I agree with this claim. The first step to preventing violent crimes such as sexual assault by acknowledging it and educating the students about it before it can become an issue for themselves.

This article was written by Katherine Brind'Amour of the Embryo Project. The Embryo, "is a collection of researchers who study the historical and social contexts of reproductive medicine, developmental biology, and embryology." So they are clearly a stakeholder on the issue and are supportive of embryonic stem cell research. Despite this, Brind'Amour does very good job of being objective on the issue and outlining the possible problems with induced pluripotent stem cell research. In the ending claim that I have highlighted, she clearly states the possible benefits and problems of iSPC research. She says that the research of iSPCs is very favorable and has a lot of potential, especially, to replace ESC research however it presents it's own moral/ethical dilemmas that have not been considered by most. The basis of her claim is that iSPCs would be induced into embryonic cells which, although is a possibility, isn't necessarily the goal of iSPC research. Using iSPCs in regenerative medicine doe not require that they be reprogrammed to embyronic cells, rather that they be reprogrammed to tissue specific cells. However, it might be ideal that they are reprogrammed to embryonic cells so that they can be specialized into any kind of cell. For the sake of her argument we will assume that iSPCs are being reprogrammed to embryonic cells. She outlines a lot of possible dilemmas in iSPC research including ethical dilemmas, oncogenic or cancer-causing cells, and little regulation. For one, there are a lot of ethical dilemmas that have been overlooked. Using an individuals somatic cells to create embryonic cells would make them an exact replica of that individual's genome and would technically be cloning. This is unethical in many ways and is illegal in most countries. Another ethical dilemma is the creation of chimeras which are organisms with cells from more than one source. Chimeras are also illegal in most countries. The main arguments against ESC research are that it violates informed consent, improper inducement, and health and safety risks of women. However, iSPC research could create a whole different level of moral and ethical problems. Second, the use of iSPCs for regenerative medicine could have unknown effects such as creating oncogenic or cancer-causing cells. Further research could eliminate this risk but it could be something that is being overlooked. Third, there is little to no regulation on iSPC research. We know that there is a lot of regulation on ESC research because it is widely debated that it violates the dignity of life. There is no shortage of publicity and debate on the ethical problems of ESC research, however, the ethical dilemmas of iSPC research are frequently overlooked and do not receive much publicity. If this research is to continue in depth then there needs to be regulation to prevent the ethical dilemmas I already listed. Overall, Brind'Amour does a great job of remaining objective in her argument. She utilizes logos, ethos, and even pathos to win her audience over. She establishes ethos by remaining objective in her argument, logos by presenting citations, and pathos by using ethical dilemmas that most have overlooked.

Brind'Amour, By Katherine. "The Embryo Project Encyclopedia." Ethics and Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells. The Embryo Project Encylopedia, 10 June 2010. Web. 11 Oct. 2016.

Sites used to help interpret article "Cloning: Frequently Asked Questions." NPR. NPR, n.d. Web. 11 Oct. 2016. "The Embryo Project Encyclopedia." About. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Oct. 2016.

The author Victor Williams writes for The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law. The main focus of the article is the Electoral College, Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton. The author is trying to prove that both candidates are very different. Williams uses facts about Trump and Clinton to support his claim. He also has facts and statistics about the Electoral college to support him. The author states that the only thing Clinton and Trump have in common is their high unfavorable poll ratings. They both are seen as unfavorable. This could be a huge reason why they attack each other during debates. They both are seen as bad candidates and there needs to be someone who looks worse. One of the opponents must look better than the other, so there can be a winner. This is an article written for the Columbus School of Law, this is very credible and would have to be to make it on their scholarly articles section of they webpage. In my opinion this article is very bias towards Clinton. It seems like the entire article is trying to make Trump look bad. The author seems to leave out details about Trump that would make him look good in this article. The article starts out by talking about Clinton’s achievements then immediately goes to criticizing Trump, calling him names like “bombastic billionaire". This would appeal to the Democratic Party because it is making Clinton look good and Trump look bad, so that people who read this will want to vote for Clinton rather than Trump. People that would disagree with this article would people the people voting for Trump because they do not want the public to think badly about Trump.

The authors of this article are researchers from Stanford University and the University of California San Diego School of Medicine. The article is a scholarly journal meant to compare embryonic stem cells (ESCs) and induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) and their potential. The article does a great job outlining that the two of them have been found very similar in their gene expression and almost indistinguishable in their genomes. Although the two stem cells are very similar in their gene expression, iPSCs have subtle differences that cause them to act differently and they believe that it is due to their epigenetic genome which is their genome after being modified and reprogrammed form their original somatic cell. The molecules that are used to reprogram iPSCs sometimes cause them to have a different genetic background and expression that causes them to act differently than ESCs. The article talks largely on their differences and whether they are important and what their effects may be. The main claim made is that although ESCs and iPSCs have different genome expressions, iSPCs could have the same uses and less differences than we think. Also, iSPCs do not have the ethical dilemmas that ESCs do and are available in abundance while embryos are difficult to obtain. Therefore, they could be very useful, maybe even more than ESCs. After briefly addressing the reason for iPSC research and advantages, the authors spend practically the rest of the article talking about the differences in the two stem cells and why it could be problematic. They also address the fact that the differences could be less problematic than we think and iPSCs could be used for more specific applications. Such as using different cell lines for different applications. The evidence used is very reliable. They cited all of their sources and the sources all of links to the article, website, etc.. The authors use logos and ethos to appeal to their audience. Their sources are a great example of ethos because it makes them very credible. Also the study based information presented in the article is an example of how they used logos to appeal to the audience.

Narsinh, Kazim H., Jordan Plews, and Joseph C. Wu. "Comparison of Human Induced Pluripotent and Embryonic Stem Cells: Fraternal or Identical Twins?" Molecular Therapy 19.4 (2011): 635-38. Web. 10 Oct. 2016.

This article was written by five authors Yu Wang, Jiebo Luo, Richard Niemi, Yuncheng and Tianan Hu. The article was made in March 2016, it is recent. This article’s main focus is running a study about Donald Trump's tweets. It is showing that his tweets that attack his opponent Hilary Clinton are the most favorable. They use their own research as evidence to prove their claim. Attacking his opponent during a debate is not the only strategy Trump is using to win. He is attacking through social media. It is stated that Trump has 5.46 million followers on twitter. Not only are the millions of people watching the presidential debates hearing the ridicule about Clinton, but now it will be seen all over social media. Trump’s average amount of likes on his tweets are about 3 thousand. His tweets regarding Clinton ranges from 2 to 11 thousand likes. Using social media opponents can attack each other to make the other look bad in ways other than saying it on live television. The credibility of the authors is high due to them actually conducting the experiment. They did all the research and work that went with making sure their prediction was accurate. They are all also either Political or Computer Science majors at the University of Rochester. This article would appeal to Trump supporters, especially ones that follow him on twitter. This would appeal to the younger generation because that is who uses twitter. This article’s main focus is Trump which could possibly make this article bias. They could be Trump supporters and are using their research to advertise Trump.

Ali Seifinejad is the author of this chapter and he speaks on the authority of Springer Science+Business Media which is a large publishing company. Seifinejad makes a lot of claims throughout this chapter, however, I think that this concluding paragraph is the most important. In the passage I have selected, he outlines the fact that induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) have not yet proven to be as important as effective as Embryonic Stem Cells(ESCs). This claim and conversation is a response to the current debate in the science community over the ethical dilemma of using ESCs. Their goal is to inform us of the most recent research done in stem cells. IPSCs are typically reprogrammed to stem cells via a virus, a protein or mRNA, or other "small molecules" such as microRNA (miRNA). The mechanisms by which they are reprogrammed are complex and irrelevant for this paper. The point I would like to make and will be used much in my argument, is the effectiveness of each technique and the possible consequences or impacts of each. That being said, in the case of using a virus is difficult to ensure that the virus' can be found in the cells genome, or genetic code, after reprograming. This could be problematic for many reasons but for the most part its effects are unknown. When using small molecules and mRNA or proteins they are able to reprogram the cells and "Eliminate the Application of Exogenous Reprogramming Transcription Factors." This basically means that they can ensure that the reprograming mechanism is coming from the intended reprograming agent. Their goal with small molecules is to use them to reprogram cells and do it without using any genetic materials because genetic materials could effect the iPSCs genetic material. They have been able to generate partially reprogrammed cells using small molecules and their goal is to eventually be able to completely reprogram the cell. Proteins and mRNA are also another possible way to reprogram cells. It is hoped that they can find a way to use these to reprogram them in a pure way and with minimal steps, compared to past experiments that have created them in very complex processes. Seifinejad uses citations of credible sources to support all of his evidence. This article is meant to be informational more than anything and does a great job in doing so. He informs us of all of the most recent research and findings with stem cells and says what their goal is with each method of reprograming somatic stem cells. He leaves it to us to interpret whether the findings are promising and could lead to iPSCs being as or more useful than ESCs. Lastly, this book was published in 2012 so some of the findings and studies could be outdated.

Baharvand, Hossein, and Nasser Aghdami. Advances in Stem Cell Research. New York: Humana, 2012. Print.

External sources used to interpret article: Murnaghan, Ian. "Pluripotent Stem Cells." Pluripotent Stem Cells. N.p., 12 Feb. 2016. Web. 10 Oct. 2016.

The authors of the article are three journalists from The New York Times, Patrick Healy, Amy Chozick and Maggie Haberman. The main focus on this article are the strategies used by opponents Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump to prepare for their debate. The authors’ claims are that their strategies reveal their own personal strengths and opponents weaknesses. Both candidates do their research on each other. Clinton and her team did months of research on Trump to ensure that she will get under his skin at this debate. Trump as well has been doing his research by watching videos of Clinton to figure out her vulnerabilities. The candidates plan to use what they find out to attack their opponent at the debate. The answer to my question,”why is it so common for opponents to attack each other during debates?”, is that they believe these strategies will help them look better at the debate. The people that would disagree with this would be people on either party voting for the opposite opponent. It would make a Trump or Clinton supporter angry to see the ways the opponent is playing dirty, because they want their candidate to win. The article is fairly new which makes it more credible, but The New York Times is a more liberal news source. This could create bias because they could try to make Trump look worse than Hilary due to their own political preference. Although they do seem credible in the way that they equally talk about each party. They do not just talk about one, in each section they have a paragraph for each candidate. This article would appeal to either party because it shows the strategies of each party rather than just one. Both parties would be interested in finding out what their preferred candidate is going to do to win. People voting want who they vote for to win.

The author of this article is journalist Eli Watkins. He writes for CNN news, a non-scholarly cable news net work. His main focus of the article is vice president nominee Bill Weld and his strategy to win the debate. One of Watkins' coworkers Jake Tapper spoke with Weld and discovered his strategy. Watkins makes Weld’s claim very clear by the title and the first sentence of the article. Weld believes that the way to win is to focus on attacking Donald Trump. Weld believes that he needs to peel off Republican votes from Trump. This article also clearly answers my question of “why is it so common for opponents to attack each other during debates?”. Opponents believe that attacking each other is the key to winning an election. Those who would disagree with Weld would say that to win the election you must be a good candidate. Making the opponent look bad does not always look good on your part. Watkins’ credibility is in high standings due to his coworker having a personal encounter with Weld, instead of taking something her heard off the media. Weld verbally said that his way to win is to attack Trump to Tapper and CNN. This is also a recent article that was updated on October 5th. Watkins’ article would appeal to a Democratic audience. People that are voting Hilary Clinton and Bill Weld want to hear what they have to say. This will appeal to them because there is nothing more that want to hear than finding out their preferred candidate won. They will want to know how to get their side to victory. CNN is a know liberal news source which is a bias because they are writing about the libertarian vice president. They could very well be reporting on this because it is their beliefs instead of trying to be a mediator.

deBoer, Frederik. "Admitting that White Privilege Helps You is Really Just Congratulating Yourself." The Washington Post 28 Jan. 2016. Web. 8 Aug 2016.

A solution is being alluded to here, but a solution that may not be enacted.

Perfect way to articulate this. Here he is addressing his audience, those who are interested in the topic and those who fall under the category of boasting privileged people.

Very much so agree. Here, deBoer is addressing the hypocrisy and stagnancy of self-recognition within white privilege that retains white supremacy. When the oppressed are heard when they voice their dissatisfaction with oppression, it is deemed as their duty to do such: it is their job to fight for their rights. However, if a privileged person recognizes their role in oppression, they are praised for doing such just as they were unconsciously praised for not to anything...because that's the way that privilege works.

Well articulated. As he further states within his article, the form of "self-indictment" places the "guilty" on a pedestal of approval and "self-regard".

Liberation for the liberated and oppression for the oppressed it seems like. In other words, the self-awareness made him feel liberated in such a redundant way that it wouldn't make a difference if he proudly boasted as someone who does not have privilege and equality is attainable by all. Either way, nothing really changes.

I agree. The question there here would be what can the privileged to acknowledge, yet not boast in self awareness, about their privilege.

Acknowledging the side that he is going to criticize for its legitimacy gives him some credibility.

This is his claim. I am using this perspective because it differs so much from any other perspective. There is the audience that altogether does not acknowledge that white-privilege exists. There is the audience like myself that pushes for white privilege recognition. And there is his perspective that disapproves of both so far.

Fredrik deBoer is "writer and a researcher who works at the intersection of writing assessment, applied linguistics and literacy education." He receives his authority from an institution of learning to write his opinion for public consumption. http://purdue.academia.edu/FredrikdeBoer

Here he is providing clarity about why privilege is so significant and how it interconnects with societal norms that are comfortable and accessible "to an exclusive subset of a given population" i.e. heterosexuals or white people.

I am glad that he referenced Peggy Mcintosh because I referenced this particular work of hers as well for my essay. She does a great job of making it a point to speak from personal experience.

Here he establishes his claim in that privilege is something that a person is typically born into, in other words, something that was earned. I am still unsure of what he means by unearned privileges that are illegitimate. Perhaps he means that they are not legally recognized.

Much of his evidence comes from the research of others on the same topic and they are all credible sources. He uses many of them to get his point across.

True of all privileges, they are not earned but something that we are merely born into.

This brings up a good point about privilege and identity being interconnected.

This is the beginning of Monahan establishing credibility for himself. He wants readers to understand the full scope of privilege by starting from the origins of the word as it pertains to modern conceptualization. I also find this interesting myself and would not have thought to look up the origins of the word as supportive evidence as language had evolved so heavily.

This is important to note that privilege is not confined to a single identity and can be applied to each individual in a different form.

Monahan, Michael J. "The Concept of Privilege: A Critical Appraisal." South African Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 73-83. 2014. Web. 8 Aug 2016. Michael Monahan has received his degree in Philosophy and works for the department of philosophy for Marquette University.

Yes! They are addressing where this ideology in itself is an issue.

Neville conducted research in order to prove her ideas. This is important because without such research, her ideas could be considered subjective. Without evidence, there would be no valid argument.

This supports that claim that CBRI perpetuate racism because, though it may not be intended in all instances, they minimize the harmful effects of racial ideologies that have been instilled within different societies by completely ignoring them. Within the United States and outside of the United States, slavery existed. Slavery promoted the idea of white superiority by taking claim and owning members of perceived inferior races and treating them poorly to say the least on the basis of skin color alone (despite "biological evidence" which was later to be found as false). Members of the perceived inferior races experienced prejudice for decades after. The effects of slavery and those ideologies did not fade but simply redirected themselves into different systems such as the criminal justice system. The unfortunate truth is that race is a social construct based on subjective ideas and when analyzing a topic such as this, some may consider these to be subjective as well with subjective correlations.

I appreciate that this was included. As a person of color, sometimes the idea that one who identifies with the marginalized group is not affected by CBRI is a false notion.

STAKEHOLDER. Though other stakeholders have been introduce, this one in particular uses pathos. Children are innocent and we as adults have the duty to teach them correctly and correct any teachings that are harmful. By showing that children can be harmfully affected by CBRI, it creates more stakeholders including teachers and parents since they are responsible for them no matter whether they identify a part of the marginalized group.

Here they expand on their claim and are firm in their views.

Definitions are important. It creates clarity for the reader and (surprise) MORE credibility for the authors.

This is their claim. Color-Blind Racial Ideologies perpetuate racism and inequality by not acknowledging the "elephant in the room" of race. To be completely oblivious to race is impossible with European colonialism across the world.

Once again, further adding to the credibility and this time to the publication of the essay by citing it. However, this is a place to be very careful as not to suggest bias and lack of well roundedness of sources and perspectives from multiple publications which they have an abundance of.

Each of the authors have their PhD in psychology. They are well-versed and studied in the areas and have the authority to teach on this topic. It is important to note the significance of these professors from different universities collaborating on this essay. In addition, it is important to note the publication and its national recognition.

Great. Here they are establishing ethos/credibility to themselves by acknowledging the significance of psychology, which they all received their degrees in, as it pertains to this particular topic.

Neville, Helen et. al. "Color-Blind Racial Ideology: Theory, Training, and Measurement Implications in Psychology." American Psychological Association, Vol. 68, No. 6, Sept. 2013, pp. 455-466. Web. 8 Aug 2016.

Burnett, Megan. "On the Topic of White Privilege." Collegian. 7 Oct 2015. Web. 8 Aug 2016. Megan Burnett wrote for the CSU collegian in the Opinion section. There was much controversy after this article was published.

Here again we see meritocracy as we saw in the other article by Michael Monahan. As with the other two articles, she explains race-relation evasion.

This gives her the most credibility because she is taking personal experience to shed light on an issue that she does not directly experience herself. She is able to criticize her own identity and apply understanding and empathy to other identities.

She is comparing white privilege to male privilege. This is justifying her identity and authority to write this essay. Though she may not identify as holding a marginalized ethnicity, she does identify with a marginalized gender. She is attempting to make this topic more accessible to herself and to many of the readers who could be women.

Once again like the other articles there is recognition on interconnectedness between privilege and identity. The reason I chose this article is because of the personal testimony of white privilege. She is not denying or evading the fact that she holds a very prominent privilege.

Mcintosh, Peggy. "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack." White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming to See Correspondences Through Work in Women Studies. 1988. Web. 8 Aug 2016.

Amanda was previously a senior engagement editor for ProPublica. She has worked as an editorial aide and reporter in the past.

Senior reporter at ProPublica. Lauren has reported on a range of topics from criminal justice to this article about the drought.

Author of several articles about the drought and other water problems and possible solutions throughout the Midwest.

Lustgarten, Abrahm, Lauren Kirchner, and Amanda Zamora. "California's Drought Is Part of a Much Bigger Water Crisis." Scientific American. ProPublica, n.d. Web. 20 July 2016.

This can be used as an example for why everyone should care about the drought.

Are the farmers causing more problems by trying to make up for production costs?

The farmers must have water in order to provide food to the country, but drinking water is needed as well. What will happen when even the deepest groundwater is removed?

The sinking is affecting the infrastructure of the state. How could this, in combination with natural disasters, continue to have a negative impact on the infrastructure.

This relates back to the sinking of 45 feet previously noted.

I can use this in my paper as a counter argument against my own. He is arguing that, with the current two party system in America, both parties are held accountable for their actions, therefore the two party system is a fair way of electing politicians.

In this section, Jones brings up specific, credible research that backs up the one party model. He adds that although these findings are legitimate given the assumptions they make, he argues that different research needs to be done to account for Americans that take the minority party into consideration when voting. Once again, his mention of a legitimate study from the opposing side serves to strengthen his credibility.

In this section, Jones introduces the two primary theories of accountability that have been established, providing background on the subject for the reader. At the end of this section, he states the main issue with these theories, and adds that more research needs to be done in this area to account for the fact that there is often no single party in power.

Jones is providing reasonably strong evidence that supports one of the opposing view points. He provides one example from each party in recent history in which political gridlock seemingly led to the shift of power away from the current majority. This is a legitimate counterpoint and Jones' choice to include it in the beginning gives more validity to his argument later on in the article.

Here, Jones is entering into the conversation by introducing the primary point that he opposes in this article. The opposition argues that the American public evaluates Congress as a whole, and the majority party is often blamed for political gridlock. Jones disputes this immediately by arguing that American's do in fact take party performance into consideration when deciding who to vote for in elections.

Here, Jones articulates his main point in the article. He is arguing that Americans hold both parties in Congress accountable for their actions and accomplishments as a party, and that voters take into account their evaluation of both political parties when deciding who to vote for in elections.

Polity is the journal of the Northeastern Political Science Association. This journal was established in 1968 and is one of the more widely known political science journals. They are considered to be a credible publication.

Jones is a professor at Baruch College who specializes in American politics. He has written multiple books on politics in America, and his research has been included in many scholarly journals including The American Journal of Political Science.

Jones, David R. "A More Responsible Two-Party System? Accountability for Majority and Minority Performance in a Polarized Congress". Polity, 18 Aug. 2014. Web. 01 Aug. 2016.

Here, Jones is providing reasonably strong evidence that supports one of the opposing view points. He provides one example from each party in recent history in which political gridlock seemingly led to the shift of power away from the current majority. This is a legitimate counterpoint and Jones' choice to include it in the beginning gives more validity to his argument later on in the article.

Here, Jones is entering into the conversation by introducing the primary point that he opposes in this article. The opposition argues that the American public evaluates Congress as a whole, and the majority party is often blamed for political gridlock. Jones disputes this immediately by arguing that American's do in fact take party performance into consideration when deciding who to vote for in elections.

Polity is the journal of the Northeastern Political Science Association. This journal was established in 1968 and is one of the more widely known political science journals. They are considered to be a credible publication.

Jones is a professor at Baruch College who specializes in American politics. He has written multiple books on politics in America, and his research has been included in many scholarly journals including The American Journal of Political Science. http://www.baruch.cuny.edu/wsas/academics/political_science/djones.htm

Jones, David R. "A More Responsible Two-Party System? Accountability for Majority and Minority Performance in a Polarized Congress". Polity, 18 Aug. 2014. Web. 01 Aug. 2016.

Here, Jones articulates his main point in the article. He is arguing that Americans hold both parties in Congress accountable for their actions and accomplishments as a party, and that voters take into account their evaluation of both political parties when deciding who to vote for in elections.

All thanks to the lack of ground water and available water from rivers and lakes.

New information to me. I always thought the salt water regulated itself through sea life.

Controversial use of water because many believe in protecting wildlife and endangered species while others are more concerned with their own survival. This raises the question of which is more important?

Farmers aren't even using half of the available water and they're the ones providing food to the nation. This can be used in an argument to support farmers.

This is an interesting quote. Often times the wealthy doesn't seem to notice serious problems until it is directly affecting them.

The once lush coast is now know for being brown.

Massive lake to small Grand Canyon thanks to the drought and need for water.

Problems of the drought that are affecting everyone economically, among other ways.

Where do we draw the line? Water is having to be trucked in to do even simple things like bath. This developed country is almost moving backward in time and advancements.

Currently there are no other solutions to help the now sinking state.

The land is too dry and collapsing from mining, thus the water will not all soak in to the earth. This can lead to mudslides which are also devastating in a hilly state like California.

Can a major storm like El Nino help speed up the process?

Richards is a contributor for several news outlets such as US News, Fox News, and Bloomberg News. She lives in California, thus experiencing the drought first hand.

This can be used for why groundwater drilling is a bad thing.

Richards, Tony. “Water Woes Divide California into Haves, Have Nots.” U.S. News. 8 Apr. 2016. Web. 10 July 2016.

Richards claim is in the subtitle of the article. He states that the decrease in water in California may cause a Dust Bowl. Throughout the piece, Richards also talks about the ongoing sinking of the state due to groundwater mining.

The EU will remain adamant, since UK has always received more than it's just share. Question of hurt pride maybe. Through the mist, another ex-Yugoslavia scenario with non-english ethnias braking away is sensed, plus North and South England parting like Sudan. After that each entity can apply for EU membership again in a future.

Every country ends up making the best decisions for itself. Pan-European policies have been a failure (given that the average annual growth rate of the EU for the past 40 years is a dismal 0.5%). Small governments over people of the same identity (and feeling of belonging) is the best approach. As an example of the above, giving the Greeks the credit rating of Germans proved to be disastrous. Germans need high quality credit to build those expensive factories and those magnificent cars. Greece is a place where Europeans go to party. Giving Greeks access to all that money simply resulted in the money being wasted and Greece going belly up. Because Greece does not need huge amounts of money to build new taverns.

The main reason for the UK leaving is that the EU (which started as the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951) has grown far beyond its original charter as a trading community. The original intent of the Euro was common standards and free movement of goods and services within Europe. Very few of its current member states envisaged the EU as it is today almost at the stage of becoming a formal empire with flag and national anthem. More importantly, almost all the legislation passed in its member states are rubber stamps of EU directives. No one in Brussels gets elected by the people in the countries they govern. It's a nice cozy circle of pals mainly backed by German and French politicians.

The EU has given Europe 50plus years of peace, prosperity and progress. The UK is still a relevant vital part of Europe.the UK parliament opposes Brexit. The best outcome for the UK and Europe now would be for the UK to have a 2nd referendum. This would ensure if this drastic action is actually what the people want. On EU referendums the Danes have done this, the Irish have done this, and the UK have an opportunity to do this now. They should take it.

The Brexit campaign was based on lies, with no actual idea of plan on what to do if the Brexit proposal was passed. The net result of going through with an actual UK exit is a weaker UK, with less to little political influence in Europe, a weaker EU with a centre of power moving further East, a massive market correction in the UK, a likely recession and a potential potential.

Stephen Fidler has been Brussels Editor of The Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones Newswires since October 2009. He runs a bureau of 11 journalists and leads coverage from Brussels of the European Union and the euro zone as well as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. He writes a regular column and was part of a team of Journal reporters named as a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in 2011 for their reporting on the euro-zone debt crisis.

EU has been blind to the situation of immigration in the UK, and this has been a huge mistake on the part of the EU. When 55% of the population in the capital of the UK is not of British origin (whatever the passport is), you clearly have reached a limit. The day 55% of Berliners are not German or 55% of Romans are not Italian you will see an even stronger reaction. The EU should have acknowledged the peculiar situation of the UK (historical immigration plus fresh immigration from the EU plus fresh immigration from the rest of the world) and granted the country a special status with regard to freedom of movement within the Union. And we know very well that enabling the citizens of East European countries whose per capita GDP was half that of the West to move freely across the continent was a big blunder, and a demonstration that the EU sometimes defends more the interests of large entrepreneurs who need cheap labor than the interests of citizens.

What has happened now, particularly in non-London England is very distressing. It is understandable that in some towns and cities that people have been left behind and there is a lot of real poverty. That did not apply to prosperous towns in the Home Counties.Something very ugly is happening in England. Perhaps it was always there, lurking, and the referendum has opened the box. People in the prosperous counties such as Essex and Herts voted in great swathes for Leave. These areas don't have a mass immigration or suffer from major crises. There was broadly an inverse relationship between those voting Brexit and the immigration numbers.

British manufacturing relies heavily on imported components and commodities, and the price of those just jumped. The effect of exchange rates on exports is often exaggerated. Much British manufacturing, such as cars, is here because manufacturing them in the EU wins EU subsidies and tax breaks. Not any more. Manufacturers wanting to serve the EU market will not be making them in Britain any more, the same goes for other goods. Finally, tariffs on manufactured good, most of which get sold to the EU, are only going to go up. There will be some winners and some losers in manufacturing out of this but it's by no means a simple win.

The pound falling, credit rating declines, short-term balance of payment issues and interest rate increases are expected results. At this point, fearful readers seem to be looking only at these short-term effects and panicking. If the new government acts decisively takes a firm path towards a dynamic economy, the pains should be limited to the short-to-medium-term and Scotland and Ireland would be very receptive to staying within the UK if and only if the UK demonstrates that it can quickly reboot its economy.

Buttonwood columnist considers the ever-changing financial markets. Brokerage was once conducted under a buttonwood tree on Wall Street.

Brexit is going to have a huge impact (I pray to god not only negative effects) for people further Europe borders. It seems that Britain it is not the only country in the world where old people is deciding the younger generations' future pushing them over their limits. London's financial markets are the primary clearing house for Euro/USD transactions. There is absolutely no good reason for the EU to permit this business to remain outside of its borders where member states cannot benefit from the profits and taxes of this business. We can presume that no matter how nice Britain is to its former partner that this industry will be moving. EU cities are already lining up to be the new home for Euro/USD clearing.

British manufacturing relies heavily on imported components and commodities, and the price of those just jumped. The effect of exchange rates on exports is often exaggerated. Much British manufacturing, such as cars, is here because manufacturing them in the EU wins EU subsidies and tax breaks. Not any more. Manufacturers wanting to serve the EU market will not be making them in Britain any more, the same goes for other goods. Finally, tariffs on our manufactured good, most of which get sold to the EU, are only going to go up.

Britain has initiated a hostile divorce between itself and the EU, and all the niceties said by Britain will not make the hurt feelings, or the opportunism, of the EU go away. Britain may not enjoy many aspects of the EU. External regulations, external laws, immigration, glacial progress on freer markets and trade, endless discussions and a system where a few minorities can upend years of negotiations. And a net cost of 135bn pounds a week. It was, however, the required ticket for many of Britain's most lucrative industries to have access to the EU, and it turns out that access is a requirement for them to stay in Britain. Banking and insurance for example are heavily concentrated in the financial capital of Europe, London. This industry provides 60Bn in tax income a year, or 8.5 times the net cost of Britain's cost being part of the EU. It is also an industry which does not have any particular barriers to moving in relatively short order to a new location.

Richard Branson has said that his company has lost about a third of its value because of the plunging stock market caused by the Brexit vote on Friday -- global stocks have lost a record £2.25 trillion.

Buttonwood columnist considers the ever-changing financial markets. Brokerage was once conducted under a buttonwood tree on Wall Street

Ignatius, David. "How ISIS Spread in the Middle East And how to stop it". The Atlantic.29 Oct. 2015. Web. 10 Jul. 2016.

Ignatius claims that ISIS is not merely a terrorist group, but it's an anti-colonial organization with higher political motives aiming to restore an "Islamic caliphate" similar to the ottoman empire. And that the US failed foreign policies facilitated their insurgence and empowerment.

The article ends by stating that NASA plans on continuing their research and projects. They end it on a hopeful note, and make the audience want to join them on their adventures. This article strikes me as a message to the nation that we need to continue to support NASA. They make the case that what they are doing is important and needs the backing of as many people as possible. The fact that they talk mainly about the exciting missions that they are working on, and not the more standard missions also in the works, supports this idea.

There are other benefits to backing NASA, as they mention here. By demonstrating how what they are doing can help with environmental issues, more people may support their research. This may allow more of the audience to back them in the hopes of making our lives better in the immediate future.

NASA then explains that they are taking the steps they can in order to help out with issues people have had with them. They are working with private companies and other nations in order to bolster resources. The underlying message is that by teaming up with othe groups, they will not need as much money to reach their goals.

The article then explains why we do not have the exciting missions currently that we like to think of when space exploration comes up. We currently do not know enough to send astronauts off to other places safely. In order to get there, NASA needs to to more research as to just how to get there, and how to handle the many different types of situations that might arise. I think NASA is essentially telling people to be patient with them, and that what they are doing now may seem unimportant, but that it is necessary in order to take the next step.

The first goal of NASA is indicated as the type of mission that most people think about when they think space exploration; astronauts going to far off places. This will keep the audiences attention, as it is the hook for the article.

The article opens up with a quote from the NASA administrator, Charles Bolden,who states NASA's mission statement. This helps solidify where NASA is coming from and gets the audience's attention.

"What's Next for NASA?"NASA. 3 Sept. 2013. Web. 10 July. 2016

This article is from NASA itself, detailing their ongoing and future plans for their projects. This has been written not only to keep the audience informed of what is happening and where their money is going, but also to pitch ideas that may get them more support for their endeavors. Although it is a government agency, NASA sometimes need to act like a business. One thing businesses need to do to gain investors is to pitch their ideas. For this reason, the article was written. It could be argued either way whether or not this is a credible source. I think its credible, but not scholarly. It comes from NASA and is being edited regularly by NASA administrators. These are experts in the field, which means the people should be believed. However, there are no outside sources or information being used. It is strictly stating plans for the agency's future.

Article is ended very similarly to the current Juno article I included earlier. NASA helps create a demand for scientists of diverse backgrounds in order to further advance capabilities. By doing so, more jobs are made possible, which we sorely need. This is also beneficial because it shows a specific reason that has stayed the same throughout the decades. This gives credence that benefits from the mid 1900's are the same as today. This allows us to safely argue that the benefits presented in this old article are still prevalent to today.

This is an argument against NASA that is somewhat prevalent to our current situation. In times of war, other groups, such as the military, do more spending and boost the economy more. Since we are dealing with homeland terrorism and ISIS, it could be argued that a larger military would boost the economy more than NASA would.

The article explains that NASA is responsible for the United States' satellites that are in orbit. Reading the surrounding text, it is revealed that this means things such as our meteorological satellites, which help us predict the weather. This is an incredibly important thing we use in our daily lives, especially with disaster prevention. It is all thanks to NASA. This is another piece of evidence that can be used to show the importance of NASA, and how it goes beyond the space exploration that most Americans know them for.

As NASA expanded its capabilities, it began to reach for further goals, which demand higher technology. They would therefore need to purchase the highest end products available, which would also help to stimulate the economy.

Very specific example of where NASA allowed considerable growth for the economy. It helped create a booming industry that allowed the eventual creation of a large portion of the technology that we use today, such as our phones, computers, televisions, etc.

This appears to be an older paper as well. Based off its content, it appears that it was published around the 70's or 80's. However, the information given is still factual and can be used to support current times. The Midwest Research Institute studied the effects that NASA seemed to have on the economy. As seen, the MRI indicated that NASA had turned a massive profit for the economy. Technological advancement groups create products or develop techniques that can advance civilization. When this happens, our capabilities increase. NASA has demonstrated that it created this type of advancement. For every dollar that they had been given, they were able to create advancement that allowed twice as much money to benefit the economy within a decade.

Schnee, Jerome. "The Economic Impacts of the U.S. Space Program." NASA. Web. 10 July. 2016.

This is a detailed account as to how NASA and their projects have impacted the United States. It is a highly credible source, written by a government agency, and published by NASA itself. Jerome is degree backed through Rutgers University, and the article he has written is credible, as shown by the plethora of bibliography entries on the article itself. The only possible case against credibility is the lack of a publication date. However, since this appears to be a database entry, it is understandable why there is not a publication date. As for the audience, this article is most likely for those concerned with budgeting NASA, as well as government transparency.

Taylor then balances this out by talking about European nations. He explains that the spending in this part of the world is evening out and not increasing year afer year. If anything, it could be dropping. Since these are established countries, the United States could go this way as well, and any increased spending could go to places like NASA. There are many factors that could go into the spending for the United States military and defense. If the threat level stays the same or decreases, there may not be a need to cut NASA's funds, and may even make it possible for them to gain more funding. If the opposite proves true, NASA may in fact need to be cut back in order to allow the increased spending.

This could be an argument against NASA. If other countries begin to spend more, the United States may be inclined to do the same. The spending is so high already that the U.S. may decide to cut other areas. This could include NASA

Further evidence to support the thought that if cuts are to be made, it should be in the military spending. The United States spends half a trillion dollars on its military, which is more than one third the amount of the entire world. However, it could be argued that quality is more important than quantity. Other countries that gain the edge technologically would be able to do more, despite the fact that they do not have as much financial backing. If the United States focused their thinking to this outcome, they could cut cost while keeping the military edge we have established.

At this point, it may not be very apparent as to why I have chosen this article to discuss spending on space exploration. The reasoning is to discuss another stakeholder viewpoint on the issue. The amount of money that the government allows NASA is incredibly small in comparison to how much is spent on other areas such as military expenditures. This page shows that science (such as NASA) and military both fall under discretionary spending. The military is given so much more money than NASA. Therefore, it could be argued that if the government wanted to cut costs, they should focus on cutting the expenses used for the military instead of NASA.

This article is reporting information released from the IISS. This source is incredibly credible, to the point that it helps run international summits. This proves that the information being received is incredibly accurate and will be very informative and factual.

Multiple authors give crediblity.Adam Taylor is a professional writer and focuses on foreign affairs, which gives him large credibility to him penning an article about global spending on defense.

Laris Karklis is more of an illustrator, providing graphs and pictures to represent data being discussed.

The Washington Post is a very credible source for news. They are well known, and cover a plethora of topics, as well as maintaining a high standard of professionalism.

Taylor, Adam, and Karklis, Laris. "This Remarkable Chart Shows How U.S. Defense Spending Dwarfs the Rest of the World." The Washington Post. 9 Feb. 2016 Web. 10 Jul. 2016.

This article states very specifically that is talks about how the United States spends more money on its defense and military than any other country in the world. Its audience is most likely those concerned with where their tax money is going. It also is to show those interested in more global comparisons just where the United States ranks in terms of spending.

Space X ends the article by describing a third and final product, the Grasshopper. I believe Space X was wise to end the article this way. Although this rocket did not reach as high a distance, the composition of the rocket sounds a lot more impressive. They explain that the Grasshopper was a larger vehicle .They also explain that it was a better comparison to the type of rocket that NASA would use. It contains an engine, and "support structure" on top of the rocket, which makes it appear to be more of the type of craft we think of when talking about NASA. By doing so, Space X makes their product appear to be more of the complete package. They describe only the successes they had with the Grasshopper, in an effort to appease their possible customers.

As stated previously, this is not an article that could be considered a scholarly article. IT is mostly a large product pitch to people interested in space exploration. They do use facts, and it is accurate information as it is coming from the people in charge of the rockets, but it is biased. However, it shows that one possible solution to funding NASA as much as we do is to privatize part of the work, or at least find a way to reuse parts of the missions to reduce cost.

Space X now shows some successful attempts, to prove that they will reach their goal. They talk about a second product they have that uses a different form of lander. By doing so, they show that there is more than one option for these forms of rockets. They attempt to make the distance sound more impressive, as saying 1000 meters is a lot more impressive sounding than a single kilometer.

Space X does a really good job of explaining its advancements and how it is going about creating the rocket. They describe how they first made rockets that could get to space, then began working on making those that could be landed properly. Space X explains their first attempt made it to the target, but crashed into it instead of landing. However, they actually never say that they failed, just that it "landed hard". This makes it sound as if they were successful, when they actually were not. They do the same when explaining the second failed attempt. By saying that it was extreme weather that caused the failure, they are stating it was not their fault. This is an excellent business technique as it still makes it sound as if their product will work as it has been designed to do.

Space X states that they are working on creating the rocket that is designed to be used over and over again. They do state that they have not fully created the rocket yet, but are in the process of doing so. This is to ensure their possible customers that the product is being created and not to search for other possibilities while it is being created.

Space X uses one of the best ways to show the cost effectiveness of their product that I can ever seen. They describe that the cost of a commercial airliner is about the same as the rocket for a space-destined vehicle. However, the commercial airliner is used thousands of times before going out of service, while the rocket is only used once. By stating this, the audience can see that the cost effectiveness is so much better if the rocket can become reusable. This is where Space X's product would come in.

The wording used is very important. It does not attempt to supply the belief as a fact. It is simply stating that this is what the company as a whole believes. However, Space X also repeats the benefit to its product, which makes sure that this is clear in the audiences mind. One of the biggest issues people have with NASA is that their money is being taxed to fund them. By offering a technology that will reduce those costs, your average citizen may be more supporting if they believe that they will not have to pay as much for the program.

This is a quote from Elon Musk. Musk is the founder and owner of the Space X company. It is a very important quote because it does several things. It describes the main mission of space X that is currently going on. By doing so, we know exactly where the company is coming from. It also talks about the benefit of what it is working on, most importantly the cost cutting it could do to the space program. It also clearly demonstrates the article's audience. The audience are those interested in the product of reusable rockets who may want to purchase the technology, as well as educating the public to what the product means to the industry.

"Reusiability: The Key To Making Human Life Multi-Planetary." Space X. 10 June. 2015 Web. 10 July. 2016.

The fist thing that must be said is that this article is not fully scholarly. It is informative, but biased. It does not have a specific author and it comes from a company that is attempting to sell a product. However, there is an incredibly important reason for using this article; it supplies a possible solution to the funding of NASA. As a result, it is a different stakeholder position from the previous article.

Finally, Grady finishes her article with establishing another benefit to the mission that might get more people on board with funding NASA. She states that there is room for high end jobs, to help with unemployment. She also makes special mention that female engineers are wanted, that may appeal to the female demographics as well.

Grady does several things here. One of the main arguments against funding for NASA is that people do not see probes circling other planets of important. Sending Neil Armstrong to the Moon was impressive and exciting, but this wasn't. However, she stands as a voice for her field, and is attempting to show her audience that this is just as important of a mission.

Grady mentions the Voyager missions. This shows that the mission is complementing previous mission information, showing the cost of the mission isn't just to tread old ground. By doing so, Grady is building a case that the money is truly being spent to gain and improve our information on the planet of Jupiter.

Grady is stating the importance of this mission. The reason this is important is because it covers one of the stakeholder positions that will be covered in my paper. It describes the valuable information that NASA and the space exploration community will gain from this mission. By explaining that the mission will give more information than any of the previous explorations to Jupiter so far, it is justifying why the cost of this mission is important. This will in turn show that funding towards space programs is being used responsibly and that the money is not being wasted on treading old ground.

Grady is now getting to the heart of the article. She writes very technically and factual from her on out. It is unbiased as there is no opinion being thrown in. She describes some of the many issues that surround the mission and how much money it has cost to get to the point it is today.

She now brings the viewer back to the main purpose of the article; to talk about the Juno mission. She does so by expressly stating what the mission is.

Grady attempting to further connect with her audience, people interested and invested in space exploration, by talking about something other than the mission. she refers to Independence Day, a popular sci-fi action movie that also happens to refrence the day the real life mission of Juno became successful.

Grady does several things with this statement. First, she adds to her credibility for reporting on this topic. By working on a mission similar to this one, she is showing that she has an insider's view on missions such as this, instead of being purely an outsider. She also establishes emotion into the article by going into more detail into the excitement that goes on within these missions, and how she had a genuine emotion to the announcement and reaction of the mission.

Grady starts the actual article by talking about just how impressive the Juno mission is in of itself. The fact that the success of the mission was an exciting announcement to the entire world speaks volumes as to how impressive this mission has become.

Article gives a brief biography of who the author is, and points to a leader in the field, showing a reputable and scholarly source. Open University is an accredited university that offers online schooling for European countries, verifying the author is in fact a professor.

Grady, Monica. "How Nasa's Juno Jupiter probe could be about to solve the solar system's biggest mystery of all." The Telegraph. 10 July. 2016. Web. 10 July. 2016.

Grady uses a title that helps support her overall point of this paper. This mission is incredibly important for NASA, as well as our understanding of the solar system that Earth inhabits.

Exhibit A:

"AB 2880 requires the state’s Department of General Services to track the copyright status of works created by the state government’s 228,000 employees, and requires every state agency to include intellectual property clauses in every single one of their contracts unless they ask the Department in advance for permission not to do so". source: https://medium.com/medium-legal/ab-2880-kill-this-bill-8f7d9cbd9ac5#.8z6f0ypv4 (Medium Legal)

How did Medium legal extract Exhibit A from this bill? Perhaps by way of exhibit B?

Exhibit B:

http://jonudell.net/h/201520160AB2880_Assembly%20Floor%20Analysis.pdf source: rehosted from http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB2880 ("Prepared by "Eric Dang / JUD. / (916) 319-NNNN") (Bill Information -> Bill Analysis )

Note to both Medium Legal and Eric Dang: If your respective discussions of AB 2880 were anchored to the text of the bill, it would be possible to make sense of them.

Here is what "they" are saying. Due to the increasing temperature of the ocean because of climate change, specifically El Nino, many populations of marine species are being diagnosed with diseases and dying. As seen by a research studies done by Cornell University, sea star wasting disease has become more prevalent. It's affects are devastating as many as 20 species of sea stars along the U.S. coast. Another study also claims that with temperatures continuing to increase, there will eventually be an increase in shell diseases in lobsters found off the Gulf Coast. The rest of the article goes into potential ways to address the issues at hand in special ways.

Berwyn, Bob. "Study Links Warming Ocean with Increased Marine Diseases." Summit County Citizens Voice. N.p., 17 Feb. 2016. Web. 01 Mar. 2016.

The claim in this article as stated by author Bob Berwyn is that because of climate changes such as the increasing temperature of the ocean, marine life is being put in danger and is dying off.

I like that Berwyn has shown an example of the economic effect of the increasing temperatures rather than just environmental ones. I think this helps appeal to the audience better because it has shown the effects of climate change in a more relate able way, as people's well being and lifestyles will change along with the marine life. Perhaps this will get people to start taking this issue more seriously if they realize it will start effecting them economically and even socially.

This is a substantial statistics. It's an example of ethos as it is using statistical data to help argue the seriousness of climate change and warming water.

The author of this article is different then most of the other sources I've done because he is not a scientist, but rather an influential editor and reporter of the Summit County Citizens Voice. The Summit County Citizens Voice is a news website that has reported "uncensored" and "unfiltered" news since 1996. It specifically reports on news related to the environment.

Berwyn, as a reporter and editor, is well respected as his work has appeared or been featured in top magazines and news sources across the country. For example, "he has reported for the Denver Post, the Summit Daily, the Summit Times, the Summit Independent, the Vail Daily Trail, the Aspen Daily News, the Durango Herald and the Telluride Daily Planet. His stories have also appeared in High Country News and 5280 magazine". Because of his extensive resume and connections, I find him to be a credible source who reports valid information.

http://summitcountyvoice.com/about/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/bob-berwyn-b624ab9

According to the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology website provided by the University of California Santa Barbara, "Sea star wasting syndrome is a general description of a set of symptoms that are found in sea stars. Typically, lesions appear in the ectoderm followed by decay of tissue surrounding the lesions, which leads to eventual fragmentation of the body and death. A deflated appearance can precede other morphological signs of the disease. All of these symptoms are also associated with ordinary attributes of unhealthy stars and can arise when an individual is stranded too high in the intertidal zone (for example) and simply desiccates". The scary thing about this particular disease is that it can kill a sea star in as little as a few days. It seems to be very aggressive and quick targeting to marine life.

Annother possible inquiry question: While this may be bad news for the world's commercial fishing industry and recreational fishing, what about for the ecosystem as a whole? Or even through a smaller lens, what about the organisms living in a toxic environment that they have no control over?

This also sheds some light on the view of fishermen and how the pollution of the ocean is directly affecting themas well.

This article mainly focuses on the stakeholder view of environmentalists. It examines the negative effects of the carbon dioxide that is being released into the environment and how it is severely affecting the marine organisms.

This increases the credibility of the author by discussing a scientific study.

What information was found by this study? How is it beneficial to the authors claim?

By brining in information from a University this increases the credibility of the author.

Here the author uses logos. They are showing the harsh reality of how close our oceans are to having severe consequences due to our own pollution.

Another possible inquiry question to be asked here could be: Although the incentive of a monetary reward is appetizing, why is it necessary for there to be a tangible reward present when an entire ecosystem is at risk of extinction because of our own wrong doing?

Shouldn't we be morally obligated to take care of the ecosystems that surround us and play a major role for life on planet earth?

A possible inquiry question to be asked here could be: If we continue to litter and pollute the oceans, how will the rest of the ecosystem be affected by the loss of these systems?

"Rising Ocean Pollution Levels Are Making Fish Drunk." The Inquisitr News. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.

This is a popular source, therefore we can expect an informal approach to gain audience attention. The claim of this article is that the increase in carbon dioxide levels in the ocean due to climate change is negatively affecting that fish that live in these marine environments and giving them a drunken affect.

Throughout the journal the authors do a good job of remaining objective while presenting credible and relevant information to support their claim. They present the view of the stakeholder position of environmentalists and researchers.

(http://www.neaq.org/conservation_and_research/climate_change/climate_change_and_the_oceans.php)

The link above is an article that discusses acidification and global warming. Although the two are slightly different they are both similar in the way that they are caused by the emission of CO2. Plastic products are known to release CO2 into marine environments. This scholarly journal also discuses the carbon cycle and how plastics are responsible for some of the excess CO2 being released (http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy2.library.colostate.edu:2048/science/article/pii/S092181810800012X). Plastic also releases CO2 into the atmosphere. This is a major cause of global warming as well. Because of the CO2 emitted by plastic in both marine ecosystems and into the atmosphere, the Thompson and Hamer discuss how it is also a main stressor present in seabirds and how it is negatively affecting these organisms.

This also increases the authors' credibilty. Here they discuss an experiment that took place over an eight year period of which seabirds in the tropical Pacific stomachs' were examined to see exactly what kinds of plastics were being digested and how the birds were being affected by it.

The authors increase their credibility (ethos) by citing information from other scholarly articles and researchers. This also allows the authors to further support their claim with relevant and reliable information suggesting that plastics are a main stressor to the seabirds.

Thompson, David R., and Keith C. Hamer. "Stress In Seabirds: Causes, Consequences And Diagnostic Value." Journal Of Aquatic Ecosystem Stress & Recovery 7.1 (2000): 91. Academic Search Premier. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.

This is a scholarly article written by two credible authors, one from the University of Durham and one from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research. The title indicates that the article will be discussing the causes, consequences and diagnostic values of stress present in seabird. I believe that the claim of this scholarly journal is that, seabird are a very important part of the marine ecosystem, however the amount of stress present in these birds is increasing due to various stressors that are being introduced into their environment.

The authors argue that a big misconception about ocean pollution is that is only affects the organisms that live beneath the surface. They state that while that statement is somewhat true, ocean pollution also affects the organisms that feed off of other species such as fish.

This article is focusing on the stakeholder position of environmentalists. It shows how they view the topic of ocean pollution, specifically by plastic, and why it is such an important issue that is rising in generation.

Here the author uses more statistics to talk about how more could be done to decrease plastic pollution in oceans, and around the world in general. They state that 58% of paper and 90% of iron and steel get recycled whereas only 14% of plastic does.

What are some solutions to this? Maybe the general public is not as informed about the requirements of recycling. There is a significant emphasis placed on paper products being recycled to "save the trees". Maybe if the public were to become more aware that plastic is recyclable to, and if a movement such as something along the lines of "save the fish" or "save the dolphins" were to be started, then possibly more plastic products would get recycled.

"Plastic For Dinner?." Earth Island Journal 31.1 (2016): 11. Academic Search Premier. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.

This source is a periodical, or a scholarly source. By reading the title it is pretty evident what the article is about, it even almost indirectly states the claim. I think the claim is that there will soon be so much plastic in the oceans that fish and other marine organisms will be "having it for dinner" and how it is going to effect the marine ecosystem, fishermen and pescatarians.

Although its a scholarly source, it appeals to readers in a more simplistic and understandable way. Rather than appealing to students and other researchers, this article seems to focus more on appealing to the general public that may be concerned about the increasing problem of ocean pollution. This article also does a fairly good job at remain objective while presenting information in a less formal way, but also keeping it credible.

( http://patch.com/new-york/northfork/countywide-single-use-plastic-bag-ban-pitched-suffolk-legislator)

Here the author brings in a the side of a CEO from a Plastic Pollution Coalition to increase their credibility. She states that one of the biggest problems is single use and disposable plastic. The article linked above discusses the negative effect of single use plastic as well as focusing on a proposed ban of single-se plastic bags in New York.

Here the author uses ethos and logos. They use ethos by using a World Economic Forum to get statistical support for their claim. They then use those statistics in the form of logos, stating "8 millions tons of plastic end up in our ocean each year". This both increases their credibility and gives the audience statistical information. The author also uses and analogy to connect with their audience by comparing the amount of plastic present in the oceans to the amount plastic dumped into the ocean by a dump truck per minute. This allows the reader to better understand how much plastic is actually being released into the marine ecosystems.

This is the main idea that the author will be discussing throughout the article. It also can be seen as a hook that pulls in more readers by gaining their interest in something they might see as an exaggerated statement. The reality of it is that its a potentially true statement that is supported by evidence throughout the article.

Throughout the journal the authors do a good job of remaining objective while discussing their claim and presenting relevant and supportive information.

Here they use ethos by discussing information that was presented in another scholarly article, increasing their credibility on the topic the are about to address in this next section of their journal. They bring in information from many outside sources throughout their entire journal to support their claim.

Here Nusbaumer and Matsumoto address the stakeholder position of future generations and how the excess CO2 emissions will effect them. They talk about how our future generations will have to bear the burden of things such as dealing with the consequences of a warmer climate and contaminated water sources. While there are some solutions to this problem, Nusbaumer and Matsumoto bring up the questions of how much excess CO2 is too much? And once it reaches a certain point is it even possible that the affects can be reversed let alone fixed? These and many more are all questions future generations will be forced to deal with due to our generations actions, or lack of.

(https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8 ) (http://www.dictionary.com/)

Two outside sources that were helpful during this article. Because it is an academic journal, the authors used a lot of vocabulary that is not commonly known. I found myself looking up a lot of words and using the dictionary for definitions.

Here Nusbaumer and Matsumoto use logos to appeal to their audience. While they have provided many numbers and statistics throughout their journal so far, here they implement graphs to give their audience a visual representation of some of the data they have been discussing and how it can be applied.

I think this is where the authors are articulating their claim; that the addition of CO2 into our environment can have many harmful effects however it can affect many different people, animals, ecosystems, etc. negatively and that many groups are having difficulty coming to a consensus on this and their values.

Nusbaumer, Jesse, and Katsumi Matsumoto. "Climate and Carbon Cycle Changes under the Overshoot Scenario." Global and Planetary Change 62.1-2 (2008): 164-72. Web.

This is an academic journal. Academic journals are very reliable sources because they are written by credible authors who attempt to remain objective while discussing their claim. This article is written by two authors, one from Perdue and one from the University of Minnesota.

I think this is one of the main point that Finn is try to portray in her supporting of the ban the bag movement. Throughout the article she uses many rhetorical strategies to support and strengthen her claim as well as appeal to her audience.

Here Finn uses both logo and pathos to strengthen her claim. She makes the audience feel sad for the helpless animal being killed by the bags while also using statistics for the actual number of bags that were removed from the water. It is also evident that Finn is biased towards her claim and wants the "bag to be banned".

Finn uses this to connect with and appeal to her audience

"They": In the article, Finn is addressing the general public who both support and disagree with the idea of a ban on single-use plastic bags. She presents a lot of biased, but supportive, information to help argue that the proposed ban should be passed. She is also bringing light to the fact that almost every one agrees on the fact that ocean pollution and general pollution by plastic bags is bad, including the companies making them. She states that business owners "feel with the current movement to reduce their use a countywide policy would make sense" and that the "time has come to work together and tackle this issue". This also illuminates the view of the stakeholders (the plastic bag companies) position on the idea of their product causing pollution and what course of action they are going to take.

Here Finn is addressing the concern of the consumers who fear that if plastic bags are banned from supermarkets that they will not be able to afford a new type of bag. Here she uses logos to support her argument. She states that the bags are actually causing an increase in product costs, whereas with the new bags a reusable bag would be a single cost of 10 cents and lower prices. She also states that $10 million a year is spent to dispose of plastic bags. This information supports her argument and persuades her audience that plastic bags should be banned.

Finn, Lisa. "POLL: Should Single-Use Plastic Bags Be Banned?" North Fork, NY Patch. 09 Mar. 2016. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

This article is published by the North Fork Patch, a local news station for North Fork, New York that presents information on breaking and local news, events, weather, sports, schools, shopping, and restaurants. The article is written by Lisa Finn, a journalist for the station. In the article Finn talks about the proposed ban on Single-Use Plastic bags in places such as grocery stores and how the general public is reacting to the proposal. This is a popular source rather than an academic source or scholarly journal.

Throughout the article Finn quotes William Spencer, a Suffolk County Legislator who is also a Doctor of Medicine; he recently passed a bill to "limit the use of disposable plastic bags". This increases her credibility because she is bringing in outside sources who have experience in the area she is discussing (the usage of plastic bags) and who have titles of credibility (legislator, M.D.).

Finn does not explicitly articulate her claim however she argues her claim throughout the entire article: she argues that a ban on single-use plastic bags should be passed in North Fork, New York despite some opposing views on the topic. While she presents bias throughout the article she also uses evidence and some rhetorical strategies to support her claim and to increase her credibility.

The authors show that the reader can trust them right away by giving examples of their more direct claim which is that many victims are blamed especially if they are rape victims.

This is the general claim of the article.

" Violence Against Women ". Vaw.sagepub.com. N. p., 2016. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.

"Violence Against Women (VAW) peer-reviewed and published monthly, is an international, interdisciplinary journal dedicated to the publication of research and information on all aspects of the problem of violence against women. VAW assumes a broad definition of violence; topics to be covered include, but are not limited to, domestic violence, sexual assault, incest, sexual harassment, female infantcide, female circumcision, and female sexual slavery."

Hockett, Jericho M., et al. "Rape Myth Consistency And Gender Differences In Perceiving Rape Victims." Violence Against Women 22.2 (2016): 139-167. Academic Search Premier. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

In the other popular article, the author said Sony could put an end to this. I responded by saying I was confused as to why Sony would want the bad publicity and this sentence backs that up.

I am curious to know how this case ended.

At first, I just thought this was a contract issue. I thought it was ridiculous how even in this extreme of circumstances, a judge wouldn't release Kesha from the contract. In every article about this current event that I have read, I have noticed one common factor and that is the mistreatment of women and sexism in business and industries.

Even though statistics can sometimes be questionable, the author uses ethos by doing her research. Even though she is biased, she has evidence and data to back up her claim.

One of the biggest differences between the scholarly articles and the popular sources is the objectiveness, The scholarly articles remain pretty objective and it's a little challenging to find a bias of any sort. However, with this article, the author makes her bias known within the first few sentences.

This is exactly what my inquiry question is. It is very sad to see that the health, emotionally and physically, of humans can be compromised by a contract.

This is really sad because unfortunately, the word "alleged" has to be used. There really isn't any hard evidence but that raises a question that everyone is thinking: why would she lie?

The author addresses an important counter-argument that the mosquitoes are not in their maximum capacity during the time of the Carnival, but quickly counters this by stating that it takes just a few infections to cause an outbreak in a new area.

Authors state the issue that they are reporting on the virus' major outbreak area.

This is the authors' claim as they believe that the meeting of massive amounts of people for the Olympic games in Brazil could prompt the spread of this virus worldwide.

The authors exhibit ethos as they show the exact scale of the gathering of people in the coming years. They show that millions of people will be gathering in close proximity in various locations around the world. If the virus infects travelers coming to Brazil for the Rio Carnival or for the summer Olympics then the spread of the virus to the traveler's homeland is likely. This poses big problems for the world as the virus could spread worldwide very easily with the infection of mosquitoes in areas that didn't originally have the virus. An example of this would be if someone from Egypt were to go and be a spectator at the Olympic games and were to get bitten by a mosquito carrying the virus. If the now infected Egyptian were to travel back home and get bit by a domestic Egyptian mosquito then now the mosquito would contract the virus. The mosquito would continue to feed on people all the while spreading the disease to these unsuspecting hosts. All of these newly infected hosts are bitten by different mosquitoes and the trend continues. The mosquitoes also would be reproducing during this time and creating massive amounts of Zika vectors. There is a clear snowball effect here as this new hypothetical area has become a new ground-zero for the virus on another continent.

Apple.com is not regarded as a popular, reliable source, except for in this case. Because this letter to Apple customers came directly from Tim Cook himself, this makes this the strongest source regarding Apple's stance on the case.

Cook is explaining what exactly an encryption by Apple would mean to millions of Americans, and even international Apple customers. This violates laws of privacy, and would mean increased surveillance and government understanding of our whereabouts at all times. This is important because Cook is educating his audience, particularly Americans, as to why they're publicly denying assistance with a terrorism. Cook is seeing the bigger picture here, and is asking his fellow Americans to do the same.

I can see myself using this source in the future to include Apple's side of why they're not including themselves within the case, directly from the CEO. Cook provides evidence for his claim, and it allows for sympathy from his audience.

Cook, Tim. "Customer Letter - Apple." Apple.com. Apple, 16 Feb. 2016. Web. 9 Mar. 2016.

Tim Cook is an American Business Executive, and the CEO of Apple Inc. Cook also serves on the Board of Directors at Nike, and the National Football Foundation. In 2014, Cook became the first Chief Executive of a Fortune 500 company who was publicly gay.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Cook