English 102 How to write an Annotated Bibliography (adapted from http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/614/01/) A bibliography is a list of sources (books, journals, websites, periodicals, etc.) one has used for researching a topic. Bibliographies are sometimes called "references" or "works cited" depending on the style format you are using. A bibliography usually just includes the bibliographic information (i.e., the author, title, publisher, etc.). An annotation is a summary and evaluation of each source, written in a paragraph following the citation. Arrange your annotations in alphabetical order. Therefore, an annotated bibliography includes a summary and/or evaluation of each of the sources. Your annotations should include:  Summarize: What are the main arguments? What is the point of this book or article? What topics are covered? If someone asked what this article/book is about, what would you say?  Assess: After summarizing the source, evaluate it. Is it a useful source? How does it compare with other sources in your bibliography? Is the information reliable? Is this source biased or objective? What is the goal of this source?  Reflect: Once you've summarized and assessed a source, you need to ask how it fits into your research. Was this source helpful to you? How does it help you shape your argument? How can you use this source in your research project? Has it changed how you think about your topic? Why should I write an annotated bibliography? Writing an annotated bibliography is excellent preparation for a research project. Just collecting sources for a bibliography is useful, but when you have to write annotations for each source, you're forced to read each source more carefully. You begin to read more critically instead of just collecting information. At the professional level, annotated bibliographies allow you to see what has been done in the literature and where your own research or scholarship can fit. To help you formulate a thesis: Every good research paper is an argument. The purpose of research is to state and support a thesis. So a very important part of research is developing a thesis that is debatable, interesting, and current. Writing an annotated bibliography can help you gain a good perspective on what is being said about your topic. By reading and responding to a variety of sources on a topic, you'll start to see what the issues are, what people are arguing about, and you'll then be able to develop your own point of view. DON’T FORGET: You must include your thesis statement at the beginning of the annotated bibliography. Please see the sample annotated bibliography that is attached. You need to write about all the sources you are going to use in your paper (minimum of 5 sources from Oakton’s databases). Sample Annotated Bibliography Tom Brady Professor Belichick English 102-013 Notice that the thesis is given first. Only three sources are included here. You need to make sure to include 6. Thesis: Regardless of whether or not a person wants to have health care they will be forced to purchase sub-par health care under the new health care reform. "Health Care Reform Effective Dates." Congressional Digest 90.3 (2011):70-96. Academic Search Complete. Web. 21 Apr. 2011. This article talks about all of the different things that will be implemented during the course of the years that the health care bill will take effect. It discusses pros to the bill; however, in the end of the article it talks about some of the cons that will come with the new bill. The article is by the Congressional Digest, so it is reliable. It doesn’t necessarily have as much information as the other articles; however, it does contain good material, like statistics, historical information, and governmental reports. This will help in explaining how coverage costs may go up because of the bill. "How Healthcare Reform Could Change Your Life." Black Enterprise 40.11 (2010): 90-91. Academic Search Complete. Web. 21 Apr. 2011. This article also talks about implementation dates and what will be implemented. It also talks about how much this new plan will cost people and employers. Another main idea is how for individuals who do not purchased health care, they will be fined. This is a credible source, and when compared to the previous one has many more statistics. It will be useful in showing how this is a forced change, and not something that everyone wants. There are numerous interviews of common people, businesses, and insurance providers to give all sides of the issue. Rappaport, Anna M., Steven Wojcik, and Michael Baxter. "The Impact of Health Care Reform on Older Workers, Retirees and Employers." Benefits Quarterly 27.1 (2011): 26-33. Academic Search Complete. Web. 20 Apr. 2011. Rappaport discusses how the new bill will affect older workers and employers. She talks about some of the positives for the new bill that will help the older retirees and their employers, but she also talks about how all businesses are struggling. She mentions how businesses feel about the bill as well. This source is credible, with supporting credentials, for it lists doctors, surgeons, care givers, etc.. It has some good information that will help in discussing the fact that not everyone wants this change, and that some people see it as harmful to health and society. This author is chair of the Board of Directors of the National Association of Medical Directors, which makes her a credible author to talk about this topic. This article will fit nicely in my paper, in the section about how the costs and number of people covered will have an impact on the quality of care that patients receive. Ethical Business Argumentative Synthesis Essay http://www.life.org.nz/euthanasia/euthanasiapoliticalkeyissues/economics/ The opponents of euthanasia strongly agree with the principles of Natural Law. They strongly feel the need to guard the sanctity of life. They believe that people should not have control over their death. The use of treatment and medication in order to prolong a person’s life is promoted. But, the use of euthanasia is considered to be the easy way out. The opposition of euthanasia strongly believes that no amount of pain can outweigh the value of a sacred life. This approach is so strict that it doesn’t compromise with an individual in any way whatsoever. But, the opponents of euthanasia give no importance to the autonomy of an individual which actually is an extremely important American value. The illegal state of euthanasia contradicts the importance given to autonomy in the United States. Along with that, the government seems to have no concern for the thousands of citizens suffering incurable or terminal illnesses. An article regarding the benefits of euthanasia by Ezekiel J. Emanuel states that, “legalizing euthanasia or PAS would benefit by relieving unremitting and excruciating pain 25,000 or fewer of the 2.3 million Americans who die each year” (Emanuel 1999). The country should focus on treating its citizens fairly rather than forcing upon them the belief of Natural Law. The concept of forcing a person to live after knowing that there is no cure for his disease is absolutely wrong. Legalizing euthanasia would also help strengthen the relationship between patients and their physicians. Patients need that psychological reassurance of knowing that the physician has an alternative for them if dying is too painful. If a physician is unable to cure his patient’s illness, he needs to at least make sure that they’re able to die peacefully. Unfortunately, the illegal status of euthanasia does not allow a physician to perform his job properly. Unlike the absolute opposing position, this position promotes active euthanasia for a small group of people. It mainly disagrees with the legalization of euthanasia except for those that suffer from a terminal illness. This approach fights for a good cause but it simply does not go far enough. The approach relates to the ethical perspective of utilitarianism by claiming that the legalization of euthanasia will benefit the country. First of all, it would give peace and satisfaction to the patients’ families by offering a painless death to the patient. The option of euthanasia would also benefit insurance companies and hospitals. As bad as it sounds, a lot of money could be saved when terminally ill patients choose euthanasia instead of treatment. It isn’t actually bad at all since the euthanasia will be completely voluntary. In addition to that, legalizing euthanasia will allow physicians to make better decisions for dying patients and make it easier for them to gain their patient’s trust. However, it would not be fair for all the people that are in need of euthanasia if only the terminally ill patients get to have it. After all, terminal patients are in pain for a shorter period of time than those suffering from chronic illnesses that are incurable. The legalization of euthanasia for only terminal ill patients will be controversial rather than being that change everyone agrees with. If it’s only legalized for terminally ill patients, physicians will begin to illegally end other patients’ life as well. As mentioned in the article, Euthanasia and assisted suicide today, by Rita L. Marker, “since doctors are intentionally ending their patients' lives now, it would be far better to legalize the practice so that there could be safeguards” (Marker 59). This has been the case in all of America since the limited legalization of euthanasia in Oregon. The illegal practice of euthanasia actually became popular in the mid 90s when Dr. Kevorkian helped a patient die on live television. Physicians like Kevorkian will practice their profession in their way regardless of what the law says. Why not make it legal for everyone that actually needs it in order to safeguard the reputation of our country. The point is to legalize the practice of euthanasia so it can be practiced under proper guidelines. It doesn’t make sense to legalize it bit by bit; rather, it should be done once and it should be done thoroughly. The other extreme side in this spectrum is the people who want to legalize euthanasia for almost anyone and everyone. This absolute approach makes complete sense in terms of giving people their ‘right to die’ but, it doesn’t make sense to euthanize people that have no real need to die. This position backs its argument up with an ethical perspective that gives all importance to the self. It is reasonable to say that a person should have the right to make his own decisions. However, there are rules and regulations that a person has to follow. A person can do whatever he wants to, but he has to be willing to face the consequences of his actions. In this case, just because a person wants to die, it doesn’t mean that he should be given the right to die. Certain criteria have to be met; the point is to organize the system in order to make it fair not to give everyone what they desire and make it absurd. More specifically, if a person can be cured then he shouldn’t need to die. They want euthanasia legalized for people dealing with depression and similar psychological disorders that can be cured. Sometimes, it just takes too long for these people to return to their normal state. But, that doesn’t mean that a physician should agree upon ending that patient’s life. Instead, in such cases, the physician, nurses, and family members have to do all it takes to make the patient feel comfortable. They have to be able to reassure the patient that he can be normal once again. Moreover, this position also pleads for legalizing euthanasia for old people. Once again, there is no real need for them to die either. Some old people claim that they’re ‘tired of living’ which clearly is not a legitimate reason to use euthanasia. As citizens of America, our job is to benefit one another. We need to make sure that the maximum number of people are happy. But, at the same time, we have to consider those people for whom it is impossible to be happy. The qualified pro position presents a proper way of legalizing euthanasia to argue against the ridiculous absolute pro position. Using ethical egoism to justify their reasoning, the qualified proponents of euthanasia choose the neediest of all people that demand euthanasia. This way, there exists a specific criterion for being able to use euthanasia or assisted suicide. The perspective of ethical egoism pushes for euthanasia only when it is needed to be used. The point is to benefit the self in the best way possible. In any case regarding euthanasia, physicians have to have tried prolonging life or finding a cure for the particular illness before performing euthanasia. This process allows physicians to initially agree with the teachings of Natural Law and utilitarianism by trying to maximize the good and respecting the authority of God. But when those approaches fail, euthanasia becomes the last resort; benefiting the self and causing no harm to others. This approach is only applicable to patients suffering from terminal and chronic incurable diseases. For the rest of the patients that also deal with severe pain, physicians must continue to find ways to decrease pain and prolong life. Debates over euthanasia still continue today. It focuses on the fact that it is a patient’s right to die with dignity by avoiding unendurable pain. The absolute proponents of euthanasia give importance to personal autonomy and bodily integrity. They argue that the law against euthanasia contradicts a person’s right to liberty. The United States of America has written a majority of its laws that follow the rules of Christianity. The country was established as a ‘Christian Nation’ and still holds most of its Christian values today. One of the main reasons for assisted suicide being illegal in America today is that Christianity does not approve of it. Christians, like the people of most other religions, believe that life is a gift from God. The belief is that we, as human beings, do not have the choice to die when we want. Life was provided by God and can only be taken away by the will of God. We, as human beings, don’t and shouldn’t have any control over our own death. Along with claiming that committing suicide is disrespecting the authority of God, the opposition to assisted suicide believes that the option of assisted suicide diverts people’s minds in the wrong direction. Instead of being given the option of assisted suicide, John. M. Strate, a Ph.D in political science, states in his article that, “those who want to die must be protected from PAS and from making the wrong moral choice; the desire to die is irrational, caused by depression, pain or other kinds of suffering that require medical, including psychiatric, diagnosis and treatment” (28). He believes that no one should want to die; rather, they should look for means to help them live for as much longer as possible. He also believes that no matter what it is that people are suffering from, their only option is to receive treatment for it. If the treatment will not cure the disease, nevertheless extend a person’s time on Earth then, treatment is the best option. Even if the treatment is more painful than no treatment, and far more painful than assisted suicide, the person should still choose treatment. By doing so, the patient is doing what he is supposed to do. The absolute opponents of euthanasia believe in the intense religious approach that a person never had any other choice to begin with; he has to accept whatever life has to offer. Religion explains that life does not belong to us, it belongs to God. The law on euthanasia makes complete sense from a religious point of view. However, it seems a bit too extreme from any other point of view. Religion should be promoted but it should definitely not be forced upon anyone. First of all, not everyone believes in religion. Those that do believe in it have at least a basic idea of its rules. Yet, if they still choose to go against their religion, then that is between them and God. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t have laws at all. Religion simply encourages people to do the right thing but doesn’t actually stop them from the doing the wrong thing. Laws are made to prevent crime and maintain discipline. Assisted suicide should not be considered a crime because it doesn’t cause any harm. It only minimizes harm for the patients that want to die. Critics would argue that it actually does harm the society as a whole. However, protecting the society’s image is not more important than ending an individual’s excruciating physical pain. It should be absolutely acceptable to help an innocent in hastening their death to prevent harm. The qualified opponents of euthanasia felt the need to legalize assisted suicide for a small number of people. The need to legalize it was initially brought to the public’s attention in the early 1990’s. Dr. Jack Kevorkian and his supporters appealed for the legalization of assisted suicide in America. All appeals were ignored by the government and the American Medical Association. It wasn’t until much later that they had considered legalizing assisted suicide in some parts of America. After a long wait, Oregon legalized assisted suicide in 1995, becoming the first state ever to do so (Kaveny 125). Even today, Oregon is the only state where assisted suicide is legal. Regardless of the rules and regulations, by 1996, Dr. Kevorkian took part in assisting the deaths of over 50 people in various parts of America (Kaveny 125). His attitude brought many supporters, but it also angered many others. At that time, the majority of his patients were terminally ill or suffering from diseases such as Lou Gehrig’s or Alzheimer’s. He believed that assisted suicide was certainly a humane act for patients such as his. In 1998, he videotaped one of his patient’s death, which was shown on the CBS show called ’60 minutes’. He was then convicted of murder and sentenced for 10 to 25 years in prison. And since then, the legalization of assisted suicide has been an ongoing debate. The majority of his supporters only wanted to legalize assisted suicide for terminally ill patients. Kevorkian and his supporters were not taken seriously, but they themselves did not listen to others that were suffering. They only focused on the terminally ill patients. If majority supporters of assisted suicide considered for a variety of suffering patients, maybe it would’ve been legalized at least for the terminally ill. However, that would only be the first step in the process. Physicians should be able to aid in ending suffering not only for the terminally ill patients, but for every patient. In the process of legalizing euthanasia, the absolute proponents of euthanasia went a bit too far as they got carried away in their practice of euthanasia. The leader of the proponents was Dr. Kevorkian who promoted assisted suicide saying that, “dying is not a crime.” He said that by the end of his career, he had helped more than 130 people die (Murphy 3). Kevorkian was so focused on his practice of assisted suicide that he basically wanted to help any patient end suffering. Rarely did he even look to cure the patient’s illness by means such as medication or treatment. He agreed upon helping the patient die right away. His decisions were a bit too extreme sometimes and weren’t always the most humane ones either. His intentions were pure; he never wanted to harm anyone. But in a way, he did harm some people because he could’ve cured their disease instead of helping them die. In addition to that, he never wanted to work with the opposing party to come to a settlement. He always broke the laws and angered them instead. He continued to lie about stopping the practice of assisted suicide and, many say that he never actually stopped. His chaotic style of practice brought assisted suicide further away from legalization. The qualified proponents of euthanasia have had trouble determining whom they should legalize it for. Many physicians believe that it’s morally right for them to use assisted suicide for terminally ill patients. They believe that not helping them die is an immoral form of euthanasia. To let a person die naturally after knowing that he is suffering from an incurable terminal illness is known as passive euthanasia. This form of euthanasia actually causes the patient a lot more pain than actively euthanizing him. But, the term ‘terminal illness’ is focused on so much in this case that people forget that there are other forms of illnesses, dysfunctions, and disorders that are extremely painful and long lasting. For example, a severe brain injury or paralysis might not kill a person within six months or so but it causes major pain both physically and emotionally. Also, mental retardation can be extreme in some cases; it causes harm to the victim as well as the family members. In such cases, euthanasia should be a legal right. After all, a doctor’s job is to minimize pain for his patient in the best way possible. If it can’t be done in the process of saving a patient’s life, it should be done by ending his life. I started the argument by stating the main problems of the opposition to physicianassisted suicide. The opposing absolute position is unfair because it simply forces people to follow the existing law without any sort of exception. I talked about the qualified con position wanting to legalize euthanasia, but only for the terminally ill. Their approach is sensible but it does not take into consideration the right of every single individual; it limits freedom for some people, while it wants to provide others with complete freedom. On the other hand, the absolute pro position ignores the negative impact euthanasia can have on the country. The most logical approach seems to be to legalize euthanasia not only for terminally ill patients but also for patients suffering from severe chronic illnesses that can’t be cured. As simple and sensible it may seem to legalize euthanasia for these people, others will think otherwise. Those that do think otherwise are the ones that have power to bring change; most importantly, we will need to work on building strong relationships with those that hold opinions much different from ours. If we continue to work with a positive mindset, I’m sure that with the help of other researchers, doctors, and media, we will be able to satisfy our needs. Works Consulted Murphy F. Timothy. “A Philosophical Obituary: Dr. Jack Kevorkian Dead at 83 Leaving End of Life Debate in the US Forever Changed.” The American Journal of Bioethics, 11(7): 3–6, 2011 Strate M. John, Zalman Marvin , Hunter J. Denis. “Physician-assisted suicide and the politics of problem definition.” Mortality, February 2005; 10(1): 23 – 41 English 102 Argument Essay Assignment All the skills you have been learning in English 101 and English 102 will come together in this essay. The entire point of this essay is for you to practice writing, synthesizing, and researching, all on your own. All the research for this essay will be from outside sources. The Topic: You are free to choose a (debatable) topic, with one requirement: your paper must deal with a current question or issue within your major field of study. (See PowerPoint for other restrictions and suggestions). Just like past essays, this one also needs to be an argument. To find out about issues within your major, consult a textbook from one of your classes. Refer to the research databases subject areas on the library’s web page. Ask a professor in your major. Look up a current journal that focuses on your chosen profession. As you can see, this essay takes some research even before you decide on your topic. If you are currently an undecided major, choose the field you are leaning towards. Requirements:  Debatable thesis that deals with an issue within your major. This must be approved.  8-10 pages (not counting works cited page)  Double-spaced (12 point, Times New Roman).  Synthesis of sources is required. Do not just have one paragraph per source. Your sources should be blended together throughout your paper  At least 5 sources. These 5 sources may ONLY be articles that you found via Oakton’s Library’s databases. You may use additional sources, such as websites and books, but they do not count as part of your 5 and they must be approved.  5-6 quotes (they must be correctly integrated into your sentences and connected back to your thesis)  You must address the counterarguments. You must also have sources that deal with the opposing viewpoint.  What are some possible solutions to this issue?  MLA (parenthetical) citations & works cited page Excellent Thesis: is there is a strong, clear, and focused thesis? Does it present a clear argument? Body: Are all your points developed and thoroughly explained? Evidence: Do you bring detailed examples and evidence to support all your points? Are all your pieces of evidence clearly explained and connected back to your thesis? Organization: is there a clear order that is easy to follow? Are there clear topic sentences and transitions? Focus: Does your paper stay focused on your thesis? Grammar / Mechanics: Does your paper read smoothly with a variety of sentence structure and a variety of word choices? Do you have wrong word choices, spelling mistakes, comma splices, run-ons, fragments, awkward phrases, typos, incorrect tense, missing commas, subjectverb errors, etc.? Do you keep a formal tone throughout the paper? Sources: Are your sources smoothly integrated into the text? Are your sources blended together throughout your paper? Quotes: Are quotes blended and integrated into your sentences? Are they clearly explained and related back to your thesis? Is proper citation used? Counterargument: Do you have sources that discuss the opposing viewpoint? Do you refute these counterarguments Citations/MLA: Is proper citation used? Is there a works cited page? Is MLA format followed? Fulfills the Assignment: Does the paper follow all the requirements of the assignment? (i.e. 8-10 pages, 5 sources, proper sources, proper headings, MLA format, etc.?) Good Average Weak Johnson 1 Elizabeth Johnson Professor Smith English 102-004 April 5, 2009 The Big Bad Wolf Little Red Riding Hood barely escapes the cunning advances of the ravenous wolf disguised as her grandmother. In another theater, movie audiences shriek as a gentle young man is transformed before their eyes into a blood-thirsty werewolf, a symbol for centuries of the essence of evil. Such myths and legends have portrayed the wolf as a threat to human existence. Feared as cold-blooded killers, they were hated and persecuted. Wolves were not merely shot and killed; they were tortured as well. In what was believed to be a battle between good and evil, wolves were poisoned, drawn and quartered, doused with gasoline and set on fire, and, in some cases, left with their mouths wired shut to starve (Begley 53). Convinced that they were a problem to be solved, U.S. citizens gradually eradicated gray wolves from the lower 48 states over a period of 25 years (Neimeyer 13). Today many people are convinced that the elimination of the gray wolf was not only an error, but also a detriment to the quality of life in this country. There has been a public outcry to rectify the situation created by the ignorance of our ancestors. However, in seeking to address a situation created by the human compulsion to control nature, it is crucial to discern how much human interference is necessary. Human control must be tempered by respect and restraint. Programs designed for the protection and restoration of wildlife must reflect deference for the natural order rather than dominance over it. Johnson 2 The consequences of human actions involving the elimination of the gray wolf have been especially acute in Yellowstone National Park, where the lack of a natural predator has resulted in the overpopulation of bison, deer, and elk. According to Sharon Begley of Newsweek magazine, "Absent a natural predator, thousands of the ungulates have starved during tough winters, and there has been no selection pressure to keep deer fast and moose powerful" (53). Another issue is more subtle. As Begley points out, "The wolf has been the only native animal missing from Yellowstone" (53). In one of the few places where the wildness of the west could be preserved, the wolf's absence leaves a big hole, allowing other species to overpopulate, hurting the ecosystem. In 1995, it is obvious that the hatred and fear which fueled the elimination of the gray wolf stemmed from a gross misunderstanding of wolves and their behavior. Cultural myths, such as werewolves and “Little Red Riding Hood,” showed wolves as scheming, aggressive beasts plotting to pounce on innocent victims do not reflect the truth. In reality, wolves are elusive creatures who keep to themselves. The wolf's social structure is much like ours. They live in family units called packs consisting of a mated pair, young pups, and older offspring. It is through the intricate relationships and interactions within the pack that offspring learn how to live as adult wolves (Richardson 29). As the environmentalist Charles Bergman points out, "Wolves are intensely social animals, living in packs that are structured in rigid hierarchies. In the chain of power each wolf has a defined place on a ladder of dominance and submission" (3l). The entire pack works together according to position to raise and nurture the pups, teaching them a highly sophisticated system of communication used for expressing their status relative to each other (Bergman 31). Also, from parents and older siblings, young wolves learn not only how to hunt, but what to hunt as well. Wolves are trained early to go after certain prey and leave others Johnson 3 alone. Since their prey is usually larger and stronger than they, wolves are taught specifically to hunt the weak and sick in order to avoid injury (Begley 52). Information given in “Friends of the Forest” pamphlets describes the similarity between humans and wolves. This publication states, "Like humans, some wolves stay with their families until they die, others leave the pack during adolescence in search of uninhabited territory and a mate" (1-2). Unlike humans, wolves instinctively control their population. The number in a pack rarely exceeds twelve and is determined by the availability and size of prey in their territory. Faced with the consequences of hasty actions to eliminate the wolves, as well as increased knowledge about their behavior, the U.S. Congress passed the Endangered Species Act in 1973, giving full protection to the gray wolf. In Section 1531 of the Act, Congressional findings state that since certain species of wildlife have been threatened with extinction, "the United States has pledged itself as a sovereign state in the international community to conserve to the extent practicable the various species of fish or wildlife and plants facing extinction" (United States 1-2). However, many believe that protection has not been enough. In January 1995, the Department of the Interior flew 29 wolves from Canada to Idaho's River of No Return Wilderness Area and to Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming. Fifteen were released directly into the Idaho area, and the rest were put in pens in Yellowstone, scheduled to be released after an acclimation period of 6 to 12 weeks. This program to reintroduce the gray wolf into the lower 48 states provides for fifteen more wolves to be relocated each year for the next three to five years (Begley 53). Critics of the program have raised a number of concerns. First of all is the apprehension of ranchers regarding the possible loss of livestock. Wolves have been absent from Yellowstone Johnson 4 for 60 years. Although some statistics claim that less than 1% of the sheep and cattle living in wolf range in Canada are killed by wolves annually; others tell a different story. According to the policy director of the National Wildlife Institute, "In Canada, 41 percent of livestock found dead have been killed by wolves" (qtd. in Richardson 30). The difference in these statistics is alarming. Obviously, statistics can be expressed in a variety of ways depending on what point one is trying to prove. However, the fact remains that wolves do, at least occasionally, prey on livestock. In addition to their concern for livestock, ranchers fear the possibility that, to help ensure the wolf's survival, wildlife managers will fence off thousands of acres now used for grazing. This could lead to the shutdown of ranches, resulting in the loss of hundreds of jobs. Finally, ranchers know that they have very little recourse if the wolves prey on their livestock. They are allowed to shoot a wolf caught in the act of killing a sheep or cow if the animal belongs to them. However, it is very difficult to be in the right place at the right time to catch a wolf in a kill. It is even more unlikely that a rancher would witness the kill of his own animal. Yet the penalty for defending a neighbor's property is the possibility of up to one year in prison and $l00,000 in fines (Richardson 30). Another problem critics point out is the exorbitant cost of implementing the reintroduction program. Estimated at $65,000 per wolf, the federal government will spend up to 13 million dollars to helicopter lift 200 wolves over the next five years (Richardson 28, 30). At a time when budget cuts are affecting food, housing and medical care for the needy, it is difficult to justify the expenditure. Even certain environmentalists have questioned the advisability of capturing and relocating wolves. Recently, a lawsuit was filed by the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund stating, "the grey wolves have been migrating steadily south from Canada for years. Some Johnson 5 have already reached Montana, and wolf packs are expected to settle in Yellowstone in about thirty years on their own initiative" (Richardson 28). But some wildlife biologists say that 30 years is too long to wait. They want to reduce Yellowstone's overpopulated bison and elk herds now. These biologists also want to study wolves before they settle in naturally. However, as Richardson states, "Taxpayers might argue that, for $65,000 per animal, the Fish and Wildlife Service could afford to send the biologists on weekly junkets to Alberta for wolf observation" (30). If assurances could be made that this program would work, perhaps the cost could be more easily justified. However, there are inherent problems in capturing and relocating wolves successfully. Even biologists in favor of the program admit that the number one challenge is to overcome the natural tendency of wolves to try to get home. The only solution to this dilemma is to pen the animals up for a period of time until they get used to their new surroundings. Unfortunately, whenever wolves are penned, there is a danger that they will lose some of their wildness. But such measures have already been necessary in the case of one of the wolf families in Yellowstone. Following the illegal killing of the dominant male in one of the packs, a recent update from Yellowstone reports: The alpha female from the defunct Rose Creek pack remains in the Rose Creek wolf enclosure with her eight pups. The pups are healthy, and have been vaccinated against about everything a canine can get. It is hoped that by fall (when they will likely be released), they will be big enough to fight off the coyotes. I suspect their winter mortality will be high, since they have had no opportunity to learn to hunt. (Maughan) Johnson 6 In an effort to help the wolves form viable packs, biologists hope to solve the other problem that concerns them: the tendency of a stressed wolf to go at it alone (Carpenter 15). A consequence of moving wolves from their habitat is that their social structure breaks down. In an interview with Dr. Marcella Cranford, proponent of wolf relocation, veterinarian and expert on wolf behavior, explained, "Lone wolves don't make it. They survive as a family or they don't survive at all." A result of the breakdown is that mates separate and some abandon pups in their haste to return to familiar turf. Biologists believe that in order to form viable packs, they must capture wolves of different ages. The assumption is that when they calm down, the captured wolves will establish a new pack. It is evident from biologists' concerns that wolves not only are intelligent creatures, but also have ties to family and fear of change, as humans do. The process used to capture wolves and relocate them in Idaho and Yellowstone has attempted to address these concerns. In November 1995, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service paid fur trappers $2,000 each to use their special talent for hunting down wolves (Begley 53). This talent included using neck snares "equipped with 'stops'" which would prevent the wolves from being killed (Neimeyer 13). Any live wolf restrained by a neck snare was quickly immobilized with drugs injected with a jabstick. Radio collars were then slipped around the animals' necks and these "Judas wolves", as they have been called, were followed back to the pack where agents selected the wolves of their choice for transport to Yellowstone and central Idaho. The sedated wolves were then locked in traveling cages. Each cage measured no more than 2 feet by 3 feet by 4 feet (Begley 53). Unfortunately, due to unexpected litigation, the wolves were forced to remain in these cages for more than 24 hours. In the case of the wolves bound for Idaho, they endured more than 80 hours in their crates (Johnson 17). Johnson 7 Given the elusive nature of wolves and the strong ties which bind them to their own pack, all these measures seem invasive and extreme. Such techniques are often necessary in attempts to save animals from extinction. However, the gray wolf is in no such peril. Although the number of wolves in the lower 48 states is minuscule, 60,000 roam the ranges of Canada and about 7,000 thrive in Alaska (Richardson 30). Even the proponents of the reintroduction program admit that moving wolves to Idaho and Yellowstone has nothing to do with "saving wolves." In a recent Congressional hearing, Renee Askins, Executive Director of the Wolf Fund, testified in favor of the plan. She explained that the restoration of wolves would not "rescue us from our economic or ecological troubles, but neither will their presence contribute to them" (Askins 16-17). Askins claimed that the significance of returning the wolf to Yellowstone resided in its power as a "deeply and profoundly symbolic act" (17). She told the House Committee on Resources: The story of this conflict is the story of how we view ourselves in relation to animals, whether we can replace the assumption of "dominion" that has been so destructive to us and the natural world with a world view that recognizes that we live in a state of reciprocity with the birds and the beasts--that we are not only the product of nature but also part of it. Our attitudes toward wolves and our treatment of them cut to the very marrow of how we view our relationship to the natural world. (17) If the driving motivation for the reintroduction of wolves into Idaho and Yellowstone is the symbolic act of restoring a relationship of respect and cooperation with nature, the actions of capture and relocation do not fit the symbol. Capture shows no respect for the highly developed social structure of the pack. Relocation denies the wolf's natural tendency to seek new territory Johnson 8 when its own territory is overpopulated. The action appears to be more representative of a different kind of "dominion" rather than reciprocity between humankind and the animal kingdom. With the best of intentions, it is all too easy for human beings to cross the line between necessary concern and unnecessary control. The environmentalist and author, Charles Bergman, makes this point in his book, Wild Echoes: “For all the pure motives of most of our wildlife managers . . . wolf control nevertheless derives from the same world view that has enabled Americans to dominate nature wherever we have gone. Humans are superior to nature. If we no longer try to conquer or eliminate wolves, we at least try to control them” (29). The majestic gray wolf--skillful predator, nurturing family member--has been misunderstood to the point of endangerment. Fear, hatred and the need to control the wolf's untamable wildness created an environment in which slaughter was not only acceptable, but advocated. There is no doubt that human beings bear responsibility for the protection of these magnificent creatures. However, the awe and admiration which have replaced the fear and hatred have not removed the human need to control. When this need to control results in tactics which are invasive and which disregard the very nature of the wolf itself, the danger is that human interference will unintentionally diminish the very wildness environmentalists seek to preserve. Johnson 9 Works Cited Askins, Renee. "Releasing Wolves from Symbolism." Harpers. April 1995: 15-17. Academic Search Complete. Web. 27 May 2009. Begley, Sharon with Daniel Glick. "The Return of the Native." Newsweek 23 Jan. 1995: 53. Bergman, Charles. Wild Echoes: Encounters With the Most Endangered Animals in North America. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1990. Print. Carpenter, Betsy. "A Precarious Return of the Wolf." U.S. News and World Report. 16 Jan. 1995: 16. Newsweb. Web. 27 May 2009. Cranford, Marcella. Personal interview. 30 Nov. 1995. Friends of the Forest Ketchum, Idaho: Wolf Education and Research Center, 1993. Johnson, Mark. "Dual Citizenship Awarded to Transported Wolves." International Wolf 5.2 (1995): 17. Academic Search Complete. Web. 27 May 2009. Maughan, Ralph. "Yellowstone Wolf Update." Return to Wolf. Idaho State University, Aug. 1999. Web. 10 Jan. 2004. Johnson 10 Neimeyer, Carter. "Precapture Operation--Snaring and Radio Collaring of `Judas' Wolves." International Wolf 5.2 (1995): 13. Academic Search Complete. Web. 27 May 2009. Richardson, Valerie. "Decrying Wolves." National Review 20 Mar. 1995: 28-30. Academic Search Complete. Web. 27 May 2009. U.S. Department of the Interior. Endangered Species Act. (13 March 1973). Section 1531. Web. 27 May 2009. Sample Outline Keep in mind that this outline is for a paper that was about 8-10 pages long. Also, this student preferred to write in full sentences; you do not have to. Also, this student preferred the classic Roman Numeral style outline. You are welcome to use bullet points. Whatever format you use, make sure your thesis includes a thesis (that is labeled) and shows what each body paragraph will be about. (i.e. what the topic/topic sentence of the paragraph will be and the details/examples you plan to bring to prove that topic sentence.) I. For two years now there has been a lot of talk about the new health care bill. Now that it has passed what it will mean in the grand scheme of things. A. There will be mandatory coverage for everyone. B. Fines to people with out coverage C. Fines to businesses who do not offer coverage. D. Thesis: Regardless of whether or not a person wants to have health care they will be forced to purchase sub-par health care thanks to the new health care reform. II. The health care bill not only includes reform on health care but other areas of life that are yet to be disclosed—which means people are voting on something they haven’t read A. It is a 2,000 page bill i. Not many people have read the whole thing. B. Nancy Pelosi: “you will find out what is in the health care bill once we pass it.” (Not many people will like what is coming.) C. It takes a long time to be put into action. (Long enough to play political games with the population. Most of the changes take place after the next voting cycle. This was done to allow democrats the chance to win elections without fear of public backlash at the polls.) III. Employers will be forced to offer health care to their employees. A. The employers will have to offer minimum health benefits to individuals and families. i. Cost to the employers: Employers' spending on health coverage for workers spiked abruptly this year, with the average cost of a family plan rising by 9 percent, triple the growth seen in 2010. ii. Effect on small business owners: On average, small businesses pay about 18% more than large firms for the same health insurance policy. There will be set costs for coverage for individuals and families. A. Family plan premiums hit $15,073 on average, while coverage for single employees grew 8 percent to $5,429 B. Workers paid an average of $921 toward the premium of single coverage and $4,129 for family plans. C. $5000 possible fine; average income of families is $45,000. Will families be able to afford it? IV. V. Employers will be fined if they fail to offer the coverage that they can not afford. A. The main issue that some businesses face is that they can not afford the cost of health benefits that their employees receive. B. There will be fees associated with the new health care bill. C. The amount of money that is going to be required to be spent on health benefits will increase the amount of money that employers will have to pay their employees. D. There is not enough money to support this new bill. E. There will be new fees to the pharmaceutical companies. F. Businesses will close. It is hard enough already for businesses to stay afloat today. Add on the amount required by the government for health care in any given businesses and the game changes What kept the doors open before will not keep them open now. VI. Many businesses know that they can not afford this hike in costs, and this will lead to many layoffs. A. McDonalds said it may have to layoff people in order to provide insurance for their employees. B. This will result in fewer jobs (bring statistics and projections for the number of layoffs) C. This could also cause businesses to cut back employee hours in order to maintain employees at just under full time to avoid the new mandate for health insurance. VII. This new health care bill is not the saving grace everyone believes it to be. A. The businesses do not believe that this will work to fix the problem of high costs. B. Argue that this will cost more than it saves. (Bring number/statistics on how much that will cost) C. How to pay for everything that will have to take place before it can be implemented. VIII. Once this bill has been implemented, the detrimental effects it will have on patient care will be endless. A. There will be a greater number of people covered under the new bill (everyone). B. People who are covered are not all healthy. (This is a good thing but it will cost LOTS of money) C. Increased patient to doctor ratio. D. Longer wait times. E. Changes in Medicaid. F. Shortage of doctors and most of all quality doctors. IX. Some people believe that this new health care bill is only positives. A. People with preexisting conditions are no longer able to be denied. B. That is good, because they get the coverage they need, however, the taxpayers are paying for this preexisting condition. C. Another benefit that people see is the fact that now dependent children on their parents health plan are going to be covered until they are 26 years old. D. This puts a strain on parents to continue to pay for their child and it does not promote young adults to go out, get a job, and pay their own way. X. Although under the current health care system things are not perfect, it beats the alternative that has been forced upon the nation. (counterargument) A. Under the current system there is not mandatory coverage or fines for noncovered individuals. B. There are not fines on businesses for not providing insurance. C. Not everyone is covered, however, no one is paying for other peoples coverage. D. Should have reformed the current system and done away with frivolous lawsuits to keep doctors malpractice insurance costs down which would in turn, keep doctors charges down and health insurance premiums down. How much would that save?
Purchase answer to see full attachment