Corporate Propaganda At Work

BBC 20 May 2008: "Smoothies 'can damage your teeth' "

I am confounded. One of the top five most emailed stories on the BBC's website is a story about fruit smoothies being dangerous because they contain sugar and acid that corrode teeth. Last I checked, people sucking down liquid sugar drinks like Coke or Pepsi that have enough carbon dioxide dissolved in them to be about as acidic as a lemon was a greater problem. Fruits are a healthy part of a diet, and teeth are made to be functional, not ornamental. This article is only discouraging consumption of healthier beverages when average people chug down sodas to no end. The article's sources are scientists making unsubstantiated and subjective assertions. Research or esteemed scientific journals, such as Nature, are not quoted to describe the effects of smoothies upon teeth. This article is propaganda that is discouraging our ailing world from consuming a healthy diet.

Review of Lamy Al-Star Fountain Pen

First Impressions (8)

The Lamy Al-Star is a readily available fountain pen built for the masses. Wow. I have seen this pen in many places, from airports to college book stores, and its pragmatism still amazes me. The pen is a good looking pen, but is obviously no conformist pen when spotted from afar. My one biggest complaint is that the nib, the defining feature of the pen, is a matte black color, as if Lamy were trying to conceal it. It is a pen, and design should pride itself on the writing feature of the pen.

Appearance (7)

My particular Lamy Al-Star has an aluminum body. It looks magnificent when first purchased, but it scratches fairly easily, and the gloss of it makes scratches appear fairly clearly (even small ones!). As mentioned earlier, I hate the color of the nib. It should just be left as good old steel- Iron and Carbon (and maybe a little chromium)- No pigments!

Design/Size/Weight (7)

The pen writes fairly well, and is a good value for the money. Unfortunately, it does not cooperate with all inks. Baystate Blue has been known to kill the nibs on these pens (however, there have been only isolated incidents with only this specific kind of ink). The clip on the pen is functional in design, but bends easily, become loose easily, and, in the case of colored clips, the uncolored/untreated part of the clip eventually becomes visible as the nib loosens, looking unprofessional. The cap is a clip-on type, and I have had the cap come off in my pocket before. If a permanent ink were in the pen, I would have stained many pairs of pants.

Nib (8)

The nib is functional. Unfortunately, it is not secured as well other pens, and, for the third time, its black coloring make it seem like the pen's aesthetic focus is not on the writing experience. It is not hooded, and has a centered breathing whole. Nib creep is significant.

Filling System (7)

Lamy cartridges are as readily available as the pens, and contain mediocre inks in a basic array of colors. A converter is available, but must be purchased separately. Filling requires total submersion of the nib, which can cause staining problems with the plastic-bodied models of this pen. In addition, this submersion while filling is also an inconvenience when attempting to keep the nib clean.

Cost and Value (9)

The Al-Star is a sturdy consumer/student level pen that is flexible in its abilities and uses. It carries a lifetime warranty in the United States, so the pen can be considered somewhat of an investment that will last until death (or loss of the pen).

Conclusion (8)

A widely-available beginners pen that can also function as an expendable workhorse pen for those with more collections. It functions well, but there are still some imperfections.

Review of Noodler's Baystate Blue Ink

(Click on the image to see the review in full size.)

-P. I. Lumen

Crime and Punishment: The Great Gatsby versus The Scarlet Letter

The legal systems of modern America have achieved similar goals through different governments. Early American colonies, such as the one that formed the setting of The Scarlet Letter, were often based on theocratic governments.  As history progressed the time period that formed the setting of The Great Gatsby, the Constitution became the "supreme law of the land." These two legal systems recognized different crimes, but the basic concept of punishment was the same, being that guilty people can achieve absolution through punishment. With regard to both character's respective moral and legal settings, Hester Prynne consciously committed a crime that deserved significant punishment, while Daisy Buchanan did not intentionally commit a crime and therefore deserves little punishment.

            Hester Prynne took initiative in her actions in a way that punishment could properly correct. Hester consciously committed a crime for which she knew the punishment. Hester cheated on her husband, for which there was irrefutable evidence of a baby. The crime of adultery was punishable by being stoned to death, and Hester was completely aware of this punishment while committing her crime. Regardless of modern views of Hester's actions, Hester chose to live in the theocratic society of Boston and therefore was aware of the legal boundaries and the subsequent penalties for violating them. Because she consciously committed her crime, the most appropriate punishment for Hester would be one that changes the mind, and Hester's scarlet letter clearly modified her behavior for her edification. The novel clearly demonstrates that Hester's mindset was modified by her punishment to create respect for the law, proving that her seemingly harsh punishment was completely appropriate and applicable for the crime. For her actions, Hester Prynne received an appropriately harsh punishment.

            Daisy Buchanan's crimes could have been explained as an accident for which Daisy was not at fault, absolving her of any punishment. Daisy's crime of hit-and-run manslaughter may have been committed unintentionally. Because of the "innocent until proven guilty" law system in place at the time of Daisy's crime, a judge would have needed irrefutable evidence that Daisy was guilty in order to convict her of crimes and sentence her to punishment. Because logical explanations in Daisy's defense exist for all of her actions, the legal system at the time would not have sufficient evidence to charge Daisy of severe crimes, but some minor penalties would still remain. In chapter seven, the novel stated that Daisy attempted to avoid hitting Myrtle Wilson, but was forced back into her lane by oncoming traffic. Daisy's initial reaction to an obstruction in the road was to avoid it, which clearly would have shown a judge that she did not intend to hit Myrtle Wilson. Upon hitting Myrtle, it is completely plausible that Daisy could have gone into shock, which would have been a real medical condition that would have affected Daisy's ability to respond to her accident. Gatsby took control of the vehicle and situation after striking Myrtle, so was consequently Gatsby who would have ultimately decided to flee the scene of the crime, not Daisy. After recovering from her shock, it is also plausible that, as a woman in society, Daisy would not have had the authority to question Gatsby's decision to flee the scene. When looking at the overall picture of the crime, there is sufficient evidence that Daisy may not have inescapably guilty of many her alleged crimes, thereby showing that she wouldn't have deserved punishment. Though Daisy would have killed Myrtle Wilson, she did not intend for the crime to occur, and would therefore not benefit from a harsh punishment such as a prison sentence. Because there is no proof that Daisy attempted to hit Myrtle or that Daisy intended to flee the scene of the crime, behavior-correcting punishment would not have been effective for her actions, meaning that little or no punishment was due.

            When comparing the crimes of Hester Prynne and Daisy Buchanan, it is clear that Hester intentionally broke the law, while Daisy did not intentionally commit any crime; therefore Hester deserves significantly more punishment than Daisy. All people are fallible, and not all crimes warrant significant punishment. Those who unintentionally break the law, such as Daisy, would not be improved morally by punishment. Those who intentionally break the law, such as Hester, are prime candidates for punishment because their behavior could be refined. When assessing an appropriate punishment, guilt should not be a factor so much as what the punishment could accomplish. 

A Response to: "Lawyers Fight DNA Samples Gained on Sly"

The article at hand discusses the legality of obtaining DNA of crime suspects via what they leave behind in public, such as cigarette butts or drink bottles. View the original article by clicking the title of this entry.

- - - - -

What is the purpose of a court trial? The purpose is to find out whether or not someone is guilty of committing a crime, and to subsequently condemn the guilty. The article at hand discusses a method for obtaining possible evidence against a person via their DNA. When two DNA samples match, that match holds a remarkable amount of accuracy when used as evidence in a court trial. Identifying people based on DNA analysis makes fingerprint analysis-based testimonies look like bombast  (for more detail on this, see http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/3010536.html). With DNA's high level of accuracy, a DNA match in a crime is essentially treated as adamant proof of guilt, provided that there is no other explanation for the DNA's presence at the crime scene. 

The fourth amendment, regarding unwarranted searches and seizures, was created to stopthe  abuse of people in regards to their property or their privacy by the government. Obtaining DNA is a one-time action that is simple and objective, and can clearly exonerate  or condemn a person. This essentially makes DNA the "Holy Grail" in many court cases, leading to a simple guilty or not guilty ruling. 

Why not use DNA evidence at all possible times, then? DNA evidence is being fought because our judicial system is not based solely on the premise of guilty or not guilty. Rather than objectively analyzing the evidence and determining a person's guilt, modern courts involve grandiloquent lawyers lecturing juries about subjective evidence. People with better lawyers generally have a better chance of winning trials. This is not fair and equal, and makes the court more of a broadway performance than a judgement of guilt. If the police have the power to obtain DNA evidence in an unhindered manner, the court becomes a more objective arena, and the guilty can no longer swindle their innocence.

If DNA evidence from suspects can freely be obtained, then the guilty can provide nothing to defend themselves against their inevitable sentencing. Because of this, police should be allowed to freely obtain DNA evidence. DNA is objective, and is used to identify whether a suspect is guilty or not. The innocent should have nothing to hide, and the guilty should face their fate.