Book review The Shareholder Value Myth: How Putting Shareholders First Harms Investors, Corporations, and the Public by Lynn Stout Provide 1) a 900 word review of this book (word range 900-1,200) and 2) a 350 word reflection where you force yourself to relate the message of the book . As per the format of the review, I like the ones done by the folks of the WSJ. This is an example: http://forums.delphiforums.com/diversecity/messages?msg=17531.1264 or http://www.wsj.com/articles/book-review-how-adam-smith-can-change-your-life-by-russ-roberts-1413846808?KEYWORDS=book+reviews

Book review The Shareholder Value Myth: How Putting Shareholders First Harms Investors, Corporations, and the Public by Lynn Stout Provide 1) a 900 word review of this book (word range 900-1,200) and 2) a 350 word reflection where you force yourself to relate the message of the book . As per the format of the review, I like the ones done by the folks of the WSJ. This is an example: http://forums.delphiforums.com/diversecity/messages?msg=17531.1264 or http://www.wsj.com/articles/book-review-how-adam-smith-can-change-your-life-by-russ-roberts-1413846808?KEYWORDS=book+reviews

The Shareholder Value Myth: How Putting Shareholders First Harms Investors, … Read More...
Do an internet search to find the weirdest animal ( 25 animals) Information need included: 1- name of animals. 2-description. (Your own words) 3-why do you thing it’s weird?

Do an internet search to find the weirdest animal ( 25 animals) Information need included: 1- name of animals. 2-description. (Your own words) 3-why do you thing it’s weird?

S.no Name of the animal Description and Reasons of thinking … Read More...
HST 102: Paper 7 Formal essay, due in class on the day of the debate No late papers will be accepted. Answer the following inquiry in a typed (and stapled) 2 page essay in the five-paragraph format. Present and describe three of your arguments that you will use to defend your position concerning eugenics. Each argument must be unique (don’t describe the same argument twice from a different angle). Each argument must include at least one quotation from the texts to support your position (a minimum of 3 total). You may discuss your positions and arguments with other people on your side (but not your opponents); however, each student must write their own essay in their own words. Do not copy sentences or paragraphs from another student’s paper, this is plagiarism and will result in a failing grade for the assignment. HST 102: Debate 4 Eugenics For or Against? Basics of the debate: The term ‘Eugenics’ was derived from two Greek words and literally means ‘good genes’. Eugenics is the social philosophy or practice of engineering society based on genes, or promoting the reproduction of good genes while reducing (or prohibiting) the reproduction of bad genes. Your group will argue either for or against the adoption of eugenic policies in your society. Key Terms: Eugenics – The study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics). Darwinism – The Darwinian theory that species originate by descent, with variation, from parent forms, through the natural selection of those individuals best adapted for the reproductive success of their kind. Social Darwinism – A 19th-century theory, inspired by Darwinism, by which the social order is accounted as the product of natural selection of those persons best suited to existing living conditions. Mendelian Inheritance – Theory proposed by Gregor Johann Mendal in 1865 that became the first theory of genetic inheritance derived from experiments with peas. Birth Control – Any means to artificially prevent biological conception. Euthanasia – A policy of ending the life of an individual for their betterment (for example, because of excessive pain, brain dead, etc.) or society’s benefit. Genocide – A policy of murdering all members of a specific group of people who share a common characteristic. Deductive Logic – Deriving a specific conclusion based on a set of general definitions. Inductive Logic – Deriving a general conclusion based on a number of specific examples. Brief Historical Background: Eugenics was first proposed by Francis Galton in his 1883 work, Inquiries into Human Faculty and its Development. Galton was a cousin of Charles Darwin and an early supporter of Darwin’s theories of natural selection and evolution. Galton defined eugenics as the study of all agencies under human control which can improve or impair the racial quality of future generations. Galton’s work utilized a number of other scientific pursuits at the time including the study of heredity, genes, chromosomes, evolution, social Darwinism, zoology, birth control, sociology, psychology, chemistry, atomic theory and electrodynamics. The number of significant scientific advances was accelerating throughout the 19th century altering what science was and what its role in society could and should be. Galton’s work had a significant influence throughout all areas of society, from scientific communities to politics, culture and literature. A number of organizations were created to explore the science of eugenics and its possible applications to society. Ultimately, eugenics became a means by which to improve society through policies based on scientific study. Most of these policies related to reproductive practices within a society, specifically who could or should not reproduce. Throughout the late 1800s and early 1900s a number of policies were enacted at various levels throughout Europe and the United States aimed at controlling procreation. Some specific policies included compulsory sterilization laws (usually concerning criminals and the mentally ill) as well as banning interracial marriages to prevent ‘cross-racial’ breeding. In the United States a number of individuals and foundations supported the exploration of eugenics as a means to positively influence society, including: the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Institution, the Race Betterment Foundation of Battle Creek, MI, the Eugenics Record Office, the American Breeders Association, the Euthanasia Society of America; and individuals such as Charles Davenport, Madison Grant, Alexander Graham Bell, Irving Fisher, John D. Rockefeller, Margaret Sanger, Marie Stopes, David Starr Jordan, Vernon Kellogg, H. G. Wells (though he later changed sides) Winston Churchill, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes and Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover and Theodore Roosevelt. Some early critics of eugenics included: Dr. John Haycroft, Halliday Sutherland, Lancelot Hogben, Franz Boaz, Lester Ward, G. K. Chesterton, J. B. S. Haldane, and R. A. Fisher. In 1911 the Carnegie Institute recommended constructing gas chambers around the country to euthanize certain elements of the American population (primarily the poor and criminals) considered to be harmful to the future of society as a possible eugenic solution. President Woodrow Wilson signed the first Sterilization Act in US history. In the 1920s and 30s, 30 states passed various eugenics laws, some of which were overturned by the Supreme Court. Eugenics of various forms was a founding principle of the Progressive Party, strongly supported by the first progressive president Theodore Roosevelt, and would continue to play an important part in influencing progressive policies into at least the 1940s. Many American individuals and societies supported German research on eugenics that would eventually be used to develop and justify the policies utilized by the NAZI party against minority groups including Jews, Africans, gypsies and others that ultimately led to programs of genocide and the holocaust. Following WWII and worldwide exposure of the holocaust eugenics generally fell out of favor among the public, though various lesser forms of eugenics are still advocated for today by such individuals as Dottie Lamm, Geoffrey Miller, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, John Glad and Richard Dawson. Eugenics still influences many modern debates including: capital punishment, over-population, global warming, medicine (disease control and genetic disorders), birth control, abortion, artificial insemination, evolution, social engineering, and education. Key Points to discuss during the debate: • Individual rights vs. collective rights • The pros and cons of genetically engineering society • The practicality of genetically engineering society • Methods used to determine ‘good traits’ and ‘bad traits’ • Who determines which people are ‘fit’ or ‘unfit’ for future society • The role of science in society • Methods used to derive scientific conclusions • Ability of scientists to determine the future hereditary conditions of individuals • The value/accuracy of scientific conclusions • The role of the government to implement eugenic policies • Some possible eugenic political policies or laws • The ways these policies may be used effectively or abused • The relationship between eugenics and individual rights • The role of ethics in science and eugenics Strategies: 1. Use this guide to help you (particularly the key points). 2. Read all of the texts. 3. If needed, read secondary analysis concerning eugenics. 4. Identify key quotations as you read each text. Perhaps make a list of them to print out and/or group quotes by topic or point. 5. Develop multiple arguments to defend your position. 6. Prioritize your arguments from most persuasive to least persuasive and from most evidence to least evidence. 7. Anticipate the arguments of your opponents and develop counter-arguments for them. 8. Anticipate counter-arguments to your own arguments and develop responses to them.

HST 102: Paper 7 Formal essay, due in class on the day of the debate No late papers will be accepted. Answer the following inquiry in a typed (and stapled) 2 page essay in the five-paragraph format. Present and describe three of your arguments that you will use to defend your position concerning eugenics. Each argument must be unique (don’t describe the same argument twice from a different angle). Each argument must include at least one quotation from the texts to support your position (a minimum of 3 total). You may discuss your positions and arguments with other people on your side (but not your opponents); however, each student must write their own essay in their own words. Do not copy sentences or paragraphs from another student’s paper, this is plagiarism and will result in a failing grade for the assignment. HST 102: Debate 4 Eugenics For or Against? Basics of the debate: The term ‘Eugenics’ was derived from two Greek words and literally means ‘good genes’. Eugenics is the social philosophy or practice of engineering society based on genes, or promoting the reproduction of good genes while reducing (or prohibiting) the reproduction of bad genes. Your group will argue either for or against the adoption of eugenic policies in your society. Key Terms: Eugenics – The study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics). Darwinism – The Darwinian theory that species originate by descent, with variation, from parent forms, through the natural selection of those individuals best adapted for the reproductive success of their kind. Social Darwinism – A 19th-century theory, inspired by Darwinism, by which the social order is accounted as the product of natural selection of those persons best suited to existing living conditions. Mendelian Inheritance – Theory proposed by Gregor Johann Mendal in 1865 that became the first theory of genetic inheritance derived from experiments with peas. Birth Control – Any means to artificially prevent biological conception. Euthanasia – A policy of ending the life of an individual for their betterment (for example, because of excessive pain, brain dead, etc.) or society’s benefit. Genocide – A policy of murdering all members of a specific group of people who share a common characteristic. Deductive Logic – Deriving a specific conclusion based on a set of general definitions. Inductive Logic – Deriving a general conclusion based on a number of specific examples. Brief Historical Background: Eugenics was first proposed by Francis Galton in his 1883 work, Inquiries into Human Faculty and its Development. Galton was a cousin of Charles Darwin and an early supporter of Darwin’s theories of natural selection and evolution. Galton defined eugenics as the study of all agencies under human control which can improve or impair the racial quality of future generations. Galton’s work utilized a number of other scientific pursuits at the time including the study of heredity, genes, chromosomes, evolution, social Darwinism, zoology, birth control, sociology, psychology, chemistry, atomic theory and electrodynamics. The number of significant scientific advances was accelerating throughout the 19th century altering what science was and what its role in society could and should be. Galton’s work had a significant influence throughout all areas of society, from scientific communities to politics, culture and literature. A number of organizations were created to explore the science of eugenics and its possible applications to society. Ultimately, eugenics became a means by which to improve society through policies based on scientific study. Most of these policies related to reproductive practices within a society, specifically who could or should not reproduce. Throughout the late 1800s and early 1900s a number of policies were enacted at various levels throughout Europe and the United States aimed at controlling procreation. Some specific policies included compulsory sterilization laws (usually concerning criminals and the mentally ill) as well as banning interracial marriages to prevent ‘cross-racial’ breeding. In the United States a number of individuals and foundations supported the exploration of eugenics as a means to positively influence society, including: the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Institution, the Race Betterment Foundation of Battle Creek, MI, the Eugenics Record Office, the American Breeders Association, the Euthanasia Society of America; and individuals such as Charles Davenport, Madison Grant, Alexander Graham Bell, Irving Fisher, John D. Rockefeller, Margaret Sanger, Marie Stopes, David Starr Jordan, Vernon Kellogg, H. G. Wells (though he later changed sides) Winston Churchill, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes and Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover and Theodore Roosevelt. Some early critics of eugenics included: Dr. John Haycroft, Halliday Sutherland, Lancelot Hogben, Franz Boaz, Lester Ward, G. K. Chesterton, J. B. S. Haldane, and R. A. Fisher. In 1911 the Carnegie Institute recommended constructing gas chambers around the country to euthanize certain elements of the American population (primarily the poor and criminals) considered to be harmful to the future of society as a possible eugenic solution. President Woodrow Wilson signed the first Sterilization Act in US history. In the 1920s and 30s, 30 states passed various eugenics laws, some of which were overturned by the Supreme Court. Eugenics of various forms was a founding principle of the Progressive Party, strongly supported by the first progressive president Theodore Roosevelt, and would continue to play an important part in influencing progressive policies into at least the 1940s. Many American individuals and societies supported German research on eugenics that would eventually be used to develop and justify the policies utilized by the NAZI party against minority groups including Jews, Africans, gypsies and others that ultimately led to programs of genocide and the holocaust. Following WWII and worldwide exposure of the holocaust eugenics generally fell out of favor among the public, though various lesser forms of eugenics are still advocated for today by such individuals as Dottie Lamm, Geoffrey Miller, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, John Glad and Richard Dawson. Eugenics still influences many modern debates including: capital punishment, over-population, global warming, medicine (disease control and genetic disorders), birth control, abortion, artificial insemination, evolution, social engineering, and education. Key Points to discuss during the debate: • Individual rights vs. collective rights • The pros and cons of genetically engineering society • The practicality of genetically engineering society • Methods used to determine ‘good traits’ and ‘bad traits’ • Who determines which people are ‘fit’ or ‘unfit’ for future society • The role of science in society • Methods used to derive scientific conclusions • Ability of scientists to determine the future hereditary conditions of individuals • The value/accuracy of scientific conclusions • The role of the government to implement eugenic policies • Some possible eugenic political policies or laws • The ways these policies may be used effectively or abused • The relationship between eugenics and individual rights • The role of ethics in science and eugenics Strategies: 1. Use this guide to help you (particularly the key points). 2. Read all of the texts. 3. If needed, read secondary analysis concerning eugenics. 4. Identify key quotations as you read each text. Perhaps make a list of them to print out and/or group quotes by topic or point. 5. Develop multiple arguments to defend your position. 6. Prioritize your arguments from most persuasive to least persuasive and from most evidence to least evidence. 7. Anticipate the arguments of your opponents and develop counter-arguments for them. 8. Anticipate counter-arguments to your own arguments and develop responses to them.

which of the following is one guarantee afforded to the states through reserved power ? 1.state laws trump national law, 2. They can implement policies unique to their state, 3. htey will get all their funding from the national government, 4. they are able to create post offices, 5. they are able to freely shift territory without debate to another state.

which of the following is one guarantee afforded to the states through reserved power ? 1.state laws trump national law, 2. They can implement policies unique to their state, 3. htey will get all their funding from the national government, 4. they are able to create post offices, 5. they are able to freely shift territory without debate to another state.

4.   they are able to create post office
Fact Debate Brief Introduction Crime doesn’t pay; it should be punished. Even since childhood, a slap on the hand has prevented possible criminals from ever committing the same offense; whether it was successful or not depended on how much that child wanted that cookie. While a slap on the wrist might or might not be an effective deterrent, the same can be said about the death penalty. Every day, somewhere in the world, a criminal is stopped permanently from committing any future costs, but this is by the means of the death. While effective in stopping one person permanently, it does nothing about the crime world as a whole. While it is necessary to end the career of a criminal, no matter what his or her crime is, we must not end it by taking a life. Through this paper, the death penalty will be proven ineffective at deterring crime by use of other environmental factors. Definition: The death penalty is defined as the universal punishment of death as legally applied by a fair court system. It is important for it to be a fair legal system, as not to confuse it with genocide, mob mentality, or any other ruling without trial. Claim 1: Use of the death penalty is in decline Ground 1: According to the book The Death Penalty: A Worldwide Perspective by Roger Hood and Carolyn Hoyle, published Dec. 8th, 2014, the Oxford professors in criminology say “As in most of the rest of the world, the death penalty in the US is in decline and distributed unevenly in frequency of use” even addressing that, as of April 2014, 18 states no longer have a death penalty, and even Oregon and Washington are considering removing their death penalty laws. Furthermore, in 2013, only 9 of these states still retaining the death penalty actually executed someone. Warrant 1: The death penalty can be reinstated at any time, but so far, it hasn’t been. At the same time, more states consider getting rid of it altogether. Therefore, it becomes clear that even states don’t want to be involved with this process showing that this is a disliked process. Claim 2: Even states with death penalty in effect still have high crime rates. Ground 2: With the reports gathered from fbi.gov, lawstreetmedia.com, a website based around political expertise and research determined the ranking of each state based on violent crime, published September 12th, 2014. Of the top ten most violent states, only three of which had the death penalty instituted (Maryland #9, New Mexico #4, Alaska #3). The other seven still had the system in place, and, despite it, still have a high amount of violent crime. On the opposite end of the spectrum, at the bottom ten most violent states, four of which, including the bottom-most states, do not have the death penalty in place. Warrant 2: With this ranking, it literally proves that the death penalty does not deter crime, or that there is a correlation between having the death penalty and having a decrease in the crime rate. Therefore, the idea of death penalty deterring crime is a null term in the sense that there is no, or a flawed connection. Claim 3: Violent crime is decreasing (but not because if the death penalty) Ground 3 A: According to an article published by The Economist, dated July 23rd, 2013, the rate of violent crime is in fact decreasing, but not because of the death penalty, but rather, because we have more police. From 1995 to 2010, policing has increased one-fifth, and with it, a decline in crime rate. In fact, in cities such as Detroit where policing has been cut, an opposite effect, an increase in crime, has been reported. Ground 3 B: An article from the Wall Street Journal, dated May 28th, 2011, also cites a decline in violent, only this time, citing the reason as a correlation with poverty levels. In 2009, at the start of the housing crisis, crime rates also dropped noticeably. Oddly enough, this article points out the belief that unemployment is often associated with crime; instead, the evidence presented is environmental in nature. Warrant 3: Crime rate isn’t deterred by death penalty, but rather, our surroundings. Seeing as how conditions have improved, so has the state of peace. Therefore, it becomes clear that the death penalty is ineffective at deterring crime because other key factors present more possibility for improvement of society. Claim 4: The death penalty is a historically flawed system. Ground 4A: According to the book The Death Penalty: Constitutional Issues, Commentaries, and Case Briefs by Scott Vollum, published in 2005, addresses how the case of the death penalty emerged to where it is today. While the book is now a decade old, it is used for historical context, particularly, in describing the first execution that took place in 1608. While it is true that most of these executions weren’t as well-grounded as the modern ones that take place now, they still had no effect in deterring crime. Why? Because even after America was established and more sane, the death penalty still had to be used because criminals still had violent behaviors. Ground 4B: According to data from Mother Jones, published May 17th, 2013, the reason why the crime rate was so high in the past could possibly be due to yet another environmental factor (affected by change over time), exposure to lead. Since the removal of lead from paint started over a hundred years ago, there has been a decline in homicide. Why is this important? Lead poisoning in child’s brain, if not lethal, can affect development and lead to mental disability, lower IQ, and lack of reasoning. Warrant 4: By examining history as a whole, there is a greater correlation between other factors that have resulted in a decline in violent crime. The decline in the crime rate has been an ongoing process, but has shown a faster decline due to other environmental factors, rather than the instatement of the death penalty. Claim 5: The world’s violent crime rate is changing, but not due to the death penalty. Ground 5A: According to article published by Amnesty USA in March of 2014, the number of executions under the death penalty reported in 2013 had increased by 15%. However, the rate of violent crime in the world has decreased significantly in the last decade. But, Latvia, for example, has permanently banned the death penalty since 2012. In 2014, the country was viewed overall as safe and low in violent crime rate. Ground 5B: However, while it is true that there is a decline in violent crime rate worldwide, The World Bank, April 17, 2013, reports that the rate of global poverty is decreasing. In a similar vein to the US, because wealth is being distributed better and conditions are improving overall, there is a steady decline in crime rate. Warrant 5: By examining the world as a whole, it becomes clear that it doesn’t matter if the death penalty is in place, violent crime will still exist. However, mirroring the US, as simple conditions improve, so does lifestyle. The death penalty does not deter crime in the world, rather a better quality of life is responsible for that. Works Cited “Death Sentences and Executions 2013.” Amnesty International USA. Amnesty USA, 26 Mar. 2014. Web. 15 Mar. 2015. <http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/reports/death-sentences-and-executions-2013>. D. K. “Why Is Crime Falling?” The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 23 July 2013. Web. 12 Mar. 2015. <http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/07/economist-explains-16>. Drum, Kevin. “The US Murder Rate Is on Track to Be Lowest in a Century.”Mother Jones. Mother Jones, 17 May 2013. Web. 13 Mar. 2015. <http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/05/us-murder-rate-track-be-lowest-century>. Hood, Roger, and Carolyn Hoyle. The Death Penalty: A Worldwide Perspective. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2002. 45. Print. Rizzo, Kevin. “Slideshow: America’s Safest and Most Dangerous States 2014.”Law Street Media. Law Street TM, 12 Sept. 2014. Web. 12 Mar. 2015. <http://lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/crime/safest-and-most-dangerous-states-2014/#slideshow>. Vollum, Scott. The Death Penalty: Constitutional Issues, Commentaries, and Case Briefs. Newark, NJ: LexisNexis, 2005. 2. Print. Theis, David. “Remarkable Declines in Global Poverty, But Major Challenges Remain.” The World Bank. The World Bank, 17 Apr. 2013. Web. 15 Mar. 2015. <http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2013/04/17/remarkable-declines-in-global-poverty-but-major-challenges-remain>. Wilson, James Q. “Hard Times, Fewer Crimes.” WSJ. The Wall Street Journal, 28 May 2011. Web. 13 Mar. 2015. <http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304066504576345553135009870>.

Fact Debate Brief Introduction Crime doesn’t pay; it should be punished. Even since childhood, a slap on the hand has prevented possible criminals from ever committing the same offense; whether it was successful or not depended on how much that child wanted that cookie. While a slap on the wrist might or might not be an effective deterrent, the same can be said about the death penalty. Every day, somewhere in the world, a criminal is stopped permanently from committing any future costs, but this is by the means of the death. While effective in stopping one person permanently, it does nothing about the crime world as a whole. While it is necessary to end the career of a criminal, no matter what his or her crime is, we must not end it by taking a life. Through this paper, the death penalty will be proven ineffective at deterring crime by use of other environmental factors. Definition: The death penalty is defined as the universal punishment of death as legally applied by a fair court system. It is important for it to be a fair legal system, as not to confuse it with genocide, mob mentality, or any other ruling without trial. Claim 1: Use of the death penalty is in decline Ground 1: According to the book The Death Penalty: A Worldwide Perspective by Roger Hood and Carolyn Hoyle, published Dec. 8th, 2014, the Oxford professors in criminology say “As in most of the rest of the world, the death penalty in the US is in decline and distributed unevenly in frequency of use” even addressing that, as of April 2014, 18 states no longer have a death penalty, and even Oregon and Washington are considering removing their death penalty laws. Furthermore, in 2013, only 9 of these states still retaining the death penalty actually executed someone. Warrant 1: The death penalty can be reinstated at any time, but so far, it hasn’t been. At the same time, more states consider getting rid of it altogether. Therefore, it becomes clear that even states don’t want to be involved with this process showing that this is a disliked process. Claim 2: Even states with death penalty in effect still have high crime rates. Ground 2: With the reports gathered from fbi.gov, lawstreetmedia.com, a website based around political expertise and research determined the ranking of each state based on violent crime, published September 12th, 2014. Of the top ten most violent states, only three of which had the death penalty instituted (Maryland #9, New Mexico #4, Alaska #3). The other seven still had the system in place, and, despite it, still have a high amount of violent crime. On the opposite end of the spectrum, at the bottom ten most violent states, four of which, including the bottom-most states, do not have the death penalty in place. Warrant 2: With this ranking, it literally proves that the death penalty does not deter crime, or that there is a correlation between having the death penalty and having a decrease in the crime rate. Therefore, the idea of death penalty deterring crime is a null term in the sense that there is no, or a flawed connection. Claim 3: Violent crime is decreasing (but not because if the death penalty) Ground 3 A: According to an article published by The Economist, dated July 23rd, 2013, the rate of violent crime is in fact decreasing, but not because of the death penalty, but rather, because we have more police. From 1995 to 2010, policing has increased one-fifth, and with it, a decline in crime rate. In fact, in cities such as Detroit where policing has been cut, an opposite effect, an increase in crime, has been reported. Ground 3 B: An article from the Wall Street Journal, dated May 28th, 2011, also cites a decline in violent, only this time, citing the reason as a correlation with poverty levels. In 2009, at the start of the housing crisis, crime rates also dropped noticeably. Oddly enough, this article points out the belief that unemployment is often associated with crime; instead, the evidence presented is environmental in nature. Warrant 3: Crime rate isn’t deterred by death penalty, but rather, our surroundings. Seeing as how conditions have improved, so has the state of peace. Therefore, it becomes clear that the death penalty is ineffective at deterring crime because other key factors present more possibility for improvement of society. Claim 4: The death penalty is a historically flawed system. Ground 4A: According to the book The Death Penalty: Constitutional Issues, Commentaries, and Case Briefs by Scott Vollum, published in 2005, addresses how the case of the death penalty emerged to where it is today. While the book is now a decade old, it is used for historical context, particularly, in describing the first execution that took place in 1608. While it is true that most of these executions weren’t as well-grounded as the modern ones that take place now, they still had no effect in deterring crime. Why? Because even after America was established and more sane, the death penalty still had to be used because criminals still had violent behaviors. Ground 4B: According to data from Mother Jones, published May 17th, 2013, the reason why the crime rate was so high in the past could possibly be due to yet another environmental factor (affected by change over time), exposure to lead. Since the removal of lead from paint started over a hundred years ago, there has been a decline in homicide. Why is this important? Lead poisoning in child’s brain, if not lethal, can affect development and lead to mental disability, lower IQ, and lack of reasoning. Warrant 4: By examining history as a whole, there is a greater correlation between other factors that have resulted in a decline in violent crime. The decline in the crime rate has been an ongoing process, but has shown a faster decline due to other environmental factors, rather than the instatement of the death penalty. Claim 5: The world’s violent crime rate is changing, but not due to the death penalty. Ground 5A: According to article published by Amnesty USA in March of 2014, the number of executions under the death penalty reported in 2013 had increased by 15%. However, the rate of violent crime in the world has decreased significantly in the last decade. But, Latvia, for example, has permanently banned the death penalty since 2012. In 2014, the country was viewed overall as safe and low in violent crime rate. Ground 5B: However, while it is true that there is a decline in violent crime rate worldwide, The World Bank, April 17, 2013, reports that the rate of global poverty is decreasing. In a similar vein to the US, because wealth is being distributed better and conditions are improving overall, there is a steady decline in crime rate. Warrant 5: By examining the world as a whole, it becomes clear that it doesn’t matter if the death penalty is in place, violent crime will still exist. However, mirroring the US, as simple conditions improve, so does lifestyle. The death penalty does not deter crime in the world, rather a better quality of life is responsible for that. Works Cited “Death Sentences and Executions 2013.” Amnesty International USA. Amnesty USA, 26 Mar. 2014. Web. 15 Mar. 2015. . D. K. “Why Is Crime Falling?” The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 23 July 2013. Web. 12 Mar. 2015. . Drum, Kevin. “The US Murder Rate Is on Track to Be Lowest in a Century.”Mother Jones. Mother Jones, 17 May 2013. Web. 13 Mar. 2015. . Hood, Roger, and Carolyn Hoyle. The Death Penalty: A Worldwide Perspective. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2002. 45. Print. Rizzo, Kevin. “Slideshow: America’s Safest and Most Dangerous States 2014.”Law Street Media. Law Street TM, 12 Sept. 2014. Web. 12 Mar. 2015. . Vollum, Scott. The Death Penalty: Constitutional Issues, Commentaries, and Case Briefs. Newark, NJ: LexisNexis, 2005. 2. Print. Theis, David. “Remarkable Declines in Global Poverty, But Major Challenges Remain.” The World Bank. The World Bank, 17 Apr. 2013. Web. 15 Mar. 2015. . Wilson, James Q. “Hard Times, Fewer Crimes.” WSJ. The Wall Street Journal, 28 May 2011. Web. 13 Mar. 2015. .

Fact Debate Brief Introduction Crime doesn’t pay; it should be … Read More...
Please read Martha Menchaca, Recovering History, Constructing Race, Chapter 2 Racial Formation, pp. 49-66. This is an electronic book in Oviatt Library. Go to the library homepage and click on “library catalog” (right under “One Search”) and do a title search for the book, then open the electronic version. Intro: This chapter has a lot of details. Menchaca explains how the Spanish established their power and organized social hierarchies (relationships of power) after they had defeated the Aztecs and were beginning the colonization process in Mexico. As always, begin with your gut reaction to this reading. What was interesting to you, surprising, fascinating, exciting, disturbing, maddening, etc. or gave you insight into something you’d wondered about. 1.) How did Spain use land and Indian leaders to exert their power? Explain what an encomienda was. 2.) Explain the debate on Indian slavery and who its advocates were. 3.) Explain Spain’s policies of intermarriage and what their purpose was. 4.) Answer the following questions about African slavery under Spanish colonization: -What were the time periods of the slave trade in Mexico? -What was the total number of people of African descent and what were the areas in Mexico where they were concentrated? -What rights did African slaves have (different than what would later develop in the U.S.) and who advocated for them? 5.) Name each level of the racial hierarchy Spain established and the rights each group enjoyed or was denied.

Please read Martha Menchaca, Recovering History, Constructing Race, Chapter 2 Racial Formation, pp. 49-66. This is an electronic book in Oviatt Library. Go to the library homepage and click on “library catalog” (right under “One Search”) and do a title search for the book, then open the electronic version. Intro: This chapter has a lot of details. Menchaca explains how the Spanish established their power and organized social hierarchies (relationships of power) after they had defeated the Aztecs and were beginning the colonization process in Mexico. As always, begin with your gut reaction to this reading. What was interesting to you, surprising, fascinating, exciting, disturbing, maddening, etc. or gave you insight into something you’d wondered about. 1.) How did Spain use land and Indian leaders to exert their power? Explain what an encomienda was. 2.) Explain the debate on Indian slavery and who its advocates were. 3.) Explain Spain’s policies of intermarriage and what their purpose was. 4.) Answer the following questions about African slavery under Spanish colonization: -What were the time periods of the slave trade in Mexico? -What was the total number of people of African descent and what were the areas in Mexico where they were concentrated? -What rights did African slaves have (different than what would later develop in the U.S.) and who advocated for them? 5.) Name each level of the racial hierarchy Spain established and the rights each group enjoyed or was denied.

Gut Reaction This is a history consisting of racism- white, … Read More...
Sex, Gender, and Popular Culture Spring 2015 Look through popular magazines, and see if you can find advertisements that objectify women in order to sell a product. Alternately, you may use an advertisement on television (but make sure to provide a link to the ad so I can see it!). Study these images then write a paper about objectification that deals with all or some of the following: • What effect(s), if any, do you think the objectification of women’s bodies has on our culture? • Jean Kilbourne states “turning a human being into a thing is almost always the first step toward justifying violence against that person.” What do you think she means by this? Do you agree with her reasoning? Why or why not? • Some people would argue that depicting a woman’s body as an object is a form of art. What is your opinion of this point of view? Explain your reasoning. • Why do you think that women are objectified more often than men are? • How does sexualization and objectification play out differently across racial lines? • Kilbourne explains that the consequences of being objectified are different – and more serious – for women than for men. Do you agree? How is the world different for women than it is for men? How do objectified images of women interact with those in our culture differently from the way images of men do? Why is it important to look at images in the context of the culture? • What is the difference between sexual objectification and sexual subjectification? (Ros Gill ) • How do ads construct violent white masculinity and how does that vision of masculinity hurt both men and women? Throughout your written analysis, be sure to make clear and specific reference to the images you selected, and please submit these images with your paper. Make sure you engage with and reference to at least 4 of the following authors: Kilbourne, Bordo, Hunter & Soto, Rose, Durham, Gill, Katz, Schuchardt, Ono and Buescher. Guidelines:  Keep your content focused on structural, systemic, institutional factors rather than the individual: BE ANALYTICAL NOT ANECDOTAL.  Avoid using the first person or including personal stories/reactions. You must make sure to actively engage with your readings: these essays need to be informed and framed by the theoretical material you have been reading this semester.  Keep within the 4-6 page limit; use 12-point font, double spacing and 1-inch margins.  Use formal writing conventions (introduction/thesis statement, body, conclusion) and correct grammar. Resources may be cited within the text of your paper, i.e. (Walters, 2013).

Sex, Gender, and Popular Culture Spring 2015 Look through popular magazines, and see if you can find advertisements that objectify women in order to sell a product. Alternately, you may use an advertisement on television (but make sure to provide a link to the ad so I can see it!). Study these images then write a paper about objectification that deals with all or some of the following: • What effect(s), if any, do you think the objectification of women’s bodies has on our culture? • Jean Kilbourne states “turning a human being into a thing is almost always the first step toward justifying violence against that person.” What do you think she means by this? Do you agree with her reasoning? Why or why not? • Some people would argue that depicting a woman’s body as an object is a form of art. What is your opinion of this point of view? Explain your reasoning. • Why do you think that women are objectified more often than men are? • How does sexualization and objectification play out differently across racial lines? • Kilbourne explains that the consequences of being objectified are different – and more serious – for women than for men. Do you agree? How is the world different for women than it is for men? How do objectified images of women interact with those in our culture differently from the way images of men do? Why is it important to look at images in the context of the culture? • What is the difference between sexual objectification and sexual subjectification? (Ros Gill ) • How do ads construct violent white masculinity and how does that vision of masculinity hurt both men and women? Throughout your written analysis, be sure to make clear and specific reference to the images you selected, and please submit these images with your paper. Make sure you engage with and reference to at least 4 of the following authors: Kilbourne, Bordo, Hunter & Soto, Rose, Durham, Gill, Katz, Schuchardt, Ono and Buescher. Guidelines:  Keep your content focused on structural, systemic, institutional factors rather than the individual: BE ANALYTICAL NOT ANECDOTAL.  Avoid using the first person or including personal stories/reactions. You must make sure to actively engage with your readings: these essays need to be informed and framed by the theoretical material you have been reading this semester.  Keep within the 4-6 page limit; use 12-point font, double spacing and 1-inch margins.  Use formal writing conventions (introduction/thesis statement, body, conclusion) and correct grammar. Resources may be cited within the text of your paper, i.e. (Walters, 2013).

The objectification of women has been a very controversial topic … Read More...