He tries to appeal to the readers’ emotion whenever he can. He uses information that appeals to himself and other readers as opposed to Bruck’s essay. In contrast, in “No Death Penalty” written by Bruck, it seems that the majority of the essay was just quotes and cold hard facts that Bruck found before writing. He quotes Koch several times and tries to convince the reader that Koch’s information is incorrect. Overall, I am more convinced by Koch’s essay than Bruck’s essay just because it appeals to me on a more emotional level, and causes me to want to keep the death penalty.
The right realist views closely match with those of the neo-conservative views in the 70s and 80s. They both argue that ‘nothing works’. Right realists are more concerned with solving crime rather than understanding the causes. Right realism favours increasing the cost paid by those who commit crimes by for example giving harsher sentencing. Right realists such as James Wilson and Richard Herrnstien put forward a biosocial theory of crime.
The information in the article wasn’t just made up, general statements however. The author went to credible sources for his information. Among these sources included a law professor and top scholar on church-state conflicts named Douglas Laycock who was able to provide a professional and educated view on the likely actions that will be taken in order to protest the act including taking cases to the supreme court. Next, the author moves to the side of the debate that supports the birth control section in the act. By including statistics and reputable sources such as the National Women’s Law Center, the author emphasized the credibility of his information.
Beginning with evidence from a past, “republicans try for years to turn the welfare system on its head” (Davidson); the truth always finds its way to the surface and throughout Davison’s article more and more of the truth is revealed through hard facts including, “welfare encourages teen pregnancy and large dependent families” (Davison). Davison’s purpose in his article is to inform the American families and government that government welfare had become more destructive than helpful along with the detrimental effects on American’s lives. The intended audience is any American who needs to be informed about the corruption and lies that fill the government welfare system we live
Many of Dr. Roy Spencer’s views I can see as very rational. His references of actual government actions better proves how the United States government tends to want to use money as a “magic pill” that will fix the cancerous economic state the country has been in for years. While I am sure that there are politician who are still concerned with the well being of the average American, Dr Spencer’s comments about the job security in politics ,without accountability for wrong doing, should open the eyes of every American that has allowed for this corruption to
This was further elaborated by Maoz and Russett (1993) that political disputes among democratic countries are settled through compromises instead of the destruction of the opposite side. Proponents of liberalism do agree that clashes in interests among liberal democracies are common but their solutions taken will not far off from the set of boundaries that are set by each country in dealing with foreign matters. Dixon (1994) termed such behavior as “bounded competition” in which countries vowed to regulate rivalry in clashes of interest in a peaceful and nonviolent step. It is worth noticing that there are non-liberal countries like Saudi Arabia may share a diplomatic relationship with liberal democracies like America.
Prison Term Policy Recommendation CJA/323 September 19, 2011 Jacqueline Waltman Abstract As a criminologist and someone who works as an advisor to a member of the state legislature that will soon hold a vote on a bill that will determine whether or not the maximum prison term for any person who is convicted of armed robbery should be doubled I will do my best to give an opinionated view on this subject that will be substantial enough for the person to whom I am advising to make a quality decision. My boss understands that the bill being placed before us is one that is incredibly popular but questions the merit of the bill because they are afraid the new legislation will not do much good. I will advise my boss by making recommendations
Initially, I argue that political constructivism is the best available methodology for self-legislating, socially embedded and fallible human beings; then I show that political constructivism may produce principles that could garner the principled assent of Euro-American Muslims such as Taha Jabir Al-Alwani. The article concludes by considering how political constructivism might be employed to formulate new political principles for Euro-American societies experiencing and confronting the Islamic revival. Contemporary Political Theory (2012) 11, 305–323. doi:10.1057/cpt.2011.27; published online 20 September 2011 Keywords: political constructivism; Rawls; Kant; Hegel; Islam; Al-Alwani Where do political principles – the basic rules or laws that govern a political body – originate? In Political Liberalism, John Rawls canvasses three possibilities.
A tactical decision by Senate majority leader Harry Reid to exclude a ban on assault weapons from gun-control legislation has sparked reaction among politicians and media outlets. The exclusion of the hotly debated measure could improve the likelihood of passing the gun-control package, which includes stronger background checks, harsher punishments for gun trafficking, and funding for school safety enhancements. "I think the worst of all worlds would be to bring something to the floor and it dies there," Senator Reid told reporters Tuesday. "People are deserving of votes on their issues they feel so strongly about." Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) of California did not hide her disappointment in the decision.
Tragedy & Fare Based on James Madison’s quote, “A popular Government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to Farce or a Tragedy or perhaps both,” authors John Nichols and Robert W. McChesney follow this principle throughout their book, Tragedy & Farce. Published in 2005, Tragedy & Farce is about the changing culture of journalism resulting in war, unfair elections, and the destruction of democracy. The author’s point of view is first person as he narrates the entire book. He uses quotes from interview segments from multiple sources including controversial congressmen and television anchors. The author’s thesis is the revival of democracy-sustaining journalism made up of three components.