Which word choices strike you as particularly important? Does the author use figurative language? Who is the audience?
This opinion article titled “What if democracy is a fraud” is entirely composed of “what if” statements. The author’s opening sentence is “What if you were allowed to vote only because it didn’t make a difference?”. A few words in this article that i feel are important to the author’s point in writing it are: elites, used in the sentence “What if no matter how you voted the elites always got their way?” parasitical, “What if political activity includes all the parasitical and destructive things the government does?” bribes, “What if the government bribes people with the money it prints?” There are many other examples of loaded language in this article with a negative connotation. The author uses figurative language describing the government as a yoke in the sentence, “What if we could free ourselves from the yoke of big government through a return to first principles?”. The main audience for this article would be americans. The author often says “American democracy”.
The author’s strategy in composing his article out of “What if” questions and then ending it with the question “What do we do about it?” make me think about the topic. I think the author’s strategy of writing was interesting but got boring to read until the end where it was tied together. Some of the questions asked by the author are very interesting and i believe could have some truth to them.
What does the writer want the audience to do? How does the writer appeal to the emotions and self-interest of the audience?
Michael D. Lemonick, the author of, "Hey, Did I See You Petting Another Dog" is very interested in the audience understanding their pet's behavior. Humans get jealous, but dogs do too? "Sure enough 78% of the dogs went into a sort of canine snit when their owners went into faux fido: they pushed and tried to squeeze in between owners and interloper, and in some cases even snapped at the phony dog." They had the owners then play with pails and lastly read books and the percentage of jealousy kept dropping. Jealousy is not only caused by ignorance but by being replaced by something like the thing being replaced. Lemonick is getting us, the audience a better understanding of why pets are the way they are. The experiment was down by Christine Harris of the University of California, San Diego. She's a psychologist studying human behavior and did this experiment on babies and decided to do it on dogs along with her co-author Caroline Prouvost. Lemonick appeals to the audience's self interest because well if dogs are humans best friends, we want to be able to understand how their minds work right? "What's more, jealousy is just the beginning of the possible range of emotions animals may experience. 'This study reminds me of claims, absent data that dogs cannot feel guilt or shame,' says Bekoff. 'But there's no reason why they cannot.'" Mark Bekoff is a professor emeritus of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Colorado Boulder and wrote Why Dogs Hump and Bees Get Depressed. By telling us all the different emotions dogs and other animals feel, we can adapt how we react towards them and maybe understand them better. Dogs are just as compex as understanding humans and it is important for us to know our best friends as well as we can.
I personally do not have a dog, but I love dogs. I would actually be very interested in researching and going into understanding dogs more. I agree that it's nice to understand other species of animals because then we can communicate with them better. By communicating with animals, especially those like dogs , who knows what will happen? We could have so many new advancements whether in technology or anything else. I agree with Lemonick that animals have similar mental states to humans, and I would love to learn more and research more about it.
In this article the author talks about all the things she hates about the American beaches. First, beach bodies and how where she lives, Haiti, it's just a body and beach books are just books. Because it beach everywhere. Then how she hate swimming suits because they're too skimpy and ride up. The she talks about how she hates that people hold it to a stander to tan at the beach. She stated that she is black so how is she supposed to know when to flip over of how much is too much. I don't agree with the author it think the beach could be fun. An I feel that a beach body is considered a skinny person, which true in itself could be offensive, and a beach book is just a book that someone has set aside to read when they are relaxing at the beach. So true they are just books and a body but they aren't just considered an everyday thing. Also if you don't like the skimpy style suit then you should buy a different style. I feel like this article was just more of a rant because they don't like the beach.
"The Coming Backlash Against Drones" is about the U.S. using drones for killing, and the secrecy surrounding their operations. It gets under the writer's skin that the U.S. government is conducting a war shrouded in secrecy, and that they're using these drones to do it. "It's past time that thee U.S. disclosed a list of organizations that qualify as 'Al Qaeda' associates." (McManus) The writer appeals to emotions and self interest by having the reader step into the shoes of a Pakistani civilian. "Consider how those drone strikes appear if you are an ordinary civilian in, say, northwestern Pakistan. You know you are in constant danger; a missile may strike your home at any time without warning. It's not clear who's shooting; the war and its combatants are officially secret." (McManus) I agree with the writer that the government is misusing this technology. The U.S. sets the standards for other nations. When other nations start to use drones like the U.S. is the government is then in no position to chastise their use of them. The United States government is also increasing mistrust from both its populace and the rest of the world. Drones scare the rest of the world, and the secrecy bothers the U.S. citizens.
The article “Should 80-year-old homeowner be charged with murder?” is written by Ruben Navarrette. This article is about Tom Greer, the 80 year old, getting robbed by a man and a woman. The story is that Greer came home one night and found Andrea Miller and Gus Adams trying to break into his safe. Greer says that they attacked him by throwing him on the ground, resulting in a broken collar bone. The robbers go distracted and Greer grabbed a gun. Once the robbers saw it, they ran. Greer chased them into an alley, where he shot Miller in the back. Adams ran away and Greer shot Miller again, killing her. “...begged for her life, telling Greer: "Don't shoot me, I'm pregnant! I'm going to have a baby!" Not true, according to the L.A. County Coroner's Office. Miller was not pregnant. But Greer didn't know when he pulled the trigger -- for a second time.”
“He's a victim, but not a completely innocent one. The fact that he was robbed and beaten doesn't excuse everything that happened next. Greer pursued Miller out of his house and into the alley. He shot her in the back. And then, with her lying wounded on the ground and pleading for her life -- and still not clear on whether or not she was really pregnant -- he fired the fatal shot.” At the end of the article, the author states that Greer shouldn’t get charged for first-degree murder since it wasn’t premeditated, but that he should get charged with second-degree murder. I agree with the author because Greer did almost get robbed, but he still killed someone who was helpless and laying on the ground, already shot.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/23/opinion/sutter-dog-meat-ethics/index.html?hpt=op_bn5 This article “The argument for eating dog” discusses people’s opinion on eating dog. THe author does a great job and making the reader see from not only the author’s opinion but also the opposing side. He pointed out “You can eat meat because you believe that it isn't. Either way, you're using a fixed standard. But if you refuse to eat only the meat of 'companion' animals -- chewing bacon, for example, while telling Koreans that they can't stew Dalmatians -- you're saying that the morality of killing depends on habit or even whim.". The author seems to be fine with the fact that some people eat dog, but what he disagrees with is the part most people don’t realize. He states in the article “"The dogs are illegally smuggled out of Thailand -- that is the illegal part," he said. "They pay no tax or duty. The dogs aren't vaccinated nor do they undergo quarantine. But once they get to Laos they are legally allowed to travel ... on the way to Vietnam, as the officials aren't interested in it. And once in Vietnam no part of it is illegal." In a slaughterhouse, "the dogs were beaten to death in front of me." I liked how he pointed out why he disagrees that eating dog is not okay, just because of that and I think it created a lot stronger argument. I agree with this article because I don’t think we have the right to tell people what they can and can’t eat, but we do have the right to put it if it is being done illegally. Any animal pig or dog, should be treated humanely, food or not. I also think it’s a good compromise.
This author believes that when people take their well needed vacations from stress, they really are just stressing themselves out more. "We will worry about all of the emails piling up at work, and in many cases continue to compulsively check email during our precious time off." The author then gives some advice that everyone needs. Take a real break, spend time with your family, eat good food, and enjoy the weekends to the fullest. People are feeling so overwhelmed and lose sight of the things that are important. The author claims this is because our brains have reached their limits. The parts of our brains are working in overdrive between solving tasks, day-dreaming, and the attention filter."Every status update you read on Facebook, every tweet or text message you get from a friend, is competing for resources in your brain with important things like whether to put your savings in stocks or bonds, where you left your passport or how best to reconcile with a close friend you just had an argument with." So in order to bring everything back to normal, we have to find times for each of these components in our lives. "If you want to be more productive and creative, and to have more energy, the science dictates that you should partition your day into project periods. Your social networking should be done during a designated time, not as constant interruptions to your day." The author claims by working in periods, you'll become more focused and less stressed. I believe this article was aimed towards working people, mainly women with kids for that matter. A woman with kids who is also working full-time (as my mother) tends to become so stressed out from work which leads to angry yelling s and huffing around the house and then stubborn pouting; you start to wonder if she's even human. This article is spot on with advice. I think if my mom would ever just stop to get one thing done at a time, the stress from everything else would stop, keeping her sane for a few hours.
What are the major arguments? What is the tone of the text? Mr. Stone has multiple problems when comparing Obama and Nixon, which include the following; Nixon used the FBI to spy on a few Americans while Obama is using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court to obtain any video surveillance they want on anyone they want without question, Nixon only talked about using to IRS to target Americans and that was among the House’s articles of impeachment for Nixon while Obama has used the IRS repeatedly to target conservative groups and has gotten away scotch free, finally, “Nixon’s men considered the murder of investigative journalist Jack Anderson. That’s nothing compared with Obama’s assertion that he has the right to kill any U.S. citizen without a charge, let alone conviction” (Stone). Mr. Stone is unable to believe the difference in action against unconstitutional behavior by the liberals. The liberals are appalled when of impeachment of Obama is brought up while they were all in favor of impeaching Nixon. “Liberals are silent as Obama shreds the Constitution in ways Richard Nixon would have marveled at” (Stone). I do agree with the author for the fact that Obama should be impeached for his actions, especially for the fact that his actions are far worse than Nixon's.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/08/12/robin-williams-what-would-have-told-actor-about-depression/ Is the writer credible? The writer of this article is a doctor that helps people fight their depression. In this article, he gave us many examples of situations his patients have been in and how he helped them. “I have now treated a few thousand people with depression. I have lost not a single one to suicide while under my care.” This quote tells us that the writer has dealt with many patients with depression and that he knows what he is talking about. The writer is a professional, someone we can trust for credible information.
What is the tone of the text? While I was reading this article, I imagined a preacher speaking to me. When the writer would talk about what people with depression went through, he used very powerful wording. “...it is the conviction that nothing good will ever occur, sometimes coupled with horrific and constant anxiety that something unspeakably terrible is about to happen--in a minute, or this very night, or tomorrow.” The words “horrific” and “unspeakably terrible” gives the article an intense feeling. I believe that the tone of the text is like a plead, or very worrisome.
I agree that depression is a very violent threat. Depression has the power to take over peoples lives to the point where they can’t live on. I don’t think that we can completely prevent people from getting depressed, but when people do become depressed we need to help them get better. Humans have discovered so many things about the brain that can help therapists find the source of the depression, which is a huge step. We need to kick depression in the butt and save people’s lives.
#1. What does the writer want the audience to do? #2. What are the major arguments?
In this article the author, Michaela Davis, asks the audience to help stop the violence of police officers against young African Americans and the violence in some poor communities. "t is painfully evident that much of law enforcement is ignorant of black youth culture. Police are armed with ready guns, misinformed stereotypes and irrational fear. They obviously have not engaged enough with our youth to know about them. Many police officers have no imagination to allow black teens the adolescent recklessness they instinctively give white youth." The major arguments that the author presents are that police officers need to "take more responsibility to know the community," because African American parents shouldn't have to have talks with their sons about etiquette when approach by a police officer. The burden has far too long been shouldered by black parents and kids, requiring them to adjust to the injustice of excessive force, police brutality and ignorance. Police officers must become more responsible for knowing the community they're hired to protect and serve (even fast food workers are trained to know their customers). The residents of Ferguson and cities all over America have been grossly undeserved and fatally misunderstood.
After reading this article I agree with the author that African American parents should not have to be fearful of their sons having interventions with the police, or that they should how to teach them how to talk to a police officer properly. The author is right by saying, "We should not be asking outraged mothers, fathers, families and communities to stop hollering. We should be asking trained law enforcement to put down their guns and listen up."
What constitutes the writer's urgency? What is the tone of the text? This article is about the illegal trade of dog meat in southeast asia. The dogs are smuggled out of Thailand, then shipped to Vietnam, where they are slaughtered in a very inhumane fashion. "The cruelty of this trade -- the fact that dogs are smashed into cages; suffocated; "skinned alive, strung up and beaten," says a cnn news report about the conditions the dogs are put through before they are eaten. What constitutes the writer's urgency is the inhumane treatment of the dogs. Throughout the article, you can feel the author's tone of distraught, urgency, and sadness. I agree with the author that something should be done about the cruel treatment of the dogs, and the illegality of the trade. But I have no problem with the fact that the animals are being butchered or eaten, just how. Dog meat is a meat just like any other animal. And if done in a humane way, is not bad at all.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/07/24/what-if-democracy-is-fraud/
ReplyDeleteWhich word choices strike you as particularly important? Does the author use figurative language? Who is the audience?
This opinion article titled “What if democracy is a fraud” is entirely composed of “what if” statements. The author’s opening sentence is “What if you were allowed to vote only because it didn’t make a difference?”. A few words in this article that i feel are important to the author’s point in writing it are:
elites, used in the sentence “What if no matter how you voted the elites always got their way?”
parasitical, “What if political activity includes all the parasitical and destructive things the government does?”
bribes, “What if the government bribes people with the money it prints?”
There are many other examples of loaded language in this article with a negative connotation. The author uses figurative language describing the government as a yoke in the sentence, “What if we could free ourselves from the yoke of big government through a return to first principles?”. The main audience for this article would be americans. The author often says “American democracy”.
The author’s strategy in composing his article out of “What if” questions and then ending it with the question “What do we do about it?” make me think about the topic. I think the author’s strategy of writing was interesting but got boring to read until the end where it was tied together. Some of the questions asked by the author are very interesting and i believe could have some truth to them.
http://time.com/3023016/jealous-dogs/
ReplyDeleteWhat does the writer want the audience to do?
How does the writer appeal to the emotions and self-interest of the audience?
Michael D. Lemonick, the author of, "Hey, Did I See You Petting Another Dog" is very interested in the audience understanding their pet's behavior. Humans get jealous, but dogs do too? "Sure enough 78% of the dogs went into a sort of canine snit when their owners went into faux fido: they pushed and tried to squeeze in between owners and interloper, and in some cases even snapped at the phony dog." They had the owners then play with pails and lastly read books and the percentage of jealousy kept dropping. Jealousy is not only caused by ignorance but by being replaced by something like the thing being replaced. Lemonick is getting us, the audience a better understanding of why pets are the way they are. The experiment was down by Christine Harris of the University of California, San Diego. She's a psychologist studying human behavior and did this experiment on babies and decided to do it on dogs along with her co-author Caroline Prouvost. Lemonick appeals to the audience's self interest because well if dogs are humans best friends, we want to be able to understand how their minds work right? "What's more, jealousy is just the beginning of the possible range of emotions animals may experience. 'This study reminds me of claims, absent data that dogs cannot feel guilt or shame,' says Bekoff. 'But there's no reason why they cannot.'" Mark Bekoff is a professor emeritus of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Colorado Boulder and wrote Why Dogs Hump and Bees Get Depressed. By telling us all the different emotions dogs and other animals feel, we can adapt how we react towards them and maybe understand them better. Dogs are just as compex as understanding humans and it is important for us to know our best friends as well as we can.
I personally do not have a dog, but I love dogs. I would actually be very interested in researching and going into understanding dogs more. I agree that it's nice to understand other species of animals because then we can communicate with them better. By communicating with animals, especially those like dogs , who knows what will happen? We could have so many new advancements whether in technology or anything else. I agree with Lemonick that animals have similar mental states to humans, and I would love to learn more and research more about it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/opinion/sunday/why-the-beach-is-a-bummer.html?ref=opinion
ReplyDeleteIn this article the author talks about all the things she hates about the American beaches. First, beach bodies and how where she lives, Haiti, it's just a body and beach books are just books. Because it beach everywhere. Then how she hate swimming suits because they're too skimpy and ride up. The she talks about how she hates that people hold it to a stander to tan at the beach. She stated that she is black so how is she supposed to know when to flip over of how much is too much.
I don't agree with the author it think the beach could be fun. An I feel that a beach body is considered a skinny person, which true in itself could be offensive, and a beach book is just a book that someone has set aside to read when they are relaxing at the beach. So true they are just books and a body but they aren't just considered an everyday thing. Also if you don't like the skimpy style suit then you should buy a different style. I feel like this article was just more of a rant because they don't like the beach.
http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-article-display?id=SALHS21-0-4659&artno=0000364163&type=ART&shfilter=U&key=National%20security&title=The%20Coming%20Backlash%20Against%20Drones&res=Y&ren=N&gov=N&lnk=N&ic=N
ReplyDelete"The Coming Backlash Against Drones" is about the U.S. using drones for killing, and the secrecy surrounding their operations. It gets under the writer's skin that the U.S. government is conducting a war shrouded in secrecy, and that they're using these drones to do it. "It's past time that thee U.S. disclosed a list of organizations that qualify as 'Al Qaeda' associates." (McManus) The writer appeals to emotions and self interest by having the reader step into the shoes of a Pakistani civilian. "Consider how those drone strikes appear if you are an ordinary civilian in, say, northwestern Pakistan. You know you are in constant danger; a missile may strike your home at any time without warning. It's not clear who's shooting; the war and its combatants are officially secret." (McManus)
I agree with the writer that the government is misusing this technology. The U.S. sets the standards for other nations. When other nations start to use drones like the U.S. is the government is then in no position to chastise their use of them. The United States government is also increasing mistrust from both its populace and the rest of the world. Drones scare the rest of the world, and the secrecy bothers the U.S. citizens.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/31/opinion/navarrette-shooting-pregnant-intruder/index.html?hpt=op_bn5
ReplyDeleteThe article “Should 80-year-old homeowner be charged with murder?” is written by Ruben Navarrette. This article is about Tom Greer, the 80 year old, getting robbed by a man and a woman. The story is that Greer came home one night and found Andrea Miller and Gus Adams trying to break into his safe. Greer says that they attacked him by throwing him on the ground, resulting in a broken collar bone. The robbers go distracted and Greer grabbed a gun. Once the robbers saw it, they ran. Greer chased them into an alley, where he shot Miller in the back. Adams ran away and Greer shot Miller again, killing her. “...begged for her life, telling Greer: "Don't shoot me, I'm pregnant! I'm going to have a baby!" Not true, according to the L.A. County Coroner's Office. Miller was not pregnant. But Greer didn't know when he pulled the trigger -- for a second time.”
“He's a victim, but not a completely innocent one. The fact that he was robbed and beaten doesn't excuse everything that happened next. Greer pursued Miller out of his house and into the alley. He shot her in the back. And then, with her lying wounded on the ground and pleading for her life -- and still not clear on whether or not she was really pregnant -- he fired the fatal shot.” At the end of the article, the author states that Greer shouldn’t get charged for first-degree murder since it wasn’t premeditated, but that he should get charged with second-degree murder. I agree with the author because Greer did almost get robbed, but he still killed someone who was helpless and laying on the ground, already shot.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/23/opinion/sutter-dog-meat-ethics/index.html?hpt=op_bn5
ReplyDeleteThis article “The argument for eating dog” discusses people’s opinion on eating dog. THe author does a great job and making the reader see from not only the author’s opinion but also the opposing side. He pointed out “You can eat meat because you believe that it isn't. Either way, you're using a fixed standard. But if you refuse to eat only the meat of 'companion' animals -- chewing bacon, for example, while telling Koreans that they can't stew Dalmatians -- you're saying that the morality of killing depends on habit or even whim.". The author seems to be fine with the fact that some people eat dog, but what he disagrees with is the part most people don’t realize. He states in the article “"The dogs are illegally smuggled out of Thailand -- that is the illegal part," he said. "They pay no tax or duty. The dogs aren't vaccinated nor do they undergo quarantine. But once they get to Laos they are legally allowed to travel ... on the way to Vietnam, as the officials aren't interested in it. And once in Vietnam no part of it is illegal."
In a slaughterhouse, "the dogs were beaten to death in front of me." I liked how he pointed out why he disagrees that eating dog is not okay, just because of that and I think it created a lot stronger argument.
I agree with this article because I don’t think we have the right to tell people what they can and can’t eat, but we do have the right to put it if it is being done illegally. Any animal pig or dog, should be treated humanely, food or not. I also think it’s a good compromise.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/opinion/sunday/hit-the-reset-button-in-your-brain.html?ref=opinion
ReplyDeleteThis author believes that when people take their well needed vacations from stress, they really are just stressing themselves out more. "We will worry about all of the emails piling up at work, and in many cases continue to compulsively check email during our precious time off." The author then gives some advice that everyone needs. Take a real break, spend time with your family, eat good food, and enjoy the weekends to the fullest. People are feeling so overwhelmed and lose sight of the things that are important. The author claims this is because our brains have reached their limits. The parts of our brains are working in overdrive between solving tasks, day-dreaming, and the attention filter."Every status update you read on Facebook, every tweet or text message you get from a friend, is competing for resources in your brain with important things like whether to put your savings in stocks or bonds, where you left your passport or how best to reconcile with a close friend you just had an argument with." So in order to bring everything back to normal, we have to find times for each of these components in our lives. "If you want to be more productive and creative, and to have more energy, the science dictates that you should partition your day into project periods. Your social networking should be done during a designated time, not as constant interruptions to your day." The author claims by working in periods, you'll become more focused and less stressed.
I believe this article was aimed towards working people, mainly women with kids for that matter. A woman with kids who is also working full-time (as my mother) tends to become so stressed out from work which leads to angry yelling s and huffing around the house and then stubborn pouting; you start to wonder if she's even human. This article is spot on with advice. I think if my mom would ever just stop to get one thing done at a time, the stress from everything else would stop, keeping her sane for a few hours.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/08/09/nixon-vs-obama-yes-nixon-was-bad-but-obama-is-worse/?intcmp=trending
ReplyDeleteWhat are the major arguments? What is the tone of the text?
Mr. Stone has multiple problems when comparing Obama and Nixon, which include the following; Nixon used the FBI to spy on a few Americans while Obama is using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court to obtain any video surveillance they want on anyone they want without question, Nixon only talked about using to IRS to target Americans and that was among the House’s articles of impeachment for Nixon while Obama has used the IRS repeatedly to target conservative groups and has gotten away scotch free, finally, “Nixon’s men considered the murder of investigative journalist Jack Anderson. That’s nothing compared with Obama’s assertion that he has the right to kill any U.S. citizen without a charge, let alone conviction” (Stone). Mr. Stone is unable to believe the difference in action against unconstitutional behavior by the liberals. The liberals are appalled when of impeachment of Obama is brought up while they were all in favor of impeaching Nixon. “Liberals are silent as Obama shreds the Constitution in ways Richard Nixon would have marveled at” (Stone). I do agree with the author for the fact that Obama should be impeached for his actions, especially for the fact that his actions are far worse than Nixon's.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/08/12/robin-williams-what-would-have-told-actor-about-depression/
ReplyDeleteIs the writer credible?
The writer of this article is a doctor that helps people fight their depression. In this article, he gave us many examples of situations his patients have been in and how he helped them. “I have now treated a few thousand people with depression. I have lost not a single one to suicide while under my care.” This quote tells us that the writer has dealt with many patients with depression and that he knows what he is talking about. The writer is a professional, someone we can trust for credible information.
What is the tone of the text?
While I was reading this article, I imagined a preacher speaking to me. When the writer would talk about what people with depression went through, he used very powerful wording. “...it is the conviction that nothing good will ever occur, sometimes coupled with horrific and constant anxiety that something unspeakably terrible is about to happen--in a minute, or this very night, or tomorrow.” The words “horrific” and “unspeakably terrible” gives the article an intense feeling. I believe that the tone of the text is like a plead, or very worrisome.
I agree that depression is a very violent threat. Depression has the power to take over peoples lives to the point where they can’t live on. I don’t think that we can completely prevent people from getting depressed, but when people do become depressed we need to help them get better. Humans have discovered so many things about the brain that can help therapists find the source of the depression, which is a huge step. We need to kick depression in the butt and save people’s lives.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/20/opinion/davis-michael-brown-mother/index.html?hpt=op_t1
ReplyDelete#1. What does the writer want the audience to do? #2. What are the major arguments?
In this article the author, Michaela Davis, asks the audience to help stop the violence of police officers against young African Americans and the violence in some poor communities. "t is painfully evident that much of law enforcement is ignorant of black youth culture. Police are armed with ready guns, misinformed stereotypes and irrational fear. They obviously have not engaged enough with our youth to know about them. Many police officers have no imagination to allow black teens the adolescent recklessness they instinctively give white youth."
The major arguments that the author presents are that police officers need to "take more responsibility to know the community," because African American parents shouldn't have to have talks with their sons about etiquette when approach by a police officer. The burden has far too long been shouldered by black parents and kids, requiring them to adjust to the injustice of excessive force, police brutality and ignorance. Police officers must become more responsible for knowing the community they're hired to protect and serve (even fast food workers are trained to know their customers). The residents of Ferguson and cities all over America have been grossly undeserved and fatally misunderstood.
After reading this article I agree with the author that African American parents should not have to be fearful of their sons having interventions with the police, or that they should how to teach them how to talk to a police officer properly. The author is right by saying, "We should not be asking outraged mothers, fathers, families and communities to stop hollering. We should be asking trained law enforcement to put down their guns and listen up."
http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/23/opinion/sutter-dog-meat-ethics/index.html?hpt=op_bn5
ReplyDeleteWhat constitutes the writer's urgency?
What is the tone of the text?
This article is about the illegal trade of dog meat in southeast asia. The dogs are smuggled out of Thailand, then shipped to Vietnam, where they are slaughtered in a very inhumane fashion. "The cruelty of this trade -- the fact that dogs are smashed into cages; suffocated; "skinned alive, strung up and beaten," says a cnn news report about the conditions the dogs are put through before they are eaten. What constitutes the writer's urgency is the inhumane treatment of the dogs. Throughout the article, you can feel the author's tone of distraught, urgency, and sadness.
I agree with the author that something should be done about the cruel treatment of the dogs, and the illegality of the trade. But I have no problem with the fact that the animals are being butchered or eaten, just how. Dog meat is a meat just like any other animal. And if done in a humane way, is not bad at all.