Pictures

http://www.evergreen.edu/library/govdocs/hotopics/usapatriotact/index.html
http://www.theonion.comcontentnode27421
http://www.peaceworkmagazine.org/pwork/0512/051232.htm

I think these images will work well in persuading as well as enlightening. The one image has various violations of the patriot in the image itself. Another is a political cartoon criticizing the lack of effectiveness of the Patriot Act, along with who is searched. The third image shows that people are taking action and that more people should, because the act is unconstitutional.

More Articles

Title: When Patriots Dissent. Author: David Weigel. Source: Reason; Nov2005, Vol. 37 Issue 6, p32-38, 7p, 4c
This article began with the events of 9/11 that led up to the passing of the U.S. Patriot Act. It also showed how the media along with the Republican support of the bill put a man into the Senate, and since then, has had the popularity of the Bill has declined. It then goes onto to show the hasty passing of the Act through Congress in that it was met with little opposition and even fewer people who cared to read through the four-hundred some pages of the act. It then goes further to discuss various anti-legislation acts against the bill, but none really were effective until 2005, because of violations of the power in the Patriot Act that occurred against a professor in 2004. It then concludes with how the margin of victory in congress over the bill has been declining as attempts to amend it have come to the table.
Title: The Civil Rights of “Others”: Antiterrorism, The Patriot Act, and Arab and South Asian American Rights in Post-9.11 American Society. Author: Sekhon, Vijay. Source: Texas Journal on Civil Liberties & Civil Rights; Spring2003, Vol. 8 Issue 1, p117, 32p.
This article begins with how the Patriot specifically targets Arabs and other races by simply placing their race in the very articles of the Patriot Act. It then continues to various other violations of the 1st Amendment as well as violations of cases previously decided on matters involved with the right to privacy. It finished by pointing out the unconstitutionality in obtaining warrants to search suspects.
Title: STATEMENT OF BARBARA COMSTOCK, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGARDING SECTION 215 OF THE USA PATRIOT ACT: Author: Agency Group 07 Source: FDCH Regulatory Intelligence Database; 07/30/2003
This was a statement released by the Director of Public Affairs, in which Barbara Comstock defended section 215 of the Patriot, one of the most criticized sections. She did so by noting that the Patriot Act was passed almost unanimously, that section 215 has a very narrow scope of power, and that it cannot be used in domestic terrorism crimes. Furthermore, it can only be used with a court order, and the Attorney General is required to address Congress with the amount of times it has been sought after, granted, denied, and/or modified.

Freedom of Speech

I found myself agreeing with Derek Bok’s essay “Protecting Freedom of Expression at Harvard.” I have always thought it to be hypocritical to say freedom of speech and then not allowed to say certain things. Logically, the two contradict one another. Even in a situation with “hate speech,” one needs to be allowed to speak, even if what they are speaking about is immoral. If we restrict speech from others, what prohibits others from restricting our speech from us? If someone wants to give “hate speech” on a campus, they should be allowed to. While I think this would be a very bad idea, if someone wants to do this, let them. If you know what is right and wrong, what will someone else’s opinion matter? While we may not like what someone is saying, to allow them to say it is one of the few costs to be able to say what we want. It seems like the current way to deal with a situation is to say what others want to hear rather than what one actually wants to thinks about a situation. When our rights don’t interfere with the rights of others, they don’t need to be restricted. It’s when our speech harasses others or directly interferes with their rights that speech needs to be restricted. I often don’t say what’s on my mind simply because I am afraid to offend people, and most people wouldn’t realize that in most cases I am joking. Although I feel pressured to not say certain things, I have never felt that my right to say them has been violated, I have always felt that I could say them if I truly desired to. In summary, you can’t restrict certain speech and turn around and say that there is freedom of speech, if someone wants to say something, let them say it, it’s their right and yours.

Darfur (#4 pg. 135)

This visual argument is made to persuade people that the genocide in Darfur affects everyone. The image creates an emotional argument that appeals to all audiences through its simplistic image of having relatives simply crossed out. The visual assumes that its audience knows about the genocide occurring in Darfur and creates sympathy through our own connection with our own relatives. It relates this through the simple phrase at the top “what happens to Darfur happens to us.” The main argument here is that its not only Darfur that is affected by the genocide, but everyone, which is why the argument is effective in persuading its audience.

Poverty (#3 pg. 135)

This advertisement makes a rather emotional argument that poverty in Lagos is ignored. This could be an argument for the claim that poverty is a problem. The picture along with the few words depicts how poverty is ignored and how awful poverty is. The picture is very emotional, seeing the poor struggling person whom is ignored by everything around her, even the vehicle passing by which could have easily crushed her mistakenly. The picture evokes sadness and pity for people affected by poverty and works to persuade an audience to start caring.

Articles Using Academic Search Premier

Title: The Patriot Act Illuminated. Author: George A. Pike. Source: Information Today; May 2007, Volume 24, Issue 5, pg 17-18
This article, The Patriot Act Illuminated, dissects and illuminates the errors of the Patriot Act and its revisions. The article points out very clearly the issues involving civil liberties, the investigation, and records. The Patriot Act’s powers are also presented clearly and shown. The article has many numbers and supports statements well.
Title: Audit FBI Misused USA Patriot Act. Source: American Libraries, April 2007, Vol. 38, issue 4, pg 19-21.
This article pointed out the misuse of power given by the Patriot Act. An audit of the FBI revealed that the FBI has misused and not properly recorded their use of the National Security Letters. The FBI director expressed it was his fault that he did not set up a proper audit system to prevent illegal misuse of the Patriot Act.
Title: Criticism Over Patriot Act Use. Author: Norman Oder. Source: Library Journal, 04/01/2007, Vol. 132 issue 6, pg 14-15.
This article showed the Office of the Inspector General’s criticism of the Department of Justice’s poor governing of the Patriot Act. The article discusses two reports issued on the Patriot Act, specifically regarding misuse of National Security Letters. The American Library Association thanked congress for looking into the matter and asked that the Patriot Act be more specific.

Biased Interview Questions

Here is a list of questions which show bias in persuading an answer. Are you in favor of the protection of the United States because of the Patriot Act? Do you favor the Patriot Act even though it takes away our right to privacy? Do you support or oppose the Patriot Act? Do you believe the benefits of the Patriot Act outweigh the costs of freedom?

USA Today Claims

I made three rather ridiculous claims from a graph of adults behind bars that showed that nearly 1,900,000 were men and only about 200,000 were women. The U.S. criminal system is extremely sexist, seeing as there are nearly ten times more men in prison than women. Men are much more likely to become criminals than women. Women are faster than men, because there are more men in prison than women, showing that women can outrun cops faster than men.

OVRC, my favorite

I was very impressed with the information the Opposing Viewpoint Research Center had to offer. Considering myself a moderate, I thought this website offered awesome information on a lot of subjects, I found myself looking into other topics aside from the one I choose this week. However, the information that was on the topic of the Patriot Act was excellent. I found many well argued points from both sides, pointing out the contradiction of the act as well as the necessity for the act to protect our rights. I’ve been undecided on this subject, and after looking at several of the articles the OVRC offered, am still undecided. I know right where to look to make a supported argument on the topic, or many others if I need to.

Big Brother and the Patriot Act

I read an editorial article, “spies, lies, and FISA,” in the New York Times about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Patriot Act. This article interests me because these Acts have been around and gone about practically unchallenged while they invade our right to privacy. This act affects nearly all communication you have with others through any form of technology, whether it be your cell phone or the internet. This topic is researchable because there is a great deal of information and arguments on whether or not it is unconstitutional. I believe it is a very important topic, because our rights are what our country tries so hard to defend, and if our country is violating the rights it stands by, then something is terribly wrong. People should care about this topic because without our rights, we have no protection against anything, so we should learn the truth about if in fact our rights are being violated by these acts.

#4 on pg. 201

As video recording technology becomes less and less expensive, video cameras will become more readily available. Like most laws, video cameras today serve to protect our rights and reveal the truth. Although they are serving to protect us, cameras also seem to be interfering in our rights to privacy.
Video-recorded events involving cops disobeying the law has increased greatly. I believe that this is one of the benefits of video devices, the protection of the citizen against the executive branch. You can see the amount of video cases just by typing in “police brutality” at youtube.com’s website and seeing that nearly 2,500 search results pop up. The more present the devices, the more likely law enforcement are to obey their own laws.
Also among the government employed, teachers also are not wishing to be video recorded. Many schools are prohibiting students from carrying any form of electronic device. Teachers are also being caught doing things that they shouldn’t be because of students with pocket-sized video-recording cell phones; and schools are taking the heat.
In the same ways that government authorities are caught abusing their powers on citizens, citizens are being caught disobeying the law. Cameras placed on roads are a primary example of cameras used to catch citizens disobeying the law. The article “Caught” by Erin Mahoney and Joanne Helperin revealed that eighteen states along with the District of Columbia have had traffic cameras installed. With the cost of technology decreasing, the amount of cameras and the states they are located in will more than likely increase.
Some are arguing that these cameras aren’t merely defending the law, but rather abusing the law to create revenue. The same article points out that the cameras are found primarily in wealthy cities with large amounts of traffic; not in small cities with high-risk traffic areas. If the purpose of the cameras was for the defense of the public, then cameras would be placed at high-risk intersections rather than solely in high-traffic intersections.
So do the benefits of cameras out-weigh the costs? For now they seem to; they protect us from police brutality, bad teachers, and many others, all for the cost of the occasional traffic violation (assuming you don’t always obey traffic laws). But are cameras a good judge of a situation? A camera can only offer a two-dimensional view of a three-dimensional situation, which many people forget. And like cameras, our eyes have only a two-dimensional view (with a tad bit of depth perception). Cameras help to bring everybody to the same perception, whether or not it is the right one.

#1 on pg. 200

When I say a topic is worthwhile to people, I am saying that the people will take some action, whether it being simply spreading the information, or becoming active in marching, giving donations, or joining organizations.
Hurricanes are increasing in number and ferocity. The statement doesn’t seem like a very worthwhile cause by itself, and seems lacking in a purpose. However, the claim would probably carry more weight at costal colleges rather than land locked colleges.
Many people die annually of cancer. This claim seems to be too wide and not personal enough. A better claim might be: every year, more and more people are affected by breast cancer. I think a revision of the claim that narrowed the type of cancer would be worth arguing to a college audience, to encourage action and donations for causes against cancer.
Fewer people would die of heart disease each year if more of them paid attention to their diets. This seems like a worthwhile argument seeing as heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States.
Japan might have come to terms more readily in 1945 if the Allies hadn’t demanded unconditional surrender. This claim I don’t feel would appeal to a college audience as much as it would veterans, war historians, and history majors.
Boys would do better in school if there were more men teaching in elementary and secondary classrooms. This statement I think would be very intriguing and meaningful to college students, especially ones pursuing educational careers.
The ever-increasing number of minorities in higher education is evidence that racial problems have just about ended in the United States. This claim is very weak by itself. Even with further evidence, I think the claim would be fought with resistance at most colleges.
There aren’t enough high-paying jobs for college graduates these days. This claim would probably appeal to college students. Most college students think about starting salary after college, and this argument might help inform them about the cost of college and salary decreasing.
Hydrogen may never be a viable alternative to fossil fuels because it takes too much energy to change hydrogen into a useable form. Fossil fuels are a hot topic, so I believe this would draw the attention of many college students. It would also raise awareness to find other sources of energy.
Only one of the first forty-three presidents of the United States was a Catholic. I fail to find the argument in the claim, the claim is merely a statement of fact.
Political activists have grossly exaggerated the effects of the USA Patriot Act on free expression. Our first amendment rights are always a hot topic, and the truth behind the Patriot Act would be worth arguing to college students.