Rhetoric and Scholarship

Argument and Rhetoric are inseparable

Despite my pretense that they can be graded as separate categories, Argument and Rhetoric are as inseparable as fist and fingers. Just as I can’t describe a fist without speaking of tightly curled fingers, I can’t describe Rhetoric without explaining how it persuades readers to accept an argument. Even so, I try to grade the fingers and the fist.

The Style Aspect of Rhetoric

Example 1

Uncorrected Drafts suffer from imprecise language that inhibits interpretation.

[When read aloud, the following paragraph sounds like mostly comprehensible conversational speech, but viewed on paper, it is peppered with grammar trouble and peculiar phrasing that make comprehension very difficult.]

The NPR broadcast was very interesting and what surprised me is how the claims were accurately correct in my opinion. I would have never thought of how money can change so drastically in time. In the past, we were exposed to using gold as a currency, then to paper bills and now an electronic transaction. In today’s world, society does claim to use paper bills and coins for small matters, but at the same time we already progressed, using digital cash. A prime example, paying bills, in which society pays bills using a computer and that consist only information it’s seems surprising to know now how easily any amount of a transaction can be paid off or transferred. There is no physical money being involved. The closest idea that I can think of using paper would be is sending checks through the mail, but that’s highly rare nowadays.

[The highlights indicate every phrase that needs to be corrected. Red and purple are not particularly significant, but two colors are needed to call out individual phrases.]

Corrected Drafts make clearer statements that are easier to interpret.

The NPR broadcast was very interesting, and what surprised me was that the claims were correct in my opinion. I never realized that money had changed so drastically over time. In the past, we used gold as a currency, then paper bills, and now electronic transactions. Today, although we claim to use paper bills and coins for small matters, we have already progressed to digital cash. We pay our bills by computer; those transactions consist of information only. At any time, all or part of a bill can be paid off or transferred without any money being involved. The only way we use paper now is to send checks through the mail, but that’s highly rare nowadays.

Rhetorically Effective Drafts persuade readers to accept a premise.

The NPR broadcast told the story of money correctly. I was surprised to learn that money had changed so drastically over time. In the past, we used gold as a currency, then paper bills, and now electronic transactions, each time using a more abstract version of barter. Today, although we claim to use paper bills and coins for small matters, we have mostly eliminated those last physical objects in favor or digital cash. We pay our bills by computer using information only, nothing physical. At any time, all or part of a bill can be paid off or transferred without any paper or metal currency at all. The only way we use paper now is to send checks through the mail, but that’s increasingly rare.

Rhetorically Effective Arguments prove more complex theses.

The NPR broadcast told the story of money correctly. It illustrated that money, already an abstraction, has grown increasingly more abstract, as have our lives in general. Before money, we traded cows for corn, but transactions were limited to what one trader had that another trader wanted. With the advent of gold as a currency, trade flourished because the gold could represent cows or corn or any other valuable commodity. It was an abstraction, a symbol of needs fulfilled. Next paper bills, with no inherent value, represented gold. Now electronic entries in a bank branch database represent dollars, each step more abstract than the previous. Today, we don’t trade, use gold, or for the most part use currency: we pay our bills by computer using information only, nothing physical at all. Like the work we do (which increasingly is not physical labor but mental exertion) it’s no coincidence that our cows are also now abstractions. The closest we get to the animal is the shrink-wrapped meat ground and extruded so that it no longer looks like anything that lived.


Example 2

Uncorrected Drafts suffer from imprecise language that inhibits interpretation.

Money, money, money. The extremely complex and arguably fictional foundation of our economy. I always wondered growing up how did a piece of paper with some inscriptions and fancy images become the social fabric of our world? When you put a U.S dollar bill side by side to monopoly money you understand that one is worth something and the other isn’t. Although, monopoly money like “real” money is simply paper from our trees. Therefore, we must question, why is money valuable? Pre Colonial era we traded among each other valuables in which each person needed. We valued precious and rare metals or jewels such as diamond, gold and silver. We valued goods as currency and only cared about items which every colony needed. If a man had a pig but needed a cow he would search for that person that needed a pig and had a cow. This exchange of goods made perfect sense and never involved a paper bill and a complex system of valuing that bill. Money in its self has no real value to it, it isn’t rare and its not pretty. We the people make money valuable, we make the value “real”, but should we?

Corrected Drafts make clearer statements that are easier to interpret.

Money, money, money: it’s the extremely complex and arguably fictional foundation of our economy. I always wondered growing up how a piece of paper with some inscriptions and fancy images became the social fabric of our world. Even a child who puts a U.S dollar bill side by side to Monopoly money can understand that one is worth something and the other isn’t, even though “real” money—like Monopoly money—is simply paper from our trees. Is it because one is issued by the US government and the other by the Parker Brothers Company that makes one of them valuable? In pre-colonial times, we traded among each other valuables which every person needed. We valued precious and rare metals or jewels such as diamonds, gold, and silver. We valued goods as currency and only cared about items which every colonist needed. If a man had a pig but needed a cow, he would search for the person who needed a pig and had a cow. This exchange of goods made perfect sense and never involved a paper bill or a complex system of valuing that bill. Money in itself has no real value to it; it isn’t rare, and it’s not pretty. We the people make money valuable. We make the value “real”; but should we?

Rhetorically Effective Drafts persuade readers to accept a premise.

Despite its importance to all our lives, we have to admit money is a fiction. Children are right to wonder how pieces of paper with some inscriptions and fancy images run our world. They know but can’t grasp why one dollar bill can be traded for candy at the corner store while the other is worth nothing, except in Monopoly. What they do understand is that the houses in Monopoly aren’t real, but the money doesn’t seem so different from the bills we use for groceries. 

In our early history, we traded valuable things directly. If a man had a pig but needed a cow, he would search for the person who had a cow and needed a pig. This exchange of goods made perfect sense but was clumsy and sometimes impossible to manage. Substituting precious and rare metals or jewels for cows and pigs, we were able to trade with everyone, whether they had cows or not. Money in itself has no real value to it, but we agree to make it valuable for convenience. While it no longer represents gold, the money we use today has value only because it is issued by the US government and not the Parker Brothers Corporation.


The Argument Value of Rhetoric

Rhetoric Can Reveal or Hide Arguments

The fact that there is a giant ball of limestone sitting in the middle of the ocean somewhere still being claimed by someone who is deceased is unsettling to me. That is like me having 500 dollars and throwing it in the ocean. When the money washes up onto shore and someone picks it up, it would now be theirs. Nobody can just go pick up the giant ball of limestone and claim it.

This paragraph may contain a valid argument, but the language obscures it. The analogy misses the point of the story of the sunken fei. Nobody will ever retrieve that “money,” but its physical presence or absence is of no longer of consequence to its owner.

Let’s try a different analogy for the limestone disc at the bottom of the ocean. Donald Trump has created a value for his name. Unlike banks that pay huge naming fees to have NFL stadiums named for them, Trump can get developers to pay him millions to attach his name to a project. His name is not an object like the sunken fei. Its insubstantiality doesn’t matter at all. And neither could anybody steal it and be richer. If he’s a billionaire, it’s because he can sell his name for a billion dollars whenever he wants to.


Brevity and Clarity

Don’t Give Readers Time to Disagree

A first draft may contain many capable sentences that make reasonable individual points, but if they don’t transition well from one idea to the next, and if the goal of the argument is not identified in advance, readers are free to follow any path that distracts them and never arrive at the summit you want to guide them to.

1. The value of money is the mental reassurance of wealth.
2. One might question what mental reassurance of wealth has to do with money.
3. Simply it is the way we track value.
4. We are reassured that the money we have can purchase a curtain amount of things.
5. We place a value on money to keep track of things it can purchase.
6. The psychological or economic value of money may change with currency variations, but the money will always be worth something.
7. Over time, America’s relationship with the value of the dollar has evolved.
8. In the early 20th century, it granted a request from the French to convert their dollar assets into gold.
9. Granting that request gave the impression that the US dollar was weak.
10. The French believed that their money was worth more than the U.S. dollar.
11. The French wanted something they thought was worth having, so they asked for gold.
12. Even though the gold was worth no more than the equivalent value in US dollars, the French were not convinced that the dollars were “worth their weight in gold.”

First, combine the sentences for better effectiveness.
[1-6] Money reassures us of our economic wealth. While the volume of goods and services it can buy will change from time to time, knowing that we have enough to meet our needs is reassuring.

Then, provide the needed transition between the sections.
But even money can vary in value compared to other currencies.

Then, combine the conclusion sentences.
[7-12] When the French began to doubt the stability of the value of American dollars, they demanded the US convert their dollar holdings into gold.

Most of your individual claims can be made in a word or two so that the sentences provide their own internal transitions.


Sufficient Scholarship

Example 1

Over-reliance on Personal Perspective

So what makes these pieces of paper we call dollars have value? well because people in society decided to make it have value. This method of currency was created to make the trade of goods easier and faster to manage. After reading “The Island Of Stone Money” one can notice that the inhabitants of Uap had a similar system to the one we use today. Today technology has advanced so much that we can now digitally manage, distribute and hold our money through mobile apps and online websites. whether one prefers using credit cards, Pay Pal or bank apps a physical dollar is a place holder for that digital number on any of those digital outlets. Now comparing Uap’s method to our current method the people of Uap used the stones as their physical placeholder to replace their word. Essentially creating a word for product system. Whilst currently people are using a pixel for product system.

Rhetoric and Scholarship are inseparable in your case, MyStudent. You’re trying to thrive on observation and speculation alone, without bringing any evidence or support from the rich material at your disposal. You cite only the Yap, and you do so in a way that assumes your readers are all familiar with Milton Friedman’s article. They’re not. They haven’t listened to the NPR podcast. They have no idea what you’re talking about. They know only what you tell them. So tell them what you learned and help them understand.


Rhetoric Task

In the Reply field below, cut and paste one of your own paragraphs we can use for a future Rhetoric Workshop.


 

Workshop Example WED APR 03

As you read the following paragraph, ask the important questions about Rhetoric.

  1. Does the paragraph use precise language to emphasize its ideas?
  2. Does it make clear claims?
  3. Does the paragraph ask readers to accept a specific premise?
  4. Does the paragraph reveal (or does it hide) its arguments?
  5. Does the paragraph present a complex thesis?
  6. Does the paragraph employ its Scholarship effectively?
  7. Does the paragraph give readers time to disagree?

Many people money launder because, well, it’s an efficient way to increase and keep your funds increased. There many effects and consequences, however. The biggest consequence would most likely be getting caught and potentially serving jail time. In an article by Julia Layton and Oisin Curran, they say “the global effects are staggering in social, economic, and security terms.” When money is successfully laundered, it does in fact mean that the criminal activity does pay off, according to a socio-cultural approach. The success encourages criminals to continue this illegal activity and spend profit without any consequence. There are many negative consequences to this however. These consequences, according to Layton and Curran include, “more fraud, more corporate embezzling, more drugs on the streets, more drug related crimes, law enforcement resources stretched beyond their means, and a general loss of morale on the part of legitimate business people who don’t break the law and don’t make nearly the profits that the criminals do.” It is almost unfair. They are working illegally to get their money. Once they find success there is a high chance they keep going, and once again, continue their criminal activity.

Let’s Break it Down

Many people money launder because, well, it’s an efficient way to increase and keep your funds increased. 

We don’t use Second Person language in academic writing, so we’ll have to scrub the “your” from this sentence. It doesn’t indicate how money laundering works except to increase funds, but that’s not accurate. Money laundering hides the origin of illegally-obtained money before it’s used for legitimate purposes, so it doesn’t “increase funds”; it just makes them more useful.

There many effects and consequences, however.

Any sentence, however brief, that doesn’t advance the argument, should be eliminated. This one is completely contained in the one that follows, which identifies “the biggest consequence,” a claim that includes the idea that there are many consequences.

The biggest consequence would most likely be getting caught and potentially serving jail time.

We’re three sentences in, so this will probably be the focus of the paragraph: the threat of jail time for money laundering.

In an article by Julia Layton and Oisin Curran, they say “the global effects are staggering in social, economic, and security terms.”

But apparently, the scholarship cited will be used to prove something else: the global costs of laundering, not the threat to the individual launderer.

When money is successfully laundered, it does in fact mean that the criminal activity does pay off, according to a socio-cultural approach.

So instead of making a point about the costs to the launderer, we’re asked to consider that the launderer makes out well.

The success encourages criminals to continue this illegal activity and spend profit without any consequence.

Again, we’re offered the image of the arrogant money launderer who apparently cannot be caught and who scoffs at authority.

There are many negative consequences to this however.

We’re wasting another sentence.

These consequences, according to Layton and Curran include, “more fraud, more corporate embezzling, more drugs on the streets, more drug related crimes, law enforcement resources stretched beyond their means, and a general loss of morale on the part of legitimate business people who don’t break the law and don’t make nearly the profits that the criminals do.”

Since we’re uncertain what money laundering is, how and why it works, it’s hard for us to see how laundering results in any of these consequences. The sentence appears to prove NOT THAT MONEY LAUNDERING results in more crime, but that the LACK OF PROSECUTION for crime in general results in smug disregard for the supposed risks of breaking the law.

It is almost unfair.

Almost?

They are working illegally to get their money.

Unclear here is whether the author means drug dealers, embezzlers, or money launderers. They’re all illegal, but this paragraph was about the consequences of money laundering, not all money crimes. 

Once they find success there is a high chance they keep going, and once again, continue their criminal activity.

Again, we’re not sure whether the laundering is the crime, or whether it facilitates the commission of other money crimes.

Let’s Build it Back

First, let’s establish the function and value of money laundering.

Criminals launder money because, well, they can’t spend huge wads of cash at legitimate businesses, or deposit them in banks, without raising a lot of suspicion. Flashing a big roll or spending lavishly without a legitimate source of income is a good way to land in jail.

Next, we make the claim that money laundering is an effective way to evade detection and prosecution.

By operating legitimate businesses that could reasonably receive large amounts of cash (laundromats, car washes, small retail stores, for example), criminals create the appearance of having legal access to the funds they deposit into bank accounts.

After readers know the game, the scholarship makes more sense.

According to Julia Layton and Oisin Curran,  the global effects of this shadow economy are “staggering in social, economic, and security terms.”

But, aren’t the criminals worried they’ll get caught? Apparently not. We need to make that clear to our readers.

As Layton and Curran make clear, law enforcement,”stretched beyond their means,” are unable to keep up with the illegal activities of criminals who successfully conceal the source of their profits. And the consequence of being able to avoid detection is “more fraud, more corporate embezzling, more drugs on the streets, more drug related crimes.” 

The “larger social aspect” of despair among legitimate businesses isn’t a direct result of money laundering. It’s a reaction to the sense among law-abiding business people that they’re being chumps who could profit more if they didn’t follow the rules.

It’s no surprise, say Layton and Curran, that “legitimate business people who don’t break the law and don’t make nearly the profits that the criminals do,” are discouraged to see the criminals prosper, apparently without consequence.

Revised

Follow the causal claims in bold.

Criminals launder money because, well, they can’t spend huge wads of cash at legitimate businesses, or deposit them in banks, without raising a lot of suspicion. Flashing a big roll or spending lavishly without a legitimate source of income is a good way to land in jail. Instead, by operating legitimate businesses that could reasonably receive large amounts of cash (laundromats, car washes, small retail stores, for example), criminals create the appearance of having legal access to the funds they deposit into bank accounts. According to Julia Layton and Oisin Curran, the global effects of this shadow economy are “staggering in social, economic, and security terms.” As the authors make clear, law enforcement,”stretched beyond their means,” are unable to keep up with the illegal activities of criminals who successfully conceal the source of their profits. And the consequence of being able to avoid detection is “more fraud, more corporate embezzling, more drugs on the streets, more drug related crimes.”  It’s no surprise, say Layton and Curran, that “legitimate business people who don’t break the law and don’t make nearly the profits that the criminals do,” are discouraged to see the criminals prosper, apparently without consequence.

10 Responses to Rhetoric and Scholarship

  1. pomegranate4800 says:

    Many people money launder because, well, it’s an efficient way to increase and keep your funds increased. There many effects and consequences, however. The biggest consequence would most likely be getting caught and potentially serving jail time. In an article by Julia Layton and Oisin Curran, they say “the global effects are staggering in social, economic, and security terms.” When money is successfully laundered, it does in fact mean that the criminal activity does pay off, according to a socio-cultural approach. The success encourages criminals to continue this illegal activity and spend profit without any consequence. There are many negative consequences to this however. These consequences, according to Layton and Curran include, “more fraud, more corporate embezzling, more drugs on the streets, more drug related crimes, law enforcement resources stretched beyond their means, and a general loss of morale on the part of legitimate business people who don’t break the law and don’t make nearly the profits that the criminals do.” It is almost unfair. They are working illegally to get their money. Once they find success there is a high chance they keep going, and once again, continue their criminal activity.

  2. yourfavoriteanon says:

    Developers create these games from their own creative image. Video games were made for entertainment and something to do in your free time so it comes to a surprise that you can learn from them and apply what you learned to the real life. Whether it’s a multiplayer shooter or an action adventure telling a story, you can learn from your experiences in the game. It simulates living a different life in a different world and changes your perspectives from the character in the game. Living through another person’s experiences allows you to learn from their mistakes and define what should be the right and wrong thing to do in real life. Some could say that playing video games can allow you to learn from your failures without true real-world consequences. I agree with that because you can translate what you’ve learned from the virtual experiences and apply this knowledge into the real world. Killing bad guys and saving the world can’t really help you learn but it is the skills you use to actually complete the game itself that do.

    • Developers create video games from their own creative image and take inspiration from others. Video games were made for entertainment and something to do in the free time so it comes to a surprise that we can learn from them and apply what we learned to real life. Whether it’s a multiplayer shooter or an action-adventure telling a story, lessons can be learned from those experiences in the game. It simulates living a different life in another world and changes perspectives from the character and player in the game. Living through another person’s experiences allows the player to learn from their mistakes and define what should be the right and wrong thing to do in life through interactions. Some could say that playing video games can allow us to learn from our failures without true real-world consequences. I agree with that because anybody can translate what they’ve learned from the virtual experiences and apply this knowledge into the real world. Killing bad guys and saving the world can’t really help someone learn or get smarter but it is the skills they use to actually complete the game itself that does.

  3. hazelnutlatte123 says:

    Andrea Yates was on of these patients diagnosed with schizophrenia, who felt that the murder of her five children was necessary to save them from the devil. She was not only a patient with schizophrenia, but also multiple other mental illnesses. Through suffering with all the mental illnesses that she was diagnosed with, she felt that the devil would talk to her and tell her what a horrible job as a parents she was doing. With her diagnosis of schizophrenia came the voices in her head that led her to drown her five children. Her reasoning, as described in “Andrea Yates: More to the Story,” from “The New York Times,” was “[Her] children weren’t righteous. They stumbled because [she] was evil. The way [she] was raising them they could never be saved…” The reasoning behind the horrible crime committed was because her mental illness led her to believe that the only way to save them from “[perishing] in the fires of hell” was to kill them (Roche 2002). In reality, we know that this idea is not plausible and doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, but to Andrea, this was the only escape from the voices and the only way to protect her children from herself and the devil.

  4. nina525 says:

    The argument of assisted suicide and its “easy access” to assist people in the alternative to help depression has patients and clinically diagnosed patients on a slippery slope. In Oregon, the “Death with Dignity” law allows individuals to receive doctor prescribed medication and us w the given instructions as followed to complete the procedure of death. Physicians are to be next to the patient as they complete the procedure in case any last minute changes are to come as an inconvenience. A survey was taken in Washington D.C, where over 1335 physicians were eligible to take a survey regarding their position on assisted suicide. Sixty nine percent of physicians completed, the results showed that forty two percent (42%) of physicians say that assisted suicide is never ethically justified, and another forty two percent (42%) disagreed. Out of the sixty nine percent (69%) of physicians that participated in the survey, only thirty three percent (33%) will be willing to perform the procedure.

  5. rowanstudent2 says:

    This modern world is full of life-threatening illnesses and hopeless cures. Yet, there are methods to improve the quality of living, and straying away from bad health. Everyone is different. If you look at health as a scale of different types and levels of severity, you can maybe get a more clear picture of what I’m talking about. There are two main types, physical and mental, each affecting one another. You can say your physical health is stable, but mentally you are just not up to par. Doctors and therapists use treatments and techniques to aid such cases. Many people can benefit through simple practices such as therapy, but others need some serious medical attention if they are low on that health scale. What serious medical problem would need such attention? Most likely, you find your mind leaning towards incurable diseases like cancer or polio, and you are totally right. Those are the diseases that need that extra awareness. Physically, your body is shutting down. Mentally though, you decide how you feel. So, who actually benefits from these simple practices? To answer this, it all depends on a person’s mental health. They may have some acute, temporary physical abnormalities, but as long as they have the right mindset, they can be better in no time. It wouldn’t be possible without the help from one harmless deception method, the placebo. The psychological healing process is much more effective than physiological therapy when dealing with pain or discomfort prone disorders and symptoms.

  6. chavanillo says:

    Uncorrected Drafts suffer from imprecise language that inhibits interpretation:

    Teens buy sneakers without needing them. Having expensive cool sneakers will take you off the list. Because of this reason kids this day are experts in sneaker culture. Not only teens are obsessed with the sneakers but the boxes also. Is a way to so respect to the brand and sneakers. They see them as an authentic part of the heirloom sneakers collection.

    Corrected Drafts make clearer statements that are easier to interpret:

    Sneakers has a big impact on teens this days. The obsession teens have lead them to even safe the boxes as heirloom to show respect. Also, the sneakers are so expensive that teens and kids don’t get bullied no more. Like teens say “I get out of thr dork list”. For this reasons is why teens are experts in the sneaker culture and more.

    Rhetorically Effective Drafts persuade readers to accept a premise:

    Years ago, shoes were a big thing because everyone were barefooted. Now this days it changed drastically. Now shoes is seen as something we want not what we need. Teens are so into sneakers that they became experts in the sneaker culture. This obsession had lead teens even safe the boxes as heirloom, to respect brand. This helps teens not get bullied at school. The only way this days teens will be cool is if we own expensive shoes or have something that other teens want. It makes you popular.

  7. daphneblake25 says:

    Many people believe that it’s not their fault regarding ocean pollution, or any pollution, because they’re not intentionally throwing trash and plastic on the floor and unintentionally, or if they are, it’s not with the intent to harm the environment or sea life. But as aforementioned, even using plastic is contributing because it’s a material that never breaks down completely and most of its remains end up in the ocean or in junk yards. Also, not advocating against ocean pollution is a form of contributing to it as well because if there aren’t people trying to make a difference and show actual concern for the environment, no changes are going to be accomplished. Another reason for not recycling is always the cost. The cost and time refurbishing used material is too expensive and there is little to no profit in it for clear plastic material. But the cost for a building a new planet is definitely more expensive and time consuming than recycling. So ocean pollution is a combination of a variety of factors. It initiates at the individual level, but other factors such as oil spills and toxic chemical dumps from large companies make a lot of damage in a little bit of time. Ocean pollution can be defined as anything placed in the ocean environment that is considered harmful, but unpacked, it means so much and is encompassed with many aspects and levels that aren’t always taken into consideration when evaluating ocean pollution, and all other pollution, and its causes.

  8. mysterylimbo says:

    Although, what has been stated could be mistaken for defending criminals, it is actually defending those who use the constitution and was ultimately failed by the document due to fees, policies, and cash bail. Due to lack of money blacks cannot pay for their cash bond which is usually about 10% of the bail which ranges from $500-$25,000 (Each state varies) that is from crimes such as possession to crimes such as rape. If a person is out on bail they do not have to stay in jail until their trial but if one is unable to pay their bond they are forced to stay in jail over and have to face the judge in the orange jumpsuit. The reason wearing a orange orange jumpsuit in front of the judge matters is being when guilty felons are pleading for a lesser sentence the judge is going to assume they are not good enough to pay for the bond and they will focus on is the fact the are in a jumpsuit ready to go to prison.

  9. pomegranate4800 says:

    Criminals launder money because, well, they can’t spend huge wads of cash at legitimate businesses, or deposit them in banks, without raising a lot of suspicion. Flashing a big roll or spending lavishly without a legitimate source of income is a good way to land in jail. Instead, by operating legitimate businesses that could reasonably receive large amounts of cash (laundromats, car washes, small retail stores, for example), criminals create the appearance of having legal access to the funds they deposit into bank accounts. According to Julia Layton and Oisin Curran, the global effects of this shadow economy are “staggering in social, economic, and security terms.” As the authors make clear, law enforcement,”stretched beyond their means,” are unable to keep up with the illegal activities of criminals who successfully conceal the source of their profits. And the consequence of being able to avoid detection is “more fraud, more corporate embezzling, more drugs on the streets, more drug related crimes.” It’s no surprise, say Layton and Curran, that “legitimate business people who don’t break the law and don’t make nearly the profits that the criminals do,” are discouraged to see the criminals prosper, apparently without consequence.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s