Saturday, November 10, 2007
Signal Phrase Comparison
Looking back at my summary, my signal phrases sometimes usually showed some of my own tone while also keeping some of the author’s. I got the impression from the readings that we are suppose to use our signal phrases to help show our point of view, but I found it hard to express a point of view with a summary. I also was confused on assignment, in that I felt like I was suppose to be citing the sources that Beaty cited, rather than citing the article pages. If I did this wrong please inform me. And looking at my sources for the research paper, I am wondering the same thing, weather or not we are suppose to cite the article where we obtained our information, or where that article obtained its information.
Serial Killers
In the article, What Makes a Serial Killer, La Donna Beaty explores the many different aspects of serial killers. La Donna begins by first discussing what makes up a serial killer, then proceeds to discuss possible causes for their inhumane crimes, and concludes with conveying the importance of studying serial killers to in the future prevent other serial killers.
The article begins with showing what makes a serial killer by using series of facts and statistics about serial killers. La Donna acknowledges that “serial killings are not a new phenomenon,” then tells the horrific story of two serial killers from 1798 (315). Beaty then lists two estimates, one from Ann Rule, “that between 3,500 and 5,000 people become victims of serial murder each year in the United States alone,” and the startling estimate that“350 serial killers currently at large in our society;” both of which come from from Serial Murder by Holmes and DeBurger (315). Beaty finalizes the characteristics of serial killers with her rhetorical question; “what could possibly turn attractive, ambitious human beings into cold-blooded monsters (316)?”
La Donna goes on to explore many theories that cause people to become so destructive. Beaty reveals that one cause maybe from the presence of violence in society and the television (316). The result, as summed up by Beaty is that “it is, therefore, possible that after viewing increasing amounts of violence, such children determine that this is acceptable behavior; when they are then punished for similar actions, they may become confused and angry and eventually lash out by committing horrible, violent acts (317).” Similar to the influence of society, Beaty states the next theory, the influence of family (317). La Donna incorporates the prior theory of media influence, with the family influence theory to show two possibilities, that the television along with family encourage violence, or that the influence of the family determines a child’s morals, and this allows a child to neglect the influence of media.
Beaty’s third theory explores mental illness. She charges that the rise in serial killings could be result of the deinstitutionalization movement, and uses examples of mentally ill serial killers to back up her claim (Beaty 318-319). La Donna’s fourth theory presented is the possibility that genetic makeup and certain portions of the brain could be an influence in serial killing. Beaty reports that Lawernce Taylor’s Born to Crime found that unusual brain waves “have been found in only 10 to 15 percent of the general population, but over 79 percent of known serial killers test positive for these waves (320). Beaty’s final present theory is the influence of alcohol use. She defends this theory with stunning statistics noting the presence of intoxicating levels of alcohol in a majority of murders, and serial killers with family histories of alcohol abuse (320).
The article then concludes with Beaty showing the importance of studying serial killers, in that by studying then, we may find ways to prevent future serial killers (320).
The article begins with showing what makes a serial killer by using series of facts and statistics about serial killers. La Donna acknowledges that “serial killings are not a new phenomenon,” then tells the horrific story of two serial killers from 1798 (315). Beaty then lists two estimates, one from Ann Rule, “that between 3,500 and 5,000 people become victims of serial murder each year in the United States alone,” and the startling estimate that“350 serial killers currently at large in our society;” both of which come from from Serial Murder by Holmes and DeBurger (315). Beaty finalizes the characteristics of serial killers with her rhetorical question; “what could possibly turn attractive, ambitious human beings into cold-blooded monsters (316)?”
La Donna goes on to explore many theories that cause people to become so destructive. Beaty reveals that one cause maybe from the presence of violence in society and the television (316). The result, as summed up by Beaty is that “it is, therefore, possible that after viewing increasing amounts of violence, such children determine that this is acceptable behavior; when they are then punished for similar actions, they may become confused and angry and eventually lash out by committing horrible, violent acts (317).” Similar to the influence of society, Beaty states the next theory, the influence of family (317). La Donna incorporates the prior theory of media influence, with the family influence theory to show two possibilities, that the television along with family encourage violence, or that the influence of the family determines a child’s morals, and this allows a child to neglect the influence of media.
Beaty’s third theory explores mental illness. She charges that the rise in serial killings could be result of the deinstitutionalization movement, and uses examples of mentally ill serial killers to back up her claim (Beaty 318-319). La Donna’s fourth theory presented is the possibility that genetic makeup and certain portions of the brain could be an influence in serial killing. Beaty reports that Lawernce Taylor’s Born to Crime found that unusual brain waves “have been found in only 10 to 15 percent of the general population, but over 79 percent of known serial killers test positive for these waves (320). Beaty’s final present theory is the influence of alcohol use. She defends this theory with stunning statistics noting the presence of intoxicating levels of alcohol in a majority of murders, and serial killers with family histories of alcohol abuse (320).
The article then concludes with Beaty showing the importance of studying serial killers, in that by studying then, we may find ways to prevent future serial killers (320).
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Even More Articles
Author: Sievert, Ronald J. Source: Texas Review of Law & Politics; Spring2007, Vol. 11 Issue 2, p319-351, 33p Title: Patriot 2005-2007: Truth, Controversy, and Consequences
Patriot 2005-2007: Truth, Controversy, and Consequences by Ronald J. Sievert discusses the Patriot Act, its origins, amendments to it, controversy, and consequences of the act and its legal status. It begins with an introduction showing some causes of the Patriot Act, from a lack of communication between the CIA and FBI, FISA, and 9/11. It then goes into recent looks at the Patriot Act, and the publicity it received which caused the Act to be placed under relevant review. It then goes on to show how the Patriot Act has amended certain sections of FISA in order for the intelligence branches of the government to obtain information regarding terrorism. It then goes into how new technology is being targeted, (computers mainly), because there are few acts defending them. It then goes into further detail of how provisions of the Patriot Act which restrict National Security Letters from appearing in court obviously violate the First Amendment. After this discussion is the use of warrants. It shows how warrants issued by the Patriot Act are far different from the standard warrant, in that the subject of the warrant is uninformed about the search until long after the information is obtained, whereas a standard warrant allows the subject to be knowledgeable about the search. The author concludes by pointing out that the Patriot Act has been the subject of politics and emotion, where it really should be examined as a much greater threat, and seen as something more serious than a political stance.
Author: McNeil, Christopher B. Source: Widener Law Journal; 2005, Vol. 15 Issue 1, p109-133, 25p. Title: Shifts in Policy and Power: Calculating the Consequences of Increased Prosecutorial Power and Reduced Judicial Authority in Post-September 11 America
Shifts in Policy and Power: Calculating the Consequences of Increased Prosecutorial Power and Reduced Judicial Authority in Post-September 11 America by Christopher B. McNeil discusses the Patriot Act and the shift of power from the judicial branch to the executive branch. The article dives right into acts that are “amended” by the Patriot Act. One such example is the requirement that the INS bring an arrested person before an officer within a set time. The article goes on to show a history of the shift of power even before the Patriot Act. It also delves into laws and requiring minimum sentences for standards which came from the pressure of the executive branch. Next, the article compares the U.S. legal system to the Japanese, where the U.S. is evolving into the less natural rights granting government of Japan. The secrecy involved in obtaining information through the Patriot Act is then further compared to the government of Japan. The article concludes by noting that we can learn a lot by simply examining the Japanese prosecuting system of government, and realize that the Patriot Act is pushing us towards it.
Title: Challenging the Legality of Section 106 of the USA Patriot Act Author: Flint, Charles A. Source: Albany Law Review; 2004, Vol. 67 Issue 3, p1183-1205, 23 p.
Challenging the Legality of Section 106 of the USA Patriot Act by Charles A. Flint shows the violations of our natural rights and legal violations involved with section 106 of the Patriot Act. The introduction points out the hasty passing of the Act in front of Congress. It then shows numerous cases and other acts of congress which the Patriot Act disregards and violates. It then shows how its definition of an enemy is not properly defined and how the vague wording of the document allow for an almost limitless use of power by the government. After going into a history of International law from WWII and the 1800’s, it shows how the Patriot Act could contradict property rights set forth by international law. It then shows how the International emergency Economic Powers Act has been reinstated with the power behind section 106 of the Patriot Act. It concludes by pointing out how the government was too quick to grant the executive power to prevent more events after 9/11, and in doing so violated the law with the passing of the Patriot Act.
Patriot 2005-2007: Truth, Controversy, and Consequences by Ronald J. Sievert discusses the Patriot Act, its origins, amendments to it, controversy, and consequences of the act and its legal status. It begins with an introduction showing some causes of the Patriot Act, from a lack of communication between the CIA and FBI, FISA, and 9/11. It then goes into recent looks at the Patriot Act, and the publicity it received which caused the Act to be placed under relevant review. It then goes on to show how the Patriot Act has amended certain sections of FISA in order for the intelligence branches of the government to obtain information regarding terrorism. It then goes into how new technology is being targeted, (computers mainly), because there are few acts defending them. It then goes into further detail of how provisions of the Patriot Act which restrict National Security Letters from appearing in court obviously violate the First Amendment. After this discussion is the use of warrants. It shows how warrants issued by the Patriot Act are far different from the standard warrant, in that the subject of the warrant is uninformed about the search until long after the information is obtained, whereas a standard warrant allows the subject to be knowledgeable about the search. The author concludes by pointing out that the Patriot Act has been the subject of politics and emotion, where it really should be examined as a much greater threat, and seen as something more serious than a political stance.
Author: McNeil, Christopher B. Source: Widener Law Journal; 2005, Vol. 15 Issue 1, p109-133, 25p. Title: Shifts in Policy and Power: Calculating the Consequences of Increased Prosecutorial Power and Reduced Judicial Authority in Post-September 11 America
Shifts in Policy and Power: Calculating the Consequences of Increased Prosecutorial Power and Reduced Judicial Authority in Post-September 11 America by Christopher B. McNeil discusses the Patriot Act and the shift of power from the judicial branch to the executive branch. The article dives right into acts that are “amended” by the Patriot Act. One such example is the requirement that the INS bring an arrested person before an officer within a set time. The article goes on to show a history of the shift of power even before the Patriot Act. It also delves into laws and requiring minimum sentences for standards which came from the pressure of the executive branch. Next, the article compares the U.S. legal system to the Japanese, where the U.S. is evolving into the less natural rights granting government of Japan. The secrecy involved in obtaining information through the Patriot Act is then further compared to the government of Japan. The article concludes by noting that we can learn a lot by simply examining the Japanese prosecuting system of government, and realize that the Patriot Act is pushing us towards it.
Title: Challenging the Legality of Section 106 of the USA Patriot Act Author: Flint, Charles A. Source: Albany Law Review; 2004, Vol. 67 Issue 3, p1183-1205, 23 p.
Challenging the Legality of Section 106 of the USA Patriot Act by Charles A. Flint shows the violations of our natural rights and legal violations involved with section 106 of the Patriot Act. The introduction points out the hasty passing of the Act in front of Congress. It then shows numerous cases and other acts of congress which the Patriot Act disregards and violates. It then shows how its definition of an enemy is not properly defined and how the vague wording of the document allow for an almost limitless use of power by the government. After going into a history of International law from WWII and the 1800’s, it shows how the Patriot Act could contradict property rights set forth by international law. It then shows how the International emergency Economic Powers Act has been reinstated with the power behind section 106 of the Patriot Act. It concludes by pointing out how the government was too quick to grant the executive power to prevent more events after 9/11, and in doing so violated the law with the passing of the Patriot Act.
Plagiarism. YIKES!
This article made me afraid of citing my sources. Noah made great points that plagiarism is what is and not something that can be bent to meet the wishes of those who unintentionally partake. Noah’s links serve to provide a direct reference along with showing where he precisely got his information from. The links help to show the unaware audience what happened in the case along with evidence to back up the fact that she plagiarized despite her claim it was unintentional. I felt that many of the articles that were linked were helpful, whereas the link to the History News Network along with the Barnes’s and Nobel’s selling the book Goodwin plagiarized from was not relevant to the case. I would definitely use links to make an argument on a published website. Links give a direct source as well as where the information came from and other useful information relating to the subject. I thought that Noah’s claim was very persuasive, he simply showed the definition of plagiarism and then showed how Goodwin, despite her intent, committed plagiarism. I find the direct quotes from Goodwin’s writings and that from which she plagiarized to be most persuasive. The argument is simply a logically argument, if she committed plagiarism, then she copied and poorly cited their work. The similarities in the evidence are the only questionable part of the argument, which appear to be closely related.
Freedom of Hate-Speech
I found myself agreeing with what Alan M. Dershowitz had to say about the limits of speech. I especially found myself agreeing with the point he made that if speech that is offensive to one group of people is prohibited, then speech to all groups of people must be prohibited. I agree with this because when you prohibit one group and not another, you have an inequality, which is not equal. This article reinforced my views about freedom of speech. I was Re-reading posts and comments from last week, and most seemed to agree with the idea that speech should not be prohibited. I still feel strongly about this, and feel often that too many people complain about things that are said about them. People should remember that they have the same right to say things back to those people as long as they don’t cross the lines of harassment.
Toulminizing GE
The general electric advertisement claims that GE is making the world a better place. The qualifier is that ecoimagination is “just one way” the world is better. Their reason is that their locomotive is the cleanest GE locomotive ever. Their warrant is implied that a clean environment makes the world a better place. They back this up with the advertisement which focuses on nature while leaving their locomotive in the background. The evidence leaves out the cleanliness of other competitors locomotives along with how clean their other locomotives are. It also leaves out any numbers, research, or statistics to support that their locomotive is eco-friendly.
Toulminizing my article on Patriotism
After rereading my article, I found the necessary elements to be considered a Toulmin argument. The claim I made was that to be patriotic, one must question their government’s actions as well as support the troops regardless of the government’s actions. The reasons for this argument were that as citizens of the U.S., we help decide what our government does, and our troops serve to protect our freedoms. A warrant I made was that supporting the troops does not mean that a patriot also supports the war. My backing for this was that a patriot becomes informed with the actions of their government, and takes action to either support or rally against the government’s actions, by using their rights. My evidence for my claim was a series of quotes along with the definition of a patriot. The authority of my evidence ranged from a dictionary, to the president, to academic officials and simple newspaper columnists. My paper contained the consideration of rebuttal for a patriot supporting the government despite the government’s actions. My response to this was that a patriot supports their country, and our country is run by the people, so a patriot does what they see fit rather than what the country sees fit.
Laughing at my Big Brother
http://unclehornhead.blogspot.com/2004_07_01_unclehornhead_archive.html
http://www.sivacracy.net/critical_information_studies/
www.inthesetimes.com/article/2130/before_sunset/
I choose two more politically humorous visuals and one used to evoke emotion. I have always felt that behind jokes there is always at least a little truth, but I feel these visuals use the humor to expose a lot of truth. Also in an age where A.D.D. is now a diagnosable disorder, humor is a great device to capture the attention of an audience. The picture of the man with Patriot duct taped over his mouth clearly shows the view that the Patriot Act limits freedom of speech. Humor alone won't sell an argument seriously, so serious images are needed to be portrayed as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)