Analyzing the Racial Policing Debate Essays - Crime Prevention

Analyzing the Racial Policing Debate Essays - Crime Prevention Analyzing the Racial Policing Debate Immanuel Masai 1 st Period Strongest Argument Heather Mac Donald's strongest argument to the argument th at policing is biased was, the reason people of color encounter the police often is because they are responding to the outcry of the community therefore the police are not being biased on whom they police but rather just doing what they are called to do by the people. The reason this make sense is , she provides data to prove that people of color commit more crimes than white people. Ms. Mac Donald's argument is also logical and does not take a genius to see that there is a clear correlation between the two (crime and police presence). Gloria Browne-Marshall's strongest argument was, when you back track policing and how it became to be you could see that it came to be when white people who owned slaved need to retrieve runaways. Therefore, when policing began in the United States its aim was to enforce the law (which itself biased towards people of color) on people of color. Time progressed and as policing became part of the government's way to enforce the law and it carried over time its bias against people of color and that bias is still present today. Logical Fallacious There was one logical fallacious that I noticed between these two was by Heather Mac Donald; Mrs. Ma c Donald said that if police are forced to stop arresting and policing in general people of color there will be an uptick in crime . The reason for this is that people of color commit a majority of the country' s crimes and as a result, there will be anarchy. What I Noticed When you pay attention to Mrs. Mac Donald , you can notice that she offers a large amount of data for her evidence and when she seeks to answer a question, she retreats to a source and proceeds to answer the question from there. Whereas Mrs. Brown-Marshall she used a mixture of experience and history to answer/rebuttal; first she states an experience or historical episode then proceeds to answer. What I can infer about Mrs. Mac Donald based on the patterns I saw was that she has not had that many encounter with bias policing because she always cited data and never once did she mention about being a victim of but she did mention experiences of others. On the other hand, Mrs. Browne-Marshall has experienced the biased that was being debated because towards the end she states that she had been a victim of bias policing. Furthermore, Mrs. Browne-Marshall had a bit of an emotional connection to the subject whereas Mrs. Mac Donald had more of an apathetic connection towards the subject. Heather Mac Donald Gloria Browne-Marshall Ethos (credibility ) : Heather Mac Donald is the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal Ethos : Professor of Constitutional Law and Civil Rights Attorney Pathos (Emotion) : There is a large number of white people who have been victims of police shootings Pathos : People see the color of skin and make decisions based on that. I see students outside of the university who are just being young but when police enter the scene, they see young hooligans. Logos (Logic) : Police have to go where the trouble is and most of the times in minority areas Blacks die at 6x the rate of whites and Hispanics combined Blacks commit 75% of shootings Every time police are called to a scene it is usually into a minority area As long as crime and victimization remains unevenly, balanced police and civilian contact will be too. Policing is data driven; police will go where there is a need. Policing is responsive to what the people in the community want them to do. Policing is influence by the people Logos : There are various groups ranging from the UN to Federal Courts that have said policing is racially biased Police make judgement calls that can result in a bias The perception of police is what creates a bias; someone can be loud but when you place a color on

Identity And Unity Among The Colonies essays

Identity And Unity Among The Colonies essays The American Revolution was an event that could only have happened under certain crucial circumstances. Britains taxation of the colonies as a way of paying their war debts reinforced an emerging sense of American identity and helped to precipitate the American Revolution. Resistance to the crown became more and more common as the years went by, and these minor inconveniences eventually led to the birth of a new nation. By the eve of the Revolution, the colonists had established a deep sense of identity, and although numerous Americans were united against Britain, many remained loyal to the crown. The unique identity of the American colonies became more obvious to everyone as the events leading up to the Revolution took place. Edmund Burke, an English statesman, refers to the American colonies as a great and growing people spread over a vast quarter of the globe. This shows the American identity being drafted; being molded not only from the colonists, but from the observations of foreign people. The colonies distance from Britain also affected their identity. The colonies were far enough away that England had little or no influence of American society. This allowed them to grow as a separate nation secluded from Britains societies and cultures. Another example of the emerging American identity comes from a French settler named Hector St. John Crvecoeur who states that an American is either an European, or the descendant of an European, hence that strange mixture of blood which you will find in no other country. This is showing how America contains a unique people with unique customs and beliefs. Crvecoeur goes on to say that an American becomes an American by being received in the broad lap of our great Alma Mater. This again reinforces the unique identity of Americans, and mentions an Alma Mater, implying a unique culture in the colonies. ...

Terry Cannon, MBA Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Terry Cannon, MBA - Case Study Example From this paper it is clear that this company would be an internet based start-up so, it is quite evident that Terry Cannon should have proper knowledge regarding the information system as most of the work would be computer and internet based. In such a company with his given position, he requires to have good knowledge about Management Information Systems, Executive Support Systems, Decision-Support Systems, Transaction Processing Systems and Office Automation Systems as well. In this company Terry Cannon has been offered a position as a manager of the marketing department and would be responsible for developing new customers. Considering his role in this organization, Terry Cannon needs to have knowledge regarding Management Information System, Transaction Processing Systems, Decision Support Systems and Knowledge Management Systems. As the paper outlines Terry Cannon can prove to be a knowledgeable participant in each of the mentioned three jobs by possessing knowledge regarding information systems that would be relevant with the job profile in relation to all the three organizations. Being a knowledgeable participant in the field of information systems would assist him in carrying out his responsibilities more effectively. This would also help him in designing appropriate and accurate marketing as well as business strategies for his clients and his organizations. In case of Terry Cannon to be a knowledgeable participant, he should be well informed and possess enough knowledge regarding the types of information systems that would assist him in performing his duties as well as responsibilities towards his organizations and clients efficiently and successfully. For instance, being a consultant at ICG would involve designing marketing strategies for his clients.

Urban Transportation Problems Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Urban Transportation Problems - Assignment Example ch activities close to each other and to residences, so that the shorter trip changes from what should have been an external trip by motor vehicle, to an internal walk, bike, or transit trip (Feldman, Ewing & Walters, 2010). Because the mixed use configuration is essentially internal and encourages pedestrian and non-automobile transportation methods, the forecasting of traffic patterns through trip generation and traffic projection utilised by practitioners tended to be similar to each other. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) have formulated a method by which trip generation can be performed. Feldman, Ewing and Walters (2010) describe the procedure in the following steps: The estimated figures are then multiplied by a set of per-unit trip generation rates that ITE has developed, to get a preliminary estimate of the number of vehicle trips that are generated by the site; The initial estimates of generated trips are then lowered by a certain percentage, based on lookup tables by the ITE. The reduction represents the internal capture of trips in the mixed use development. The share of internal trips as shown in the look-up table is multiplied by the total number of trips for each of the different uses, to arrive at a first estimate of internal trips for each use. For each pair of uses (production and attraction, or source and destination use) are reconciled, so that the number of internal trips produced by one use is equal to the number of trips attracted by the other use. The lower of the two estimates of internal trips is the limitation of the number of internal trips created by the other use (Feldman, Ewing & Walters, 2010). The traditional trip generation method developed by the ITE has some advantages when applied to mixed-use development areas. First, the process appears to be objective, because if two different analysts worked on the same data, they will arrive at the same result. The steps used for calculation are specific and do not

An analysis and commentary Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

An analysis and commentary - Essay Example The main cause for Scotland splitting ways with Britain is the unfair treatment they have regularly received from the queen, bankruptcy of the nation, and isolation. The number of Scottish people wanting independence in the last 40 years has sharply increased. 40 years ago, the number who proposed was only 25%. This number has risen lately according to recent polls conducted around Scotland to nearly half the electorate. These numbers can only predict that the Scottish people are craving to regain their identity, at least politically. If Scotland votes â€Å"yes,† this would affirm the need and the power of political identities. Scots will have a country of their own. In my opinion, Scotland separating from England will help to realize the identity of Scotland as a nation and seclude itself from the unfair treatment from England. This article is particularly relevant to political identity since the concerns of Scotland are primarily based on political identity. Macintyre, James. â€Å"From Devolution to Independence.† The New York Times, 2012. Web 9 March 2012.

The Myth Of The Clash Of Civilizations

The Myth Of The Clash Of Civilizations It is a lecture by Edward saids, held in the University of Massachusetts, it is about clash of civilization and how people think about it. He is mainly responding back to what Samuel Huntingtons and Bernard Lewis said about the clash of civilization. Edward had his MA in 1960 and a doctorate from Harvard University in 1964. The most important work of him was the Orientalism, which was a part of postcolonial studies. In this video, Said argues that Lewis and Huntingtons had the wrong idea and thoughts about the clash of civilization. In this lecture, Edward is responding back to what Huntington and Lewis said about clash of civilization and he critic their ideas. Huntington believes that in the future, there will be clash between countries; this clash will be mainly a clash of religions. Huntington said that the West should be strong and keep others weak. It is clear here that he wants the West to attack other countries and occupy them by using force against them, which consider colonization. In his argument, he focused on the Islamic religion and he says that it is the main reason of the clash. He said that Islam is anti-Western, and Muslims are using violence against non-Muslim and the government and other Muslim organizations are encouraging violence against them. Moreover, Huntingtons ideas and thoughts were mainly based on what Lewis Bernard said in his book Islam and the West. He compares religion not to a religion but to geographical political countries suggesting that Muslims and Arabs are backward uncivilized people and they are savage without any manner; according to the Western culture. According to what he said, the West will find an excuse to attack and invade other countries, just what the UK did to India and they called it, we want to bring advancement and teach them how to be modernized just like the West, but instant they take over their country and stayed there for two centuries. Taking whatever they want from there and do whatever they want. Edward criticism is more on the fact that Huntington book is for the policy makers in the US, thus is a main danger when the policy maker takes what Huntington said seriously; these people will misunderstand the views of the Muslim world. Lewis and his book Islam and the West shows that the all the problem around the world is because of the Muslims and to solve this problem they have to deal with them. Lewis mentioned that there are billions of Muslims in the West and they want to take over the country and he called it rage on the West (Lewis, 1993). What he meant is that before they take over our country lets invade them first. As we say in Arabic, lunch on him before he dine on you. This excuse is really baseless. He just wants to start a religious war. He also saied that Islam is not modernize and never speared between church and state. Bernard must know one thing that in Islam the State rules are made by the religion rules, which can not be separated from each other. One example of that is when the US had the economic crisis, all the banks got affected and most of them did not have any money, but because Muslim banks used the Islamic rules in the banks they have not been affected like the Western banks. And about modernize, Islam is modernize but they can not see it, because to the West it is not matching the Western standers. As the West see it, you have to be like them to be modernize which is wrong. In his book Islam and the West, He wrote: It should be clear that we are facing a mood and a movement in Islam for transcending, the level of issues and polices and the government that pursue them. This is no less than a clash of civilization. The perhaps irrational, but surely historic receptions, of an ancient rival against our Judeo-Christian heritage, our secular present, and the world-wide expression of both, it is crucially important that we, on our side, should not be provoked into equally historic, but also equally irrational reaction against our arrival. (p.78). It is clear from Lewis statement that he is saying that clash is religion and it is between Islam and Christianity. And Islam is spreading all over the world and they the West must do something to stop it. He thinks the Western religion is more superior than the others and it should not be equalized with other religions. What he is trying to say that in the past Islam used violence to spread all over the world and now after more than 1200 years they are trying to do the same thing with the West. Lewis also said in his book that Islam can not understand other civilization, which is wrong. Muslim people travelled around the world before Marco Polo did. They went to Spain and China. They lived over there and took from their knowledge and become a part of them. Islam can understand any civilization but their always be a limit what to take and what not to take from other civilizations. Saieds belief that there is no part of Islam, which is fundamentally against the West. Over the last decade, we have seen numerous cowardly attacks on Western countries, for example, the Swedish-Iraqi attack in Stockholm and the 9/11 attacks. The US governments do not have any clear evidence that the attacks were done my Muslims. Do not believe the idea that Muslim extremists are driven by a justifiable rage, they are driven by the political issues that they are having from the West. It is never related to the religion. Islam and Western cultures are inherently different, and this is why we have conflict. Moreover, that does not mean Edward is anti-Western. He was very critical about some of the ways Western hegemonic thought has used to describe Arab societies and to design political relations with this part of the world. He is not bias because he was educated by British, on British-Egyptian Christian schools. Furthermore, Said mentioned that, some civilization that has power and technology advancement gave to them self the right to colonize other in the name of Nobel idea, which is to civilize them but in fact, they want something else. Competing imperial power invent their own theory of cultural destiny in order to justify their action aboard. I just want to know who gave them the right to judge on people and the way they live. You can not change something that is related to culture. Examples of these countries, USA, Germany, and UK. Which the real purpose is to have more power, conquest, and unrestraint self pride. The West believes that each raise has a special destiny or job to do. For Example, the Chinese raise is to serve, the black raise must be the labor, because they are strong and they can work hard. Here we can see that the West had the wrong idea about people, they thing that they are the superior raise because they are white and other people are below them so they must serve them. Edward said that for a country to have it truly independent. They must speak their own Language, Which he meant nationalism. You have to be proud of your language and used it to have truly independence. For instance, in India conquers party, only by supporting Indian language the political independence can accrue. Only by supporting their word against the West, they will be able to stand on their feet. Edward said that the Culture and civilization is spread then each other. The core of Islam is to be separated from everything else, and the core of the West is to be separated from all the other. Also that, it is not a clash of civilization, but clash of definition. Defining the culture is hard; each culture defines its enemy. People are fighting over us vs. them, ideas of good and evil, belonging or not belonging. Islam like the West is not a single or uniform thing(Edward,1998). Islam is different in Indonesia, different in Egypt. For example, in Egypt, there is a conflict in the Isl amic movements. In the lecture, Saied has quoted from Aime Cesasre, which he wrote: But the work of man is only just beginning, and it remains to conquer all the violence entrenched in the recesses of our passion and no race possesses the monopoly of beauty, of intelligence, of force. And there is a place for all at rendezvous of victory. (p.48). Cesasre meant that there are no boundaries or block between cultures. Anyone can take whatever he wants form other culture. And there is no standers for civilization or beauty or intelligence. Every people or culture has their own stander, which differs from one culture to another and all of them are right. At the end of the lecture Edward discussed the Palestinian Israelian conflict and how it is a good example of colonization. The Israelian uses the excuse that plastain is the promise land for them, so they keep killing people and force them to leave their houses. It seems this clash between them is related to religion but in fact, they just want a place to live and a country. Edward said that you can not victimize others because you were victim yourself, there has to be limit. It is not a reason to invade other people and take over their country. Additionally, Edward said it was a clash of ignorance. That Huntington had a monolithic view of Islam and he over generalized the situation and did not understand the complexity of the conflicts and the people involved in them. He is touching on the growing influence of those who advocate tensions and clashes, and subsequently benefit from this sort of contaminated atmosphere to prepare the people, particularly of the USA, to engage in war, such as the case now. The media à ¯Ã‚ »Ã‚ ¿has become nothing more than a blowing horn for such a paradigm of tension and hate. The West mainly sees Islam through distorted,à ¯Ã‚ »Ã‚ ¿ Orientalist, lenses. Also, correlation alone is not sufficient to prove that what you said must mean there is a cultural clash. There could be a clash in some areas, but this is created by powerful people to make Islam seem threatening so regions, like Iran, can be dominated for oil. More people should be aware, that it is never about religion. He covers the topic s of how Muslim/Arab people have more to do than to think about the West with hatred, how Huntington is not a student of Arab/Muslim cultures but wants to prolong and depend the conflict. Saidà ¯Ã‚ »Ã‚ ¿ observes how the French used the notion of a civilizing mission to justify brute force against the nations whose land and resources they wanted. This imperialist mission gives rise to wars of national liberation among the colonized. What Huntington and Lewis predicted that in the future there would be a clash between religions and that what happened, but it is not true. People think that nowadays there is a clash between religions. When US invaded Iraq, people thought that it is a Holy War and because they think Muslims are behind the 9/11 attacks. What happened is that US invaded Iraq for a political issues, which was that Saddam had a mass distraction weapons but they did not find anything over there. It was mainly about oil and recourses. US media are showing to people that US are in a religious war in Iraq and they are trying to bring freedom and democracy to Iraqi people. I cannot understand how the 9/11 attacks is related to Iraq. They just wanted an excuse to invade Iraq in the name of freedom. West media showed the stereo type of Muslim and how they are angry all the time, they just misrepresent the Islam. What Edward said is completely true there is no clash between religions, but the US government want s the people to think that what is happening. As I see it, the history is repeating itself. When the British went to Africa, they said we are here for a Nobel cause, but in reality they are here to take over the country. The same scenario is happening in Iraq, but in this case, their excuse is religion, which is completely wrong. To solve this dilemma, the West should solve their political issues with the East and not to connected with the religion. Another Example is the current crises that US facing with North Korea. North Korea has a clash with the West and they are not Muslims. This support my point that the clash is not about religion, it is about politics. I found another articles which discusses the clash of civilizations, In Rami G. Khouri article rescuing Europes failed middle east policy he is saying that the Europes policy is failing in Middle East. So they dont add anything to solve this problem and their policy dont have the power to change anything and solve this issue. Morover, Khouri thinks that they cant change anything because the Europes are following what US and Israel policy. Without saying their own opinion. So they become with Israel in this conflict between East representing by Palestine and West which is representing by Israel in this conflict. His advice for Europe is to stop following US and Israel policy. Because it will lead to a clash between the East and Europe, like the West and the East. Furthermore, he wrote an article Rewinding the reel to root causes and he said that the root for the conflict between East and West is the Israel- Palestinian conflict. If the root of the conflict between East and West is the Israel- Palestinian conflict, what do you think if you see some countries like America or Europe countries, which support Israel? They will feel same as Samuel Huntington idea that the clash between East and West is about religion. All the people who study the history and read about the crusades will know that the conflict between the Israel and Palestine will take him back in time of the crusades period because the two situations are same in a lot of sides. The Israelian are doing the same thing that Crusades had done, which is invading the country and killing people and turn it to a religious war. But in the other hand, Amartya Sen in her article What clash of civilization? Why religious identity isnt destiny? strongly disagree with Samuel Huntington argument, because she think that Huntington make civilization too simple and equalite with religion. Amartya think that human has so many aspects that make him what he is. You should not judge on a book based on its cover. What she meant that there is another reasons of clash which is not related to religion. Kofi Annan mentioned in his article Annan says politics, not religion, at heart of Muslim-West divide. He thinks that there is no relation between politics and religion and he believes that the religion is not the root for any conflict in this world. I agree with him the root of conflict is related to the political issues that the country have against each other. It was never about religion. I agree with him that the Israel- Palestine conflict is the root of the conflict between East and West and this conflict is the main cause of the clash between the two sides. Moreover, Mohsin Hamid and his article why do they hate us he says that Muslims hates West because of the America policy. In this point I might agree with Mohsin Hamid, because Muslims sees that America foreign policy is always unfair with Muslims in different issues and different places all over the world. Muslims dont have any problem with America, if their policies change not with what Muslims want, but with the justice even if it was against the interests of Muslims. Therefore, this is another point that supports my argument that the clash is about politics not religion. Another Article wrote by John L. Esposito, which is Its the policy stupid. Its an interesting article, because John L. Esposito think that the root of the problem started from America policy. Because they did a lot of mistakes in their foreign policy toward the East and when they try to solve their first mistakes, they made new mistakes, which made the situation even worse than before. Another political issue, which is not related to religion. In Fawaz Gerges article which is titled America and political Islam. He believes that there is no clash between civilization and the clash is between benefits. Any Western countries who are against the west will be Terror. I agree with him that it is really a clash of benefits and interests. We see that some countries policy change from day to day. They change their policy because their interest change and they change their allies depending on their interests. For example, Saddam was a friend of the US government, but when the interests changed they just removed him. An article wrote by Edward said which is Imperial Perspectives. He is saying that after World War 2 the US goal is to control the oil supply in the Middle East and make sure that Israel is the dominate power in the Middle East. He said that US claim to educate people and liberate them but in reality they just want to control and rule. The US want to see Arabs and Muslim in the way they like, not with the way Arabs and Muslims are which an imperialist perspective is. He also said that US think Arabs and Muslims are anit-democratic and anti-Semitic. These are enough reasons for US to invade another country in the name of democracy and freedom. All in all, The west uses the clash of civilizations myth as a means of western intervention and expansion, and that western culture is dominant, which presents a Eurocentric dichotomy. What Huntington and Lewis predicted came true but in reality, the US government uses the religion as an excuse to invade other countries. What Edward said it is true that the clash is not about religion. US media want people to think that it is about religion, which will make their job easier. In the past when a powerful country invade another country their excuse was to modernize and educate them, now they are using the democracy and freedom excuse to invade other countries. Different excuses but they have the same goal, which is to colonize.

Private Gun Ownership Should NOT be Banned Essay -- gun control laws

Would you choose to own a gun if your life depended on it? America has defended itself with guns since December 13, 1631 when the National Guard was born. We are a country that defends what we love. What do we defend ourselves with? Guns of course. Guns and America were discovered around the same time. Guns will forever be a part of America. Without guns the American Revolution would not have been won (Boehm). There have been some times in American history where guns have caused the loss of innocent Americans lives due to an unstable person, but there have also been multiple times where guns have defended each and every American’s freedom. Most people don’t think about a day-to-day basis and how guns can be beneficial to our lives. Private gun ownership should not be banned because guns provide protection, people are responsible for killing people, without guns, criminals will find other ways to kill, and it is our American right to own guns to protect ourselv es. Without guns, people would be running crazy in the streets. We all want to have that warm, fuzzy feeling of protection. Protection is now the top reason Americans own guns (Personal). Those who are against guns usually say there’s other ways to protect yourself such as calling 911 or the local police (Justice). Although that is true, it is an unrealistic way of protection. Police usually arrive after a crime is committed or when it is too late (Why). The first person to encounter a criminal with a gun is the victim and if the victim is armed, they can protect themselves on the spot and not have to hid or wait for the police to arrive. We call the police because they are armed with a firearm and can protect you. If used for protection, guns will save ... ... n.d. Web. 11 Dec. 2013. "Personal Safety Top Reason Americans Own Guns Today." Personal Safety Top Reason Americans Own Guns Today. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Dec. 2013. "Statistics Prove: More Guns, Less Crime." Infowars Statistics Prove More Guns Less Crime Comments. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Dec. 2013. "What Are the Gun Laws in Iowa?" About.com Crime / Punishment. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Dec. 2013. "Why Own a Gun? Protection Is Now Top Reason." Pew Research Center for the People and the Press RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Dec. 2013. "Adam Lanza Wouldn't Have Been Stopped by Stricter Gun Control Laws." PolicyMic. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Dec. 2013. "Justice Stevens: You Have the 'Constitutional Right' to Call 911, Not to Own a Gun | Outdoor Life." Outdoor Life. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Dec. 2013. "Refuting Anti-Gun Control Arguments." The Progressive Cynic. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Dec. 2013.