Uniquepapers's Blog

Social networking websites such as Facebook.com and Twitter.com have been a great place to stay in touch with current friends, find old friends and also make other connections that can make life easier. The problem with that is that social networking can negatively affect employment for jobseekers. The reason for that is because employers are now taking the time to look up the social networking profiles of those that apply to jobs. That means that having a profile on social networking website could be hazardous to your job search or job security.

      According to David Milford, an assistant director of career services for college students, in an interview at ESUbulletin.com (Mize, 2009), as many as 30 percent of employers look at the social networking profiles of people that they are considering hiring or interviewing. Milford said that the reason that employers do that is they spend so much money on their company that it is imperative to know that they hire someone that can be trustworthy. The statistics regarding employers trying to find out about their potential employees are particularly scary for college students and those just coming out of college. These young men and women are at the age where they are more likely to have questionable content on their page. It is a difficult decision for young adults to make because it is axiomatic for most people between the ages of 18-28 to want to post their latest party exploits or want to post about something that is bothering them like the breakup of themselves and a significant other. There is a quote on streetdirectory.com (Sandy, 2009) where an employer admits that he was all set to hire a jobseeker, but that was before he saw his myspace profile where the potential job candidate celebrated his use of recreational drugs. Another survey recently done said that 45 percent of the employees polled on careerbuilder.com check the social networking profiles of people that apply for jobs in their company (this survey was more general than the one that Milford referenced, that was more geared toward college students). (marketwatch, 2009)

The most dangerous social networking website for job seekers is probably twitter.com. The examples of why it is so dangerous are probably more apparent in situations where the person is already employed. There have been at least two instances of NFL players that have been suspended by their teams because of things that they posted on twitter. Both Larry Johnson of the Kansas City Chiefs and David Clowney of the New York Jets posted “tweets” questioning the coaching of their respective teams. That illustrates that is not only important to be discreet while looking for employment, it is also important while you are employed. Making derogatory comments about your job, boss or people that you work with can come back to haunt you down the line. Another reason that Twitter is dangerous is because of the nature of the site. There is a limited number of characters so any “tweets” that are made that are seen can be misconstrued by employees, which could cost someone gainful employment. Something else that is dangerous about Twitter is that unlike Facebook, it is not possible to erase “tweets”, which means anything on the site is there for anyone to see for the long haul. Even the idea that a candidate is looking at other jobs may be seen as a negative thing by employees, especially if a job candidate is looking for jobs in two separate fields. Employees want to know that you aren’t just working for the money and that you have interest and passion in the specific field that you are working in (if applicable, there are some office jobs that just require office skills).

    There are very few jobs where it is not important to know whether or not a potential employee is trustworthy, at the same time there are certain jobs where it may be more important than others. Any job that has a business setting and a business to business casual dress code is probably a job that would frown upon anybody working for them that advertises drinking of alcohol or drug use (even if it’s “just” weed or cigarettes). If it is that important to make sure that your friends see every moment of your life, it is best to wait until you have a solid job and job security. While people should expect a right to privacy, it can also be said that a company should have the kind of people representing the company that they are comfortable with. Is it fair to have to censor yourself? Probably not, but at the same time, when you are looking for a job, you have to know that everything counts.

      One argument against an employer looking at a potential employee’s social networking profile is simply the matter of privacy. At the same time, if there is a former classmate that one is interested in tracking down, is it wrong to look them up? If you say that’s okay, it could be argued that it is okay that an employer that is putting his money into someone to work for them has the right to do the same thing. At least in the latter case, there is something tangible (money) on the line. The bigger argument against researching someone that a company is interesting in interviewing is relevance. What does someone’s personal life have to do with how they could perform at their job? There are some things such as excessive drug use and alcohol that could be seen as a red flag, but at the same time it almost seems as if a company should not even ask for a resume if it is just going to reject a strong candidate based on pictures or a few sentences that can be easily taken out of context. On that note, if you are looking for a job in a field where you have to deal with businesses outside of your potential office, it is a good idea to (whether it is true or not) act as if you are using social networking sites to find a way to advance your career, as opposed to a place where you can let your friends know about your latest party.

   What about how to handle your social networking profiles, once you are hired? According to an article on howstuffworks.com (Briggs, 2009) employers do look at the social networking profiles of those that are already employees, especially if said employee seems complacent in terms of work. That’s not to say you have to be as careful once you are working, if you are seen as a good worker, it is hard for you going out with your buddies to have a beer to get you fired, but it can keep you from getting hired. Besides that unless you are “friends” your boss on a site such as facebook, it is more likely that your boss has already looked at your social networking profile. At the same time, I have worked at a job where someone was fired because of what was on their profile. Even given that, I have only seen that once in my time working for several different offices. Who knows if its because most employees keep their profiles clean or if it’s because there were other issues with the employee that did end up getting fired.

    One question that may come to mind is what happens if an employer tries to friend you? Whether that is good or bad depends on the kind of office that you work for. If you are working in a casual office, it’s probably okay, although it would be good to find out how many other employees are on the bosses friends list. The reason for that is no one is perfect and if several employees can “survive” being friends with the boss, then you probably can too and it will make you seem like a person that is good to work with in terms of being agreeable. It would be rare for an employer to friend you before hiring you, so that is not something to worry about.

     How can social networking positively affect employment? One was is through communication with people that can help you. Facebook and Twitter are both websites that can lead a person to other people that can help them find jobs. If someone is in a certain field and is having trouble finding work, a good way to begin finding opportunities is to friend a former classmate that one may have had a relationship with or becoming Facebook friends with a professor that may have contacts in the field that can help you or make recommendations for you. The people that you are networking with in this case probably already know about your vices and because of the fact that they know the real person behind the vices and more importantly know that the person could do good work for the company.

         In the above vein, how could what you put on your profile actually help you get work? It depends on the job that you are looking for. If you are a writer, putting up samples of your work can be effective if someone is looking you up online. If you are a graphic designer, it is the same thing. If an employer sees that your craft is the first thing that is mentioned or the thing that is most talked about in your profile, then it will let them know that it would be safer to hire you, nothing is guaranteed, but it is a good way to show that being an “artist” is more important than being social. The ultimate precaution to all of this is just to keep your profile private. Because there are so many reasons that someone would not have a public profile, the very fact that someone has a private profile would not raise red flags in and of itself. As far as a private profile goes, things to still watch include your main profile picture. Your profile picture can still be seen if you are searched online on Facebook or Myspace. If your main profile picture finds you in a compromising position, then it may be better to change it to something that is more streamlined, at least while you are looking for work. Something else that you should look at is any friends that you have public communication with online because an employer that really wants to know about you could always look at any public profiles that any of your online friends have. It would be a good idea to clean up anything that looks bad on your profile or any of your friend’s profile that highlights communication between yourself and said friends. How does researching a social networking profile compare to background checks? The first difference is that a profile search doesn’t cost anything. For those employers that choose to conduct both, the difference is that the background check is big picture oriented and the social networking profile is more about the little things about potential employees that may make a company apprehensive about hiring said employee or even calling them in for an interview. There is very little someone can do about what a company will find on a background check, but there are things they can do about what you put on your Facebook page. A precaution that you can take when it comes to social networking profiles is to develop a presence on Linkedin. Linkedin is a site that is based more about careers and career opportunities than Facebook, Myspace or Twitter. At no time in history has there been more access to the lives of potential employees than there is now. There are things that you can do to try keep your private life that way and keep focus on your resume and references. At the same time there is information about you everywhere and if someone wants to find out things about you, then they can and more times than not will. There are people out there whose job it is to find out information on potential employers. Depending on the situation and the job that you are looking for it can cost you a chance to make money and with all of the competition out there, no matter what the economy, there is no excuse to be cavalier about the information that can be found out about you online. It can be the difference between a six figure salary and unemployment. 

African art has been influential to many artists and types of art throughout history. One of the artists that has been the most influenced by the style of African art is Picasso. This paper will look specifically at Picasso and how he was influenced by African Art.
One of the most important and influential genres of art within art is Cubism (dadeschools.net, 2009). Cubism is a way to approach art, (not only painting and sculpting, but music and poetry as well according to dadeschools.net) that was founded by Picasso and Georges Braque (dadeschools.net, 2009). Cubism did not begin in Africa, it actually began in Europe, but the point is that its roots were in Africa. The characteristics of Cubism that was taken from Africa include how objects used in pieces of art are developed, simplified, distorted and emphasized (dadeschools.net, 2009). Speaking of simplification that is one of the aspects of African art that most appealed to Europeans, including Picasso. European artists marveled at how powerful Black African Sculpture was and began to emulate it in their own work. (dadeschools.net, 2009) If we were to make a long story short the founders of the Cubist movement, Picasso and Braque were directly influenced by African Art.

If one were to look at some of Picasso’s work such as the mask-like faces that are look very similar to a face that would be sculpted by an African artist. Not only were the faces similar, but also the colors and earth tones that would be used in an African piece of art were used by Picasso as well. Indeed the specifics of the actual paintings were taken from how similar paintings were crafted in Africa. (dadeschools.net, 2009)  Other pieces of art that were influenced by Africa that Picasso developed were paintings of wild animals like bulls and horned creatures (dadeschools.net, 2009). To be more specific, the famous painting Les Demoiselles de Avignon, featured many of the women wearing masks, that not only showed the influence of African Art on Picasso, but it also showed the respect that he had for African art as well. Other paintings that Picasso created because of his appreciation for African Art included Three figures under a tree, Woman in an armchair and Reclining Woman. (artinfo.com 2006). He also sculpted the Head of Woman from Iron.

The aforementioned paintings and sculpture was the beginning of paintings and other pieces of art that were influenced by African art. For example the Three Dancers painting was not so much influenced by African art directly, as it was influenced by Picasso’s painting. Other artists that were influenced by African Art besides Picasso include Brancusi, who was the pioneer of modernist sculpture; Matisse and Modigliani and Giacometti, who was a famous sculptor. (Molyneux, 2006)
To this day we can go to an exhibit featuring Picasso’s paintings and not only see that he was influenced by African art, but we can also see how he was influenced by African Art. We can see the specifics in the paintings and the sculptures that show the initiated art expert that Picasso had a love for African art that one could argue made him a great artist. The irony of all of this is that Picasso never stepped foot in Africa, he actually got all of his information from books on Africa and by admiring African pieces of art second hand (ie: not seeing the art in person, but rather through books and other means) (Molyneux, 2006). He called some of the African art that he created “magical objects” (Molyneux, 2006). He also called them “weapons” that would allow people to become “free spirits” (Molyneux, 2006).

I have always been interested in education, it probably comes from my mother who works in a public school. With that in mind, people may ask where I want to take this writing/editing business. In other words, what is the future of uniquepapers? In an ideal world, if business picks up, I would be able to hire tutors, writers and editors. I’ve been working with a lawyer on a book about immigrants and even though I’ve never met any of these immigrants, I can imagine what a struggle it is to learn the English language.  It’s probably harder to write formally (ie: papers) for someone that has to learn English in this country. I want to help with that and of course I want to help anyone that needs help. Right now, I am willing and able to do everything alone. I am looking into grants and maybe even loans so I could grow the business.

Here is another paper I wrote, I wasn’t paid for this so I decided to use it as a sample.

John Stuart Mill is correct in his work On Liberty when he says that people should have the “liberty” to have their own thoughts and philosophies on life. There is one caveat to his thoughts. Mill suggested that only people of a certain standing should have liberties.  The liberty of the individual must thus far be limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people” (On Liberty, p. 55). If you take away what that quote would suggest Mill’s general assertion is correct. People should be allowed to think what they want to think because as Mill says, sometimes the majority opinion is incorrect. To allow for individual thinking is the ideal way for a society to operate. There are times where thinking “out of the box” can be dangerous for the society at large, but as a rule it is the right thing. The reason liberty for people is ideal is because the alternative is potentially disastrous and the alternative is the government not only controlling the physical actions of people, but also controlling their thoughts.

Mill believed that one of the main reasons that people should have Liberty is that it creates the highest utility for the society. Mill believed in utilitarianism, which is the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people. It stands to reason that people not being held back by the government would create happiness. Mill was concerned that society would become to conformant if they did not have the liberty to act and think on their own. Mill also believed that most people would not act in a way that would be bad for the society, besides that the idea of liberty only go so far. In other words once it becomes detrimental to the society it is not what Mill envisioned when he wrote On Liberty.

While Mill alluded to the idea that liberty would only go so far, there is still the idea that the writing was not specific enough in terms of how much liberty people would have. If a person thought that it would be better for an enemy not to be around (ie: should be dead, out of the society or in jail), would it be okay to get rid of the enemy? What if the “enemy” in question was someone that was hated by the majority of the society and it would lead to greater utility if that person was dealt with even if it was in an unfair manner? This is the part that Mill does not address adequately in On Liberty. The reader would have to assume that Mill would not want anyone unfairly persecuted by a member or members of a society, but it is not completely clear. The best answer would be that liberty would stop short of criminal actions against innocent people (even if the innocent person is disliked).

In terms of whether or not nonconformity is good for society, think of it this way Martin Luther King was a nonconformist, Malcolm X was a nonconformist, Henry David Thoreau was a nonconformist, even Mother Theresa was a nonconformist. What would history like if people did not go away from convention and act based on their own thoughts? Mill is right about the need for nonconformity in society. No matter what anyone thinks of President Barack Obama, if it was not for unconventional thinking, someone of his race would not even have been allowed to run. Repressing individuality is never a good idea because the world will become stagnant. Even in today’s society it can be argued that there is still need for free thinking and change.

One reason that Mill was correct in his general thought is that a society is not going to terrorize itself just because it has a little freedom. The prevailing idea is that the government is there to make sure that people feel safe within their own society and people are giving up their liberties/freedom in order to get said safety. Mill did not think that this was an ideal way for people to live. While one can argue there was not enough of an explanation in On Liberty about how people having freedom would or would not interfere with the government’s goal of a safe, tyranny-free society, Mill does address the idea that people would not likely go too far just because they have some more freedom. Because of the successful non-conformists mentioned above, Mill has been proven right that living under “prevailing thought” is not the way to exist in any society.

Mill suggested that a man that commits a crime against his society should be punished more for what he did to his victims then the action in and of itself. He also said that most crimes committed by man affect the actor of the crime and the people that are closest to him and the society is a much lesser victim. That may be one of the things in this work that can be argued. For example a person that feels that violence is the best answer to a conflict is a danger to the society as a whole and while non-traditional thought should be encouraged; there are some ways of thinking that should not be tolerated or else there will be anarchy in society. One instance where a non-violent criminal act would hurt the society would be tax evasion. When people don’t pay their taxes, everyone suffers because taxes go to things like education, fortifying the police force and building hospitals. Mill may argue that if people believe that certain taxes are unfair that it would be a positive to challenge that. With that said, an individual making the challenge would not nearly be as effective as a group making the challenge. For example, imagine going to a store to buy cigarettes and refusing to pay the tax because you think it’s too much. You would be lucky if you didn’t spend the night in jail with that thinking and it’s also the kind of thing that it would be hard to generate a lot of support for unlike the changes Dr. King wanted to make. So what’s the answer? The easiest answer to this dilemma that would fit in with Mill’s thinking (and again the general premise is correct) is that if an individual believes that a law is unjust to try to rally as many people in the society against as possible. That not only creates utility, but it can also create change in a peaceful manner that hurts as few people as possible.

Besides stagnation, another reason to encourage individual thought is another natural inclination that people may have and that’s stubbornness. Mill was concerned that people thought that their way was the only way to live. People that don’t consider alternate ways of thinking are destined to live stagnant lives. “No one can be a great thinker who does not … follow his intellect to whatever conclusions it may lead.” That is a very telling quote in terms of defining what this piece of writing is in a few words. It is also the best way to make sure that your life and the lives of people around you reach their potential.

What is the potential downside to people having the liberty to think for themselves? It’s probably fair to say there was more of a downside at the time that Mill wrote his piece then there would be now. At the time of Mill’s writing, women did not have many rights, minorities did not have many rights and any thoughts that could lead to rebellion or revolution could and probably would lead to injuries and death. The other thing to keep in mind is at the time that On Liberty was written there were many more things to be outraged about as there are now. In contemporary society there is so much information out there and so many people of different cultures that are out there, when that is combined the lack of issues that people have to be outraged about, liberty of thinking is more likely to lead to new technologies than a war or a violent revolution. To answer the above question, there is almost no downside to people having freedom to think how they want to think today because we live in a less volatile society in many ways.

One of the great points that Mill makes regarding government suppressing the opinions of people is that government officials are individuals with flaws, so who are they to tell someone how to think? While it’s true that many people that hold government positions then and now do have an intellectual superiority (at least tangibly), they are in no way perfect beings because none of us are. Not to mention the fact that those in prominent positions many times have no reason to change status quo, so if they did repress individual thinking, they would have a good reason (selfishly). People in power should actually want more individual thought because in actuality it would make their job easier.

The idea of being able to “refute objections” on one’s thoughts in order to justify said thoughts is something else that would be in the favor of free thinking. Even On Liberty is subject to that kind of scrutiny. It also makes allowing for liberty of thought “safer”. If someone has a thought that is potentially revolutionary, they have to be able to defend it against detractors. For example if someone had the idea of exclusive online schooling, would that idea pass the scrutiny of the fact that online only schools would hurt the idea of interaction between students of the same age and what about the teachers that would lose jobs, not to mention custodial staff, kitchen staffs and security guards. All of those people would have to find work if learning no longer took place in buildings. That is a thought that may seem to be a good idea at the time, but it would never get off the ground. At the same time, there is nothing wrong with having a thought like that or thinking in that direction because of the advanced technology of the 21^st century.

Having the liberty to think and act as long as it’s not harmful to others seems axiomatic in today’s society. At the time that On Liberty was written, it was contemporary thought by the author John Stuart Mill. Everyone should have the ability to promote their thoughts and let the world know that if change is needed in a sector of society or even internally in our own lives that the change can actually happen. Without that we will lead state, unfulfilling lives.

I also offer writing tutoring. Call me at 917-688-6127 or e-mail me at what151@hotmail.com for more information.

The tutoring could be in person or through e-mail/IM (ie: you have something written and you want me to take a look at it and give pointers).

One last thing as far as the writing goes, if you can refer me to other students/clients, I will lock you in at $10 a page for any assignment.

I’ve had some problems recently with some students so I thought that it would be a good time to set some guidelines. These are not absolute as I’m pretty flexible,  but if these guidelines are followed things will be easier.

1. It’s good to have a paypal account, if you aren’t going to be able to meet me in Brooklyn.  If you are a regular client that does not live in Brooklyn,  I’m willing travel to you some of the time, but you also have to be willing to meet me in Brooklyn at times as well.

2. Another reason it is good to have paypal is I should get half of my payment upfront and the other half after the work is completed.

3. If I am working on something for you, you have to be available or at least I need a time where it would be good to contact you. I’ll do the same.

4. There is likely to be an increase in fee (man, that sounds so formal…sorry about that) on anything more than 4 (double spaced) pages that you need a 24 hour or less turnaround on. That comes from the fact that this week someone needed a 1,200 word essay in 12 hours when I had a meeting planned that day.  With that said don’t hesitate to send me a quick homework assignment on a few hours notice that you don’t feel like doing or don’t have time to do because if the paper that I had just mentioned was two pages I probably could have found time to do it.

Recently Eddie Fatu, who was known as Umaga in World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) passed away from a heart attack at the young age of 36. Fatu is one of many along the long lines of wrestlers that have died before the age of 60 and many of them died before the age of 50. This is a problem that only reached mainstream proportions when Chris Benoit killed his wife and seven year old son back in 2007. The Benoit story was a big part of the news cycle for several weeks, but even then the sensationalism of a man that is a television star killing his family was the main reason why the story was such a big deal. There should certainly be more focus on why wrestlers like Benoit, Fatu, and Eddie Guerrero are dying. Guerrero’s death was certainly drug related and there is speculation that the deaths of Benoit and Fatu are linked to drugs, whether it be steroids, painkillers or both. One could imagine the uproar that would be taking place if football players, baseball players or basketball players were dropping dead before the age of 50 at a regular rate. There have been many theories/ideas that have been brought up about what companies like WWE and Total-Nonstop Action (TNA) can do to prevent more deaths like the ones mentioned above. Both companies already have drug testing for its athletes, but there should be more done.

One thing that those in charge of WWE and TNA could do to prevent wrestler’s deaths is to have regulated independent drug testing.  This will prevent people that follow the wrestling business from speculating that certain wrestlers are not suspended because of their rank in the company. While there have been suspensions because of what WWE calls wellness policy violations (WWE, 2009). There is still the prevailing thought that there are those that are protected if they are “main event guys”. Having independent drug testing that does not involve doctors that are hired by the company and can therefore be influenced by the company will be not only good public relations for WWE and TNA; it will also protect wrestlers that may not otherwise be punished because of the company’s desire to make sure the most important wrestlers work every show possible. The key here is to make sure that the wrestler’s best interests long-term are being looked at. This situation is different from baseball in some respects in that when people discuss the need for baseball to have independent drug testing, the prevailing thought is that the record books need to protected and the health of the players is often seen as secondary. On the other hand when it comes to drug testing in wrestling, the health of the wrestlers is seen as more important and what the drugs do for the wrestlers is seen as secondary (but still important, especially when it comes to steroids).

The problem is that the idea of having independent drug testing is that for the most part independent drug testing is from an athletic commission. Testing from athletic commissions cost money. For example, the Nevada athletic commission charges $278.40 (MMA weekly, 2009) for each athlete they test. At an average edition of Monday Night Raw, up to 32 wrestlers can be tested. (WWE, 2009) If the show was taped in Nevada, it would cost almost $9,000 to test every wrestler. It can be argued that it is financially inefficient to spend $9,000 for drug testing, when the company itself already has drug testing. The only things that independent testing would do for WWE or TNA tangibly is give them good PR. The fact is that there is drug testing and there have been suspensions, so it is tough to tell a wrestling company to spend money without accusing them of favoritism. That’s not to mention the money that wrestling companies spend on things like lights, pyrotechnics, setting up the ring and other expenses that the company takes on. In other words why would a company spend money on something that they feel that they have under control? With all of that said, it is still a good idea, because human nature suggests that a company under no pressure to publicly address what happens on drug tests, other than suspensions (which in actuality is the choice of the company) may be drawn to making sure that the stars that the fans most pay to see are there . With an athletic commission making sure that everything is done with no bias, it is much more likely that a wrestler will get help and that’s what is the most important thing.

Something else that should be addressed to solve the problem of wrestler’s deaths, especially when it comes to WWE is the schedule. A look at the WWE website shows that there are about (WWE, 2009) 200-240 dates a year that WWE wrestlers work. Because of that wrestlers are forced to decide on what to do to get rid of the inevitable pain that occurs from working such a difficult schedule. If you look at the Four Horsemen DVD, you can see Ric Flair and Tully Blanchard talk about wrestlers working 365 days a year. So if you look at it that way, things have certainly changed in the last 25 years. From looking at the live events section of the WWE website, you can see that wrestlers never work on Wednesdays and Thursdays, they also rarely work the weekend of Pay per Views. At the same time, different things are expected from wrestlers in 2009, then they were in 1989. In other words the style is more physically demanding than it was 20 years ago. With that in mind, wrestlers (as anyone else would) are going to try to do things to numb the pain. Many times wrestlers are going to take painkillers to try to stop the pain and keep going for the next show. The problem is that people get addicted to a painkiller, that’s what happened to wrestler Shane Douglas (thefranchisefansite, 2009) in 2005. In actuality, 2005 is when Douglas checked himself into rehab for an addiction to painkillers. There has also been speculation that Fatu’s death is also related to pain pills (Pwtorch, 2009). There are several measures in regards to schedule that WWE could take (TNA’s wrestlers don’t work as many live events). One thing that the company can do is to give wrestlers scheduled time off once or twice a year. The specifics are not as important as making sure that every wrestler on the roster has a total of 8-12 weeks off in a year. That will allow the body to heal much more effectively and because a wrestler is not worried about pain on a daily basis, he or she won’t be as reliant on pain pills. Another benefit of time off is that wrestlers will have more time to spend with their families and have some kind of an idea of what having a real life is like. Even with the reduced schedule, wrestlers still spend more than half of their time away from home. Obviously this is something that can potentially cause problems within a family. Having wrestlers spend more time at home has more of an intangible positive effect on the performers, while the lack of necessity for painkillers because of more time off is a more tangible effect (ie: not having enough time at home is not going to be on anyone’s autopsy). Wade Keller of the Pro Wrestling Torch has been advocating wrestlers having more time off for years. He has stated that the schedule “plays with people’s lives.” Because of the increasing importance of Pay per Views and television revenue to the bottom line of wrestling companies, even from a purely financial standpoint, it may be better to cut back on non-televised live events. At the end of the day, having wrestlers feel as if they don’t need painkillers just to get through the week may put not only the wrestlers, but the company itself in a much better position long term.

The argument against giving wrestlers more time off would probably be the company saying that WWE going without someone like John Cena for three months is not financially responsible, especially since WWE is a public company and they have to answer to their shareholders. If live events and Pay per Views are down because top drawing cards are missing from shows without the excuse of injury, it is not just costing Vince McMahon money, but it is also costly for people that have invested in the company. Something else that would be argued is that the non-televised live event business, while not nearly as important as it once was, would be basically irrelevant if several performers were taking off for 4-6 weeks at a time (even if it is only one main event talent and several undercard wrestlers, it would still have a negative effect). The number one issue that may be taken with a potential plan to give wrestlers more time off is that the schedule of WWE wrestlers is lighter than it has ever been. Someone defending WWE may ask the question “how much lighter do we have to make the schedule without hurting our bottom line?” That is another strike against mandatory time off that is valid. A fourth strike against it may be that wrestlers will be worse off if they have nowhere to be (ie: work) and have to spend weeks at a time at home. Not only could wrestlers get into trouble, but they could also gain weight that will take weeks to lose. The worst case scenario being that a wrestler that is known for being in shape returns from his hiatus 20 pounds overweight, which either leads to him being off for a longer period of time or appearing in front of crowds and television audiences out of shape.

A third action that WWE could take to prevent wrestlers from dying early in life is to have wrestlers evaluated psychologically in order to see how they are handling the strenuous road schedule as well as the fact that they are in pain and have to constantly keep in shape. In sports like football and baseball, there are sports psychologists that are sometimes called upon by teams or individual players because of a specific incident that needs to be addressed. An example may be a pitcher seeking out help because he can’t find the strike zone for a month or a second basemen who for some reason can’t throw the ball to first base. Because the life of a wrestler has different demands and even someone that superficially appears to be handling the life and the lifestyle may be struggling internally, there should be someone with professional training going on the road with pro wrestlers just in case the wrestler needs to talk to someone. Who knows what would have happened if Chris Benoit had someone to talk to about his paranoia and his marital concerns? More relevant to today, who knows who needs someone to talk to that is keeping his problems hidden inside because he or she feels alone. As alluded to before, while it would be easier to just have the wrestler seek out professional help or have the company seek out said help after an incident occurs that scares the company, because the life of a wrestler is not only dangerous, but often times a life of solitude (ie: being away from family), it is good to have the chance to talk to someone that can truly help you and that has experience dealing with athletes. A doctor will know the direction to take a conversation that may take place with a wrestler that is worried about not looking as good as someone else does that is competing for a top spot in the same company. The one caveat to this idea is that unless a wrestler is in imminent danger of hurting himself or someone else, the doctor cannot do too much with the information that he/she is given. For example if a wrestler talks about taking two more pain pills than prescribed in a day, can the doctor say anything to the company about that? What if a wrestler admits to using steroids, can the doctor bring that information to the company before a round of drug testing? While those are interesting questions, the most important thing is prevention. The prevention of steroids, painkillers and overcompensation for variables that may allow for wrestling to be easier in the short-term are all things that can possibly be provided by doctors.

Wrestling companies would probably say the same thing against psychiatrists that they would say against independent drug testing. It would cost money to hire a doctor or doctors to travel full-time with the company. WWE and TNA would both publicly say that they have open doors and that any talent that has an issue with how they are being used or not having enough time with their family can step up and talk to front office management and have their concerns listened to. The companies may also argue that there is no guarantee that wrestlers would even confide in a psychologist. It would not be financially responsible to hire someone that is not going to be used, when they can always wait for a situation to hire a psychiatrist when it is deemed important and said psychiatrist or therapist will be used.

WWE and TNA as the two major wrestling companies in the United States have an obligation to their talent to look into any avenues that they can to make sure that in 20 years we aren’t talking about this generation’s group of athletes in the same vein as we do the wrestling “heroes” of the 1980’s. Independent drug testing, a lighter schedule and traveling therapists are just three of those avenues and while there are financial considerations that would make all three of them tougher on the pocketbooks of those in control of these companies (and in WWE’s case stockholders), the main focus of any company should be the well-being of their employees.

What is the nature of my client base? Well, obviously students are number one. When we look closer at it for the most part they are students that do not have the time in their busy schedule to write a certain paper to the best of their ability. I can tell you that most of the people that I have worked with are very intelligent and it is more a matter of time constraints that lead them to me more than anything else.

As far as the types of papers  (in terms of subject matter) I have helped students with, this past semester alone I have helped with papers in sociology, psychology, English, mental health counseling, and criminal justice.

I’m still looking for clients for summer classes. If you need help with a paper or just a homework assignment I am ready and able to assist.