The article I read is School: We have a right to ban God. The articles basis is about a Californian school district suing a student for mentioning God in his graduation speech. The author's opinion isn't really stated about that situation just that he is against the student being sued. His tone is very serious and factual not trying to force you into this opinion but persuading you factually. "The school district is not putting this behind them. They have a 10-20 thousand dollar down payment on this case and are ready for a legal fight." The author is aiming this article towards parents and students because this is an issue families need to know about.
I agree this student shouldn't be sued for this. I don't feel like this is that major of an issue to have legal action taken. I think a statement to the student about how legal action could be taken would of been good enough. If school districts wouldn't try to please everyone by "Banning God" this wouldn't be an issue. We are a country that was founded on faith and banning a major part of kids lives from school won't help anything.
http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-article-display?id=SALHS21-0-269&artno=0000348354&type=ART This article raises awareness about women serving in the military and how some people believe it can hurt the strength of the military. However the Pentagon would disagree as they lifted the ban on women fighting in the military. This choice is allowing women's rights to flourish. By allowing equality, the military is showing disgust against women taking part in the military has no right in a country that honors fair treatment. The push to achieve women's rights came from top leaders in the country. The Pentagon was also dealing with several lawsuits dealing with this issue. One lawsuit was brought up by the Service Women's Action Network claiming to have only males battling is unconstitutional.
I agree because it doesn't matter who you are you should still be able to have the same rights as everyone else. Having women not receiving the same rights as men is on the wrong track. If women were treated fairly we wouldn't have these problems.
http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-article-display?id=SALHS21-0-9200&artno=0000358711&type=ART&shfilter=U&key=Smoking&title=The%20Case%20for%20Tolerating%20E-Cigarettes&res=Y&ren=N&gov=N&lnk=N&ic=N In this opinion article, the author argues that regulating the use of electronic cigarettes rather than prohibiting them. The authors Amy Fairchild and James Colgrove are reliable sources of information. Amy L. Fairchild is a professor, and James Colgrove is an associate professor, of sociomedical sciences at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia. The tone of this article seems to remains unsettled, but not outragous making the point come out strong. Such as in this statement from the article “Banning vaping in public won't help. Instead, e-cigarettes should be regulated by the Food and Drug Administration as products "sold or distributed for use to reduce harm or the risk of tobacco-related disease." The industry can't be trusted to provide safer products. The historical mistake was not the pursuit of a safer cigarette, but championing that cause with dishonest partners.” (Fairchild, Colgrove) It provides a statement that says they don’t think e-cigs should be banned but they do think it should be regulated, so it is like a compromise. I don’t disagree with the article, but I don’t totally agree. I don’t agrre because looking from a parents point of view I would like to limit the exposure to my children of their eyes seeing someone smoke and thinking it is cool. I agree because the more we prompt e-cigs the less real cigs we have. so I am kind of in between on this subject.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/07/11/memo-to-gop-let-obama-own-immigration-mess-on-our-border/ "Memo to GOP: Let Obama Own Immigration Mess on Our Border" is an article directed at the Republican party (GOP) to step aside and let President Obama solve the situation of illegal aliens crossing the border Mexican-American border into the United States. It gets under Liz Peek's (the author) skin that the Republican party is getting in the way of Obama solving a problem that the author claims Obama created. "Only by signing on for the $3.7 billion 'fix' will the GOP place this 'urgent humanitarian crisis' squarely in Mr. Obama's lap, where it belongs." (Peek) The author's urgency comes from the vast amounts of illegally crossing the border. "So far this fiscal year there have been more than 52,000 children unaccompanied children taken into custody, mostly from Central America; that's nearly twice the number from last year, and 10 times the number from 2009." (Peek) I tend to agree with this author's position. There are safer and much more legal ways to get into this country. Citizenship would allow these families not to live in fear of being deported, would allow better jobs, and an education. Many of these illegal aliens end up in our school system. Our tax dollars and resources then go to the education of people that are not United States citizens. I believe that The GOP should work with Obama so he can fix his own mess.
How do you understand the author, based on the text? Who is the audience?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/13/opinion/sunday/all-children-should-be-delinquents.html?ref=opinion The article I read, “All Children Should Be Delinquents”, by John Beckman, got my attention as soon as I read the title and then even more so when I saw the article was from a childhood in Iowa. This article talks about his childhood, the adventures and experiences he had but also how he learned from those situations of his youth and how they affected his life as he grew up into an adult. This article is a very personal piece, the author chooses to get his points across by sharing his own childhood risk,chances he took and how he perceived them. So you kind of get the understanding he is more of a personal writer. I would say the writer is epigrammatic meaning he expresses the way he feels in a short but sort of funny way with the stories he uses in his piece like, “ One amazing afternoon it erupted into an all-hands king of the hill, and the contest was won by a red headed stranger (somebody’s cousin?)”. So he tells the story and then at the end talks about how he learned from them but does it in a funny way. The audience in this piece I think is parents. The title is a little misleading. It’s not saying actual delinquents but they are going to do things that will get them in trouble with mom and dad that they will learn from. So I think it is for parents for them to not freak out when there kid isn’t an angel anymore. Or for parents to not be so protective over their children so that the kids can learn from the mistakes they made and grow. If they don’t make the mistakes how will they ever know how to deal with a problem. At one point in the article he writes, “Many parents (like mine) were actually quite strict and culturally conservative, but their prohibitions only inspired us to find rowdier and more independent diversions”. This just proves that it is for parents because it’s talking about the different types of parenting and how it affected the children. I agree with this author. I think he has very good points and they are very clear. They make sense and I agree that kids should be able to explore as a kid and make mistakes, and that parents should let them.
In this editorial, the author explains that many kids in middle school and high school are starting to use E-cigarettes. One of the major arguments in this article is choosing to let kids under 18 use these cigarettes. “A national survey found that the percentage of high school students who had ever smoked e-cigarettes jumped to 10 percent in 2012 from 4.7 percent in 2011; for middle school students (grades six to eight), the figure rose to 2.7 percent from 1.4 percent.” They found major changes in these numbers since the E-cigarettes came out. The author believes that the companies encourage the E-cigarettes due to the use of the candy flavors. Over half of the states have not made it illegal for teens under 18 to smoke these. What gets under the writers skin is that they have not made this illegal in every state. It makes him unhappy because it is not healthy for adolescent brains, it damages them. Although these are safer, they still cause damage. “ They are safer than cigarettes, because they don’t contain all the carcinogens and other toxic substances found in tobacco smoke, and they can often be effective in helping adults cut down on their use of conventional cigarettes. But nicotine — delivered in any manner — can impair adolescent brain development, is extremely addictive and can be dangerous at very high doses to people of all ages.” I agree with the article that you should not be able to smoke until you are 18, even the E-cigarettes. They have evidence that it damages the brain at any age and its not healthy in high doses. I think that ages in 6th-8th grade is way to young to begin smoking even with an E-cigarette.
The article “How to get your kid off the smartphone” is written by Mel Robbins. Robbins starts off the article saying that when her and her husband first gave their 13 and 15 year old daughters cell phones, they had to sign a contract. That contract says that she gets to monitor every text and restrict when/where her daughters could use their phones. Robbins says that her and her husband lost control in less than a year. Robbins states that on average, a teen sends between 50-100 texts a day. Some teens even reach as high as 300. She also says that about 70% of teens admit they hide what they do online from their parents. “Add to this that 84% of teenagers sleep with, next to or on top of their cell phones, according to a Pew Research Internet Study, and we get into the realm of health concerns. We may not be able to monitor our kids every online move, but this we could do something about.” Mel Robbins added this quote because her children fell asleep with their phones and her and her husband didn’t want that to happen anymore.
So, they started a “check in at tuck in” plan. When they send their kids to bed, they take their phones and charge them in their own bedroom. “The research is indisputable that teens needs "as much sleep or more" than they got as children -- that's between 9 and 10 hours of sleep a night -- and only 20% of them are getting it, thanks to their sleeping with their cell phones!” This is the reason Robbins and her husband implemented this plan. She says that since starting this plan, her kids have been happier, more awake, and ready to take on the day. I agree with Robbins’ choice to add the “check in at tuck in” plan to their house. I believe that if every parent would do this then most kids would feel more awake and wouldn’t feel so sluggish in the morning.
"Of 100 people executed during 2012 and 2013 showed that the vast majority of executed offenders suffered from one or more significant cognitive and behavioral deficits." The author of this article believes that the death penalty should be put to a stop, and has much faith in the current Supreme Court to put it rest once and for all. The thing that really gets under this writers skin in the fact that the death penalty goes against our countries Eighth Amendment which prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. The author heavily believes the death penalty should be put to an end to preserve human dignity. In a recent ruling the Supreme Court barred the execution of those intellectually disabled, along with juvenile offenders. This is a strong indication of the death penalty being stopped.
Before reading this article I believed that if a person did something so horrible that it was just for them to be sent to the death penalty. After reading this though, it changed my outlook. By keeping the death penalty we are going against our Amendments, which are there for our benefit. We also are resorting back to executions like those in the Medieval period, and honestly that doesn't seem like something we would want to do as a country. I agree with this author and the argument that the death penalty should be stopped.
What gets under the writers skin in this article is that the police seemingly are being harmful at mostly peaceful riots. He believes that since the police opened fire on a unarmed teenager that they have the right to be angry and riot peacefully. The police used tear gas, had a sniper and had SWAT cars. I believe there are at least three audiences here. One of them being the citizens of Ferguson, saying they have the right to peacefully riot against the police. Another audience being the police force of Ferguson and other police forces around the United States. Telling them that they need to be a little more lenient and act when acted upon. The other audience would be the rest of the nation reading the story. They read what he has to say and get to have their own opinion on it.
I agree with all of the points the author has. The police seem to have been acting too forcefully. Michael Brown was unarmed and fired upon while walking away after confrontation (CNN). During the city’s riots they had a sniper above the people and were teargassing citizens and reporters. It may just be coincidental, but the city of Ferguson is 67 percent black and 90 percent of the police force is white. The city views it as a racial barrier and outside force. In my opinion the police should only act if acted upon and it did not seem they were acted upon at this point in time.
What gets under the writer’s skin? What reasons does a writer give you to believe an argument? In this article, the author tells about a man who was forced to retire from the military because of his political views. After being harassed by his superiors for have an anti-obama bumper sticker, reading a book written by a conservative author, and serving chick-fil-a at one of his parties, he was eventually brought in front of a panel and forced to retire. What gets under the writer's skin is that a soldier lost his job solely because of his political beliefs. “Just because someone joins the military, they do not give up their rights as a citizen,” said the attorney of the soldier, referring to his religious liberties and freedom of speech. The reason that the author gives to believe his argument is that even if his opinions differed from those of his bosses, he was doing no harm to them or his coworkers. “Master Sergeant Sommers did nothing to interfere with good order and discipline." I definitely agree with the author in this article. I think that there is no crime in active showing your political and religious beliefs, and that being fired from his job is ridiculous. Whether the person in question was republican, democrat, liberal, conservative, christian, atheist or so be it, my opinion would not change. As an American citizen we are entitled to our freedom and we should not be denied them.
The article I read is School: We have a right to ban God. The articles basis is about a Californian school district suing a student for mentioning God in his graduation speech. The author's opinion isn't really stated about that situation just that he is against the student being sued. His tone is very serious and factual not trying to force you into this opinion but persuading you factually. "The school district is not putting this behind them. They have a 10-20 thousand dollar down payment on this case and are ready for a legal fight." The author is aiming this article towards parents and students because this is an issue families need to know about.
ReplyDeleteI agree this student shouldn't be sued for this. I don't feel like this is that major of an issue to have legal action taken. I think a statement to the student about how legal action could be taken would of been good enough. If school districts wouldn't try to please everyone by "Banning God" this wouldn't be an issue. We are a country that was founded on faith and banning a major part of kids lives from school won't help anything.
http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-article-display?id=SALHS21-0-269&artno=0000348354&type=ART
ReplyDeleteThis article raises awareness about women serving in the military and how some people believe it can hurt the strength of the military. However the Pentagon would disagree as they lifted the ban on women fighting in the military. This choice is allowing women's rights to flourish. By allowing equality, the military is showing disgust against women taking part in the military has no right in a country that honors fair treatment. The push to achieve women's rights came from top leaders in the country. The Pentagon was also dealing with several lawsuits dealing with this issue. One lawsuit was brought up by the Service Women's Action Network claiming to have only males battling is unconstitutional.
I agree because it doesn't matter who you are you should still be able to have the same rights as everyone else. Having women not receiving the same rights as men is on the wrong track. If women were treated fairly we wouldn't have these problems.
http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-article-display?id=SALHS21-0-9200&artno=0000358711&type=ART&shfilter=U&key=Smoking&title=The%20Case%20for%20Tolerating%20E-Cigarettes&res=Y&ren=N&gov=N&lnk=N&ic=N
ReplyDeleteIn this opinion article, the author argues that regulating the use of electronic cigarettes rather than prohibiting them. The authors Amy Fairchild and James Colgrove are reliable sources of information. Amy L. Fairchild is a professor, and James Colgrove is an associate professor, of sociomedical sciences at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia. The tone of this article seems to remains unsettled, but not outragous making the point come out strong. Such as in this statement from the article “Banning vaping in public won't help. Instead, e-cigarettes should be regulated by the Food and Drug Administration as products "sold or distributed for use to reduce harm or the risk of tobacco-related disease." The industry can't be trusted to provide safer products. The historical mistake was not the pursuit of a safer cigarette, but championing that cause with dishonest partners.” (Fairchild, Colgrove) It provides a statement that says they don’t think e-cigs should be banned but they do think it should be regulated, so it is like a compromise.
I don’t disagree with the article, but I don’t totally agree. I don’t agrre because looking from a parents point of view I would like to limit the exposure to my children of their eyes seeing someone smoke and thinking it is cool. I agree because the more we prompt e-cigs the less real cigs we have. so I am kind of in between on this subject.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/07/11/memo-to-gop-let-obama-own-immigration-mess-on-our-border/
ReplyDelete"Memo to GOP: Let Obama Own Immigration Mess on Our Border" is an article directed at the Republican party (GOP) to step aside and let President Obama solve the situation of illegal aliens crossing the border Mexican-American border into the United States. It gets under Liz Peek's (the author) skin that the Republican party is getting in the way of Obama solving a problem that the author claims Obama created. "Only by signing on for the $3.7 billion 'fix' will the GOP place this 'urgent humanitarian crisis' squarely in Mr. Obama's lap, where it belongs." (Peek) The author's urgency comes from the vast amounts of illegally crossing the border. "So far this fiscal year there have been more than 52,000 children unaccompanied children taken into custody, mostly from Central America; that's nearly twice the number from last year, and 10 times the number from 2009." (Peek)
I tend to agree with this author's position. There are safer and much more legal ways to get into this country. Citizenship would allow these families not to live in fear of being deported, would allow better jobs, and an education. Many of these illegal aliens end up in our school system. Our tax dollars and resources then go to the education of people that are not United States citizens. I believe that The GOP should work with Obama so he can fix his own mess.
How do you understand the author, based on the text?
ReplyDeleteWho is the audience?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/13/opinion/sunday/all-children-should-be-delinquents.html?ref=opinion
The article I read, “All Children Should Be Delinquents”, by John Beckman, got my attention as soon as I read the title and then even more so when I saw the article was from a childhood in Iowa. This article talks about his childhood, the adventures and experiences he had but also how he learned from those situations of his youth and how they affected his life as he grew up into an adult.
This article is a very personal piece, the author chooses to get his points across by sharing his own childhood risk,chances he took and how he perceived them. So you kind of get the understanding he is more of a personal writer. I would say the writer is epigrammatic meaning he expresses the way he feels in a short but sort of funny way with the stories he uses in his piece like, “ One amazing afternoon it erupted into an all-hands king of the hill, and the contest was won by a red headed stranger (somebody’s cousin?)”. So he tells the story and then at the end talks about how he learned from them but does it in a funny way. The audience in this piece I think is parents. The title is a little misleading. It’s not saying actual delinquents but they are going to do things that will get them in trouble with mom and dad that they will learn from. So I think it is for parents for them to not freak out when there kid isn’t an angel anymore. Or for parents to not be so protective over their children so that the kids can learn from the mistakes they made and grow. If they don’t make the mistakes how will they ever know how to deal with a problem. At one point in the article he writes, “Many parents (like mine) were actually quite strict and culturally conservative, but their prohibitions only inspired us to find rowdier and more independent diversions”. This just proves that it is for parents because it’s talking about the different types of parenting and how it affected the children.
I agree with this author. I think he has very good points and they are very clear. They make sense and I agree that kids should be able to explore as a kid and make mistakes, and that parents should let them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/16/opinion/e-smoking-among-teenagers.html
ReplyDeleteIn this editorial, the author explains that many kids in middle school and high school are starting to use E-cigarettes. One of the major arguments in this article is choosing to let kids under 18 use these cigarettes. “A national survey found that the percentage of high school students who had ever smoked e-cigarettes jumped to 10 percent in 2012 from 4.7 percent in 2011; for middle school students (grades six to eight), the figure rose to 2.7 percent from 1.4 percent.” They found major changes in these numbers since the E-cigarettes came out. The author believes that the companies encourage the E-cigarettes due to the use of the candy flavors. Over half of the states have not made it illegal for teens under 18 to smoke these. What gets under the writers skin is that they have not made this illegal in every state. It makes him unhappy because it is not healthy for adolescent brains, it damages them. Although these are safer, they still cause damage. “ They are safer than cigarettes, because they don’t contain all the carcinogens and other toxic substances found in tobacco smoke, and they can often be effective in helping adults cut down on their use of conventional cigarettes. But nicotine — delivered in any manner — can impair adolescent brain development, is extremely addictive and can be dangerous at very high doses to people of all ages.”
I agree with the article that you should not be able to smoke until you are 18, even the E-cigarettes. They have evidence that it damages the brain at any age and its not healthy in high doses. I think that ages in 6th-8th grade is way to young to begin smoking even with an E-cigarette.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/17/opinion/robbins-cell-phone-teens/index.html?hpt=op_t1
ReplyDeleteThe article “How to get your kid off the smartphone” is written by Mel Robbins. Robbins starts off the article saying that when her and her husband first gave their 13 and 15 year old daughters cell phones, they had to sign a contract. That contract says that she gets to monitor every text and restrict when/where her daughters could use their phones. Robbins says that her and her husband lost control in less than a year. Robbins states that on average, a teen sends between 50-100 texts a day. Some teens even reach as high as 300. She also says that about 70% of teens admit they hide what they do online from their parents. “Add to this that 84% of teenagers sleep with, next to or on top of their cell phones, according to a Pew Research Internet Study, and we get into the realm of health concerns. We may not be able to monitor our kids every online move, but this we could do something about.” Mel Robbins added this quote because her children fell asleep with their phones and her and her husband didn’t want that to happen anymore.
So, they started a “check in at tuck in” plan. When they send their kids to bed, they take their phones and charge them in their own bedroom. “The research is indisputable that teens needs "as much sleep or more" than they got as children -- that's between 9 and 10 hours of sleep a night -- and only 20% of them are getting it, thanks to their sleeping with their cell phones!” This is the reason Robbins and her husband implemented this plan. She says that since starting this plan, her kids have been happier, more awake, and ready to take on the day. I agree with Robbins’ choice to add the “check in at tuck in” plan to their house. I believe that if every parent would do this then most kids would feel more awake and wouldn’t feel so sluggish in the morning.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-ogletree-the-death-penalty-is-incompatible-with-human-dignity/2014/07/18/c0849dea-0e6b-11e4-b8e5-d0de80767fc2_story.html
ReplyDelete"Of 100 people executed during 2012 and 2013 showed that the vast majority of executed offenders suffered from one or more significant cognitive and behavioral deficits."
The author of this article believes that the death penalty should be put to a stop, and has much faith in the current Supreme Court to put it rest once and for all. The thing that really gets under this writers skin in the fact that the death penalty goes against our countries Eighth Amendment which prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. The author heavily believes the death penalty should be put to an end to preserve human dignity. In a recent ruling the Supreme Court barred the execution of those intellectually disabled, along with juvenile offenders. This is a strong indication of the death penalty being stopped.
Before reading this article I believed that if a person did something so horrible that it was just for them to be sent to the death penalty. After reading this though, it changed my outlook. By keeping the death penalty we are going against our Amendments, which are there for our benefit. We also are resorting back to executions like those in the Medieval period, and honestly that doesn't seem like something we would want to do as a country. I agree with this author and the argument that the death penalty should be stopped.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/08/14/after-ferguson-how-should-police-respond-to-protests/?tid=pm_opinions_pop
ReplyDeleteWhat gets under the writers skin in this article is that the police seemingly are being harmful at mostly peaceful riots. He believes that since the police opened fire on a unarmed teenager that they have the right to be angry and riot peacefully. The police used tear gas, had a sniper and had SWAT cars. I believe there are at least three audiences here. One of them being the citizens of Ferguson, saying they have the right to peacefully riot against the police. Another audience being the police force of Ferguson and other police forces around the United States. Telling them that they need to be a little more lenient and act when acted upon. The other audience would be the rest of the nation reading the story. They read what he has to say and get to have their own opinion on it.
I agree with all of the points the author has. The police seem to have been acting too forcefully. Michael Brown was unarmed and fired upon while walking away after confrontation (CNN). During the city’s riots they had a sniper above the people and were teargassing citizens and reporters. It may just be coincidental, but the city of Ferguson is 67 percent black and 90 percent of the police force is white. The city views it as a racial barrier and outside force. In my opinion the police should only act if acted upon and it did not seem they were acted upon at this point in time.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/08/06/lawsuit-soldier-forced-out-army-for-serving-chick-fil-reading-hannity-book/
ReplyDeleteWhat gets under the writer’s skin?
What reasons does a writer give you to believe an argument?
In this article, the author tells about a man who was forced to retire from the military because of his political views. After being harassed by his superiors for have an anti-obama bumper sticker, reading a book written by a conservative author, and serving chick-fil-a at one of his parties, he was eventually brought in front of a panel and forced to retire. What gets under the writer's skin is that a soldier lost his job solely because of his political beliefs. “Just because someone joins the military, they do not give up their rights as a citizen,” said the attorney of the soldier, referring to his religious liberties and freedom of speech. The reason that the author gives to believe his argument is that even if his opinions differed from those of his bosses, he was doing no harm to them or his coworkers. “Master Sergeant Sommers did nothing to interfere with good order and discipline."
I definitely agree with the author in this article. I think that there is no crime in active showing your political and religious beliefs, and that being fired from his job is ridiculous. Whether the person in question was republican, democrat, liberal, conservative, christian, atheist or so be it, my opinion would not change. As an American citizen we are entitled to our freedom and we should not be denied them.