Writing Feedback / All About Me, A COMPILATION OF MY THOUGHTS [4]

Hello, I am Sean Masih and I am currently in 10th grade. My teacher, Mrs. Herman gave us a project to do over the next few weeks. Its called, The Book of Wisdom (BOW). This is a compilation of our values, thoughts, reflections, and basically what makes us who we are. One of our first papers is to write an about me page. This is essentially to set the tone of our BOW. These BOWs are supposed to stay with us for the rest of our lives. Sometimes, kids go off to college and bring their BOWs back to set examples and guide other 10th graders. Corrections and suggestions highly anticipated and welcomed!

Thanks, Sean

SEAN ELVIN MASIH: A COMPILATION OF HIS THOUGHTS
Chicken curry. If there were a food that could characterize me, it would be chicken curry. Its various spices, unparalleled taste, countless masalas, loads of chicken, and generous amounts of butter could successfully portray me as a piece of fine Indian cookery. I usually don't start my papers about food, but in this case it was necessary. Please, before you read this part of the paper, take time to realize where I am coming from. If you are reading this and/or grading this with my consent, I have probably already warned you my thoughts in this paragraph are hazardous. Without further ado, my "about me" paper:

I don't get the point of an "about me" paper. I mean it's like we're supposed to describe who we are, what we like, why we like what we like, and a short history of ourselves in black and white all on a dumb piece of paper. Call me old-fashioned (or just practical) but if you really want to know Sean Elvin Masih (Elvin = lame middle name), then come and talk to me and I promise I can tell you more than a piece of paper can. I mean, don't get me wrong, I enjoy writing to some extent, but just not about me. Isn't it kind of pointless to write about who you are when first of all you're writing, key word, writing about who you are? I believe, in essence, it defeats the purpose of the whole paper because it is highly misleading; well in my case I think I cannot effectively write about myself. I guess I'm like the Stieglitz speaking out against color photography, or the Picasso speaking out against conventional portraiture paintings. In other words, I don't like writing about myself. What I'm really trying to say is that if you truly want to know who I am, don't read this paper, come and talk to me. If I'm still not in school, this paper will have to suffice. But let's be realistic here, I honestly do not think this paper is going to make it into Mrs. Herman's room. If you are reading this and I am out of high school, this is nothing short of a miracle. Cherish it.

Well, having that said, I should probably get to the "about me" stuff before Mrs. Herman rips this paper up in disgust. Where do I start? My name is Sean. I'm currently 15 and a half (if that matters at all). I was born in Grand Rapids Michigan on May 20, 1993. Go Michigan (for all you OSU fans out there)! Actually, I could care less about football; I guess that's better than rooting for Michigan. I love playing and watching soccer and ping pong, I love watching hockey, sometimes football, and can't get enough of beach volleyball. Not too many things aggravate me, other than people who complain about everything and don't do squat about it. But that's about it, so if you complain near me, the likeliness of me liking you is extremely slim. So go do that crap somewhere else. Some more basics about me: favorite movie? Definitely V for Vendetta because throughout the film, the movie stresses that ideas and beliefs are stronger than pieces of metal. Favorite book? Has to be either George Orwell's 1984 or Bradbury's brainchild Fahrenheit 451 for the same reasons why I like V for Vendetta. My hobbies include soccer (of course), photography is my passion, reading, fishing, going to the beach or some quiet serene place, traveling in general, and I can't think of anymore hobbies right now but I'm pretty sure there aren't many more. I love and respect nature. I usually find peace and relaxation when I'm out in my woods, on the beach, or when I'm alone with my camera in one of those places. When I find peace of mind, it's not sudden; it's a gradual process in which I try to think about what makes me happy and why it makes me feel that way. I am also involved in music. I currently play under Dr. Brian Dykstra and have been playing piano for about 10 years. Music is a huge part of my life; I don't think I could live without it. I hate practicing, but love playing; I guess that goes without saying for the most of us. Some genres I have interest in are jazz, indie, rags, classical, acoustic, revolutionary, dubstep, trance, techno, electronica and other slow types of music that are not associated with country or rap. Quite a broad range of music I'd say. I've also played the trumpet for four years but quit after the first year in high school because of marching band. I love concert band but hated marching. I felt like such a loser to tell you the truth.

Little things will often make me happy, like finding money in my pocket even if it's a dollar. Beautiful sunsets, the sound of water trickling down a creek, the sound of rain in a forest, the smell of the air after a thunderstorm, the smells and colors of autumn, and the felling of a summer's evening all make me extremely happy. I'm a deep thinker, especially when I'm meditating in some peaceful setting. I just sit and think. I think about who I am as a human being on earth, my purpose as a human, where I'll be in twenty years, my future wife and kids, and how to keep my inner child alive because I don't want to lose it. I'm most afraid of growing up and not being able to have fun. When I see other Indians and what they've become, I become afraid. I don't want to become another by-product of my culture. When I see other people of my race I think staunch, stuck up, boring, and way too serious people. This may sound cliché but life is definitely way too short to be serious all the time. I cannot stress this enough...especially on a piece of paper. My philosophy on life is if you're not having fun, you aren't living. Although I'm young, I take life as a series of opportunities to make yours and other's lives more enjoyable. On the subject of life, I am a Seventh-Day Adventist. I'm basically a Christian who goes to church on Saturdays, doesn't eat pork or other (unclean) meats and I believe in Jesus (obviously).Hmmmmmm...I have absolutely no idea what else to say at this point. I've basically given you my inner thoughts on a piece of paper. I don't expect anyone else to read this, really I don't. I'm essentially writing to myself at this point. So I hope this draft makes it to my Book of Wisdom because I've done my honest to God best to embody who I really am in my style of writing and in what I have said. Mmmm...man I need some chicken curry.

Writing Feedback / Essay On Comparisons of Trials and Their Respective Jury Proceedings [4]

Our English 10 class had just finished reading To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee and 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose. We then were instructed to pick out a recent major trial and compare that to one of the two reading subjects. I chose the Trial of Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma City Bombing) and 12 Angry Men. Initially, I had some trouble deciding how to create this and convince people about the similarities of it. I can assure you this is definitely not one of my greatest pieces of writing. I don't have any great pieces of writing =). I didn't have any time to correct any of my stupid mistakes so please bear. Recommendations and corrections highly anticipated and appreciated.

Note: in text citations were also a part of the grading rubric!

Who better to embody the great American jury system than one of the greatest Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson who not only revolutionized the three branches of our government but democracy itself? "It is left, therefore, to the juries, if they think the permanent judges are under any bias whatever in any case, to take on themselves to judge the law as well as the fact. They never exercise this power but when they suspect partiality in the judges, and by the exercise of this power" (Deadliest 2). True these words are, as they not only explain the objective of the jury but their duty. During these intra-court proceedings in Reginald Rose's 12 Angry Men and the Timothy McVeigh trial, the jury had a major role in the reaching of justice in both cases as they ultimately controlled the outcome of the trials. In the American system of government, power derives from the consent of the governed. This power comes from a fundamental institution: the jury. Without the jury, the judicial system would be rendered useless and therefore its jurisdiction, void. Although they were from different time periods, the Timothy McVeigh trial and the fictional trial 12 Angry Men by Rose Reginald are similar in that justice was achieved because of the time and place both took place, through the reviewing of evidence and through the use of reasonable doubt.

Both trials heavily employed the use of reasonable doubt to reach justice. In 12 Angry Men, juror number eight took a stand against all odds and speculations and analyzed the evidence and testimonies and placed reasonable doubt in the jurors' minds. Reasonable doubt in this trial was heavily impressed; with murder cases in the United States, all of the jurors have to vote guilty to get a guilty conviction, but if one juror had reasonable doubt as to who really committed the murder, then the jury would be declared as "hung" - meaning that they cannot pass a valid jurisdiction. This is how one juror, juror number eight, was able to take a stand against his counterparts in the jury room. Initially, the jurors had a vote 1 - 11 for guilty (Herman). Juror number eight, being the juror who chose to take a stand, reviewed the evidence and instilled reasonable doubt in the other jurors' minds by reviewing the evidence and testimonies with the other jurors. Similarly, in the Timothy McVeigh trial, reasonable doubt played a major role in his jurisdiction because the jurors reached a mutual consent choosing that McVeigh should be sent to death (Linder). As in murder cases, all jurors must agree on the guilt of the suspect to receive the full penalty of the law. All speculations of conspiracies were disputed and a consensus was reached and McVeigh was guilty of all eleven counts of murder and conspiracy (Linder). Reasonable doubt is such a powerful aspect of the great American justice system so much so that it can decide the guilt or innocence of a man.

The time and place both cases took place have created similar effects on the cases. 12 Angry Men took place in a large eastern city sometime during the 1950s (Herman). Even in the North at the time, racism and prejudice towards groups of people was at its peak. Some of the jurors who partook in the trial of the young man were very much prejudiced toward people of the lower class from which the defendant came. This was a clear-cut murder case in which the young man's father was stabbed in the stomach with a switchblade. Half a century prior to the Timothy McVeigh trial, investigations in the young man's case were much less high-tech and efficient, as the world of forensic science had not advanced yet. Similarly, in the Oklahoma City Bombing, suspect Timothy McVeigh's life was at stake for eleven counts of murder. However, the bombing occurred in the mid 1990s with the field of forensic sciences highly advanced and investigations more thorough and intricate (Linder). In Oklahoma, the state in which the bombing took place, the legislature regulates militias of which McVeigh was a part of, to be under heavy surveillance and restricted from special acts of protesting (Militias). Many Oklahoma militias did not resort to acts of terrorism in Oklahoma City (Militias). In fact, many of the militia leaders stated that they thought the government actually bombed the building or had a large part in it (Cooper 2). Also, the Oklahoma State Constitution states that any murderer prosecuted for murder would be appointed an attorney and a minimum of two jury hearings. After the suspected murderer is convicted, s/he must go to a final hearing and then be put to death by lethal injection (Militias). Both suspects' lives in each case were put at stake and both the young man and McVeigh relied heavily on the evidence that was brought forth and the jury's prerogative to analyze thereof.

The reviewing of evidence and testimonies by the juries in both cases played a major role in reaching a fair verdict. In 12 Angry Men, there were many fallible pieces of evidence that juror number eight insisted on reviewing. Juror number eight questioned the physical evidence and the testimonies that were put forth by the prosecution and provided the basis for his arguments. First, juror number eight started off with challenging the peculiarity of the knife that was used to stab the young man's father. The prosecution claimed that the storeowner stated there was only one knife of its kind (Herman). However, juror number eight quickly disproved this affidavit by purchasing a switchblade identical to that used in the murder. After proving that there could invariably be more than one suspect, juror number eight challenged the fashion in which the young man's father was murdered. The coroner and police reports stated that the young man's father was stabbed at a downward angle. The rest of the jury figured that since the young man was shorter than his father, he would have to stab downwards to induce a lethal jab (Herman). However, the jury looked over Bobby's record and his history with knives. Juror number eight recalled that in the young man's earlier years, he had been expelled from school for engaging in a knife fight. Bobby had a history with knives and therefore an experienced knife fighter. Juror number five, armed with his experience on the streets corroborated with juror number eight's case by presenting the way in which a knife fighter would hold his knife: at the waist. So the stab wound would inevitably be near the belly button area, not the chest. (Herman). The first testimony that was called into question was the old lady's. She stated that she saw the young man murder his father through the windows of a moving El Train (Herman). Juror number eight, along with the other jurors, concluded that it took about for an El Train to pass any given point. The jurors then agreed that it could not have taken ten seconds for the stabbing to happen (Herman). The second testimony that was called into question was the old man's. He initially stated that when he was in bed he heard a struggle in the room below him (Herman). He heard some screaming and shouting so he got up and walked down the hallway and into the room below his. He stated that it took him about ten to twenty seconds to get to the other room. He then reported that he saw a figure run out of the apartment into the street (Herman). The old man then claimed that the figure was the young man who murdered his father. Juror number eight proceeded to contest this testimony by acting out the old man's actions when he went downstairs to see the ruckus. Juror number eight acted out his actions while juror number ten timed it. It turned out to take more than forty seconds to get from his room to the one below him, therefore further disputing the prosecutions' accusations (Herman). Similarly, in the trial of Timothy McVeigh, the prosecution to obtain justice used very intricate pieces of evidence against him. Prior to the bombing, Timothy had purchased 5000 pounds of ammonium nitrate, and agricultural fertilizer, Timothy was not a farmer. Also found was that McVeigh purchased nitro-methane, a highly volatile motor-racing fuel known as Kinepak or ANFO; the receipts for these purchases were tracked back to McVeigh's credit card (Happened). The rented twenty four-foot Ryder truck application was also traced back to his home address and phone number (Happened). In addition to the traces, a witness testified, "I saw Mr. McVeigh driving one of the Ryder trucks at approximately 8:50 a.m. with someone sitting right next to him...it was another man" (Cooper 7). McVeigh had a record of opposition to the government ever since the age of fourteen. From the time when his parents divorced when he was thirteen, McVeigh had leaded a secluded life and was regularly bullied at school (Russakoff). Because of these detrimental experiences, McVeigh had shown an extreme dislike towards bullies including oppressive governments. When he was in his early twenties, he attended a computer college in Buffalo, New York. After studying there for two years, he dropped out and joined the military (Russakoff). In the military, McVeigh excelled. "[McVeigh] was extremely obsessed with guns... [He] took courses in the military on explosives. He more than often experimented with small scale explosives" (Russakoff). He passed with flying colors in the Rangers Selection Company (Linder). "The four years that McVeigh was in the military were probably the best years of his life" (Deadliest). During his time in the service, he had met his accomplice and friend, Terry Nichols. McVeigh and Nichols shared many of the same ideas about the government. However, when McVeigh applied for the Green Berets and was told that he didn't have the "right stuff", he asked for and received an honorable discharge (Russakoff). After his discharge, McVeigh had become involved in many militias and anti-government groups such as the Union Sun group. McVeigh also joined a group created by Andreas Strassmeir, the grandson of a founder of the Nazi party (Cooper 16). Strassmeir's name and group had shown up many times in the newspaper for involvement in domestic terrorism and has been on high surveillance since the Oklahoma City bombing. But the real resentment towards the government sprouted after McVeigh witnessed the Waco Siege in 1993 (Linder). He was so enraged by the siege that he reportedly got up from his couch and punched a hole in the wall screaming, "I hate the government!" (Russakoff). He later proceeded to write a response to the Lockport Union Sun expressing his hatred toward the government (Cooper 14). On a beautiful Wednesday morning at 9:01, everything seemed to be going just like every other day for the 253 workers at the Alfred P. Murrah building. However, at approximately 9:02, a yellow Ryder truck parked outside the building in a handicapped parking lot and detonates killing 165 people including 19 children (Linder). Forty-five minutes later, McVeigh was stopped for driving without a license and is taken to the police station (Linder). He was then connected to the bombing two days later through credit card purchases and rental applications. McVeigh had shown the patterns of a murderer and convict. Throughout his life, McVeigh had been though times of sadness and hatred towards the government. "Timothy lived a hard life. At [the age of] fourteen, his parents divorced... [After the divorce] his life was [in complete darkness]. He was bullied and shunned throughout his life" (Linder). The jurors in the trial soon saw and acknowledged the pattern that Timothy had been showing throughout his life and, without much hesitation, all jurors voted him guilty as charged (Linder). After being convicted of all eleven counts of murder and conspiracy, McVeigh was sentenced to death by lethal injection at 7:14 in the morning on June 11, 2001 (Cooper 17). The epitome of justice was thus rendered in the trial of Timothy McVeigh.

In both 12 Angry Men and the Timothy McVeigh trial, the juries played a major role in reaching justice. With the evidence and testimonies that were presented, the jury's job was to analyze them and deliver a verdict and in both cases, the juries executed. Although no one knows what really went on inside the jury's room on the day of McVeigh's conviction, it can be assured that whoever was a part of the jury, did his/her job. And although 12 Angry Men is a fictional play, Reginald Rose did a fantastic job of showing how and why the jury not only declares a man guilty or not, but legislates justice while emanating the shining light of justice that symbolizes the great country of America. This aspect of the American judicial system is the very aspect that makes it great.