Summaries – Shazammm

Vancouver combats heroin by giving its addicts the best smack in the world

It seems counterintuitive that a solution to solving drug-related crimes would be to administer drug addicts narcotics. In Vancouver, a program called Insite is offering a safe place for heroin addicts to shoot up as well as supplying them with clean supplies and the best heroin. Insite stemmed from earlier research experiments that aimed to ease heroin addicts off the drug by replacing it with alternatives like methadone and suboxone. However, these tests did not go as planned, for the 26 people participating in those experiments did not take the alternative drugs to get clean. They were taking it in hopes to fulfill their heroin cravings, which, in the end, did not give them the high they needed to function. So doctors are instead resorting to a process called harm reduction. According to Allen Schauffler, some medical practitioners believe the practice of harm reduction will take heroin addicts off the streets and decrease their likelihood of breaking the law. A heroin addict by the name of Kevin Thompson states that he is able to work and stay out of trouble legally as long as Insite keeps giving him heroin. However, a majority of rehab center workers believe that this is a bad solution, for they feel that this practice is slowly killing drug addicts. Either way, both sides of the drug issue put heroin addicts on self-destructive paths, despite their good intentions in helping these people. 

Men Defining Rape: A History

It seems counterintuitive that the minds of present day legislators have not grasped the full concept of rape. You would think that in 2023, after centuries of unjustifiable laws regarding the sexual assault of women, men would know how to take proper action in handling rape in their communities. But perhaps they are slow learners. Mother Jones’ Erika Eichelberger discusses past and present rape laws with her audience, illustrating the progress men have made on this social issue as well as their regression of thought on this matter. 

Mormon Baptism Targets Anne Frank — Again

It seems counterintuitive that Mormon churches are still practicing proxy baptisms of Jewish people, particularly Holocaust victims, even though they made a deal with Jewish leaders 1995 to stop this custom. In the middle of February 2012, in a Mormon temple in the Dominican Republic, a member of the LDS Church baptized Anne Frank posthumously. Helen Radkey, a former member of the LDS Church, discovered this transgression as well as database information regarding Elie Wiesel. She found that the Church was getting ready to baptize him posthumously despite him being alive, Jewish, and a survivor of the Holocaust. It is also extra counterintuitive since Weisel was one of the Jewish leaders who publicly despised this practice. The church once more apologized for violating the 1995 policy after posthumously baptizing Simon Wiesenthal’s parents.  

About Shazammm

I like cake.
This entry was posted in Purposeful Summary, Shazammm. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Summaries – Shazammm

  1. Shazammm says:

    Hello! I saw that you graded my assignment on Canvas and that I got a 90%. I’m pleased with my grade, but are there any critiques you have for me that would help improve my summarizing skills in the future? Thank you!


  2. davidbdale says:

    Vancouver combats heroin

    The writing is fine, Shazaaaaammmmm. It makes a good summary of the material. What it lacks is a clear Purpose. Not until your third paragraph do you indicate you’re leaning toward a repudiation of the plan. And even after you claim that “this practice” is killing addicts, you might still be echoing the opinion of “rehab center workers” instead of your own. You don’t explain what “went wrong” with the methadone experiment (or for what percentage of addicts). And you don’t offer evidence or even a claim about Insite “patients” still committing the “worst crimes.” So we’re not clear how you want to Purposefully Summarize the article.

    Men Defining Rape

    This one shows plenty of Purpose; it’s roughly 99% Purpose, but without an adequate Summary. No one who has not read the source material will know what you mean by any sample sentence.
    —What’s “underestimating rape”? Low counts? or Low Acknowledgement of the lasting trauma?
    —How does “learning about the human body” count against seeing “woman as humans”? Also, according to your syntax, it’s women, not men who learn “about the human body.”
    —You barely hint that something about setting “laws regarding rape” requires stepping “in the right direction,” but readers will be completely in the dark. You haven’t once said that men for centuries have “defined rape to excuse almost every forced sexual act by a man against a woman as something OTHER than rape.” For example.
    —Of course the article was about giving rape victims their VOICE, but mostly it was about acknowledging that they’d been raped in the first place. Right?

    Mormon Baptism Targets Anne Frank — Again

    The first paragraph is a strong start. The second makes it hard to understand who was baptized and who was not. Best I can tell, Wiesel was alive when Radkey found his and his parents’ names listed as “ready for baptism.” Wiesenthal’s parents and grandparents actually had been baptized posthumously. Why Frank’s failure to procreate matters is unclear without some explanation. Equally unclear is why having Mormon ancestors should qualify the church to baptize anyone living or dead, Jewish or otherwise.

    ALL THREE SUMMARIES are more than good enough for a low-A grade, Shazaaaammmm, but they’re all also eligible for improvements as noted (or others you might prefer) and for a Regrade. Is anything about my Notes unclear?

    Please always Reply to Feedback, please, Shaz. It’s the primary benefit of this class, and I love the conversation, but I lose interest if it’s one-sided.


  3. Shazammm says:

    Hi Professor Hodges,

    I made some revisions to my summaries. I did the very best I could to follow your critiques. I hope I made these summaries the best they could be. Thank you very much for your feedback again!


    • davidbdale says:

      Great, Shazammmmmmmmm!
      I’ve seen this Reply, and I appreciate the work you’ve done.
      One more detail: to be sure I don’t forget to review it with its changes, drop it back into Feedback Please. That, along with the Reply you left me above, will make certain that I’ll take another look.


  4. Shazammm says:

    I dropped it back into Feedback Please. Thank you again.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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