Major Persuasive Project (rough draft)

See cover letter and brochure in class.

PETA Website

I think there are definitely times when imagery can go too far, and PETA's website is a good example of that. In their video promoting animal birth control, PETA uses video of dogs and cats to create an emotional connection between the viewer and the animals. PETA's goal is to make you feel sorry for the animals and then take some sort of action -- in this case, pledging to have your dog or cat spayed or neutered, as well as to adopt any future pets rather than purchasing them from a pet store or breeder. While I understand that PETA just wants to get its message out to the public, I think the organization often engages in tactics that approach manipulation. Personally, if I had just listened to the audio of the animal birth control video without actually seeing the images, I probably would have disregarded the message. I had a problem with the comparison made between a woman being raped and a female cat in heat; also, I wonder where a lot of there statistics came from. However, because PETA uses images of neglected dogs and cats to make their point, I found myself thinking about how sad the situation was and, ultimately, sympathizing with their message.

Op-Ed Piece

It has been more than eight years since someone was put to death in Washington. As we speak, however, the state Department of Corrections prepares for the scheduled March 13th execution of convicted murderer Cal Coburn Brown. We need to unite and put a stop to this before yet another person loses their life to an unjust system.

There is no denying that capital punishment is an extremely emotional issue. It affects people in a multitude of ways; even those who aren't personally affected have strong opinions on the subject. In fact, the death penalty is one of only two truly divisive issues in today's political landscape (the other being abortion). In this column, I will attempt to move past the emotionality and present some of the strongest arguments that are used in favor of the death penalty, as well as proponents' responses to them.

We as a society tend to assume that every person on death row is guilty. After all, if a jury found the criminal guilty, then they must be guilty, right? Wrong. Between 1973 and 2008, more than 130 people were exonerated in 26 different states. And since 1997, the University of Washington-based Innocence Project Northwest has uncovered evidence to reverse the convictions of 12 people in Washington alone. Even more disturbing, though, are the stories of those who were executed despite evidence of their innocence. Cameron Todd Willingham was put to death in Texas in February 2004 for murdering his three children by setting their house on fire. However, when the Chicago Tribune investigated Willingham's case in the months following his execution, they discovered that the fire was more than likely an accident. That means Willingham died for a crime he didn't commit.

The death penalty is often presented as a way to deter crime. People say that, if would-be criminals know they will be executed for committing murder, they will refrain from doing so. Yet there is no actual evidence of this. In 2000, then-U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno said this: "I have inquired for most of my adult life about studies that might show that the death penalty is a deterrent. And I have not seen any research that would substantiate that point." Perhaps most interesting to Washingtonians, though, is a 2004 study by Joanna Shepherd that looks at the supposed deterrent effect. Shepherd found that executions have deterred murder in only six states, and that Washington is not one of them. In fact Sherpherd points out that Washington is among the 13 states where the murder rate actually increased as a result of having a death penalty statute.

Finally, the cost of executing a criminal far exceeds that of life in prison. While there have been numerous arguments to the contrary, scientific studies have found that an execution is between two and five times more costly to taxpayers than sentencing the murderer to life in prison. The Death Penalty Information Center reports that capital punishment cases at the trial level in Washington State are estimated to generate roughly $470,000 in additional costs to the prosecution and defense over the cost of trying the same case without the death penalty. An additional $47,000 to $70,000 must be paid out to court personnel. The reason for these high costs? Endless appeals and additional required procedures drag the process on longer than most people care to admit. Most defendants spend 15 to 20 years on death row prior to their execution.

Proponents of the death penalty typically offer five justifications for their position. First, it is the appropriate punishment for someone who commits such a serious crime; second, rightful societal vengeance (often referred to as "an eye for an eye"); third, eliminating the possibility that the criminal will return to society; fourth, deterrence against future crimes by other criminals; and fifth, closure for the families of the victims.

What proponents don't realize is that all but one of these justifications can be rebutted. The argument has been made that life in prison is a worse fate than execution, which explains why so many convicted murderers prematurely end the appeals process. Some also say "an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind"; that perhaps the best option is to take the high road and not make murder the answer for murder. Studies have proven that capital punishment deters crime in only six states (Washington is not one of them). Finally, families of murder victims have said that closure never comes, that extending the murderer's trial only prolongs the pain. The only justification that cannot be rebutted is that the death penalty eliminates the possibility that the criminal will return to society.

If this evidence doesn't convince you that the death penalty system is flawed and should be eliminated, nothing will. If it does convince you, though, I urge you to take a stand before Cal Coburn Brown is executed by Washington State next week. Call or e-mail Governor Chris Gregoire, and tell her you won't stand by and watch an unjust system take the life of yet another man. Get involved with the Washington Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. At the very least, talk to your friends and family about capital punishment. Opening the lines of communication is the first step to policy change.

Concepts of Motherhood

For decades, women have fought for equal rights. But now women in the military want to go back to being treated differently than men... does this make sense? In "When Women Go to War," Anne Applebaum argues that single mothers should not be deployed overseas, thus leaving their child(ren) behind without a parent. She says women in the military should be able to take a few years off and then reenlist "with no stigma attached." What Applebaum doesn't mention, though, is the single fathers. She wants women to have the right to take several years off but then doesn't seem willing to extend that same right to men. I would argue, instead, that women who are considering enlisting in the miltary should realize beforehand that this situation will make it difficult to have a child. They should be willing to wait until they are discharged before getting pregnant, rather than asking the military to treat them differently than their male counterparts. If they aren't willing to wait, then perhaps they should find a different job.

In "She's Vain, Clueless, and In the Tabloid Press," D. Parvaz argues that Nadya Suleman's decision to have octuplets -- given her financial situation and the fact that she already had six kids -- was irresponsible. I completely agree. Suleman is under the impression that the most important part of being a parent is loving your child; that, as long as you have love in your heart, everything else will take care of itself. What she didn't consider was the money that is required to raise 14 kids on your own. Being a parent is about more than just love. It's about making the decision to have only as many children as you can take care 0f, both in terms of time and money. Clearly, when you're a single mother trying to raise 14 children, no single kid is going to get the attention he or she deserves, let alone the financial resources. Which means the people of California are stuck paying for Suleman to raise the 14 kids she so irresponsibly gave birth to.

Letter of Intent

I am writing on behalf of the Clean Air Alliance, a Seattle-based organization that has been in existance since 1998. Our goal is to fight air pollution in the greater Seattle area. I am asking for $100,000 to propose a cap-and-trade policy for corporations located within King County that are currently emiting pollution. My proposal would involve giving every corporation 20 pollution credits (or another number -- I would need to do more research first). Any corporation that wants/needs to pollute beyond their 20 credits would need to buy unused credits from other corporations. The price would be based on the supply and demand of pollution credits available in the market. Imposing a cap-and-trade policy would reduce the total pollution in King County, because corporations would finally have to pay for the damage they are doing to the environment.
(Note: I'm not sure exactly how an amount of pollution is measured, so I would need to do a significant amount of research before this letter of intent would be complete. I would also need to figure out what the optimum number of pollution credits to give out would be and how much pollution one credit is equivalent to, among other details.)

Social Justice Idea

An idea for a social justice project is to reduce corporate pollution by instituting a cap-and-trade policy. We all know that pollution hurts the environment, and right now it seems like there are very few restrictions on corporations as far as how much they are allowed to pollute. I personally do not believe the government is doing enough to ensure that the public has clean air to breath, and I think the best way to change that is by instituting a cap-and-trade policy on pollutors. This would severely limit the amount of pollution that a corporation can put off. Each corporation would be given a certain number of pollution credits; those who pollute more than the credits allow would then have to buy credits from other corporations. Eventually, I think corporations would realize the error of their ways and would make a greater effort to reduce the amount of pollution they are emitting into the air.

Minor Persuasive Paper #1

Part One
On the issue of capital punishment, perhaps the best way for me to appear credible or authoritative in the eyes of my audience is by doing my homework. I should demonstrate that I am well-informed when it comes to the various arguments surrounding the death penalty, both in support of and against the policy. It would be in my best interest to read up on other people’s arguments and use them to formulate my own response. This will let the audience know that I take the issue seriously and am dedicated to becoming as knowledgeable as possible about capital punishment. Also, I should make every effort to obtain current statistics – in particular, data pertaining to the cost of an execution versus life in prison, to the application of the death penalty in terms of racial and economic equality, and so on.

Another way to enhance my credibility on the issue is by establishing good character. In Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students, authors Sharon Crowley and Debra Hawhee make suggestions such as citing approval of character by respected authorities, or referring to additional works by the author. However, since I obviously have not had anything published on the death penalty, I will have to utilize other methods to establish good character. One option is to avoid so-called “unfair discursive tactics.” Threats, name-calling, and faulty reasoning, for instance, tell the audience that I do not respect the opinions of my adversaries. This will likely lead the audience to reject my own arguments.

A final way to appear more authoritative when it comes to capital punishment is by securing goodwill. I should establish the goal of my work from the onset and inform the audience of why I believe my argument is so important. Furthermore, the audience should know how they will benefit from reading (or listening to) it. There should be no ulterior motives; rather, the sole purpose of my argument should be to express my opinions on the issue and to attempt to convince others of them. It would also be in my best interest to keep the audience in mind while developing my argument. The audience should be provided with all information necessary to understanding both the issue in general and my argument in particular. However, I should be careful to not repeat information that the audience is already aware of.

Part Two
After reading several online community forums in which the members appeared overwhelmingly united in their opposition to capital punishment, I finally stumbled upon a YouDebate.com forum that featured actual debate on the issue. This is not to say that all of the arguments were particularly persuasive: In fact, I would argue that the majority of the posts were extremely ineffective in trying to convince others of their ideas. However, one member was able to produce a series of sophisticated arguments that far surpassed those of his peers. That person was dsadevil.

Many forum members make seemingly obvious errors in the construction of their arguments. Some rely too heavily on pathetic appeals, using phrases such as “murdered in cold blood” and “horrific crimes” in an attempt to draw on their peers’ emotions. Others resort to name-calling, referring to the opposition as “hypocrites” and “ridiculous.” Still others make broad, sweeping statements that are difficult to back up. One member of the YouDebate.com forum wrote “an eye for an eye” but offered nothing further; another declared “death sux!” (using that exact spelling, followed by a smiley face emoticon) and left it at that. These people either do not realize how weak their arguments are, or simply do not care enough to construct a stronger argument. This leads me to wonder, why bother?
What makes dsadevil’s arguments so effective is his use of data and expert testimony in support of his claims. He often refers to two separate studies by the University of North Carolina and Texas A&M University, both of which determined that the death penalty deters crime; he also includes quotations from esteemed professors (such as John McAdams of Marquette University) who have studied capital punishment and to data released by the U.S. Department of Justice. Unlike his peers, whose arguments are sometimes difficult to take seriously, it is obvious that dsadevil has done his homework on the issue. He knows what he is talking about and that comes across in his writing.

Dsadevil is also the only member who actually responds to members’ comments. The others continuously “talk over” each other – they aren’t interested in real communication. But when you think about it, how can you have a debate when the participants aren’t listening to each other? At one point, dsadevil responds to a comment made by fallingupwards, who argues that it is “barbaric for the U.S. to knowingly kill people.” Dsadevil then applies this logic to war, saying there are times when bombs fall and innocent people are killed. “But by not bombing and not fighting these tyrannical regimes,” he continues, “we doom even more people to death and lives of oppression.” In his responses, dsadevil attempts to do what other members do not. He wants to further the discussion and examine the issue beyond just face value.

Letter to Superintendent of Seattle Schools

Dr. Goodloe-Johnson,

I'm writing today to say that I agree with your decision to close five Seattle public schools and move all or part of eight others. I understand that this was probably a very difficult decision for you to make, and I applaud you for having the courage to make the correct choice. You faced harsh criticism from students and parents; despite it all, though, you were determined to make the decision that would have as positive an impact as possible. I applaud you for this.

Much of the criticism directed at you was from parents who said their kids' schools were being unfairly targeted. Some argued that it was based on the students' economic breakdown; others claimed that it was their minority status. Still more said it wasn't fair to move students to larger classes, even when their current schools were in poor condition and underfunded. I ask the critics this: Would you rather have your child in a small class located in a crumbling building that received little funding, or in a slightly larger class located in a recently remodeled building that received more funding? Which of these situations is in your child's best interest?

Decisions such as these are the kind that nobody wants to face. The way I see it, there was no way you could win. If you close schools, students and parents start calling for your head; if you keep under-performing schools open, the district loses money and the school board starts calling for your head. Let's just say that I wouldn't want to be in your position right now. Under the circumstances, though, I believe you made the best decision possible and I hope the critics will see it that way someday soon.

CollegeHumor.com Review

CollegeHumor.com is the kind of website that serves an admittedly narrow purpose. With a target audience consisting of males between the ages of 18 and 22 – attracted by a combination of “beer, babes, parodies and sketches” – the website’s creators clearly have their craft down to a science. They understand the typical college guy’s sense of humor and deliver on it nicely. Boasting more than six million hits per month, it is no wonder that CollegeHumor.com is attempting to make the transition to television. But does it work as a half-hour show on MTV? In my opinion, CollegeHumor.com should stick to the web.

What makes CollegeHumor.com so successful is the fact that its videos are short and to the point. Most do not exceed five minutes in length; this makes them the perfect way to procrastinate when you should be studying, or to kill time between classes. However, I question how many guys are going to sit down and watch a 30-munute program when they could view similar sketches online without the commercials. We’ve seen with other Internet-based television shows (such as quarterlife) that this format has not worked in the past. Will CollegeHumor.com be able change the trend? Only time will tell.

Stasis -- Death Penalty

The death penalty should be abolished in Washington State. Even supporters would have to agree that it is unjustly applied; for example, of the five worst serial killers in the state's history, none have received the death penalty. Supporters then point out the fact that most of these killers ended up making plea deals with prosecutors in order to avoid the death penalty. While this is true, the question remains: How can Washington, a state with a death penalty statute in effect, not impose it on its most horrific murderers? If Washington is not going to sentence the worst of the worst to death, then I would argue that nobody deserves to die.

Supporters also point to the fact that the death penalty provides justice for the victim and his or her family members. However, I would argue that justice is something that varies from one person to the next. Some people may feel a sense of justice when their loved one's murderer is put to death; others, though, may never feel like justice was served. Furthermore, if the death penalty provides justice, why are there so many groups (including Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation) that advocate against the death penalty, and virtually none that support it?

In addition to these points, the argument against the death penalty is supported by a significant amount of data (which I do not know off the top of my head). Research has proven that the death penalty is imposed more often on minorities and the economically disadvantaged than it is on wealthy white people. Also, the death penalty deters crime in only six states (Washington is not one of them). It costs the tax payers significantly more money to try death penalty cases than non-death penalty cases; the cost of actually imposing the death penalty is also high. With these facts, how can one justify keeping the death penalty on Washington's books?

Tunnel Debate

Going into the debate, I was a strong opponent of replacing the Alaskan Way viaduct with a tunnel. This opinion was based entirely on the cost of the project -- I read in the Seattle Times that a tunnel was going to be something like two to three times as expensive as the surface street option, or building another viaduct. But watching the debate made me reconsider my position. In light of the current economic situation, I now think it might be worth it to invest the money if it will mean more jobs for those who need them. The fact that the jobs will only last nine years wasn't important to me; frankly, if I was unemployed, a job that I knew I would have for the next nine years would be significantly better than no job at all. Yet I still wonder how this project would be paid for. Washington already has a budget deficit, and increasing the deficit is probably not the greatest idea when you consider the state's future. Do the benefits of the tunnel option outweigh the costs? I'm still not sure, but right now I'm leaning toward yes.

Major Analysis Project (final draft)

If Gary Ridgway got life, how can anyone get death?

This question is frequently posed by opponents of capital punishment. If the prolific Green River killer received life in prison for murdering 48 women, they wonder, how can Washington’s judicial system justify a death sentence for someone who killed far fewer people? The Ridgway case has fueled an onslaught of arguments against the death penalty since his guilty plea six years ago. It even became the subject of a Washington State Supreme Court case: In State v. Cross, defendant Davya Cross used Ridgway’s sentence to challenge the imposition of the death penalty on him. The Court eventually determined that Cross’s arguments were a moral issue rather than a legal one, causing him to lose his case; even so, opponents continue to cite the Ridgway case in support of their claims. But while it may seem like convincing evidence, the Ridgway case often takes on too large of a role in an argument, causing opponents to lose sight of the much stronger supporting evidence – and ethos – their arguments require.

Capital punishment has been the subject of much debate among both lawmakers and citizenry in Washington for more than a century. The state executed its first defendant in 1904 under a statute requiring the death penalty for convicted first-degree murderers. In 1913, the death penalty was abolished in Washington; lawmakers reinstated it six years later with a necessary jury recommendation. Defendants continued to be executed until 1972, when the issue of arbitrariness in the death penalty was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court in Furman v. Georgia. That June, the Court ruled punishment unconstitutional by a vote of five to four. Death penalty statutes in 40 states (including Washington) were effectively voided, thus commuting the sentences of 629 death row inmates across the country. Just five months passed before Florida became the first state to rewrite its death penalty statute, eliminating problems cited in Furman. Washington followed, and its death penalty statute was reinstated in 1977 (“Constitutionality of the Death Penalty in America” and “Legal History of the Death Penalty in Washington State”).

Seventy-seven defendants have been executed in Washington since 1904. Between 1981 (when the Revised Code of Washington was last updated) and 2006, there were 254 aggravated first-degree murder cases across the state where the death penalty was an option. Prosecutors sought the death penalty in 79 of those cases. Juries returned death sentences in 30 cases. Of the 30 death sentences handed down, 20 have been reversed on appeal. Six defendants are currently on death row pending appeal and clemency hearings. Four cases have resulted in executions. Of those four, three have been “volunteers” – defendants who have waived appeals and allowed themselves to be executed. The method of execution in this state is lethal injection, unless the defendant prefers to die by hanging (Davidson).

A January 2008 edition of The Daily, the University of Washington’s student newspaper, included an opinion essay written by Ryan Morden. Entitled “Let’s Kill the Death Penalty in Washington,” Morden claims that capital punishment should be abolished because it is both inhumane and unjust. He cites as his main piece of evidence the life in prison without parole sentence Gary Ridgway received for murdering 48 women. Morden goes on to compare the Ridgway case to a more recent news headline:

Over Christmas break, two people shot a family of six to death in Carnation, a small town 30 miles east of Seattle. The murder was horrific, and people are calling for the death penalty. However, the message in our state is this: The more people you kill, the less likely you will be put to death thanks to the outcome of Ridgway’s trial. Remember, 48 killed is fine – six murdered is not. (Morden)

Although Morden points to the amount of time it can take for a defendant to die by lethal injection – referring to the application of the death penalty as “cruel and unusual punishment” – and to biblical passages that seemingly prove capital punishment is in conflict with the Bible, the overwhelming majority of his argument relies on the audience’s agreement with his evaluation of the Ridgway case (Morden).

Taken at the surface, Morden’s comparison between the Ridgway case and the Carnation mass murders appears legitimate. However, when you consider the mitigating factors in Ridgway’s case that often go unmentioned, it becomes clear that Morden is offering a false comparison. Ridgway’s arrest in 2001 yielded enough information to charge him with only seven of the Green River killings, despite police suspicion that he had murdered dozens of other women in the region during that time. King County prosecutor Norm Maleng agreed to a plea bargain only because of pressure from victims’ family members, who demanded the information that would provide closure to the deaths of their loved ones. This is not to say that Ridgway deserved to live: Most people would probably agree that, if any case merited the death penalty, Ridgway’s was it. Yet the extenuating circumstances essentially eliminated the possibility of Maleng seeking the death penalty. Do the facts of one particular case mean Washington should refuse to execute all future defendants? According to Morden, the answer to that question is a resounding yes.

What is so interesting about Morden’s essay is his abandonment of the typical evidence for arguments against capital punishment. Rather than going on about cost and racial and socio-economic factors, Morden presents rarely-cited evidence in support of his claim. This move had every possibility of success: Rather than rehashing old statements, Morden could have given death penalty supporters even more reason to reconsider their positions. Instead, though, his evidence lacks credibility. “In some cases, it’s been known to take from 30 minutes to an hour for a criminal to die, causing the recipient to undergo intense suffering until his body finally gives up,” Morden states. He goes on to argue that “lethal injection might as well be called ‘concentrated chemical domestic warfare’ without the ‘war’ part” (Morden). What the audience doesn’t know is where this information came from. Did a doctor say this? Or was it posted on Wikipedia by some kid with too much time on his hands? The author’s failure to disclose his sources affects his ethos, because the audience has no way of knowing how reliable the rest of his
essay is.

Morden’s ethos is also affected by the negative attitude he takes toward a segment of his audience. As a staff writer for The Daily, Morden should be aware that his audience consists of fellow college students. He appears to take advantage of the assumption that college students are generally liberal, and that liberals are generally more likely to oppose capital punishment than conservatives. Morden makes several cutting remarks toward conservatives: “Even members of the College Republicans can agree that putting an innocent person to death is wrong,” he says (Morden). The author goes on to take shots at John McCain’s “straight talk” style and at Fox News, which is commonly considered to be a right-of-center news network. Although he may not have meant anything disparaging by these comments, they still weaken Morden’s credibility as a writer – and particularly his credibility among the exact group of students he wants to convince of his viewpoint. It is unlikely that conservatives would take his essay seriously, let alone bother formulating a response. Because of this, Morden’s essay does nothing to further the capital punishment debate.

Like Morden, Kenneth H. Davidson of the Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) uses the Ridgway case as evidence to support his argument that the death penalty should be abolished. But the biggest difference between the two articles lies in how they use the case. Morden cites it as his main piece of evidence; Davidson, on the other hand, lets the case take a backseat to more reliable data and expert testimony. In December 2008’s “Time for a Hard Look at the Death Penalty,” Davidson claims the Washington State Legislature should fund a “thorough, multi-disciplinary study” of the death penalty system (Davidson). His article is presented in a question-and-answer format, which allows him to pose a series of questions that someone without an established opinion on the subject might ask about the death penalty. For example, has the death penalty been fairly and evenly applied? Furthermore, does the death penalty serve a significant public good, which justifies its costs?

Davidson provides thorough answers to each question, frequently citing the Ridgway case in response. He states the following concerning the benefits of the death penalty versus the benefits of life in prison without parole:

Mark Prothero, who represented Gary Ridgway, questioned the function of the death penalty as a form of punishment. He described Mr. Ridgway’s solitary confinement in a windowless, six feet by 10 feet cell, where he serves his life sentence without the possibility of parole. Twice a week he is taken to a larger, windowless room for an hour of exercise… He has no hope of this routine changing. Mr. Prothero asked: “Is the death penalty really the worst punishment?” (Davidson)

Unlike Morden, who makes the typical “If Gary Ridgway got life, how can anyone get death?” argument, Davidson uses the Ridgway case to support his assertion that capital punishment is a form of “state-assisted suicide” (Davidson). He points to the fact that three of the last four executions in Washington were voluntary, with defendants actually preferring death to a life in prison without the possibility of parole. If the defendant wants to die, Davidson argues, is capital punishment really punishment at all?

Davidson’s article differs greatly from other opinion pieces on the subject. Most authors argue for their particular viewpoint – either pro- or anti-capital punishment – in hopes that, if they argue forcefully enough, the audience will eventually adopt their position. Davidson, however, wants his audience to arrive at their own conclusions. His goal is simply to provide the appropriate information that will enable his audience to make an informed, logical decision. But this is not to say that Davidson remains completely objective. Although his opinion remains (for the most part) masked by the included facts and data, it is clear that Davidson personally opposes the death penalty. Davidson’s decision to not be as forward with his personal opinion makes the audience more comfortable with his article. Those who support the death penalty are more likely to take his arguments seriously, to carefully consider the evidence and formulate an opinion without feeling pressure from the author to agree with him.

What makes Davidson’s article so effective is the amount of evidence he provides in support of his claim. While Morden offers almost no real evidence, Davidson includes data from a variety of reliable sources. He cites the American Bar Association’s study on racial disparities in the application of the death penalty; exonerations through DNA testing reported by The Innocence Project; and a recent study by death penalty scholar Joanna Shepard, who determined that capital punishment deters murder in only six states (Washington is not one of the six). Davidson also provides examples from several previous death penalty cases. Furthermore, Davidson himself is a reliable source of information on the subject. In addition to being a former chair of the WSBA Committee on Public Defense’s Death Penalty Subcommittee, he also received the WSBA’s highest honor, the Award of Merit, for his 2007 Death Penalty Study. Davidson’s qualifications provide a strong appeal to ethos, which increases the likelihood that the audience will take his argument seriously.

Opponents of capital punishment have every right to ask the typical “If Gary Ridgway got life, how can anyone get death?” question. It is perfectly valid when taken at face value. After all, if a state with an active death penalty statute refuses to impose it on arguably the most prolific serial killer in American history, how can it justify a death sentence for anyone else? This question could puzzle even the most ardent supporter of capital punishment. But problems arise when opponents refuse to explore the Ridgway case beyond face value. Extenuating circumstances, such as the decades that passed with the Green River case going unsolved, or the desire the victims’ families had for closure, are too often ignored. Instead of delving into the messy details of a case, opponents prefer to make sweeping generalizations that will further their arguments – even if it means sacrificing the truth their audiences deserve.

This is not to say that opponents should stop using the Ridgway case to argue against the death penalty. Rather, they should consider how they are using it. If, like Morden, your claim rests almost entirely on the Ridgway case, you probably need to rework your argument. It is extremely difficult to apply the outcome of one case to all others; more importantly, though, it is an argument that any skeptical audience would likely reject. However, if you follow Davidson’s model and let reliable data and expert testimony shine, the Ridgway case can still be used to create a link between your claim and your evidence. Most people would agree that the question at the heart of so many opponents’ arguments is a good one. But if you want to distinguish yourself from other death penalty opponents and actually have an impact on Washington laws, what really matters is the supporting evidence – and ethos – you need to prove your claim and win over your audience.


Works Cited

“Constitutionality of the Death Penalty in America.” Death Penalty Curriculum. 30 Jan. 2009
http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org/student/c/about/history/history-5.htm.

Davidson, Kenneth H. “Time for a Hard Look at the Death Penalty.” Washington State Bar Association. 2 Dec. 2008. 31 Jan. 2009
http://www.wsba.org/media/publications/ barnews/davidson1208.htm.

“Legal History of the Death Penalty in Washington State.” Washington Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. 30 Jan. 2009 http://www.abolishdeathpenalty.org/HistoryOfWashingtonDeathPenalty.htm.

Morden, Ryan. “Let’s Kill the Death Penalty in Washington.” The Daily of the University of Washington. 17 Jan. 2008. 31 Jan. 2009
http://dailyuw.com/2008/1/17/lets-kill-death-penalty-washington/.

Seattle U Basketball

The process of learning isn't always easy, said the ancient Greek rhetorician Isocrates. But, in the end, the rewards make the process worth it. That same theme rings true for the Seattle University men's basketball team.

This season has been one of transition for the Redhawks, who are making the move from NCAA Division II to Division I after nearly three decades of de-emphasizing athletics. Coach Joe Callero believed going into the season that his team could pull a few upsets early. Yet he questioned how well the team would be playing in January.

"In 22 years of coaching, I've had zero experience with this. The coaching manual isn't designed for first-year transitional coaching," he said. "But as we continued to play well into January, I told our assistant coaches, 'We have a group of guys who really like to play together.' Yeah, maybe we're pretty good."

Rather than succumbing to the difficulties of the transition process, the Redhawks have met each match head-on. Their lack of a proven "superstar" has led each team member to rise to the challenge and play to the best of his ability. Together, the Redhawks are clearly more than just the sum of their parts.

March 3rd will mark the first match between Seattle U and the University of Washington since 1979. There's no doubt that the chances of a Redhawks win are slim: After all, the Huskies are ranked among the top teams in the nation, and the Redhawks are just a former-Division II team trying to make it in the big time.

But whatever the scoreboard reads after 40 minutes, March 3rd will be a victory for the Redhawks. It will mark the school's return to Division I sports better than any other game this season. Perhaps it will even provide Seattle U with some national attention -- particularly if they play well against a team that is bound to be a part of the March madness.

There is no denying that the process of Seattle U becoming a successful Division I basketball team is far from over. In fact, it's really just begun. But, if the Redhawks stick with it and continue playing the way they are, the rewards will be worth it.

Major Analysis Project (rough draft)

If Gary Ridgway got life, how can anyone get death?

This question is often posed by opponents of capital punishment. If the Green River killer received life in prison for murdering 48 women, they ask, how can Washington State justify the death sentence for someone who killed far fewer people? Ridgway’s case has fueled an onslaught of arguments against the death penalty since his guilty plea six years ago. It was even the subject of a Washington State Supreme Court case: In State v. Cross, defendant Davya Cross challenged the imposition of the death penalty on him based on Ridgway’s sentence. Cross lost his case when the Court determined that his arguments were a moral issue rather than a legal one; even so, opponents continue to cite the Ridgway case in support of their arguments. But while it may seem convincing, the Ridgway case often takes on too large of a role in an argument, causing opponents to lose sight of the much stronger supporting evidence their claims require.

Capital punishment has been a subject of debate among both lawmakers and citizenry in Washington for more than a century. The state executed its first defendant in 1904 under a statute that required the death penalty for convicted first-degree murderers. In 1913, the death penalty was abolished in Washington; it was reinstated six years later with a necessary jury recommendation. Defendants continued to be executed until 1972, when the issue of arbitrariness was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court in Furman v. Georgia. That June, the Court ruled by a vote of five to four capital punishment unconstitutional. Death penalty statutes in 40 states, including Washington, were effectively voided, thus commuting the sentences of 629 death row inmates across the country. Just five months passed before Florida became the first state to rewrite its death penalty statute, eliminating problems cited in Furman. Washington followed, reinstating its death penalty statute in 1977 (“Constitutionality of the Death Penalty in America” and “Legal History of the Death Penalty in Washington State”).

Seventy-seven defendants have been executed in Washington since 1904. In the period between 1981 (the Revised Code of Washington’s last revision) and 2006, there were 254 aggravated first-degree murder cases across the state where the death penalty was an option. Prosecutors sought the death penalty in 79 of those cases. Juries returned death sentences in 30 cases. Of the 30 death sentences handed down, 20 have been reversed on appeal. Six defendants are currently on death row pending appeal and clemency hearings. Four cases have resulted in executions. Of these four, three have been “volunteers” – defendants who have waived appeals and allowed themselves to be executed. The method of execution in Washington is lethal injection, unless the defendant chooses to die by hanging (Davidson).

In January 2008, The Daily of the University of Washington printed an opinion essay by student Ryan Morden. Entitled “Let’s Kill the Death Penalty in Washington,” Morden claims that capital punishment is both inhumane and unjust, and therefore should be abolished. He cites as his main piece of evidence the fact that Green River killer Gary Ridgway received life in prison without parole for murdering 48 women. The author then compares the Ridgway case to a more recent headline:

Over Christmas break, two people shot a family of six to death in Carnation, a small town 30 miles east of Seattle. The murder was horrific, and people are calling for the death penalty. However, the message in our state is this: The more people you kill, the less likely you will be put to death thanks to the outcome of Ridgway’s trial. Remember, 48 killed is fine – six murdered is not. (Morden)

Although Morden also points to the amount of time it can take for a defendant to die by lethal injection (referring to the application of the death penalty as “cruel and unusual punishment”) as well as to biblical passages that seem to prove that capital punishment is in conflict with the Bible, the vast majority of his argument relies on the audience agreeing with his evaluation of the Ridgway case (Morden).

On the surface, Morden’s comparison between Ridgway and the Carnation murders seems legitimate. However, when you consider the often-unmentioned mitigating factors in Ridgway’s case, it becomes clear that this is a false comparison. The arrest of Ridgway in 2001 yielded enough information to charge him with only seven of the Green River killings, despite police suspicion that he had murdered dozens of other women in the region. King County prosecutor Norm Maleng agreed to a plea bargain only because of pressure from victims’ family members, who demanded information that would provide closure to the deaths of their loved ones. This is not to say that Ridgway did not deserve to die: Most people would probably agree that, if any case merited the death penalty, Ridgway’s was it. Yet the extenuating circumstances essentially eliminated the possibility of seeking the death penalty. Do the facts of one particular case mean Washington should refuse to execute anyone in the future? According to Morden, the answer is yes.

What is so interesting about Morden’s essay is his abandonment of the expected evidence for arguments against capital punishment. Rather than going on about cost and racial and socio-economic factors, Morden presents rarely-cited evidence in support of his claim. This move had every possibility of success: Rather than rehashing old statements, Morden could have given death penalty supporters new reasons to consider changing their positions. Instead, though, the evidence he presents lacks credibility. “In some cases, it’s been known to take from 30 minutes to an hour for a criminal to die, causing the recipient to undergo intense suffering until his body finally gives up,” Morden states. He goes on to argue that “lethal injection might as well be called ‘concentrated chemical domestic warfare’ without the ‘war’ part” (Morden). What the audience doesn’t know is where this information came from. Did a doctor say this? Or was it posted on Wikipedia by some kid with too much time on his hands? The author’s failure to disclose his sources affects his ethos, because the audience has no way of knowing how reliable the rest of his information is.

Morden’s ethos is also affected by the attitude he takes toward a portion of his audience. As a staff writer for The Daily, Morden should be aware of the fact that his audience is fellow college students. He appears to be taking advantage of the assumption that college students are generally liberal, and that liberals are generally more likely to oppose capital punishment than conservatives. Morden makes several cutting remarks toward conservatives: “Even members of the College Republicans can agree that putting an innocent person to death is wrong,” he says (Morden). The author goes on to take shots at John McCain’s “straight talk” style and at Fox News, which is watched most by conservatives and Republicans. Although he may not have meant anything by these comments, they still weaken Morden’s credibility as a writer – particularly his credibility among the exact group of students he wants to convince of his viewpoint. It is unlikely that conservatives would take his essay seriously, let alone bother formulating a response to his claim.

Like Morden, Kenneth H. Davidson of the Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) uses the Ridgway case as evidence to support his argument. But the biggest difference between the two articles is how they use the case. Morden cites it as his main piece of evidence; Davidson, on the other hand, lets the case take a backseat to the more reliable data and expert testimony. In “Time for a Hard Look at the Death Penalty,” Davidson claims the Washington State Legislature should fund a “thorough, multi-disciplinary study” of the death penalty system (Davidson). His article is presented in a question-and-answer format, which allows him to pose a series of questions that someone without an established opinion might ask about the death penalty. For example, has the death penalty been fairly and evenly applied? Also, does the death penalty serve a significant public good, which justifies its costs?

Davidson goes on to provide thorough answers to each question, frequently citing the Ridgway case in response. He says the following about the benefits of the death penalty versus the benefits of life in prison without parole:

Mark Prothero, who represented Gary Ridgway, questioned the function of the death penalty as a form of punishment. He described Mr. Ridgway’s solitary confinement in a windowless, six feet by 10 feet cell, where he serves his life sentence without the possibility of parole. Twice a week he is taken to a larger, windowless room for an hour of exercise… He has no hope of this routine changing. Mr. Prothero asked: “Is the death penalty really the worst punishment?” (Davidson)

Unlike Morden, who makes the typical “If Gary Ridgway got life, how can anyone get death?” argument, Davidson uses the Ridgway case to support his assertion that capital punishment is a form of “state-assisted suicide” (Davidson). He points to the fact that three of the last four executions in Washington were voluntary, with defendants actually preferring death to life in prison without parole. If the defendant wants to die, Davidson argues, is capital punishment really punishment at all?

Davidson’s article differs greatly from other opinion pieces on the death penalty. Most authors argue for their viewpoint – either pro- or anti-capital punishment – in hopes that, if they argue strongly (or loudly) enough, the audience will eventually adopt their position. Davidson, however, wants his audience to arrive at their own conclusions on the subject. His goal is simply to provide the appropriate information that will enable the audience to make an informed decision. This is not to say that Davidson remains completely objective, though. He clearly opposes the death penalty, although his opinion is (for the most part) masked by the included facts and data. Davidson’s decision to not be as forward with his personal opinion makes his audience more comfortable with the article. Those who support the death penalty are more likely to take his arguments seriously, to consider the evidence and formulate an opinion without feeling a lot pressure from the author to agree with him.

What makes Davidson’s article so effective is the amount of evidence he provides in support of his claim. While Morden offers almost no real evidence, Davidson includes data from a variety of reliable sources. He cites the American Bar Association’s study on racial disparities in the application of the death penalty; exonerations through DNA testing reported by The Innocence Project; and a recent study by death penalty scholar Joanna Shepard determining that capital punishment deters murder in only six states as evidence. Davidson also provides examples from several previous death penalty cases. Furthermore, Davidson himself is a reliable source of information on this subject. In addition to being a former chair of the WSBA Committee on Public Defense’s Death Penalty Subcommittee, he also received the WSBA’s highest honor, the Award of Merit, for his 2007 work on the Death Penalty Study. Davidson’s qualifications provide a strong appeal to ethos, which increases the likelihood that the audience will take his argument seriously.

Opponents of capital punishment have every right to ask the typical “If Gary Ridgway got life, how can anyone get death?” question. It is perfectly valid when taken at face value. After all, if a state with an active death penalty statute refuses to impose it on arguably the most prolific serial killer in American history, how can it justify a death sentence for anyone else? This question could puzzle even the most ardent supporters of capital punishment. But problems arise when opponents refuse to explore the Ridgway case beyond face value. Mitigating factors, such as the desire the victims’ families had for closure, or the decades that passed with the Green River case going unsolved, are ignored. Instead of delving into the messy details of a case, opponents prefer to make sweeping generalizations that will further their arguments – even if it means sacrificing the truth their audiences yearn for.

This is not to say that opponents should stop using the Ridgway case to argue against the death penalty. Rather, they should consider how they are using it. If, like Morden, your claim rests almost entirely on the Ridgway case, you probably need to rework your argument. It is extremely difficult to apply the outcome of one case to all others; more importantly, though, it is an argument that any skeptical audience would likely reject. However, if you follow Davidson’s model and let reliable data and expert testimony shine, you can still use the Ridgway case to create a link between your claim and your evidence. Most people would agree that the question at the heart of so many opponents’ arguments is a good one. But while that may be a good starting point, what really matters is the supporting evidence you need to prove your claim and win over your audience.

Narrative

In using narrative with my issue, capital punishment, I'd probably create a story and then ask my audience to pretend they were part of that story. What would they do in the situation? For example, a story you usually hear in the death penalty debate centers on what people would do if a loved one was murdered. You may oppose the death penalty in theory, but would your opinion change if someone close to you was killed? Of course, there's really no way of knowing how you would react unless you've been in this situation. You may say that you would stand true to your beliefs, but how do you know you wouldn't feel differently? Likewise, if your audience is people who already support the death penalty, you could create a story in which a loved one is sentenced to death for a crime they insist they didn't commit. Would you still support capital punishment, even if it means losing someone close to you unjustly? While these stories probably aren't going to convince people to change their positions immediately, I do think they would succeed in at least getting them to consider opposing views.

Think Before You Speak

The Ad Council's Think Before You Speak campaign meets the artistry standard of evaluation through the use of celebrity. If it was just unknown people in the ads, I probably wouldn't have paid that much attention to it; however, including celebrities makes me stop and really listen to what they're saying. The Ad Council has taken advantage of our culture's obsession with celebrity, using that as an effective way to get (and keep) people's attention. The ads are also teen-friendly, taking situations teenagers can relate to -- clothes shopping, going out to eat with friends -- and turning them into an opportunity to get across this important message. For the effects standard, I believe the ads should achieve their goal of getting teens to think before they speak. They will hopefully get teens to see themselves in these situations, realizing that they use the word "gay" incorrectly and then make a change. As far as the truth standard goes, the Ad Council wants teens to realize that "gay" has a specific meaning -- and that it doesn't mean "stupid" or "dumb." I think that point comes across very clearly in the ads. Finally, for the ethical standard, the ads help rather than harm. If successful, they could potentially help to eliminate the harassment of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender teens -- something the Ad Council points out as a serious problem in our schools.

Minor Analysis Paper #2

Part One
In “State’s Death Penalty System Fails,” Timothy Kaufman-Olson argues that the many flaws in Washington’s death penalty system make it irreparably broken. Kaufman-Olson utilizes pathos, appealing to the audience’s emotions with phrases such as “killing an innocent person” and “troubling and telling statistic[s].” The author appeals to ethos by referencing the fact that he is a notable figure in this particular field: As a professor of politics at Whitman College and vice president of the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, Kaufman-Olson is clearly knowledgeable when it comes to capital punishment. Finally, he employs logos by referring to specific death penalty cases in Washington. Kaufman-Olson also refers to both an ACLU report and a study by Columbia University that detail problems with the death penalty.

Kaufman-Olson’s claim is that there are too many flaws in the state’s death penalty system for it to be just. He supports this claim by citing two Washington cases in which the death penalty was thrown out because of trial errors; in the first, because of a failure to call vital witnesses, and in the second, because of a reliance on a jailhouse informer with a history of perjury. The author’s claim is also supported by the previously mentioned ACLU report and Columbia University study. In creating warrants to link together his claims and support, Kaufman-Olson utilizes ethos. The audience is expected to find the provided data sufficient; however, the report and study would need to be investigated further to be sure. Kaufman-Olson does not address rebuttals in his article.

Jeff Jacoby makes use of these same rhetorical techniques in “The Feeble ‘Arguments’ Against Capital Punishment,” where he rebuts many popular arguments against the death penalty. Jacoby utilizes pathos with phrases such as “barbaric” and “feeble arguments;” however, his most obvious pathetic appeal lies in the following statement: “…There is indeed a measure of solace in knowing that the monster who destroyed their loved one will never hurt anyone again.” The author appeals to ethos by displaying impressive logic, proving to the audience that he is knowledgeable on the subject. Lastly, Jacoby draws on logos by going through the opposing arguments one by one, answering their claims and pointing out the flaws in their arguments clearly and concisely.

Jacoby’s claim is that flaws in arguments against the death penalty prove that the system is, in fact, just. The author’s claim is supported entirely by his own logic – there is no data, testimony, or examples provided to back it up. Jacoby utilizes logos in creating warrants. He addresses a variety of opposing arguments based on letters to the editor printed in the New York Times just days before the execution of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. The problem, though, is that Jacoby’s logic can easily be argued against because it is essentially no more than one man’s opinion. Kaufman-Olson’s argument is stronger because it is supported by actual data. However, while Kaufman-Olson fails to address rebuttals, Jacoby’s entire article is devoted to striking down opposing arguments.

Part Two
Kaufman-Olson’s argument rests on the fact that capital punishment is not just because there are too many problems with cases, as pointed out in the ACLU report. However, Kaufman-Olson also cites race and socio-economic factors, cost, and the failure to deter criminals as signs that the death penalty is not just. The author relies on the assumption that his audience is open to this viewpoint, or, at least is not resistant to it. He also assumes that his audience has some interest in the subject, because otherwise they likely wouldn’t have sought the article out. Kaufman-Olson appears to value, first and foremost, justice for all; he doesn’t believe innocent people should be executed based on trial errors. He also values the constitutional right to a fair trial and the right to life (or the right to not have your life taken away by the state). Kaufman-Olson uses the loci of person, arguing that innocent people shouldn’t be killed; he also uses the loci of quantity, stating that eliminating the death penalty is in the best interest of the greatest number of people.

Jacoby’s argument rests on the fact that the death penalty is just because of the flaws in the arguments against it. According to Jacoby, those who support the death penalty do so based on history, common sense, a sense of fairness, and a moral tradition. He relies on the same assumptions about his audience as Kaufman-Olson; that the audience is at least marginally open to his viewpoint, and that they are interested in the subject. Jacoby also appears to value justice for all, but in a different sense than Kaufman-Olson: Jacoby wants justice for victims and their families, while Kaufman-Olson wants justice for murderers. The author has the “an eye for an eye” mentality and values the exacting of a punishment that fits the crime. Like Kaufman-Olson, Jacoby uses the loci of quantity, arguing that the death penalty is in the best interest of the greatest number of people because it removes murderers from the earth. He uses the loci of essence as well, mentioning the previously mentioned values of those who support the death penalty.

Jack Grimes: "Hook-Up Culture"

In this article, Grimes argues that dating has been replaced on college campuses by this idea of a "hook-up culture." He says students care more about physical contact than actually having an emotional connection with someone else -- that love has taken a backseat to sex. Grimes fails to address the relevance rule because he provides no actual data or testimony to support his claims. However, Grimes does address the acceptability rule by using language that both the speaker (Grimes) and his audience (fellow Tufts students) agree upon. Rather than making a vague argument, Grimes is specific; he begins by defining "hooking up" rather than leaving a definition up to the audience. The third rule is sufficiency. Grimes fails to adequately address this rule, because his article is based on personal opinon rather than fact. He lacks data to back up his argument in favor of generalizations about college students. Finally, Grimes' article is open to rebuttal. Another student could respond by making the argument that dating still exists, and that hooking up isn't the phenomenon that Grimes makes it out to be.

I agree with Grimes' argument for the most part. Based on my own observations, it seems like dating is pretty rare on today's college campuses. Sure, there's always the rare couple that stays together throughout college, but for the most part it seems like students aren't interested in commitment. They want the physical satisfaction of a relationship without the emotional part. The one thing I had a problem with in Grimes' article is his use of stereotypes about men and women -- that it's okay for men to sleep around, but when women do it it's unacceptable. The author seems to be holding men and women to different standards. According to Grimes, a woman who hooks up is essentially an "unpaid prostitute" that men laugh at and tell others to sleep with. It seems like Grimes is making it the women's job to end this "hook-up culture" in an attempt to improve their reputations.

Inauguration Letter to the Editor

Editor, The Times:

At a time when millions are losing their jobs and the economy is in a downward spiral, why must the United States spend a record $170 million on President Obama’s inauguration?

Democrats who called for then-President Bush to be frugal in 2005 issued no such request this year when their man prepared to take office. Instead, they planned a weekend of rock-star concerts and celebrity-filled galas – a world apart from the White House oath and chicken dinner suggested (in part) by Seattle’s very own Jim McDermott four years ago.

According to estimates, $150 million was used to fund the 10 official inauguration balls. The swearing-in ceremony itself cost just $1.24 million, a drop in the bucket compared to costs of security, Port-a-Potty rentals, and, of course, parties.

Perhaps we should be happy that the federal government only had to fork over $49 million of its own money last weekend. Thanks to Obama’s connections with the Hollywood elite, a large portion of the inauguration was paid for by the likes of Steven Spielberg, Sharon Stone, George Lucas and Halle Berry.

Even still, I can't help but wonder how that $49 million could have been better spent.

Virginia Postrel: "The Aesthetic Imperative"

In her article entitled "The Aesthetic Imperative," Postrel claims that we as individuals place much more importance on the aesthetics of an object than we once did. "We want our vacuum cleaners and mobile phones to sparkle, our bathroom faucets and desk accessories to express our personalities," she says. While in the past we may have settled for a basic, no-frills laptop, we now expect it to come in our favorite color. Postrel also claims that, although aesthetic begins with a universal reaction, an object's effects on us are based in a personal and cultural context. Aesthetic is part of who we are. What I believe is beautiful is not necessarily what another person believes is beautiful; likewise, what I want my laptop to look like may be completely different than another person.

Postrel's data includes examples of the kinds of aesthetics we expect in our everyday lives. As mentioned above, Postrel refers to vacuum cleaners, mobile phones, bathroom faucets, and desk accessories. She also argues that we expect strip malls to offer "designer coffee, several different cuisines, a copy shop with do-it-yourself graphics workstations, and a nail salon for manicures on demand." In addition, Postrel offers expert opinions to support her claims, including quotations from David Brown, the former president of the Art Center College of Design in Pasadena, California. Brown's expertise in this particular field makes him a strong candidate to provide "testamony" on aesthetics.

In creating warrants to link together her claims and data, Postrel utilizes ethos. We are expected to believe that her experts display some sense of competence on the subject -- although we would have to research these experts further in order to determine their credibility. Postrel also creates substantive warrants by describing a world in which individuals demand both beauty and function. We can compare this world created by Postrel with the world around us, and if we agree with her vision, we are led to accept her claims as truth.

I believe aesthetic is generally a good thing. It provides a way to distinguish ourselves from others, setting ourselves apart from the millions of other people in this country. For example, in the case of the laptop, I don't want to have the exact same laptop as every other student on campus. And although I'm not the only person with a blue laptop, it does signal to other people that I'm different. I also believe aesthetics make things more pleasing to look at, which is a good thing in my opinion. The only time I really don't believe that aesthetics are a good thing is when it becomes more important than substance or quality. Having a blue laptop is great, but if it doesn't operate as well as a basic silver laptop, what's the point? I think aesthetics is something that can and should be considered, but not until quality is first taken care of.

Westboro Baptist Church

The Westboro Baptist Church is a Kansas-based “church” originally founded by Fred Phelps in 1955. It currently has approximately 50 members, the majority of which belong to the same family. Westboro usually makes headlines for its picketing of military funerals, waving signs with slogans such as “God Hates America” and “Fag Troops.” They believe the United States is being punished because of its tolerant views toward homosexuality, and that this is the reason soldiers are dying in Iraq. According to its website, “God is America’s enemy.”

My main point of contention with Westboro Baptist has to do with their lack of tolerance. I was raised to be tolerant of other people, and taught that, if you respect others, they will afford you that same respect. The Westboro members are completely void of any semblance of tolerance. They hate homosexuals, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, African Americans, and almost every other group that doesn’t consist of white Christians, as well as people who support these groups. Their refusal to tolerate others makes me wonder why we, the American public, should even bother tolerating their demonstrations. If they won’t tolerate us, why should we tolerate them?

In my opinion, there is no way to have a real conversation with members of Westboro Baptist. I’ve read articles about these people and seen a documentary in which they were depicted, and I believe their beliefs are so solidified that there is no way to reach out to them. From what I’ve seen, they respond with hatred rather than words. I think it’s unfair that Westboro members are unwilling to engage in conversation because, although they want the public to hear their point of view, they are completely unwilling to listen to any other views. In 2006 Westboro lost a lawsuit brought on by the father of a soldier whose military was picketed by church members; the father was awarded a total judgment of $5 million (which he doubts he will ever see). Although Westboro’s appeal is still pending, my hope is that the judgment will put the church out of business once and for all.

Minor Analysis Paper #1

Part One
In discussions of capital punishment, one controversial issue has been the opinions of murder victims’ families toward the sentence. On the one hand, some families support the death penalty because it removes any possibility of the murderer committing future crimes. They don’t want others to experience what they have experienced, and sentencing the murderer to death prevents that from ever happening. Others support the death penalty because it brings justice. They insist that it isn’t about exacting revenge; rather, it is about giving the murderer what he or she deserves. On the other hand, some families oppose the death penalty because it fails to provide a sense of closure. They assert that closure is something one must reach on their own, and that sentencing the murderer to death does not aid in this process. Still others oppose the death penalty because they believe it unfairly punishes the murderer’s family. Punishment is meant for the murderer; however, by sentencing him or her to death, their family is being punished at the same time.

Part Two
In their article from the Murder Victims’ Families for Reconciliation website, Leah Popp and Barak Wolff argue that capital punishment should be repealed. The pair was relieved to learn that their niece’s murderer did not qualify for the death penalty; “It wouldn’t bring Wendy back,” they say. Popp and Wolff maintain that capital punishment is not justice: It is revenge, and taking the murderer’s life only compounds the problem. They also insist that the death penalty has nothing to do with closure. In fact, Popp and Wolff believe closure doesn’t exist, that all you can do is cope with your loss and adjust to life without your loved one.

Popp and Wolff deserve to have their opinions heard and seriously considered by the opposition. I commend them for looking past their situation and seeing the big picture, realizing the flaws in a system that consistently sentences innocent people to death. It takes conviction to not support the death of a man who killed their niece. It’s too easy to say “kill him,” to not consider the effect that the death penalty would have on the situation. Popp and Wolff are correct in saying that it wouldn’t bring closure. Taking the murderer’s life won’t bring their niece back; the only real option they have is to deal with the endless pain of their loss.

Popp and Wolff felt a “tremendous sense of relief” after learning that their niece’s murderer did not qualify for the death penalty. My question is, how is this possible? If the murderer had received life in prison without parole I might understand their position; however, when he can get out in 35 years, what will prevent him from murdering another young woman? Popp and Wolff are clearly incorrect in stating that capital punishment is not justice. It deters potential murderers and gives those who do kill the punishment they deserve. People who make the conscious decision to murder and maim should not be allowed to keep living.

The co-authors of this article are the aunt and uncle of Wendy Wagner, who was murdered in New Mexico in July 1997. Popp and Wolff are entering the conversation about whether the death penalty is just punishment in the United States. The fact that the pair has personally experienced the murder of a loved one makes them “authorities” on the topic – they aren’t just random people opining from the outside. Because Popp and Wolff’s article is published on the Murder Victims’ Families for Reconciliation website, there’s no question that they oppose the death penalty. The only question is why they oppose it.

What the Inauguration Means to Me

Next Tuesday, Barack Obama will be sworn in as the 44th president of the United States. I believe his inauguration symbolizes the dawn of a new day in America. It's an opportunity to embrace change, to challenge public policy, and to renew the way our nation is viewed throughout the world. In short, it's a fresh start. Many Americans will be able to move past the feelings of discontent they've had for the past eight years and finally have their faith in the United States restored. It's a chance for Americans to unite as one, ending the divisions that have plagued our country in recent years: Democrats and Republicans, blacks and whites, rich and poor. There's no doubt that a long road lies in front of us. But, if we come together as a nation, I truly believe the American people can overcome anything that stands in our way. Tuesday's inauguration is just the first step on this journey.

Daily Assignment #1

In the introduction of They Say/I Say, authors Gerard Graff and Cathy Birkenstein argue that effective academic writing means not only stating your own views, but listening closely to the opposition, clearly summarizing their views, and responding appropriately, as well. Arguments in the "real world" are only made when we are provoked by others; therefore, academic writing should similarly engage in this effective type of arguing. In Professor Bammert's course description, she seems to be arguing that rhetoric can be used in many different forms to spark debate and shape both public opinion and public policy. This is accomplished through the construction of arguments. These arguments about academic writing and rhetoric are related because the type of academic writing promoted by Graff and Birkenstein is necessary in order to truly have an impact on public opinion and/or public policy. Simply making a statement (for example, capital punishment is unjust) accomplishes nothing if it is not made in response to an opposing statement. People need a reason to care about your view, and presenting it as an intelligent response to an opposing view gives them just that.

Michelle Obama DNC Speech Response

In her speech to the Democratic National Convention, Michelle Obama delivered exactly what the audience wanted and needed: an uplifting message to those supporting her husband's bid for the presidency. Obama focused on positive ideas, such as the importance of family and hard, which she said enables you to acoomplish anything you want. "Strive for the world as it should be," she said about halfway through her speech. Using her hands to emphasize certain points, Obama told the audience that the "American Dream" is alive and well, and can be obtained by anybody who is willing to work for it. Despite her humble beginnings, Obama overcame the many obstacles in her path to earn a law degree. This is exactly the kind of speech that Americans have come to expect from political conventions. They don't want to hear speakers throw insaults at the opposing party, and especially members of its own party -- hence the reference to Hillary Clinton putting millions of tiny cracks in the ceiling" -- rather, the audience wants to hear a positive message about how this particular candidate will improve the nation's climate. It is for this very reason that Obama generally avoided policy issues, only briefly mentioning issues such as education and the war in Iraq toward the end of her speech. Quickly, though, she returned to the more generic themes of "hope" and "change." While of little real substance, Obama's speech succeeded in providing the uplifting message typical of today's political conventions.