On February 6, 2006 Jim Holt wrote a review in the New Yorker on David Leavitt’s biography The Man Who Knew Too Much: Alan Turning and the Invention of the Computer called Code-Breaker. In this article Holt expresses his opinions of Leavitt‘s biography. This article is intended for an audience who has read or is interested in reading Leavitt’s book. The purpose of this article is to critique Leavitt’s writing as well as opinions while keeping the reader‘s attention.
Holt’s opening paragraph mentions suicide, a conviction of gross indecency, a turning point in World War I and the framework for the modern computer. It sounds more like a movie or novel rather than a biography. It instantly hooked my attention and I wanted to read on. I know the name Alan Turing through my studies a few years ago in Computer Sciences. I only knew of his ideas and breakthroughs but nothing of his personal life. Reading the areas of Turing’s personal life which were explored in the article hooked me and had me eagerly reading further.
Holt has a wealth of knowledge with regards to Alan Turing’s life. It was delivered in a chronological way which effectively created ethos. Holt’s review was incorporated in Turing’s life timeline which allowed him to not only create ethos but also pick out the parts of Leavitt’s work that he does not agree with such as Leavitt’s “rather overdeveloped ability to detect psychosexual significance.” (Holt 334) Even though I have not read Leavitt’s biography I get the distinct impression that Leavitt focuses much of his writing on Turing’s sexuality. By focusing on Turing’s sexuality it shows him as a victim during a time when homosexual relationships were illegal in Britain. Holt’s objection to Leavitt’s focus on Turing’s sexual orientation removes the thoughts of Turing being a victim and replaces them with thoughts of Turing being a hero. This change in mindset definitely altered the way I received the information of Turing’s life. I am now able to fully understand why many people believe that Turing’s death was not suicide.
Where Holt further establishes ethos is when he mentions a positive aspect to the biography such as crediting Leavitt for developing Alan Turing “the man.” This shows that Holt is genuinely reading the biography and commenting on the piece rather than personalizing it towards the author. Another example is when Holt noticed specific areas where Leavitt’s logic and understanding of the science were incorrect but did recognize Leavitt’s attempts to research the topic. This instantly placed Holt higher on the credibility scale than Leavitt since Holt seems to have a clearer understanding of the science.
At the end of the article Holt makes acknowledgement to the differing theory camps surrounding Turing’s death. Holt agrees and notes that there is no evidence to contradict suicide as the cause of Turing’s death but does say “this note of macabre came doesn’t suit a man who eschewed all forms of egoistic fuss as he solved the most important logic problem of his time, saved countless lives by defeating a Nazi code, conceived the computer and rethought how mind arises from matter.” Clearly Holt does not believe that Alan Turing committed suicide and that is the last thought left with the reader. Since Holt established Turing as a hero rather than a victim earlier in the article the audience is able to accept his deductive logic. This is effective because not only did Holt critique Leavitt’s biography and share the life of Alan Turing but Holt also left the audience questioning whether there is a mystery surrounding Turing’s death.
Alan Turing was an amazing man. He stood up for what he believed was right knowing full well what the consequences could be. He is a man to be respected for just that fact alone. Turing chose to undergo chemical castration (instead of jail time) for being convicted of "gross indecency" trying to bring to justice a man who stole his personal property thinking that Turing would not speak up because he was homosexual. This conviction stripped Turing of his security clearance and ended his ability to perform crypotlogical work. My question is: In our world today how many people do you think would stand up for what they believe is right knowing full well that it could potentially ruin their lives?
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Positive Change Spurs from the Understanding of a Whole
In Gary Kleck’s essay There Are No Lessons to be Learned from Littleton Kleck talks about our focus on mass murders and our need to find reasons for and preventative measures to stop this kind of horror from occurring again when there is most likely no way to prevent it. Kleck also talks about the effects excessive media coverage of extreme violence and how it clouds the statistics which show violence is, as a whole, on the decrease. Kleck goes on to talk about how laws and preventative measures are put into place after mass-killings when they make up such a small percentage of the homicides yearly. He says that in most cases looking for preventative measures will most likely not be effective in decreasing the majority of homicides that occur each year.
I believe that Kleck’s intended audience is anyone who feels that these reforms and changes need to occur because violence is on the rise. The purpose of this essay is to shed light on the fact it is not productive or relevant to focus preventative measures on unusual horrific acts of violence because these acts are very rare compared to the “ordinary violence.” With this purpose in mind, Kleck forces the public to think and use a critical eye when filtering through the information in the aftermath. This essay accomplished this task well because Kleck was able to first create ethos, then address the audience’s need to make a judgement, and thirdly rationalize the misuse of politicians and advocate groups inductive reasoning to exploit the situation for gains.
Looking into Kleck’s history surrounding Criminology, it’s easy to see that the man is very educated and knowledgeable when it comes to the Criminal Justice field. Even before looking into his background, Kelck’s writing conveys knowledge in the way he easily sets up a timeline regarding mass US murders. Kelck also identifies all the debates regarding reasons for these killings to happen which shows that he has an understanding of the whole situation instead of just his own opinion.
Kleck had one sentence that instantly created ethos for me. I feel Kleck grabbed the audience when he said, “The purpose of this essay is not to sort out which diagnoses are correct. Many of them are plausible, and some are probably even accurate…” (Ackley, 211) This is a great use of pathos because Kleck did not debunk anyone’s opinion on the reasoning for the massacre; he simply asked the reader to open their mind past that reason and look at the situation as part of a whole with regards to violence in general because focusing on the one horrific incident does not take into account the big picture problems that are occurring 99 percent of the time.
The last part of the essay really solidified Kleck’s stance on judgments and preventative measures when he showed the flaws in the inductive reasoning used to create gun controls. All the changes that were made were completely irrelevant to the situations at hand but the government and anti-gun activists were able to exploit the massacre and emotions regarding it to make strategic gains. Kleck uses the example of the proposal to restrict sales at gun shows. Kleck points out that most often the guns used in mass-killings are obtained through theft and not sale. He says, “Under both Colorado and federal law, she would have been eligible to purchase the same guns from any gun store.” This really shows how putting restrictions on gun shows is irrelevant to the murders because it was not a trait from all the massacres listed and just happened to be her choice of purchase. It was not the only place to legally acquire a firearm.
In the end, people need to take these incidents in stride. Easier said than done I know but when people are able to grasp the whole picture instead of just a horrific snapshot, better decisions can be made to help cut down on gun violence.
Canada had a mass killing in 1989 at École Polytechnique. It did spur a change in gun control in Canada but for a whole. The incident lead to tighter gun control laws which were credited for minimizing casualties at another school shooting. Canada passed Bill C-68 also known as the Fire Arms Act. It encompassed gun training, applicant screening, new rules for gun and ammunition storage and registration of all long guns which are rifles and shotguns. This act allows the police to seize guns from homes where serious domestic disputes have been reported which is where most crimes of passion spawn from.
This act also incorporated a screening process which restricts a person who has a criminal record for any violent crime within the previous five years, been treated for a mental disorder involving violence, and a history of any other violent behaviour from obtaining a FAC (Firearms Acquisition Certificate). It is also mandatory for a photograph of the applicant to be taken and they are to provide two references. There is a mandatory 28 day waiting period to obtain a FAC, an extended application form to collect more background information and the applicant must show the ability to safely handle a firearm. As you can see this change did not just make a solution for the Montreal Massacre but also incorporated elements to minimize “ordinary” gun violence. I believe this is what Kleck wants the American people to consider instead of just a solution to put a horrific incident to rest.
This is a heated topic and I would love to hear some opinions. Now that the Conservative government is adamant about the repeal of the long-gun registry which has been credited with success against gun violence, what side of the fence do you sit on and why?
I believe that Kleck’s intended audience is anyone who feels that these reforms and changes need to occur because violence is on the rise. The purpose of this essay is to shed light on the fact it is not productive or relevant to focus preventative measures on unusual horrific acts of violence because these acts are very rare compared to the “ordinary violence.” With this purpose in mind, Kleck forces the public to think and use a critical eye when filtering through the information in the aftermath. This essay accomplished this task well because Kleck was able to first create ethos, then address the audience’s need to make a judgement, and thirdly rationalize the misuse of politicians and advocate groups inductive reasoning to exploit the situation for gains.
Looking into Kleck’s history surrounding Criminology, it’s easy to see that the man is very educated and knowledgeable when it comes to the Criminal Justice field. Even before looking into his background, Kelck’s writing conveys knowledge in the way he easily sets up a timeline regarding mass US murders. Kelck also identifies all the debates regarding reasons for these killings to happen which shows that he has an understanding of the whole situation instead of just his own opinion.
Kleck had one sentence that instantly created ethos for me. I feel Kleck grabbed the audience when he said, “The purpose of this essay is not to sort out which diagnoses are correct. Many of them are plausible, and some are probably even accurate…” (Ackley, 211) This is a great use of pathos because Kleck did not debunk anyone’s opinion on the reasoning for the massacre; he simply asked the reader to open their mind past that reason and look at the situation as part of a whole with regards to violence in general because focusing on the one horrific incident does not take into account the big picture problems that are occurring 99 percent of the time.
The last part of the essay really solidified Kleck’s stance on judgments and preventative measures when he showed the flaws in the inductive reasoning used to create gun controls. All the changes that were made were completely irrelevant to the situations at hand but the government and anti-gun activists were able to exploit the massacre and emotions regarding it to make strategic gains. Kleck uses the example of the proposal to restrict sales at gun shows. Kleck points out that most often the guns used in mass-killings are obtained through theft and not sale. He says, “Under both Colorado and federal law, she would have been eligible to purchase the same guns from any gun store.” This really shows how putting restrictions on gun shows is irrelevant to the murders because it was not a trait from all the massacres listed and just happened to be her choice of purchase. It was not the only place to legally acquire a firearm.
In the end, people need to take these incidents in stride. Easier said than done I know but when people are able to grasp the whole picture instead of just a horrific snapshot, better decisions can be made to help cut down on gun violence.
Canada had a mass killing in 1989 at École Polytechnique. It did spur a change in gun control in Canada but for a whole. The incident lead to tighter gun control laws which were credited for minimizing casualties at another school shooting. Canada passed Bill C-68 also known as the Fire Arms Act. It encompassed gun training, applicant screening, new rules for gun and ammunition storage and registration of all long guns which are rifles and shotguns. This act allows the police to seize guns from homes where serious domestic disputes have been reported which is where most crimes of passion spawn from.
This act also incorporated a screening process which restricts a person who has a criminal record for any violent crime within the previous five years, been treated for a mental disorder involving violence, and a history of any other violent behaviour from obtaining a FAC (Firearms Acquisition Certificate). It is also mandatory for a photograph of the applicant to be taken and they are to provide two references. There is a mandatory 28 day waiting period to obtain a FAC, an extended application form to collect more background information and the applicant must show the ability to safely handle a firearm. As you can see this change did not just make a solution for the Montreal Massacre but also incorporated elements to minimize “ordinary” gun violence. I believe this is what Kleck wants the American people to consider instead of just a solution to put a horrific incident to rest.
This is a heated topic and I would love to hear some opinions. Now that the Conservative government is adamant about the repeal of the long-gun registry which has been credited with success against gun violence, what side of the fence do you sit on and why?
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
I respectfully contradict
This week I read an article named Aggression: The Impact of Media Violence written by Sissela Bok. In this article Bok tries to raise awareness on the correlation between media violence and real violence. I believe that Bok’s audience is anyone who is a parent and/or middle age society or older since she is making references to youth violence, John Grisham and Oliver Stone. Youth violence is becoming mainstream news and parents are beginning to worry more about their children’s safety. Grisham and Stone are known well to an older generation who can appreciate the works they created.
I believe that Bok is trying to persuade the reader to rethink the television currently aired and take a stand to have rules placed on media violence. I do feel that the execution was flawed. I found myself contradicting Bok more than agreeing with her. Bok’s statistics were contradictory and left much room for the reader to form doubt. She notes that since television was created, the rate of violence has risen in the 1990’s but then contradicts her point by saying that actual violence has now decreased even though no action has been made to curb media violence. This contradicts the point that media violence is directly effecting violence.
Bok also calls the reader to take a stand and asks the reader to think of other areas that have been censored such as smoking and drunk driving. In my opinion, this is a really bad comparison because there is concrete evidence that links smoking to cancer and drunk driving to car accidents but there is no direct link regarding media violence and real violence. Not to mention that smoking and drinking are addictive substances which causes death and glamorizing them in the media destroys the attempts to remove it from society. Watching media violence is not addictive nor does it cause anybody physical harm or impairment. The example of the couple that copycatted Natural Born Killers had underlying issues that contributed to their choices to reenact the movie. By using such poor examples Bok did not effectively convey logos. Her use of inductive logic was flawed since she was comparing apples to sailboats.
With Bok’s inconsistencies regarding her examples and comparisons she was not able to effectively create ethos either. This is because she could not establish credibility. Bok also makes the comment, “No reputable scholar accepts the view expressed by 21 percent of the American public in 1995, blaming television more than any other factor for teenage violence.” (Bok, 87) This sentence completely undermines the beliefs of the average American.
I think that Bok has a great point to make about media violence and the need for it to be monitored but not completely restricted. I believe that it’s the job both of the television networks to gear their programs to the audiences that watch it and also the parent’s or caregiver’s responsibility to monitor what their children are watching. This point was only brought up in passing and was not retouched. I found myself shaking my head when I was done reading the article because, as a mother of two boys, I question other parents or care providers who do not take the time to educate children about what it is they are watching. I can easily compare it to guns. A child who is never taught the impact of guns or the dangers associated with them is more likely to pick one up and hurt either themselves or someone else badly. A child who has grown up learning about guns, the proper use for them and the harm they can cause have a respect for them and are less likely to pick one up and hurt anyone. Children are impressionable and without the proper guidance when it comes to things such as media violence, how are they to know any better?
Do you believe there is a need to remove violence from our media?
I believe that Bok is trying to persuade the reader to rethink the television currently aired and take a stand to have rules placed on media violence. I do feel that the execution was flawed. I found myself contradicting Bok more than agreeing with her. Bok’s statistics were contradictory and left much room for the reader to form doubt. She notes that since television was created, the rate of violence has risen in the 1990’s but then contradicts her point by saying that actual violence has now decreased even though no action has been made to curb media violence. This contradicts the point that media violence is directly effecting violence.
Bok also calls the reader to take a stand and asks the reader to think of other areas that have been censored such as smoking and drunk driving. In my opinion, this is a really bad comparison because there is concrete evidence that links smoking to cancer and drunk driving to car accidents but there is no direct link regarding media violence and real violence. Not to mention that smoking and drinking are addictive substances which causes death and glamorizing them in the media destroys the attempts to remove it from society. Watching media violence is not addictive nor does it cause anybody physical harm or impairment. The example of the couple that copycatted Natural Born Killers had underlying issues that contributed to their choices to reenact the movie. By using such poor examples Bok did not effectively convey logos. Her use of inductive logic was flawed since she was comparing apples to sailboats.
With Bok’s inconsistencies regarding her examples and comparisons she was not able to effectively create ethos either. This is because she could not establish credibility. Bok also makes the comment, “No reputable scholar accepts the view expressed by 21 percent of the American public in 1995, blaming television more than any other factor for teenage violence.” (Bok, 87) This sentence completely undermines the beliefs of the average American.
I think that Bok has a great point to make about media violence and the need for it to be monitored but not completely restricted. I believe that it’s the job both of the television networks to gear their programs to the audiences that watch it and also the parent’s or caregiver’s responsibility to monitor what their children are watching. This point was only brought up in passing and was not retouched. I found myself shaking my head when I was done reading the article because, as a mother of two boys, I question other parents or care providers who do not take the time to educate children about what it is they are watching. I can easily compare it to guns. A child who is never taught the impact of guns or the dangers associated with them is more likely to pick one up and hurt either themselves or someone else badly. A child who has grown up learning about guns, the proper use for them and the harm they can cause have a respect for them and are less likely to pick one up and hurt anyone. Children are impressionable and without the proper guidance when it comes to things such as media violence, how are they to know any better?
Do you believe there is a need to remove violence from our media?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)