Response Essay on Fixing America's Broken Prisons

The Reason Why We Punish Criminals

By Soomin

The US prison system is now criticized due to its huge population—according to The Week, the number of criminals in jail in the US is the same as one quarter of the world’s imprisoned population—and its inefficiency at preventing lawbreakers from breaking the rules again. The experts pointed out that this inability of the US prison system is caused by lengthy sentences for misdemeanors, particularly by the three-strike rule and the high five-year recidivism rates. States such as Texas and Hawaii are now making new policy to solve this problem especially by adopting new prison rules focused more on rehabilitation and less on punishment. Many states nowadays send drug criminals to re-hab programs rather than to prisons to help them better reintegrate into the society better. One famous example that jail is to correct and rehabilitate the prisoners not to punish is the one in Norway. Even Anders Breivik who killed 77 innocent people in 2011 lives in an ‘apartment prison’ with bedrooms and a kitchen.

Actually Norwegian way of dealing with convicted criminals is very extreme way that focus mostly on rehabilitation and the human right of the offenders. Still, however it gives a good point to discuss about the essence of punishment; why we punish criminals? Modern legal researchers said that there are mainly four purposes of legal punishment. Retribution, deterrence or public education, incapacitation and rehabilitation. Retribution means punishment as public revenge. Punishment as deterrence or public education is a kind of warning possible lawbreakers to think twice before they commit crimes. Legal penalties like incarceration are considered as the incapacitation of criminals since while they get separated from the society they will not break the rules. Finally, as criminals are also members of the society, rehabilitation is concerned so that their offending behaviors would corrected and they would behave well in the society after they get released from jails. When one purpose of the punishment, rehabilitation in this case, becomes the main reason for the whole then we cannot say we meet the goal of punishment.

Moreover, when it comes to ‘public revenge’ the controversy over ongoing reforms on prison system becomes more complicated. The reason why we feel resistance against the Norwegian prison system in spite of the fact that the five-year recidivism rates is relatively low in there, is that we do not see the criminals are paid back by what they have done to others. We think if somebody hurt others then he/she should be hurt as well. This is the fundamental of the justice we believe in.

People have established this kind of justice since people started to make social norms, the very beginning of the human history when Hammurabi stated “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” Punishing rule-offenders is a way of paying back, establishing the justice. In other words, revenge has been a means of justice and one purpose of punishing criminals throughout history. People, especially state actors, however, prefer a so-called civilized way of revenge; let the government do it for the people. The concept of public revenge emerged as governments, modern or not, gained power to establish the law and take their authority to force people to follow it. The establishment of public revenge and the banning private revenge are like two sides of the same coin—governments enact revenge as the representatives of justice rather than allowing people to take revenge on others personally.

This means governments which make private revenge illegal have the responsibility to take revenge instead of the victims. The banning of private revenge can be justified when the governments, which are the only agent that hold the right to revenge, take responsibility for it. Less tough sentences on trivial crimes would be welcomed because the damage they do are often so small or sometimes there is no obvious victim of those offences; for example, drug crimes. However, for some serious crimes like murder, fraud, rape, terrorism, and so on, this is a totally different situation. Governments have the right to impose tough sentences, and they hold the responsibility to punish them. They are the only one who can take the revenge for the victims and the left families.

Not Revenge, But A Chance to Change

By Sr. Vocata

  There are a lot of people who believe that we should take “An eye for an eye”, but Gandhi said, “An eye for an eye only makes the world blind.” In the same way, we should focus on a prisoner’s rehabilitation as a chance to change, not to enact revenge.

From the moment people wake up in the morning until people fall asleep, everyone faces many choices. Somebody could choose to go to a school, to get a job, and to meet a partner; likewise, somebody else could choose to join a gang, to take drugs, and to commit a homicide. Every result is made by our choice, so the responsibility for the choice force to ourselves, even if we are forced to make some choice under the threat of death. Therefore, incarceration of criminals is the result of their choice, and they must be responsible for their crimes and to the rule of society. I believe that, however, if the purpose of incarceration is just revenge by society, than a prisoner won't learn meaning of the positive role of society. Because of this, we should give them a chance to change their life. Truly, it is the best way to teach them to choose new honest life, not a crime. To choose the right way, it is necessary that we give inmates the physical and mental motivation to inmates to live a new life, and to take the chance to achieve to the best of their ability and to take up their positive role in society. Jeff Smith (2012), who went a prison for 1 year for covering up an election law violation, made a TED Talk about his experience, in prison, he met a lot of brilliant people who were good at business,  and although their spoken words were not academic, their ideas were like lessons in any MBA’s first semester. Most of them wanted to live a new life after release from prison, but in prison, they couldn’t learn skills to help them rich their potential. If we could organize programs to help them succeed we wouldn’t need to expand prisons. For instance, according to the article Fixing America’s Broken Prisons, the proposal, devised by a UCLA team, is to build housing plan for prisoners which could, before their official release, inspire the inmates’ reintegration (The Week, 2015). 

In Korea, recently, there has been a contract between Justice Department and Defense Business Agency for improving the prison’s techniques to help with rehabilitation as well as to reduce the budget for Defense Department personnel  (Korea Correctional Service, 2017). In our congregation, MSC, we have a special ministry for  prisoners. The sister who is in charge of the ministry said, "When I met them, they were such angels. If they had different family or education backgrounds, they might not have been in prison." This story made me convinced that prisoners should have at least one chance to change their life. 

 In sum, there are two ways to deal with prisoners, one is punishment, the other one is rehabilitation. When we make our best effort to rehabilitate prisoners rather than to take revenge on them, it could give hope for the inmates to live a new life.

Looking for a Solution

by Trieu Nguyen

America imprisons more people than another country in over the world. This country has to pay a lot to run the prisons. It is said that many Americans think that putting the offender in jail is a good solution to keep peace and security in this country. This essay tries to show that incarceration is not the best way to deal with offenders because it costs a lot, is not humane, and has not been proven effective.

Firstly, incarceration requires the United States to pay a lot for running and maintaining the system of prisons. It is clear that to lock up many prisoners, the American government has to spend money to house, feed, clothe and care for prisoners as well as to pay the salary and other costs for those who run prisons. The article "Fixing America’s Prisons" explains that taxpayers “spend more than $80 billion a year to keep all people in locked up” (The week, 2015). Therefore, it is reasonable to think about several alternative solutions so that the government can decrease tax for citizens.

In addition, because many people are locked up,  they cannot contribute to the common good of society. In a certain way, they become the burden of society instead of making a good contribution to the society. Some may argue that when the bad people have been locked up, our society is safe and stable; consequently, the economy can grow. I totally agree with that argument; however, we need to keep in mind the fact that when offenders are locked up, their future could be closed and they find it difficult to re-entry and contribute positively to their family as well as their society. This means that incarceration not only limits a current and active participation of an individual in the society but makes them difficult to participate actively and productively in the society in future.

Secondly, it seems that incarceration is an inhumane system if we think that it is the only and best way to deal with offenders. The fact that we just want to put them into jail demonstrates that we do not or do not want to believe in their ability to convert and become a good person. This mentality could come from the “throwaway” culture of today's society that discards anyone who is unproductive or harmful to our society as Pope Francis frequently says. Republican former Texas Gov. Perry agrees that “when we lock people up, we never give them a second choice at redemption” (The week, 2015). Therefore, it seems that America is negating some certain values of human beings. When some occasionally do something wrong, they no longer have a chance to convert and re-entry society. In a certain way, it could say that they are thrown away without hope for a better future for themselves as well as for their family. In my opinion, this policy of America reflects a negative point of view about human nature. As a result, this could affect social relationships negatively, especially on the education for young people. A more humane system requires that prisoners are treated like people. They need to be given a chance to become a better person as well as to have a hope that they would benefit society when they get out.

It is justified that some crimes have to punish with sentences of prison for long-term but this is not reasonable in every case. It is necessary to distinguish a different kind of crimes. It is not fair when we consider burglary, robbery equal with rapist or homicide. For example, Leandro Andrade was convicted of stealing children’s food and was sentenced to two 25 to – life term (The week, 2015). In order to respect human dignity, it is necessary to take account of different circumstances relating to an offender. These could be the intention of offenders and the circumstances in which the offenders have committed crimes. Besides that, some alternative solutions need to be applied such as probation program or re-entry program.

Finally, incarceration has not been proven effective. Its efficacy is still debatable. It is difficult to find a direct correlation between incarceration and crime levels. Some argue that when crimes are punished by putting in jail people would be afraid and don’t dare to commit crimes. However, we don’t have many evidences to verify that claim. For that reason, we need to find out other solutions to deal with offenders and this process needs to be done step by step. The kinds of crimes and circumstances as well as human dignity need to be considered for those who involve in process of making this decision.

Deincarceration VS Incarceration

By Misun

  The United States needs to reform its prison system because too many criminals are in prison. According to the article of Fixing America's Broken Prisons in 2015, because of the "crack epidemic" of the 1980s and the harsh "three strike" systems, the U.S. crime rates have been skyrocketing. These strict regulations have been used to justify disproportionately long prison terms for minor offenders. It is unreasonable for the criminals, and for the government which has to pay for the operation prison. Therefore, it needs to change, especially the prison sentences for drug crimes, burglars, and less serious crimes but not on felonies, rapists and violent offensives. The U.S should help misdemeanor criminals to live independently in their life rather than just put them away from a long time.

  In addition, the U.S "recidivism" rates are very high. The author claimed that 60 percent of inmates released from prison find themselves back behind bars. The article said that the U.S. government should give more chances to inmates to reintegrate into society after they released. It is a good idea and will decrease the criminal rates. The author gave some examples of states such as Texas, Kansas, and Louisiana, which are red and conservative states, which have gradually expanded probation programs, gradual re-entry programs, and drug treatment for inmates. This is a good prison reform also may help to reduce criminal rates. Giving offenders a chance to learn new skills can be a good solution to reduce recidivism. In South Korea, for instance, prisoners are given the chance to learn one technical skills such as mechanics, cooking and aesthetic techniques like hair beauty. There are even some factories in which criminals learn to work together in the factory which in prison, and where they get make their own incomes from the labor in the factories and also government can get some profits from operating the factories. The U.S prison system could learn from other developed countries like S.Korea and enact some prison policy reform to make better solutions. 

Society-Prison: single ticket or return ticket?

by Andrea Bonavita

The world of the U.S. prison described in our Article of the Week – “Fixing America’s Broken Prisons” – makes me believe that incarceration is not the best way to deal with offenders.

American prisons hold a population grown up seven times in the last 35 years (up to 2.4 million people). Even the number of recidivists remains extremely high: the 60% of those who paid their debt to society find themselves returning in prison within three years. As shown by the author, at first we could think that having jails full of offenders is the warranty of low rates of crime; however, criminologists haven’t found yet a direct connection between people behind bars and levels of crime. On the other hand and despite of its name, the “correction” system doesn’t seem able to offer to the inmates a true reintegration into society.

Prison and society seem to be worlds related one another just for necessity, not with effective interaction. From the point of view of the Law, punishment works: it is the justifiable compensation from the offense caused to a member of a certain society. From the point of view of the human community, if punishment can redress an injustice, in itself it doesn’t help to mend the break between the culprit and the society that condemned him.

Where alternatives to prison has been tried, the outcomes have been good. The author cites the case of states that created mandating drug treatments for non-violent offenders (Texas, Kansas) or adopted periods of probation (Hawaii). The UCLA has been working on an important project that wants to encourage inmates at the end of their punishment to re-enter the society providing apartments and GPS bracelets. The aim of all these solutions is the increasing of the responsibility of the prisoners to make them more ready to re-enter into society.

If we consider the prison as the final stage of the process of Justice (imputation, trial, judgment), the process of reintegration covers the opposite way to rebuild the original situation. In this perspective, punishment is just the beginning of a long process that must have the society as its goal. One could have the opinion that locking people up and throw them away forever can be the best solution (it is the opinion against which the former Texas Governor cited in the article struggled when he was in charge). However, this implies the belief in a society in which there is an ‘inside’ and an ‘outside’: a very questionable position. The human community is one, without any kind of ‘outside’, and it is even composed by those members who have decided, willingly or not, to act sometimes against the community.

The development of re-entry processes seems to be an effective way for the good of the whole society and for the future of every offender.

America's prison crisis and drug crimes

By Javier

It is not reasonable to treat drug trafficking and drug use as a crime. Drug prohibition makes the state focus on searching for and apprehending drug users who are not normally violent or criminals in any sense. It also increases the state's expenses in the judicial branch because prosecutors and judges have to spend their  time processing these offenders. This, obviously, also means that the state has to spend more money on its prison system. More sentences for drug crimes mean more immates, and more money for taxpayers to contribute. The article "Fixing America's Broken Prisons" asserts that, today, taxpayers spend more than $80 billion a year on the prison system. It also shows that the increase in prison sentences began with the response of lawmakers to the high crime rates in the 1970s and 80s. To face this problem, congressional representatives decided to pass laws imposing mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes.


Finally, the most important reason to claim that there is no justification for drug prohibition is that consuming or selling drugs doesn't neccesarily involve harming others. These people (consumer and dealer) usually interact with each other peacefully. In that case, it is the state that becomes a criminal for punishing people involved in "victimless crimes". Although some people contend that drug crimes are violent, and use as an example the violence caused by drug trafficking in producing countries like Colombia or Mexico, the truth is violence is not caused by the selling of the product itself, but by the fact that it is illegal and has to be distributed in a black market. It is not the product, it is the prohibition that is causing this violence and deaths.

Responsibility for future

RESPONSIBILITY FOR FUTURE

by Minh Trieu 

According to Article, we are facing with a plastic and we do not know about it. This study shows us that there are 8 trillion plastic pieces entering aquatic habitats in the United States every day. In order to find a solution for this problem, it is necessary that entire society have to work together by different means such as education for the young people, by establishing law and by the attention of each individual in society.

First of all, education has to play an important role in this process. The family should be the first school for children as Vietnamese often says. Therefore, as first teachers, parents need to teach their children about the negative consequences of plastics for the environment around us. This lesson has to be conveyed to their children by their own good examples, that is, parents must do what they ask their children to do. For example, parents should teach their child know how to sort rubbish and what kind of rubbish can be recycled. This lesson should be taught in school in different methods. For example, teachers can show a movie about the plastic pollution and explain for kids the negative consequences when we throw plastic objects into the water.  In high school and university, teachers should encourage students to discuss the plastic pollution and find concrete solutions that can be applied in their own situation. 

Secondly, one of the best ways is that producers have to be more responsible for their products. To be more responsible means that companies and producers should be required to find alternative materials that can be recycled and reused. In fact, many companies have tried to find new ways to reduce the plastic pollution. For example, in Korea, many companies have produced cosmetic products without microbeads. This effort should be widened and encouraged in other countries.

Finally, government and international organizations have to work together in order to find effective solutions for this problem. According to Article, plastics microbeads will be banned from the US to protect the waterways of this country. Because the researchers suggested that a ban on “microbeads would be the best way to protect water quality, wildlife, and other resources”. I think that this ban is able to apply in other countries on over the world. Moreover, the result of new research should be shared widely because of benefits of all human beings.

In conclusion, the fact that the plastic pollution is a global crisis calls one of us participate in finding solutions for this problem.  Given that importance of this problem, it is necessary that every institution in society and government need to take action. It is not only necessary to protect our environment for us but also to protect it for next generations. The future of this world depends on our actions and choices now and here.

Microbeads: what shoud we do as responsible consumers?

by Javier

The article" Eight trillion microbeads pollute aquatic habitats every day" tell us about the environmental problem that is being caused by products that use microbeads. Microbeads, small plastic particles that are used mostly in personal care products, are severly polluting aquatics habitats.

In order to face this  environmental problem that the article describes, the best choice to make as an individual consumer is to stop buying products that are conflicting with your higher moral values. Thus, if you consider that harming marine wildlife is morally wrong and that these products do not help to protect more important values, you should stop using them. According to the article, the use of products containing microbeads causes that, daily, 8 trillion microbeads enter aquatic habitats in the U.S. Furthermore, that number only represents 1 percent of the total number that is being dumped daily; the other 99% normally end up, one way or another, polluting waterways as well. That proves that using that products with microbeads are dangerous to marine wildlife. Do these products help or are important to protect higher values? It seems not to be the case. Most of these products are cosmetics, or personal care products, that are not essential for human life and that can be replaced or made with different and less harmful elements. As a consequence, it seems clear that we need to stop buying these products. The reason we need to make that choice is because it is the morally right thing to do. Protecting marine wildlife, in this case, is more important that using cosmetic products that can be replaced by other less harmful. The choice would be totally different, if, for example, the products we were referring to were important medicines that save many patients' lives.

There is an importat distinction that has to be made. The claim that it is morally correct to stop buying the product is very different than the claim that the product should be banned. It is the the difference between the moral aspect and the legal aspect, that should be analyzed with different theories. A product should be banned only if it is harmful to other individual's rights, and the article does not prove that.

The morally right thing you should do as a consumer is stop buying these products. One can think that one consumer's decision has an insignificant impact on choices that corporation make, but this is not true. If everybody thought that way, change would be more difficult to make in society. If many consumers decide not to buy a product, that would send an important message to the manufacturer, and, in order to keep the business profitable, they may begin to care more about environmental issues.

Not for the Present, but for the Future

By Sr. Vocata

  People believe that one of the most efficient inventions in the world is plastic. Because of the cheap cost to produce ease of molding, and  its light in weight, we can find out everywhere. On the other hand, extensive usage of plastic causes a diverse variety pollution: Landfill problem, water pollution and air problem.

  Tatiana Schlosseberg, the author of The Immense, Eternal Footprint Humanity Leaves on Earth: Plastics, noticed, since the 1950s to 8.3 billion metric tons of plastic have been produced, with around a half of it made since 2004(2017). Every day the amount of plastic products pour out from companies: pens, water bottles, plastic bags, cups etc. Can you imagine living without these daily necessities? In the past, we used to use metal as the main material of manufacture goods. However, heavy weight and the high price from mining to molding made the invention of plastic and attractive alternative. Products made of plastic are light and convenient to carry, and it is easy to make multiple forms.

 On the other hand, plastic causes serious problems. According to the article about microbeads, "eight trillion microbeads pollute aquatic habitats every day. Microbeads are used to add scrubbing action to tons of products." When microbeads are poured out into the sea, the plastic does not naturally degrade, but becomes ocean pollution, and this occurs when the plastic in the microbeads enters landfills too. Moreover, when plastic is burnt, it makes toxic fumes which is a factor in air pollution. These kinds of pollution directly impact human life.

  It is clear that it would be difficult without plastic, so reducing usage could be an answer to the disadvantages. In most markets in Korea, when customers buy something, if they don't bring any kind of bag, they have to buy paper bags, or plastic bags which become garbage bags of that region. However, the plastic garbage bag is easy to degrades. Eco-bags are one of the alternatives to the negative effect of none degradable plastic in nature.


  In sum, plastic usage is like double-edged sword. We can't not ignore the positive sides, but we must focus on nature, not only for us, but also for the next generation. For this reason, it is important to reduce the use of microbeads and study alternatives.    

Ambivalent Attitude towards Plastics

By Misun Kang

A various plastics products influence our world in positive and negative way. People should be aware of using plastics a lot in their lives. They also need to learn how to use plastics appropriately. The advantages of plastics are convenient, reasonable price and durable. On the other hand, disadvantages of plastics are environmental problems, people’s perception to plastics, and health problem. Humans cannot live without plastics in this modern era but they have to consider plastics harmfulness and caution to plastics use.

People live in plastics world. When they woke up, they grab a plastic tooth brush and a plastic cup to brush teeth. Plastics also involved in everywhere even in the liquids or somewhere we did not even expect. For example, microbeads which are very tiny plastic beads usually in scrubs and toothpaste for cleansing perfectly. These may seem trivial but its effect is very critical to the environment. Even UNEP reports that a typical exfoliating shower gel can contain roughly as much microplastics as is used to make its plastic packaging. Consumers should stop to choose products including microbeads, but it is hard to distinguish that products contain them or not. Therefore, US government will ban microbeads from personal care products. It is an effective way to reduce lots of microbeads which are hardly biogradable in the ecosystem and visible in human eyes.

Unfortunately, our contemporaries cannot live without plastics because plastics have already come so deeply in their life. They generated massive trash to pollute environment and people even did not feel guilty about using them. Due to their chemical and artificial elements, plastics are far from environment friendly and also there have limits to reuse plastics again and again. Therefore, we should accept this serious circumstance and try to reduce using plastics at first. For instance, using eco bags when we go get some groceries and checking the components in household items can be a good start.

  Plastics are inextricably linked with daily life and people keep exposing to them unconsciously. Citizens and government both should perceive the perils of plastics. Especially, microbeads which are so small that people even do not recognize those as plastics, so government makes some restriction on them. Indifference about plastics is the greatest fear, so people definitely need to take an action. Through government regulations and careful consumption behaviors, it can help people wisely take action to deal with plastics. 

Useful, but...

by Andrea Bonavita

Take a look around you, and you will agree with me that we are surrounded by plastic. In this very moment I’m typing on the keyboard of my laptop, over a table, near several pens, a blue lamp and a cell phone: I have just mentioned six items in which plastic plays a primary role. Plastic is very useful – light, cheap, it can be processed into many ways – but we cannot forget its negative aspects, pretty relevant.

As reported by Rachel Feltman, journalist of the Washington Post, some researches of the Oregon State University recently called for a total ban of plastic microbeads: why? We could only think, for example, how cool our new toothpaste is, with its microbeads. The problem is that after our clean, microbeads reach rivers and seas, polluting aquatic ecosystems. The scientists have proved that plastic microbeads alter the complex equilibrium of the environment and, above all, we can’t get rid of them.

Sometimes we think that things finish to exist because there are no longer under our eyes. But throwing them away, we just swift them… Weighting pros and cons of our simplest behaviors, like using a toothpaste, is not easy. Before buying plastic or products containing plastic, we might look for information, understand percent, time and way of its recycle, and finally do our choice. Some could say that it is just waste of time. However, in the beginning every change of behavior seems imposed and artificial; with time, it becomes natural and used.

We have to change our relationship with plastic: only in this way we can contribute to limit the negative aspects of its use and build a better world.

Response Essay on Microbeads Issues

 Bright and Dark Sides of Plastic: Should We Stop Using Plastic?

 by Soomin

 
  Plastic is one of the most useful friends of human civilization. It is so useful that often people do not even recognize they are using plastic. This hard but light and transformable material lets humans enjoy life a better quality of life ever at a considerably cheaper price. Cars are made of plastic, computers, air-conditioners, binders, bags, packages and even medical appliances--which are crucial to lengthening our life spans--are plastic. The invention of plastic surely makes the world a better place.

  Is a world with plastic a better place for creatures other than humans as well? A lot of people,including myself,tend to act as if humans are the only animals who live on the Earth. However, this is not true. Humans live in one big ecosystem with other animals and plants. How does plastic affect the lives of our neighbors?

  After humans throw away plastic, there are roughly four ways to manage the plastic waste. First, reuse it. The tragedy of reusing plastic is, however, that a very small portion of plastic waste can be recycled since once plastic is fixed into one form it costs a lot to change its form. Second, bury it underground. Third, dump it in the ocean. Fourth, burn it.

  The last three ways are well known to be harmful to the environment and humans as well. Since most plastic is not biodegradable, plastic waste that was buried a century ago still maintains its shape. Also, even the biodegradable plastic takes a long time to biodegrade. Now governments are struggling to find new places for landfills to bury plastic. We just do not have enough land to deal with the plastic waste we have thrown away.

  Greenpeace, a non-governmental environmental organization, reported that every year more than a hundred new 'plastic islands' form in the Pacific Ocean. As you might guess, these islands are made of plastic waste. This trash is dumped in the ocean and spoils aquatic habitats. For example, when polystyrene plastic, or simply PS, is discarded to the ocean many sea animals like sea turtles, mistake that waste as food and they swallow the waste. Then they find themselves become buoyant, unable to go underwater, and die. Plastic microbeads, another example of plastic waste, are so small that they cannot be filtered by urban water treatment plants and flow to the ocean. Just like polystyrene, microbeads also destroy the aquatic ecosystem.

  Burning plastic waste used to be an efficient way to manage plastic disposal until scientists found out that harmful gas is released from the combustion of plastic. These noxious fumes pollute the air and are toxic to human lungs. Many governments these days have closed incineration plants and if they are running some, then they have a strict regulation on them.

  Basically, human civilizations do not have a proper solution to deal with this 'plastic crisis'. The problematic situation of plastic is like spreading human waste all over the world without knowing how to flush. Actually, the case of plastic is even worse than excrement because it, at least, is biodegradable.

  The only solution we have so far for the 'plastic crisis' is using fewer plastic products. Using less plastic means less trash. It is difficult, of course. We live in a world which is very friendly to plastic, but at least we have to make an effort step by step. The environmental movement against microbeads is one good example of successful plan to manage plastic products. At first, there were some voices warning of the harms of microbeads. People listened to those voices and participated in the campaign. Now in the US, products with microbeads are strictly prohibited. It was a small step at the beginning which made a notable success in the end.

Imagination at Work!

by Trieu Nguyen

I would like to share something about the second picture that  impressed me a lot. In my opinion, the picture shows us where human wisdom comes from.
Firstly, I see that man receives his knowledge from two sources: human

experiences and divine revelation. To acquire the human wisdom, we cannot do it by ourselves, we receive what our ancestors had done. That is human wisdom which is the heritage of all human beings. At the same time, we have to receive it through something from above that I will call divine revelation. We can only acquire throughout human reason which is depicted by the instrument in the left hand of figure in the picture. 

         Secondly, we receive our wisdom from different kinds of knowledge. On the left of picture, we see two containers which come from different places: one from the wall which is presented by human work, two others on the floor which are presented by human sources. On the left side of picture, we see the light which comes from above and only one source, but when it goes through human reason which is presented in the left side of the picture, it becomes three. For me, the three is a symbol that expresses three kinds of philosophy: philosophy of God, philosophy of human nature, and that of world. We also can understand three as the representation of totality. It expresses human relationship because humans are themselves social beings. It means that to live our lives we need others. A relationship of love needs three because love cannot close itself in two. For example, man loves a woman and the fruit of love is a child, and three expresses that relationship which is one important element in human life.