Tow 28: Secrets of the Secret Servicement

Recently, I watched a documentary called “Secrets of the Secret Service.” I watched this because politics and everything that has to do with the government interests me and the secret servicemen are the ones who sign up to protect the President of the United States at all costs. I wanted to know more about how exactly they do their job. This documentary was narrated by Rob Naughton. Naughton narrates for other documentaries, such as Treasure Quest (2009) and various others. The documentary opens up by talking about the assassination of former President John F. Kennedy in order to show how his assassination would forever change the secret service, preventing anything like this from ever happening again. The documentary talks about the secret service and the importance of their job; showing the world how the secret service works, and the technologies it uses to protect the President of the United States.

The purpose of this documentary was to definitely give insight to the public about how the secret servicemen do their job and how protected the president really is. This was achieved by first giving a definition of the secret servicemen and who they are, “The secret service does many things like safeguard our currency, protect important U.S. officials and foreign visitors, but its most important task is to protect the President of the United States.” Then, the documentary introduced retired secret service agents, Joseph Funk, and Joseph Petro, who gave testimonies about the job and how much pressure it really is because it really provides insight on how these men will go to all costs to protect the president. A lot of facts were given and I thought this was really effective because these were actual secret servicemen who were very credible because they have done their job in protecting the president and they gave testimonies on how they did it. It really helped me learn about how the secret servicemen really achieve their job.

            The filmmakers used a lot of 3-D models in order to show the protection the president has. A 3-D model was used to demonstrate the bulletproof glass that the president’s car has. After that, to make it more credible, they had a secret service agent; shoot this same bulletproof glass from 20 feet in order to show how durable it really is. This really enhanced the film’s credibility because the world did not just hear about how severely the president is protected: the world got to witness just how this protection works. However, what made the documentary really interesting and credible is that the makers did not just talk about the durability of the president’s limo; they talked about the president’s house, helicopter, and Boeing. Furthermore, testimonies from Mark Burton, CEO and President of the company who makes these bulletproof cars were given to provide further insight as to how these cars were made. The world was given insight on how carefully and strategically all of this technology was constructed in order to serve its one intended purpose: to protect the president.  

Footage of the Presidents and layouts of the secret servicemen showed exactly how vulnerable these men are and how honorable they are to sacrifice their lives in order to do their job and protect the president. I thought that this film was very effective in proving the great extents these secret servicemen go to protecting the president, and really this film provided the world insight as to how these men actually protect the president with the technology they have.  However, I do not really think it was smart to give out so much detail and information about the secret servicemen and the president because this knowledge can be used against them by assassins, so although a lot of information was left classified, I was amazed at the amount of information actually given out to the public. Although, I can understand that the minor purpose of this was to kind of warn any individuals who plan on attacking the president, that the president is really secure and any attempts will not go through.

Tow #27: Reflection Tow

I've read Everyone Loves a Loser, TOW #3 from the first marking period, When Police Enter a Home, TOW #9 from the second, and How to Help the Homeless, TOW #18, from the third marking period. In rereading these TOWs, I've noticed a lot of improvement from the first marking period, to the third.

I noticed that when I first started writing TOWS, it sounded more like a summary of the article, followed by a specific requirement of criteria that we had to do. It almost sounded like a checklist. It did not flow very well and sounded abrupt. I also noticed that I used a lot of quotations at first, however, as my TOWs went on, I used less specific quotations, but I really talked about the rhetorics and how the editorials worked together and the purpose they really achieved. I think I had a problem identifying the purpose in a lot of my earlier TOWs, but that got better the more TOWs I wrote, and the more I wrote and analyzed in general in this class.

I feel like I really mastered making my TOWs flow together instead of just sounding like a plain checklist. They really sound more like a blogpost now. I also really mastered identifying rhetorics and not just "ethos, logos, pathos" as I started out in my first TOWs. I really analyzed and took a look at the style of writing and it's purpose. 

I could still strive to improve my diction and make it sound more efficient at times. My writing isn't always the best, but it has been improving. I need to make my writing more free and stick to developing it more instead of just worrying about taking care of a checklist to better my grade. I think I could improve by writing more TOWs on various different topics. Sometimes the topics I chose were very alike and I think it would be more interesting to write about various different issues. 

I did benefit from the TOWs because this was extra writing practice for me and a chance to identify purpose, rhetorical strategies, and the most important "So What?" in the text. Like what is the purpose of all of this? I really think that TOWs helped me realize this. However, I do not think that the TOWs really reflected much on my essays in class because I felt that the essays in class were more stressed than the TOWs which seemed more relaxed, also they were a complete different and informal style, so I do think that if the purpose of them was to improve writing and making it a reflection upon class essays, they need to be more like class essays and a little less informal. 

Tow #26: Death Penalty

This political cartoon, by Chip Bok is very ironic. The lawyer is walking up to the criminal who is about to be executed and says "Good News! I Got You Off Lethal Injection." This has to do with the debate on the death penalty and whether it is humane or not. This has been going on for a while, and this political cartoon just illustrates the side explaining that no matter how you kill someone, there is still no humane way to do it. However, this cartoon really has to do with the recent death of Clayton Lockett, a convicted murder, whose lethal injection had gone horribly wrong. Instead of passing out, Lockett suffered 43 minutes in agony before he died of a pronounced heart attack. The lethal injection drugs combination failed.

Chip Bok, who is an American editorial cartoonist for the Tampa Bay Times, had a purpose in mind when creating this cartoon. He wanted to show the irony that even if the death penalty will not involve a lethal injection, any other way of killing someone is not human. Even though this lawyer said that this criminal is not going to face lethal injection, she is still going to be hung. Therefore, she is still going to die.

This political cartoon is very ironic because even though the lawyer protected his client from the lethal injection because it could have gone horribly wrong, he still did not protect her from the death penalty because she is still going to be hung. It's just like saying that "you're just going to die a different way." There is no humane and just way to kill a person and this really appeal to pathos because even though criminals should be punished, would the death penalty and cruel ways to execute it serve justice for the people lost? I do believe very much so that criminals should be punished, locked away for life, but the death penalty will only be two wrongs that do not make a right.

I thought that this cartoon was very simple and to the point artistically, however emotionally it sparked a lot of feelings because even though it is a criminal that is facing the death penalty, two wrongs do not make a right. I just feel like criminals should be locked away forever, I do not really see any justice in the death penalty because two wrongs do not make a right and you cannot undo the crimes committed, by killing the criminal, you are only making it worse. I think that what happened in the Lockett case was extremely inhumane and unethical because it was a long and painful suffering that the guilty had to endure just because the drug was not proper. I think that criminals should be severely punished, but not by lethal injection or the death penalty, they should be deprived of their freedom, kept from inflicting harm on others.