In this editorial, the author explains that even though they cannot change climate, or control it, they can fund programs and plans that help try to prevent forest fires. What gets under the writers skin is that they have abandoned all the plans or programs since the spotted owl controversy. “The U.S. Forest Service is the largest landowner in the state of Washington, but it has effectively abandoned all active forest management practices since the spotted owl controversy in the 1990s. This has created a dangerous excess of wildfire fuel on federally managed land in our state’s forests.” The author is speaking to anyone who would help with these programs to try and bring them back so they can reduce the number of wildfires in the US. Many people are losing their houses, family members, animals. The fire is ruining their whole lives. “Wildfires burning through Central Washington have destroyed more than 150 houses and forced other families to evacuate. One man has died from a heart attack while trying to save his home.” The author is speaking out to them to try and get the programs back together. The programs would do things like thins trees to provide wider spacing, removes decaying material on the forest floor that fuels fires and works to make forests more resistant to insect damage. They need the programs back because the state can’t keep up with all the forests. I think it would make a huge difference if they were to bring the programs back and fully fund them. There would be a big improvement with the number of wildfires in the state. They stopped the programs before because of the spotted owl thing, but if the fires get to it then the owls will have a greater chance of dying too. So I think they should fully fund these plans and programs.
The article I read is about the 72 hour cease fire mistake. This article is by Steven Emerson. In this article Emerson points out all the reasons why this cease fire was a bad choice on Obama and Kerry's part. Which is what gets under the writer's skin. "In the history of modern warfare, no terrorist group has ever honored a cease fire. Hamas has broken every cease fire it ever said it would honor. Every single one." Emerson then continues to point out the failed cease fire in 2012. The fact Emerson reiterates that Hamas has never obeyed a cease fire really deeply bothers Emerson. The author of this article also appeals to the emotion of the audience by pointing out the struggles nations and people has gone through due to terrorist and radicals. "The underlying causes of why 3,000 innocent people died in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Or the underlying causes of Hitler's world wide conquest including six million Jews?" The fact Emerson uses these two events really appeals to the emotion of sorrow and why would Obama and Kerry choose a cease fire to talk out underlying issues. Especially when Hamas never honored a cease fire and this being a major issue.
I see this military mistake as a massive mistake. I fully agree with Emerson on this situation. Kerry had all the reasons and more not to go with a cease fire. Honestly if Hamas hadn't honored one yet did they actually believe this one would work? Hamas just agreed so it would have an opportunity to catch Israel off guard by an attack during the cease fire. Which Israel suspected to happen. I think this was an other crucial mistake to add to the list of recent mistakes made by Obama and his administration. Hopefully out of this mistake America can learn not to chose a cease fire when dealing with Hamas next time. Or any terrorist organization for that matter.
This article focuses on the REAL reason on why is seems there are so little women in the science field of work. "Of the 142 men and 516 women surveyed, 64% said they had experienced inappropriate sexual remarks, comments about physical beauty, jokes about cognitive sex differences or other kinds of sexual harassment while doing field work in anthropology, archaeology, geology and related scientific disciplines." The article goes on with many other statistics on how many workers reported being sexually harassed at work. About 400 young scientists in training report unwelcome sexual advances. This article has no clear audience, it's just to get the word out, to anybody. That this is a serious issue spreading in 2014, male scientist are viewing workers (mostly young women) as targets. That these male scientists are not looking at these young workers as fellow scientists trying to solve world problems., but rather, objects to their own disposal. This author is disgusted and angered by the young workers who talk about these events occurring. Her advice is to handle it like a professional, "Use it to your advantage." As a young girl it is scary sometimes to think that I always have to be on guard in case a situation like this occurs. I agree with this articles that this a BIG reason we don't see women in science now. Not because women aren't as smart, or weaker. Growing up as a girl, science is always portrayed as something boys do. While girls work at home for their family. In these modern times women are now working as doctors, dentists, and scientists. Are we falling prey of losing our motive to work because we're afraid of being sexually harassed? Yes. It's an issue, a very big one. And this article proves it.
The article “Always Hungry? Here’s the Real Reason Why” is written by Deborah A. Cohen. In the article, Cohen talks about obesity and why everyone eats so much. To sum her up in 3 words would be too much food. Cohen says that people are obese not because of their mind and what they think, but because of the Green Revolution. “It’s unlikely that changes in human physiology have anything to do with the obesity epidemic. Instead, the root cause is the Green Revolution: America’s wild success in producing more food than is needed.” Cohen also says that we are buying the more convenient, cheaper, and flashier food items. She also states that the healthier food is overlooked because it isn’t promoted as much and isn’t in bright and colorful packaging. It also costs more.
“The solution to the obesity epidemic is not going to be pills or diets. It will be about moderation and creating an environment that doesn’t serve people more food than they need when they dine out, doesn’t promote impulse buys of low-nutrient foods and doesn’t make people feel hungry when they don’t need to eat.” Cohen says that another way to not eat as much is to lower portion sizes and to get rid of junk food from special displays, cash registers, and vending machines. I agree with Cohen. If we wanted to lower the obesity rate we could have vending machines with healthy food items in them or to just raise the prices on junk food and lower the prices on healthy food.
Who is the audience? What gets under the writers skin? Do you agree with the author/ Mr. Lane's audience is people who think that climate change is not real and don’t want to pay $1,000 a year to possibly lower the temperature > 0.1 degrees C in 40 years based on questionable science. "By 2020, that would put the annual cost of the regulatory policies in the President’s plan to an average U.S. household over $1,000, make electricity prices at least 7% higher, raise gasoline prices by 25 cents per gallon, and lower federal government tax revenues $150 billion in 2020. All this would reduce global warming in the next 40 years by less than one-tenth of a degree Celsius" (Lane). What really irritates the author is the fact that we would be paying far more than we would have to to make the slightest impact. It would cost Americans $40,000 to potentially lower the temperature less then one tenth of a degree. He also doesn’t like the exaggerations coming from the white house officials. I do agree with Lee Lane, I believe that man made global warming isn’t that big of a problem, and that paying thousands of dollars isn’t going to solve the problem.
In this article the author talks about how Pete Rose the all time hit leader in Major League Baseball history is not allowed into the Hall of Fame, but should be. What gets under the writers skin is that Pete Rose is the all time hit leader, one of the best players to ever play the game. And yet he’s not even on the ballot because he gambled on the game. It is a clear cut rule that if you do it that you will be banned, but he did it anyway. The author believes that Pete Rose should be forgiven and let into the Hall of Fame. The major argument is that he has been banned from major league baseball because of his gambling and that because of that he can no longer be a part of the illustrious Hall of Fame.
I agree with the author entirely. Pete Rose is the all time hit king. He never did anything to boost his performance like taking PED’s. He gambled and very much so payed the price. He should be forgiven though and let into the Hall of Fame where he belongs. He leads everyone in the Hall of Fame already in hits. He gambled on the game, he payed the price, and now he should be allowed in the Hall of Fame.
#1. Who is the audience? #2. What does the writer want the audience to do?
In this article the author, Roxanne Jones, speaks about a young girl, Mo'ne Davis, who is breaking down gender inequality in Little League baseball. She writes this article to all the little girls and older women who were never allowed to play little league baseball because they were a girl. "But honestly, many of us wanted to be more than 'bleacher creatures.' We wanted a piece of the action. Not possible. Little League back then had a strict no-girls-allowed policy." As Roxanne is explaining her opinion and how she feels about Mo'ne she is also pleading for girls to go out and do things like Mo'ne does. Just for girls to start bending the status que for sports and gender. "It's thanks to courageous young athletes like Mo'ne and the coaches who recognize their potential who are breaking down gender stereotypes. And in Little League, girls are finally making their mark." "It hasn't been easy to persuade girls to try out for baseball, he said. Most girls choose softball and many parents still steer their kids into traditional gender activities. Satti said: When I ask parents about letting their girls play I usually get, 'Oh no, she's a dancer," or a cheerleader.' His daughters not only all played baseball, but were wrestlers as well.
After reading this article I agree with the author that its time for young athletes to start bending the status que and follow there passions and dreams. If some little girl wants to play baseball instead of softball she should be able to and same for boys.
What reasons does the writer give you to agree with the argument? Who is the audience? In this article, the author is appalled by the fact that two women where arrested and charged for child neglect because of they let their children go to the park unsupervised. His reasoning is the decline of child abduction int he last years. He looks back at his parents letting him go out alone to play saying, "If my parents had been arrested and charged every time, they’d have been serving life sentences for repeat offenses by the time I turned 10." I think his main audience are the people of his same generation or older. I think this because he says a lot of things that younger people may not be able to relate, because of changing views. For the most part I agree with the author. I think that as long as the parents where aware that their children had gone out to play, and them being too preoccupied with other things an not caring that their children had left without their knowledge is not the case, the charge should not have been brought against the mothers. Times have changed and parks have gotten sketchier, so I understand some of the ridicule to the parents, but I think and arrest is way out of hand.
I read the article: “Time to reconsider cops’ deadly force?” by Mark O’Mara. In the article, the author appeals to the audience (more than likely people interested in law enforcement) by using their fear of cops being too powerful or too weak by using his point that it is one or the other. In the first half of the article, the author opens with showing recent cases that have made national news regarding bad police-work, and then tries to answer the question of “can police shoot a suspect fleeing a felony arrest?” in which he says maybe. He then tries to justify his answer with the Ferguson, Missouri incident by saying that what the police-man did was his obligation and that he was right, and ended with reminding the U.S. the laws they put in that makes police able to shoot fleeing felons. In the second half of the article, the author opens with continuing on from the last half, by saying that the laws the U.S. put in made police shootings and tragic incidents increase, and then showed a tragic police shooting which ended up moving to the supreme court and then says that these shootings are justified because these are the obligations we gave the police. He then ends with saying that taking away force from police could result in suspects getting away from police.
I disagree with the author on his opinion that the police should stay forceful because the police can neutralize criminals without killing them by using stun guns, or other devices used for the neutralization of a person.
http://www.theolympian.com/2014/07/23/3235651/fund-forest-health-to-minimize.html?sp=/99/109/207/
ReplyDeleteIn this editorial, the author explains that even though they cannot change climate, or control it, they can fund programs and plans that help try to prevent forest fires. What gets under the writers skin is that they have abandoned all the plans or programs since the spotted owl controversy. “The U.S. Forest Service is the largest landowner in the state of Washington, but it has effectively abandoned all active forest management practices since the spotted owl controversy in the 1990s. This has created a dangerous excess of wildfire fuel on federally managed land in our state’s forests.” The author is speaking to anyone who would help with these programs to try and bring them back so they can reduce the number of wildfires in the US. Many people are losing their houses, family members, animals. The fire is ruining their whole lives. “Wildfires burning through Central Washington have destroyed more than 150 houses and forced other families to evacuate. One man has died from a heart attack while trying to save his home.” The author is speaking out to them to try and get the programs back together. The programs would do things like thins trees to provide wider spacing, removes decaying material on the forest floor that fuels fires and works to make forests more resistant to insect damage. They need the programs back because the state can’t keep up with all the forests.
I think it would make a huge difference if they were to bring the programs back and fully fund them. There would be a big improvement with the number of wildfires in the state. They stopped the programs before because of the spotted owl thing, but if the fires get to it then the owls will have a greater chance of dying too. So I think they should fully fund these plans and programs.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/08/01/barack-obama-and-john-kerry-carried-out-most-historic-strategic-blunder-in/
ReplyDeleteThe article I read is about the 72 hour cease fire mistake. This article is by Steven Emerson. In this article Emerson points out all the reasons why this cease fire was a bad choice on Obama and Kerry's part. Which is what gets under the writer's skin. "In the history of modern warfare, no terrorist group has ever honored a cease fire. Hamas has broken every cease fire it ever said it would honor. Every single one." Emerson then continues to point out the failed cease fire in 2012. The fact Emerson reiterates that Hamas has never obeyed a cease fire really deeply bothers Emerson. The author of this article also appeals to the emotion of the audience by pointing out the struggles nations and people has gone through due to terrorist and radicals. "The underlying causes of why 3,000 innocent people died in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Or the underlying causes of Hitler's world wide conquest including six million Jews?" The fact Emerson uses these two events really appeals to the emotion of sorrow and why would Obama and Kerry choose a cease fire to talk out underlying issues. Especially when Hamas never honored a cease fire and this being a major issue.
I see this military mistake as a massive mistake. I fully agree with Emerson on this situation. Kerry had all the reasons and more not to go with a cease fire. Honestly if Hamas hadn't honored one yet did they actually believe this one would work? Hamas just agreed so it would have an opportunity to catch Israel off guard by an attack during the cease fire. Which Israel suspected to happen. I think this was an other crucial mistake to add to the list of recent mistakes made by Obama and his administration. Hopefully out of this mistake America can learn not to chose a cease fire when dealing with Hamas next time. Or any terrorist organization for that matter.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/09/opinion/urry-women-science/index.html?hpt=op_t1
ReplyDeleteThis article focuses on the REAL reason on why is seems there are so little women in the science field of work. "Of the 142 men and 516 women surveyed, 64% said they had experienced inappropriate sexual remarks, comments about physical beauty, jokes about cognitive sex differences or other kinds of sexual harassment while doing field work in anthropology, archaeology, geology and related scientific disciplines." The article goes on with many other statistics on how many workers reported being sexually harassed at work. About 400 young scientists in training report unwelcome sexual advances. This article has no clear audience, it's just to get the word out, to anybody. That this is a serious issue spreading in 2014, male scientist are viewing workers (mostly young women) as targets. That these male scientists are not looking at these young workers as fellow scientists trying to solve world problems., but rather, objects to their own disposal. This author is disgusted and angered by the young workers who talk about these events occurring. Her advice is to handle it like a professional, "Use it to your advantage."
As a young girl it is scary sometimes to think that I always have to be on guard in case a situation like this occurs. I agree with this articles that this a BIG reason we don't see women in science now. Not because women aren't as smart, or weaker. Growing up as a girl, science is always portrayed as something boys do. While girls work at home for their family. In these modern times women are now working as doctors, dentists, and scientists. Are we falling prey of losing our motive to work because we're afraid of being sexually harassed? Yes. It's an issue, a very big one. And this article proves it.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/08/14/always-hungry-heres-real-reason-why/
ReplyDeleteThe article “Always Hungry? Here’s the Real Reason Why” is written by Deborah A. Cohen. In the article, Cohen talks about obesity and why everyone eats so much. To sum her up in 3 words would be too much food. Cohen says that people are obese not because of their mind and what they think, but because of the Green Revolution. “It’s unlikely that changes in human physiology have anything to do with the obesity epidemic. Instead, the root cause is the Green Revolution: America’s wild success in producing more food than is needed.” Cohen also says that we are buying the more convenient, cheaper, and flashier food items. She also states that the healthier food is overlooked because it isn’t promoted as much and isn’t in bright and colorful packaging. It also costs more.
“The solution to the obesity epidemic is not going to be pills or diets. It will be about moderation and creating an environment that doesn’t serve people more food than they need when they dine out, doesn’t promote impulse buys of low-nutrient foods and doesn’t make people feel hungry when they don’t need to eat.” Cohen says that another way to not eat as much is to lower portion sizes and to get rid of junk food from special displays, cash registers, and vending machines. I agree with Cohen. If we wanted to lower the obesity rate we could have vending machines with healthy food items in them or to just raise the prices on junk food and lower the prices on healthy food.
Who is the audience? What gets under the writers skin? Do you agree with the author/
ReplyDeleteMr. Lane's audience is people who think that climate change is not real and don’t want to pay $1,000 a year to possibly lower the temperature > 0.1 degrees C in 40 years based on questionable science. "By 2020, that would put the annual cost of the regulatory policies in the President’s plan to an average U.S. household over $1,000, make electricity prices at least 7% higher, raise gasoline prices by 25 cents per gallon, and lower federal government tax revenues $150 billion in 2020. All this would reduce global warming in the next 40 years by less than one-tenth of a degree Celsius" (Lane). What really irritates the author is the fact that we would be paying far more than we would have to to make the slightest impact. It would cost Americans $40,000 to potentially lower the temperature less then one tenth of a degree. He also doesn’t like the exaggerations coming from the white house officials. I do agree with Lee Lane, I believe that man made global warming isn’t that big of a problem, and that paying thousands of dollars isn’t going to solve the problem.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/08/13/obama-administrations-hurry-up-climate-plan-based-on-big-distortions/
Deletehttp://www.cnn.com/2014/08/21/opinion/downey-pete-rose-hall-of-fame/index.html?hpt=op_mid
ReplyDeleteIn this article the author talks about how Pete Rose the all time hit leader in Major League Baseball history is not allowed into the Hall of Fame, but should be. What gets under the writers skin is that Pete Rose is the all time hit leader, one of the best players to ever play the game. And yet he’s not even on the ballot because he gambled on the game. It is a clear cut rule that if you do it that you will be banned, but he did it anyway. The author believes that Pete Rose should be forgiven and let into the Hall of Fame. The major argument is that he has been banned from major league baseball because of his gambling and that because of that he can no longer be a part of the illustrious Hall of Fame.
I agree with the author entirely. Pete Rose is the all time hit king. He never did anything to boost his performance like taking PED’s. He gambled and very much so payed the price. He should be forgiven though and let into the Hall of Fame where he belongs. He leads everyone in the Hall of Fame already in hits. He gambled on the game, he payed the price, and now he should be allowed in the Hall of Fame.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/25/opinion/jones-mone-davis-little-league/index.html?hpt=op_t1
ReplyDelete#1. Who is the audience? #2. What does the writer want the audience to do?
In this article the author, Roxanne Jones, speaks about a young girl, Mo'ne Davis, who is breaking down gender inequality in Little League baseball. She writes this article to all the little girls and older women who were never allowed to play little league baseball because they were a girl. "But honestly, many of us wanted to be more than 'bleacher creatures.' We wanted a piece of the action. Not possible. Little League back then had a strict no-girls-allowed policy."
As Roxanne is explaining her opinion and how she feels about Mo'ne she is also pleading for girls to go out and do things like Mo'ne does. Just for girls to start bending the status que for sports and gender. "It's thanks to courageous young athletes like Mo'ne and the coaches who recognize their potential who are breaking down gender stereotypes. And in Little League, girls are finally making their mark."
"It hasn't been easy to persuade girls to try out for baseball, he said. Most girls choose softball and many parents still steer their kids into traditional gender activities. Satti said: When I ask parents about letting their girls play I usually get, 'Oh no, she's a dancer," or a cheerleader.' His daughters not only all played baseball, but were wrestlers as well.
After reading this article I agree with the author that its time for young athletes to start bending the status que and follow there passions and dreams. If some little girl wants to play baseball instead of softball she should be able to and same for boys.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/07/30/the-criminalization-of-parenthood-continued/
ReplyDeleteWhat reasons does the writer give you to agree with the argument?
Who is the audience?
In this article, the author is appalled by the fact that two women where arrested and charged for child neglect because of they let their children go to the park unsupervised. His reasoning is the decline of child abduction int he last years. He looks back at his parents letting him go out alone to play saying, "If my parents had been arrested and charged every time, they’d have been serving life sentences for repeat offenses by the time I turned 10." I think his main audience are the people of his same generation or older. I think this because he says a lot of things that younger people may not be able to relate, because of changing views.
For the most part I agree with the author. I think that as long as the parents where aware that their children had gone out to play, and them being too preoccupied with other things an not caring that their children had left without their knowledge is not the case, the charge should not have been brought against the mothers. Times have changed and parks have gotten sketchier, so I understand some of the ridicule to the parents, but I think and arrest is way out of hand.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/28/opinion/omara-use-of-force-brown-case/index.html?hpt=op_t1
ReplyDeleteI read the article: “Time to reconsider cops’ deadly force?” by Mark O’Mara. In the article, the author appeals to the audience (more than likely people interested in law enforcement) by using their fear of cops being too powerful or too weak by using his point that it is one or the other. In the first half of the article, the author opens with showing recent cases that have made national news regarding bad police-work, and then tries to answer the question of “can police shoot a suspect fleeing a felony arrest?” in which he says maybe. He then tries to justify his answer with the Ferguson, Missouri incident by saying that what the police-man did was his obligation and that he was right, and ended with reminding the U.S. the laws they put in that makes police able to shoot fleeing felons. In the second half of the article, the author opens with continuing on from the last half, by saying that the laws the U.S. put in made police shootings and tragic incidents increase, and then showed a tragic police shooting which ended up moving to the supreme court and then says that these shootings are justified because these are the obligations we gave the police. He then ends with saying that taking away force from police could result in suspects getting away from police.
I disagree with the author on his opinion that the police should stay forceful because the police can neutralize criminals without killing them by using stun guns, or other devices used for the neutralization of a person.