In this article and video the author, Kristelle Laroche and Ben Mullinkosson talk about 3 little girl skateboarders; Sierra Kerr, Relz, and Bellatreas, all 6 years old. The authors side to girls skateboarding isn't really biased, they're more opinionated. But, it does show the girls and boys opinion. The boys think that it is weird to have the girls running around in tutus, using glitter, doing nails, and prancing around the half-pipe. On the other hand; Pink Helmet Posse, the girls, say they want to to take it to the big league when they're older, otherwise know as the X-Games. My opinion is that the girls should be able to if they want to without being judged. The numbers are already growing they are up to 6 members of the Pink Helmet Posse. Of coarse sports are held are at a double standard in the boys favor, but girls have already shown they can pull through.
The opinion article I read was called “Hobby Lobby ruling: Why the supreme court got it right,” and it was about the recent acts that Hobby Lobby has put up pertaining to their religious faith (Christianity) and why the supreme court was right on their decision to let them not have to pay an Obamacare tax that has to do with abortion. In the first half of the article, the author states that the ruling in the Sebelius vs. Hobby Lobby case was an important victory for religious liberty for people of all faiths, and then he appeals to his readers (who he is hoping are conservatists and people who don’t want complete separation of religion and government) that secularists and liberals are basically on the opposite end of the spectrum on this and are wrong. After that he goes on to say that out of the 20 required contraceptives, they rejected to providing four of them due to them being immoral to them and their faith. He then quotes the first amendment of the constitution to show that Hobby Lobby has the right to have free exercise of religion , and went on to say that our forefathers could have limited religious liberty, but did not and that if the ruling made them cover the contraceptive it would make them pro-abortion at work, which is considered offensive by them. He wrapped the article up by saying that people of faith have faith everywhere and that the people of Hobby Lobby are not extremists.
I disagree with the author on his opinion that the supreme court was right to let the people of Hobby Lobby not pay for four of the required Obamacare contraceptives, and there is a plethora of reasons why I disagree with him, although I’ll only name two reasons. One reason I disagree with the supreme court’s decision is because it directly violates the first amendment of the constitution, which states that no law shall be made to respect any establishment of religion, impede free exercise of religion, abridge freedom of speech, infringe on freedom of the press, interfere with the right to peacefully assemble, or prohibit the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. The decision made by the supreme court directly violates it because any religious corporation (such as the popular chick-fil-a franchise) can now opt out of an Obamacare contraceptive if they believe that it violates their religion, and that violates the first amendment due to the fact that the government is respecting an establishment of religion. Another reason I disagree with the supreme court’s ruling is because that Hobby Lobby is also violating the HHS Mandate that Obama released, and instead of pondering their decision for a moment and deciding that taking the fully constitutional route of simply petitioning to get rid of several defining sections of the HHS Mandate would be the way to resist the mandate, they made the rash and unintelligent decision of bringing the case to supreme court, (Also take into account their appeal for a case such as this should have been turned down due to it being unconstitutional) and their rash decision left there to be an unconstitutional ruling that should have never have even been thought of in the first place. To briefly conclude, I disagree with this author about the supreme court’s ruling regarding the Obamacare contraceptives because the supreme court’s ruling was unconstitutional, and Hobby Lobby made a rash decision which led to an unconstitutional supreme court ruling.
This article is called " Give Kids a Break". The author writes about his opinion on longer school days. He is defiantly against it. This article states that having a longer school day would just be like a day care. Where this could be a good thing for some, the author thinks it wouldn't be beneficial. "I'm all for quality child care, but putting four-year-olds in school for eight hours a day drilling for state standardized tests sounds abusive." This is one of the quotes the author makes about the situation. Keeping kids in school could help out with families that don't have money for extra child care but if the kids are not learning then why keep them at school longer?
I agree with the author. I think that if you need to get extra care for your child you need to bring them to an actual babysitter. There are plenty of cheap babysitters around that can care for your child. Not many kids want to stay at school longer then they are suppose to anyway. "Schools agreeing to an eight-hour school day get an extra $1,300 per student." This is another problem. It's way more money to send your kid to school for 2 more hours then just to have a family member take care of them. I think that the school day is long enough for everyone, including the teachers.
How does the writer appeal to the emotions of the audience? The article’s opening is pretty impactful. The author asks, “Why should dogs die so humans can get high. Animal testing takes lives, and humans and animals suffer.” The two sentences affect the reader’s emotions by triggering the thought of animal deaths and then saying that humans and animals suffer. The next paragraph had a quote in in that personally affected my emotions while reading. It says, “In his column last weekend, Damien Grant said he did not care how many cute beagles needed to die for him to be safe. He went on to say he did "not want to collect my son from the morgue because he overdosed". What reasons does the author give to believe the argument? The author uses facts and appeals to emotion to persuade the reader. A few reasons the author gives is that testing on animals doesn’t give an accurate result to compare to humans. Another fact given was that more than 327,000 animals went through cruel testing in 2011 in New Zealand. The author also said that hundreds of beagles had their knee joints severed to test anti-inflammatories.
I agree with the author that using animals is cruel and a barbaric way to test products. It is the 21st century and we should have better ways that aren’t harmful to animals or people. I am an animal lover and cannot stand any animal cruelty so hearing what people do to animals to test products makes me very upset. In New Zealand, animals are being used to test “party pills”. It causes much harm to animals and they are euthanized after their suffering if they don’t die. I am glad many countries have put an end to animal testing.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/16/us/legal-drinking-age/index.html?hpt=hp_c2 In the article “Should the U.S. Lower the Legal Drinking Age?” Brandon Griggs talks about why some people are starting to like the idea of lowering the legal drinking age, and letting states separately decide their legal age instead of the federal government. What reasons does a writer give you to believe an argument? The first reason the writer believes that the legal drinking age should be lowered is that, if children start drinking at a younger age it gives parents the chance to educated their children and better aware them of the consequences of drinking too much. "Alcohol has no mystique. It's no big deal. By contrast, where it's banned until age 21, there's something of the 'forbidden fruit' syndrome." (Heath) Heath believes that kids and young adults want alcohol even more because they aren’t supposed to have it. So by lowering the legal drinking age it makes alcohol less exciting because you wont have to wait as long so drink. The second reason why he believes that the legal drinking age should be lowered is because so many other countries have their drinking age under 18. Over 100 countries have their legal drinking age under 18, 19 countries even have no legal drinking age in place. The third reason why they believed that the legal age should be lowered is a permit that could be put in place if it was lowered. The only way that you could get a drinking permit is to graduate from high school and to got to a drinking safety class, but your permit could also be taken away if any alcohol-related crimes were committed.
In this article the author begins by sharing with us just how persuasive the internet can be with all the crazy trends that spread through the internet. Which sets up the question; what exactly is the internet "telling" us to do? The author is trying to show us that the internet is causing religion to die. "The Internet, opens up new ways of thinking to those living in homogeneous environments. It also allows those with doubts to find like-minded individuals around the world." They're claiming that by one person against religion might go on to the internet and write about it, and people might see it and agree with their views, causing more and more people to avoid religion. "This is all part of the changing face of society and faith, and where the Internet fits in is just part of a complicated puzzle."
When talking about religion things get tricky, because there is no "right" or "wrong" religion. Everyone has different views on the matter, but can we blame the internet for more college students believing in nothing? I think this article has some good ideas, but I don't agree with the main idea that the internet is killing religion. Also, I have a hard time just looking on the negative side of this. If there are people discovering they're against religion due to the internet, how many people discover that they are really into religion from the internet?
This article is all about who should get the possible antidote for the disease Ebola and what will be the aftermath of who gets it. What constitutes the writers urgency is the fact that the disease is very fatal and is spreading quickly. The major argument is who should get the scarce drug. Two white doctors got the only drug available at the time. They got it over all of the African people struggling with the disease.
I agree with the author in that no matter who they gave the drug to there would be controversy. If they give it to the two white doctors its because of race and inequality. If they give it to the African people, they’re using them as guinea pigs to see if the drug works. This drug is not yet proven that it even works. I think they made the right decision in giving it to the doctors. They know what risk they are taking and what they are doing by putting the drug in their body. Some Africans are also afraid of the American health department, and not trusting them.
The article I read, “Why Jews Are Worried” by Deborah Lipstadt is a piece that brings to attention all the events occurring over in Europe and then questions if we are coming up on a smaller version of the Holocaust. I believe the author is credible based on what is said only in the text. She brings up many events that I had never heard about and goes into detail about the. “Bastille Day, a group of Parisian Jews were trapped in a synagogue by pro-Palestinian rioters and had to be rescued by the police” or “protesters on Kurfürstendamm, the legendary avenue in Berlin, chanted, “Jews, Jews, cowardly swine.” Demonstrators in Dortmund and Frankfurt chanted, “Hamas, Hamas; Jews to the gas!”. She gave her readers several events that had happened in recent news that helped her argument. Not only did she give crucial evidence that supported her story that the Jewish race is being discriminated again to a point that is inhumane but also the writer of this story is Jewish herself. So she has the background of the culture and knows what its like to be a Jew in today’s world. Who is the audience? What does the writer want the audience to do? The audience in this piece is older students and adults. It’s not something that younger kids should be reading. The writer is trying to make everyone aware of these on going events in Europe. She writes, “It is time for those who value a free, democratic, open, multicultural and enlightened society to do so, too. This is not another Holocaust, but it’s bad enough.” So by making this ending statement she wants everyone who cares about the human rights and equality to stand up and let others know about the horrible things that should not be happening again. They already fought this battle once. One time is more than enough. So I agree with the author, this is nothing compared to devastating tragedies of the 1930’s in Europe and the horrible crimes committed in Hitler’s Natsi Germany. But this is the 21ist century and every single person deserves the same amount of rights and respect no matter their race or religion beliefs. This war on human rights is an everlasting battle. Whether its about who you love, what you believe or even the color of your skin. This war has already been waged and therefore the Jewish people shouldn't have to go through this again.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/23/opinion/gnarly-in-pink.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
ReplyDeleteIn this article and video the author, Kristelle Laroche and Ben
Mullinkosson talk about 3 little girl skateboarders; Sierra Kerr, Relz, and Bellatreas, all 6 years old. The authors side to girls skateboarding isn't really biased, they're more opinionated. But, it does show the girls and boys opinion. The boys think that it is weird to have the girls running around in tutus, using glitter, doing nails, and prancing around the half-pipe. On the other hand; Pink Helmet Posse, the girls, say they want to to take it to the big league when they're older, otherwise know as the X-Games.
My opinion is that the girls should be able to if they want to without being judged. The numbers are already growing they are up to 6 members of the Pink Helmet Posse. Of coarse sports are held are at a double standard in the boys favor, but girls have already shown they can pull through.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/30/hobby-lobby-ruling-why-supreme-court-got-it-right/
ReplyDeleteThe opinion article I read was called “Hobby Lobby ruling: Why the supreme court got it right,” and it was about the recent acts that Hobby Lobby has put up pertaining to their religious faith (Christianity) and why the supreme court was right on their decision to let them not have to pay an Obamacare tax that has to do with abortion. In the first half of the article, the author states that the ruling in the Sebelius vs. Hobby Lobby case was an important victory for religious liberty for people of all faiths, and then he appeals to his readers (who he is hoping are conservatists and people who don’t want complete separation of religion and government) that secularists and liberals are basically on the opposite end of the spectrum on this and are wrong. After that he goes on to say that out of the 20 required contraceptives, they rejected to providing four of them due to them being immoral to them and their faith. He then quotes the first amendment of the constitution to show that Hobby Lobby has the right to have free exercise of religion , and went on to say that our forefathers could have limited religious liberty, but did not and that if the ruling made them cover the contraceptive it would make them pro-abortion at work, which is considered offensive by them. He wrapped the article up by saying that people of faith have faith everywhere and that the people of Hobby Lobby are not extremists.
I disagree with the author on his opinion that the supreme court was right to let the people of Hobby Lobby not pay for four of the required Obamacare contraceptives, and there is a plethora of reasons why I disagree with him, although I’ll only name two reasons. One reason I disagree with the supreme court’s decision is because it directly violates the first amendment of the constitution, which states that no law shall be made to respect any establishment of religion, impede free exercise of religion, abridge freedom of speech, infringe on freedom of the press, interfere with the right to peacefully assemble, or prohibit the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. The decision made by the supreme court directly violates it because any religious corporation (such as the popular chick-fil-a franchise) can now opt out of an Obamacare contraceptive if they believe that it violates their religion, and that violates the first amendment due to the fact that the government is respecting an establishment of religion. Another reason I disagree with the supreme court’s ruling is because that Hobby Lobby is also violating the HHS Mandate that Obama released, and instead of pondering their decision for a moment and deciding that taking the fully constitutional route of simply petitioning to get rid of several defining sections of the HHS Mandate would be the way to resist the mandate, they made the rash and unintelligent decision of bringing the case to supreme court, (Also take into account their appeal for a case such as this should have been turned down due to it being unconstitutional) and their rash decision left there to be an unconstitutional ruling that should have never have even been thought of in the first place. To briefly conclude, I disagree with this author about the supreme court’s ruling regarding the Obamacare contraceptives because the supreme court’s ruling was unconstitutional, and Hobby Lobby made a rash decision which led to an unconstitutional supreme court ruling.
http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-article-display?id=S1476CBCSD-0-5281&artno=0000270772&type=ART
ReplyDeleteThis article is called " Give Kids a Break". The author writes about his opinion on longer school days. He is defiantly against it. This article states that having a longer school day would just be like a day care. Where this could be a good thing for some, the author thinks it wouldn't be beneficial. "I'm all for quality child care, but putting four-year-olds in school for eight hours a day drilling for state standardized tests sounds abusive." This is one of the quotes the author makes about the situation. Keeping kids in school could help out with families that don't have money for extra child care but if the kids are not learning then why keep them at school longer?
I agree with the author. I think that if you need to get extra care for your child you need to bring them to an actual babysitter. There are plenty of cheap babysitters around that can care for your child. Not many kids want to stay at school longer then they are suppose to anyway. "Schools agreeing to an eight-hour school day get an extra $1,300 per student." This is another problem. It's way more money to send your kid to school for 2 more hours then just to have a family member take care of them. I think that the school day is long enough for everyone, including the teachers.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10913812
ReplyDeleteAnimal testing: Flawed and Cruel
How does the writer appeal to the emotions of the audience?
The article’s opening is pretty impactful. The author asks, “Why should dogs die so humans can get high. Animal testing takes lives, and humans and animals suffer.” The two sentences affect the reader’s emotions by triggering the thought of animal deaths and then saying that humans and animals suffer. The next paragraph had a quote in in that personally affected my emotions while reading. It says, “In his column last weekend, Damien Grant said he did not care how many cute beagles needed to die for him to be safe. He went on to say he did "not want to collect my son from the morgue because he overdosed".
What reasons does the author give to believe the argument?
The author uses facts and appeals to emotion to persuade the reader. A few reasons the author gives is that testing on animals doesn’t give an accurate result to compare to humans. Another fact given was that more than 327,000 animals went through cruel testing in 2011 in New Zealand. The author also said that hundreds of beagles had their knee joints severed to test anti-inflammatories.
I agree with the author that using animals is cruel and a barbaric way to test products. It is the 21st century and we should have better ways that aren’t harmful to animals or people. I am an animal lover and cannot stand any animal cruelty so hearing what people do to animals to test products makes me very upset. In New Zealand, animals are being used to test “party pills”. It causes much harm to animals and they are euthanized after their suffering if they don’t die. I am glad many countries have put an end to animal testing.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/16/us/legal-drinking-age/index.html?hpt=hp_c2
ReplyDeleteIn the article “Should the U.S. Lower the Legal Drinking Age?” Brandon Griggs talks about why some people are starting to like the idea of lowering the legal drinking age, and letting states separately decide their legal age instead of the federal government.
What reasons does a writer give you to believe an argument? The first reason the writer believes that the legal drinking age should be lowered is that, if children start drinking at a younger age it gives parents the chance to educated their children and better aware them of the consequences of drinking too much. "Alcohol has no mystique. It's no big deal. By contrast, where it's banned until age 21, there's something of the 'forbidden fruit' syndrome." (Heath) Heath believes that kids and young adults want alcohol even more because they aren’t supposed to have it. So by lowering the legal drinking age it makes alcohol less exciting because you wont have to wait as long so drink. The second reason why he believes that the legal drinking age should be lowered is because so many other countries have their drinking age under 18. Over 100 countries have their legal drinking age under 18, 19 countries even have no legal drinking age in place. The third reason why they believed that the legal age should be lowered is a permit that could be put in place if it was lowered. The only way that you could get a drinking permit is to graduate from high school and to got to a drinking safety class, but your permit could also be taken away if any alcohol-related crimes were committed.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/09/is-the-internet-killing-religion/?hpt=op_bn12
ReplyDeleteIn this article the author begins by sharing with us just how persuasive the internet can be with all the crazy trends that spread through the internet. Which sets up the question; what exactly is the internet "telling" us to do? The author is trying to show us that the internet is causing religion to die. "The Internet, opens up new ways of thinking to those living in homogeneous environments. It also allows those with doubts to find like-minded individuals around the world." They're claiming that by one person against religion might go on to the internet and write about it, and people might see it and agree with their views, causing more and more people to avoid religion. "This is all part of the changing face of society and faith, and where the Internet fits in is just part of a complicated puzzle."
When talking about religion things get tricky, because there is no "right" or "wrong" religion. Everyone has different views on the matter, but can we blame the internet for more college students believing in nothing? I think this article has some good ideas, but I don't agree with the main idea that the internet is killing religion. Also, I have a hard time just looking on the negative side of this. If there are people discovering they're against religion due to the internet, how many people discover that they are really into religion from the internet?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/09/health/in-ebola-outbreak-who-should-get-experimental-drug.html?contentCollection=world&action=click&module=NextInCollection®ion=Footer&pgtype=article
ReplyDeleteThis article is all about who should get the possible antidote for the disease Ebola and what will be the aftermath of who gets it. What constitutes the writers urgency is the fact that the disease is very fatal and is spreading quickly. The major argument is who should get the scarce drug. Two white doctors got the only drug available at the time. They got it over all of the African people struggling with the disease.
I agree with the author in that no matter who they gave the drug to there would be controversy. If they give it to the two white doctors its because of race and inequality. If they give it to the African people, they’re using them as guinea pigs to see if the drug works. This drug is not yet proven that it even works. I think they made the right decision in giving it to the doctors. They know what risk they are taking and what they are doing by putting the drug in their body. Some Africans are also afraid of the American health department, and not trusting them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/21/opinion/deborah-e-lipstadt-on-the-rising-anti-semitism-in-europe.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
ReplyDeleteThe article I read, “Why Jews Are Worried” by Deborah Lipstadt is a piece that brings to attention all the events occurring over in Europe and then questions if we are coming up on a smaller version of the Holocaust.
I believe the author is credible based on what is said only in the text. She brings up many events that I had never heard about and goes into detail about the. “Bastille Day, a group of Parisian Jews were trapped in a synagogue by pro-Palestinian rioters and had to be rescued by the police” or “protesters on Kurfürstendamm, the legendary avenue in Berlin, chanted, “Jews, Jews, cowardly swine.” Demonstrators in Dortmund and Frankfurt chanted, “Hamas, Hamas; Jews to the gas!”. She gave her readers several events that had happened in recent news that helped her argument. Not only did she give crucial evidence that supported her story that the Jewish race is being discriminated again to a point that is inhumane but also the writer of this story is Jewish herself. So she has the background of the culture and knows what its like to be a Jew in today’s world.
Who is the audience? What does the writer want the audience to do?
The audience in this piece is older students and adults. It’s not something that younger kids should be reading. The writer is trying to make everyone aware of these on going events in Europe. She writes, “It is time for those who value a free, democratic, open, multicultural and enlightened society to do so, too. This is not another Holocaust, but it’s bad enough.” So by making this ending statement she wants everyone who cares about the human rights and equality to stand up and let others know about the horrible things that should not be happening again. They already fought this battle once. One time is more than enough.
So I agree with the author, this is nothing compared to devastating tragedies of the 1930’s in Europe and the horrible crimes committed in Hitler’s Natsi Germany. But this is the 21ist century and every single person deserves the same amount of rights and respect no matter their race or religion beliefs. This war on human rights is an everlasting battle. Whether its about who you love, what you believe or even the color of your skin. This war has already been waged and therefore the Jewish people shouldn't have to go through this again.