TNJC Blog 3 - 1.31.16

     There are numerous myths about the criminal justice system that Michelle Alexander addresses in her book The New Jim Crow. The one myth that stood out to me the most was how people of color commit more drug crimes than white people do. This myth is completely stereotypical and she proves it to be untrue with plenty of statistics. She claims that, “Whites tend to sell to whites; blacks to blacks.” (Alexander 61) She goes on to give a quote from someone in the National Drug Control Policy stating that generally if your child has purchased drugs it is from someone in their own race. There is also another side myth to the idea that people of color commit more drug crimes — that myth is the notion that “most illegal drug use and sales happen in the ghetto.” (61) Which is proven as “fiction” because, yes, drug trafficking does happen there, but it also does happens everywhere else in America. Alexander addresses these myths with statistics and factual reasoning. For example, she gives the statistic that “1 in every 14 black men were behind bars in 2006, compared with 1 in 106 white men.” This statistic specifically doesn’t show the ratio of black to white committing drug crimes, but the racial bias of how black people commit more drug crimes over white people. She gives another statistic on page 60 stating, “white students use cocaine at seven times the rate of black students, use crack cocaine at eight times the rate of black students, and use heroin at seven times the rate of black students.” Honestly, as a reader, I did not expect this at all, I most certainly felt it would be the other way around due to how I was brought up and how other things are presented on the news. Alexander has dispelled these myths with the usage of statistics, and since statistics can generally not be denied they have reasonably backed up the denial of the myth that people of color commit more drug related crimes than white people do. It is just that people of color are targeted more often than white people are on a daily basis.

TNJC Blog 2 - 1.26.16

     During chapter two of Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow she brings up various issues that occur due to the War on Drugs. From the many issues that she discusses, including the issues of the Fourth Amendment, the one that stood out the most to me was the issue of mandatory minimum sentencing. Throughout the section “Time Served” she brings up multiple cases of the absurd minimum sentences. For example, Alexander states, “In fact, fifty years to life was the actual sentence given to Leandro Andrade, whose sentence for stealing videotapes was upheld by the Supreme Court.” (Alexander 57) Which is entirely absurd, from my personal opinion, and to make things even more ridiculous… The only thing that he had done was steal three golf clubs from a pro shop and stealing children’s video tapes from a Kmart store. Obviously enough though, Andrade did commit a crime, and no crime should go unpunished. Although, fifty years to life is definitely an extreme sentence for a crime like this. Alexander also compares a murderer’s sentence, and Andrade will serve a longer term which is shattering to think about, as the majority of his life is going to spent in prison. Just by comparing the crime of murder, and the crime of stealing should be an obvious representation of mandatory minimum sentencing. How could someone who killed another human earn less time than someone who only stole a few items, twice? 

     The media should be talking about the issue of mandatory minimum sentencing because I do not think that many people realize just how bad this issue is. Today’s media consists of senseless and unimportant things like the man Donald Trump, who is a completely different story. Stories on celebrities having children, being pregnant, or how they dressed to the Golden Globe Awards is only shown to keep the viewer’s attention, but is not necessary or useful. Honestly, I would say that the majority of the population does not know about the issue of minimum sentencing or topics relating to jail and other related issues. It is most definitely important to know about all of the issues that she presents, this is just the the one issue that stood out to me the most. 

Try to Vote - 1.26.16

This activity shows the significance of one vote by showing that many people are determined to vote someone/something into office/law that would improve their everyday lives and well-being. If one vote is lost, then potentially even more are lost with it, causing the one side or another to benefit from lost votes. I believe that so many were willing to put themselves in harms way to vote because some people are so dedicated to a cause that they are willing to die for it, they are willing to get damaged in fighting for a better world for everyone else -- including them. If I was faced with the same challenges I would have kept putting my one foot forward; I would (most likely) not stop working towards it until I got what I and everyone else wanted. A cause is a cause and if you're willing to fight for it then it'll become noticed by many others.

TNJC Blog 1 - 1.24.16

Prompt #1 -

     Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow provides a standpoint on a new “racial caste system” where blacks are incarcerated more often than white people. This standpoint she at first disagreed with and thought was rubbish, but she grew to believe that it was in fact accurate. The mass incarceration idea that is talked about provides a sense of “social control” keeping a social caste system that is a, “well-disguised system of racialized social control that is strikingly similar to Jim Crow.” (Alexander 7) She goes on to support this claim by talking about the past social controls such as slavery and Jim Crow. In the first paragraph she makes a point that I have been dwelling on while reading through the beginning of the book. She says that Jarvious Cotton cannot vote because, “he, like many black men in the United States, has been labeled a felon and is currently on parole.” (Alexander 5) Now my question to her would be, why exactly is he on parole? Why is he labeled as a felon? From my stance, he must have done something against the law in order to get himself in that position. So, personally, I do not see a problem with anything that she is saying. After typing these few sentences I went to search for background knowledge about the topic of “Jarvious Cotton” and found a news article about the case that he was in. It tells the reader that he was “charged with killing the son of a prominent white baker.” I could see where Alexander was coming from, she could be saying that the court was racially bias in deciding if a colored man had killed a caucasian man’s son, which is entirely possible. She also makes the point that “we use our criminal justice system to label people of color ‘criminals’..” (Alexander 6) She does make a very well point about this, that we do in fact have a lot of colored people going to jail for various reasons, including for the “drug war”. To counter this claim, I would have to go along the lines of that colored people, as well as minorities commit more crimes than caucasians. Why? I honestly have no idea. It is a stereotype that they do commit more crimes, but it is true. If the community wanted to not be blamed with this stereotype then they should not commit the crimes.

     In conclusion, I do not agree with he point that Michelle Alexander is making about the New Jim Crow as of yet. She still has yet to convince me that the criminal justice system is taking place as the New Jim Crow. It may be wrong of me to make the accusation that more colored people commit crimes over white people, but I feel as if that is what I have come to believe as true. 

Breaking it Down - 1.21.16

In paragraph 26, Thoreau distinguishes different types of taxes. Why? He continues by stating: “I do not care to trace the course of my dollar, if I could, till it buys a man or a musket to shoot one with,--the dollar is innocent,--but I am concerned to trace the effects of my allegiance.” Apply his position to today--what might our tax dollars go to today that would cause a similar reflection and response?

• Poll taxes
• He talked about poll taxes b/c he had not payed them in years. (six to be exact)
• tax dollars today go to things around the state and whatnot, like roads and schools (sometimes)
• tax dollars go to things like social security, medicare -- stuff to help out individuals who are in need, but the money also goes to pay for politicians and government officials/workers.
• julia makes a good point about taxes going towards various war items.

On Civil Disobedience - 1.20.16

"There are nine hundred and ninety-nine patrons of virtue to one virtuous man," according to Thoreau (paragraph 10). Do you agree with his assertion? Write a response about someone you regard as virtuous according to Thoreau's characterization. Refer specifically to Thoreau's text in your response. 

I do agree with Thoreau's assertion that there are "ninety-nine patrons of virtue to one virtuous man," partly because he is saying that one out of every ninety-nine people are virtuous in themselves, and the other 98 people are going to be people who give on occasions like charity or donations. Someone who I regard as virtuous would be my own mother, as she is loving and giving. However, she is also "hesitates.. regrets.. and petitions." (Thoreau 1020) She has always been honest with me on many topics, but she also petitions (or fights against decisions) with my father, and various other people, even if the decisions are just going to my grandparents house for a holiday dinner. The way that Thoreau says that an honest man and patriot will do nothing in earnest and with effect. Personally, I believe that this means that they will not just sit around and do something that needs to be done, but do something that ultimately has to be done and have that effect other things. I can connect that statement with my own mother as she has never just sat around waiting for something to be done, she is always on her feet and making sure that it gets done and will effect other things happen.

Argumentative Prompt - 1.8.16

IDEAS

• write about how gender equality is still not up to equals in every state, including the federal government (if I'm not mistaken)
• put in details about the rich doing tax benefiting stuff (charities, donations, whatnot) in order for their taxes to be lower. Basically going against his statement that the rich are not privileged.
• write about how religions are treated unfairly, referring to muslims and how they are directly corresponded with terrorism.
• write about sexual equality and how some states, and people, find it unacceptable for "LGBT" to buy from their businesses, which is typically seen in throughout Texas and Indiana (I could be mistaken.)
• Although the government has started to adequately treat the above stated some people/businesses/states still do not go up to par with treating them equally and with any notion of respect

Blog Assignment - 1.6.16

1. Coleridge's attitude towards the uneducated man could be seen as derogatory, as if those who are uneducated do not contribute to society or receive from it.

2. Coleridge's choice of word-choice, details, and sentence structure help reveal his attitude towards the uneducated man by using compound sentences through semicolon to further his point on uneducated and how they have no sense of imagination or voluntary appreciation.. As seen in the following quote, "... processes and results of imagination, the great part of which have no place in the consciousness of uneducated man...".

3. Rewrite the following sentence to change the tone into contempt for academic elitism: "The best part of human language, properly called, is derived from reflection on the acts of the mind itself."
Rewritten: One of the worst parts of human language, which is how man reflects on the acts in the mind itself.