Essay Critque

Free Lizzie

Malcom Gladwell was the author of this essay. He is a British-born Canadian author. Presently, the lives in New York. Gladwell is best known for the books that he wrote. These include: The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference, Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking, and "Outliers: The Story of Success" (Wikipedia). Because Gladwell is a non-fiction writer, journalist, and graduated with a degree in history, it is safe to say that he will look at topics from a historical standpoint. He is not likely to be a creative writer, so his essays are assumed to be full of factual information.

The essay entitled "Free Lizzie" was written by Gladwell in July of 2001. The author addressed the readers of the New Yorker when he wrote this essay. Unless the reader had a personal connection to Grubman's accident, it can be assumed that most are indifferent towards this essay. They most likely have distinct feelings for or against Grubman, therefore the essay would be read from an informational point of view. I too consider myself indifferent towards this article so it was considerably easy for me to assess this essay without bias.

The author's major claim is about the reasoning for the accident that occurred on July 7, 2007. The author discusses the incident of Lizzie Grubman, while also looking at the facts that could be used to explain her mishap. He claims that there could be an explanation as to why she backed into that crowd at the club that evening.

The first supporting detail to Gladwell's claim is the possibility of pedal error, or unintended acceleration. Research shows that people mistake the gas pedal for the break pedal in a vehicle quite frequently. Many factors add to this mistake and make it probable. This claim is very true as it is backed by research. A study done by Richard A. Schmidt states that any number of innocent factors can cause this misjudgment (Free Lizzie).

Gladwell also claims that Grubman's inexperience with her father's car greatly increased her misjudgment. Schmidt's study also backs this claim. Grubman had reported driving her father's car twice before the accident, causing her to mistake the brake pedal for the gas pedal (Free Lizzie).

Another claim that Gladwell uses to defend Grubman is time. He said her reactions told her to push the pedal to the floor of the car with more strength, expecting it to stop. It is likely that she traveled the distance of fifty feet in approximately 2.8 seconds. This is also a truthful. Wade Bartlett, mechanical forensics's, says it would not be unusual for one's reaction to take the foot of the gas pedal and actually hit the break, to take at least three seconds. Many reports show that it can take much longer (Free Lizzie).

In conclusion, Gladwells claims defending Grubman are very truthful. He provides much support and evidence to go along with his argument. However, Gladwell does not defend any of Grubman's actions. He refuses to make excuses for her. He claims that there is reasonable clues as to why she encountered pedal error, but he will not comment on her other actions. With that being said, Gladwell's article could be considered persuasive as it convinces the reader that there could be explanations to what happened that night.

Essay Critique

Ain't I a Woman

Soujourner Truth spoke at a women's rights convention in 1851 in Ohio. Years later her speech was transcribed into an essay. Soujourner was born with the name Isabella Baumree. She was born in New York in 1797. When New York emancipated its slaves in 1827, Isabella was freed from slavery and renamed herself as Soujourner Truth. From the day of her freedom, Soujourner spent the rest of her years fighting for abolition of all slaves, along with women's rights. In the later years of her life Soujourner settled in a home in Battle Creek Michigan. This is where she spent her final days before she died in 1883 (Wikipedia). Because Soujourner was a former slave and also a woman, know worldwide what her stance on freedom and the lack of women's rights was.

Truth's speech, "Ain't I a Woman?" was a powerful stance delivered to the world. Her goal was to share the hardships that women, more specifically black women, encountered in every day life. Because this speech was delivered at a women's rights convention, it is obvious that her audience shared the same views that she did.

This speech delivered an account lived by a black woman, first hand. She told of times when she saw women being helped into carriages or over muddy puddles. This was not the case for Truth. She was never helped into carriages or over muddy puddles( 50 Essays, Samuel Cohen). Truth's first claim completely supports this. In fact, she has scars on her arms for doing work that was never intended for women to do. These scars are permanent evidence that cannot hardly be doubted. Some may say that she received scars for reasons other than working brutally, but the world knows that because Truth was a slave in the 1800's, these scars are obviously from the work.

Truth also claims that she had thirteen children, and she watched almost all of them be sold of into slavery. This is also a truthful claim that can be proven. There are guaranteed to be records somewhere in New York that can account for her children or at least something verifying the slave trade.

Finally, Sojourner Truth refers to the bible to support her stance defending women. She says that a man claims that women can't have as many rights as men, because Christ was a man and not a woman. Truth defends it right back with a strong belief. Truth says, "Where did your Christ come from? From God and a woman!" (50 Essays, Samuel Cohen). This statement truly makes people think. Truth is completely correct in making this sentence. God chose Mary to have his child. Joseph was to act as the child's father figure, but yet he had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of this child. Therefore, men should have less right than women, seeing how a man had nothing to do with the creation of Christ. Truth's final claim is very liable. She refers to the bible, but yet any person who knows little of Christ's life can verify that this is true. Many people often overlooked Truth's way of seeing his creation.

Fundamentally, Sojourner Truth spoke with liability. She lived a life in itself could be proof to support herself. She uses claims that are very effective and truthful. Truth fought for things that women like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B Anthony did. She spoke with as much diligence as the other women did. However, she was able to add to her position the views from the life of a former slave. In the end, Sojourner Truth is a very persuasive person. Many people had never considered life from her point of view, but with her speech, people could see things differently. She taught people to look at the world outside of the bubble that every individual lives in.

Just so you Know

For anyone who reads this blog of mine...I just want you to know one thing. I also have to use this blog for my composition class(which is the reason I created my blog in the first place). If any of the posts seem completely crazy or random or anything like that...it is more than likely that it was a class assignment.

Ohio Right To Life on the Web

The Ohio Right to Life organization began it's roots in Cleveland just over 40 years ago. On June 28th, 1967, three Cleveland citizens took the initiative to begin this Pro-life society. Now the issue of pro-life has been wide spread all across the world in any form imaginable, including the World Wide Web. Ohio Right to Life has it's own position on the web in order to educate those concerned, curious, or in dire need of guidance. Current president Tracie Johnson quotes, "Still I pray that our organization will not be necessary for another 40 years; that the atrocity of abortion will end."

There are many other members on the board of the Ohio RTL. They include, Gary Anderson, Christi Dodson, Greg Frank, Kevin Kelly, Patrick Kunklier, Chris Mohr, Marshall Pitchford, Bernie Schlueter, Dr. Dennis Sullivan, and Dr. J.C. Willke. On the website there is a letter from a very dedicated politician towards the Pro-life movement. Jim Jordan has dedicated his life as a politician towards reversing the Roe v. Wade decision.

The website addresses many issues, not just abortion. From infanticide to euthanasia, the site discusses it all. It promotes life from the moment of conception all the way to the end of life due to NATURAL causes. The site begins with it's take on human development. Scientific evidence is also added to the site. "The unborn baby is alive from the moment of fertilization...has a heartbeat at three weeks and brain waves at six weeks...has 46 chromosomes in the cells of his or her body...and can never be repeated after the moment of fertilization...The baby is the same baby, whether inside or outside the uterus."

From here it is obvious what the site feels towards abortion. Abortion terminates the LIFE of a living, growing human being. It is total and complete murder. Since the legalization of Roe v. Wade, at least 47 million unborn children have been legally killed by the violence of abortion.

In today's world, fetal experimentation is an extremely large topic. Fetal tissue transplants, live human embryo research, and embryonic stem cell research are all topics that are unavoidable. Ohio RTL narrows it down to one summary. "If anything can be gained from the cruel atrocities committed against human beings in the la century and a half, it is the lesson that the utilitarian devaluation of one group of human beings for the alleged benefit of others is a price we simply cannot afford to pay." In a nut shell, it just doesn't make sense to take a life for research that can be done in different ways.

Infanticide is another issue that the Ohio RTL website is completely against. "Infanticide is the direct killing-by action or neglect- of a newborn baby." This issue here truly makes no sense at all. If a woman will go through nine months of a life providing for an unborn baby, how can they all of a sudden want nothing to do with the precious life the bore. If for some reason they cannot handle the baby, the option of adoption is 100% available. At this point there is no reason why a mother should be able to kill their week old baby, but yet they would be sent to jail for killing their three year old child. It just doesn't make sense.

The last issue that the site addresses is euthanasia. "Euthanasia is the purposeful killing by act or omission of a depend human being for his/her alleged benefit." Purposeful killing. Something just sounds wrong with that. Purposeful killing is murder, end of discussion. It does not matter if a person is dealing with medical difficulties. If they are alive and purposefully killed, it is MURDER!

The site has many links to go along with its beliefs. It includes descriptions about the board members. On the home page there is a link that leads to video clips of the presidential nominees McCain and Obama. Each senator discusses his position towards the movement for life. Along with everything else, the site provides ways to find local legislators, become a member of the RTL, donate towards the cause, and even a link for help. This is intended for pregnant women who feel trapped or do not know what to do with their new situations.

I am very impressed with this website. I like the way it is set up and the way it explains the many issues. I completely agree with its stance on life and everything it discusses. I really like the link that allows the viewer to see the videos of McCain and Obama. Instead of reading about each of the individuals stance, it is nice to be able to see for myself what each man believes. The clips really narrow down their speeches to the things that I care about. This website addresses very many important things and I believe that it fulfills its duty as a site on the World Wide Web.

All information and quotes are from the website: http://www.ohiolife.org/

Buying the War...Seriously, just give it up

We had to watch the video Buying the War on the internet. I was so disgusted when I was finished watching it that it wasn't even funny. As a basic summary, it was by Muyers, a democrat, who wanted a way to dish President GWB for everything he has done. He used all the little guys and hidden individuals who said things that he wanted them to say. Muyers claimed that the President only told the world and the huge media companies what he wanted them to know. In a nut shell, he said that the war with Iraq was created based on lies. He believes that there were not weapons of mass destruction. He believes that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. He believes that we never should have entered Iraq.

I disagree with all of this. If our country did not respond to 9-11, who's to say that we would not have been attacked again. It would have been an automatic win in the eyes of those responsible for those plane crashes. I just wish that those opposing democrats would give it up. Regardless if anyone believes that our entering into Iraq was right or wrong, it HAPPENED. We can't just back out now otherwise those lives that have been lost will have been lost without any purpose. It would be a shame. Those men and women volunteered their lives for this country. Obviously they believe in what is going on. If they are willing to give there lives, we cannont just back out without finishing what we started.

Playboy...ruining America

Hugh Hefner, the beginning for corruption in America. For Composition we had to read an essay entitled "The Cultural Victory of Hugh Hefner." I really am not sure why we had to read it for a composition class but I'm sure the point will come out before long. Now we are to respond with our thoughts towards the essay. I am not really sure how to take this essay. At one point it seems as though the idea behind Playboy is fine and then in the next paragraph it seems to be demeaning it. From the beginning, I don't understand why Hugh Hefner started this magazine. At first, Hefner did not want to claim that the work was his. He wanted the approval of the American public before he would acknowledge that he was the mastermind behind the corruption. " If the magazine failed, he felt it would be easier to find another job in the industry..." (quote form playboy.com). Because of Playboy, an entire new belief of acceptable was created in the world of morality.

Once it was believed that the showing of nude images was unacceptable and only done by 'perverts.' Because Hefner put the idea of this out into the open, less people see a problem with it. Men are often now regarded as normal for fantasizing or using sexual language. From sexual jokes to sexual images, many consider it okay when these type of things are posted everywhere, often times on the internet. Before Hefner's magazine, a great percentage of the population would have considered these things absurd and completely against morality of the human being.

Hefner created these distortions of morality not for women, but only for men. He was often considered anti-female liberation, also known as...sexist. He put on the front that he was for the liberation of females, but his first magazine issue greatly counteracts this front. "We want to make it clear from the very start, we aren't a "family magazine." If you're somebody's sister, wife or mother-in-law and picked us up by mistake, please pass us along to the man in your life and get back to your "Ladies Home Companion," (quoted from the essay).
With all this in mind, his magazine makes even less sense. He created the idea that woman are intended only for fulfilling the pleasure of men. They themselves were to enjoy nothing, but providing for the men. He portrays women as statues in his magazine, bodies meant for sexual pleasure, while containing no inner feelings.

The closing of this essay is actually something that I agree with. There is obviously something wrong with Hugh Hefner if he had the mindset that it would take to create something of this nature. He started something in society that can never be taken back. His creation is often referred to "Pandora's Box" in essays everywhere. Pornography has one goal for this society, pure corruption. With this being said, Hugh Hefner had one thing in mind when he created the Playboy magazine. He apparently thought that the world needed corruption and he would do whatever it took to terrorize human morality.