The All State

» Ronniesia Reed – rreed24@my.apsu.edu

I am sure just about everyone has noticed the new trend of re-releasing movies in 3-D. Disney movies are the center of this trend with movies like “The Lion King,” “Up” and “Toy Story,” all being re-released to theaters in a 3-D format.

If it’s not broke, why try to fix it? Disney is known for making classical movies people grow up with and love for the rest of their lives.

The whole 3-D effect is unnecessary for these movies. They were already classics before 3-D was added. With that said, it is a little obvious 3-D is now being used as a tool to make money off of the viewers.

“Such re-releases are new opportunities — found money, if you will,” said Dave Hollis, head of distribution at Disney.

“Found money” is exactly right. According to imdb.com, only three weeks after its re-release, “The Lion King” had brought in $80 million. The site also shows the 3-D version of “Beauty and The Beast” came in number one at the box office, bringing in over $17 million in its first week.

Disney plans to re-release more of their movies, including “The Little Mermaid,” “Monsters Inc.” and “Finding Nemo.” Disney should begin making all of their movies in 3-D as an original format. Instead of remaking the same movies with the same storylines, it would be better to just make a whole new movie.

Other film studios have jumped on the 3-D bandwagon, including Fox and Paramount. According to imdb.com, Fox will be re-releasing “Star Wars: Episode One — The Phantom Menace,” and Paramount will be re-releasing “Titanic” later on this year. “Titanic” was a classic movie as well, and does not need to be re-released. It should be left as is. The 3-D effect has a way of altering the feeling achieved by the time period of the film. The time they were created in is what makes these movies so lovable, especially, “The Titanic.”

Three-D is a cool and catchy effect; however, it is a tool that has been around for a while, but has just recently become popular.

Therefore, new movies should be made to go with the timing of the 3-D trend. If they keep remaking the same movies that have already been made, how are we going to get more classical Disney movies? This should be thought about as they continue on with the 3-D movement. TAS

» Trynica Daniels – tdaniels8@my.apsu.edu

»The Super Bowl is traditionally a time for American families to sit back, relax and enjoy the spectacle of a football game that causes heated passion no matter which side you’re rooting for. But for some of the viewing audience, especially those less sports-inclined, the commercials are even more of an attraction than the game itself.

Year by year, the Super Bowl commercials have never failed to entertain, amuse and inform their spectators. Many companies have seized on the large audience to advertise their products, and this year, a presidential candidate has even decided to use Super Bowl commercial time in an attempt to tackle abortion.

Randall Terry, who was nominated by the Democratic Party to be a possible contender for the presidency, raised some eyebrows with his decision to promote his pro-life stance through Super Bowl ads.

As part of his campaign, Terry has plans to air graphic photographs of aborted fetuses during what has traditionally been a family event.

As you can imagine, this has caused uproar for two main reasons. First, the Super Bowl is an inappropriate platform for such a cause.

When families — including some very young children — gather around the TV to enjoy what they expect will be a pleasant day full of food, fun and football, they don’t want to see these gruesome images plastered on their screens. Thrust into prominent display, the Huffington Post reported Terry wants to shed light on “child-killing.”

“America has never truly debated child-killing, because America has never truly seen child-killing,” Terry said. “We will … bring America face-to-face with this massacre of the innocents.”

But there is a second reason Terry’s proposed show may be a no-go. Pro-choicers aren’t happy with their portrayal as murder advocates, and argue abortion is not equal to homicide and Americans should not be educated about abortion with such a biased, one-sided approach.

In cases of rape or incest, the women in question may be too young for their bodies to safely support bearing a child. Other times, a young woman may not have the financial security to support a baby, leaving both the mother and child in an unfortunate and often destitute position. The question becomes: Which is more important, the not-yet-developed life of an unborn child or the already-flourishing life of the mother?

Terry’s ads would show late-term abortions, which are illegal in more than half of the United States. According to livestrong.com, late-term abortions make up only 1 percent of all abortions, and occur when a pregnancy is terminated during the third trimester and the unborn child has developed from a clump of cells into a human body.

Many supporters of pro-choice acknowledge the horrific nature of late-term abortion and think abortion shouldn’t be used as a form of birth control, but acknowledge a woman’s body is her business and sometimes, it comes down to the unfortunate decision of saving one life or the other.

What Terry fails to realize is abortion is not murder in all cases; in fact, it is a choice that exists to save lives.

In any case, the Super Bowl commercial spots should be left to silly images like talking babies and miniature Darth Vaders.

It is an inappropriate forum for such a platform, and it is a dangerously one-sided view to a delicate, faceted and complicated issue. TAS

»Ashlie Talley – atalley2@my.apsu.edu

Last week in a unanimous vote, the Supreme Court overturned a California state law to control the amount of abuse and mistreatment of factory raised animals for slaughter.

According to a CNN article, although several judges acknowledged the benefits of the state’s actions, they disapproved of a law that would regulate the same aspects of the meat industry the Federal Meat Inspection Act already addresses.

Judge Elena Kagan wrote, “California’s [law] endeavors to regulate the same thing, at the same time, in the same place — except by imposing different requirements. The FMIA expressly preempts such a state law.”

Although this is the case, and the Supreme Court has made its decision, something needs to be done about factories and slaughterhouses that exhibit animal cruelty, because the FMIA is obviously not working.

The state law that was overturned by the Supreme Court was in response to an undercover video of a California slaughterhouse that made headline news. Employees of the company were caught illegally mishandling livestock. Downed cows were dragged on their sides and stomachs and forced to their feet to herd them with the other, healthier cows by using electric cattle prods and bulldozers.

An animal that is referred to as a “downer” is one so unhealthy it can no longer stand without help. The use of these animals for consumption is illegal because of the health risks they pose to the population. These risks include E.coli infections and mad cow outbreaks.

Basically, an unknown number of slaughterhouses who ship packaged meats to grocery stores are exposing us to high-risk diseases by using the meat of unhealthy cows when they are legally required to dispose of it.

The slaughterhouses are not the only problem. Factory farms raise unhealthy animals in such compact, poorly lit spaces they have to spend extra money on hormones and antibiotics just to keep the meat viable. Farmers use hormones to make the animals grow twice their normal size and antibiotics to keep them in conditions just barely meeting legal standards before being shipped to the slaughterhouse.

Companies are able to keep prices low by offering meat with less nutritional value and a higher risk of harm to the general public than livestock raised on an open farm.

According to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the overuse of antibiotics on livestock is leading to a growing number of treatment-resistant bacteria.

The European Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures Relating to Public Health has also expressed concern over hormone residue left over in the meat we consume, potentially causing cancer and early-onset puberty in young girls, although these concerns have not yet been proven.

Factory farms and slaughterhouses do these things for greater profit. It doesn’t bother them that their quality of food is lower than that of a healthier animal. What matters is they can offer a lower quality of food for a lower cost, but in greater quantity and therefore turn the greatest profit.

But we as the public are suffering from it. Already, strains of food poisoning bacteria are building immunity to the antibiotics fed to chickens on a daily basis. These strains have been found in the meat of raw chicken breasts. So what is being done to fix the problem?

So far, everything suggested is either not enough or it’s been overturned like the state law in California.

Factory farms need to be replaced by actual farms that have the amount of land needed to raise healthy livestock free of the mass need for antibiotics, and they need to cut down on the hormones.

Even if they aren’t posing any cancer dangers to the consumer, they are still causing the livestock to grow unnaturally big and devaluing the quality of the meat we buy.

Slaughterhouses need more frequent, mandatory inspections to ensure the humane treatment of livestock they receive, and to make sure no meat from animals that would be considered as “downers” can be introduced into our grocery stores. TAS

Trymica Daniels

»Gay. It is a word that, over the course of history and especially in recent years, has sparked both controversy and revolution.
Last year, a piece of Tennessee legislation called SB0049 — nicknamed the “Don’t Say Gay” bill — was passed in the state Senate, sponsored by Stacey Campfield, R-Knoxville. It was scheduled for a hearing in the House Education subcommittee Wednesday, Jan. 18, and is now waiting on review from the panel.

If this bill were to become law, it would prohibit instructors in public schools from using the word “gay”— or teaching about any lifestyle other than heterosexuality.

This is problematic for a number of reasons.

For one, a refusal to teach children about real-life issues, keeping them in ignorance, is a serious failing on the behalf of public education.

The truth is there is a vibrant, flourishing gay community, and it will not cease to exist simply because it is not discussed.

To prevent education about this part of culture is a disservice to the children, who trust their schools to provide them with essential knowledge, and the parents, who pour their tax money into what they assume will be quality educational facilities for their children.

Censorship is associated with inappropriate content, such as societal taboos, obscenity, graphic violence or profanity. To censor the word “gay” as if it belongs with these is not only a slap in the face to all the gay men and women who want nothing more than to be afforded the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts, but also it teaches children being gay is perverse and unnatural.

For young, developing minds who are just beginning to form sexual identities, this could be catastrophic. Gay children would be discouraged from being who they are, while straight children would feel justified in bullying those who are different.

These messages are not fair to children, nor are they just or warranted. There is always the issue of age suitability. The bill explicitly illegalizes curriculums including discussions on homosexuality from kindergarten until the eighth grade.

In early, formative years, it is understandable legislators do not want sex being discussed in the same breath as the “ABCs.” However, this should apply to sexuality of all kinds — not homosexuality specifically.

In many children’s cartoons, a man and a woman can be seen dating and even kissing one another, and this is portrayed as sweet, romantic and natural.

What some may fail to realize is a children’s animated feature starring two men or two women who become romantically involved and share a kiss in the end would not be any more unsuitable for children than the more traditional boy-meets-girl.

If anything, it would show children love of all kinds is both beautiful and natural, and being true to one’s self is okay, even if one happens to be gay. It is never too early to teach that lesson.

Obviously, sexuality does not need to be discussed with children in kindergarten or elementary school; at that point, their minds and bodies are not fully developed, and such lessons would not be fully comprehended and would be grossly inappropriate for a school setting.

However, when children reach middle school and begin to reach puberty, it is essential they begin to be educated, and homosexuality is just as worthy — and necessary — a topic to discuss as heterosexuality.

With this bill, Tennessee legislators have done the equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and chanting, “Na na na na na, we can’t hear you” to the gay community, but ignoring what one disagrees with does not make it disappear.

Perhaps the lawmakers should be a little more concerned about providing children with a fair, balanced, well-rounded education and trust them to form their own intelligent, informed opinions rather than keep them in the dark about such a major issue.

The “Don’t Say Gay” bill is a misstep in Tennessee legislature that will hopefully be remedied very soon. TAS

»Ashlie Talley – atalley2@my.apsu.edu

Lately, there have been a lot of people talking about a new House bill is currently considering. The SOPA, or Stop Online Piracy Act, was designed to combat online piracy. The goal itself is not bad, but it’s met quite a bit of backlash for its vague undertones and broad definitions. In fact, people are protesting against the bill to get it turned down completely.

It seems people are using the flaws of the bill to cover the fact they don’t want to lose their online piracy freedoms, an unlawful privilege they’ve been abusing. While I do see the very large problems with SOPA, I do not believe the bill should be scrapped all together.

The bill should be revised to be clearer about the people, websites and material it is targeting.

There are big problems with SOPA. If one were to read the content of the act, which can be found at the Library of Congress website, they would notice its broad and vaguely defined content insinuates a great number of things that could potentially turn us all into criminals and give power to people who will most likely mistreat it.

It gives the government the power to decide which foreign websites they want us as US citizens to see. It also gives copyright holders the power to bring down major websites simply because they have the means to infringe copyrighted material (such as a comment box), and it also insinuates so much as posting oneself repeating popular phrases from movies or singing famous songs is a felony offense.

These provisions are not actual statements in the document, and hopefully not intentional, but are the many loopholes that can be found throughout the document.

Despite its problems, however, piracy is a huge issue that does need to be dealt with, and it is incredibly hard to stop. As the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act and our own common sense should tell us, piracy is illegal. It is the unauthorized reproduction or use of any patented, trademarked product.

According to an article on CNNmoney.com, the problem is that foreign based websites do not have to adhere to this law, and most websites offering pirated products are based in foreign countries. The U.S. can’t prosecute a foreign website for breaking American law.

These websites are not the only issue. Very few people in the U.S. actually obey copyright laws.

For whatever reason, the large majority of us seem to think we’re entitled to someone else’s ideas and creations for free. Apparently, these guys have made so much money off of their genius they are no longer allowed to control what happens to their own work.

The incredibly humorous thing about it is while people are excusing their behavior off on the wealthy owners of big corporations, they also happen to be stealing from the pockets of those less fortunate who work for those wealthy persons.

The bottom line is unless we made the product, we are not entitled to that product without compensation.

God forbid we have to pay one whole dollar for a song. Yes, the world will simply cease to rotate because there is no longer a free pass for our entertainment.

All that SOPA needs is a revision that more clearly defines the target of the bill and restrictions.

It also needs clearer explanations of what the government can and cannot label piracy or copyright infringement, and more responsibility to the person who is actually committing the act of copyright infringement as opposed to the site operator being fully liable.

And perhaps tack on a side note that requires sending notification to the operator of a site flagged for infringement.

If anyone were paying attention and taking the law seriously, they would notice piracy has been illegal for 14 years — copyright infringement long before that — and everyone has been ignoring the fact.

So when entertainment companies and the government get fed up with our behavior, what else is to be expected than an insanely over-the-top bill like SOPA?

This isn’t a simple case of one guy ruining it for everybody. Anyone who participates in piracy is responsible for the nature of this bill in my opinion, and the bill’s proponents. TAS

» Ronniesia Reed – rreed24@my.apsu.edu

Heroin is an extremely addictive drug. Addicts of the drug become willing to do anything to get to it, including putting themselves in harmful conditions.

The way the heroin is injected into the body is dangerous as well. Addicts often are not concerned with using clean needles. According to www.avert.org, a charity website designed to inform the public about HIV and AIDS, roughly one-tenth of new HIV cases are caused by sharing used needles.

The National Institute on Drug Abuse reports on its website, www.drugabuse.gov, injected drug users account for an estimated 70 to 80 percent of new HIV infections each year.

Methadone is an opiate that is commonly used to treat narcotic addictions. In this case, it was used to treat, help and test the users. For me, the clinic appeared to be a unique way to help save lives.

With hopes reducing the rate of HIV infections, a clinic in Vancouver put together an experiment for heroin addicts where half of the addicts were given free medical heroin and the other half were given a synthetic version of the drug, called methadone.

According to Inger Nelson, one of the doctors of the clinic, the plan was, “to help those who are not satisfied by methadone by providing them with clean heroin, allowing them to avoid disease and the temptation of criminal acts to obtain the drug.”

Although it sounds as though they plan to provide these addicts with a place to come and do drugs freely, that was not the case.

Dr. Martin Schechter of the University of British Columbia Faculty of Medicine said he hopes, “the addicts will make positive changes to their lives because they won’t have to steal or prostitute themselves to get money for drugs.”

This statement is the reason I was excited to see the outcome of the project. There are addicts all around that need to be saved.

According to the Foundation for a Drug Free World, there are an estimated 16 million opiate drug users worldwide. They are looking for things like this to help them start moving in the right direction.

Although making the use of the drug more safe was the main goal, kicking the addiction was incorporated into the experiment as well.

The users in the group with the medical heroin would eventually be moved to the group with the synthetic heroin. Six people, every six months will be accepted into the clinic, with a goal of 470 people total.

If the experiment were to expand I am sure more people would join in hopes of eliminating their addiction in a safe way.

A similar study was introduced in 1992 in Switzerland. After five years of the program, it was concluded the experiment did drop the rate of crimes related to the use of heroin.

The lowered crime rate is not surprising because the main idea of these clinics is to create a place where heroin addicts can feel safe, not to do drugs, but to live.

The experiment was a clever way to attempt to save lives while also helping heroin users kick their addictions. Clearly, these addicts would not have gone to the clinic if they were not being offered free heroin.

Without the clinics, users would have just stayed where they were and continued buying, selling and using the drugs in an illegal and unsafe manner.

It was best they be taken off of the streets and put into a better environment. The clinics in place in Canada achieved this. Injected drug users were able to realize how much safer their lives could be without the use of heroin, and some were able to kick the addiction completely. TAS