In the 1990s, blood diamonds infiltrated the international consciousness with greater awareness of the diamond mining industry was funding war and massive human rights violations. [This first sentence does not make grammatical sense] The disturbing consequences of the symbols of blissful commitment were suddenly apparent for diamonds that originated in many African countries including Sierra Leone, Liberia, Angola, Cote d’Ivoire, the Republic of Congo and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).  The movement to reclaim that peaceful symbolism was strong enough to create the Kimberly Process Certification Scheme in 2002 that required supply chain transparency for the origins of diamonds and encouraged countries to regulate diamond imports based on these links to human rights violations. With the funding for violence dramatically cut from rebel groups [unclear what you mean]the opportunity for resolution arose and stability was more attainable. This was especially true for Liberia, now a democracy with the only female head of state in Africa. The conflict-free diamond movement was a great success for human rights activists. [This first graf is too dense and does not establish a point of view or invite people into an argument; it’s too informational without enough context]

However, the conflict mineral crisis in the DRC continues. Throughout Congo’s history, its natural resources have been exploited from rubber for tires in the early 20^th century to cobalt for jets during the cold war to diamonds in mid-nineties and now to the 3Ts. At the expense of civilians, tin, tantalum and tungsten (also know as coltan, cassiterite, and wolframite) and to an extent gold are being mined for pervasive use in our electronics.  Laptops, cameras, pacemakers, cell phones – anything with a circuit board – have components from these minerals and are extremely profitable.

The capital generated from these exploits fuels a cycle of violence that has left almost six million people dead since the Second Congo War set off by the aftermath of the 1994 Rwandan genocide. This is the deadliest conflict since WWII. Since the largely successful elections in 2006, 45,000 people continue to die each month and the methods to gain and maintain control of the mines are incredibly brutal. [ Ok – this is the kind of context you should have at the outset to make the stakes and the issue clearer ]

Sexual violence against men women and children has become just another systematic tool to control local populations for armed militias, similar to the targets in the Darfur genocide, but on a much larger scale. An estimated 200,000 rapes have been committed in the North and South Kivu and Orientale provinces. Yet estimates are rough owing to the egregious extent of impunity given to rape. Soldiers themselves lose count due to the casualness and frequency and victims are difficult to interview or may have been kidnapped for several months. Rape as a weapon is on a scale of cruelty scarcely imagined in the US. Public humiliations and the use of rifles or other objects in these rapes are widespread practices, with victims as young as 3 months and as old as 97. [Not clear what this graf has to do with diamonds or minerals] Within the mines, conditions are unsafe, compensation unreasonable, and forced at gunpoint. Given these circumstances, the reason that the minerals of the Congo are available for 50% of the market price becomes clearer.

Although the supply chain is difficult to ascertain without greater transparency, the connection stands oversimplified as such: militias (including the Congolese Army) take control of areas through massive, systematic human rights atrocities who mine for the minerals then sell the ores to a series of middlemen. Those middlemen sell the ores to refining companies that transform of the minerals into metals, which are then used in electronics we encounter everyday. As of now, the long, winding trail of the supply chain does not allow sufficient tracking of Congolese conflict minerals. Thus the massive consumption of electronics in large markets such as the US, help fuel the enormous profits that militias receive for mining. The atrocities are perpetuated by the craving for greater profits, the need to control more mines, and the  [sentence dropped…] [again, this info should come sooner]

Cell phones are as ubiquitous to Americans as the violence is to civilians of eastern Congo. The three main conflict minerals contributing to the chaotic cycle of violence. Tantalum is the metal that assists in regulating electrical current flow within more intricate systems such as hearing aids, GPS, and video cameras. Tungsten is the metal that facilitates the vibrating function in cell phones. These minerals fund the violence in the Congo and yet the average life of a cell phone in America is 18 months.

As devastating as the cycle of exploitation is in the Congo, these facts can give Americans hope. It is rare that when mass civilian atrocities emerge, we have the power to directly reduce the perpetrators’ financial power.

Yet we can.

The American consumer has the power to transform market forces and demand conflict-free electronics. This can happen in a variety of ways. First and foremost the Senate Congo Conflict Minerals Act of 2009 requiring supply chain transparency for electronics companies with an independent audit must pass the Senate Banking Committee in the coming months. This would allow the public to distinguish between products with suspicious origins and those without conflict minerals. We must use our tremendous political power as American citizens to write to our Senators to demonstrate the political will for strengthening the regulations for conflict minerals. Electronics companies are out in force utilizing their voice with $2 million in lobbyists every month to weaken these transparency laws. Only by utilizing our free individual voices will we be able to counter that financial power.

That is not the only action we must take. There must be a push for companies to not only be aware of these minerals but to change their practices and find better places for business. There were an estimated 4 billion cell phone worldwide subscribers in 2008. On average Americans only use their phones for 18 months before replacing them. The US is a significant slice of that market. If enough demand it, just as the national and international movement to prevent blood diamonds, the companies will be forced to offer conflict-free phones, computers and gaming products.

Will we buy conflict-free phones? If you could prevent the destruction of a village half way around the world by accepting your cell phone for more than 18 months, would you? Will Americans step up to use their political and consumer power to help those in an impossibly chaotic situation?

Write to Hewlett Packard and T-Mobile and Apple. Write to President Emmert urging the University to cease funding violence. Pledge to not get a new cell until there is greater transparency within the electronics community. If the brutality of the DRC disturbs you join the Genocide Intervention Networks’ anti-genocide constituency in changing the perspective for addressing international crises from intervention to prevention of mass civilian atrocities. With public demands for ethically extracted minerals for electronics, we as a global community can reduce the number of men, women, and children sent to overflowing hospitals. If we can remove the financial incentives, we will significantly reduce the cycle of violence – giving an opportunity for conflict resolution.

Now, as a 13-year-old girl walks to the hospital in the Congo after a gang raped and as a 13-year-old girl is driven to the mall, texting friends on her cell phone – can we empower both?

[The overall structure of having one half for the problem and one half for a solution is ok.  But it feels like the first half is written backwards – each paragraph  raises questions that aren’t answered till later grafs; need to rearrange it.  And in the second half, it becomes clear far too late that this piece is centering on cell phone usage – even with a rearranged first part of the piece, there are too many links in the chain – you need to preview up front the fact that you are going to be centering on conflict-free phones]

Vegetarianism end world hunger? [this is an ambiguously phrased question and doesn’t segue well to the next sentence; could lose it]One of the great injustices of our modern age is world hunger. It seems even crueler knowing that there is enough food to feed everyone, it’s just being used incorrectly. It takes 16 pounds of plant material to create one pound of edible meat: so more food is needed to raise livestock than is produced. Also a significant amount of the planet’s [details]arable land is used for raising livestock. Therefore if the resources that are currently devoted to raising livestock were instead devoted to cultivating crops there would be more than enough food to feed the entire world with plenty left over: such an easy fix to such a massive problem.

Not only could vegetarianism help feed the world, but it would also be the answer to the most widely publicized and urgent issue of the decade: global warming. In 2006 a report issued by the United Nations designated mass meat production as: “one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale.” Each year the amount of meat produced for human consumption increases and with it so do the devastating environmental effects. Mass production of meat has lead to erosion, rainforest degradation, and pollution of land air and water. Along with these considerable consequences of meat production, the livestock industry is a leading producer of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, making it one of the leading causes of global warming. The same UN study also found that the meat industry produces more greenhouse gasses than all of the world’s cars, trucks, and SUVs put together. Going vegetarian is more beneficial to the environment than buying an electric car, and is one of the single most influential changes a person can make towards bettering the environment, and reducing global warming.

If all of the above are true it seems a stretch [why does it seem a stretch, given what you’ve already said?]to say that vegetarianism can do something about cancer. It can. Countless studies done in recent years have shown that reduction or elimination of meat from a person’s diet significantly reduces their likelihood of contracting various types of common cancers. These include an 11-year study that showed a 50% decrease in the cancer rate between meat-eaters and their vegetarian counterparts, and a recent Harvard study that concluded that people who frequently ate chicken breast were 52% more likely to have bladder cancer than people who abstained from the same meat. Meat-based diets have also been connected to an increase in heart disease, stroke, obesity, and Alzheimer’s disease. Going vegetarian could increase the life span and the quality of life of a considerable number of people.

Even knowing all of the benefits, [dangling participle] it is still difficult for your average meat-eater to make the change. Not as difficult as one might think, however. Almost every meat product is available in a meat-substitute counterpart. We’ve known about boca burgers for years but that is barely the beginning. From meatless sausage and bacon, to eggless scrambled eggs and soy steaks the options are endless and are often known to fool even the most seasoned carnivore into thinking it’s the real thing. It can be difficult to make such a significant diet change but the benefits undoubtedly outweigh the difficulties.

Not often in life does the option for individual change arrive with the potential for such a significant global impact, vegetarianism is such an option. It is the miracle drug that would cure so many problems, from the global level to the personal. If you care about your world and your body: consider vegetarianism.

[The structure is straightforward enough.  But as we discussed in class, it’s slightly monotonous and feels like a steady march rather than an engaging walk or dance.  And again, given the strong case you make, it seems the concluding call should be stronger than merely to “consider” vegetarianism]

The lulling monologue form the professor is interrupted by a question.  “I have a question…(The professor quips back with ‘And I have an answer’ )… how can the electrons skip the sigma pi orbitals in a hydrogen molecule” goes the questioner.  It’s an obtuse nit-picky question.  And it’s from THE girl.  Every class has one, boy or girl.  This time, she is sitting in the front row always asking the most mundane questions.  It’s like she wants to know more about pointless things. [This opening is not taking me anywhere – and the second graf is confusing]

Skip ahead 20 years.  Kane 130 is the farthest thing from your mind now.  You have the flu, and it’s the third sick day in a row you’ve taken off from work.  It comes as quite a shock to see that same girl from Chem 153 as your doctor.  After a minute of reviewing you file she clears her throat and enunciates precisely, “I have a question…”  Some things never change. [Unclear – are you praising or mocking that person?]

Every year 26,000 new doctors enter the workforce.  Many of them open up their own practice. Some of them join a clinic.  Others join a hospital.  Some practice rural medicine.  Others specialize in surgery, urology, or pathology.  The person sitting in front of you in Kane 130 could be seeing you in 10 years.

Every year many university students, especially freshman set their sights on medicine.  Pre-med is one of the University’s most popular statuses among students.   Unfortunately, many students do not simply know what being “pre-med” requires.  The most basic component of an traditional undergraduate pre-medical path are the academic classes in the sciences.  One year of math, one year of general chemistry with labs, one year of organic chemistry with labs, one year of introductory biology with labs, one year of physics with labs, and 2 years of humanities and social sciences.  The requirements must be started freshman year to be completed in a timely manner.

Sitting in on Chem 142 in Kane 130, you can tell there are easily 400 people in the class.  About half the people in a typical 142 class state they are pre-med.  Typical pre-med classes like Gen Chem, Organic Chem, or Biology can be grueling.  The median curve of these classes is set typically set to a 2.7.  Many people not pre-med drop out because of the cutthroat competition.  Grade mongering and parading seem to be common.  There is little teacher to student interaction and, frankly, very little teaching done by the teacher.  Learning takes place at home with a book and 4 hours of isolation.

Students, grad students, and even some professors call these classes by a blunt but apt name: weed-out classes.  Students are the weeds that cling on so dearly to the ground of pre-med and intra-class competition attempts remove all but the hardiest and brightest students, as the theory goes.  Perhaps the best students in the class don’t equate to the best physicians.  The portion of the students that succeed or remain pre-med could be obsessive and cutthroat.  Or maybe their the ones that are too obtuse, proud, or narrow-minded to consider other options.  After all, what does the hydroboration of alkenes have to do with compassionate care?  Are these the kinds of doctors you look forward to seeing?  Grades for the sake of recognition, a sense of superiority?  It’s no wonder that out of our graduating doctors of today, only 7.8% select a primary care residency.  Primary care includes family medicine and pediatrics, two specialties that make the least money and are the least prestigious among doctors.

As a result, pre-med has become a scarlet letter among UW students.  Just recently, I admitted to my bio lab partner that I was pre-med.  So looked deeply into my eyes for a moment before replying, “Me too”.  Pre-med has developed its own stereotype associated with no life, competitiveness, superiority complex from a high GPA, homework on Friday nights (guilty, your Honor…), nerdy jokes, and an aura that induces insecurity and drain self-confidence.

This huge discrepancy is a direct result of ignorance and obliviousness.  Many people simply do not know what they are getting into.  To be honest, I didn’t know either when join the UW [something missing.] If more people knew exactly all the classes they had to take and the volunteering, research, standardized testing on top of that there would be less people declaring pre-med status  but more people finishing and applying to medical schools.  A pre-med major is exactly the thing needed to improve the pre-med situation at the UW.  [It’s taken way to long to get to the point]

The simplest benefit of a pre-med major would be the ability to distribute information about health related opportunities outside of pre-requisite classes- research, volunteering, studying abroad, shadowing, and seminars.  A pre-med major also makes it easier to bring people together in situations outside of the classroom to explore other facets of healthcare.  Guidance from doctors would help develop traits like listening skills and cultural knowledge.  Getting to know people in the major would defuse an overly competitive atmosphere.  Competition among one another should be a competition to better ourselves within and reach our own personal benchmarks, rather than striving the beat the person next to you.  The major would allow a space for people to connect with each other, joke around, relieve stress, make friends, and foster a sense of community striving towards a goal, not for the destruction of each other’s GPA.  It would also allow for people who fit the stereotype to feel comfortable with themselves by meeting similar people who study on Fridays.

A pre-med major could also help determine and cultivate students to become better doctors.  There is a shortage of doctors in America, with an emphasis on primary care doctors.  We are weeding out doctors just because they don’t know the stereochemistry of a glucose molecule or how to synthesize tetraphenylnalpthalene.  Having a challenging curriculum is important, but too many potential doctors are lost based on academics alone.  With more support and solidarity with a pre-med major, we could reduce the drop out, increase the diversity of the class, and educate more thoughtful, open-minded, and caring undergraduates for healthcare.  Undergraduates that can relate to people, teach others, practice life-long learning, and judge ethical issues are prepared to care for people.  Long after the chemical reaction have been forgotten, these are the skills that undergraduates need.

[While these would be good results, it’s not clear from your case that the major would achieve these results – you don’t demonstrate how or why.  And what about arguments against such a major? ]

A pre-med major would lay out all the coursework in advance.  The requirements would be crystal clear.  Pre-med majors could study together (on Friday nights).  The stress in classes would decrease and people would be more focused on the material.  Happiness among everyone pre-med and non-pre-med would increase.  Skittles would fall from the sky (not really).  A pre-med major will help everyone.

[the ending doesn’t help the reader take you seriously]

[Structure is top-heavy and the argument is underdeveloped, but the topic is promising and if you shape up the architecture and really contend with the substantive arguments for and against a major – and truly establish its benefits rather than mainly asserting them – this could be interesting]

Below are all the argument pieces I received from Professor Liu! They are in alphabetical order, by first name. You can also use the search tool in the upper-right-hand corner to go straight to the editorial you want to read.

[All of Professor Liu's notes are in brackets and italics... like this.]

If you want to make comments, all you need to do is go to wordpress.com and create a “username only.” (You will have the option of creating a username & your own blog or just the username.) Then you can log in and make comments on all the cool ideas our class has put together!

See you in class,

Sarah Boone

ps. If your op-ed is not up yet, send it to me (sboone@u.washington.edu) and I will put it on the site asap.

Maria Scott, a loving wife and a wonderful mother of two children was told that her kidneys were failing – not just one, but both. She was immediately put onto the list for an emergency kidney transplant. Luckily she got one kidney for transplant, but months later, her body started to reject the new kidney. Ten days later, she passed away.

If organ cloning was legalized, these patients that needed new organs would not have to die. James would have been alive, finishing up his junior year of college. Maria would probably be going on field trips with her two kids.

What is organ cloning, then, and how does it work? Organ cloning is therapeutic cloning. The objective behind therapeutic cloning is not creating clones, but rather to obtain stem cells and create embryos for biomedical research. Stem cells are known as “master cells” capable of splitting into multiple other cell types. [This sequence of explanations is too complicated] This technique is important to biomedical researchers because stem cells may be used to produce any type of specialized cell, such as nerve, muscle, blood, or brain cells. Stem cells do not only provide a ready supply of replacement tissue but also hold the key to developing more effective treatments for common disorders such as heart disease, cancer, degenerative diseases (Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s). Stem cells can grow into complete organs to save people’s lives.

The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network recently reported that 28,356 Americans had received organ transplant in 2007 – where 78% of those came from deceased people. Yet as of August 2008, more than 99,000 U.S. citizens are still on the waiting list for organs. According to Golden State Donor Services, 18 people on average die everyday in the U.S. while waiting for a lifesaving transplant. Also, the waiting list is still growing at an alarming rate of 1,000 people per month. For every 13 minutes that pass by, another name is added to the endless list. Every 90 minutes, a person dies from waiting for that perfect organ. Transplantation is a desired treatment for thousands with organ diseases. What if people could eliminate the wait time by therapeutic cloning? Then perfectly matched replacement organs could become available to the sick and dying people, and thousands of lives could be saved each year [this paragraph is too detailed and should come sooner ]

There are four types of organs that donors can donate to save patients, which are lung, kidneys, liver, and intestine. However that means the donor and patient would be on the operating table, while surgeons cut into their body to transfer an organ. What happens if the operation didn’t go smoothly? This puts the lives of the donors and patients in risk. The donors’ lives are jeopardized by possible cases of severe loss in blood, nerve damage, or even death. Patients who can’t wait any longer will also end up being dead. But with cloned organ transplants, people would avoid those possible dangers. Donors would not have to experience pain, inconvenience, and potential shortened life-span in order to donate an organ. Patients could receive an organ that perfectly matches with their body without having to wait and endanger a donor’s life.

There are those that oppose cloning organs because they find it disgusting and unethical. However, should they be allowed to prevent those that need the organs from receiving it? [good to consider an opposing argument but you don’t really explore it; you just move past it] The need is so high that a “Black Market” has formed. Every year the “Black Market” is buying and selling human organs around the world. This is even more revolting and inhumane. For example, India is known as the “kidney village”. People sell their kidneys for prices around $800, far less than the $100,000 that kidney donors in America receive. In other situations, average healthy people are often kidnapped and have their organs involuntarily removed from their body. Cloned organs are a better and safer choice than Black Market organs. Although cloned organs are produced from embryos, doctors have the embryos’ owners’ consent. The Black Market system, on the other hand is neither consensual nor legal, but often fatal.

Organ cloning should be made legal because it will save millions of lives. [Too abrupt a conclusion; not effective]

My name is Prince Kubungo Jackson. If i may crave your indulgence, i am moved to write you this letter asking for you to contribute a small monetary donation; this is in confidence considering our present circumstance and situation.  I will not bore you with details of these troubles, rather i will tell you how you can promote sustainable Somalian development in this risk free transaction which i hope you will give your urgent attention…

American aid money to Africa is about as effective as giving Prince Jubungo your credit card number.  Sure, it [ambiguous – does ‘it’ refer to American aid or to giving money to Prince etc?] saves those in immediate danger from starving to death and looks like a good deed, but it does not help to create sustainable development upon which these countries can further build to compete in our increasingly globalized society.

How much does aid money really “aid” the country in need? For instance, according to usaid.org the United States allocated $319 million dollars in aid to Somalia in 2008 alone. Somalia is still considered a collapsed state with very little government if any, [grammar – unclear if this is meant to be a new sentence]there is a longstanding problem with pirating and pirate strongholds off the horn of Africa, which has escalated in the past two years.  We have seen no improvement in Somalia if not a deterioration of basic human rights standards. According to Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF/Doctors Without Borders) there are very few international aid organizations present in Somalia due to the lack of stability; it also maintains the highest maternal mortality and starvation rates worldwide.

It is a great humanitarian crisis that hundreds of thousands of people are starving to death in numerous African states, which is why Americans provide aid in the first place, but it is also a crisis for us to continue paying in to the same system [you haven’t clearly enough established what specifically is broken in the current system; you’ve simply shown that it’s gotten bad results]and doing nothing to change the causes of this starvation.

America must offer more incentives, such as real investments and trade deals, for countries to develop with the help of our aid. This aid must have strings attached, holding countries responsible to measurable results with consequences for low performances. Whether these goals are political (holding certified free and fair elections), economic (measures of the GINI coefficient, GDP growth, unemployment rates) or social (disease rates [especially HIV/AIDS] starvation) throwing money at these problems does not solve them. [logic q:  does denying money solve them?]

Even embattled Rwandan President Paul Kagame has called for an end to African-aid [awkward – maybe ‘Western aid to Africa’], “I would prefer the Western world to invest in Africa rather than handing out development aid,” he said in a BBC article (11 October 2009).  “There is a need for help – but it should be implemented in such a way as to enable trade and build up companies. A bold statement considering Rwanda’s annual budget relies on over 50% foreign aid.

With proper investment in Africa we could have strong commodity-rich states with favorable trade rates in the future—not to mention helping to provide basic human rights for millions (Africa is, after all, the second largest continent in terms of population).

There must be a pragmatic way forward that incorporates developmental growth incentive with humanitarian aid.  Stopping this unsustainable system may have short-term ramifications, but would be beneficial to suffering Sub-Saharan nations in the future when it comes to competition in the world market.

[Your overall point is well taken but not well-enough established – need to tighten the grip of the logic of your argument]

Muhammad committed an ugly and brutal crime, and innocent people died as a result of his actions. Those people did not deserve to die, but neither did Muhammad. No criminal deserves to be killed by the state as punishment for his or her crime.

Capital punishment is cruel and unusual and therefore violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. There is no humane way to murder a person, and the death penalty causes unnecessary suffering and humiliation. Any execution performed by the state, no matter the method, is an outright denial of the right to life, which has been enumerated in the Bill of Rights [where?] and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Capital punishment becomes even more cruel and unusual when executions do not go as planned. The most common form of capital punishment in the United States, lethal injection, has been repeatedly botched. For example, when Angel Diaz was executed in the state of Florida, prison officials initially missed his vein, and he remained conscious for 24 minutes of excruciating pain. Witnesses watched Diaz grimace, shudder, and gasp for air, as he was essentially tortured. There are also over 100 cases where executed criminals have later been exonerated based on DNA evidence. It would have been better to let guilty criminals live than to kill these innocent people as punishment for crimes they did not commit.[this seems like a separate point and paragraph altogether]

Further, it’s barbaric for an advanced, civilized democracy like America to revert back to this “eye for an eye” form of so-called justice. Yes, families of victims may feel the need for revenge after losing a loved one, but revenge does not have to take the form of murder. Capital punishment is vengeance, pure and simple. If we kill killers, shouldn’t also rape rapists, burn arsonists, and assault assaulters? It would be nice to think that civilization has evolved over the 2,300 years since the Code of Hammurabi was written. Apparently, it hasn’t. Capital punishment is savage and incompatible with the evolving standards of decency in a contemporary society such as our own.

Capital punishment does not serve any apparent purpose either. There is no solid proof that the death penalty reduces crime. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary. If capital punishment worked to deter violent crime, we would expect to see lower murder rates in Southern states that allow the death penalty, such as Texas, and higher murder rates in Northeastern states that do not allow the death penalty, like Massachusetts. The exact opposite is true.

When the state kills, it sets an example for citizens. The backwards logic of murdering to show that murder is wrong creates a culture where killing is acceptable. The state operates under a double standard of punishing citizens who kill others but allowing itself to execute prisoners. There is no reason that the government should get away with the exact crime it condemns.

Not only is capital punishment unconstitutional and unfounded, it is also expensive. A single capital trial cost millions of dollars and takes decades to complete due to the long and complex appeals process. Keeping prisoners on death row is pricey because of high security and maintenance costs. In California alone, the death penalty system costs the state over $138 million per year, and the 13 death penalty sentences imposed since 1976 have cost about $250 million each. Life in prison without parole is less expensive for the government and for taxpayers. This is an especially important point to consider at a time when our country has recently experienced a recession.

Thirty-five [convention – don’t start sentences with numerals]states now exercise capital punishment.  Since 1976, over 1,000 people have been executed in these states. That is over 1,000 people, some of them later proven innocent, who have been subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in America, a country that specifically prohibits such action in the Bill of Rights. Something is wrong with this picture.

Over two-thirds of countries in the world have already abolished the death penalty, including the entire European Union. The United States is the only Western nation to retain it. Countries that still allow capital punishment include Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and Cuba. Do we really want to be in the company of these dictatorships by preserving the death penalty?

Capital punishment is not the solution to violent crime. Life in prison without parole is harsh enough punishment for violent offenders, besides being constitutional, logical, and less expensive. Life imprisonment also offers criminals a chance at redemption. Stanley “Tookie” Williams, the founder of the Crips gang and the convict of four murders, became an anti-gang advocate from death row and was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize five times before his execution in 2005. Who knows what other positive changes Williams could have made to society if his life had been spared.

Capital punishment is unconstitutional, ineffective, and barbaric. America cannot live up to its ideals if the state is allowed to murder citizens. It is time to abolish the death penalty in our country.

[A clear and well-organized argument, but it felt long toward the latter third – partly because you chose a structure of essentially listing arguments, rather than building from one to another – that’s fine, but know that when you list you will want to move it along]

Strategies:

• Use satire/sarcasm
• Allude to real news stories and real hosts
• Frame article as defense of “the right way to do news”
• Talk directly to the reader

Outline:

1. What is wrong with the news/ what the news should be like
2. Examples of absurdity and irresponsibility in broadcasting
3. Two contrasting samples of how the news could be
4. News broadcasts have an unhealthy emphasis on entertainment
5. The American people are smarter than they are given credit for

There are some who say that the media should not sensationalize news, that they should not make everything into a fight of ideologies or good versus evil.  They say that it is counterproductive and irresponsible to treat everything in the extreme, that recognition of nuance and common sense are crucial for successful journalism.

These people are ruining America.

It is absurd to suggest that the four recent special elections in New York, California, New Jersey and Virginia were anomalies that have only a vague connection to national politics and should not be taken as bellwethers of how the American electorate will behave in 2010 or 2012… and maybe beyond.  [This was not a strong move out of the pivot – to confusing] These same un-patriots [?]claim that it is negligent to repeat as news the nonsensical and factually incorrect equating of fascism, communism, socialism, and the current White House policies.  Of course it isn’t.  [these last two sentences were constructed in a convoluted way]If the media were constrained by facts and actual definitions of words, hours upon hours of pseudo-intellectual speculation would be rendered moot.

Roundtable discussions, expert panelists, interactive graphic-enhanced data analysts, reckless opinions expressed with preposterously placed conviction… this is the stuff of news.  Hand control over to these dithering, fact obsessed, even-handed lunatics, and you’d probably get something like this:

Simple, unimpressive graphics with non-earth-shattering music fade into reasonable and collected anchor sitting calmly but seriously at a functional yet elegant desk.

Anchor:  Good evening, and welcome to Boring Nightly News.  The president made an announcement today regarding a new initiative that though not universally popular, is unlikely to be detrimental to his overall political career.  The president’s supporters were in favor of the new policy, but his opponents had reservations for the following reasons…

Did you just fall asleep?  Yes?  Hardly surprising.  Let’s try this:

Scenes of war, and protest with music worthy of a new episode of Star Wars clear to reveal a crisply dressed anchor hiding an expression of deep smugness behind a venire of well-gained gravitas while ground-breaking images continue to pulsate in the background.

Anchor:  Good evening, this is Blow Your Mind News.  Is the president’s career over?  Has he just lost the 2012 election?  Experts on both sides of the political divide are asking this question following a shocking announcement today in the Rose Garden.  Some claim this new policy could result in the death of over 2.3 million Americans, as well as the destruction of four national monuments.  And who will foot the bill…?

That’s more entertaining, isn’t it?  And despite what those absurd fringe nutcases might say, entertainment value is all that really matters.  The fact that CNN and FOX News look more like The Onion and The Daily Show every day is not cause for alarm, but for celebration.  These so-called comedy news shows have found what people actually enjoy watching, so if the “real” news shows can emulate this, it will only benefit everyone.  [shift in voice and stance – before you were joking with a straight face; now you seem to be actually arguing in earnest – which is it?]

There are some people out there who have the bizarre wish that the media would stick with a story and see it through, rather than bounce around to whatever splashy headline might get people’s attention for the day.  So what if there is still a war going on in Iraq?  The media has moved on; so should everyone else.  The healthcare bill was last week’s news, so even though we are far from having achieved reform, Sarah Palin’s new book is much more important.  In-depth reporting and analysis should always be sacrificed in favor of forced confrontation and artificial sentimentalism.  It’s what Americans want.

The American people simply are not intelligent enough to be presented with the news in a sensible and informative way.  If there are no explosions or outsize accusations, they will change the channel.  Americans are just too dumb to understand nuance, and too impatient to care.  [again, this sentence sounds like you’ve slipped out of satirical praise for sensationalist media and into direct criticism of it]The fact that their own livelihood could be at stake does not make them any more likely to want real news rather than sensationalist propaganda.  These folks who have it out for news organizations think the American people are smarter than they are given credit for.  They aren’t.

So, if you are a news corporation executive or a bombastic host, keep up the good work.  If you are part of the covert, anti-American plot to change the way the news is presented, go watch PBS.  And if you are sitting on your couch, watching this at home, don’t go away… we’ll be back with a shocking story and manufactured outrage right after this.  [Good close]

[Overall good idea and good approach, but executed inconsistently]

If you are a pedestrian or bicyclist in the city of Seattle, the answer appears to be no. Under current Seattle law, if a motor vehicle hits a bicyclist or a pedestrian and the driver is at fault and is not impaired by drugs or alcohol, the most severe rebuke that can be given is a traffic ticket, even if the pedestrian or bicyclist is maimed or killed.

The law wasn’t always like this. In 2005, Seattle passed a law that classified car crashes that killed pedestrians and cyclists as gross misdemeanors, which could result in up to one year of jail time. Then, Susanne Scaringi, a West Seattle bicyclist, was struck and killed by a car that failed to yield the right of way. The driver, Clinton Wilson, was convicted of a gross misdemeanor by the Municipal Court, but then appealed his conviction to the Washington State Supreme Court. In a shocking decisison, the Washington State Supreme Court overturned the Seattle law and claimed that it did not fit with the state’s general trend of decriminalizing many traffic violations.  In the ruling, the Washington State Supreme Court declared:

“However stated, Wilson’s act — whatever its consequence — is only a traffic infraction under state law unless accompanied by the additional elements that would make it vehicular assault or vehicular homicide or driving while intoxicated or one of the other criminal offenses recognized (in Washington State Law).”

“Only a traffic infraction.” The unnecessary death of a civilian is “only a traffic infraction,” [one of these usages of the phrase is all that’s needed] like failing to yield the right of way or changing lanes without using a turn signal.  What happened to Tatsuo Nakata, a West Seattle pedestrian crossing the street? He was killed in a traffic infraction. And Kevin Black, a UW molecular biologist, bicyclist, and father of two young girls? He was killed in a traffic infraction.

It really takes the human component out of the equation, doesn’t it?

Kevin Black’s daughters will grow up without a father, simply because a driver wasn’t careful enough to check their mirrors before turning.  The driver responsible for the death only had to pay a traffic ticket, but Kevin Black’s daughters have to pay a price every day.  When they graduate from high school, their father won’t be there to congratulate them. When they get married, their father won’t be there to celebrate with them. All of this because a driver wasn’t careful enough to look at the road before turning. [slightly heavey-handed emotionally]

If you walk or bike on the road in Seattle, this could happen to you as well. The road is full of distracted drivers. In 2007, Seattle had over 800 accidents between pedestrians/bicyclists and cars, 100 that left the vicitm disabled and seven that resulted in fatalities.

If the law remains this way, more deaths and maimings will go unpunished. In Washington State, over 500 people are killed each year by these accidents. Due to the 2005 Washington State Supreme Court ruling, many of the people responsible for these deaths walked away with little more than a traffic citation. The fact that the drivers are not held fully accountable for their actions is simply incomprehensible. Serious crimes of negligence, like child endangerment and negligent homicide are punished by jail time. How, then, can we let someone who has killed another person serve no jail time at all? Traffic tickets are not criminal offenses, so they do not show up on the criminal record of the driver.  All they pay is the price of a traffic ticket, and they can walk away as if nothing has happened.

As a matter of public safety, drivers who are at fault in accidents that result in the maiming or death of another person should have their driver’s license temporarily revoked and should be required to take courses on safe driving.

Really, this is not enough. If a driver is criminally responsible for the maiming or death of another person, they should be charged with a gross misdemeanor, vehicular assault, or vehicular homicide, depending on the fate of the victim. Their blatant lack of discretion resulted in the severe injury or death of another human being.  Even if the driver did not intend to kill the vicitm, they should not be absolved of all wrong-doing. The person lying on the pavement isn’t any less dead or injured because the driver didn’t intend to cause them harm.  [the interesting issue of intent should have gotten more play and earlier]

As licensed drivers, we have an obligation to ourselves and others on the road to pay attention to our surroundings.  Otherwise, crashes occur and lives are lost. When someone breaks this agreement, everyone else on the road is in danger.  As Washington State residents, we must act in the interest of our own safety and ensure that our lawmakers see that a human life is worth more than the price a traffic ticket.

[Very strong overall. A bit redundant at times. You could tighten it even more.]

And marriage should be about love. Of this, I have no doubt. It should not be about procreation or religion or fulfilling an obligation. It should be about two people who love each other.

Yet, it is sadly overly simplistic to say that love is the only factor. In many cases, the people getting married wish to perform the ritual in a religious setting. That is fine. I am an atheist, but I understand that some people may wish to combine the legal contract between two individuals with a religious one. It is when religion is allowed to dictate the rules of the legality of marriage that there is a problem. It is when the supposed separation of church and state is blatantly disregarded that I find myself wondering how this is still happening.

How has a country that so loudly alleges [word choice – ‘purports’ may be better]to provide the same basic rights to all of its citizens been able to so easily and continuously show prejudice against a rather substantial minority group?

One of the founding principles of America’s Constitution is that an individual’s rights are more important than the whims of the majority. It is this idea that is the foundation of the rights granted in the First Amendment. Yet today, the question of who is allowed to be married is brought to a popular vote. Same -sex marriage is about human rights and the refusal to allow two people of the same gender to be wed is discrimination due to [based on]sexual orientation.  As such, it should not be allowed to occur in any aspect of the government. Regardless of what the majority of the country may believe. I don’t expect, or even desire, that churches be forced to recognize same-sex marriages. It does not, however, seem unreasonable to expect a secular state to do so.

No one would be harmed by increasing the institution of marriage to include all of this country’s couples. Recognizing a marriage between two men or two women will in no way take away from marriages between one man and one woman. Heterosexual couples will retain the same benefits that they have always had.

I can only hope that years from now, the onetime prohibition of same-sex marriages will be viewed in much the same way that the ban on interracial marriages or the refusal to allow women to vote is seen today- as an obvious and incomprehensible violation of rights. While it is true that the United States does not have a flawless record when it comes to providing equal rights, it can be said that progress is slowly, but surely made.

It is time for our country to once again progress.

[Seems to end too soon – that, or too much time is spent on one point, and then you rush to throw in a couple of points at the end.  The structure feels a bit askew]