those wages are going to be spent. Whether it is on bills, keep in mind debt, or items you need such as food and water. In the end we are constantly pushed to work for wages, that in the end, will never be enough for how one truly desires to live, or at least how one feels they should live.

Scholars and many others have argued that history repeats itself. Yet we can never seem to learn from it. I Wonder why that is?

Dake,F.J.(2009).The Dake Annotated Reference Bible: King James Version. Dake Publishing.

Saturday, November 17, 2012

Obama and the Middle East Conflict

Obama and the Middle East Conflict
Talisha Griffin
University of Central Oklahoma
Modern Middle East
April 24,2012


Conflict between Palestinians and Israelis has been over identity of the other side and Israels identity as a whole for decades. Both feel neither have the right to exist and that ones heritage is more worthy than the other to define Israel. Israelis have had the dominant hand and believe Palestinians have no right to exist. Palestinians believe their right to exist and govern their own state. The issue is Palestinians are divided amongst themselves from the Hamas and Fatah militant. Having to address this issue means dealing with many players with not only different, but contradictory agendas. As so, the Israelis are divided amongst themselves. Some, but not many, political leaders have tried to tackle this issue. Goals of peace and unity have been attempted yet failed. Despite the most recent attempts by others, Obama attempted to take on this issue his first term. Obama brought in George Mitchell, a veteran of Northern Ireland Peace Accord, to help try to settle this conflict.
This paper will address the history of the conflict between the two groups providing a deep historical background of the conflict, while addressing the steps taken from the Obama Administration in resolving this conflict and why they have failed to do so.


Over the years these two people have come to inhabit the same piece of territory. Violence has been the result of this due to the two's unwillingness to find a way to share the land and accept one another. In defending a cause they view as singularly righteous and just, each side has inflicted pain and misery on the other (Kamrava, 2011). Ignoring their similarities and yet focusing on their differences, these two people don't realize their effect on one anothers identity. Both began predominately secular; later becoming more religious. These two groups in the beginning were unaware of their conflicting actions and how it shaped one anothers identity. Therefore, from an outside perspective one could see how in reality these two groups are really one due the others influence on the other.
The issue of identity became present when the first of the five aliyas, in the early 1880's, immigrated into the Zionist settlement. Negotiation of identities began to intensify resulting in conflict and warfare. Out of this, the two's identity became clear; both took on a more religious identity. This is where Zionism and Judaism took form. In the beginning, Zionism was secular, and strongly influenced by social justice and egalitarianism among European intellectuals as for Judaism forming the larger cause (Kamrava, 2011). The conflict began to rise between the two, with Zionist claiming to be rightful inheritors of the land. They used biblical references for justification of the land. By 1930's and 1940's failure of the Zionist project was not an option due to Hitlers control. At this time Hitler had control and was punishing the Jews. For those who escaped Hitlers camps, this only deepened the biblical conviction that the artificially created territory called Palestine had no right to exist; this ment there was no such thing as Palestine or a Palestinian. Thus, Israelis drew more on religious roots of
Zionism to form their identity(Kamrava, 2011). So how did Palestinians gain their identity?
Palestinian nationalism sparked in the 1920's due to the increase in population from incoming Zionist immigrants, it was very territorial and secular. Up until the intifadaI period, which will be discussed later, Palestinians identity was focused on what it had. Only later, in the intifada years of 1987-93 and afterward, did the perceived failures of the secular led PLO prompt many Palestinians in the Occupied Territories to look for other alternatives(Kamrava, 2011). This is how Islam asserted its role in the identity of Palestinians.
Both parties are divided within themselves. There is a division of people based off of religion, ethnicity, and place of resident. This creates a problem for both groups within its own society. Thus, telling us neither is really in position of having the right to exist as the majority for one state, due to boths conflict within its own people. We will see how later it is viewed, more so, the Palestinians possess a problem of division with the Hamas and Fatah, than Israelis and their divisions with Israel Jewish inhabitants; Ashikenazim and Mizrachim. “Jews consider themselves to belong to one of the two; Ashkenazim and Mizrachim. Mizrachim and Sephardim are used interchangeably in Israel, both are considered one” (Kamrava, 2011). Of the two, the Ashikenazim are politically and economically dominant. Starting in the mid 1970's, the Mizrachim began to see changes in both educational and occupational opportunities. In 2000, over 50% of Mizrachim belonged to the middle class. Many married Ashkenazim and raised children unaware of ethnic allegiance (Kamrava, 2011).
Both Israeli's and Palestinians have a division amongst its culture. Neither can be found to have “one” identity; an identity that includes all persons of the culture. This point is made to bring an understanding to the contradictory justifications used to keep this conflict going. Rarely can a society be found now days, that consist of true equality for all its people. Society's now days around the world
and for centuries have had a division of some sort amongst its people causing a social stratification. Karl Marx and other major theorist recognized this and used “class structure” to show how this inequality exist and works.
With the Israeli culture being both politically and economically dominant, the Palestinians are seen as the minority. If we look through-out history, the groups of individuals who have always struggled and been subjected to the lower socioeconomic levels of society, are represented as the minority. The minority class is usually always subjected to an identity crisis due to the mixture of lower ethnic groups brought together in assimilation. With the focus of the Palestinians being the minority their weakness; as so everyone has them, are focused on more heavily and subjected to greater criticism. As so the Israelis, the Palestinians division in its culture with the Hamas and Fatah has created an issue for the identity of Palestinians. Due to its minority stature this identity crisis is used in justification of why they cannot possess their own independent state. Prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu uses this reasoning in why he will not support a two state-solution (El-Khawas, 2010).
Up until the intifada period Palestinians had no symbolic representation. When the PNA was established from failure of the PLO, this gave Palestinians for the first time their own flag, anthem, president, representative assembly (Palestinian National Council), police force, and more. These institutions and symbols are the beginning of Palestinian identity and recognition as people. Whether, they are still subjected to lower standards of living and discrimination these symbols provide a sense of identity. Also from the intifada period the rise of non-PLO affiliates such as Hamas, ULU, and Islamic Jihad came about. Due to the Hamas willingness to work with other Palestinian forces, along with successful attacks against Israelis targets; they have gained great control with the Palestinian community. Although the support of the community is present due to their violent means used to make their point, they have not gained support of outside officials such as the Unites States. Like Bush, President Obama had no intentions of dealing with Hamas until it renounced violence, abided by past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist. Unfortunately, due to the Hamas support amongst citizens without the Hamas cooperation, the United State will never be able to fix the problem.
Gaining an understanding of the historical conflict between these two persons and understanding the importance of identity, lets now look at the Obama administrations policy to deal with this conflict, and the steps taken to do so.

Obama took on this complex historical issue his first term and should be admired for doing so. This conflict has been going on for to long and in reality the conflict should not even be present. In his speech given May 22,2011, the president expressed this issue is no longer effecting just the parties involved but outside parties as well. The following are facts stated on the issue that need to be addressed according to Obama.
First, the number of Palestinians living west of the Jordan River is growing rapidly and fundamentally reshaping the demographic realities of both Israel and the Palestinian Territories. This will make it harder and harder -- without a peace deal -- to maintain Israel as both a Jewish state and a democratic state. Second, technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself in the absence of a genuine peace. Third, a new generation of Arabs is reshaping the region. A just and lasting peace can no longer be forged with one or two Arab leaders. Going forward, millions of Arab citizens have to see that peace is possible for that peace to be sustained”(White House, 2011).
The promises of an independent state along with issues of unauthorized building and expansion in occupied settlements, has long been ignored and now Palestinians are pursuing their interests at the United Nations. “They recognize that there is an impatience with the peace process, or the absence of one, not just in the Arab World -- in Latin America, in Asia, and in Europe. And that impatience is growing, and it’s already manifesting itself in capitals around the world” (White House, 2011). Obama agrees the Palestinians right to their own independent state and that Israel should and has to accept this in order for any conflict to be resolved. Therefore, giving rise to the proposal of a two state-solution.

A two state-solution proposal seems to be the best solution available for this issue. Due, to both parties right to exist in reality, each need their own independent state with their own identity to define themselves. Tessler (1994), expressed that in order for the Middle East conflict to be resolved both Palestinians and Israelis must accept the notion both have the right to exist. Obama shares this view and expressed that with Likud's prime minister in 2009. Obama’s advocacy of a two-state solution states, Palestinians should have their own state. His plan for land to establish a state, was in occupied territories like East Jerusalem. The major issue Obama faces in attempting to resolve this conflict, is getting the parties to accept and understand that each possess a right to exist. Without this, no one or two state can be established without conflict still present.
Likud's prime minister, Niyamin Netanyahu, has been building and expanding settlement in the West Bank and Gaza. In 2003, the Road Map for peace was signed with US, Israel, and the Quartet; it was to halt all building or expansion by Israelis in occupied territories. This failure to abide by the
agreement has left many Palestinians upset, along with a population and space issue amongst residents. Areas under Israelis control causing blockades to areas such as Gaza; causing devastating effects, need to be addressed. The cooperation of Hamas in the peace negotiation will never be present as long as the Israelis blockade is present, which is crippling the Gaza economy and has been doing so since 2007. Like Bush, when negotiating a two state-solution between Israeli and Palestinian leaders, Obama had no intention of dealing with the Hamas militant. Unfortunately, due to Hamas gain in popularity and power; without its support nothing can be accomplished in this peace deal. With the understanding that without Hamas involvement no peace negotiation could be accomplished, Obama shifted policy for aid to the two Palestinian groups; Hamas and Fatah. Agreeing no money will directly be given to Hamas, but instead through international agencies like the UN, would ensure help and proper distribution(El-Khawas, 2009). Sending in officials of the administration, Obama went in with attempts of helping rebuild Gaza in hopes of support from Palestinians.
The US stance of a two state solution put George Mitchell, adviser of Obama, at odds with negotiating with Netanyahu. Netanyahu felt the Palestinians deserved no recognition of being a people, let alone deserve an independent state. He said, that by establishing a Palestinian state in the West Bank it would subject fear due to the possibility of the radical Hamas group taking it over as they did Gaza in 2007 (El-Khawas, 2010). So instead he wished to focus on strengthening the West Bank economy. His focus was on continuing development in the settlement areas, expanding the Israeli territory to the point there would be nothing left for the Palestinians. After meeting with Netanyahu and getting no where, Mitchell met with President Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinians president, who expressed his concerns of Netanyahu not accepting the establishment of a Palestinian state. He felt Netanyahu was delaying peace talk so that he could have more time to continue expanding settlement
in the West Bank.
Understanding that both parties have to be brought together to discuss and agree upon on a solution, President Obama began his mission to do so. On May 18, 2009, Netanyahu was schedule for a meeting with Obama in the Oval Office to discuss the two state-solution. At that time it was reported in Israel, that more than half of Israelis support a two state-solution, while 78% percent of the citizens where willing to live with it (Burston, 2009). With that strong support, Netanyahu still refused to endorse the two state solution. Secretary Clinton tried to point out that if Israel wanted strong support for its position on Iran it cannot ignore the Palestinians peace effort. Netanyahu, gained support from Pro-Israel Americans after his speech that made it clear Israel doesn’t want to govern Palestinians. US experts and former national security advisers, expressed that because there is no Palestinian leadership within the two Palestinians factions with which Israel could negotiate a deal, Palestinians are indeed not capable of having a state and solving their own problems. This view shows the contradictory justifications given in relation to Palestinians and an independent state.
After the meeting in May, Netanyahu gave order's to build new settlement at the outpost of Maskiot in the northern West Bank; the first new construction in a quarter century. This decision caused not only more conflict between Palestinians and Israelis, but with the Obama administration as well. This caused Obama to reinforce a cease to all settlement activity in Israel, which was already required under the Road Map. Netanyahu rejected Obama's demand and continued to do so. Therefore, resulting in June 2009, the removing of unauthorized posts in the occupied territories. This resulted in violent attacks by militant settlers against the Palestinians.
Later in mid June Netanyahu delivered a foreign policy speech, where he laid out a plan to end
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He accepted the notion of the independent state but with limitations and conditions. These conditions would not allow any Palestinians power like other states; no control over its airspace and airwaves, no power to sign treaties, and it would have to have the Israeli military stationed along its borders. One can understand these conditions provide no room for a true statehood. Atleast, not the independent state Palestinians had in mind. Israelis can be looked at as having said “Yes” to Palestinians numerous times in attempts for peace, so why are Palestinians saying no to these agreements?
Well as so any human-being we possess a desire for free-will. To be able to live life in ways that satisfy us is a desire we all have no matter the culture. So why do we not expect a reaction from people when we try to take away their free-will to control them. Palestinians did not agree with Netanyahu's proposal of a two state-solution due to its conditions. While Netanyahu seemed to be focused on peace talk, there were expansions taking place in settlement areas as he was talking about peace. Mitchell tried for weeks to get Netanyahu to agree to a complete freeze in building in settlement areas; one because it effected talks of peace and two because it was agreed in the Road Map for the halt on any building or expansion. Once again reiterating the same agreement with Netanyahu, he continued expansion.
With Mitchell unable to reach an agreement with Netanyahu, Obama tried to get back on track in reference to a peace agreement. Trying to over look this problem will get no one anywhere in relation to peace talk between these two parties. Netanyahu cant even show respect in abiding by national agreements in relation to settlements, what makes anyone think he will respect a peace agreement. Thinking he could overlook the settlement issue and focus on the peace talk, Obama held separate meetings with Netanyahu and Abbas to show his efforts in commitment to the peace process. In his meeting he tried to focus on peace talks only and not issues about settlement freeze. With this the Israeli side was pleased and Netanyahu announced that talks of peace do not and should not have to be dependent on a freeze of Israeli settlement. Leaving the Palestinians unaware of these discussion, Israel continued settlement expansion on lands that the Palestinians claimed for a future state. Palestinians knew when Netanyahu began talks of peace, it was all a distraction to take the focus off development. Hard for the administration to negotiate peace without dealing with the settlement expansion, Obama finally realized they were getting no where in negotiation of settlement freeze and called on Israel to implement the Road Map. This of course pleased the Israeli side but left the Palestinians displeased.
Abbas, who agreed for a full settlement freeze, announced after the summit that a partial freeze was unacceptable because it would maintain the status quo (El-Khawas, 2010). Obama and the US creditability suffered amongst the Arab and Muslim world. In his effort to regain his creditability and restart talks of peace, he told the UN General Assembly that he will not give up on his plan of peace and the US does not accept the settlement expansions,and talks of peace should continue. Netanyahu accepted Obama's proposal of talk of peace, but would not freeze settlement in the West Bank. Netanyahu's lack of cooperation made it difficult for Abbas to enter negotiations of peace talk. He stated, freezing settlement in the West Bank and Israels withdrawal to the 1967 lines must be agreed upon prior to the start of talks (El-Khawas, 2010).
Looking at the steps the Obama administration took in handling this issue will help us understand why this policy didn't work. The first mistake in Obama's approach to resolve this conflict, was not looking at the conflict from a historical and environmental perspective. Two, his involvement in the settlement expansion put him on ice with Palestinians because this matter would have to be addressed and resolved before he would gain full support from the party.
Trying to address this complex issue requires an understanding of the history. Not just history from academia but real history from the people. The spark that started this fire was ethnocentrism. The belief that ones culture is superior of all others. This concept of superiority and power has led us to conflict amongst ourselves. We must began to understand, yes we are different in our personality’s but we are the same kind, and what makes us different from any other, is our ability to reason and rationalize. If one understood the conflict that persist between these two, one would understand that neither deserves more than the other. Rather, they both deserve the same. Neither deserves power over the over, but both deserve to govern themselves. With this understanding anyone who wishes to resolve this conflict must be steadfast in this understanding and enforce it.
When Obama got involved in the settlement freeze and took effort to try to fix it, it turned the spotlight on him from Palestinians. Since the intifada period when Palestinians gained a sense of identity and symbols to represent that, the major issue was on territory to occupy its people. Subjected to the West Bank and Gaza, after years of assimilation the population size has increased and become crowded resulting in devastating economic effects. With Israeli's control of the borders many Palestinians have not been able to venture out of the West Bank and Gaza. As the population of the Palestinians grow within these areas, Israeli's have been found to be migrating to these occupied areas. This has provided justification for Netanyahu to continue expansion in settlements areas due to Israelis occupants.
In 2003, when the Road Map was signed Israel was expected to comply. When they failed to do so deliberately it caused more problems for Palestinians. Forcing them to focus on getting Israelis to freeze settlement expansion in their occupied territories. The simple fact is that Israel has no excuse that can justify this development. Obama wanted to step in and try to handle this problem but in the end he gave into Netanyahu's illegal actions and did not stand steadfast in the agreement. Doing this showed the Palestinians that Obama could not hold to his word or enforce policies that are already implemented. Unable to implement policies in place that were agreed upon by both Israel and the
United States, showed he would not be able to implement a new policy of peace.

The Middle East conflict has been present for centuries. Many have tried to resolve this conflict but have failed. The reason for this, is because no one has been able to stand steadfast with both parties. The only way this conflict can be resolved is by the parties themselves working it out. Trying to bring in a mediator to bring the two together has shown to fail. This conflict is rooted deep in the heart of the people, and only the people themselves can fix it. We have to understand, we as people our in control of ourselves. Yes, people can manipulate you into doing things but in the end the choice is yours. No one can make these people understand the others worth and value. Nor, can they make them forgive each other or come to an agreement, both have the right to exist. Them, themselves have to make that choice and carry out the actions to do so.
Obama's steps taken to try to resolve this conflict have failed and left him with no further progress in resolving the issue since 2011. His meetings did allow the parties to come together and express their opinions to one another which had not been done in a while. Although, they had the freedom to express their views, they also had the freedom not to agree. We have to understand at this point there is nothing we can do to resolve this conflict. This is something that has to be resolved amongst the people themselves. Without their cooperation, the conflict will perceive to exist amongst the two, which is the whole issue. All we can do as an outside source is provide help where needed. We can not be bias of another, but help both to show them they are no different than the other.


Burston, B. (2009).Obama, Netanyahu and two States for Spoiled Brats. Haaretz.
Retrieved on April 21, 2012 from, www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1086355.html

El-Khawas, M. A. (2010). Obama and the Middle east Peace Process: Challenge and Response.
Mediterranean Quarterly, 21:1, 19.

Kamrava, M. (2011). The Modern Middle East. Berkley and Los Angles, CA. University of California


Tessler, M. (1994). A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Bloomington,IN. Indiana University


White House. (2011). Remarks by the Presidant at the AIPAC Policy Conference 2011. Washington, D.C.
Retrieved on April 21,2012 from, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-


Thursday, October 11, 2012

Taxpayers Cost from Corporate and Government Crime

Our (taxpayers) cost's from corporation and bank fraud:
S & L fraud and scandal- bailout of the thrifts has already cost taxpayers some $165 billion. Total thrift failure due to criminal fraud and waste; estimated at $250 billion, cost of resolving the crisis exceeds $1 trillion. (175)
Lincoln Savings and Loan- an additional cost of $1.3 billion to taxpayers due to five Senators (John McCain, Alan Cranston, Donald Reigle, John Glenn, and Dennis DeConcini) two year delay in closing the company. (177)
Subprime mortgage loans
Countrywide Financial- set aside $8 billion to modify mortgage loans.
First Alliance Mortgage- agreed to pay $60 million for deceptive practices which resulted in 18,000 people loosing their home and/or putting them in massive debt. Payout doesn’t equal the amount of damages done to economy. (172)
Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac: profound effect on the real estate market and caused huge numbers of foreclosures. (173)

This isn't even a scratch of what other major banks, corporations, and government actions have cost us. As citizens, we are left to pay the cost of selfish decisions and actions, by those entrusted to protect the well-being of man kind and our society. Not even 5 institutions have cost us over a trillion dollars to be paid by the working citizens of America. Morever, it is frighting the lack of awareness by American citizens who are left to not only pay the financial cost, but also, the cost of our time to overcome and recover from these acts of crime, that may not be characterized as illegal, but cause direct harm to humanity.

All information was obtained from Trusted Criminals: White Collar Crime in Contemporary Society by David Fredrichs 2010.

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Method of Comfort

In life there are days, weeks we wish we did not live. Yet, in these times we grow more than we will ever know. Death is an inevitable part/experience of life. Yet, we act as though it is not. Longing for immortality, wishing we would never part from this crooked world. I on the other hand cannot wait for the day when this life is over and our new one begins. However at this moment where I must stay and wait, a selfish part of me arises. Watching the loves of my life become torn and separated from each other as both grow weak of life, life becomes harder. Thick as thieves, they've stayed together. Creating life that created me. Supporting us when no one else did. My heart tears as my mind over thinks. “Be happy she's still here,” they say. “Don’t mourn twice when there is no need to mourn at this time.” Well step into my mind; kind people, and tell it that yourself. Prep, I tell myself. I am preparing for the moment that has yet to come but I know it crawls near. I guess I'm trying to gain strength but no strength has found me. Tears fall both outside and inside. It's as if I can not control them; but when have I ever been able to control my love.

In all experiences, whether joyful or sad there are lessons to be learned. Life to be discovered along with understanding to be gained that was not there before. If we fall into the darkness, allowing ourselves to dwell on nothing but the frown, we will miss out on the beauty that was intended to be seen.
As humans we will experience things we cannot prepare ourselves for, things we cannot just up and walk away from as if nothing happened. God made these times for a reason. For many of us these times will define our relationship with Him. It will place us on either one of two paths. The path of peace from understanding or the path of sorrow given from this world. Each of us will experience our own method of dealing with this life. Which method will you choose?
I choose the method of comfort that may not touch me physically, or look me in the eyes directly and tell me “everything will be ok,” but instead surpasses all my understanding and comforts my mind, body, and soul

Saturday, June 30, 2012

Story of the land of peace

There once was a place, a place of peace, that dwelt in the mind's of few.
Days of no struggles, days of no sorrow, yet instead they rejoiced with grace.
All loved, loved with action, not with just words.
Carelessly giving, they gave their all for one another.
With the thought of compassion and understanding, one never killed another.
Instead, all lived and worked for one another, but with love.
Not of blood, they were family.
Brother's and sister's of mother's and father's, all connected to one.
They danced how they wished, sang as they pleased.
Rejoiced in His glory and blessings given to them.
Tears of joy, laughter's like skittles.
All different, yet all their own.
Together they stood, together they would surely fall.
Pushed to the depth but not to death, those with envy eyes, tried.
Stricken now, they began to collide.
Like a storm, sudden and dark, chaos arose.
Those having seen clearly now were blind.
Blinded by the noise, the noise of thunder, now they were confused.
Although confused, due to few, few strong and brave, they survived.
Instead of turning a blind eye, to those envy eyes, they forgave.
So envious from its envy, it turned away.
Now knowing what was present, that was not just before, they knew they would be faced with more.
But because of who they were, no worries where dwelt upon, yet instead thoughts of peace and understanding.

Friday, June 22, 2012

What and why

One must ask at some point, on this journey to knowledge, what is one to do with this knowledge? What do you do with the information presented to you? Information that tells you what was right, is now wrong. Information that tells you, you will consciously be forced to choose. Will you choose your beliefs or the majority's?
They say history repeats itself. That we as humans; consciously or unconsciously, repeat the same mistakes as before, just in a different form. Few men have and continue to say, violence is right and just for freedom. Yet, they fall to no act of that violence themselves, but instead send another to commit the act. Apologies are given years later along with words of regret and some responsibility taken, just to be reiterated decades later. Innocent lives lost to another like themselves, yet lost in this battle of words and power they came face to face; both present with death. Tears fall, voices heighten, yet once again only for a moment. Questions are raised and research is done, yet no solution is found? Once again, decades later we are presented with the same issue just in a different form. As the act takes a mask to cover its true identity. We once again take the same steps, just in different forms with new faces, to try to solve this act of violence with violence. Yet we say it is a means to peace.
The question must be asked and in a firm and mighty voice, What is War?
What is this act of evil we commit to one another yet we justify as peace and freedom? Because we inhabit a different part of land on the same island, we act as though we can not share it all as one. And even to say that is wrong. It is not all of us who choose this thing called war. No, it is few who gain a power of majority of us, and place fear and chaos in our hearts and mind. Who hold a much larger agenda in mind. Yet, than it is our fault. If we our majority, if they are to represent us, why are we not speaking out? Why are we sitting by acting as if this dream they are dangling in our face, is going to satisfy us for the rest of our life. Why?

Thursday, June 14, 2012

Our society and Consumerism

As I set and watched a documentary on Netflix, I challenged myself to the very message spoken by the narrator. Many questions are asked throughout the film that makes one question accountability.The documentary was Ethos directed by Pete McGrain.  Outside of the political theories, if one would focus their attention to what I believe is the theme of the film, the current role of the mass in American society, one would question our current state of being and our future as a society. Consumerism can be defined as a society that does nothing but consume things. People spend their hard working money on things that are not a necessity, yet because another has it or is portrayed as feeling good from having the product, ones desires begin to increase in the want of having the item. We constantly take things yet give nothing back. The documentary gives note to Edward Bernays, nephew of famous philosopher, Sigmun Freud, pioneer of Public Relations. Bernays understood the humans drive to want but introduced a new approach to playing on the humans desire for profit or gain. His theory to advertising and getting consumers to make purchase, was to make them feel they would feel good if they had this product. The ability to connect emotionally with ones audience, is a powerful tool in any form of public speaking. Humans have the need to belong and be understood. We want to feel like we matter, like we have a purpose, but when we don't feel like we have a purpose or anyone cares, our state of being is reduced to a state that is susceptible to one who shows they care; even if they truly don't.

Wednesday, June 6, 2012

Who's more important?

I ask myself as I sit with the children I've devoted  this time to. Children that are not mine of blood, but of spirit. I sit and wonder is there anything I can truly do for them. I send a prayer their way when I close my eyes at night and try to sleep through, what I know is disaster and chaos yet can do nothing to help. I wonder am I the only one who feels this way. Yes, I understand we have our own problems, but is that not the point? We all face issues, we all are experiencing a form of heartache. Yet, there are those who have overcame these triumphs. Once one has experienced something, one gains a perspective of the situation giving them a first hand knowledge or understanding of the matter.If you never experience the situation you have no first hand knowledge or understanding of the matter, the only understanding you have is a second hand knowledge that is subjected to the understanding of another. Therefore, one receiving the second hand knowledge never gets a opportunity of understanding it in ones own perspective, subjecting one to take anothers word or perspective. I myself had no first hand knowledge on the situations and problems in relation to the mental health field until I began working in the field. There are so many problems I could begin to list that would blow your mind; like parents subjecting their kids to the label of a disability yet they are not disabled, but with the right doctor or psychiatrist one can be labeled as so, so they may draw social security. Parents can be found telling their children they cannot work, when they desire to do so and are capable, because it would effect their social security benefits! Is this not a problem? Note, I do not express this information to bring a negative connotation to this industry, but I express this in the hope the focus is placed on the issue starts at Home. The choices we make in regards to what is the best for us, need to be noted they will have a effect on another. So the question than is, Do I care about myself more than another to make a choice I know will have a positive effect for me but a negative effect for another? Who is truly more important myself or another?

Sunday, May 13, 2012

Effect of Pro-Alcohol Environments in Small Town Bars and Clubs

Bars and clubs can be found to have a reputation for a place facilitating and/or creating crime. Due to their nature to encourage and accept drunkenness, along with other taboo activities shunned upon by most traditional societies; this lifestyle that has not been accepted for many years around the world is now a norm. A human’s desire to leave the mind has led us to seek ways of doing so that are becoming more and more dangerous. The inability for self-control and natural remedies to clear and free oneself from life and its heart aches is creating devastating effects on society as a whole.
Metropolitan bars and clubs can be found to be different than those in rural areas. The significant difference in population size is a major factor for this. Small towns tend to have a family relationship within its community. The people within a small town tend to have stronger connections with each other and interact more on a regular basis. Unlike, those in larger cities one is unaware of most people because of the lack of regular interaction present to familiarize oneself. People’s awareness and knowing of one another tends to bring a more comfortable, loose/lack environment. These environments can be found in small town businesses and places of entertainment.
This research paper explores how small town bars and clubs facilitate and create the opportunity for alcohol-related crimes such as drinking and driving. Two bars located in Enid, Oklahoma were observed both inside and outside; comparing their environmental surrounding, personal structure, and flow of business. These places provide information, in not only, understanding the problem but providing solutions as well.
The first bar observed was Crappy’s Warehouse located at 302 East Maple Avenue Enid, OK. The second bar observed was Scooter’s located at 3630 N Van Buren Enid, OK. Crappy’s warehouse is a bar/club that sits off of 3rd street; a small alley giving access between Elm and Maple Street. To the east of the building is an open field covered with trees, to the west can be found an old abandoned warehouse that stretches from Maple to Elm Street. There are no light poles or any other source of light in this area except for the light on the front of the bar above the door. At night this area is pitch dark from about 2 feet from the bottom of the steps, leading to the door, out to the parking lot facing Elm Street. Someone not familiar with this place could find the area quite frightening at night. Upon entering this facility through the front door you are greeted with another door but locked. To your right is a window where an off-duty officer can be found to check your id and take payment for entering the establishment. On special nights such as Friday and Saturday you can pay $8 dollars to drink,as much as you like, select domestic beers from 8pm-12pm. Within this particular establishment, outside of the off-duty officer located at the front, there are no other sources of security present. The exit to this establishment is the same door used as the entrance; one way in, one way out.
The second bar/club observed, Scooters, is located directly on a service road of a highway. It is in a more open area than that of Crappy’s and is surrounded by an open field. Scooter’s is considered more of a club than bar, due to its accompanying, a large dance floor. Scooter’s seems to target a younger adult audience. The design of this club is created where the parking lot surrounds the entire structure except the back.
There are light poles located on the outer perimeter of the parking lot providing slightly adequate lighting. Due to the parking lot being so big and spacious the light does not project to the middle of the perimeter where the building is located. Before entering the establishment you can observe security present outside the front door to greet you along with a van labeled “Scooter Wagon.” This van provides free-of-charge rides home to customers who have drank too much. Upon, entering the facility to your left you are greeted with security personnel and an employee of the club who checks your id and takes the payment for entry. Directly in front of you several feet away is another door where you can exit. Within this hallway, between the entrance and exit doors in the middle is the opening into the club where the large dance floor can be noticed, accompanied by two bars on opposite ends. Within that room more security can be found wearing a brownish t-shirt that has the name of the club on front and “security” on the back. This establishment also has specials on Wednesday and Saturday where you pay $10 dollars and can drink select domestic beers from 8pm-12pm.
Looking at the bar and club in Enid we can see how, if any, the effect of a pro-alcohol environment and acceptance of over indulging, can have on one facility without proper preventions set in place.
Bars and other drinking facilities have been known to be places associated with aggressive, disorderly conduct from its consumers (Green and Plant, 2006). They can also be recognized as the major starting points where drinking and driving occur. Drinking and driving is a problem faced in American society. Alcohol and its availability, legally, create a contradictory social issue amongst its citizens. You can find advertisements that promote drinking from a range of different companies; along with small written notes to drink responsibly while doing so. Alcohol can be found in numerous types of businesses, like those that serve both the community and families. Many of these businesses such as restaurants, sporting facilities, bars and clubs, convenient stores, and liquor stores all provide access to alcohol but provide no monitoring on what the consumer does with it or how they use it. Furthermore, these businesses force consumers to figure out a means of transportation to leave the business because the closing time. This creates a risk for the customer and other bystanders, but it also produces an opportunity to commit a crime. For example, if consumers have participated in the club/bar’s alcohol specials, as intended, the result is a consumer that has alcohol in their system which majority of the time is over the legal limit for public intoxication. Intoxication over the legal limit can result in criminal penalties like DUI or DWI.
BAC, blood alcohol content, is the measure of alcohol in a person’s bloodstream. This is the way law enforcement measure individual’s alcohol intake and determine if he/she is over the legal limit. According to the State of Oklahoma, the BAC for driver’s driving intoxicated is anything .08% and higher but one is considered impaired at the .05% level and can be charged with DUI penalties if found between .05 and .08%. To reach this level one only needs to intake one 12 ounce beer or one 4 oz glass of wine. It is said, it takes one hour for either amounts to leave the system and the individual be capable of functioning appropriately. This information provides us with insight on the reality that most people consume beyond the impaired limit. Most specials, such as happy hour, prompt the consumer to indulge in certain spirits within an allotted time for a special price; a usually significant discount from the original price, motivating consumers to participate in this what seems to be “to good of a deal to pass up.”Also, if one notices at an establishment that serves alcohol, the waiters or bartenders tend to consistently ask if you want another drink when they notice your first glass is almost empty. Some personnel will actually take the initiative to bring you another round without consent. Pro-alcohol messages are a concern since, alcohol advertising is positively associated with drinking and related problems, point-of-purchase advertising appears to be used to aggressively market alcohol and contribute to a pro-alcohol environment (Howard, Flora, Schleicher and Gonzalez, 2004). Every industry related to alcohol; marketing, political, and more, must begin to understand this contradictory means of enjoyment and how it has become a problem. This also shows us that whether consciously or unconsciously, the care for one reaching the impaired limit does not exist from the establishment that is the cause for the impairment. According to the International Center of Alcohol Policies, “Heavy alcohol use is correlated with problem behavior in some bars, at sporting events, and in other public places, because individuals interested in heavy drinking are also often interested in other risky behaviors and congregate in places where both are acceptable and expected.”
If the scale of awareness is as great as it is on the problems caused from these establishments and alcohol, why are major actions not being taken? We are so quick to try to do away with other things said to be harmful, yet they show no significant fatal documentation, unlike those of tobacco and alcohol reports. What we have seen to cause significant amounts of death and heartache over decades of time, we still allow to be freely available.
The bar is firmly established as an important leisure activity in many societies. It has long been apparent that heavy drinking in bars is associated with aggression, violence, public disorder and injuries” (Green and Plant, 2006). Although, these establishments are areas of leisure and pleasure, they come with a price not worth the cost. Each year more than 100,000 Americans die from alcohol related deaths, annual costs of health care and lost productivity from alcohol-related deaths, injuries, and illness are estimated at more than $148 billion (Howard et al., 2004). The question must be asked and the line drawn between money and well-being: Which is more important, the well-being of the business or the consumer? Most know the answer to this question from observing our current society, money is more important than values, safety, time, and even family now. Therefore, the attention must be focused to a more reasonable question and solution. Why do these forms of crime exist amongst these facilities? What is the explanation for the continuing of these crimes even when steps have been taken to reduce or eliminate the problem? Looking at several theories, such as routine activity and rational choice perspective, can help us answer these questions and better understand this problem.
Looking at the rational choice perspective theory it tells us that people have desires, beliefs, and needs. One will take the steps needed to fulfill these things. Therefore, criminal behavior is purposive and rational. Individuals will take the best steps available to them, to obtain their needs and wants. “Because crimes differ from one another, the factors weighed by offenders, and the variables influencing their decision-making, will also differ greatly with the nature of the offence.” (Wortley and Mazerolle, 2008) Looking at the everyday want and need to please oneself, this theory shows us how the choice to drive even though impaired is a rational choice. Consumers know the moment they decide to indulge in the consumption of alcohol, one’s intentions of only having one drink every hour is not present, but instead, to enjoy oneself by indulging to the point that is comfortable or desired for them. The density of alcohol outlets has also been found to be related to other alcohol problems such as drinking and driving (Stewart). Persons in groups that travel to an establishment for the consumption of alcohol can be found to designate a person that will be responsible by not drinking, and to return everyone to their designated location. Unfortunately, this does not happen all the time. There are also individuals who attend establishments like this on their own leaving them responsible for getting themselves home. Looking at couples that attend these establishments, both usually partake together in consumption, therefore, leaving both parties impaired and forcing one, depending on whose more intoxicated than the other to drive. People will decide not to commit crimes when the risks are too high or rewards are not adequate. In this case the reward is greater than the risk. For most people who drink, going over the .05% does not fully impair them to where they cannot drive functionally, so they will do so if necessary. One way that has been shown to help steer this mindset and create a zero tolerance, is the alert of sobriety check points in place, this is a method of situational crime prevention. The focus of prevention is targeted to the situation; people getting into their car and choosing to drive even though they are impaired and over the legal limit. Increasing the risks and removing excuses are techniques used to prevent crimes like these. By letting consumers know there will be stops increases the risk of getting caught, therefore reducing the reward.
Looking at routine activity theory it can help explain the aggressive behaviors, violence, and drug exchanges committed within these establishments. Routine activity approach tells us that in order for crime to occur a motivated offender and suitable target must be present with the lack of a capable guardian (Wortley and Mazerolle, 2008). Looking at Eck’s crime triangle, which consist of an inside and outside triangle shows us if the handle of the offender, guardian of the target/victim, and the manager of the place are absent, crime is feasible (Wortley and Mazerolle, 2008). In reference to drug exchanges at bars and clubs, one can understand and see the lack of capable guardian present to oversee and watch this problem. Due to the nature of security personnel focused on keeping orderly conduct, a window of opportunity is available for those who wish to do a quick exchange in the bathroom or exchange outside in the parking lot.
Fights that begin in clubs and other similar facilities usually begin where a large crowd of people are clustered together. All personal space cease to exist and one is forced usually into an uncomfortable state. What can start from non-verbal communication; can soon turn into the exchange of aggressive verbal communication and behavior. These clusters of people are the result of either the involvement of people from dancing on the dance floor, or the result of individuals who had enough time to exchange aggressive behavior and attract friends to form a cluster of individuals to meet in the same place at the same time. Therefore, the results of these actions create a crime problem. With the absence of security in this area at the appropriate time, both, the capable guardian of potential victims and the managers of the place are absent making the crime now feasible.
The researcher arrived about 12am on a Saturday at Crappy’s Warehouse to catch the late crowd. The researcher spent several minutes observing the outside structure and environment upon entering the bar. Upon noticing the dark field and ally the researcher observed one taxi car sitting to the west. No consumers were in site outside of the facility. To blend into the environment the researcher ordered a drink from the bar. After receiving the alcoholic beverage the researcher proceeded to sit at a table facing the west end. This choice of selection for sitting arrangements allowed the researcher to see the whole bar in front of her. To the left were the restrooms, one male and one female; to the right the bar, and behind the researcher, the wall.
After about an hour of observation and no crime noticed, the researcher observed an African American man walking suspiciously to the bathroom; next to were the researcher was sitting. After he entered the one stall bathroom, two white males ranging from ages 30-40 entered the stall as well. After several minutes passed, all men exited the small restroom area single file. Curious of the actions that had just taken place inside the restroom, the researchers hypothesis of what took place developed into a drug exchange between the African American male and the two Caucasian males. The reason for this conclusion is, first, the restrooms for both males and females only accommodate for one person being in there at a time. Therefore, if there is more than one person in the restroom at a time this tells us the other individuals must know the person already occupying the stall and has permission to be present. Due to the male’s ego, amongst other natural sources, the males need for company in a restroom facility outside of help is obsolete. Women of today’s society can be found doing this, but it is rare amongst the males. Therefore, bringing to light an understanding something else outside of the norm is occurring within this confined area. Second, the suspicious behaviors observed upon entering the restroom is of importance. When human-beings feel they are being watched or the opportunity of getting caught is present upon committing an illegal act, one becomes aware and scopes its surroundings; making it noticeable to the trained eye looking for this type of behavior. Therefore, the researcher’s hypothesis developed as is.
The second observation noted by the researcher was a girl observed intoxicated beyond the limit she was able to handle. She was observed being physically carried out by a gentleman because of her inability to walk. About 30 minutes later, the gentlemen and the woman were observed re-entering the bar. Clearly intoxicated beyond the limit of self-control, the woman was observed stumbling to the bar to order yet another alcoholic drink to consume. At no time was the woman rejected or cut off by any bartender.
A third observation, noted only due to full participant observation with other consumers at the bar, did the researcher observe verbal sexual harassment between employee’s and a boss of Little Debbies. The group the researcher joined in conversation, consisted of two younger Caucasian females in their early 20’s if not younger and one older Caucasian male in his older 40’s to early 50’s. The group could be observed as having indulged in a few drinks already; the older man seemingly was more intoxicated than the girls. Upon, engaging in their conversation of Enid and the area, small remarks that were considered jokes were exchanged between the older man; the boss, and the two girls who were the employees. These remarks consisted of statements of the girl’s sexual reputation. These remarks consisted of hearsay from other people and comments that the boss knew about her sexual partners and activities.
The same methods used to observe the first establishment was the same for the second, except for the addition of a camera to document. The researcher arrived at 12pm just like the previous observation on a Saturday. The researcher once again bought one drink at the bar; a Heineken beer, and found a table at the end of the room to sit at and observe. Located in the middle facing the dance floor with one bar to the left and one to the right the researcher had an open view of the complete club. Around 1:30 am when last call was being announced an aggressive fight began to take place. The researcher observed the brawl and noticed it was the same individuals noticed earlier exchanging a few words, but actions portrayed nothing of aggressive behavior. This fight that seemed to begin between two individuals, turned into a fight with more than 6 individuals involved. The researcher was able to capture a few pictures of the fight in action and afterwards, but felt very uncomfortable when doing so. 30 seconds after the fight began security personnel was noticed trying to gain control of the environment and restore order. Interestingly, it was observed that none of the individuals were escorted off the premises by security. Several of the individuals from the fight escorted themselves and others outside the premise, to what seemed to be the continuing of aggressive behavior. Within this time, shortly moments later another fight broke out. Once again security personnel tried to break things up and gain control, but failed to do so. In no time, the police were notified. After trying to move everyone out of the facility as quickly as possible the researcher noticed she was walking outside to no security personnel or police enforcement. While groups of people clustered in front of the parking area, exchanging threats and more, the researcher returned quickly to her car to continue further observation. The researcher did notice when exiting the building individuals where entering the van; courtesy shuttle for those who are too intoxicated, for rides home. Upon continuing her observation from the car the researcher noted several individuals waiting by the van as it left because it was full, these individuals where waiting for the van to come back to provide a ride home. The researcher also noted after about five minutes of people still gathering outside the front of the club and conversing; no police were present. Upon leaving the club, on the side service road two cop cars were observed parked at the end of the intersection about half of a mile from the club.
From this research we can see how both; environmental crime theories and crime prevention theories not only explain the problem found amongst these small town bars and clubs but also what prevention methods are being used; if any, and their result; if any. The bar in Enid; Crappy’s, was found to host drinking and driving problems along with possible drug related crimes. Looking at, both rational choice and routine activity theory, these crime problems can be explained. Due to Crappy’s lack of security presence one can understand the risk; in what already is a risky facility, are low and the reward is adequate. The management of the bar is also a key in understanding the drinking and driving problem. There should be a enforcement available to cut consumers off from further alcohol purchases when one is clearly intoxicated. Furthermore, with the understanding that one is impaired at the .05% blood alcohol level, bars and clubs should have to monitor this level and the intake and time of each consumer if one wishes to eliminate this drinking and driving problem. Unless, one can provide a means of safe transportation to its consumers who wish to go beyond this limit, this needs to be taken seriously. This means of prevention can be looked at as situational crime prevention and can be effective. Outside of the one taxi car observed this facility provided no safe alternative means of transportation to its consumers after providing a high amount of alcohol to consumers in a short amount of time.
The club, Scooters, was found to have more aggressive, violent behavior problems. Comparing the two establishments to one another, the major difference in drinking and driving is Scooters provided a method of prevention more accessible to its consumers and at no cost. Although, consumers where still observed leaving the facility and entering their car, the researcher found less highly intoxicated consumers getting in their own vehicle to drive. Those of that level seemed to take advantage of the preventative method offered. The researcher did observe consumers having to wait for the van to come back because it was full.
The reason aggressive behavior could be found more so in the club than the bar, is due to space, time, and environment (place). Scooters layout was more spacious than that of Crappy’s. With more space and not enough security personal to watch it all, the space has to be divided up amongst what personal is available. The result of this is some space will be uncovered at times thus leaving the opportunity for something to occur. Routine activity explains this problem. We as humans can be found to have daily patterns. Most of our patterns consist of home, work/school, and places of leisure. Unlike, metropolitan areas rural areas have less population and its inner city is small. Therefore, people’s routines intersect with one another more. Thus, when an offender and potential target/victim are present in the same area and the same time, and the lack of a capable guardian ceases to exist, the opportunity for crime exist.
Strategies compiled by Janet McAllister of Center for Addiction and Mental Health, suggest the planning should include building the awareness level of the community, including resident, business owners, politicians, and municipal staff. The involvement of the community must be present and aware. Many basic things such as the appearance of the bar, location, and structure have an influence on the prevention of crime. Understanding this, bars and clubs must do their part to keep things clean and un-clustered. Also, the management and the flow of business are crucial. If one does not establish territorial reinforcement amongst its space, its space is susceptible to crime and other issues. Transportation programs from these facilities need to be created and enforced. Both a public and private transportation system's could be created. Private transportation being available from the establishment that chooses to sell alcohol should first be implemented due to their facility being a risky facility that is the cause of the problem. Responsibility must first be assigned and accepted for these problems to have any chance of being fixed or reduced. The means and end of bars and clubs need to be clear and un-contradictory, and if they choose to take the responsibility of being the source of the problem, they can too take responsibility for the problem.
It is clear bars and clubs are associated with aggressive violent behavior, drinking and driving, and other, possible drug related, crimes. For these problems to have a chance at actually being eliminated and/or reduce, is for the parties responsible for these issues to stand up and take responsibility for the actions. That includes not only businesses and politicians but the consumers as well. The facts are out there, along with the information needed to prevent half of these issues. What’s missing is, acceptance and responsibility. These problems are the result of our own making; choosing to let alcohol be legal, choosing to condone in the lifestyle, the choices we choose to make along with the justifications given to justify, have an effect.


Green,J. and Plant,M. (2006). Bad bars: a review of risk factors. International Journal of Drug Policy. Retrieved on April 3,2012 from, http://alcoholresearchuk.org/downloads/finalReports/AERC_FinalReport_0040.pdf
Howard,K. Flora, J. Schleicher, N. and Gonzalez, E.(2004).Alcohol point of purchase advertising
and promotions: prevalence, content and targeting.
Federal Legal Publications: Contemporary Drug Problems, 31, 561-562.
McAllister,J. Strategies to prevent community alcohol-related problems:bar areas. Center for Addiction and Mental Health. Retreived on April 2,2012 from, http://www.camh.net/About_CAMH/Health_Promotion/Community_Health_Promoti n/strat_prevalcprob_bars04.pdf
Public order and drinking environments. International Center for Alcohol Policies. Retrieved on April 6,2012 from, http://www.icap.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=raVGBcseNRo%3d&tabid=174
State of Oklahoma.What you should know.(Drinking and Driving) Retrieved on April 9,2012 from, http://www.ok.gov/health/documents/CG_Impaired_Driving.pdf
Stewart,K. How alcohol outlets affect neighborhood violence. Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation. Retrieved on April 6,2012 from, http://resources.prev.org/documents/AlcoholViolenceGruenewald.pdf.
Wortley,R. and Mazerolle,L.(2008). Environmental criminology and crime analysis. Cullompton,Devon:WIllian Publishing. 26,75.