Passion Blog

Goodbye, cruel blogging world. The Ravens lost to Charlie Batch and the Steelers, and they looked awful. Joe Flacco was terrible, John Harbaugh and Cam Cameron once again refused to run the ball even though we have arguably the best running back in the NFL, and Torrey Smith dropped two touchdown catches because he has no hands. Considering the multitude of Pittsburgh’s missed opportunities (Charlie Batch overthrowing Mike Wallace wide open in the end zone, Emmanuel Sanders fumbling a potential touchdown without being touched, etc.) with CHARLIE BATCH at quarterback…..CHARLIE BATCH…it’s safe to say RG3 will have no problem with our defense. Plus, Terrell Suggs is now out for a while after tearing his biceps. Probably done for the season. How the Ravens have 9 wins defies logical, scientific and supernatural explanation. They play horribly every week and have found ways to win at the end by putting together enough good football to barely come out on top. We play Washington next week and they’re on a roll after beating all three division rivals in consecutive weeks. I would not be surprised if Baltimore lost this game considering how bad they’ve played in recent weeks and how well Washington has played. Oh well, we’re done with blogs forever. Yay.

Posted in Passion | 4 Comments

Passion Blog

What a game! San Diego has always played well against Baltimore and Sunday’s game was no different. San Diego absolutely dominated the first half but they only had 10 points to show for it. Baltimore was able to hang around, build some momentum late in the 3rd quarter to bring the score to 10-3 before the start of an incredible 4th quarter performance by Joe Flacco. (Quick diversion: what the hell is Flacco’s deal? It has become almost impossible to tell how he will play not just for a whole game, but this guy does a 180 DURING games.) Did the referees help on that absolutely incredibly 4th and 29 conversion? I don’t think so, and even if they did we’ve been screwed by the refs so many times that I don’t even care. 4th and 29. Flacco, the checkdown champion, threw a short pass off to Ray Rice and he just took off. He put a move on one guy and somehow it worked on two others as well. I cannot be convinced that he was down before he got the 1st down, this was easily the most incredible play in Ravens history and I have literally seen them all! The Ravens are somehow 9-2 with the damn Steelers coming to Baltimore (the toughest place to play in football) possibly without Big Ben for a 3rd straight week! Regardless of who plays quarterback, the momentum swaying in the Ravens direction on the field and historically in Baltimore gives me high hopes that we will pull out another win against Pittsburgh on Sunday. GO RAVENS.

 

I will be wearing my Jesus Hates the Steelers shirt proudly this week.

Posted in Passion | 1 Comment

Policy Draft

John Lewis

English 15 section 95

Policy Paper Abstract

            This paper will provide an in-depth explanation of why the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) must be re-authorized by Congress to protect and support women who are victims of domestic violence. The sources cited in this paper include the statistics of domestic violence in America before and after the implementation of VAWA, personal testimonies from victims of domestic violence about the unjust system in place to handle domestic violence cases, and commentary from op-ed writers for the New York Times. This paper will expose the flaws in the system and propose a solution to make the system in place more protective, compassionate and effective.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

John Lewis

English 15 section 95

Policy Paper

            Killing an attacker in self-defense is a legally acceptable situation and it is not punishable by law in the United States. However, that seems to change when the attacker is the spouse of the person being attacked. Every year, millions of women across America are victims of domestic violence and the United States justice system does them no favors. Unfortunately there is no way to completely eliminate domestic violence in America, but the way the legal system handles cases of domestic violence must change to better protect, support, and seek justice for victims of domestic violence. The Violence against Women Act of 1994 must be re-authorized by Congress to ensure this progress.

            Women should not be incarcerated for killing their abuser; it is often the only way they can escape a potentially fatal environment. However, women do not need to kill their abusive partner to be jailed. In 2005, Katina Britt refused to testify against her ex-boyfriend who allegedly brutally beat her. The Independent Institute wrote “a California judge has ordered her to be jailed on contempt of court charges” (McElroy). The law is supposed to protect and serve citizens of the United States, but the legal system is abusing Britt just as much as her ex-boyfriend did. Here is a victim of a heinous crime who did not commit a crime of her own, yet she is the one in jail for refusing to testify against the man that has caused her to fear for her life. Our legal system responds to the situation by giving Britt two choices; Britt can face her attacker (who may be freed and able to find her) or she can face a prison sentence. There is no compassion or support for the real victims in situations like Katina Britt’s.

            Women that do kill their attackers are often faced with murder charges and are sentenced to long prison terms. Vicky Williams of Missouri was convicted of hiring a hit-man to kill her husband who Williams claimed “sexually, physically, and mentally abused her during their seven-year-marriage” (Alexander). Williams was in jail for 32 years and was blindly labeled as a violent criminal, a murderer, by the justice system that fails to acknowledge the constant danger domestic violence victims life in every day. Another domestic violence victim, Kim Dadou, was imprisoned for 17 years for killing her then-husband to ensure her safety. Dadou spoke out against the courts’ handling of domestic violence victims to the Legislative Gazette, saying “I was in the court room getting orders of protection just a couple months before I was in the court room being charged with murder” (Verette). These women are receiving no protection or compassion from the courts, and justice is being miscarried. Abused women need to trust the legal system so they know they will be protected when they can make their way out of a violent and hostile environment.

            The first step to fixing this problem is to cease incarceration of battered women. When a woman is abused by her partner, she should not be subjected to imprisonment for murder (like Vicky Williams and Kim Dadou), or contempt of court (like Katina Britt). An abused woman will likely be fearful of facing her attacker in court, and testifying against that person could simply make them a target for further abuse later on. The prosecutor in Katina Britt’s case told The Independent Institute, “approximately 75 percent of [domestic violence] victims are reluctant to testify” (McElroy). In court, the victim’s testimony is obviously crucial to the prosecution of suspected criminals. A recorded video testimony should suffice in situations where the victim feels too threatened and overwhelmed to face her attacker in real life. Clearly there will be opposition such as “If a woman wants a man in jail she can face him in court,” but that does not do justice to the emotional stress and abuse the woman has undergone at the hands of the man she must face. The insensitivity toward victims by our justice system essentially forces these women to face the men who terrorize and desecrate them. There is no compassion or care shown for the victims in our legal system.

            In 1994, then-senator Joe Biden drafted the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). The bill was met with widespread bipartisan support and it was signed into law later that year. VAWA was instrumental in creating a network of support for victims of domestic violence as well as bring domestic violence to the forefront of national attention. VAWA even established an Office on Violence Against Women in the United States Department of Justice. The New York Times reported “The law expired in 2011 and has become the focus of a fierce bipartisan battle over competing versions of reauthorization bills.” The differing reauthorization bills focus on who will be protected under the VAWA. A small group of House Republicans do not want to include same-sex couples or illegal and undocumented immigrants in the Act. The only fair and logical solution is to swear to protect all people under the act regardless of gender, sexual orientation, or legal status. If a person is abused in America it is up to the American justice system focus on prosecuting the abuser, not questioning the person being abused. The reauthorization process is ongoing with no signs of an agreement coming soon. While Congress fights over the exclusion of certain groups, people are being beaten, raped and killed.

            In order to include all people in the Violence Against Women Act on the national level, we must first be united at the state level. The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence states that “Delaware, Montana and South Carolina specifically exclude same-sex relationships from their domestic violence laws.” These states must amend their current laws to adapt to modern times. The issue of domestic violence does not relate in any way to the same-sex marriage debate. Same-sex couples are more prominent now than ever before in the United States. Regardless of whether their marriage should be recognized in their home state, a personal attack on one person by another should always be recognized by the law as illegal. If the attacker and victim did not know each other, it would be considered an assault and a crime. Why does their relationship abolish the attacker of his crimes? It does not. The law should not ignore violent crimes because of sexual orientation. Local activism and national attention should be made to this issue to stimulate public concern and demand that these laws recognize domestic abuse as abuse regardless of the couple.

            The programs of support implemented by the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 are not going to be in place if Congress does not reauthorize the law. The Act was funded to help pay for legal support of domestic violence victims, the upkeep of crisis centers and hotlines that women must be able to access, and other forms of victim protection. An abusive man could be the sole breadwinner for his family, and the dilemma that a woman faces (particularly an abused mother) is whether she should stay for the kids or if she should leave for herself. If the battered woman safely escapes with her children, she often does not have a place to go. That is where VAWA came in. The programs and crisis centers funded by VAWA would assist the woman and children in finding work, temporarily providing a safe place to live, and further aiding the victims in starting a new life away from their previous home environment. Women escaping domestic violence everywhere are looking for somewhere to go and since VAWA is currently expired, these women have a significantly smaller amount of options available to them.

            The Violence Against Women Act has produced concrete evidence that it has been effective since its implementation in 1994. The Los Angeles County Bar Association published a chart displaying the statistics of domestic violence in their jurisdiction. The amount of domestic violence calls involving hands, fists and feet decreased from approximately 53,000 in 1994 (the inaugural year of VAWA) to 41,000 in 2002. If these policies were in effect right now, and they protected all people, the amount of domestic violence cases nationwide would decrease as they have in recent years. The American Bar Association’s Commission on Domestic Violence states that “approximately 1.3 million women and 835,000 men are physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States.” Together, that is more than two million people being ignored by Congress’ inability to come to their senses and reauthorize VAWA.

            In conclusion, the United States does not properly protect or serve victims of domestic violence. The victims are abused by the legal system just as much as they are abused by their partner, and it is time we put a stop to it. The Violence Against Women Act needs to be reauthorized by Congress to include all people in the United States. It is an unjust travesty that Congress believes some people are not worthy of legal protection but others are. As Americans, we will have failed our own if we allow this gross miscarriage of justice to continue as it is. These victims need compassion and understanding, not jail sentences and legal abuse.

 

 

Works Cited

Alexander, Caitlin. “Battered Justice: A Domestic Violence Victim’s Life After Prison.” KOMU.com. N.p., 7 May 2012. Web. 10 Nov. 2012. <http://www.komu.com/news/battered-justice-domestic-violence-victim-s-life-after-prison/>.

“Domestic Violence Fact Sheet.” National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. N.p., 2011. Web. 10 Nov. 2012. <http://www.ncadv.org/files/DomesticViolenceFactSheet(National).pdf>.

LA County Stats Chart Calls. Digital image. Los Angeles County Bar Association. N.p., 2002. Web. 10 Nov. 2012. <http://www.lacba.org/Files/Main%20Folder/DomesticViolence-norightnav/images/LA_County_Stats_Chart_Calls.png>.

McElroy, Wendy. “Don’t Jail Domestic Violence Victims.” The Independent Institute. N.p., 14 Dec. 2005. Web. 10 Nov. 2012. <http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1638>.

Verrette, Amanda. “Domestic Violence Victims Want Shorter Prison Terms.” LegislativeGazette.com. N.p., 23 Apr. 2012. Web. 10 Nov. 2012. <http://www.legislativegazette.com/Articles-Top-Stories-c-2012-04-23-81601.113122-Domestic-violence-victims-want-shorter-prison-terms.html>.

“Violence Against Women Act.” New York Times. N.p., 16 May 2012. Web. 10 Nov. 2012. <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/d/domestic_violence/index.html>.

Posted in Work in Progress | Leave a comment

Rebuttal Draft

John Lewis

English 15 section 95

Dr. O’Hara

Rebuttal Paper

                Dear Mr. John Cloud,

                In your article “Should the Drinking Age be Lowered?” in Time, you argue that the drinking age should remain at 21 in the United States. A statement of yours that struck me was “It’s unclear why shifting the venue of drinking from frat houses to bars will help solve the problem of hard-core student drinking.” Although you present a valid point, I believe that reducing the drinking age to 18 while implementing much more thorough and extensive alcohol education for young people will reduce the dangers of what is currently underage drinking. The evidence just doesn’t stack up that lowering the drinking age will cause more harm than alcohol already does.

                Your argument is that lowering the drinking age will simply contribute more to the pre-existing problems associated with underage drinking. Unfortunately, teens will continue abuse alcohol whether the drinking age is lowered or not. This tragic circumstance begs the question, “What can we do to better prepare our children to responsibly consume alcohol?” Banning it outright for people less than 21 years of age simply does not help. According to Too Smart to Start, a government program dedicated to the prevention of underage drinking, “more than 70 percent of teens have had at least one drink.” The chances that a teenager only had one drink in a setting where alcohol was readily available to them is slim, so the assumption can be made that a majority of these teenagers have been drunk at least once. To fight binge drinking among teenagers, it makes more sense to introduce them to the effects of alcohol when they are 18 and considered a legal adult than it does to withhold it from them until what is (for some) their last year of college. Introducing teenagers to alcohol before college will further educate and prepare them to make their own decisions when they are in college.

                You ponder many aspects of the potential alteration of the national drinking age. You ask, “

If the drinking age is lowered to 18, who is to provide the supervision…” This question seems rather easy to answer, although it would require some cooperation by the public school system. Most students turn 18 when they are in high school and therefore living at home, which would mean schools and parents would be more directly affected by the lowering of the drinking age. Parents would assume the responsibility and supervision necessary to ensure their children are drinking responsibly. Legally-able drinkers would be living in their houses; they would be much more active in educating their children about alcohol if they are living under their roof. Obviously, the rebellious teenage spirit will be compelled to ignore advice from time to time, but the legal ability to introduce teenagers to alcohol safely will allow them to feel the potential dangers that come with heavier drinking.

                The ultimate goal of the drinking age debate is to create a system that makes teenage life safer and promotes smart decisions. No one wants people to die because of alcohol-related mistakes. Changes need to be made to give teenagers proper education of the effects alcohol in a safe, practical setting. The most developed plan is that of John McCardell Jr.’s Choose Responsibility.  Throughout your article, you question the practicality of Choose Responsibility. You criticize the plan’s interest in lowering the drinking age and say that a 21-year-old drinking age is more beneficial to society than an 18-year-old drinking age. McCardell wrote on the Choose Responsibility website that “Alcohol is a reality in the lives of young Americans. It cannot be denied, ignored, or legislated away.”  McCardell’s statement is concise and true. Alcohol-related car accidents will continue to happen, binge drinking will continue to happen, and underage drinking will continue to happen regardless of the drinking age. The most practical thing we can do is introduce young people to alcohol when they become legal adults. If they can vote, serve in the military and be sentenced to death, they deserve to be properly educated about alcohol, right?

                If we are to get to the root of the drinking dilemma, we must dig deeper than just the drinking age. What is the root at which problems begin to grow? What is the central issue that causes other problems? Opposing Viewpoints in Context considered the drinking dilemma and came to this conclusion: “The principal problem of 2009 is not drunken driving. The principal problem of 2009 is clandestine binge drinking.” This does not mean that drunken driving is not a problem and that it does not need to be addressed. What it means is that the cause of drunken driving among teenagers is clandestine binge drinking. Underage drinking is blatantly breaking the law. When you break the law you will obviously try to hide your actions so as to not get caught, arrested, etc. The teenagers who are driving drunk are likely driving drunk because they are hiding their drinking from civil authorities as well as authoritative people in their life (chiefly, parents). Teenagers know they have to be careful when they drink, but they’re careful for the wrong reasons. They are not careful of the amount of alcohol consumption or of the safety of others around them. They are careful to hide their drinking so they do not get in trouble. We must change this thought process and foster in your teenagers the sense of responsibility a drinker must endure. They must be aware of the people they may affect rather than simply looking for parents and cops.

                In conclusion, I do not believe the drinking age of 21-years-old is any more justified or effective as it would be if it were lowered to 18. The dangers of alcohol will still exist. But these dangers will be much more prevalent in the lives of typical families and therefore they would be more addressed, and the young adults who would become of age would be more prepared to handle the responsibility that come with alcohol. A lower drinking age will lead to a better understanding of responsible alcohol use in our young people. They are the focus of this issue, we must educate them when they’re at home before they make poor and uneducated decisions on their own.

 

Sincerely,

 

John Lewis

 

 

Works Cited

Cloud, John. “Should the Drinking Age Be Lowered?” Time.com. Time Magazine, 6 June 2008. Web. 1 Nov. 2012. <http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1812397,00.html>.

“The Drinking Age Should Be Lowered.” Opposing Viewpoints in Context. N.p., 2011. Web. 1 Nov. 2012. <http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Viewpoints&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=false&source=&sortBy=&displayGroups=&zid=&search_within_results=&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010436248>.

McCardell, John, Jr. “Choose Responsibility.” Choose Responsibility. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Nov. 2012. <http://www.chooseresponsibility.org/>.

“Underage Drinking Statistics.” Too Smart To Start. N.p., 14 May 2012. Web. 1 Nov. 2012. <http://www.toosmarttostart.samhsa.gov/families/facts/statistics.aspx>.

Posted in Work in Progress | Leave a comment

Rhetoric & Civic Life

I never thought so carefully about the words I used until about a half hour ago. My friend Katy just lost her father after a 4-year battle with pancreatic cancer. Katy is one of my best friends, and when I found out her father had passed I just didn’t know what to say. We don’t talk as much as we used to since we went to college, but I wanted to let her know I was praying for her and her family without saying something that would upset her. It took me a solid 20 minutes to write three sentences to let her know that I love her and I’m praying for her. I didn’t think that carefully about word choice when writing my papers. Saying the right thing to someone who is grieving could have a profound impact on them. I’m sure there is some rhetoric involved here, but I don’t know what it was. My main goal was to let my friend know I’m here for her without saying anything that would upset her. It really made me think about the power words can have. It was all I had to express my condolences, and I think I used it effectively.

Posted in Rhetoric and Civic Life | 1 Comment

Passion Blog

If Joe Flacco could consistently play the way he did last Sunday, the Ravens would be unstoppable. Honestly, the fact that the Ravens are 7-2 is a little baffling. They put together a streak of ugly wins before Sunday’s shellacking of the Raiders. Hopefully Ben Roethlisberger doesn’t play Sunday night because that would certainly make things a lot easier on the defense. I don’t know what to make of the Ravens-Steelers games being separated only by 1 week. The games are always so physically ridiculous that playing them so close to one another will certainly cause a serious injury to someone. BUT it’s also kind of awesome that they play each other twice in three weeks. I don’t know. Either way, Jesus hates the Steelers. Go Ravens.

Posted in Passion | Leave a comment

Rhetoric & Civic Life

I have failed multiple times to persuade my brother to bring me home for the weekend. There isn’t much sound argument involved because no conversation with my brother is very substantive. I’ll call him and try to get him to pick me up by using logos and pathos, but it just pisses him off. I told him, “What else are you going to do? You don’t do anything, you don’t have a job and you know you miss me and we would have a lot of fun if we chilled this weekend at home.” Well, I was at least somewhat constructive in presenting evidence as to why he should pick me up. But calling him out on his laziness probably wasn’t the best way to go about it. Although it made me laugh when I said it, all he did was call me an a-hole and he proceeded to hang up the phone. One failed attempt after another, no matter what I say, it doesn’t convince him to come get me. I don’t know what to do!

Posted in Rhetoric and Civic Life | 2 Comments

Passion Blog

The Ravens beat the Browns, but by no means was it impressive. The final score was 25-15, Cleveland scoring 5 field goals (in typical Browns fashion). Ray Rice was FINALLY properly utilized, rushing 25 times for 95 yards and a touchdown. Joe Flacco went 15/24, throwing for 153 yards and a touchdown. Flacco wants a lengthy and lucrative contract extension but his play this season does not suggest he deserves it. Forget about stats, the Ravens have not held a comfortable lead in a game since week 1. Flacco played extremely well against Cincinnati in the opening night win, but since that game he has been average. Average might be a compliment sometimes, too. Somehow Baltimore is 6-2 this season, and this week they play the Raiders at home. They are an incredible home team, and I think they’ll win ugly (again) to move to 7-2 before their downward spiral begins.

Posted in Passion | 3 Comments

Passion: Week 8

The Ravens had a bye this week (thank god), so instead I will write about what very well could be the best rap album in at least 5 years. If you exclude the living rap legends (Jay-Z, Eminem, Nas, etc.) the best rapper alive is Kendrick Lamar, and quite honestly I don’t see anyone that can even come close. I first came across his mixtape Section.80 last summer the day it came out, just by chance. If you are a fan of hip-hop and haven’t heard his early work before, I strongly suggest that you do. Imagine Nas’ storytelling, Eminem’s vocabulary, Jay-Z’s lyrical depth and Big L’s ridiculous punchlines all combined into one. That is what Kendrick Lamar has. His major-label debut album (good kid, m.A.A.d city) came out last Tuesday and it is (in my opinion) the best rap album released in years. It’s one of those albums where if listened to from beginning to end it tells a complex but powerful story, but every track can stand on its own and still be incredible. The singles from this album (The Recipe featuring Dr. Dre and Swimming Pools) were both highly regarded, but honestly they aren’t even in the 5 best tracks on the album. There is so much that goes in to every one of these songs that it takes a few listens to really pick up on everything. It’s worth the listen, buy the album. You will not regret it. This is possibly the best new rapper in 15 years.

Posted in Passion | 2 Comments

Rhetoric & Civic Life: Week 7

This actually happened about 10 minutes ago. I don’t know what kind of rhetorical devices I used, but I got what I wanted. I was looking at my twitter timeline, and sometimes the things I see are pretty annoying. I follow a few famous people, and the things they retweet are kind of pathetic. Nationals shortstop Ian Desmond retweeted a little girl who painted a pumpkin with the design of his jersey. That was pretty cool actually, and it makes sense why someone would want their twitter followers to see something like that. Then some pathetic loser who was probably in his 20s did just the thing that pisses me off. His tweet was “I can’t even imagine what it would feel like to get retweeted by@IanDesmond20“. Now, I completely understand why someone would want a professional baseball player to mention them on twitter for a large group of people to see (I do too), but still come on, have some sort of self-respect.

So, after seeing this disturbing trend I decided to join in. I tweeted “maybe if i sound desperate enough @IanDesmond20 will retweet me too”. I tried not to sound desperate for a retweet by basically asking for a retweet, and though it didn’t work out entirely, I was pleased with the results. He responded! (joining Michael Wilbon my idol, and Kevin Negandhi of ESPN as famous people to retweet me or mention me on twitter. That’s right, I’m just as pathetic as the people I referenced above, I just won’t look like it on twitter.) He said “how bout a reply instead” which was pretty awesome. I don’t know whether to consider myself as a rhetorical mastermind for manipulating the Nationals shortstop into mentioning me on twitter, or if I should not think so highly of myself and realize there wasn’t any rhetoric employed at all.

I know this isn’t what a typical RCL blog is supposed to look like, but maybe I used rhetoric without even knowing it. Although there is still a possibility there was no rhetoric in this scenario. Help!

Posted in Rhetoric and Civic Life | 3 Comments