Description 1- It is a beautiful day in Harrisonburg Virginia on the lush quad of JMU. Students are outside frolicking and playing with their pets on the nice lawn. I sit on the cool grass and think about the natural beauty Harrisonburg has to offer. I watch the grand clock atop Wilson Hall and listen to it chime as the hour changes. Students are giddily playing ultimate Frisbee on the snow covered field. As I am sitting a cute golden retriever comes up to say hello, with his friendly owner in suit. She is glad to be out on this beautiful winter day. The trees are all adorned with a thin layer of white powdery snow. The sun shines bright in the horizon and all the students are ecstatic that they have found time in their busy days to come and enjoy the beautiful outdoors. I hope I can spend more time outside in the future.
Description 2- It is a bitterly cold day in the middle of nowhere, Virginia. I am sitting on this frozen tundra watching annoying kids attempt to play football as they slide all over the place. My hands are becoming numb as I sit and wait and look at the dead field and trees as they blow in the gusting wind. Then as I am close to freezing to death the huge clock starts annoyingly chiming over and over again while I am trying to relax. Than all of a sudden I am attacked by this annoying dog and her extremely chipper owner. The sun is shining directly in my eyes and being outdoors is extremely unpleasant. I cannot wait to get out of this hellish environment.
Reflection- This assignment was interesting because it shows how their are a variety ways to look at a situation. Depending on the attitude or mood a person is in can affect the way they look at a situation. Word choice is imperative in making a tone or shedding a certain light on a situation. words that have negative connotation such as "hellish" or "annoying." Seeing rhetorically is important because depending on the writers rhetoric, the situation can be shown in a different light depending. It can be misleading and authors can intentionally change the reader's perception of a situation by changing their rhetoric. Each author also has a different angle of vision that he or she will take on a certain subject. That angle is determined by prior experience and a variety of different factors. At the time of my observing, I was in a good mood, so I saw the landscape in a positive light. Therefore, writing the negative toned description was much harder for me. This assignment really helped me realize the vast amounts of ways that a situation can be looked at and interpreted.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Monday, February 2, 2009
Rhetorical Analysis
Text
The Fourth Amendment Diluted
With a lamentable 5-to-4 ruling on Wednesday, the Supreme Court carved a new exception to the nearly century-old exclusionary rule, which forbids prosecutors from using evidence obtained by the police as the result of an improper search. The result was a meaningful dilution of Americans’ Fourth Amendment protections and one more instance of the court’s conservative majority upsetting precedent without admitting that it is doing so.
The case centered on the 2004 arrest of Bennie Dean Herring by police officers in Coffee County, Ala., based on a mistaken belief that he was the subject of an outstanding warrant. It turned out that the warrant, although still in the computerized database of a neighboring town, had been withdrawn five months earlier. By the time the error was discovered, officers had stopped Mr. Herring, handcuffed him, searched him and his truck and found methamphetamine and an unloaded pistol.
No one disputed that Mr. Herring’s arrest lacked probable cause and that both the arrest and the search were therefore unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court declined to exclude the seized evidence, and upheld Mr. Herring’s conviction on drug and gun charges. The arrest was based on careless police record-keeping rather intentional misconduct, the court reasoned.
“To trigger the exclusionary rule,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, “police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system.” The decision instructs judges to use a sliding scale to decide whether police misconduct warrants suppressing evidence.
That may seem reasonable, but it ignores both the inadequacy in the real world of using a cost-benefit calculus to deter unconstitutional law enforcement conduct, and the harm of involving the courts in trampling on people’s rights by admitting the fruits of an unconstitutional search. The decision also overlooks the importance of preserving a strong incentive for maintaining accurate, up-to-date records in an era of increased law-enforcement reliance on coordinated computer databases. These points were noted by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a thoughtful dissenting opinion.
The outcome was not very surprising. In recent years, the court has carved out several “good faith” exceptions to the exclusionary rule, and justices on the court’s right flank have made no secret of their ambition to carve out more. But until this week, those exceptions were limited to instances when the improper search resulted from nonpolice errors, say by judicial officers or a legislature — not solely from police behavior.
The danger of this ruling is that judges will read its broad reasoning to prevent the exclusion of evidence in cases of negligent police conduct going well beyond sloppy record-keeping.
Analysis
The title of the article is very eye catching as well as compelling. People are instantly frightened anytime the constitution is in question. The author is also instantly given credibility by writing for the New York Times. He also has an expansive vocabulary and seems educated on the topic.
His stance becomes clear in the first sentence when he uses the word "lamentable" in reference to the ruling that created a new exception in the introduction of evidence that was gained without a search warrant. He is very short and concise about the facts of the case, in order to help his point. He explains that the warrant expired and that the police than searched his car finding drugs and a gun. The Supreme Court than decided that the arrest was based on "careless" police records not on foul play. The word careless is important because it is open to interpretation and so vague.
The chief justice ruling that the conduct must be "sufficiently deliberate" in using wrongfully found evidence. The author than uses a good metaphor and compares that to a sliding scale that decides if police misconduct is worth the exclusion of evidence. This shows his feelings that this will lead to problems with interpretation in the future.
The fourth paragraph contains much of his argument. He goes through the points that this decision will lead to poor police record keeping, "tramples peoples rights", and involves the higher court system more than they have to be.
The last sentence of the article is the most powerful. He writes "The danger of this ruling is that judges will read its broad reasoning to prevent the exclusion of evidence in cases of negligent police conduct going well beyond sloppy record-keeping. This is important because he instills fear in the reader and makes them think about the variety of ways this decision could be interpreted. He strongly hints at the fact that police will now be able to use this decision to their advantage and maybe able to blame their misconduct on "bad record-keeping." This could really violate the rights of the accused and evidence that is obtained illegally maybe introduced through this new loophole.
The organization chosen by the author is fitting because he uses a closed form but his thesis is really the last sentence. He gives all the facts and leads up to his main point, which is given in the last sentence.
The author relies on logos mostly and explains the facts of the case and sites reliable sources such as Chief Justice John Roberts and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He also uses pathos when he brings into the fact that the police may use this to bring in illegal evidence. The idea of a crooked police force and the removal of constitutional rights really frightens the general public.
The Fourth Amendment Diluted
With a lamentable 5-to-4 ruling on Wednesday, the Supreme Court carved a new exception to the nearly century-old exclusionary rule, which forbids prosecutors from using evidence obtained by the police as the result of an improper search. The result was a meaningful dilution of Americans’ Fourth Amendment protections and one more instance of the court’s conservative majority upsetting precedent without admitting that it is doing so.
The case centered on the 2004 arrest of Bennie Dean Herring by police officers in Coffee County, Ala., based on a mistaken belief that he was the subject of an outstanding warrant. It turned out that the warrant, although still in the computerized database of a neighboring town, had been withdrawn five months earlier. By the time the error was discovered, officers had stopped Mr. Herring, handcuffed him, searched him and his truck and found methamphetamine and an unloaded pistol.
No one disputed that Mr. Herring’s arrest lacked probable cause and that both the arrest and the search were therefore unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court declined to exclude the seized evidence, and upheld Mr. Herring’s conviction on drug and gun charges. The arrest was based on careless police record-keeping rather intentional misconduct, the court reasoned.
“To trigger the exclusionary rule,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, “police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system.” The decision instructs judges to use a sliding scale to decide whether police misconduct warrants suppressing evidence.
That may seem reasonable, but it ignores both the inadequacy in the real world of using a cost-benefit calculus to deter unconstitutional law enforcement conduct, and the harm of involving the courts in trampling on people’s rights by admitting the fruits of an unconstitutional search. The decision also overlooks the importance of preserving a strong incentive for maintaining accurate, up-to-date records in an era of increased law-enforcement reliance on coordinated computer databases. These points were noted by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a thoughtful dissenting opinion.
The outcome was not very surprising. In recent years, the court has carved out several “good faith” exceptions to the exclusionary rule, and justices on the court’s right flank have made no secret of their ambition to carve out more. But until this week, those exceptions were limited to instances when the improper search resulted from nonpolice errors, say by judicial officers or a legislature — not solely from police behavior.
The danger of this ruling is that judges will read its broad reasoning to prevent the exclusion of evidence in cases of negligent police conduct going well beyond sloppy record-keeping.
Analysis
The title of the article is very eye catching as well as compelling. People are instantly frightened anytime the constitution is in question. The author is also instantly given credibility by writing for the New York Times. He also has an expansive vocabulary and seems educated on the topic.
His stance becomes clear in the first sentence when he uses the word "lamentable" in reference to the ruling that created a new exception in the introduction of evidence that was gained without a search warrant. He is very short and concise about the facts of the case, in order to help his point. He explains that the warrant expired and that the police than searched his car finding drugs and a gun. The Supreme Court than decided that the arrest was based on "careless" police records not on foul play. The word careless is important because it is open to interpretation and so vague.
The chief justice ruling that the conduct must be "sufficiently deliberate" in using wrongfully found evidence. The author than uses a good metaphor and compares that to a sliding scale that decides if police misconduct is worth the exclusion of evidence. This shows his feelings that this will lead to problems with interpretation in the future.
The fourth paragraph contains much of his argument. He goes through the points that this decision will lead to poor police record keeping, "tramples peoples rights", and involves the higher court system more than they have to be.
The last sentence of the article is the most powerful. He writes "The danger of this ruling is that judges will read its broad reasoning to prevent the exclusion of evidence in cases of negligent police conduct going well beyond sloppy record-keeping. This is important because he instills fear in the reader and makes them think about the variety of ways this decision could be interpreted. He strongly hints at the fact that police will now be able to use this decision to their advantage and maybe able to blame their misconduct on "bad record-keeping." This could really violate the rights of the accused and evidence that is obtained illegally maybe introduced through this new loophole.
The organization chosen by the author is fitting because he uses a closed form but his thesis is really the last sentence. He gives all the facts and leads up to his main point, which is given in the last sentence.
The author relies on logos mostly and explains the facts of the case and sites reliable sources such as Chief Justice John Roberts and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He also uses pathos when he brings into the fact that the police may use this to bring in illegal evidence. The idea of a crooked police force and the removal of constitutional rights really frightens the general public.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Angle of Vision
Angle of vision is a hard thing to think about when writing. Whether writing a paper or just an email, thinking about the angle of vision is necesarry. It is amazing how some authors, think about the angle of vision throughout their entire novels. They achieve a strong angle of vision by either leaving details excluded, or adding them into their works. The audience plays a huge part in which angle of vision a writer takes. If a writer is writing for a conservative editorial, they will take a very different angle than if they were writing for the New York Times. This technique is used a lot in the media, especially within the news world, when anchors report on stories. The news station determines what angle they are to take. Some details are downplayed and some are highlighted in order for the story to fit in with the beliefs of the audience. The most interesting thing about the angle of vision is that there is no correct one. Each writer has a different angle towards a subject based on their beliefs and values.
I find it very hard in an argument paper to take an angle of vision because many times teachers will critique for not showing the other side of the argument, or playing both sides. I think it is essential to have a good balance between hiding the contradicting details and underplaying them. The art of using the angle of vision is something that clearly needs to practiced in order to be effective.
I find it very hard in an argument paper to take an angle of vision because many times teachers will critique for not showing the other side of the argument, or playing both sides. I think it is essential to have a good balance between hiding the contradicting details and underplaying them. The art of using the angle of vision is something that clearly needs to practiced in order to be effective.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Believing/Doubting
Arthur Miller's satirical piece "Get It Right. Privatize Executions." is clearly a critique of capital punishment. However, the ideas that Miller presents may actually have some validity.
Idea-Privatizing executions is a good idea
Believe- Miller presents some ideas that may make sense if executions were privatized. He mentions the fact that the executions would draw an audience, which could than lead to money for the state. He also brings up the fact that witnessing the executions of criminals would deter anyone else from thinking about committing crimes and would reward those who are honest. If murderers witnessed capital punishments daily, they may think twice before committing it. Miller references the idea that the criminal would than achieve a sense of purpose in life and may feel that they lived for the entertainment of others, rather than for nothing.
Doubt- The privatizing of executions would lead to more violence that is not necesarry. Children and families do not need to witness the murders of others because these images will be extrememly disturbing. If children grow up witnessing murders they will be much more prone to violence. As Miller wrote, the executions will become boring and people will continue to murder for excitement because they will no longer get the rush they needed from the private executions. Murderers are also not detered by seeeing acts of violence, because it takes a derranged person to take the life of someone else deliberatly. By witnessing an execution, many murderers would not think twice before committing a crime. More executions will also lead to the death of innocent people that may have been later released on new evidence after they have been accused. This practice would not prevent murder it would merely expose more to the idea of taking another's life.
Idea-Privatizing executions is a good idea
Believe- Miller presents some ideas that may make sense if executions were privatized. He mentions the fact that the executions would draw an audience, which could than lead to money for the state. He also brings up the fact that witnessing the executions of criminals would deter anyone else from thinking about committing crimes and would reward those who are honest. If murderers witnessed capital punishments daily, they may think twice before committing it. Miller references the idea that the criminal would than achieve a sense of purpose in life and may feel that they lived for the entertainment of others, rather than for nothing.
Doubt- The privatizing of executions would lead to more violence that is not necesarry. Children and families do not need to witness the murders of others because these images will be extrememly disturbing. If children grow up witnessing murders they will be much more prone to violence. As Miller wrote, the executions will become boring and people will continue to murder for excitement because they will no longer get the rush they needed from the private executions. Murderers are also not detered by seeeing acts of violence, because it takes a derranged person to take the life of someone else deliberatly. By witnessing an execution, many murderers would not think twice before committing a crime. More executions will also lead to the death of innocent people that may have been later released on new evidence after they have been accused. This practice would not prevent murder it would merely expose more to the idea of taking another's life.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Breeze Assignment
The article "Popular Drink Contains Risk" has a strong argument, as well as a solid thesis, that is compounded by the paragraphs that follow it. The article is trying to warn the JMU student population that the drink "Joose" may have many dangerous effects that students may not be aware of.
The thesis that Cory Kuklick, the writer of this article, uses appears in the first sentence and really focuses the message that Kuklick is trying to get across. Kuklick writes, "United Brands manufacturing has respelled "juice" to "Joose," and young adults are drinking it up, possibly ignoring the drink's dangerous effects. This sentence introduces the product that Kuklick is going to describe. It is also successful in setting up the idea that "Joose" has harmful effects to those who consume it.
The following paragraphs explain the effects of consuming this new alcoholic beverage. Kuklick displays significant evidence as to why "Joose"
may harm its drinkers. The caffeine in "Joose" is a major problem because the large amount of caffeine, nearly double that of Coca Cola, allows students to feel awake and alert, while they still may be extremely intoxicated. This could lead to alcohol poisoning because students will not realize how intoxicated they truly are. Kuklick quotes many people who have knowlege in the field of college drinking. He quotes Paige Hawkins, the director at the center for substance abuse education, Hawkins says,"Mixing caffeine and alcohol also doubles the likelihood of making destructive decisions, including vandalism and sexual assault." Another issue with the large amounts of caffeine is that those with heart problems maybe making themselves worse each time they consume "Joose," says Howley.
This article was very convincing and persuasive. It explains the detrimental side effects of drinking "Joose" and backs each claim up with a quote from a reliable source on the topic. Hopefully this article can help JMU students make the responsible choice and avoid this new and unsafe product.
The thesis that Cory Kuklick, the writer of this article, uses appears in the first sentence and really focuses the message that Kuklick is trying to get across. Kuklick writes, "United Brands manufacturing has respelled "juice" to "Joose," and young adults are drinking it up, possibly ignoring the drink's dangerous effects. This sentence introduces the product that Kuklick is going to describe. It is also successful in setting up the idea that "Joose" has harmful effects to those who consume it.
The following paragraphs explain the effects of consuming this new alcoholic beverage. Kuklick displays significant evidence as to why "Joose"
may harm its drinkers. The caffeine in "Joose" is a major problem because the large amount of caffeine, nearly double that of Coca Cola, allows students to feel awake and alert, while they still may be extremely intoxicated. This could lead to alcohol poisoning because students will not realize how intoxicated they truly are. Kuklick quotes many people who have knowlege in the field of college drinking. He quotes Paige Hawkins, the director at the center for substance abuse education, Hawkins says,"Mixing caffeine and alcohol also doubles the likelihood of making destructive decisions, including vandalism and sexual assault." Another issue with the large amounts of caffeine is that those with heart problems maybe making themselves worse each time they consume "Joose," says Howley.
This article was very convincing and persuasive. It explains the detrimental side effects of drinking "Joose" and backs each claim up with a quote from a reliable source on the topic. Hopefully this article can help JMU students make the responsible choice and avoid this new and unsafe product.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
About me
Hi, my name is Chris Purcell. I am from Massapequa, New York. Massapequa is about a forty-five minute train ride away from New York City. Because of its close proximity, I frequently visit the city with friends and family. I went to Massapequa High School and played on the tennis team there. In my spare time, i enjoy playing basketball, playing tennis, watching movies and going out with my friends. So far, I am very pleased with my choice of attending JMU. I am a finance major and hope to have the oppurtunity to study abroad. My favorite part of JMU is meeting new people all the time and I look forward to meeting many more as I go through the years at JMU.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)